Are they mad at me, or am I overthinking it?

Probably some of both, and the research can tell you which part is which.

You are reasonably good at detecting that a message is negative. You get the exact emotion right less than half the time. And you are far more confident about your reading than your accuracy justifies. So “something is off” is usually real information. “They are angry with me specifically” is usually a guess wearing a certainty costume.

I co-founded Subtext, an app that reads what a message is doing before you reply to it, so I have a stake in you finding this interesting. I will also be clear later about where a tool like mine should stay out of the way, because this topic has a line in it.

Am I overthinking this text?

Probably, if the checking has started to outweigh the reading. The mechanism has a real, if indirect, experimental basis. Borkovec and Hu¹ had people either worry or relax before viewing a frightening image, then measured their physical fear response. The group that worried beforehand showed a smaller physical reaction, while reporting feeling just as afraid or more so. This is a 1990 lab study using an imagined scene, not a text message, so I’d treat it as the classic basis for a mechanism, not as direct evidence about texting. But the mechanism it supports fits the experience closely. Worrying about a threat can substitute for processing it, which would explain why rereading a message fifteen times leaves the anxious feeling exactly where it started. You are not resolving anything. You are avoiding the resolution, and it feels like work.

The useful distinction is what a reread is for, not how many times you do it. Checking whether the message still says what you thought is reading. Checking whether it feels less alarming this time is the loop. One redraft to fix a tone that actually reads wrong is editing. Five redrafts, none of them sent, or the same screenshot forwarded to three people for a second opinion, is reassurance seeking, which has its own research further down this page.

If that second paragraph describes your last hour more than your last text, the message stopped being the problem a while ago, and the better question is why texting gives you anxiety at all.

What the accuracy research actually found

The foundational study is Kruger, Epley, Parker and Ng², five experiments, and it is quoted more often than it is read.

The headline you have seen, that people understand tone in text only 56 percent of the time, comes from one study within it. That study forced a binary sarcastic-versus-serious judgment among a small student sample, and the paper’s own text describes email accuracy there as indistinguishable from chance. I go through how to tell if a text is sarcastic separately. It is not a general accuracy rate for texting, and the 56 percent figure is the email accuracy printed on that study’s Figure 1, from 29 pairs.

The study that matters more for anger is the third one, with 308 people conveying sarcasm, seriousness, anger or sadness. Email receivers believed they were right 89.3 percent of the time and were right 62.8 percent of the time. The paper publishes no anger-only rate, so anyone quoting one has invented it.

Two things I’d take from this. First, in the very first experiment accuracy was 84 percent, and the authors explicitly warn against concluding people are bad at this. The durable finding is the gap between felt clarity and real clarity, not incompetence. The second one stings me. Friends were no more accurate than strangers, and just as overconfident, so knowing someone well does not fix it.

Holtgraves³ gives the most useful modern numbers. Senders wrote messages conveying one of 22 emotions without naming them. Exact free-response identification was 20.1 percent. With multiple choice, 46.3 percent. Anger specifically was identified around 38.8 to 40 percent.

But when readers got it wrong, they landed in the correct positive-or-negative valence about 85 to 90 percent of the time.

So your sense that the message is negative is carrying real signal. Your conviction about which negative thing it is, is mostly not. That is why Subtext sticks to what a message establishes and its plausible readings when it helps you read the message you received before you reply, and does not name the one emotion behind it.

The negativity bias is real, and narrower than you have been told

The popular version says everyone defaults to the worst reading of an ambiguous text. The evidence is more specific than that, and after going through it I downgraded the claim from established to contested.

On the supporting side, Sillars and Zorn⁴ documented a negative intensification bias in workplace email, where receivers rated messages more negatively than uninvolved observers and were only weakly anchored to the message’s actual features. The bias was stronger in poor communication climates and among people lower in the hierarchy. Byron’s framework⁵ predicts positive emails read as neutral and neutral emails read as negative.

On the other side, Holtgraves found valence preserved 85 to 90 percent of the time, which is closer to accuracy than to a negative default. And a 2025 preregistered couples study⁶ found no significant overall tendency to rate partners more negatively than partners rated themselves. What it found instead was projection. People partly read their own current mood into their partner’s messages. A 2025 study of everyday messages by Pollmann and Roos⁷ points the same way. With 347 people rating texts they had received, 171 of them matched to the sender, and a similar design for emails, it found substantial agreement between the tone senders meant and the tone receivers read. That is average agreement on ordinary messages. It does not make a tense or ambiguous one easier to read.

So I wouldn’t defend the claim that ambiguity makes everyone assume the worst. The version I’d defend is that negative interpretation is predicted by who is reading and what the message looks like. Which brings us to the uncomfortable part.

Who reads ambiguity as hostility

These findings measure interpretation bias, meaning which reading you pick when there is no objectively right answer. They do not show that anxious people are worse at detecting real anger. That distinction matters and most coverage collapses it.

Kingsbury and Coplan⁸ built ambiguous texting vignettes and found higher social anxiety associated with more negative interpretations, across samples of 215 and 353. In the second study, messages attributed to female senders were read more negatively, especially by male readers.

Two meta-analyses agree on direction and disagree on size. Chen, Short and Kemps⁹ found g = 0.83 across 44 studies while flagging probable publication bias. A much larger 2026 analysis of 295 samples and 50,296 people found g = 0.48. Both real, and the newer, larger one suggests the effect is medium, not large.

For rejection sensitivity there is direct texting evidence. Keane and Hammond¹⁰ found it predicted more negative readings of ambiguous teasing texts across samples of 490 and 394, with small correlations. Emoji, abbreviations and relationship context all shifted interpretation too, which again says tone does not live in the text alone. The same fear sits behind what anxious attachment looks like in texting.

Intolerance of uncertainty is the construct that fits this experience best, and its direct evidence is the thinnest. It is well established as a transdiagnostic trait, with a meta-analysis of 181 studies¹¹ finding a moderate association with symptoms. But no convincing experiment shows that high intolerance of uncertainty causes more rereading, more last-seen checking, or more anger inference. The link to texting is a reasonable hypothesis, not a finding.

Things that are commonly said and are not established

“Rereading the message makes it worse.” No experiment has randomised people to reread versus leave it alone and measured anxiety or accuracy. Clinically plausible, empirically untested.

“Turn off read receipts and you will feel better.” I could not find a controlled study of this. The correlational work I found points in different directions, and people who switch receipts off may already be the more stressed ones, so I wouldn’t call it demonstrated. If receipts add pressure for you, switching them off is a cheap experiment, not a proven fix.

“Asking if they are mad backfires because the question reads as passive-aggressive.” Widely repeated, and no study anywhere supports it. When someone really is being passive aggressive, how to deal with passive aggressive people is its own question.

“Anxious people misread texts.” They interpret ambiguity more negatively. Whether they are less accurate about a real sender’s real state has not been shown.

In all four, the evidence is much better at describing what a message contains than at telling you what a person feels. That is also the line I draw in what does this text mean? That is also the line Subtext works inside. It reads language, not minds.

What actually helps

Separate what the message establishes from what you are adding. The text establishes its literal content and, fairly reliably, its broad valence. Everything past that is inference. Writing that line explicitly is more useful than another reread.

Ask once, in a way that gets you information. No study has randomised people to infer versus ask, so this is reasoning, and it has not been validated as a technique. But asking has one obvious advantage over rereading. A reply introduces new evidence, where rereading recycles the same ambiguous cue. One clarifying question is information gathering. The fifth “are you sure you’re not annoyed” is something else, and I will come back to it. Getting that question to sound curious rather than accusing is harder than it looks, and it is the sort of one-line message Subtext is most useful on.

Here is that gap on the exact question this article is named after:

Draft “Are you mad at me?”

A yes-or-no question about the reading you already picked · easy to answer “no” and hand you nothing new · doesn’t say what actually looked off

Rewritten “That last text read a little different to me than usual, might just be me. Everything okay on your end?”

For anything fraught, consider voice, if the other person is comfortable with a call. Schroeder, Kardas and Epley¹² found that hearing someone explain a view made them seem more thoughtful than reading the same words did. A 2026 study by Bevis, Schroeder and Yeomans¹³, with 1,576 people in 1,842 conversations, found that disagreements held out loud went more constructively than disagreements held in writing.

Then watch what you send. This is the part you control, and it is where a reading you are not certain about turns into a real problem. A reply written to a message you have decided is hostile carries that decision in it, and the other person answers the reply rather than your reasoning.

Paste the thread into Subtext or screenshot it, and it works on the language without guessing at motives. It looks at what the message establishes, which parts are ambiguous and what the plausible readings are, and then at what your draft reply is about to signal to someone who may not have meant anything by it. If all you need is one neutral clarifying question, it will help you write that instead of a paragraph. Try Subtext in your browserGet the appTry Subtext in your browser

Where this stops being a writing problem

Two boundaries worth naming, and the research is clear enough about both that I would rather say them than sell past them.

A tool can tell you what language is doing. It cannot tell you what a person is feeling, and any product that keeps confidently answering “they are not annoyed with you” to the same exchange submitted five times has stopped analysing anything and is providing reassurance on demand. Reassurance seeking is well documented. A meta-analysis of 38 studies¹⁴ found it associated with depression, and a 2023 study using daily assessments¹⁵ found it rose on higher-anxiety days, with intolerance of uncertainty predicting more of it. The relief is brief and the loop tightens. I think that’s worth knowing, whether the reassurance is coming from an app or from a friend you have asked four times.

And if the checking is constant, if the rereading is eating your evenings, or if the anxiety persists whatever the person replies, that has stopped being a wording problem and no writing tool is the right answer. The best-evidenced route for the underlying distress is therapy that directly targets intolerance of uncertainty. A review of 28 randomised trials¹⁶ found a large effect overall, strongest for the Unified Protocol and for spiritual-based interventions, while CBT aimed specifically at intolerance of uncertainty is still newer, with only a few studies behind it. If that sounds like where you are, talking to someone, a GP or a therapist, will do more than any amount of better-worded texting.

---

Think I have read a study wrong, or know research on this I have missed? Tell me on LinkedIn.

Samet Durgun is the co-founder of Subtext, an app that catches the emotional tone of your messages and rewrites them in your own voice. He’s based in Berlin.

Sources

Every link above goes to the primary source where one exists, numbered in order of appearance. Where a popular claim has no study behind it, this post says so instead of repeating it. Checked 22 August 2026. This piece touches anxiety and reassurance seeking; if that is where you are, a doctor or therapist is a better resource than an article.

1. Borkovec, T. D., & Hu, S. (1990). The effect of worry on cardiovascular response to phobic imagery. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(1), 69-73. Lab study using imagined feared scenes, not text messages; cited here as the classic empirical basis for worry substituting for emotional processing rather than as texting-specific evidence.
2. Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z.-W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925-936. Five experiments; the widely quoted 56 percent figure is the email accuracy printed on Figure 1 in Study 2, a binary sarcastic-or-serious judgment across 29 analysed pairs, not a general accuracy rate.
3. Holtgraves, T. (2022). Implicit communication of emotions via written text messages. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 100219. N = 136 and N = 167.
4. Sillars, A., & Zorn, T. E. (2021). Hypernegative Interpretation of Negatively Perceived Email at Work. Management Communication Quarterly. Sample size and funding unverified.
5. Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 309-327. Theory paper, no sample.
6. Steinebach, P., Stein, M., & Schnell, K. (2025). Messenger-based assessment of empathic accuracy in couples’ smartphone communication. BMC Psychology. N = 102 in 51 couples; recruitment fell short of the preregistered target.
7. Pollmann, M. M. H., & Roos, C. A. (2025). “I get u”. People correctly interpret the tone of text messages and emails. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 18, 100689.
8. Kingsbury, M., & Coplan, R. J. (2016). RU mad @ me? Social anxiety and interpretation of ambiguous text messages. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 368-379. N = 215 and N = 353.
9. Chen, J., Short, M., & Kemps, E. (2020). Interpretation bias in social anxiety: A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders. 44 studies, N = 3,859; authors flag probable publication bias.
10. Keane, K. L., & Hammond, S. I. (2024). Interpreting teasing through texting: The role of emoji, initialisms, relationships, and rejection sensitivity in ambiguous SMS. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. N = 490 and N = 394.
11. McEvoy, P. M., Hyett, M. P., Shihata, S., Price, J. E., & Strachan, L. (2019). The impact of methodological and measurement factors on transdiagnostic associations with intolerance of uncertainty. Clinical Psychology Review. 181 studies, N = 52,402.
12. Schroeder, J., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2017). The Humanizing Voice. Psychological Science.
13. Bevis, B., Schroeder, J., & Yeomans, M. (2026). Spoken disagreement is more constructive than written disagreement. Nature Communications, 17, article 5792. 1,576 conversation partners in 1,842 conversations.
14. Starr, L. R., & Davila, J. (2008). Excessive reassurance seeking, depression, and interpersonal rejection: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117(4), 762-775. 38 studies, N = 6,973.
15. Meyer, A., Silva, K., & Curry, J. (2023). Reassurance seeking in daily life. Behaviour Research and Therapy. N = 105, 14-day ecological momentary assessment.
16. Miller, M. L., & McGuire, J. F. (2023). Targeting intolerance of uncertainty in treatment: A meta-analysis of therapeutic effects, treatment moderators, and underlying mechanisms. Journal of Affective Disorders. 28 randomised trials, g = 0.89.