Portable Social Groups

Encyclopedia of Mobile Phone Behavior Zheng Yan University at Albany, State University of New York, USA

Volume III

Categories: * - Z

Category: Users and Special Populations

1512

Portable Social Groups Philip J. Auter University of Louisiana – Lafayette, USA R. Brandon Rudyk University of Louisiana – Lafayette, USA

INTRODUCTION Today’s mobile phones, which have penetrated a significant percentage of the US population sport touch screens, customized applications, Wi-Fi internet access, high definition cameras, and many other advanced ‘fourth generation’ (4G) features – as well as the ability to communicate and make phone calls. The speed at which information can now be shared around the world has removed many communication barriers while overcoming the restriction of distance. Portable social groups are nodes, which are generally made up of individuals or organizations. These nodes are related and specifically interdependent based on characteristics such as values, culture, socio-economic status, friendship, kinship, or disdain. Nodes share similar characteristics and collectively have a sense of unity, but have always been historically bound by geography and proximity. Mobile technology has freed humans from the confines of space and place; allowing individual social groups the ability to become portable. Along with this technology comes the opportunity to strengthen some interpersonal communication bonds while avoiding others. This article looks into the interpersonal gratifications obtained by young adults from mobile phone use. It investigates how a person’s willingness to communicate, or avoid communicating, affects their mobile phone usage patterns. Pioneering scholars and theorist in the field of mobile communications includes: Dr. J. Blumler (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974) at the University of Leeds; Dr. E. Katz (Katz & Guravitch, 1974; Katz & Aakhus,

2002) at the University of Pennsylvania; and Dr. D. McQuail (McQuail, Blumler, & Brown, 1972) at the University of Amsterdam. Among today’s leading experts in the field of mobile communications includes: Dr. S. Ureta (Ureta, 2008) at the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile; Dr. L. Fortunati (Fortunati, 2002) at the University of Udine, Italy; Dr. S. Campbell (Campbell & Russo, 2003) at the University of Michigan, and Dr. T. Russo (Campbell & Russo, 2003) at the University of Kansas.

OVERVIEW Mobile phones, both loved and hated, differ dramatically in there usage from young adults to their parents and older users. Fortunati (2001) describes mobile phones as an alluring technology infusing every part of our lives and giving us the ability to stay connected to friends and family. This type of cyborg augmentation, described by James E. Katz, is giving individuals superhuman abilities, accessing data and providing real-time information virtually anywhere in the world (Filas, 2004). Additionally, cultural values plays a significant role in the innovation and adoption of the mobile phone worldwide. Researchers have analyzed mobile phone use from a number of different theoretical and cultural standpoints, e.g., Chile (Ureta, 2008), China (Ngan & Ma, 2008), Italy (Fortunati, 2002), Israel (Lemish & Cohen, 2005), and the United States (Campbell & Russo, 2003). Although people around the world use their phone for a variety of purposes, research shows that us-

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8239-9.ch117 Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Category: Users and Special Populations

age patterns are partially based on relationships within social groups. Young adults are excited by the prospect of greater accessibility to friends and peer groups the mobile phone provides; however, communication apprehension and anxiety can develop because of this increased exposure to these new communication channels (Burgoon, 1976).

CURRENT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IN 2014 Today, 90% of all American adults have cell phones, of which, 58% of these are smartphones (Mobile Technology, 2014).Texting and photography topped the list of mobile phone use, followed by, internet services which allow access to news, health, and banking information (Pew Research Center, 2014).Those who continue to avoid mobile phone adoption tend to be older, more likely female, and with lower education and household income (Leung and Wei, 1999). Even as mobile phone penetration has increased in the USA, user demographics are ever changing. Men now represent the majority of US mobile phone users with an adoption rate of 93%, with women following at 88% (Mobile Technology, 2014). Time spent using mobile phones appears to also be on the rise, but research has pointed out the disparity between self-report measures of mobile phone use and real-time observance of usage levels (Cohen & Lemish, 2003). The mean age and income level of mobile phone users has declined over the years (McFarland, 2002; Robbins & Turner, 2002) – contrary to research done earlier in the adoption cycle of the mobile phone and in other cultures (e.g., Leung and Wei, 1999). This may be a change in the trend of the adoption cycle as more recent studies have shown that usage is growing in technologically and economically challenged regions of the world, perhaps in part as a way to bridge previous communication gaps (Kamssu, 2005). The primary reason for use appears to have shifted from busi-

ness to personal communication (McFarland, 2002; Robbins & Turner, 2002). Growth and penetration trends seem to lean toward younger potential customers. People most likely to fail to adopt mobile phones now or in the future tend to be much older, have a lower education, and no children (Leung and Wei, 1999; Robbins and Turner, 2002). These trends become more pronounced when looking at potential users of advanced mobile phone technologies – such as internet access, email, geo-locating services, and music streaming – that go beyond the confines of conventional voice communication (Robbins & Turner, 2002). Prepaid phones or non-contract wireless plans have made it even easier for adolescents and young adults to obtain mobile phone service, increasing the accessibility of mobile phones to this demographic while alleviating the concerns of parents that their children will use excessive amount of minutes resulting in an extremely high bill at the end of the month (Ling & Yttri, 2002).

Adolescent and Young Adult Use of Mobile Phones Research has shown that adolescents and young adults use the mobile phone differently than their parents and other older users. They prefer to consider it their primary phone – in lieu of the traditional landline phone – for its portability. Portability also translates into additional privacy since personal calls can be made away from authority figures (Henderson et al., 2002; Ling & Yrtti, 2002). Use of short messaging services (SMS) provide additional semi-private communication, allowing users to stay secretly connected to social groups. SMS are often saved and even shared in groups much like traditional letters (Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2002). SMS topped the list of responses from 106 respondents (n = 106), out of 300 students at the University of Padova Italy, when asked to freely associate the first word that comes to mind when presented with the stimulus

1513

U

Portable Social Groups

device of a mobile phone (Contarello, Fortunati, & Sarrica, 2007). The one-to-one nature of opt-in advertising, where users agree (usually via traditional websites) to allow SMS advertising to be sent to their phones may also be appealing (Leppaniemi & Karjaluoto, 2005). In fact, the continued growth and penetration of the subscriber based is creating an ever increasing demand for mobile advertising (Gopal & Tripathi, 2006). A variety of instrumental and ritualistic gratifications have been found for adolescent mobile phone use. Some studies have found little or no difference in use based on gender (e.g., eBaillon, 2003; DeBaillon & Rockwell, 2005). Other studies have found, however that boys tend to be more intrigued with technical aspects of the devices, while girls tend to prefer the interpersonal connectivity – and spend more time using their phones for voice calls (Henderson et al., 2002; Rakow & Navarro, 1993; Skog, 2002). In fact, while women in one study felt the phones resulted in more freedom, male teens found the additional connectivity a constraining inconvenience (Skog, 2002). Young adults have developed many instrumental uses of the mobile phone including coordinating and scheduling with peers and interacting and keeping parents informed (Ling & Yrtti, 2002). In the latter case, two chief goals are to confirm safety and to arrange transportation. Ritualistic or expressive uses of the mobile phone have been adopted by young adults as well. They rely heavily on mobile phones to create and maintain their social image and affect their social penetration (Henderson et al., 2002; Ling & Yrtti, 2002). Form, features, and appearance are all important aspects of this usage of mobile phones – as well as keeping in contact with ones friends. Popularity is often ‘quantified’ by a full mobile phone address book and/or many sent, received, and saved text messages (Henderson et al., 2002; Ling & Yrtti, 2002). These characteristic usage patterns appear to be consistent across the variety of cultures in which mobile phone use has been studied to date. How-

1514

ever, they must be framed within an individual’s cultural context. In his qualitative and conceptual analysis of mobile phone use by young women in the UAE, Barwind (2003) has observed that the technology isolates young women from the greater society while at the same time allowing young adults to speak more freely to one another than the culture might otherwise allow. He believes that this leads to a separation and individualization that has both a positive and negative affect on users and their families. Leonardi (2003) found that US Latino citizens perceived the usefulness of communication technologies based upon their community’s cultural values. In the case of mobile phones, the respondents surveyed found them to be an important and effective way to make interpersonal contact. In Turkey researchers found status, relaxation, security, and sociability all to be important motives of mobile phone use (Ozcan et al., 2003). Research has shown that usage patterns are constructed partially based on relationships within social groups. Campbell and Russo (2003) interviewed nearly 200 people and found 45 personal communication networks. Within each of these communication ‘mobiles’ perceptions of use and utility of mobile phones was similar. These perceptions differed from small group to small group however. Adolescent mobile phone ‘haves’ and ‘havenots’ sometimes mirror those of older demographics, but in many cases the decision is made by a parent rather than a potential user. Young adult ownership of a mobile phone appears to be closely related to contact with one’s social peers. (Henderson et al., 2002; Leung & Wei, 1999; Ling & Yrtti, 2002). Adolescents who do not have mobile phones often feel cut off from their peers. Young adults who strive for greater accessibility to friends and peers as they attempt to break the bonds of home and family circles, are more excited by the prospect of the instant availability that comes from mobile phones (Ling & Yttri, 2002). Accessibility is an important component of their social life, representing their status in their peer community.

Category: Users and Special Populations

The concept of instant accessibility brings with it the presumption that phone calls can interrupt – and in some cases occur simultaneously – with other interpersonal events such as attending classes, public events, and being at work. Many adolescents studied do not consider this an interruption of these more traditional events (Ling, 1998; Ling & Yrtti, 2002). Indeed, respondents questioned admitted to leaving their phones turned on even during situations that it would be impolite or inappropriate to interrupt (Ling, 1998). This invasion of private communication into public spaces has also led to an erosion of boundaries regarding topics discussed in front of strangers. Public and private spheres merge as individuals walk down the street talking to close friends or family on the mobile phone – allowing strangers to easily overhear one side of conversations that used to be considered private talk (Henderson et al., 2002). In addition to observable interruptions of potential interpersonal events – such as talking to someone on the mobile phone while standing in line at the bank – adolescents participate in concealed use of the phone that interrupts or prevents interpersonal communication events – such as text messaging someone while sitting in a classroom (Ling, 1998; Ling & Yrtti, 2002).

Mobile Phone Use and Perception of Self Study of how the public feels – or ‘folk framing’ – about mobile phones suggests that the average member of society, whether a mobile phone user or not, has mixed feelings about this liberating technology (Katz & Aakhus, 2002). Mobile phones are considered to be devices that free up people from constraints of landline telephones – allowing one the flexibility of mobility, while still being able to access family, friends, co-workers, and the services of the community. In fact, they are often considered time saving devices since they allow users to more effectively manage limited available time. On the other hand, mobile phones are considered the bane of the 21st Century,

preventing the user from being able to get away from the office or avoid unwanted communication. This results – in the minds of many ‘folk’ – in a perceived loss of control over one’s life (Katz & Aakhus, 2002). It has been argued that the debate over mobile phones represents a greater struggle with changes in societal norms of communication and interaction. In fact, Hopper (1992) has noted that the challenge of controlling access to one’s self can directly affect innovation. Mobile use, as well as the size and style of phone carried by a user, symbolizes a variety of diverging meanings to different members of the public. It can represent safety, accessibility, ‘coolness’ of personal public image. Cultural and generational barriers exist in some cases that perceive this connectivity as negative (Robbins & Turner, 2002). Researchers and society alike are aware that there will be an evolution in public and dyadic relationships as the mobile phone permeates all areas of our lives (Fortunati, 2002; Robbins & Turner, 2002). de Gournay (2002) sees an evolution of personal talk subverting and pushing out formal conversation. ‘Micro-behavior’ on the mobile phone expands the bubble of a person’s informal conversation so that it encompasses the person and shields them from external communication with others interpersonally. Nafus and Tracey (2002) believe that the mobile phone affects one’s perception of ‘personhood’. They suggest that the mobile phone is central to communication negotiations regarding morality, efficiency, productivity, and ultimately independence. Fortunati (2002) sees the mobile phone phenomenon as not only changing how society communicates, but even affecting our societal framework regarding how we define what is acceptable in ‘social spaces’. Gergen (2002) espouses the theory of absent presence, whereby someone banishes another socially from an event – essentially ignoring them as if they were absent even though they are present. The banisher relegates the person to second or third class status behind involvement in a TV show, video game, mobile phone conver-

1515

U

Portable Social Groups

sation, etc. Given that the mobile phone results in another mediated interpersonal event, he sees this as a strong method of making others absent from local interpersonal events. Gergen (2002) speaks of the mobile phone user as one with the power to create a secure environment – a security bubble if you will – of friends and family accessible by mobile phone that shield the individual from less desirable direct interpersonal contacts with new individuals and in new environments. He sees that these new and ‘causal’ interpersonal events are disrupted and often prevented by the expansion of the individual’s protective security bubble – something perhaps more appealing to shy individuals who do not relish getting involved in new interpersonal encounters. This could afford the mobile phone user a great deal of power in controlling their personal comfort zone, a tool that would be extremely useful for individuals that suffer from communication apprehension.

Interpersonal Communication Apprehension In the field of interpersonal communication, many researchers have studied communication comfort from a variety of different approaches including reticence, social anxiety, talkativeness, shyness, communication competence, for over 80 years. These related constructs generally fall under one of three umbrella approaches, communication anxiety or apprehension, talking frequency, and approach/avoid preferences (McCroskey, 1992). Communication apprehension is a form of anxiety that develops when one considers whether or not to communicate in various situations (Burgoon, 1976). Called reticence by some researchers, this characteristic represents a situation where a person’s anxiety about a communication event outweighs perceived benefits from participating in the event (Phillips, 1968). Reticence may be situation-specific, however some individuals are more generally and globally apprehensive than others. An individual who is apprehensive or reticent about a communication event will do whatever

1516

is necessary to avoid the event – and if forced to remain in the situation will become unusually quiet. Apprehensive individuals are hesitant about expressing ideas and problems, are not willing to support their opinions if challenged, and interpret general comment as personal criticism (Phillips, 1968; Phillips & Metzger, 1973). The most direct approach to analysis of communication anxiety or reticence has been personal report of willingness to communicate (Burgoon, 1976; McCroskey, 1992; McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). A number of surveys have been developed allowing for self-report of this willingness to communicate. One very strong entry is the ‘Willingness to Communicate Scale’ which has shown high levels of reliability and validity (McCroskey, 1992; McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). The 20 item measure consists of eight filler items and 12 actual items. The latter provide the ability to determine overall level of willingness to communicate as well as situational levels of willingness to communication depending upon the event (public, meeting, group, dyad) and the level of closeness the respondent has to others at an event (stranger, acquaintance, friend).

Uses and Gratifications The uses and gratifications model can help to explain why people choose a certain technology or service, how they use it, and what outcomes they feel they have gained from the experience. The presumption is of an active and aware user group that evaluates something like mobile phone service for its potential ability to meet predetermined needs (Blumler, 1979; Palmgreen et al., 1980; 1981). Users have the capability of making up their own minds about the messages being sent and received, and the extent of their gratification is dependent on the cultural and social origins of their needs (McQuail et al., 1972). While most research in this field relates to gratifications sought and obtained from mass media consumption, there are offshoots of this approach that do look at interpersonal communica-

Category: Users and Special Populations

tion gratifications as well as technologically mediated interpersonal communication gratifications.

1994; Ling & Yttri, 2002; Ryan et al, 1998; Wei, 2001; Wenner, 1976).

Interpersonal Gratifications

Gratifications from Mobile Phone Use

Rubin et al. (1988) developed a scale to measure the motives or gratifications of interpersonal communication. Six key gratifications were found to motivate interpersonal communication decisions: pleasure, affection, inclusion, escape, relaxation, and control. They found that respondents who were more apprehensive about interpersonal communication where more likely to use interpersonal communication for inclusion motives and not so much the other gratifications. On the other hand, respondents who were less apprehensive about interpersonal communication primarily involved themselves in interpersonal communication for affection, pleasure, and control. The management of interpersonal communication situations and needs is on category of gratifications that are obtained by mass media and mediating technology use. Researchers have found that media and technology are sometimes used in order to avoid interpersonal events – allowing the avoiders to ‘hide behind’ the TV, computer screen, video game, or mobile phone (e.g., Gergen, 2002; Katz et al., 1974; Lull, 1980; Wenner, 1976). When direct interpersonal communication is unavailable – or anxiety over such communication is perceived as too high – mediated interpersonal communication and immersion into mass (parasocial) communication – has been used as a functional alternative to interpersonal communication (e.g., Ling and Yttri, 2002; Rosengren & Windahl, 1972; Rubin & Perse, 1987; Rubin et al., 1985; Wenner, 1976). Mass communication and technologically mediated interpersonal communication are also used for relational maintenance – allowing participants to gain information to discuss in their interpersonal communication experiences as both topics of conversation and also to give them an informational advantage that enhances control of the situation (e.g., Chaffee, 1986; Dimmick et al,

Although there are many media gratifications research studies, there are a relatively limited number of studies that have attempted to investigate telephone or mobile phone users’ gratifications. A few studies of the traditional telephone have been performed. Dimmick et al. (1994) found reassurance, sociability (ritualistic) and instrumental gratifications sought by phone users. In another study (Ryan et al., 1998) younger adults were found to use the household telephone more frequently than older adults and emphasized sociability and instrumentality and deemphasized reassurance. In one of the first published study of mobile phone use gratifications, Leung and Wei (2000) found that mobility, immediacy, and instrumentality are the strongest instrumental motives for mobile phone use while intrinsic factors such as affection and sociability are next most important. Use of mobile phones in traffic and in public locations is strongly linked to the mobility and immediate access gratifications. Mobile phones are used for business calls (instrumental) as well as personal (ritualistic motives). In a related study of adoption of mobile phones by laggards (Wei, 2001) it was found that in Hong Kong, socioeconomic status and social influences were the key predictors of mobile phone adoption in 1998 and even in 2000 – although there were far fewer mobile phone laggards in 2000. Mobile phone laggards were also generally less technically savvy. Recent uses and gratifications studies performed within a variety of cultures have – for the most part – confirmed these findings (e.g., DeBaillon, 2003; DeBaillon & Rockwell, 2005; Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2002; Leonardi, 2003; Ling & Yttri, 2002; Ozcan & Kocak, 2003; Skog, 2002; Wei, 2001). There are no published works looking at the predictors of using enhanced mobile phone

1517

U

Portable Social Groups

services and features (such as internet access, e-mail, and application download). However, a study published by Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) looked at gratifications obtained from internet use – features and services much like today’s 4th generation mobile phones. They found five motives for using the internet suggesting distinct difference between instrumental and ritualized use. Further, they saw the internet as a functional alternative to face-to-face communication. Leung (2001) looked at the gratifications of ICQ, one brand of instant messenger service. He found that instrumental and intrinsic (ritualistic) motives for instant messaging we all important motives for utilization of this internet service. Similar to some mobile phone research, Leung also found that women tended to utilize the service more for socialization while men accessed it more for entertainment and relaxation.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Although researchers have found that younger mobile phone users tend to use their phones more and in more ways than older users, the young adults in this review, clearly used their phones predominantly for voice calls and short messaging services. Still, with this much daily use, the mobile phone appears to be a particularly important component of young adult interpersonal communication. Willingness to communicate appears to be complexly related to mobile phone use. Generally speaking, it appears that the less comfortable one is communicating face to face with people, the more likely one may use the phone instead – perhaps as a shield. This situation seems to be most pronounced when the individual is attempting to avoid group communications. Mobile phone use can mitigate communication apprehension and offer additional opportunities to connect with others when one is isolated. These uses would probably include instant and text messaging along with chat services. These types of uses may allow highly social people the opportunity to

1518

‘stay connected’ to groups even while they are at home or in other less social settings. It is clear that gratifications obtained from mobile phone use are strongly related to traditional interpersonal communication motives – most notably, affection, inclusion, and situational control. Pleasure, relaxation, and control are also related to using the phone to pass the time. Negative correlations occur when a mobile phone gratification is in conflict with an IPC motive (Auter, 2007). This may be evidence of the intrusive nature of the devices that so annoys some users and bystanders. With the increasing diffusion of mobile phones in society, peer groups – ones ‘friends and family’ are now portable – nearly always available at a moment’s notice. This increased communication access means that one is always connected to those who are closest. The strong overall correlation between interpersonal communication motives and mobile phone gratifications fits in well with reported usage patterns and feature preferences. In total, a picture begins to develop of mobile phone use as a method of both enhancing interpersonal communication and serving as a functional alternative to it. Future research should address the amount of time spent in face-to-face communication among mobile phone users and non-users. It should also address how portable social groups will be affected as technology changes through accessibility and application.

REFERENCES Auter, P. J. (2007). Portable social groups: Willingness to communicate, interpersonal communication gratifications, and cell phone use among young adults. Int. J. Mobile Communications, 5(2), 139–156. doi:10.1504/IJMC.2007.011813 Barwind, J. (2003) ‘The mobile phone produces culture: The United Arab Emirates as exemplar. In Proceedings of the Arab-US Association for Communication Educators (AUSACE) Conference. Dubai, UAE: AUSACE.

Category: Users and Special Populations

Blumler, J. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6(1), 9–36. doi:10.1177/009365027900600102 Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness to communicate scale: Development and validation. Communication Monographs, 43(1), 60–69. doi:10.1080/03637757609375916 Campbell, S. W., & Russo, T. C. (2003). The social construction of mobile telephony: An application of the social influence model to perceptions and uses of mobile phones within personal communication networks. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 317–334. doi:10.1080/0363775032000179124 Chaffee, S. H. (1986). Mass media and interpersonal channels: Competitive, convergent, or complimentary? In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world (3rd ed.; pp. 62–80). Oxford, UK: Academic Press. Charny, B. (2002). Virgin, sprint create teen venture. News.Com. Accessed May 4, 2004 at http:// news.com.com/2100-1033-937859.html Cohen, A., & Lemish, D. (2003). Real time and recall measures of mobile phone use: Some methodological concerns and empirical applications. New Media & Society, 5(2), 167–183. doi:10.1177/1461444803005002002 Contarello, A., Fortunati, L., & Sarrica, M. (2007). Social thinking and the mobile phone: A study of social change with the diffusion of mobile phones, using a social representations framework. Continuum (Perth), 21(2), 149–163. doi:10.1080/10304310701268687 de Gournay, C. (2002). Pretense of intimacy in France. In J. E. Kats & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 193–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

DeBaillon, L., & Rockwell, P. (2005). Gender and student status differences in cellular telephone use. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 3(1), 82–98. Accessed January 13, at http://www.inderscience. com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_ id=5876&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or DeBaillon, L. A. (2003). The social impact of the cellular telephone. (Unpublished Masters’ Thesis). University of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA. Dimmick, J. W., Sikand, J., & Patterson, S. J. (1994). The gratifications of the household telephone: Sociability, instrumentality, and reassurance. Communication Research, 21(5), 643–663. doi:10.1177/009365094021005005 Emerging Nations Embrace Internet, Mobile Technology. (2014, February 13). Pew Research Global Attitudes Project. Retrieved, from http:// www.pewglobal.org/2014 /02/13/emergingnations-embrace-internet-mobile-technology/ Filas, M. (2004). Machines that become us: The social context of personal communication technology. The Information Society, 20(5), 405–408. doi:10.1080/01972240490508153 Fortunati, L. (2002). The mobile phone: Towards new categories and social relations. Information Communication and Society, 5(4), 513–528. doi:10.1080/13691180208538803 Gergen, K. J. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. E. Kats & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 227–241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gopal, R., & Tripathi, A. (2006). Advertising via wireless networks. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 4(1), 1–16. Accessed January 13, at http://www.inderscience.com/search/index. php?action=record&rec_id=8194&prev

1519

U

Portable Social Groups

Henderson, S., Taylor, R., & Thompson, R. (2002). In touch: Young people, communication and technologies. Information Communication and Society, 5(4), 494–512. doi:10.1080/13691180208538802 Hopper, R. (1992). Telephone conversation. University of Indiana Press. Kamssu, A. (2005). Global connectivity through wireless network technology: A possible solution for poor countries. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 3(1), 249–262. Accessed January 13, 2006 at http://www.inderscience .com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_ id=6583&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or Kasesniemi, E., & Rautiainen, P. (2002). Mobile culture of children and teenagers in Finland. In J. E. Kats & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 170–192). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. A. (2002). Introduction: Framing the issues. In J. E. Kats & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 1–13). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511489471.002 Lemish, D., & Cohen, A. A. (2005). On the gendered nature of mobile phone culture in Israel. Sex Roles, 52(7-8), 511–521. doi:10.1007/ s11199-005-3717-7 Leonardi, P. (2003). Problematizing ‘new media’: Culturally based perceptions of mobile phones, computers, and the internet among United States Latinos. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 20(2), 160–179. doi:10.1080/07393180302778

1520

Leppaniemi, M., & Karjaluoto, H. (2005). Factors influencing consumers’ willingness to accept mobile advertising: A conceptual model. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 3(3), 197–213. Accessed January 13, 2006 at http://www.inderscience. com/ search/index.php?action=record&rec_ id=6580&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or Leung, L. (2001). College student motives for chatting on ICQ. New Media & Society, 3(4), 483–500. doi:10.1177/14614440122226209 Leung, L., & Wei, R. (1999). Who are the mobile phone have-nots? Influences and consequences. New Media & Society, 1(2), 209–226. doi:10.1177/1461444899001002003 Leung, L., & Wei, R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the cellular phone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 308–320. doi:10.1177/107769900007700206 Ling, R. (1998). One can speak of common manners: The use of mobile telephones in inappropriate situations. Telektronikk, 98(2), 65–76. Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2002). Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. In J. E. Kats & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 139–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication Research, 6(3), 197–209. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1980.tb00140.x McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40, 16–25. Accessed May 5, 2004 at http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/ publications/156.htm

Category: Users and Special Populations

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 189–196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McFarland, D. (2002). Mobile phone ownership grows 29 percent from 1999–2001 according to new Scarborough study. Scarborough Research Inc. Available: http://www.scarborough.com/ scarb2002/press/pr_mobilephone.htm McFarland, D., & Mongrain, A. (2003). Atlanta, GA; Detroit, MI; and Austin, TX ring the loudest when it comes to mobile phone ownership. Scarborough Research Inc. Accessed May 2, 2004, at http://www.scarborough.com/scarb2002/press/ pr_mobile .htm McQuail, D., Blumler, J., & Brown, R. (1972). The television audience: a revised perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communication (p. 332). London: Longman. McVicker, D. (2001). Teen angels? Young Americans hold the keys to the kingdom, as far as wireless providers are concerned. Teledotcom. Accessed May 5, 2004 at http://www.teledotcom. com/article/TEL20010511S0010/ Mobile Technology Fact Sheet. (2014, January 1). Pew Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. Retrieved May 26, 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org /fact-sheets/mobiletechnology-fact-sheet/ Nafus, D., & Tracey, K. (2002). Mobile phone consumption and concepts of personhood. In J. E. Kats & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 206–221). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ngan, R., & Ma, S. (2008). The relationship of mobile telephony to job mobility in China’s Pearl River Delta. Know Techn Pol, 21(2), 55–63. doi:10.1007/s12130-008-9046-8

Ozcan, Y., & Kocak, A. (2003). A need or a status symbol? Use of cellular telephones in Turkey. European Journal of Communication, 18(2), 241–254. doi:10.1177/0267323103018002004 Ozcan, Y. Z., & Kocak, A. (2003). Research note: A need or a status symbol? Use of cellular telephones in Turkey. European Journal of Communication, 18(2), 241–254. doi:10.1177/0267323103018002004 Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rayburn, J. D. II. (1980). Relations between gratifications soughtand obtained: A study of television news. Communication Research, 7(2), 161–192. doi:10.1177/009365028000700202 Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rayburn, J. D. II. (1981). Gratification discrepancies and news program choice. Communication Research, 8, 451–478. Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 175–196. doi:10.1207/ s15506878jobem4402_2 Phillips, G. M. (1968). Reticence: Pathology of the normal speaker. SM, 35, 40. Phillips, G. M., & Metzger, N. J. (1973). The reticence syndrome: Some theoretical considerations about etiology and treatment. SM, 40, 220–230. Picard, R. (2005). Mobile telephony and broadcasting: Are they compatible for consumers. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 3(1), 19–28. Accessed January 13, 2006 at http://www.inderscience. com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_ id=5871&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or Rakow, L., & Navarro, V. (1993). Remote mothering and the parallel shift: Women meet the cellular telephone. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10(2), 144–157. doi:10.1080/15295039309366856

1521

U

Portable Social Groups

Robbins, K. A., & Turner, M. A. (2002). United States: Popular, pragmatic and problematic. In J. E. Kats & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 80–93). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rosengren, K. E., & Windahl, S. (1972). Mass media consumption as a functional alternative. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communications: Selected readings (pp. 166–194). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Ltd. Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and soap opera involvement: A uses and effects investigation. Human Communication Research, 14(2), 246–268. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00129.x Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 155–180. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x

Ureta, S. (2008). Mobilising poverty? Mobile phone use and everyday spatial mobility among low-income families in Santiago, Chile. The Information Society, 24(2), 83–92. doi:10.1080/01972240701883930 Wei, R. (2001). From luxury to utility: A longitudinal analysis of mobile phone laggards. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 702–719. doi:10.1177/107769900107800406 Wenner, L. A. (1976). Functional analysis of TV viewing for older adults. Journal of Broadcasting, 20(1), 77–88. doi:10.1080/08838157609386377 Wrolstad, J. (2002). Study: Youth market critical for wireless carriers. Wireless News Factor. Accessed May 3, 2004 at http://www.wirelessnewsfactor.com /perl/story/19082.html

ADDITIONAL READING

Rubin, R., Persse, E. M., & Barbato, C. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 602–628. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00169.x

Campbell, S. W., & Russo, T. C. (2003). The social construction of mobile telephony: An application of the social influence model to perceptions and uses of mobile phones within personal communication networks. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 317–334. doi:10.1080/0363775032000179124

Ryan, E. B., Anas, A. P., Hummert, M. L., & Laver-Ingram, A. (1998). ‘Young and older adults’ views of telephone talk: Conversation problems and social uses’. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26(1), 83–98. doi:10.1080/00909889809365493

Contarello, A., Fortunati, L., & Sarrica, M. (2007). Social thinking and the mobile phone: A study of social change with the diffusion of mobile phones, using a social representations framework. Continuum (Perth), 21(2), 149–163. doi:10.1080/10304310701268687

Skog, B. (2002). Mobiles and the Norwegian teen: Identity, gender and class. In J. E. Kats & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 255–273). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fortunati, L. (2005). The mobile phone between local and global. A sense of place. The global and the local in mobile communication, 61-70.

1522

Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. A. (2002). Introduction: framing the issues. In J. E. Kats & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (pp. 1–13). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511489471.002

Category: Users and Special Populations

Ureta, S. (2008, March 04). Mobilising poverty?: Mobile phone use and everyday spatial mobility among low-income families in Santiago, Chile. The Information Society, 24(2), 83–92. doi:10.1080/01972240701883930

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 4G: Short for fourth generation, is the fourth generation of mobile telecommunications technology, succeeding 3G and preceding 5G. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G. Absent Presence Theory: “The fact or condition of being present” and “the state of being absent or away.” Someone banishes another socially from an event – essentially ignoring them as if they were absent even though they are present. Source: http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/ keywords/absence-presence/. Dyadic Communication: Dyad means two things of similar kind or nature or group and dyadic communication means the inter-relationship between the two. Source: http://psychology. answers.wikia.com/wiki/What_is_dyadic_communication. Folk Framing: The study how the public represent, conceptualize, and reason about mental states. Source: Malle, B. F. (1998). F.Ex: Coding scheme for people’s folk explanations of behavior. University of Oregon. Downloaded from http:// darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bfmalle/fex.html on May 1, 2001. Geolocation: Is the identification of the realworld geographic location of an object, such as a radar, mobile phone or an Internet-connected computer terminal. Source: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Geolocation. ICQ: Is an instant messaging computer program that was first developed and popularized by the Israeli company Mirabilis, which was acquired by America Online (AOL), and since April 2010 owned by Mail.Ru Group. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICQ.

Micro-behavior: Behaviors based on ubiquitous content and publisher personalization of media, allowing users micro experiences and micro consumptions. Source: http://www.clickz. com/clickz/column/1697016/emergence-microbehaviors. Nodes: In communication networks, a node (Latin nodus, ‘knot’) is either a connection point, a redistribution point or a communication endpoint. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Node_(networking). Personhood: The quality or condition of being an individual person. Source: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Personhood. Reticence: Communication apprehension is a form of anxiety that develops when one considers whether or not to communicate in various situations. a kind of reserve, wanting to avoid communication and not wanting to offer any more information than is necessary. Source: http://www. vocabulary.com/dictionary/reticence. Uses And Gratifications Theory (UGT): An approach to understanding why and how people actively seek out specific media to satisfy specific needs. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Uses_and_gratifications_theory.

1523

U