The impact of mobile use on teenagers’ socialization

Interd isc ip l inarySOCIAL

SCIENCES

www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

JOURNALTHE INTERNAT IONAL

of

Volume 5, Number 4

The Impact of Mobile Use on Teenagers’Socialization

Stefania Kalogeraki and Marina Papadaki

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com First published in 2010 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. © 2010 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2010 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <[email protected]>. ISSN: 1833-1882 Publisher Site: http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

The Impact of Mobile Use on Teenagers’ SocializationStefania Kalogeraki, University of Crete, Crete, GreeceMarina Papadaki, University of Crete, Crete, Greece

Abstract:Mobile phones have been spreading in the world faster than prior communication technologies(i.e., the television, the Internet). The adoption of the device has become even more popular amongteenagers and it is used as a mean of accessibility, micro-coordination, security and emancipation.Mobile phones provide a direct communicative channel between teenagers and peer groups, parentsand children; therefore the device enhances social interactions and bonding with peers and family. Inorder to explore the impact of mobile adoption on teenagers’ social relationships, a random sampleof students aged 12-18 years old has been drawn from a semi-urban area of Greece. The results fromPearson correlation and multiple regression analyses highlight the significant impact of mobile phoneson teenagers’ socialization processes.

Keywords: Mobile Phones, Socialization, Social Interactions, Teenagers

Introduction

MOBILECOMMUNICATIONHAS been rapidly increasing all around the world.According to the International Communication Union (ITU) the diffusion ofmobile phones in the world has been doubled from approximately 34 subscribersper 100 inhabitants in 2005 to the penetration of 68 in 2009. The spread of mobile

phones has been faster than prior communicative means (e.g., the internet) and has signific-antly substituted or complemented face-to-face interaction (Castells et al., 2007; Srivastava,2008). The mobile phone constitutes an important technologic tool of communication forpeople from different demographic groups but the importance of the device has been high-lighted especially for teenagers who have been the most eager to embrace this communicationtechnology (Geser et al., 2006).

The proneness of teenagers to adopt so rapidly the device is associated with their traits ofsusceptibility to fashions and styles which are considered “cool” and can be used to expresstheir self-identity (Ling, 2002). Additionally, the rapid mobile adoption among adolescentsis associated with their tendencies of emancipation from the familial sphere and their integ-ration in the peer group (Ling, 2002). Although the adoption of mobile phones among teen-agers is associated with their tendencies of independence and autonomy, the device alsoserves as a mean of intrafamily coordination and parental supervision of the young actors(Geser et al., 2006).

Mobile communication has touched various aspects of teenagers’ everyday social life byenforcing their social relationships, building their personal and group identities and theirsocial networks (Katz & Aakhus, 2002; Ling & Yttri, 2002; Green, 2003; Ling, 2004; Katz,2006; Castells et al., 2007). Mobile phones provide a direct communicative channel betweenusers and peer groups, parents and children; therefore the device enhances the ties with peers

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social SciencesVolume 5, Number 4, 2010, http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com, ISSN 1833-1882© Common Ground, Stefania Kalogeraki, Marina Papadaki, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:[email protected]

and family (Ling, 2004; Srivastava, 2005). Specifically among teenagers the mobile phonehas a dual role; on the one hand it enforces parental interaction and supervision but on theother it permits intensive social interactions with peer groups beyond parental control(Oksman & Rautiainen, 2002; Fortunati & Manganelli, 2002; Lobet-Maris & Henin, 2002).

Whilst numerous studies have taken place in different parts of the world investigating theimpact of mobile communication on teenagers’ social relationships and networks (Lorente,2002; Castells et al., 2004), similar empirical findings are scarce in Greece. Most of thestudies on Greek adolescents’ mobile use report that the overwhelming majority (more than90%) has a device which is primarily used for phone calls and short message services (SMS)with boyfriends/girlfriends and peer groups (Lazarinis, 2004; Mediappro, 2006; Economides& Grousopoulou, 2008). The aim of the study is to investigate whether mobile communication,in a representative sample of teenagers in a semi-urban area in Greece, acts as a mean ofenforcing social interactions and bonding with peer group and family playing a significantrole in the socialization process of the young actors.

Theoretical BackgroundPast research advocates that information and communication technologies (ICTs) such asthe television, the radio and the internet have brought about important changes in the waypeople live, work and interact (Castells et al., 2007). The effects of ICTs on social interactionsand relationships are even more crucial on teenagers as they have the potential to increaseadolescents’ socialization from family toward an outside world (Meyrowitz, 1985; Arnett,1995). During adolescence parental control diminishes and teenagers become more independ-ent and autonomous, i.e., getting more involved and attached to their peers by acquiringmore intimate relationships (Hartup, 1999).These new interests are associated with a numberof developmental tasks such as the development of a sense of identity, emotional independenceand peers’ acceptance (Erikson, 1967).

Studies on the social explanations of the mobile phone communication emphasize thatthe rapid adoption of mobile phones has speeded up teenagers’ socialization process towardtheir peers as it has enhanced their sense of independence from the familial environment(Green, 2003; Ling & Yttri, 2002, 2006). The device has provided greater levels of privacyand autonomy to teenagers by subverting the control imposed by parents and other traditionalagents of socialization (Ito & Okabe, 2005; Ling & Yttri, 2006). This subversion of controlis crucial during the socialization processes as it contributes to the maintenance of a senseof independence in the process of identity formation among teenagers (Ling, 2002; Mante& Piris, 2002; Selwyn, 2003; Ito, 2005). Holmes and Russell (1999:69) argue that the new“interactive and wearable technologies” among teenagers have caused “a tectonic shift inthe contemporary formation of adolescent identity”. These new technologies that have beenadopted in the teenagers’ routine activities tend to replace socialization processes that usedto belong to the sphere of influence of traditional socialization structures such as the familyand the educational system.

In different parts of the world mobile media scholars underline similar conclusions, i.e.,mobile communication fosters strong social ties among peers. For instance, studies in Europe(e.g., Ling, et al., 2003), in the United States (e.g., Choi, 2004) and East Asia (e.g., Miyata,2006) report that mobile adoption among young actors enhances social interactions andpromotes strong bonds in the peer group and particularly in the immediate group of friends.

122

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

These empirical findings point to the possibility that despite cultural differences, teenagersfrom different socio-cultural backgrounds use mobile phones as a mean of bonding closelywith their peers and forming an identity that diverges from the familial environment. AsCastells and colleagues (2004:193-194) conclude in their report:

The mobile youth culture, as a new set of values and attitudes that inform practiceamong the younger generations, is a typical networked culture. Peer groups formed atschool or in residential neighbourhoods often serve as the basis. What the spread ofmobile phone does is to reinforce and extend the existing youth networks and drivethem towards a higher level of networked sociability, when face-to-face interaction isequated with mobile-based communication, when a “full-time intimate community” istaking shape.

The reinforcement of social relationships and interactions in the peer group is accomplishedby the primary role of mobile phone as a communication tool (Moore, 2003). There are twofundamental functions of the device that are crucial in the social networking of the teenagers(Castell et al., 2004) which, following Ling’s (2000) taxonomy, include accessibility (oravailability) and micro-coordination. Mobile phones permit teenagers to be permanentlyaccessible without any space and time limitations; situation that has been described by Licoppe(2004) as “connected presence”. Micro-coordination refers to the “the nuanced managementof social interaction” (Ling, 2004:70) meaning that the device is used as a tool for providinginformation on the location and time of social activities among friends. Mobile media re-searchers report that the device is mainly used among teenagers to coordinate daily interactionsand to “keep in touch with friends” (Ling & Yttri, 2002, 2006). Similarly, the results fromthe European Union’s e-living project indicate that teenagers from Norway, the UK, Germany,Italy, Bulgaria and Israel use their mobile phones to arrange an array of social activities withfriends (Ling et al., 2003).

In addition to the utilities of the mobile phone as primarily a communicative mean, thedevice is adopted as a symbol of emancipation from the familial sphere (Ling, 2000). Mobilephones enhance teenagers’ sense of independence and autonomy from family by becomingmore tightly connected to their peer groups.

It is interesting to note, that whilst mobile phone acts as an emancipative tool and increasesthe intensity of peer interlinkage, it does not necessarily affect negatively the cohesion ofthe family unit (Castells et al., 2004). Mobile communication may affect the dynamics ofteenagers’ emancipation but it does not reduce the power relations between parents andchildren, as the latter have become even more susceptible to being tracked down via mobilephones. According to Ling (2004) mobile phone acts as an “umbilical cord” that permits apermanent channel of communication in times of spatial distance keeping teenagers underparental protection and control during their emancipative process. Thus, the device cushionsthe emancipative processes of the teenagers by making them more gradual through keepingteenagers connected to their parents by a communicative link. The metaphor of mobile phoneas an extended “umbilical cord” has been used from different researchers whose empiricalfindings support that the device increases interactions between parents and teenagers (Geser,2005; Spungin, 2006; Chen & Katz, 2009).

In addition, mobile devices by providing an instantaneous communication link fosterbetter relationships between parents and teenagers (e.g., ability to deal with issues on the

123

STEFANIA KALOGERAKI, MARINA PAPADAKI

spot, increased trusts etc) reinforcing the family unit (Kopomaa, 2000; Kasesniemi &Rautiainen, 2002). So, at the one had the device increases the sense of autonomy from thefamily but on the other it enhances social interactions among family members. The dualityof mobile communication is captured in Lorente’s (2002:8) statement that the device acts“both and at the same time, paradoxically, the keeper of the family ties and the breaker ofthem”. Matsuda (2005) has questioned the controversial role of mobile phones, i.e., whetherthe device forces parents and children apart or brings them together. The empirical findingsprovide evidence for both directions. For instance, Martin and de Singly (2000) argue thatoften teenagers use the device to escape from parental interactions whilst Castells et al.(2007) support that the mobile phone fosters better relationships between parents and children.The role of the mobile phone as a “keeper” of family ties is enforced by its primary role asa coordinating device but also as a mean of parental supervision reassuring the safety of thechildren (Ling, 2000). Mobile phones are not only used for coordinating social activitieswith peer groups but also with family (Selian, 2004).

Additionally, one of the most important reasons that parents purchase teenagers mobilephones is for safety reasons as well as for “perpetual contact” (Katz & Aakhus, 2002) per-mitting “mobile parenting” i.e., monitoring and regulating teenagers’ activities (Kopomaa,2000; Green, 2001; Oksman & Rautiainen, 2002). When face-to-face interaction betweenparents and teenagers is difficult then the mobile phone reinforces a sense of security in thefamily unit. Therefore, the device is commonly characterised from parents “as a small invest-ment for the child’s safety” (Oksman & Rautiainen, 2002:29). Similarly, Fortunati andManganelli (2002) argue that the mobile phone is perceived as a magic helper that can im-mediately help parents to monitor teenagers’ location in order to guarantee their safety inmobility, especially during the night.

Methods

Sample and QuestionnaireThe study is based on a representative sample of students between 12-18 years old of a semi-urban area in Greece. It is applied a cluster sampling procedure using as clusters differentclasses from the two gymnasiums and the two high schools in the area under study. Giventhat N=670 the sample size for a=5% is calculated at n=250 students (Yamane, 1967). Theresponse rate for the total sample is 72.4% (n=181). The 48.6% (n = 88) of the participatingstudents were attending gymnasium and 51.4% (n = 93) high school. The mean age of thestudents was 15.5 years old.

The questionnaire includes questions for the demographic characteristics of the respondentsand characteristics of mobile use (i.e., main reason for buying mobile, important utilities ofthe device, etc). In addition, it includes modified questions derived from Rubin’s (1981)"Television Affinity Scale" and from Procidano and Heller’s (1981) measures of friends’(PSS-FR) and family’s (PSS-FA) perceived social support via mobile communication. Apre-test procedure including 20 students provided the opportunity to improve the researchtool. The study was conducted under the permission of the Greek Ministry of Education andthe Greek Pedagogic Institute during May of 2010.

124


The StatisticsDescriptive analysis is applied to reveal the main trends of mobile adoption among the rep-resentative sample of teenagers. Factor analysis has been used to construct the “Mobile At-tachment Scale”, the “Availability-Micro-coordination-Safety” and the “EmancipationSymbol” scales. Pearson correlation analysis is performed to examine significant associationsamong all the variables under study and multiple regression analysis to identify the significantpredictors of “Mobile Attachment Scale”. The analyses are performed with SPSS 17.0.

Measurements

Mobile Attachment ScaleThe extent of teenagers’ mobile attachment is assessed with five questions derived in amodified version from Rubin’s (1981) "Television Affinity Scale" which originally measuresthe importance people assign to television. The scale has been adapted to study media otherthan television, such as talk radio (e.g., Armstrong & Rubin, 1989; Rubin & Step, 2000) andapplied in a modified version to investigate internet use (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000) andmobile dependency (Chen, 2009). In the present study the modified 5-item Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) questions ask the students whether they disagree/agreewith specific statements regarding mobile use such as “Using my mobile phone is very im-portant in my life”, “I would feel lost without my mobile phone” etc. Table 1 presents theresults from factors analysis of the modified questions. A single factor is extracted labelled“Mobile Attachment Scale” accounting for 52.7% of the total variance (Eigenvalue=2.64).To check the reliability of the measure, Cronbach's alpha is measured and found to be reliable(α=0.85).

Table 1: Mobile Attachment Scale

Factor 1.70Using my mobile phone is one of the most

important things in my everyday life.83If my mobile phone stops working, I will miss

it very much.72Using my mobile phone is very important in

my life.58I could easily do without my mobile phone

for several days (inversed).75I would feel lost without my mobile phone2.64Eigenvalue

52.7%Variance explained

125


Family’s and Friends’ Perceived Social Support via Mobile CommunicationIn order to conceptualize the extent of social interaction and bonding via the mobile phoneselected measures from Procidano and Heller’s (1983) scales of friends’ (PSS-FR) andfamily’s (PSS-FA) perceived social support are applied. The original measures include itemssuch as “Certain friends come to me when they have problems or need advice”, “My friendsgive me the moral support that I need”, etc. Procidano and Heller’s (1983) stimulus statementsare modified by adding the statement “with the mobile use”. Similar modified questionshave been applied in past research investigating the impact of mobile adoption on socializationprocesses (Chen, 2009). The scales consist of 5-point Likert type items (1=strongly disagree,5 = strongly agree) and the responses are averaged to the items with higher scores indicatinghigher levels of friends’ and family’s perceived social support via mobile communication.Test re-test reliability analysis show that the indicators of friends’ and family’s perceivedsocial support via mobile phone are reliable measures with Cronbach α=.95 and α=.96, re-spectively.

Availability, Micro-coordination, Safety and Emancipation viaMobile PhoneIn order to conceptualize the motifs of mobile communication that are crucial in the socialnetworking of the teenagers nine questions are included in the questionnaire measuringavailability, micro-coordination and safety utilities of mobile phones and also the role of thedevice as a symbol of emancipation among the teenagers (Ling, 2000). Factor analysis indic-ated two factors accounting for 64.08% of the total variance after rotation (Table 2). Thefirst factor is labeled “Availability - Micro-coordination- Safety” (Eigenvalue=4.08) withCronbach α=.91 and the second “Emancipation Symbol” (Eigenvalue=1.04) with Cronbach'sα= .97.

Table 2: “Availability-micro-coordination-safety” and “Emancipation Symbol”

Factor 2Factor 1.77With my mobile phone I can

communicate at any timewherever I am

.97My mobile makes me feelmuch older than my age

.79With my mobile I can easilyand fast arrange to go out withmy friends

.78With my mobile I feel safe,because in case of emergency(e.g., accident) I can callwherever I am

.77With my mobile I can alwaysbe reached by those who wantto contact me

126


.80With my mobile I can canceleven last minute an arrange-ment

.69With my mobile I can bettercoordinate my different activ-ities

.73With my mobile my familydoes not worry so much asthey can contact me at any-time wherever I am

1.044.08Eigenvalue13.06%51.02%Variance explained

Factor loadings < .2 are suppressed

ResultsThe 95.6% of the respondents have a mobile phone that on average have acquired when theywere approximately 12 years old. The majority of students (65.1%) state that the mainreason of acquiring a mobile was their personal choice; however 13.4% reply that it wasmainly because all their friends had such a device. Only 4.7% of the respondents reply thatthey bought a mobile because it was their parents’ choice. Most of the students use the mobilemainly as a communicative tool, i.e., for phone calls (83.6%) and sending short messages(75.4%). Additive features of the device such as music (70.2%) and photos (49.1%) are im-portant for the teenage users; however games (22.8%) and internet (14.6%) are not so popular.

Table 3 presents the results from Pearson correlation analysis indicating that the “MobileAttachment Scale” is significantly associated with all the variables under study, i.e., the“Availability-Micro-coordination-Safety Scale” (p<.05), the “Emancipation Symbol Scale”(p<.01), the friends’ (p<.01) and family’s (p<.01) perceived social support via mobile com-munication. It is worth mentioning that friends’ and family’s perceived social support viamobile are significantly correlated (p<.01) providing evidence that social networking andbonding among peers via mobile communication is not an obstacle for enhancing the tieswith family. Additionally, the significant correlation between the “Emancipation SymbolScale” and friends’ perceived social support via mobile (p<.05) indicates that the device actsas a mean of social networking and bonding with peers that accelerates the emancipativeprocess of adolescents from the familial environment.

127


Table 3: Pearson Correlations Analysis for all the Variables Under Study

543211.001. Mobile At-

tachment Scale1.00.17*2. Availability-

Coordination-Safety

1.00.00.33**3. Emancipa-tion SymbolScale

1.00.17*.12.48**4. Friends’ so-cial support viamobile

1.00.46**.09.10.21**5. Family’s so-cial support viamobile** <.01, *<.05

Table 4 reports the results from the multiple regression analysis for the variables predictingmobile attachment among teenagers. The model explains approximately 31% (R2=.31) ofthe variance of the “Mobile Attachment Scale” and the percentage of the explained variableis significant (p<.001). Tolerance factors and Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) are greaterthan .78 and less than 1.27, respectively, indicating no multi-collinearity problems amongthe independent variables that would significantly influence the results of the analysis.

The multiple regression analysis show that from the independent variables under studyonly the “Emancipation Symbol Scale” (p<.001) and friends’ perceived social support viamobile (p<.001) are significant predictors of “Mobile Attachment Scale”. The larger absolutevalue of a beta coefficient (β) is reported for friends’ perceived social support via mobile(b=.44) indicating that the specific independent variable has the greatest effect for predictingmobile attachment among teenagers. The indicators of “Availability-Micro-coordination-Safety Scale” and family’s perceived social support via mobile scale are non-significantpredictors of the “Mobile Attachment Scale”.

128


Table 4: Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting “ Mobile AttachmentScale”

β(95% CI) BB.11(-.02, .25).11Availability-Coordina-

tion-Safety.25(.12, .39).25**Emancipation Symbol.44(.47, .98).73**Social support among

friends via mobile-.05(-.25, .13 )-.06Social support among

family via mobile(-3.30, -1.59)-2.44**y-intercept

R2 =.31** <.001

Discussion and Research ImplicationsThe results of the analysis shed light to some important aspects of mobile communicationto Greek teenagers’ social interactions and ties with peers and family. Pearson correlationanalysis provides evidence that teenagers’ mobile attachment is significantly associated withits utilities as a mean of availability, micro-coordination, and safety but also as a symbol ofemancipation of the young actors (Ling, 2000). Friends’ and family’s perceived social supportvia mobile not only are significantly correlated with “Mobile Attachment Scale” but also inbetween them indicating that the device enhances social interaction and bonding in the peergroup but not at the cost of family cohesion (Castells et al., 2004; Geser et al., 2006). Whilstpast research reports that mobile phone among teenagers enhances family’s (Geser, 2005;Spungin, 2006) and peers’ social interactions and bonding (Skog, 2002; Boase & Kobayash,2008) empirical findings providing evidence for the simultaneous role of the device arescarce.

The most intriguing results of the analysis suggest that whilst all the variables under studyare significantly correlated with the “Mobile Attachment Scale” only the indicators concep-tualizing friends’ social support via mobile and the adoption of the device as an emancipativesymbol explain teenagers’ attachment to mobile communication. The results of the presentstudy, in agreement with studies from diverse cultural settings, (i.e., Lobet-Maris and Henin,2002, in Belgium; Kasesniemi and Rautiainen, 2002, in Finland; Doring et al., 2005, inGermany; Ling, 2005, in Norway; Kobayashi and Ikeda, 2007, in Japan) underline the notionthat despite cultural differences the eagerness of teenagers to embrace the device is explainedby its role as a mean of social networking and bonding among peers. The mobile phoneprovides a “back door of communication” (Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2002:171) to teenagersenforcing the role of peers in their socialization processes and playing a pivotal role in teens’emancipation from parental home during the crucial developmental period of adolescence.(e.g., Green, 2003; Ling, 2004; Ling & Yttri, 2002, 2006; Oksman & Rautiainen, 2003;Ito,2005) In Ling’s words (2000: 118) the mobile phone is “almost an icon through which

129


one can show others that they have achieved an independence from their parents and arequickly becoming adults”.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical study investigating the effects ofmobile phones on Greek teenagers’ social interactions and bonding with family and peers.It is recommended that further studies in Greece will provide a fruitful insight on the effectsof the device on teenagers’ lives. These studies should apply a mixed method approach al-lowing a thorough understanding of the processes that mobile communication is perceivedamong Greek teenagers as an emancipative symbol speeding up their socialization towardpeers.

ReferencesArmstrong, C., & Rubin, A. (1989). Talk radio as interpersonal communication. Journal of Commu-

nication, 39, 84-94.Arnett, J. (1995). Adolescent’s uses of media for self-socialization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

24(5), 519-533.Boase, J., & Kobayashi, T. (2008). Kei-Tying teens: Using mobile phone e-mail to bond, bridge, and

break with social ties. A study of Japanese adolescents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 930-943.

Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J., & Sey, A. (2007). Mobile Communication and Society:A Global Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J., & Sey, A. (2004). The mobile communication society:A cross–cultural analysis of available evidence on the social uses of wireless communicationtechnology. Report prepared for the International Workshop on Wireless CommunicationPolicies and Prospects: A Global Perspective, October 8-9, Annenberg School for Commu-nication, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Chen, Y-F., & Katz, J. (2009). Extending family to school life: College students' use of the mobilephone. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(2), 179-191.

Chen, Y-F. (2009). The mobile phone and socialization: Family vs. friends. Paper presented at the 59th

annual meeting of the International Communication Association, May 20, Marriott, Chicago.Choi, J. (2004). Exploring characteristics of cellular phone communication of the US college students.

Paper presented at the Mobile Communication and Social Change, October 18-19, Seoul.Doring, N., Hellwig, K., & Klimsa, P. (2005). Mobile communication among German youth. In K.

Nyiri, (Ed.), A Sense of Place: The Global and the Local in Mobile Communication (pp.209-220). Vienna, Austria: Passagen Verlag.

Economides, A., & Grousopoulou, A. (2008). Use of mobile phones by male and female Greek students.International Journal of Mobile Communications, 6(6),729-749(21).

Erikson, E. (1967). Childhood and Society. Harmondsworth : Penguin.Fortunati L., & Manganelli, A. (2002). Young people and the mobile telephone. Revista De Estudios

De Juventud, 52, 59-78.Geser, H. (2005). Is the cell phone undermining the social order? Understanding mobile technology

from a sociological perspective. In P. Glotz, S. Bertschi and C. Locke (Eds.), Thumb Culture:the Meaning of Mobile Phones for Society (pp. 23-35). New Brunswick, NJ: TransactionPublishers.

Geser, H., Késia, U., & Trench, S. (2006). Pre-teen cell phone adoption: Consequences for later patternsof phone usage and involvement. Sociology in Switzerland : Sociology of the Mobile Phone(Online Publications. Zuerich). Retrieved June 2010 from http://socio.ch/mobile/t_geser2.htm

Green, N. (2001). Who’s watching whom? Monitoring and accountability in mobile relations. In B.Brown, N. Green and R. Harper (Eds.), Wireless world: Social and Interactional Aspects ofthe Mobile Age (pp. 32-45). London, UK: Springer-Verlag.

130


Green, N. (2003). Young people and mobile technologies. In J. Katz (Ed.),Machines that Become us:The Social Context of Personal Communication Technology (pp. 201-217). New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Publisher.

Hartup, W. (1999). Constraints on peer socialization: Let me count the ways.Merrill- Palmer Quarterly,45,172-183.

Holmes, D., & Russell, G. (1999).Adolescent CIT use: Paradigm shifts for educational and culturalpractices? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(1), 69-78.

International Communication Union (ITU). Key Global Telecom Indicators for the World Telecommu-nication Service Sector. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statist-ics/at_glance/KeyTelecom.html

Ito, M. (2005). Mobile phones, Japanese youth, and the re-placement of social contact. In R. Ling andP. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile Communications: Re-negotiation of the Social Sphere (pp.131–148). London, UK: Springer.

Ito, M., & Okabe, D. (2005). Intimate connections: contextualizing Japanese youth and mobile mes-saging. In R. Harper, L. Palen and A. Taylor (Eds.), The Inside Text: Social, Cultural andDesign Perspectives on SMS (pp. 127-143). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Kasesniemi, E., & Rautiainen, P. (2002). Mobile culture of children and teenagers in Finland. In J.Katz and M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk,Public Performance (pp. 170-192). Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Katz, J., & Aakhus, M. (2002). Introduction: Framing the issues. In J. Katz and M. Aakhus (Eds.),Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (pp. 1-14).Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Katz, J. (2006). Magic in the Air: Mobile Communication and the Transformation of life. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Kobayashi, T., & Ikeda, K. (2007). Jakunen-so no syakaika katei ni okeru keitai me-ru riyou no kouka:pa-sonaru nettowa-ku no dousitsusei ishitsusei to kan-yousei ni chu-moku shite (The effectof mobile phone e-mail on socialization during adolescence: focusing on homogeneity andheterogeneity in personal networks and tolerance). Syakai shinrigaku kenkyuu (JapaneseJournal of Social Psychology), 23, 82–94 (in Japanese).

Kopomaa, T. (2000). The City in your Pocket: Birth of the Mobile Information Society. Helsinki,Finland: Gaudeamus Kirja.

Lazarinis, F. (2004). Έρευνα για την χρήση των κινητών τηλεφώνων στα Ελληνικά σχολεία (A studyfor using mobile phones in Greek schools). Σύγχρονη Εκπαίδευση (Modern Education),134,41-56 (in Greek).

Licoppe, C. (2004). Connected presence: The emergence of a new repertoire for managing social rela-tionships in a changing communications technoscape. Environment and planning D: Societyand Space, 22, 135-156.

Ling, R. (2000). We will be reached: The use of mobile telephony among Norwegian youth. InformationTechnology and People, 13 (2), 102-120.

Ling, R. (2002). Adolescent girls and young adult men: Two sub-cultures of the mobile telephone.Revista De Estudios De Juventud, 57, 33-47.

Ling, R. (2004). The Mobile Connection: The Cell phone's Impact on Society. San Francisco, CA:Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Ling, R., (2005). Mobile communications vis-a-vis teen emancipation, peer group integration and de-viance. In R. Harper, A. Taylor and L. Palen, (Eds.), The Inside Text: Social Perspectiveson SMS in the Mobile Age (pp. 175-189). London, UK: Klewer.

Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2002). Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. In J. Katz and M.Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Perform-ance (pp. 139-169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

131


Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2006). Control, emancipation, and status: The mobile telephone in teens’ parentaland peer relationship. In R. Kraut, M. Brynin, and S. Kiesler (Eds.), Computer, Phones, andthe Internet: Domesticating Information Technology (pp. 219-234). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Ling, R., Yttri, B., Anderson, B., & DiDuca, D. (2003). Mobile communication and social capital inEurope. In K. Nyiri (Ed.),Mobile Democracy: Essays on Society, Self and Politics (pp. 359-373). Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

Lobet-Maris,C.,& Henin, J.(2002).Talking without communicating or communicating without talking:From the GSM to the SMS. Revista De Estudios De Juventud, 57, 101-114.

Lorente, S. (2002). Youth and mobile telephones: More than a fashion.Revista De Estudios De Juventud,57, 8-24.

Mante, E., & Piris, D.(2002). SMS use by young people in the Netherlands. Revista De Estudios DeJuventud , 57, 47-58.

Martin, O., & de Singly, F. (2000). L 'evasion amicable. L'usage du téléphone familial par les adoles-cents. Reseaux, 18 (103), 91-118.

Matsuda, M. (2005). Mobile communication and selective sociality. In M. Ito, D. Okabe, M. Matsuda,(Eds.), Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life (123-142). Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mediappro, (2006). A European Research Project: The Appropriation of NewMedia by Youth. Brussels:Chaptal Communication with the Support of the European Commission / Safer Internet ActionPlan. Retrieved April 2010 from http://www.mediappro.org/publications/finalreport.pdf

Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.

Miyata, K. (2006). Longitudinal effects of mobile internet use on social network in Japan. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, June 16,Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany.

Moore, K. (2003). ME and end user practices. MGAIN: Mobile Entertainment Industry and Culture.IST-2001-38846; D3.2.1; pp. 62-86.

Oksman, V., & Rautiainen, P. (2002). I’ve got my whole life in my hand. Revista De Estudios De Ju-ventud, 52, 25-32.

Papacharisi, Z., & Rubin, A. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and ElectronicMedia, 44, 175-196.

Procidano, M., & Heller, K.(1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family:Three validation studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11(1), 1-24.

Rubin, A. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 8(2),141-165.

Rubin, A., & Step, M. (2000). Impact of motivation, attraction, and parasocial interaction on talk radiolistening. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 635-654.

Selian, A. (2004). Mobile phones and youth: A look at the US student market. Paper prepared for theInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU). Retrieved May 2010 fromhttp://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/futuremobile/Youth.pdf

Selwyn, N. (2003).Schooling the mobile generation: The future for schools in the mobile-networkedsociety. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24,131-144.

Skog, B. (2002). Mobiles and Norwegian teen: identity, gender and class. In J. Katz amd M. Aakhus(Eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (pp.255-273). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Spungin, P. (2006). Family and relationships: The influence of the mobile phone on the family. TheCarphone Warehouse, 27-34.

Srivastava L. (2005). Mobile phones and the evolution of social behaviour. Behaviour and InformationTechnology, 24 (2), 111-129.

132


Srivastava, L. (2008). The mobile makes it mark. In J. Katz (Ed.),Handbook of Mobile CommunicationStudies (pp. 15-27). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis (2nd Ed.). New York: Harper and Row.

About the AuthorsDr. Stefania KalogerakiStefania Kalogeraki, Ph.D., University of Reading, UK, is a Lecturer (Quantitative Methodsin Sociology) in the Department of Sociology, University of Crete, Greece.

Marina PapadakiMarina Papadaki, is a Specialized Technical and Laboratory Employee in the Departmentof Sociology, University of Crete, Greece.

133


EDITORS

Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Patrick Baert, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK. Norma Burgess, Syracuse University, Syracuse, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Peter Harvey, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. Vangelis Intzidis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece. Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Gerassimos Kouzelis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Massimo Leone, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. Alexandros-Andreas Kyrtsis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece. José Luis Ortega Martín, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain. Bertha Ochieng, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK. Francisco Fernandez Palomares, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain. Miguel A. Pereyra, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain. Constantine D. Skordoulis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Chad Turnbull, ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain. Chryssi Vitsilakis-Soroniatis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

www.Arts-Journal.com

www.Book-Journal.com

www.Climate-Journal.com

www.ConstructedEnvironment.com

www.Design-Journal.com

www.Diversity-Journal.com

www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

www.Humanities-Journal.com

www.OnTheImage.com

www.Learning-Journal.com

www.Management-Journal.com

www.Museum-Journal.com

www.ReligionInSociety.com

www.Science-Society.com

http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

www.SpacesAndFlows.com

www.SportAndSociety.com

www.Sustainability-Journal.com

www.Technology-Journal.com

www.ULJournal.com

www.Universities-Journal.com

FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT

[email protected]

The impact of mobile use on teenagers’ socialization

Documents

Transcript of The impact of mobile use on teenagers’ socialization