Cell Phone Research

Slide 1: 

Method Discussion Cell Phone Use with Family, Friends, & Co-workers Diana Chavez, Joice Fong, Donna Petterson Azusa Pacific University Cell phone & Family Cell phone & Friends/co-workers References Thirty-five adults who are friends, co-workers and family members of the researchers participated in the online survey. Lit Review Results Put a thumbnail version of your first chart here, along with a brief title. You will put the larger version on its own ppt slide after the Results Of the 35 surveys sent to participants by email, 100% were completed and returned. Out of all technologies cell phones rated as being the highest method utilized to communicate with family, friends, and co-workers. Bjerke, T.N., Kummervold, P.E., Christensen, E.K., & Hjortdahl, P. (2008). We live in a technological age. Everywhere one looks one can see evidence of this, cell phones, internet, i-pods, i-pads, etc. What affect has it had on the boundaries of family?

Slide 2: 

We live in a technological age. Everywhere one looks one can see evidence of this, cell phones, internet, i-pods, i-pads, etc. Yet, what affect has this had on the boundaries of the family? Have these new technologies allowed individuals to move further away from spending time with their family? By looking at one piece of technology in particular we can trace the influence that technology is having and from there look to see whether or not it has changed the social boundaries of families The cell phone has become a pervasive tool in society (Srivastava, 2005) It has been postulated that the cell phone itself has evolved not just technologically, but in its identity. It has moved from being a simple human tool, a “technological object” to being a key “social object.” As the cell phone has evolved technologically it went from being just a portable phone to a device in which people can conduct most of their personal and business life from. Literature Review

Slide 3: 

In the past if someone was not able to answer a phone call, a message would be left for them. Now technology has come to the point where if someone does not answer they can be instant messaged or texted, this way if they are in a meeting, or at the movies they no longer have to wait to listen to their messages or in order to reply, they can do so at their convenience. For us as humans this simple device has changed not only the means of communication but also it is an extension of the relational framework that connects each person to society. Since the cell phone has become a societal object, what impact has this had on the family? While cell phones are used by people from all types of family structure, research has shown that the traditional nuclear family reports more usage than other family types (Miller II, 2008; Wellman, B, Smith, Wells, & Kennedy, 2008). Literature Review

Slide 4: 

Literature Review The impact is different depending on what interaction is looked at. For example, regarding couples or the parents in the family research shows that cell phone usage has become a means through which parents or couples who lead busy lives are thus able to stay in touch (Wellman, B, Smith, Wells, & Kennedy, 2008). However, when factors influencing couples usage were looked at there was no correlation found between predictors (Chesley, 2006). What has been postulated from this is that family usage does not influence cell phone usage by other members instead it is an individual phenomena and not a familial one. Thus factors that predict the usage by others in the family do not seem to be dependent on the family, but instead are dependent on individual factors, such as gender (Jackson et al., 2008). So for example cell phone usage by children was not dependent on the amount of usage by their parents. There was however one exception that was found and it was that husbands’ usage did affect wives usage 2 years later.

Slide 5: 

Literature Review So while family usage may not be dependent on familial factors statistics show that it does in fact have a strong influence on the cohesiveness of the family (Miller II, 2008; Wellman, B, Smith, Wells, & Kennedy, 2008). One researcher noted that despite all the predictions that technology is causing the nuclear family to splinter statistics show otherwise, that technology, in this case cell phones, are actually allowing families to keep their cohesiveness. Some of the responses collected showed that families reported that cell phones allow them to stay in touch, for couple/parents; children are leading busy lives these days and thus are utilizing cell phones as a means to keep in contact with their parents.

Slide 6: 

Literature Review This also plays a role as children move off to college for cell phones are reported as a means through which children and parents are able to maintain and even strengthen the family bond despite being a long distance from their families (Wei & Lo, 2006). It allows homesick children to psychologically expand their neighborhoods and facilitate symbolic proximity to the people they call. Many report that because of cell phones their family is now closer than it used to be (Wellman, B, Smith, Wells, & Kennedy, 2008), and they are able to share experiences as they happen versus having to wait till all family members can gather again. Being able to stay in constant contact is one aspect, yet when researchers looked at what impact cell phones had on generational gaps between parents and their children they found that cell phones appeared to stand in as a transitional object between parent–teen interrelationships (Ribak, 2009). Cell phones connect not only technologically, but they appear to serve as a means that allow a type of connection intergenerationally, they provide a common ground both generations can relate to and they allow for mediation in relationships.

Slide 7: 

Literature Review It is believed that cell phones are more important for the possibility of communication and less for the text or voice conversation it actually carries, for it enables a crossing of inter-generational distance and provides for a type of intimacy that was previously not possible. Further research shows that this may have come about due to young people feeling that cell phones allow for their having more control over their interactions (Madell & Muncer, 2007). Young people feel that cell phones provide a means that allows them more time to think before they interact with others, whether it is waiting to respond to a call, or less stigma in pausing before responding since they are not directly looking at an other. The cell phone may be a bringer of egalitarianism between the generations. This bridge appears to have created a bridging of allowing people to feel independent thus maintaining their individualism yet at the same time allowing them to keep in relationships by staying connected via cell phone (Vishwanath & Chen, 2008).

Slide 8: 

Literature Review While cell phones appear to have a large number of positive aspects, there are aspects which do make some uncomfortable. One study postulated that many people feel that cell phones have had a positive influence on the quality of life because a person’s view of the quality of life is dependent on their perception of how things are and not necessarily based off of how things really are at any given time (Sirgy, Lee, Kamra, K, & Tidwell, 2007). One example of this was seen in a study which looked at purpose of cell phone usage, respondents said they felt comfortable carrying their cell phones for they knew they could contact someone in case of an emergency yet they also reported that they used their cell phones to waste time (Rainie & Keeter, 2006). Instead of socializing or utilizing their time to learn something new, they now had a device which allowed them to do something mindless while passing the time.

Slide 9: 

Literature Review Instead of socializing or utilizing their time to learn something new, they now had a device which allowed them to do something mindless while passing the time. In families studies show that while cell phones have caused families to spend less time. In families studies show that while cell phones have caused families to spend less time watching television, what they do more of now is spend time on their phones and on the internet (both on phones and computers) (Wellman, B, Smith, Wells & Kennedy, 2008). Other things found include that with increased cell phone usage families reported that they are less likely to share meals together as well as less satisfaction with their leisure time. Cell phone usage has also been found to be a means through which people are even able to hide from others things that they do not want them to know about, for example, if they have been drinking or have relapsed into substance abuse, texting and talking on a cell phone allow family members to hide the fact from others (Bjerke, Kummervold, Christiansen, & Hjortdahl, 2008).

Slide 10: 

Literature Review Cell phone usage has permeated American culture. It is a fixture of society. There are both positive and negative aspects of this technological social object. Some areas have yet to be decided upon on whether or not the influence is positive or negative. Socially, the cell phone has revolutionized the boundaries of family and business life, yet has it allowed people to maintain the boundaries between all areas of life? Current research shows that it has not, that work and home life have started to blend together (Wellman, B, Smith, Wells, & Kennedy, 2008). It has also been seen that the negatives include utilizing the cell phone to hide from family members and to waste time. This has thus lead to the question of what do people utilize their cell phones more for, communicating with family or for communicating with co-workers. By looking at this question the proposed blurring of the social boundary can better be studied.

Slide 11: 

Method Thirty-five adults who are friends, co-workers and family members of the researchers participated in the online survey. The survey included 8 quantitative questions and 2 qualitative questions. Instruments used include, SurveyMonkey, Blog Page, and eCourse web page. A hypothesis including hypothesis, problem to be solved, proposed participants and literature was sent to IRB role-play through eCourse web page for evaluation before the researchers designed the survey. The proposal was evaluated for the ethical issues or concerns that may impact the survey. A group blog page was set up for the 3 researchers to discuss the research topic, hypothesis, design and post the survey questions. When the discussion between researchers finished, the research survey was posted in a new post on the blog. An email listing the survey questions was sent to OIRA for approval header. OIRA approved all the survey questions. Since the research did not involve any APU students, staff, or faculty there was no need to include OIRA header on the email to participants.

Method : 

Method After the approval from OIRA, the researcher created the SurveyMonkey account, and posted 10 survey questions to the online survey program. The SurveyMonkey online survey was created. A link to the SurveyMonkey online survey was included in a new blog post. Researchers discussed the informed consent and the purpose of the survey to the participants verbally before conducting the survey. A brief email was sent to each participant that explained that the project was a Research Methodology eCourse survey conducted by the student research group in the Department of Graduate Psychology at Azusa Pacific University. Each participant was emailed the survey which also included the link to the online survey. The survey was conducted and completed in 2 weeks. Thirty-five participants submitted all answers to the online survey.

Slide 13: 

Results Of the 35 surveys sent to participants by email, 100% were completed and returned. All participants responded to 9 out of 10 questions except for qualitative question #9. In this item only 33 participants responded about their dislikes of cell phone use and 2 omitted the question entirely. It was hypothesized that participants would use the cell phone to communicate with friends and co-workers more than they did with family members. The data generated from this study indicated that cell phones are not used more for contacting friends and co-workers than with family members. Chart 1 displays the data for the number of times participants communicated by cell phone with family members in a week. These data indicates that 23 participants (65.7%) spoke with family members at least five or more times a week. Sixteen participants reported that they spoke to family members four times a week or less. Chart 2 shows data for the number of times participants communicate with friends and coworkers by cell phone in a week. Twenty-one participants (61.8%) reported that they communicated with friends and coworkers at least five or more times a week. Twelve participants communicated with friends and co-workers four times a week or less.

Slide 14: 

Results Comparison of both charts reveals that participants (65.7%) who communicated with family members five times or more in a week was slightly higher (2.1%) than calling friends and co-workers by cell phone. There was also a tendency for participants to call family members more often than they did with friends and co-workers. There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses for cell phone use with family members vs. friend and co-workers (questions 4 & 5) as outlined in Table 1. The M of 4.00 and an SD of 1.5 for the cell phone use with family members fives times or more in a week was at least +1SD above the mean. The response distribution of cell phone use with friends and co-workers at least fives or more in a week had a M of 4.00 and an SD of 1.5 was also +1SD above the mean.

Slide 15: 

Results Chart 3 shows that almost half of the participants (44.4%) disagreed with our hypothesis that cell phones are use more with friends and co-workers than with family members. Another 22.2% of participants could not agree or disagree. Eleven participants (31%) either agreed or strongly agreed that they call friends and co-workers more than family. What our participants liked most about using cell phones are their convenience in being able to “use anytime of day” and accessibility to others “I could reach them at any time and place.” Participants were also surveyed about what they disliked about cell phones. The most common complaint about cell phones is that they are impersonal or “lack of interaction.” Surprisingly, the second largest group of participants stated that they did not dislike anything about cell phones. Although, participants use the cell phone for communication, 80% believes that face-to-face is the best method for maintaining healthy relationships with family, friends and co-workers.

Slide 16: 

Chart 1 Cell Phone Use With Family Members

Slide 17: 

Chart 2 Cell Phone Use With Friends/Co-workers

Slide 18: 

Chart 3 Cell Phone Use: Family vs. Friends/Co-workers

Table of Quantitative Results : 

Table of Quantitative Results

Slide 20: 

Discussion Out of all technologies cell phones rated as being the highest method utilized to communicate with family, friends, and co-workers. Yet the central premise examined was in whether or not people utilize cell phones more for communicating with co-workers and friends than they do with family. The initial predication based off of the belief that technology has caused a further breakdown of boundaries between family and non-family was not backed up by the results. When asked whether or not they utilized cell phones over other tools to communicate (excluding face-to-face) cell phones by and large surpassed other means. In measuring usage, people responded that they use cell phones significantly in their day to day communicating. However, when asked about whether they used cell phones to communicate more with non-family members than with family members respondents that they either disagreed with this or they were fairly neutral regarding this idea.

Slide 21: 

Discussion The results seem to back up results from previous research that shows that cell phone usage is seen as very instrumental in keeping families in touch with one another (Miller II, 2008; Wellman, B, Smith, Wells, & Kennedy, 2008). However, due to the lack of exact numbers of hours spent with one group over another it is hard to distinguish whether the importance of cell phone usage for contacting family over non-family may be more of a perception issue than a reporting of what is really done. This fits with previous research regarding the role of perception in the value of cell phones to people (Sirgy, Lee, Kamra, K, & Tidwell, 2007). This is one issue that was raised regarding this study. It did find what it set out to do, but it also showed that in collecting data on cell phone usage the categories and measurements may need to be modified. For example in future studies, an item that asks for approximate hours of cell phone usage including total, with family, with non-family, would allow for better quantification of results. Another area that may have made a difference in the reported results is that non-family included friends and co-workers, separating the two may provide for a difference in perspective and possibly different outcomes.

Slide 22: 

Discussion Overall the data does appear to be generalizable to the general population only due to the fact that it fits in with the results of previous studies (Miller II, 2008; Wellman, B, Smith, Wells, & Kennedy, 2008). However, one of the main differences is that this study looked more at the blurring of family and non-family boundaries and cell phone usage that was only previously highlighted upon as part of a general feeling by respondents in the previous surveys. If the items were to be modified as noted above and if the sample size were to be increased and randomized then it could possibly provide results that would be more representable of the general population. Despite possible modifications this study did what it set out to do. The data allowed for a sample that challenged the original belief held, which was that people utilize cell phones more for communicating with non-family than with family. The data also allowed for more questions to be postulated which could lead to more nuanced data to be gathered in the future. As cell phones continue to evolve and western society continues to be defined by our technology research will be needed in order to better understand what this means about us.

Slide 23: 

Bjerke, T. N., Kummervold, P. E., Christiansen, E. K., & Hjortdahl, P. (2008). “It made me feel connected”—An exploratory study on the use of mobile SMS in follow-up care for substance abusers [Electronic version]. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 19 (4). 195-200. Chesley, N. (2006). Families in a high-tech age: Technology usage patterns, work and family correlates, and gender [Electronic version]. Journal of Family Issues, 27(5). 587-608 Jackson, L. A., Zhao, Y., Qiu, W., Kolenic III, A., Fitzgerald, H. E., Harold, R., & von Eye, A. (2008). Culture, gender and information technology use: A comparison of Chinese and US children [Electronic version]. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6). 2817-2829. Madell, D. E., & Muncer, S. J. (2007). Control over social interactions: An important reason for young people's use of the Internet and mobile phones for communication? [Electronic version]. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1). 137-140. References

Slide 24: 

Miller II, S. A. (2008, October 20). Technology shapes family lives, study finds: Households with parents, children are most likely to use cell phones, Internet to stay connected. McClatchy - Tribune Business News., Retrieved on March18, 2010, from http://0-proquest.umi.com.patris.apu.edu/pqdweb?did 1578949741&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=23686&RQT=309&V Name=PQD. Rainie, L., & Keeter, S. (2006). Americans and their cell phones. In Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Americans-and- their-cell-phones.aspx Ribak, R. (2009). Remote control, umbilical cord and beyond: The mobile phone as a transitional object [Electronic version]. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1). 183-196. References

Slide 25: 

Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D., Kamra, K, & Tidwell, J. (2007). Developing and validating a measure of consumer well-being in relation to cell phone use [Electronic version]. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2(2). 95-123. Srivastava, L. (2005). Mobile phones and the evolution of social behavior [Electronic version]. Behavior & Information Technology, 24(2). 111-129. Vishwanath, A., & Chen, H. (2008). Personal communication technologies as an extension of the self: A cross-cultural comparison of people's associations with technology and their symbolic proximity with others [Electronic version]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11). 1761-1775. References

Slide 26: 

Wei, R., & Lo, V. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social connectedness [Electronic version]. New Media & Society, 8(1). 53-72. Wellman, B, Smith, A., Wells, A., & Kennedy, T. (2008). Networked Families. In Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Networked-Families.aspx References