Elsevier

Telematics and Informatics

Volume 21, Issue 4, November 2004, Pages 359-373
Telematics and Informatics

Mobile phone ownership and usage among pre-adolescents

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2004.04.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Research has revealed that the mobile phone is, for adolescents, a medium which permits communication without the surveillance of parents, families and teachers. Indeed, the current study found this to be the case with younger pupils, too. However, communicating with family members appeared just as important, if not more, for these primary aged children. This study focused on the ownership and usage of mobile phones in a sample (N=351) of 10- to 11-year-old children in Gloucestershire primary schools (N=7). Some 45% of the sample possessed mobile phones. Nearly half of their calls (47%) were used for chatting with family or friends; 26% were to let their parents know their whereabouts; and others (20%) were “convenience” calls, i.e. to ask to be picked up etc. Other uses of the mobile in addition to chatting and making arrangements, although not always positive, were also made apparent. Thus, some two fifths of the children reported that they had made an “emergency” call (examples were given), about 17% had received “frightening” calls. A sizeable minority (20%) reported that their mobile had been damaged or stolen. This research also considers the amount of money that the pupils claimed to spend on their mobile calls every month as well as their means of purchasing the mobile and its up-keep.

Introduction

The arrival of the cellular (mobile) phone and its rapid and widespread growth may well be seen in historical context as one of the most significant developments in the fields of communication and in information technology over the past two decades (Plant, 2000). The growth has been phenomenal by any standards and Rice and Katz (2003) claim that there are now worldwide more mobile phone subscribers than fixed line subscribers and probably TV owners. By 1999 there were just under 500 million mobile telephones being used world wide, yet US mobile users alone have increased from 109 million in 2000 to 148.6 million in 2002 (see Aoki and Downes, 2003).

The increase in adult mobile phone ownership has been closely shadowed by an increase amongst children and young people. One study has indicated that by January 2001, half of all 7- to 16-year-olds were mobile owners (National Opinion Poll, 2001a). Additionally, in 1999, 34% of 16- to 22-year-olds and approximately 28% of 10- to 19-year-olds owned a mobile (see Aoki and Downes, 2003) and by 2001 it was estimated that up to nine in 10 UK secondary school students had a mobile (Selwyn, 2003).

Although the reasons for the growth in mobile phone ownership are sometimes the same factors as might be described as the benefits of ownership, the two sets of factors can be distinguished. For example, the profits to be made by their promotion and production fall into the first category and not into the second. The technological advances that produce ever more sophisticated and elaborate features on mobile phones, for example, phone mail, voice mail, games facilities, and for those with third generation (3G) mobiles, multimedia messaging and Internet access may sometimes be a reason for purchase, but may not always or necessarily constitute a significant benefit to the owner.

Some of the benefits of mobile phone ownership are more practical than fundamental or central but are certainly not without significance. For example, once purchased the non-fixed mobile phone can take and make calls at any time and any place (Plant, 2000) whilst loosening the structures that once regulated individuals' lives as well as enhancing individual mobility (Kopomaa, 2002) and social efficiency (Katz and Aakhus, 2002). Additionally, the range of phone-features for the mobile, and the payment methods, offer more choice; and the competition between hand-set manufacturers and between service providers seem likely to maintain these options. Thus, convenience, mobility and choice are terms that characterise many of the factors in this area of benefit.

Indeed, other benefits of mobile phone usage could be described as more psychological and social than technical or practical. For example, Leung and Wei (2000), in Hong Kong, list seven factors of gratification sought through mobile phone ownership: fashion/status, affection/sociability, relaxation, mobility, immediate access, instrumentality and reassurance. Additionally, Aoki and Downes' (2003) research with American college students found the main reasons for purchasing a mobile to be safety (for when driving at night), for cost effectiveness, for instant information (e.g., phone numbers), for social interaction with friends and family, and for privacy.

Thus, the flexibility of use that a mobile phone affords could validly be described as a practical benefit but there is no doubt that the freedom that this provides also has an important psychological component. This might be true for any owner but it probably has special significance for those who might be regarded, or would regard themselves, as dependant on others, or vulnerable, e.g. children and young people, the sick, the disabled, the elderly. Parents, too, might see the mobile phone as providing an element of freedom, allowing them to undertake or enjoy activities away from their children that––without the knowledge that one touch of a keypad was all that separated them––they otherwise would be reluctant to undertake. Indeed, Wilska notes how children as young as seven are being bought mobile phones, “usually intended as a `lifeline' even if the children themselves see it mainly as a fancy toy” (2003:449). Therefore, parents can allow their children more freedom without physical control and still have a clear conscience (Wilska, 2003). From this perspective, the mobile phones have been deemed as a technology of surveillance (Green, 2002).

A benefit, therefore, that is frequently mentioned (e.g., Katz, 1997) as a reason for purchasing a mobile phone is its use in emergencies, where immediate contact with another party (e.g., family, emergency services) is vital. Such situations can range from major crises posed by a road accident, heart attack or threatened violence to a more mundane emergency such as being stranded after missing the last bus or train home. This benefit will be of particular importance to the vulnerable but clearly it has universal relevance, too.

However, according to Ling, the mobile phone altered the power relations between the parents of his respondents and the 13- to 19-year-olds he researched in Norway, as the teenagers could develop and maintain social contacts outside of parents' control (Ling, 2000). Indeed, according to Wilska, the mobile has reduced the possibility of parents being able to control their youngsters' communication. Children's conversations can now be more private and parents do not even necessarily know the friends of their children any more. Wilska (2003) also comments on how young people can embrace the freedom that the mobile phone provides. Therefore, a sense of freedom, even “emancipation”, has particular resonance for the use of the mobile phone by children and young people (Ling, 2000). The means of communication with others is literally in their hands as is their control over their own destiny (Katz and Aakhus, 2002). They can choose when, from where and to whom they phone. No permission needs to be sought, any overhearing by parents can readily be avoided and censorship by parents or others is virtually impossible (see also Livingstone and Bovil, 1999).

“Keeping in touch” is a frequently mentioned benefit (e.g., Fox, 2001) of the mobile phone although such a phrase can offer multiple connotations. Situations under this heading can range from those where it is simply very helpful to be able to speak to someone else who may not otherwise be contactable, e.g. on a bus, whilst in the middle of shopping etc––to the more generalised benefit of keeping in touch with family and friends. For example, Aoki and Downes's (2003) respondents claim that although they did not necessarily buy their mobile for social interaction, they do now value the device for staying in contact with friends. They did, however, admit that staying in contact with family whilst at college was a reason for purchasing the mobile as was “micro-coordination” whereby they could use the phone for time management and tighter social organisation.

One other advantage of the mobile phone is that it gives a sense of confidence. Clearly, this would be the case for those who may feel themselves to be vulnerable and also for the families of such individuals who may also feel confident in the knowledge, for example, that assistance can be summoned at once. However, in addition to those with special vulnerabilities many mobile phone owners in general report that they feel more self-confident with their mobile phone close to hand (Fox, 2001).

A benefit that is seen by many owners from the start, and by others later, is not simply that of “keeping in touch” when trains are delayed, etc. nor even of saying a brief hello to one's parents or offspring, but that of more extended “gossiping” to friends and family. The role of “gossip” is itself a wide topic and largely outside the scope of the present paper but Fox (2001) comments on some of the recent literature with particular relevance to mobile phone usage. She summarises her article as follows:

“Gossip is not a trivial pastime; it is essential to human social, psychological and even physical well-being. The mobile phone, by facilitating therapeutic gossip in an alienating and fragmented modern world, has become a vital `social lifeline', helping us to recreate the more natural communication patterns of pre-industrial times.” (Fox, 2001, p. 1)

Gossip has been defined as “the process of informally communicating value-laden information about members of a social setting” (Noon and Delbridge (1993, p. 4) cited by Fox, 2001). Seen in this light––rather than the more popular usage of the term as largely involving negative or disparaging comments about others––gossip comprises the major part of human informal social communication and, therefore not surprisingly, the major part of mobile communication. Fox (2001) finds that most of the existing research on gossip “highlights the positive social and psychological functions of gossip: facilitating relationship-building, group bonding, clarification of social position and status, reinforcing shared values, conflict resolution and so on” (2001:3).

Mobile phones, of course, are also now a fashion accessory or modish acquisition in the same category as the latest training shoes, school bags etc. for children, or a DVD and portable computer for adults. Like these and other accessories mobile phones are seen at least by some as bestowing status or confirming group identity. Wilska (2003) claims the mobile to be “addictive”, “trendy” and “impulsive” and notes how young people in today's society are more in-tune with their “own style” in comparison to previous generations. The importance of logos and brands within their lives is reflected in their consumer styles.

One interesting potential benefit of mobile phone usage that has emerged in the literature, albeit at the speculative level, has been the suggestion that this new phase of consumption could erode cigarette smoking. Indeed Charlton and Bates (2000) pointed to the alleged correlation between the decline in teenage smoking and the rise in mobile phone ownership. Thus, “Mobile phones could be filling a gap in the growing up process that has sometimes been taken by smoking… You see young people holding a phone, as though they were about to use it––it's something in their hand––and there are similarities to the rituals of smoking”. If this is the case, then it is an economic fact that money spent on mobile phones leaves less, if any, to spend on cigarettes.

Wilska (2003) found 54% of her respondents parents paid all or at least most of their children's mobile bills. Therefore, just under half of the 16- to 20-year-olds had to fund their mobiles themselves. Wilska (2003) cited Coogan and Kangas (2001) to note how families are not necessarily passive payers of accrued mobile costs, and the youngsters are often given the responsibility of managing their bills.

The use of text messages via the mobile phone is a more recent and growing phenomenon (National Opinion Poll, 2000). It has had a mixed reception from educationists. On the positive side, some have seen this as encouraging pupils' imagination and thus improving their literacy skills (Ananova, 2001). On the other hand, others have declared that pupils' use of text messaging with its “text abbreviations” can adversely affect their use of language and their spelling (Howard, 2001). However, the mobile, through text messaging, has been shown to have permitted various new modes of communication that enable young generations to use “more than mere talk or chitchat to cement their social relationships” (Taylor and Harper, 2003, p. 268). Taylor and Harper claim that text messages have become “gifts” whereby teenagers value the text message they are sending to their friends as a symbol of affection and in return the receiver cherishes the emotional significance which is attached to the sending of text messages. Text messages can be stored within the phone's memory as a visual aid for recalling past thoughts, feelings and knowledge that your friendship is cherished by someone else.

In a more general educational context, it has been claimed that the use of mobile phones helps pupils to become familiar with, and therefore more comfortable with, telephone and other information technologies (BBC, 2000b; Leung and Wei, 1999). Wilska (2003) discusses how the younger generations are maturing earlier and are more knowledgeable than the previous generations as boys and girls are making use of modern technologies.

The above mentioned catalogue of benefits and concerns, or alleged benefits and concerns, of mobile phones has so far not touched upon any alleged health-related consequences which have become associated with mobile phones since their introduction to the consumer market. For example, Wade and Troy (2001) found that the use of mobile phones assisted the memory function of patients with brain damage. Additionally, Borbely et al. (1999) reported that mobile phones encouraged uninterrupted sleep. Concerns about mobile phone ownership have largely centred on four issues: First, and most publicly, there have been suggestions that use of a mobile could lead to health risks associated with radio frequency (RF) radiations from the phone (and from the base stations that receive and transmit the signals). Alleged effects have included brain tumours, memory loss, headaches, loss of concentration and fatigue (e.g., Hocking, 1998; Sandstrom et al., 2001). It has also been suggested that under 12s are more vulnerable to such radiations than older children or adults (BBC, 2000b).

Nevertheless, these claims have been challenged, either in specific terms (e.g., Rothman, 2000––in relation to brain tumours) or else more generally, on the grounds that the available evidence gives no basis for suggestions of increased risk (e.g., Johansen et al., 2001) but that more research is needed. However, given recent examples of scientists having to u-turn on previous positions, there remains some concern about this matter amongst the general public and others.

In addition to health concerns, other concerns that have received attention are the experience of threatening or abusive calls, again with particular reference to the use of mobile phones by children or young people. Evidence from a National Opinion Poll survey (2001b) is that 14% of UK 7- to 16-year-olds have received an offensive or bullying call and that the problem is more acute amongst 14- to 16-year-olds (21%). Additionally, mobile phones have been linked to bullying or physical attacks. Recent evidence (Harrington and Mayhew, 2001) shows a worrying increase in the prevalence of mobile phone theft. One factor is that the theft of mobiles from children or young people can be undertaken by gangs who attack the phone owner whilst s/he is actually using the phone and is relatively unaware of the impending threat (see also BBC, 2000a). Additionally, the personal and private features of the mobile can help conceal bullying text and voice messages from adult attention.

A final expressed concern relates to the position of youngsters who do not have a mobile phone and who may be disadvantaged by that situation. Two specific points have emerged: First, it has been suggested from an educational perspective that the familiarity with telephone technologies in particular, and information technology in general, which the use of a mobile phone can facilitate and enhance will place those who do not have such usage at a disadvantage (Dyer, 1997; Leung and Wei, 1999; Ling, 2000). Second, at a more psychological and social level, if it is accepted that mobile phones offer the range of benefits described above, then it follows that those who do not own a mobile are denied those benefits. Particular concern has been expressed at the possibility of social exclusion (e.g., Ling, 2000; Pavis et al., 2001; Charlton et al., 2002b), and Leung and Wei's (1999) research indeed found significant differences between users and non-users of mobile phones with the mobile users being younger, wealthier, and better educated than non-users. Thus, if a central role of the mobile in modern society is to help “facilitate relationship-building, group bonding, clarification of social position and status etc.”, as Fox (2001, p. 9) proposes, then those who are excluded from this process could indeed be disadvantaged.

This last concern may be considered less valid in a primary school context. In the UK and some other countries primary schools are predominantly neighbourhood schools, where social relationships within and outside of school tend to be the same. In addition the individual class is a social unit. Therefore, there is ample opportunity for the relationship-building, group-bonding etc. to take place. With the onset of secondary schooling, school-based and neighbourhood-based friendships and social-relationships are more likely to become differentiated and the ethos of the school and classroom is less social, so that the availability of a mobile phone, as another medium for social networking, may be more advantageous. To the extent that this is so, those who lack that additional medium may be disadvantaged.

A further dimension which prompted the study and to which attention should be given, is the theoretical or conceptual contexts in which the use of the mobile should be placed. Fox (2001, p. 1), for example, sees the mobile as a modern technology which facilitates gossip; and the latter is construed as an essential––even therapeutic––psychosocial function which has suffered increasingly at the hands of modern industrial development and the mobility of labour with the consequential fragmentation of the family and of society more generally. Thus, she sees the mobile as helping to recreate “the more natural, humane communication patterns of pre-industrial times” (2001, p. 21).

Others (e.g., Walther, 1992; Reeves and Nass, 1996) see anything other than face-to-face communication (FtF) as being progressively less “rich”, e.g. video-conferencing, voice telephony/voice mail, written communications, including email and text messaging. Their term to encapsulate this dimension is “social presence”, indicating as it does the extent to which verbal and non-verbal cues are in evidence. Thus, FtF communication is seen as enabling not only all the nuances of verbal discourse but also conveying the cues of non-verbal “body language” (in the listener as in the speaker). In addition, FtF, where more than two people are involved, brings in the interactive non-verbal behaviour of the group. Therefore, this theoretical framework would not deny the value of the use of the mobile for the purpose of “gossiping” but would point out its limitations in terms of “social presence”.

A more sociological approach is taken by Ling and Yttri (2003). They draw on the familiar Weberian and Durkheimian traditions (e.g., Weber, 1958; Durkheim, 1954) to discuss the role of power, control and ritual in the socialisation of adolescents with particular reference to the family and the peer group. The gradual emancipation of the adolescent from family control is not seen as taking place in isolation from other influences; and pre-eminent among these other influences is that of the peer group. Drawing on their empirical work (largely focus-group based) with Norwegian adolescents' use of, and perception of, the mobile phone, Ling and Yttri first of all highlight the speed with which the mobile phone has become a central feature of adolescent life and social interaction in Norwegian society. As recently as 1997 mobile telephony, especially amongst younger adolescents was a minority activity. Now, with the introduction of pre-paid subscriptions and inexpensive handsets, the mobile is virtually a universal phenomenon amongst this age group. Further, Ling and Yttri assert that the mobile's rapid adoption has changed the dynamics of parental and peer group interaction for the adolescent.

Wilska (2003) notes how the average young phone user made or received from six to eight calls per day in addition to sending a number of text messages. Additionally, they used the alarm clock function, the calendar and the calculator as well as purchased new logos for the screens and ring tones. Such “attributes” help personalize their mobile, express their identity and reaffirm their belonging to a particular group of friends (Kopomaa, 2002). Therefore, the rapid growth of text messaging, signalling as it does a private and to some extent age-specific modality, increases the power of the peer group and decreases the power of the family. In addition, the mobile's power to reach directly to a particular individual, rather than the filtering (through parent or sibling) which often takes place with fixed phones, clearly loosens the “shackles” of parental monitoring or family awareness. The mobile can even now reach into what have been hallowed family rituals, such as the communal meal, Christmas celebrations or the family holiday.

Such an interesting and possibly worrying series of issues together with a paucity of information on mobile phone ownership and use, prompted the present research investigation. It was seen as an exploratory study, having sufficient substance to be of value in its own right but also serving as groundwork on which future studies will be built.

The present research is UK based and taps a much younger age group than that of Ling and most other researchers. Much less is known about the mobile phone behaviour of this younger group. The similarities and differences between the behaviour of these young children and that of adolescents should permit further clarification of the factors at work and enable us to confirm, modify or refute theoretical formulations based on the older group.

Section snippets

Participants

An opportunity sample of 10 primary schools near to the research base in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, was approached to take part in the study: seven of the schools agreed.

All of the parents of the Year-6 pupils (10- to 11-year-olds) in the participating schools received letters asking for their cooperation and their permission for their children to take part. All agreed. Of the 351 pupils involved, 158 proved to have mobile phones. All the latter were invited to participate. One boy declined

Results

What follows is a summary of those results that bear upon the central issues discussed earlier. A further paper analysing the gender differences that emerged from the study has been submitted for publication (Panting et al., in press).

Discussion

The present study focused on the purchase and use of mobile phones by mobile owners aged 10- to 11-years in seven Gloucestershire primary schools. The sample comprised all but one of the mobile phone owners in this age group in the participating schools. The children each completed a 26-item questionnaire.

As Aoki and Downes (2003, p. 4) concluded, “cell phones are forming particular subcultures among youths in many different countries”. The present research alongside other research findings has

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a grant from the Primary Research Fund, School of Education, University of Gloucestershire.

References (43)

  • T Charlton et al.

    Mobile telephone ownership and usage among 10- and 11-year-olds: participation and exclusion

    Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties

    (2002)
  • Coogan, K., Kangas, S., 2001. Nuoret ja kommunikaatioakrobatia. 16–18––vuotiaiden kannykka––ja internet-kulttuurit...
  • E Durkheim

    The Elementary Forms of Religious Life

    (1954)
  • Fox, K., 2001. Evolution, alienation and gossip social issues research centre (online) [cited 20 February 2002]....
  • N Green

    Who's watching whom? Monitoring and accountability in mobile relations

  • V Harrington et al.

    Mobile Phone Theft

    (2001)
  • B Hocking

    Preliminary report: symptoms associated with mobile phone use

    Occupational Medicine

    (1998)
  • Howard, P., 2001. A secret language (online) [cited 6 June 2001]. The Times, 26 May. Available from...
  • C Johansen et al.

    Cellular telephones and cancer––a nationwide cohort study in Denmark

    Journal of National Cancer Institute

    (2001)
  • J.E Katz

    The social side of information networking

    Society

    (1997)
  • J.E Katz et al.

    Perpetual Contact. Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance

    (2002)
  • Cited by (72)

    • Should participants be given a mobile phone, or use their own? Effects of novelty vs utility

      2016, Telematics and Informatics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Research on adults is not directly applicable, as children engage with their mobile telephones in a distinct way (Lorente, 2002), tending to experiment more with the full capabilities of a phone rather than using just a few services (Inyang et al., 2010). Just as in the adult population, mobile ownership is becoming increasingly common in children (Davie et al., 2004), so the same issues associated with replacing a mobile phone already in use in the interests of standardization may well apply. Researchers working with children have a particular reason to consider providing a SIM card for participation (as in Shapiro et al. (2008)); a child’s SIM provides a direct method of contact that bypasses parental monitoring and control, and many parents may be concerned about providing their child’s direct contact details to the researcher.

    • Access and use of networked electronic devices for educational information management by undergraduates in South Africa

      2021, Handbook of Research on Records and Information Management Strategies for Enhanced Knowledge Coordination
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Ronald Davie, Ph.D. is a visiting professor in child psychology at the University of Gloucestershire.

    View full text