Turned off: the impact of the mobile internet on strong ties

26/04/2010 KirstenD 31 comments

Introduction

Over the next decade and beyond, internet users will be increasingly likely to use portable devices such as mobile phones to connect to the internet. Indeed, experts contributing to the 2008 Pew/Internet report concluded that by 2020 mobile devices will be the primary way that most people connect to the internet (Anderson and Rainie, 2008). Web-friendly smart phones and new devices such as the iPad tablet are also making it much easier to access the mobile internet. Coupled with this, mobile internet devices are increasingly becoming part of our identity – they are a tool for staying in touch with family and friends, and also a valued device for finding and sharing information, often with large networks. What then, are some of the likely social implications arising from people increasingly having a take-anywhere, always-on, internet connection?

This paper argues that certain features of mobile communication devices diminish the strength of ‘strong interpersonal ties’, as outlined by Granovetter (1973). In particular, the paper suggests that the mobile internet weakens the strength of ties for people with whom we regularly have face‑to-face contact, such as close friends and family. For the purposes of this paper, the ‘mobile internet’ includes using mobile phones and laptops with wi-fi connection to access email, send instant messages, browse websites, and use social network and micro blogging tools such as Facebook and Twitter.

The paper focuses on face-to-face interactions because there appear to be characteristics of mobile devices that particularly impact on those who are co-present with mobile users. Indeed, the paper suggests that a ubiquitous mobile internet is likely to diminish the strength of our face-to-face relationships; because time spent using the mobile internet is likely to help us cultivate networks of weak ties, at the expense of strong ties with those who are co-present.

Lessons from mobile phone use

To begin, we will consider features of mobile phones that are relevant to our use of the mobile internet. Perhaps the most important feature is that mobile phones allow us to be in ‘perpetual contact’ (Katz and Aakhus, 2002). Mobile phones allow people to be permanently contactable at almost any time or place, whether at work, at home, or in a public place. As a consequence, one impact of mobile connectivity has been to blur distinctions between the private and public spheres of people’s lives. For example, Prasopoulou, Pouloudi and Panteli (2006) found that the intrusive character of mobile phones led to a blending of work and private time. This finding is supported by Middleton and Cukier (2006) and Castells (2007), who noted that mobile technologies make it difficult for some to maintain boundaries between their work and private lives.

Prasopoulou, Pouloudi and Panteli (2006) particularly focused on how mobile phones impact on our ability to determine how we spend our time. They found that mobile phones ‘upset the temporal order’ because contact is more random, which prevents people from placing definite ‘temporal boundaries’ around their activities (Prasopoulou, Pouloudi and Panteli, 2006, 280).

The same observation can be made for use of the mobile internet more generally. That is, when we have mobile access to email, social networking and micro blogging applications, we make ourselves continually available and by doing so – consciously or inadvertently – give up some control on how we use our time. For example, mobile internet connectivity leads employers to expect employees to deliver a wider range of mobile tasks, beyond making phone calls and answering emails.

Mobile phones also impact on our use of public and private space, with various studies reporting on how use of mobile phones can disrupt public spaces. For example, Plant (2001) reported that the need to answer a ringing mobile phone was a distraction that often took precedence over maintaining face-to-face conversation. Interestingly, Plant found that even a silent mobile could be a distraction, because of the possibility that someone may call. This supports the observations noted above by Prasopoulou et al regarding the loss of control over our time. Plant also found that the mobile phone could have a disempowering effect on those co-present with a mobile phone user, because of a ‘… risk that people who are present at the time will feel abandoned by the person who has answered the mobile, and in so doing has opted to be answerable to the device rather than to them’ (Plant, 2001, p. 31).

When in use, mobile devices are even more likely to distance people from those around them. For example, Fortunati (2002) found that mobile phone users paid limited attention to others around them during phone calls. Indeed, the intrusive impact of mobile devices on intimate spaces appears increasingly taken for granted. Gergen (2002) discusses this as a manifestation of ‘absent presence’ – where people are physically present with others, but have their attention diverted by other technologies such as mobile phones. While Gergen concluded that mobile phone use is likely to strengthen one-to-one relationships, and so diminish the problem of absent presence, he also considered that expanding the functionality of mobiles to include internet access would heighten the problem of absent presence:

We can anticipate the development of a cell phone that will function like a small computer, enabling access to the Internet and the world wide web. One will be able to exchange e-mail, listen to music, or read the latest zine. With this inevitable tendency towards expanding the functions of the instrument, absent presence of the exogenous variety will only be intensified. (Gergen, 2002, p. 240)

This suggests that some positive aspects of mobile devices that may enhance strong ties (such as voice calls) could be offset by increasing use of internet applications that favour one-to-many communication, such as microblogging and social networking tools.

In addition to accessing the internet, today’s mobile devices typically have a range of other functions, including playing games and listening to music. These functions can also have an impact on our relationships with those around us. For example, Ito, Okabe and Anderson (2009) engaged in a broader study of the impact of mobile devices, including media players, in public spaces. They found that mobile media can have a ‘cocooning effect’ that allows users to personalise public space but also allows them to refrain from engaging with others around them.

Almost all of our research participants carried around devices and media that were meant to create a cocoon that sheltered them from engagement with the physical location and co-present others – a private territory within the confines of urban space. Mobile phones can function as a cocooning technology, such as when people send text messages or browse the web when they are alone in places like trains and cafes. Portable media devices of various kinds, however, are more emblematic of this kind of social function in that they are explicitly carried to provide a focus of attention that shelters an individual from local social and spatial interactions. (Ito, Okabe and Anderson, 2009, p. 74).

This broader study by Ito, Okabe and Anderson is particularly relevant because devices for connecting to the mobile internet typically combine features of mobile phones and other media players. Thus, the observation that these types of technology help people to disengage socially in public places should also be an expected feature of the mobile internet. While some of this behaviour may be contextual – for example, as a way of passing time while commuting on a train or waiting in line – mobile devices are nevertheless an aid to ‘privatising’ public space. Indeed, one possibility could be that as these devices are becoming more ubiquitous, such ‘anti-social’ uses are becoming increasingly accepted as normal.

Ling (2004) also found that mobile phone use may lead to people withdrawing from the public sphere – not necessarily completely, but often to be ‘minimally social’. Ling also observed that mobile devices can create ‘virtual walled communities’, where people place great importance on the needs of mobile phone groups, often at the expense of others so that ‘… the parochial concerns of the group can be magnified and thus played out with more intensity than otherwise. At the same time, we become unavailable to those who are copresent’ (Ling, 2004, p. 190).

While use of mobile email or browsing is not disruptive in the same way as a ringing phone, its use can nevertheless shut off people from those around them. Indeed, the silent nature of mobile browsers can provide an advantage to those seeking to withdraw socially from those around them, because they can appear to remain in social contact while disengaging from social interaction.

Non-voice uses of mobile phones can shed light on possible implications of the mobile internet. For example, Middleton and Cukier (2006) studied the use of mobile email and identified a number of dysfunctional usage patterns. These included anti-social behaviour – ‘… almost everyone reported attending meetings where others were more engaged with their devices than with those in the meeting room … ’ – and distraction caused by frequent interruptions from buzzing devices (Middleton and Cukier, 2006, p. 255). As noted above, Middleton and Cukier also found that mobile email use infringes on the ability to maintain work-life boundaries.

Middleton and Cukier also observed that users typically rationalised behaviour that might otherwise appear dysfunctional. They concluded that this is likely because ‘connectedness’ is seen to be an asset that is encouraged in a competitive business environment. Similarly, permanent availability also appears to be increasingly valued among regular users of social networking websites.

One illustration of ‘always on’ behaviour is given in an interview with Evan Falchuk, President and COO of Best Doctors, on the role of technology in achieving a work-life balance:

… It’s important to us that we spend a lot of time together as a family and also just the two of us. Technology has done a lot to make that possible. There’s a ton I can do outside of the office with technology. So while I’m taking the kids and the dog to the park, I can be Tweeting with other healthcare bloggers, poking fun at friends on Facebook, and checking out new articles and blog posts on my RSS reader… (Evan Falchuk, quoted in Silver, 2009.)

Setting aside value judgments on notions of work-life balance, the foregoing illustrates a possible change in the character of relationships with our strong ties. That is, expectations of increased connectivity may lead us to pay less attention to face-to-face contact, so that we can devote more time to our networks of weak ties.

Stone (2009) uses the term ‘continuous partial attention’ to describe such behaviour, where people are engaged in one task, but also continuously ‘… scanning the periphery to see if we are missing other opportunities’. Stone suggests that this desire to ensure that we do not ‘miss out on anything’ is likely to lead to increased stress. Access to mobile internet devices would appear to contribute to such stress, by allowing people to stay in touch with networks and to find information wherever they go.

Interestingly, this is consistent with the findings of Kraut et al (2002), who found a positive relationship between internet use and increased stress. Kraut et al suggested that increased time spent on the internet may lead less time for other activities, which makes people ‘time poor’ and likely to perceive themselves as stressed.

People can, of course, place limits on when and how they use the mobile internet. For example, they can choose to turn off a mobile device, or ignore incoming messages or updated tweets. However, many have an instinctive reaction to respond to an email beep or ringing phone rather than to ignore it. In many contexts there is also an increasing expectation that people will always be available, and able to respond quickly. Ito (2005) found that these norms exist in Japan, reporting that there was a strong social expectation to respond to messages within around 30 minutes. Middleton and Cukier (2006) also noted expectations of faster response times and availability for mobile email.

Studies of internet use and personal ties

As noted above, it is increasingly difficult to separate use of mobile phones from the internet. For example, both personal computers (PCs) and mobile devices are increasingly used to send emails. Ling and Stald (2010) examined the impact of different types of mobile and PC-based contact on the ‘intimate sphere’ (a term with a meaning similar to strong interpersonal ties). They found that face-to-face contact had the strongest impact in maintaining these relationships, as did the use of mobile phone for voice calls. However, they also found that internet-based contact typically associated with PCs, such as email and instant messaging, detracted from maintaining the intimate sphere. Ling and Stald speculated that one reason for this is that, when using email and instant messaging:

… we are in contact with a much broader circle of weaker ties; however, the price that we pay for this broader contact is a more limited focus on our immediate sphere of friends and family. (Ling and Stald, 2010, p. 1142.)

These findings appear to counter views that increased mobile internet connectivity is per se beneficial because it allows people to communicate more (Miyata, Wellman and Boase, 2005; Wellman and Hogan, 2004). In particular, such views appear to suggest that we see increased personal contact of any type as a good thing, without distinguishing between the ‘quality’ of different types of contact. Contrary to this, the analysis by Ling and Stald indicates that certain contact, such as a face-to-face meeting, plays a greater role in strengthening social ties than certain types of internet-based contact.

The Ling and Stald findings also reflect the dystopian view of Nie, Hillygus and Erbring (2002) on the impact of the internet on face-to-face social interactions. Nie, Hillygus and Erbring found support for ‘displacement’ approach to internet use – that is, that internet use competes with face-to-face social time. In particular, they concluded that internet use is strongly related to decreased time spent with friends and family when used at home, and when used on weekends.

Similarly, Kraut et al (1998) found that greater internet use displaced strong ties, particularly relationships with household family members, with ‘weak tie’ social relationships. While some of these findings were later revisited (Kraut et al, 2002), they still concluded that the tie strength of on-line relationships was generally weaker than off-line relationships. This supports the view that time spent on mobile devices that strengthens weak ties may be at the expense of face-to-face strong ties.

Although it is not possible to conclude that the mobile internet will be used in the same manner as the ‘traditional’ PC-based internet, these studies are nevertheless relevant because they raise questions about the implications for society of a trend to increased internet connectivity for society.

Conclusion

This paper has identified a number of implications from the use of mobile communication devices, in particular those arising from permanent connectivity. It suggests that a culture of always being connected can blur the distinction between work and private time, and lead to increased stress and a loss of control over how we spend our time. Further, the use of mobile devices provides people with a shelter from engaging with others, particularly in public places. In addition, certain uses of mobile devices (such as email and messaging) appear to displace face-to-face contact. Together, this suggests that a trend to increasing mobile connectivity is likely to diminish ‘strong tie’ face-to-face relationships in our society.

References

Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2008). The Future of the Internet III. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pew/Internet. Retrieved 1 April 2010 from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_FutureInternet3.pdf.pdf

Castells, M. (2007). Mobile communication and society: a global perspective. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Fortunati, L. (2002). Italy: stereotypes, true and false. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gergen, K. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 227-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Retrieved 1 April 2010 from http://www.itu.dk/courses/DDKU/E2007/artikler/Granovetter-%20Weak%20Ties.pdf

Ito, M. (2005). Mobile phones, Japanese youth, and the re-placement of social contact. In R. S. LIng (Ed.), Mobile communications: re-negotiation of the social sphere. London: Springer-Verlag.

Ito, M., Okabe, D., & Anderson, K. (2009). Portable objects in three global cities: the personalization of urban places. In R. Ling, R. S. Ling, & S. W. Campbell (Eds.), The reconstruction of space and time: mobile communication practices. London: Transaction Publishers.

Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. (Eds.). (2002). Perpetual contact: mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.

Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (n.d.). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49-74.

Ling, R. S. (2004). The mobile connection: the cell phone’s impact on society. San Fransisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Ling, R., & Stald, G. (2010). Mobile Communities: Are We Talking About a Village, a Clan, or a Small Group? The American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1133-1147.

Middleton, C. A., & Cukier, W. (2006). Is mobile email functional or dysfunctional? Two perspectives on mobile email usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 252-260.

Miyata, K., Wellman, B., & Boase, J. (2005). The wired – and wireless – Japanese: webphones, PCs and social networks. In R. S. Ling (Ed.), Mobile communications: re-negotiation of the social sphere. London: Springer-Verlag.

Nie, N. H., Hillygus, D. S., & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet use, interpersonal relations, and sociability: a time diary study. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The internet in everyday life (pp. 215-243). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Plant, S. (2001). On the mobile: the effect of mobile telephones in social and individual life. Retrieved 1 April 2010 from http://www.motorola.com/mot/doc/0/234_MotDoc.pdf

Prasopoulou, E., Pouloudi, A., & Panteli, N. (2006). Enacting new temporal boundaries: the role of mobile phones. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 277-284.

Silver, C. (2009). Social media & family: finding the balance. WIRED – GeekDad: raising geek generation 2.0. 27 August 2009. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/08/social-media-family-finding-the-balance/

Stone, L. (2009). Beyond simple multi-tasking: continuous partial attention. The Attention Project. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://lindastone.net/2009/11/30/beyond-simple-multi-tasking-continuous-partial-attention/

Wellman, B., & Hogan, B. (2004). The immanent internet. In J. McKay (Ed.), Netting Citizens. St Andrews, Scotland: University of St Andrews Press.

Identity in Communities and Networks face-to-face relationships, iPhone, mobile internet, mobile phone, perpetual contact, relationships, strong ties, wireless

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by computer services jacksonville about 3 months ago. Reply

Nice post. I learn something more challenging on different blogs everyday. Thanks for sharing.
Written by Richie_M about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Kirsten, excellent paper.
I found myself agreeing with many of your views and analysing my habits, and admittedly,I too fall into the habit of much of this anti-social behaviour by way of being overly aware of my mobile phone at the expense of face-to-face social interaction.
I agree with you that mobile phones due to their ability to keep people connected at all times can upset the temporal order, making it difficult to keep boundaries between the various aspects of their lives, such as work and leisure.
I am intrigued by the suggestion by Kraut,et al.(2002) that increased time spent on the internet may lead to less time for other activities, which makes people ‘time poor’ and likely to perceive themselves as stressed.
It is a very interesting thought, and one that I do agree with to an extent, however, I could not help but wonder, with people that thrive on online communication, such as extroverts, and feel rewarded by their participations online, could this communication also not be a form of stress relief and another way for them to interact and therefore fulfil their need for attention and social validity? What do you think?
Written by Scott Mackenzie about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Kirsten,

What a fantastic read. Very well thought out and presented. I have never really looked at the issues of one-to-one vs one-to-many when considering a mobile device. I have certainly seen it often enough as I have a fairly technically minded group of personal friends.

I especially liked the information regarding the always on nature of mobile devices and the blurring between work and private time.

Regarding your discussion on people using mobile devices to turn a public space into a private space, it reminded me of an article by Dan Laughey titled “Music Media in Young Peoples Everyday Lives” who discusses using personal stereos “as a Goffmanian ‘involvement shield’ in public interactions” (Laughey, 2007, p.175).

Thanks for the good read, and thought provoking paper.
Scott

Laughey, D. (2007) Music Media in Young Peoples Everyday Lives, in Sexton, J. (Ed). (2007) Music, sound and multimedia: from the live to the virtual. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Written by FransiscaMS about 2 years ago. Reply

“the use of mobile communication devices – can blur the distinction between work and private time, and lead to increased stress and a loss of control over how we spend our time”

Totally true, even it’s not my own experience but I knew lots of people go through it, including my own sister. She can’t life without her phone, and never turn it off, 24 hours access?

Apparently we could spend our time rather than using the mobile devices all the time, it is true that the technology has provides easy ways in our everyday lives, but yes we should not depends on it much. Rather than communicate though devices only, it’s better to meet face to face, well not all the time but still we need to interact physically instead of using mobile communications.
Written by Amy Bear about 2 years ago. Reply

It’s curious how, being frequently connected-by-mobile-phone, I feel compelled to argue the value of that connectivity even as I agree with everything you’ve discussed. I’m sure I’m not alone in wanting to ‘defend’ my habits with the supposition that I must reflect a social norm, therefore what I do is perfectly acceptable, but it’s not a rational argument. I’d like to think I wouldn’t jump off a cliff it was suddenly the ‘in thing’.

However, I did find myself frequently asking myself, and hoping you might answer, ‘why are people turning to weak ties in such digital droves?’ I think there are a lot of potential answers to that question in various discussion papers, and it’s likely it isn’t quite on-topic for what you’ve discussed here yourself, but let me ask you anyway: Do you think there’s a reason people are turning to, and apparently preferring, these weaker ties online? Is it possible that weak ties can benefit some individuals more so than strong, face-to-face ties? And if so, does that then make those weak ties ’strong’ instead?

Great read, btw.
Written by matthewh about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Kristen,

I found the increase in people using internet technologies via mobile devices very interesting in you paper, though I am not sure that in regards to the immediate social interaction that I agree it will actually decrease the sociability of most users with the people around them compared to current mobile phone use as I feel that with it being a less immediate technology than voice calls, people will learn to wait until they can excuse themselves from the current social situation.

Matthew
Written by JoG about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Kirsten, I enjoyed reading your paper. You covered a number of interesting and well researched aspects relating to the impact of mobile devices on face to face communication.

I agree that mobile device usage can draw attention away from giving full attention from the present moment. As noted by Stone (2009), this continuous partial attention can lead to increased cognitive and emotional demands and increase stress. In treating stress and anxiety, the psychological approach is now to teach the client mindfulness (the ability to fully attend to one thing at a time). Studies in this area have shown that people are more productive and less stressed when they are able to maintain this type of attention (e.g., Hede, 2010). The increased availability of a mobile device (whether it is for work or recreation) does limit a person’s ability to be in the moment and to fully engage with an activity or with other people. Comments made by others on this page are good examples of this type of partial engagement.

Although I do agree that engagement with mobile devices can distract from face to face interactions and promote an absent presence (Gergen, 2002), I don’t think that time spent on mobile devices is simply displacing strong ties with weak ties. Although I wouldn’t like someone using a mobile device while talking to me, I think that there is generally a greater tolerance for people’s use of mobile devices in social interactions, particularly for those who have grown up with these technologies. People appear to be adept at juggling their use of strong and weak ties depending on their needs and it is hoped that if using mobile devices negatively impacted on strong ties that adjustments would be made. Distracting technology has been available for a long time, just think of television and the beliefs about how it would impact on communication within the family. Somehow we seem to adjust to these technologies and manage to maintain our strong ties.

Thanks again for the enjoyable read,
Jo

Gergen, K. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 227-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hede, A. (2010). The dynamics of mindfulness in managing emotions and stress. Journal of Management Development, 29(1), 94-110.

Stone, L. (2009). Beyond simple multi-tasking: continuous partial attention. The Attention Project. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://lindastone.net/2009/11/30/beyond-simple-multi-tasking-continuous-partial-attention/
- Written by KirstenD about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thanks Jo – I must say, I felt like I needed a reality check at times when I was writing this paper – after all, as you suggested, people made similarly catastrophic claims about the impact of television on relationships.
  
  However, I’d argue that mobile devices have a much stronger tendency to promote absent presence, because their use is generally at a more individual level. Television, in contrast, is something that can be shared – someone who enters a room to find a person’s attention diverted by a TV is unlikely to feel as excluded compared to finding someone browsing on a phone, as they can opt to share in the TV experience.
  
  My qualification to this argument, however, is that some features of mobile phones (such as wireless games) appear to enhance face-to-face interaction, and are specifically designed to provide opportunities for others to join in. My paper didn’t really touch on these applications, largely because there appears to be very little research in this area. I’d suggest that these features are likely to enhance face-to-face relationships, albeit for a relatively small subset of mobile internet use.
  - Written by JoG about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Hi Kirsten,
    
    I do admit the television comparison was a little simplistic and that television does provide an opportunity to engage more than one person at a time. I still do think, however, that we make adjustments to whatever new technology is introduced and assimilate it into our overall interactions. People’s use of mobile devices can be seen as either a separate means of communication (to the detriment of face to face communication) or as another form of solitary entertainment in shared physical space. As a form of entertainment using a mobile device is no different to other solitary pursuits that can’t be shared (e.g. reading a book – hope this analogy works!). I think that a person’s ability to disengage from their activity and reengage with their environment will depend more on their personality characteristics than the device itself.
    
    Thanks again for the interesting paper and your following up comments,
    Jo
Written by ted mitew about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Kirsten, I must say this is a very thought-provoking paper. I am thinking aloud, but perhaps we are looking at the ‘cocooning effect’ phenomenon from the wrong perspective? Could it be that what we are witnessing is not the erosion of the public-private distinction (as much as it existed), or the weakening of strong ties, but their complete substitution by a much more stratified time-space brought about by multi-layered connectivity?

For example, ‘traditional’ social context dictates that when we are engaged in a social interaction we are fully and irrevocably within the space-time of that interaction. In a traditional pre-internet setting – say you are sitting in a restaurant having dinner with friends – you are not only physically present, you are also ‘communicatively’ rooted too. As an entity you are singularly present in that one spot in space-time.

Now, when you add a mobile mediation device to that setting you completely rearrange the space-time. One, now you are not rooted but to the contrary – amplified; you are present in a potentially infinite number of other places. Two, this amplification is multimodal – depending on the time of day (another vector) you occupy that setting in many of your modes (employee, partner, friend, acquaintance, etc) and all of them are potentially active.

From being accustomed to the smooth transitions between different (linear) spatio-temporal contexts we are now dealing with having to exist in (discrete) simultaneous contexts. In effect we become what Jean-Luc Nancy calls ‘being singular-plural’.
- Written by KirstenD about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thanks Ted for the interesting ideas – I think it shows what a potentially diabolical (or enabling) impact mobile internet devices can have, because they combine features of the phone (which has spatial effects) and the internet (with both spatial and temporal effects).
  
  This has been an interesting topic to look at, in part because research into the impact of mobile devices such as smart phones is relatively new. We’ve seen the iPhone have a significant impact on the demand for and use of smart phones, and I’m fascinated to see what effect tablets such as the iPad will have. I think that ubiquitous use of these devices will increase expectations that we’re available to simultaneously occupy multiple spaces, and to engage in multiple conversations – i.e. it will further blur the spatial and temporal boundaries that we’re accustomed to.
Written by Clyde A about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Kirsten,
Good article on a topic that so close to our hearts. I can’t say I was surprised to read many of your findings as we continue to witness daily the unsocial retreat from public spaces by people using mobile devices. I’m not sure I agree with the findings of Ito et al (2009), that they are explicitly carried to provide a focus of attention that shelters an individual from local social and spatial interactions (Ito, et al, 2009), but I agree these devices are often used to shelter the individual from local, social and spatial interactions.
What I did find surprising was the correlation between internet use and stress, as I had not previously made the connection, but it does sound quite plausible.
Thanks for a good read.
Cheers, Clyde
Written by laurap about 2 years ago. Reply

Kirsten, great work, very relevant topic. I am finding in my social circles people find it appropriate to “disengage” from conversation and check irrelevant things on their mobile devices. Often they are not even checking texts or messages, just browsing!

It’s quite a rebuke to be engaged in conversation and see someone stop listening, take out their phone and then make “mm hm” noises in your direction as if they are really still listening, sometimes even turning around the device to show you something as if its more important than your company/conversation. I am known for ignoring my phone when I’m doing more important things, I wish more people did the same.

Personally I do not blame the device but social codes that have apparently developed making this acceptable behaviour, what do you think?
Written by jhiroberts about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Kristen,

Being someone who has a partner who is constantly on their blackberry, I really enjoyed reading your paper. There is nothing worse than being woken up at 2 AM from the sound of someone sending a work email.

Your paper makes some very important points in regards to how the lines are now being blurred between the work / home life, with many companies expecting employee’s being contactable 24 hours a day.

Its also interesting to note that 5 years ago, it was considered bad form to have your mobile phone on in a meeting, these days it common place to have everyone on there phones texting or sending emails. I hope this is not the way of the future as I for one find it extremely rude.

I great paper, I really enjoyed reading it

Cheers

Jhi
Written by TrinaW about 2 years ago. Reply

I have very mixed views on this subject. Your paper is very well argued and certainly brings up some pertinent points but I do not entirely agree with the conclusion that the mobile internet is the cause of diminishing strong-tie relationships.

My nearest family lives approx 1200 kms away from me and I would have a much weaker relationship with them if we did not have access to mobile technology. Instead of missing out on most of my nieces and nephews younger years (I only get to see them every few years. Kids grow so fast!) I get weekly and sometimes daily updates on what is happening in their lives and they know me a lot better than I knew my aunts and uncles who lived far away. And with video phones looking likely to become a lot more standard in the next 10 years my relationship with those I love who live far away will become even stronger.

I can certainly see your point of view regarding the blurring of private/business life, the cocooning affect mobile devices have and that some people are more interested in their devices than the people around them. However all of these things also happened prior to mobile internet being available though in some cases (especially the blurring of private/business) the behaviour is now more prevalent.

You made the point that people cocoon themselves in a private sphere whilst in public spaces or in lectures/meetings. I am guilty of this when out on my own but I don’t use a mobile device I use a book and I am not the only one out there (newspapers are very popular still). People now use mobile phones to text/read emails in meetings/lectures again ( I am showing my age) I remember people passing notes, doodling, or reading magazines which shows the same behaviours happened prior to the mobile internet. With mobile devices it is now just less obvious as the devices are smaller.

The most concerning thing to me about the use of mobile internet is that, as you have pointed out, it is becoming more socially acceptable to display what I personally consider to be bad behaviour. I believe that it is this social acceptance of what would once have been called rudeness that is more damaging to forming strong relationships than the fact that mobile internet devices are the means people are using to display what I consider bad behaviour. I cannot see myself forming strong ties with anyone who indicates that I am not important enough to pay attention to and this applies equally strongly to someone who ignores me to watch the blonde with the nice rack walk past as it does to the person who ignores me to answer their mobile phone when in I am in a serious conversation with them.

I believe that it is our own behaviour and our acceptance of other people’s behaviours that affects our relationships not what devices we use.
- Written by KirstenD about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thanks Trina.
  
  I certainly agree with your point about the ability of the mobile internet to maintain long-distance strong ties. This effect has been cited in various studies, for example, see Wellman et al (2003). However, my argument is that the mobile internet is detrimental to our face-to-face relationships. A key assumption, that has been contested elsewhere – such as by Franzen (2000) – is that mobile internet use displaces face-to-face communication, rather than being complementary or supplemental. My argument is that the always-on, pervasive nature of the mobile internet is changing the character of these relationships.
  
  I also agree with you that other media such as books can have a cocooning effect (and I’m all for it!). However, we have different social norms about their use. For example, in most cases it would be considered rude to read a book at the dinner table, but that doesn’t seem to apply to mobile devices. This observation has also been reflected in various other comments below. It would be fascinating to study why different norms have emerged – perhaps it’s because books are an old technology and we’ve had time to set social rules, while smartphones are still relatively new?
  
  REFERENCES
  
  Franzen, A. (2000). Does the Internet make us lonely? European Sociological Review, 16, 427-438.
  
  Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., de Diaz, I. I., & Miyata, K. (2003). The social affordances of the internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/wellman.html#s4
  - Written by TrinaW about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Thanks for the cites Kirsten. My main bugbear with mobile use is the changing social norms of the use of the devices not the devices themselves. As you have said maybe these norms will even out and become something I consider more acceptable as they become more integrated into our lives rather than being the new ‘toy’ we don’t want to put down.
Written by Camwhipp about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Kerstin,

Good work on picking an important area of internet use. As we become more mobile, our use of the internet will expand to include those things you talked about – smart phones and wi fi access to stay constantly in touch or able to access information.

IN terms of the impact of this on strong ties, I agree with you when you say it could diminish them through blurring work-private time and replacing face to face contact. Though what happens when our devices and access speed become so fast and we are presented with incredibly user friendly video voice conferencing? I see great potential in this area, and this may function to strengthen strong ties and create many more weak ties as internet users offer their face up to the online realm to be seen and heard in real time. Users will be able to offer help to one another and in turn possibly create many new ties and friendships.

Cam
Written by Emily about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Kirsten, thanks for a great read. You have a strong, consistent argument and it’s hard to disagree with your view that our increasing network of weak ties is damaging the value of our existing strong ties. I think we have all experienced the prevalence of ‘absent presence’ – I’ve particularly noticed that when conversation lapses, people often get out their mobile phone, presumably because it is an easy way to relieve the social awkwardness of having nothing to say.

The research on this topic mainly concerns the impact that the use of mobile devices or the internet in general have on face-to-face relationships. But what about those ’strong ties’ that largely exist over the internet? Not all internet-facilitated relationships can be classed as weak ties. For example, my older brother lives in Seattle and thus all my contact with him is electronically mediated. Or, say that you were in a long-distance relationship: if you were sitting in a study group of people you only see because they are part of your group assignment, and your partner called you on your mobile, would answering it really be at the expense of your strong ties?

What you said about internet users not wanting to ‘miss out on anything’ also resonated with me – I’ve recently been trying to shake my habit of frequently checking Facebook to make sure I don’t miss an update. Somewhat ironically, if I hadn’t refrained from Facebooking yesterday, I wouldn’t have forgotten my father’s birthday However, I still think that being constantly online is not a positive thing, because it leads to the expectation that you are always available, as you mentioned.
Written by KayeE about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Kirsten,

Great paper – I really enjoyed reading it and it left me feeling a bit concerned about the future with this ‘always connected’ mentality. I too like others have been in meetings or talking to people where they have been more interested in their mobile device than with me – not a very nice feeling.

I especially related to this quote, “we are in contact with a much broader circle of weaker ties; however, the price that we pay for this broader contact is a more limited focus on our immediate sphere of friends and family” (Ling and Stald, 2010, p. 1142). Some would argue that this is not true – that mobile devices and the Internet connection strengthen face to face ties. Wellman, Quan Haase, Witte & Hampton in their research argue that online communication supplements our face to face relationships.

I would agree with Paula that some sort of personal moderation is required – especially when it comes to family life. When my children were younger we found that television, computers and electronic games impeded so much on our family life that we instigated two family traditions. Number one was that we would eat together every night as a family around the table and no phone calls or interruptions were allowed. Number two we commenced a ‘technology free’ night – where we did not use the television, mobile phones, computers, gaming consoles etc. We would play board games or talk or go for a walk! Worked for us!

Ling, R., & Stald, G. (2010). Mobile Communities: Are We Talking About a Village, a Clan, or a Small Group? American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1133-1147.

Wellman, B., Quan Haase, A., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet Increase, Decrease,
or Supplement Social Capital?: Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment.
American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436-455.
- Written by KirstenD about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi – thanks very much for the feedback and I definitely agree on the need to be more activist in controlling how technology impacts on our lives.
  
  One key theme from my reading, however, is that people’s expectations about our availability and connectedness are also changing – so much so that turning off a smart phone or having a ‘no internet’ might be seen as abnormal.
  
  I also think that the mobile internet is changing our social norms – I was out at dinner recently and a man at the table next to me was playing with his phone while his friends chatted. If he’d been talking on the phone he probably would have been asked to turn it off or go outside, but because the mobile internet is mostly silent, it seems to be more accepted, and so does seem to have a stronger ‘cocooning’ effect.
Written by PaulaB about 2 years ago. Reply

Kirsten
I found your paper interesting and it provided me with some knowledge for various topic areas.

For example mentioned‘cocooning effect’. It is true you can see people in those effects when fiddling with their gadgets, instead being with ‘real’ people in room and communicate.

Also we all been in situation when someone’s phone rings and that person will take over our presence in communication – not good feeling when we made the appointment well ahead or reserved time for that person to talk.

another one your paper describes ‘continuous partical attention’ not to miss on anything. Suppose more communication tools generates more communication. I believe that particular character of e.g. perfectionist may get high stress from not being able to answer to all communication tools within expected time..

I believe in everything in moderation including using the internet, phones etc. But in this 21st century it is not always easy to find a right balance and we may neglect our basic function communicating face-to-face.

cheers
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply

Excellent paper, very well argued with much supporting evidence. You certainly did go the literature search well and you explained the literature well.

I am in agreement with your arguement. One thing I notice that amuses me is, though I am not a Gen Y, at concerts and festivals I go to people have paid large sums of money to watch bands and DJ’s that do not come to Australia much. I have seen during large acts people on phones talking, texting and even playing games. This suggests something which I am yet to understand but the disconnection from the significance of the event is staggering. Would someone do that during a job interview?

I also agree with Middleton and Cukier (2006) and I think it highlights a contradiction that is in business but I believe in social and personal life, that connectedness is important yet the device’s use coocoons and alienates. It is like the device has become part of the person and the body. We are always there for anyone with the phone we carry yet we are not physically there for the people we are with.

It may not have a phone, not sure, but it will be interesting to see what the ITablet does in terms of being present but not there.

Middleton, C. A., & Cukier, W. (2006). Is mobile email functional or dysfunctional? Two perspectives on mobile email usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 252-260.
- Written by KirstenD about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Michael, this may be a bit of a tangent, but your comment reminded me of news reports on President Obama’s recent surprise visit to US troops at Bagram air base in Afghanistan – while the soldiers were being addressed by the President, nearly all were holding up their camera phones. It made me wonder whether they were appreciating ‘the moment’ or were more interested in capturing it to share with their networks?
  
  One report here – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8591866.stm
  - Written by Louise about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    This is definitely something I see regularly at music concerts. People are so focused on getting a video of their favourite song so they can upload it on Youtube or a photo for Facebook that they spend more time seeing a band through a pixelated screen and forget to dance or enjoy the event.
    
    This issue links in with the issue of creating an online identity that some other papers have talked about. I really like the Ling and Stald quote about creating a broad circle of friends but losing our closest ties. I can think of several Saturday nights when people have been more interested in making Facebook updates about how much fun they are having than actually instigating this fun or SMSing friends to join the party rather than socialising with the people already present. I think your use of the word, disempowering is very appropriate in these types of situations.
    - Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply
      
      That is right Louise about this obsession to capture a concert moment or any moment purely for Facebook and YouTube or any SNS or platform. It is not wrong, we have had in the past scrapbooks, photos etc, just when it overtakes a person at the concert I do not understand. Then again I do not understand why pay large sums of money to get drunk at festivals and things, but maybe that is, or it is, an age thing with me.
      
      But I wanted to take you up on your second point as it seems I have not been the only one noticing this trend about close ties. I have noticed over the past decade in interactions more than a handful of people preferring to sit in chat rooms and do SNS rather than go out. I do not think this spells the end of human interaction, but it is a trend that is somewhat concerning. In terms of meeting people in one way online is good for the shy, but I still think in some ways it is disempowering. But then again all this is is change and people in these streams have critically written about these issues, positive and negative, so it has been great to read.
  - Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Agree, yes it has been a practice when someone or something happens cameras would always go off, but one cannot help but think of the citizen journalist concept where everyone just wants to get photos to upload to Facebook; capture the moment but not enjoy it. With all the photos and videos on the internet I tend not to bother but I cannot say I have never taken a snap with my camera phone of something exciting at an event.
- Written by alan_beazley about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Great paper Kirsten and an excellent observation Michael – regarding the use of mobile devices in public spaces. I was recently at an event a few weeks ago, watching an international hip-hop act and was in utter awe at the amount of people not only using their mobile phone devices as a camera but in turn, posting the pictures directly to Twitter via Twitpic or Facebook. My partner and a person from the next group were also guilty of doing this. Right or wrong, this simple process in conjunction with the broadband speeds of 3G mobile meant that this could be done very quickly and did not seem to cause much distraction amongst the party goes. I actually see it as a positive thing and love the idea of connections overseas being able to share in nearly ‘real-time’ not only a text status update but a picture to follow suit. From a business point of view I also see the advantages of having rapid access to my emails and information, remember we are responsible and have the choice to either view it or not and a online mobile source should not be seen as a hindrance but an information facilitator .
  - Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Yes see your observation of behaviour is spot on Alan, I do not have a problem with it as people are not there to snap my photo, but I really do feel why is there this need in society to compete to upload etc. No it is not wrong but I just feel it is a waste of time, in fact they are doing the job for me LOL and I am getting the video and pictures. Again it could be an age thing, when I was younger I had scrapbooks and collected every bit, but it would be interesting to see if this is part of the influence of SNS. I am sure some study will be around to test this.
Written by Chris Johnson about 2 years ago. Reply

Kirsten
As you maybe aware I took a different approach to mobile Internet use with my paper. http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/apple%E2%80%99s-internet-my-iphone-is-killing-the-internet/

However it been an issue for many years about mobile etiquette. Your approach of social detachment is interesting. It is frustrating when you dealing with someone and your interrupted because of a mobile phone. I can relate to you argument well.

I do certainly ignore my phone if I am doing something more important. However that is an exception to rule as you pointed out.

Well done

The Chriso
Written by Mandy Burke about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Kirsten,

Your paper was a very interesting read and I learnt a lot from it!

Before studying full time I worked in a number of commercial businesses where Blackberries were heavily relied upon. I found that at first people were hesitant to accept the device, as they knew their personal life would be on the line. But once they started using their Blackberry they became more accepting of it. But the change of the behaviour is almost instantaneous. Checking emails on the run and never being able to turn off are common aspects of Blackberry use. I have an Iphone for personal use and occasionally I sync my work email to my phone. I always regret when I do sync work emails as I literally never turn off, I constantly check what is happening.

As you discuss in your paper socially unacceptable behaviour patterns are now becoming acceptable as well. I have noticed that people always check their emails whilst in presentations or lectures. I remember when it was unacceptable to bring a mobile into a meeting room and the person definitely would not be browsing through their phone if they did bring it into a meeting! But this seems to be a common occurrence now.

The comments you make about turning your phone on silent but people still getting distracted about whether someone has called them made me laugh as I am definitely a culprit of doing this!

Thanks
Mandy