Smartphones in Media
The New York Times: Representation of the smartphone and the paper’s potential for normative influence of smartphone behavior
Hanna Meyer zu Hörste One-year Master Thesis, 15 Credits Media and Communication Studies Malmö Högskola, Spring 2017 Supervisor: Pille Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt
Source of picture: https://gclibrary.commons.gc.cuny.edu/files/2014/04/laptop-iphone-nyt.png Abstract
This thesis sets out to investigate the representation of smartphones by one of the biggest English daily newspapers of the world – the New York Times – and further sheds light on the potential influence the newspaper has on the norms of smartphone behavior. The research is conducted in two parts. For the first research question through a quantitative and the second research question a qualitative content analysis of New York Times articles about smartphones from the years 2007 and 2016. For the content analysis as well as the analysis of the results three different theoretical frameworks are applied: Stuart Hall’s (1997b) representation theory, McGuire’s (2001) media effect factors and social norms theory, mainly according to Cristina Bicchieri (2017). Since assumptions on the outcome of research question one exist on the grounds of previous research conducted in the field, two hypotheses were formed: H1 – In 2007 the coverage of smartphones will be mainly positive and focus on technological aspects. H2 – In 2016 the coverage will be more critical about the consequences of the pervasion and influence of the smartphone in society. The main findings of the thesis are, for research question one, a validation of the hypotheses through the quantitative content analysis and application of the representation theory through which a distinction in the representation of the smartphones denotation and connotation could be made. And for research question two, that the strongest potential of influence on norms of smartphone behavior lies in conveying and updating and thus sometimes changing of empirical and normative expectations together with further intertwined factors.
Keywords Smartphone, New York Times, social norms, representation, media effect factors,
2 Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 2 CONTEXT ...... 7
2.1 Smartphone ...... 7
2.2 New York Times ...... 10
3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 10
3.1 Stuart Hall’s theory of representation ...... 11 3.1.1 The constructionist approach ...... 12 3.1.2 Saussure’s concepts of linguistics ...... 13 3.1.3 Semiotic approach ...... 13
3.2 Media effect factors of McGuire ...... 15
3.3 Theories of social norms ...... 16 3.3.1 Social norms in social sciences ...... 17 3.3.2 Theory of norms according to Bicchieri ...... 18
4 LITERATURE REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...... 27
4.1 Smartphone in scientific research ...... 28 4.1.1 Ubiquity of the smartphone ...... 28 4.1.2 Benefits of smartphone use ...... 28 4.1.3 Negative effects of smartphone use ...... 29
4.2 Examples of applied social norms theory ...... 30
4.3 Media influence ...... 31
5 DATA AND METHODOLOGY ...... 31
5.1 Data ...... 32
5.2 Methodology ...... 35
5.3 Quality and Ethics ...... 36 5.3.1 Quality ...... 36 5.3.2 Ethics ...... 37
3 6 RESEARCH RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...... 37
6.1 Research questions I ...... 37 6.1.1 Results ...... 37 6.1.2 Analysis ...... 46
6.2. Research question II ...... 49
7 DISCUSSION ...... 59
7.1 Societal Implications ...... 59
7.2 Limitations and further research ...... 61
8 CONCLUSION ...... 62 REFERENCES ...... 65 APPENDIX ...... 74
4 1 Introduction A life without a smartphone seems hard to imagine anymore – at least for the so- called Millennials1 in developed countries. No other technology has shaped social life so extensively in the last 10 years. 1.5 billion smartphones were sold worldwide last year (Statista, 2016). The penetration rates are constantly rising and the saturation levels are almost reached in many countries if they aren’t already. In 2015 e.g. ownership rates in South Korea were reported to be at 88% (Poushter, 2016). In the USA the smartphone ownership more than doubled from 35% in 2011 to 77% in 2016 (Street et al., 2017). But how exactly does the now ubiquitous (Rainie and Zickuhr, 2015) smartphone influence our society? This question is not only of academic- but also of personal nature, since a change of habits in myself and my surrounding led me to conduct further research. In a previous work in this master’s program I started to study the use of smartphones during face-to-face conversations (Meyer zu Hörste, 2017), which I will use as a background for this thesis. During my research I came across many articles that critically question effects of intensive smartphone use. This spiked my interest in the media’s representation of the mobile device and their potential influence on norms around smartphone behavior. To narrow down the field of research I chose to focus on the USA, since it is a large country that adopts new technologies fast and early, and is the home of the iPhone and Android operating system. The New York Times (NYT) is one of the leading American newspapers with not only a large circulation both off and online, but a good reputation worldwide and hence is a valid source for a media content analysis (Wikipedia, 2017d). Thus my aim of this thesis is to explore the representation of smartphones by the NYT (RQ1) and the potential influence the newspaper has on the norms of smartphone behavior (RQ2). For the content analysis I chose to examine smartphone related NYT articles of the years of 2007 and 2016. Two years are analyzed to be able to compare differences in times and observe changes. 2007 was picked due to being defined as the starting point of the smartphone revolution (Friedman, 2016), and 2016 was chosen as it was the last full calendar year for study. The analysis will be conducted
1 people aged 18 to 35 (Geiger, 2017)
5 in two parts. For each research question I have a different approach: The first research question (RQ1) regarding the smartphone’s representation in the NYT, I will investigate with the help of a quantitative analysis. For the second research question (RQ2) I am going to perform a qualitative analysis to examine the potential impact of the NYT on norms of smartphone behavior. Through my previous work I have two different assumptions concerning the representation of smartphones (RQ1) in the chosen two years. Due to the fact that it was still a relatively new technology and exciting topic in 2007, I suspect the coverage to be mainly positive and focused on new devices and features. Whereas in 2016 the smartphone has already developed so far that it is not easy for the tech companies to enthuse people about new models and features. Nevertheless the influence of the medium in society reached so far that critical voices will probably dominate the coverage. Consequently I have two hypotheses that I will investigate while I am exploring how smartphones are represented (RQ1):
H1 – In 2007 the coverage of smartphones will be mainly positive and focus on technological aspects.
H2 – In 2016 the coverage will be more critical about the consequences of the pervasion and influence of the smartphone in society.
The second research question will be analyzed explorative and therefore without hypothesis. In the next chapter I will describe context of the smartphone by looking at development and important milestones of the device and further give background information on the NYT. Then I will walk you through different aspects of representation theory, McGuire’s media effect factors and theories of social norms. This framework will help me to unravel my research questions by providing a foundation for the content analysis. This will be followed by an overview of smartphone related research and a description of the procedure of my quantitative and qualitative analysis of the NYT articles. Subsequently I will present and analyze my research results through the lens of representation and social norms theory, media effect factors and previous research and discuss the meaning of my findings. This thesis then concludes with a summary of my work.
6 2 Context
2.1 Smartphone The word smartphone originates from the words smart and phone and refers to a telephone, enhanced with computer technology (Oxford Dictionaries | English). Today it is mostly defined as a mobile phone with Internet access and an operating system (OS) that can run applications (apps) and thereby functions like a mobile computer (Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionaries | English, Wikipedia, 2017c).
Figure 01: Simon Personal Communicator next to an iPhone 4 (Bloomberg.com, 2012)
The first phone that could have been called smartphone is the Simon Personal Communicator. IBM presented a prototype 1992 at a computer industry trade show and together with BellSouth Cellular started selling an improved version in 1994. The phone already had a touch screen, could access the Internet and featured software apps. (Savage, 1995; Bloomberg.com, 2012; Cellan-Jones, 2014; Wikipedia, 2017c) In 1996 Nokia released the Nokia 9000, which was a combination of mobile phone and at the time popular personal digital assistant (PDA). Further early smartphones were the pdQ Smartphone from Qualcomm (release 1999), the Ericsson R380 (release 2000), the Kyocera 6035 by Palm Inc. (release 2001), and the Treo 180 by Handspring (release 2002). With the releases of the Danger Hiptop also called the T-Mobile Sidekick, the first BlackBerry smartphones, further Palm
7 Treo phones2 and smartphones based on Microsoft’s Windows Mobile in the early 2000s, the smart devices started to gain popularity in the USA, at least among business users. With its launch of the Nseries in 2005, Nokia started to focus on multimedia and entertainment features and thereby turned to the general consumer market. (Wikipedia, 2017c) But it was the release of the Apple iPhone, the announcement of the Android operating system by Google and the Open Handset Alliance in 2007 that brought the change and the smartphone to the consumer. The first iPhone has often been called revolutionary because it changed the way people used their smartphones. It was a combination of the popular iPod with a smartphone, and also the first to have a big touchscreen. This screen was used directly with fingers instead of a stylus and could be operated with intuitive multi- touch gestures and the virtual keyboard. Apple also simplified many processes and focused on an appealing design. (Markoff, 2007a; Pogue, 2007; Wikipedia, 2017a) Android on the other hand is a free open-source project, created by Andy Rubin, acquired by Google and developed under the lead of Google by the Open Handset Alliance3. It was first used in an HTC phone4 released in 2008. (McCarty, 2011; Mallinson, 2015; Wikipedia, 2017b) Android now dominates the smartphone world with a OS market share worldwide of 87% in the third quarter of 2016 (www.idc.com). Further milestones in the smartphone history are the first time they outsold personal computers (PC’s) with sales of 100.9 million smartphones versus 92.1 million computers, which according to the International Data Corporation (IDC) took place in the fourth quarter of 2010 (GSMArena.com). It shows the growing importance and functionality of the smart handset and its ability to substitute a PC. In 2013 the annual sales of smartphones (54%) exceeded sales of regular mobile phones worldwide. This number shows that smartphone adoption has also reached less developed areas of the world; sales in Latin America, Middle East, Africa, Asia/Pacific and Eastern Europe grew by more than 50 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013 (gartner.com). Another number that is constantly rising since the introduction of smartphones is the time spent with the device. From 2013 to 2016
2 Palm Inc. bought Handspring in 2003 3 founding members amongst others HTC, Samsung Electronics, Motorola and T-Mobile 4 HTC Dream
8 consumption has nearly doubled in the USA (Lella, 2017), from 2,6 hours to 5 hours a day by an average consumer (see figure 02). As figure 03 shows 50% of the time is spent in social, messaging, media and entertainment apps. (Khalaf and Kesiraju, 2017) Further it indicates people relying more and more on their phone for daily tasks and habits, which conforms to my observations.
Figure 02: US Daily Mobile Time Spent (Khalaf and Kesiraju, 2017)
Figure 03: US Time Spent By App Category (Khalaf and Kesiraju, 2017)
9 2.2 New York Times The New York Times, founded in 1851, is one of the biggest American daily newspapers. It had the second largest circulation5 in the USA in 2013 is among the top 20 largest circulated newspapers worldwide. (Wikipedia, 2017d) Meanwhile the NYT has its focus on online publishing and reached over one million digital only subscribers in mid 2015, which is partly due to its international spread (Sullivan, 2015). It is not owned by a media network but by The New York Times Company and has been awarded 122 Pulitzer Prizes (Pulitzer Prizes, 2017). The NYT readers tend to be younger than average (32% under 30), have higher education (56% college graduates) and good income (only 26% have a family income of less than 30.000$). And the majority describe themselves as liberal (36%) or moderate (35%) (22% conservative) (Street et al., 2012).
3 Theoretical framework To investigate the representation of the smartphone and the potential influence of the NYT on norms of smartphone behavior, I want to work with three different theoretical approaches, which I explain in the following chapter. I am starting off with Stuart Hall’s theory of representation, including its roots in Saussure’s linguistics and the semiotic approach. According to Oulette’s introduction (2013) to Hall’s Work of Representation he „presents a critical toolbox for analyzing the role of media in the social construction of reality” (p.167), so it will help me to look into the creation and change of meanings and therefore help me to investigate RQ1. Further I will consult McGuire’s media effect factors, which I will use as a base for my coding categories, to explore generally how and under which conditions the NYT can have an impact and how certain articles can influence readers. Subsequently I will turn to theories around social norms that explain how norms are defined, emerge and change, to analyze how NYT articles can have an affect on norms and unravel RQ2.
5 printed version
10 3.1 Stuart Hall’s theory of representation According to Hall (1997a), representation is a central concept to produce culture, which he describes as “’shared values’ of a group or of society” (p.1). He (1997b, p.172) defines representation as the production of meaning, of the concepts in our minds through language6. To create meaning two systems of representations are involved: mental representations and language. Mental representations, also called conceptual system or map, means to classify, organize, arrange different concepts and establish complex relationships between them to give meaning to the ideas, of real or imaginary things in our heads (Hall, 1997b, p.172f.). Language is needed to communicate with other people and express meanings. It enables us to translate our thoughts into signs and exchange them with people that share the same signs and the same way of interpreting them. Signs are any sounds, words, images, objects or gestures that organized with other signs into a system, are capable of carrying and expressing meanings. (Hall, 1997b, p.173f.) The meaning of a sign is constructed by the code, which defines the relation between the conceptual system and the language system. The possibility to translate between concepts and signs and thus to express meaning is given through a system of codes, a set of conventions. To interpret signs the same way, they must be shared. In various cultures the social or linguistic conventions can be different and can change over time. “Even when the actual words remain stable, their connotations shift or they acquire a different nuance. (Hall, 1997b, p.175f.)”
Figure 4: Illustration of representation process according to Hall (1997b), my own visualization
6 any system using signs
11
A simplified process of representation can be described as follows: Things are represented by concepts to give meaning and concepts are represented by language with the help of codes, to express meanings (see figure 4) (Hall, 1997b, p.173f.).
3.1.1 The constructionist approach In his work Hall mentions three different approaches that try to answer the question where meaning comes from and how representation of meaning works; the reflective, the intentional and the constructionist approach. Within the reflective approach, language functions like a mirror to reflect or imitate the existing meaning. A limitation to this approach is, that not all things have an already existing meaning that can be reflected. Also, for the exchange of meanings it is important to have signs and codes for things, because one cannot communicate with the actual things. (Hall, 1997b, p.176) Within the intentional approach, individuals themselves give meaning to words, and the word means what one thinks it should mean. But if every individual would have their own meanings to the things and there would be no shared codes or conventions, than meanings could also never be exchanged. (Hall, 1997b, p.177) Due to limitations of the former two and my constructionist approach in general to this paper, I will focus on the constructionist approach. It differentiates the material world where people and things exist, from symbolic processes. Things do not have meanings by themselves. And there is no natural relationship between a sign and its concept. Meanings are constructed through the correlation of sign and concept by a code. Hence a sign can function and convey meaning because it symbolizes or represents a concept. The meaning to it is fixed by the linguistic code and enables people to communicate about concepts. (Hall, 1997b, p.177f.) Hall (1997b) further mentions two models of the constructionist approach: the semiotic approach and the discursive approach. Due to the greater relevance for this thesis I will only describe the semiotic approach in the following and since it grounds in Saussure’s concept of linguistics start with a brief description of the same.
12 3.1.2 Saussure’s concepts of linguistics Similar to the constructionist view, Saussure stated (Culler 1976, p.19, ref. in Hall, 1997b, p.179) that the production of meaning depends on language, which is a ‘system of signs’. Words, sounds, images etc. need to be part of a system of conventions to express ideas and only then function as signs. Signs consist of two features: the form7 called the signifier and the idea or concept called the signified. The relation between the signifier and the signified is determined by cultural and linguistic codes and provides representation. The signifier as well as the signified carry meaning, but they only exist in combination as a sign. (Hall, 1997b, p.179)
Figure 5: Illustration of sign according to Saussure (ref. in Hall, 1997b, p.179), my own visualization
The meaning of a sign is not permanently fixed, but is “produced within history and culture” (Hall, 1997b, p.180) and can change constantly. Because a sign never has just one true meaning, communication is always subject to interpretation. And thus the meaning a receiver understands is never completely as the sender intended it to be. Other or hidden meanings are included in the process of coding and encoding. (Hall, 1997b, p.180f.) Interpretation becomes a central aspect in communication and so “the reader is as important as the writer in the production of meaning” (Hall, 1997b, p.181). Saussure further described language as a “social phenomenon” and separated the “social part of language (langue) from the individual act of communication (parole)” (Hall, 1997b, p.181) to study it.
3.1.3 Semiotic approach The semiotic approach largely builds upon the linguistic concepts of Saussure, but tries to explain how representation works on a broader cultural level.
7 actual word, sound, image etc.
13 It argues that, like language, culture makes use of signs because cultural objects convey meaning and cultural practices depend on meaning. Therefore culture should be analyzable through similar concepts like Saussure’s. (Hall, 1997b, p.182) With this wider approach an object can also be a signifier that correlates through a code with a certain concept (the signifieds), thus become a sign with a meaning. In contrast to the linguistic concept there are two levels of meanings in the semiotic approach. First, the descriptive level of denotation, where most people would agree on the same meaning. And the second level of connotation, where signs are interpreted on a broader level with a wider different kind of code, regarding to one’s general beliefs and the value systems of society. On this second level the completed meaning of the first level, functions as the signifier. It is linked to a second set of signifieds and discovers a further more elaborate meaning.
For my analysis this means that, a reader can only read and comprehend news articles if he speaks the same language as the author and they also have a shared code, as Hall calls it, “maps of meaning” (1997b, p.179). Because these maps are not fixed and completely clear, the reader has an important role to the production of meaning, because he has to interpret what the author wrote and figure out the meaning. As mentioned, codes and meanings can change, if not in the level of denotation than certainly in the level of connotation. Codes are the result of social conventions and are learned and unconsciously internalized while people take part in social and cultural life, therefore media is part of this change and influences codes (intentionally or unintentionally) (Chung and Rimal, 2016, p.18). I will take a closer look into social conventions, norms and codes of social life in the third theoretical approach of theories of social norms. With the theory of representation and the semiotic approach I want to unravel how the smartphone is represented by the NYT, how they give and/or express meaning and how this representation has changed from 2007 to 2016. But it will also help me with the second research question on norms. To find out more how media can have an impact and influence the reader and social conventions I chose to further look at certain factors that have an effect on readers.
14 3.2 Media effect factors of McGuire McGuire (2001, p.23), a researcher of media effect and persuasion named, based on Lasswell’s levels of communication, five classes of persuasive communication’s input variables that take part in the production of a media effect (Dillard and Shen, 2012): source (who), message (says what), channel (via which media), audience (to whom), and destination (regarding what). These five factors are a good basis to understand how media can influence its audience. I will use them to build my categories for the content analysis and as underlying framework to examine the impact of the NYT in general and with specific articles.
3.2.1 Source Three important factors for impact are credibility (the source’s perceived expertise and trustworthiness), attractiveness (likeableness through familiarity and similarity) and power (the source’s control over rewards and punishments, authoritativeness). Sources are for example more likely to have an influence, if the reader perceives them as honest, reliable or more similar to themselves (McGuire, 2001, p.24). For my coding categories the source will consist of author and voice of article.
3.2.2 Message Structure and type of arguments, type of appeals, message style (clarity, forcefulness, literalness, figurative language, humor), and quantitative aspects (length, repetition) make an impact on the communication. Next to the salient topic a message usually also affects unmentioned but related issues (structure of arguments). And readers have needs that a message can appeal to, such as the need for stimulation or for felt competence (type of appeals). (McGuire, 1989, p.46, 2001, p.25ff.) A message is more effective if it is repeated, consistent, without alternatives and the receiver is not involved in the topic. Factors like style (personalization), appeal (emotional/rational), order and balance of arguments also take a role in it (McQuail, 2010, p.469). Since I am examining newspaper articles this will be the most important and biggest main category.
15 3.2.3 Channel Different media, but also different intrinsic channels of a medium (McQuail, 2010, p.469) have different ways and intensities of influencing. Not only the medium but the use situation, environment and context are additional factors of impact. McGuire for example claims that people are more likely to be influenced by a message when they are alone rather than with other people, and when they are in a pleasant atmosphere or mood. The meaning of a message might also be reduced by the amount of messages received. (McGuire, 2001, p.30-36) In this category I will look at the section of the NYT the article was published.
3.2.4 Audience The differences in the audience (demographics) and the people’s individual differences in personality, abilities, interest, lifestyle, motivation, involvement and level of prior knowledge are all influencing measures (McGuire, 2001, p.31; McQuail, 2010, p.469). Furthermore effects differ if messages are aimed at a wider audience or directed towards a sub group, which can be addressed more specifically (McGuire, 2001, p.31). The corresponding coding category is addressed audience.
3.2.5 Destination or target variables Impact is affected by variables concerning attitudes, actions and behavior of the target at which the message is aimed. (McGuire, 1989, p.47f.) There is a correlation between attitude, belief and behavior. If a message changes one of the named it is likely that there will be a similar change in the other two as well (McGuire, 2001, p.34). With this section I am focusing with the coding on the context of the article8.
3.3 Theories of social norms To look further into the relation of attitude, belief, social conventions, norms and behavior and understand how norms evolve and change I will make use of theories of social norms. Social norms are a much-researched phenomenon and concern multiple disciplines since they belong to the study of human interactions. Every discipline has its own focus, definition and approach; subsequently there is no general consensus on a theory of social norms. According to Chung and Rimal
8 e.g. use situation, use purpose, main topic, occasion and referenced studies
16 (2016) a common denominator of the different disciplines regarding the definition of norms could be described as “collective awareness about the preferred, appropriate behaviors among a certain group of people” (p.3). Within the different disciplines researching norms, there can mainly be found two different approaches on norms. One is from the social sciences and focuses mainly on the functions of norms and how they motivate and restrain people to act. Within this approach norms are conceived as exogenous variables. (Bicchieri and Muldoon, 2014 [2011]) The other approach is from the studies of philosophy and in contrast sees norms as “an endogenous product of individual’s interactions” (Bicchieri and Muldoon, 2014 [2011]), which is supported by expectations about how other’s behave and await individuals to behave in certain situations (Chung and Rimal, 2016, p.5). Below I will give a short overview of the approach of the social sciences and then continue with a more detailed description of the norms theory of Cristina Bicchieri as an example of the philosopher’s approach on norms, which I chose to use for my analysis.
3.3.1 Social norms in social sciences Scholars in social sciences, especially in psychology, communication and public health focus their study of social norms on the role they play in shaping human behavior. It is based on the thought that an individual’s behavior and attitude is influenced by the behavior and attitude of members of their social surroundings (Chung and Rimal, 2016, p.3). “Through interpersonal discussions, direct observations, and vicarious interactions through the media, people learn about and negotiate norms of conduct. (Chung and Rimal, 2016, p.3)” Different norms are distinguished in the various works of social scientists. For clarification, subsequently I enclosed the most commonly named definitions of norms from social science research:
Collective norms – operate on the societal level and refer to “prevailing codes of conduct that either prescribe or proscribe behaviors that members of a group can enact” (Lapinski and Rimal, 2005, p.129) This code of conduct can be related to the code from the representation theory or the semiotic approach. The code of conduct
17 is basically a “shared conceptual map” (Hall, 1997b, p.173) and serves the understanding and coordination of cohabitation within a group or society.
Perceived norms – operate on the individual level, and refer to “individuals’ perceptions about others’ behavior and attitude” (Chung and Rimal, 2016, p.3) and what others’ would want them to do or behave.
Injunctive norms – refer to “peoples’ belief about what ought to be done” (Lapinski and Rimal, 2005, p.130)
Descriptive norms – refer to “beliefs about what is actually done by most others in one’s social group“ (Lapinski and Rimal, 2005, p.130)
Subjective norms – refer to “the perceived social pressure to enact a behavior from important others in one’s social environment“ (Chung and Rimal, 2016, p.7)
Different theoretical frameworks have evolved through the research on social norms, including social norms theory, focus theory of normative conduct, norm accessibility vs. attitude accessibility, the prototype willingness model, theory of planned behavior and theory of normative social behavior. These theories are used to practice and research interventions against negative behavior or to encourage positive behavior. Examples are recycling, drinking, cigarette smoking, safe driving, drug use, to prevent sexual assault, improve academic climate and reduce prejudicial behavior. I will elaborate further on interventions in the literature review section.
3.3.2 Theory of norms according to Bicchieri The main differences between the social scientists’ and the philosophers’ approach is that the social sciences are often missing a clear distinction between social norms, conventions and descriptive norms (Bicchieri and Muldoon, 2014 [2011]). Bicchieri (2017) also criticizes, that social sciences’ understanding of descriptive norm includes customs or fashions likewise, whereas according to her a custom is a “consequence of independently motivated actions, that happen to be similar to each other“ and a „fashion causes an action that is consistent with it via the presence of
18 expectations and the desire to imitate the trendy“ (p. 18). She argues, that the definition is “too vague and of little practical use” (p.18) Bicchieri and other philosophers differentiate between social norms, conventions and descriptive norms with the help of expectations (Bicchieri and Muldoon, 2014 [2011]). Through measuring if and how much expectation matter and influence behavior different collective behaviors can be identified (Bicchieri, 2017, p.ix). Hence Bicchieri provides a good framework to distinguish and explain individual and collective behavior and furthermore includes the role of media in it. These are the reasons I chose to work with her theory and use it to understand the structure, emergence and change of social practices and find an answer to my second research question. In what follows I will outline Bicchieri’s diagnostic process of identifying collective behavior and definitions of different kinds of behavior.
There are various factors that determine the nature of collective behavior (Bicchieri 2017, p.41). To identify them Bicchieri divides them into two kinds: independent and interdependent behavior. Whereas independent behavior does not depend on other people, interdependent behavior relies on others, especially one’s reference network (the range of people an individual cares about when making decisions (Bicchieri, 2017, p. 14)). According to Bicchieri studies show that behavior is more affected by what individuals believe others approve of and not what they believe themselves. “Interdependence not independence, rules social life. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.10)” Therefore attitudes, an evaluative view on behavior, people or objects (Bicchieri, 2017, p.8), are only weakly correlated with behavior, if at all (Wicker 1969, ref in Bicchieri, 2017,p.11). Nonetheless, since independent behavior is important to identify collective action as well, I will continue with it and then proceed to interdependent behavior.
3.3.2.1 Independent behavior Independent behavior is determined by economic or natural reasons. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.2) Customs, habits, moral or religious codes and legal injunction may generate uniform behavior, but they are all independent of expectations of other people’s actions and behavior. They fulfill perceived individual needs or are obeyed because of beliefs or fear of punishment. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.59)
19 Expectations and beliefs Behavior is grounded in expectations, which are beliefs about what is going to or should happen. Beliefs can be either factual or normative. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.11) Factual beliefs are beliefs about certain circumstances or consequences of actions (Bicchieri, 2017, p.20); they can be true or false. Personal normative beliefs on the other hand are beliefs about what people ought to do. They can be prudential or driven by moral values like honor, fairness or justice and express if somebody approves or disapproves of certain behaviors. (Bicchieri, 2017, p. 125ff.) (see figure 06)
Figure 06: Classification of Normative/Non-Normative and Social/Non-Social Beliefs (Bicchieri, 2017, p.12)
Custom A custom is a pattern of behavior, which meets an individual’s needs and thus she or he prefers to conform to it, without regard to social expectations. Hence a “custom is a consequence of independently motivated actions that happen to be similar to each other“ (Bicchieri, 2017, p.18). Customs may change when an alternative, a better way to satisfy the needs appears, the conditions that produce the needs disappear, or new preferences are created. Even though customs are independent behavior, when they are carried out in a group (collective custom), they produce certain interdependencies and thus might require collective action to change them. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.15f.) Consequently, observed from the outside, practices of customs and descriptive norms (see below) may look identical, the difference between them is the reasons why people follow them (Bicchieri, 2017, p.20) (see figure 07).
20
Figure 07: Diagnostic process of identifying collective behaviors. Source: C. Bicchieri, Social Norms, Social Change. Penn-UNICEF Lecture, July 2012 ref. in Bicchieri 2017, p.41) *added by me
3.3.2.2 Interdependent behavior Interdependent behavior such as conventions (everyone profits from doing the same thing (Bicchieri, 2017, p.59)) and social norms rely on other people’s action and opinions, they rely on social expectations (Bicchieri, 2017, p.2f.).
Social expectations The expectations somebody has, about other people’s behavior and beliefs, which influence their own behavior (Bicchieri, 2017, p.11). There are two types of social expectations: empirical expectations and normative expectations (Bicchieri, 2017, p.14).
21 Empirical expectations The expectations somebody has, how other people will behave and act in specific situations; what is common, normal and generally performed. These expectations are formed with the help of observations or information of behavior (from the media for example) and are assumed to continue and therefore influence one’s own decisions. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.12&95) (see figure 06)
Normative expectations The expectations somebody has, what other people in their reference network think should or shouldn’t be done, how they ought to behave and which consequences will follow this behavior (Bicchieri, 2017, p. 97). Normative expectations involve sanctions (positive or negative) or people follow them because they consider others’ expectations to be legitimate (Bicchieri, 2017, p.59). Either way, they keep individuals “in line”. (see figure 06)
Descriptive norm
A descriptive norm is a pattern of behavior such that individuals prefer to conform to it on condition that they believe that most people in their reference network conform to it (empirical expectation). (Bicchieri, 2006, ref. in Bicchieri 2017, p.19)
Descriptive norms cause actions out of the presence of expectations and the desire to conform to a group9 (Bicchieri, 2017, p.27). Thus “they have a causal influence on behavior” (Bicchieri, 2017, p.27). Examples are conventions, fashions or common signaling systems. Descriptive norms also play an important role regarding the influence of media. The media audience is aware that others in their reference network consume the same media and receive the same messages and act accordingly. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.20) If descriptive norms change, it means that the underlying empirical expectations of the majority of the group changed. To comply with a new norm a group member has to be convinced that nearly everybody else in the group will participate as well. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.20) (see figure 07)
9 either imitate behavior or coordinate with other members
22 Imitation Individuals tend to copy most frequent or successful actions of other individuals that are similar with or in similar situations like them. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.18) This behavior can particularly be observed when individuals are uncertain or insecure, than “we often turn to others to gather information and obtain guidance” (informational influence) (Bicchieri, 2017, p.23). All people have a desire to be right, liked and to belong. What is right is often defined by social reality and group standards are adopted to gain social appreciation and acceptance (normative influence). With normative influence sometimes group pressure comes along, and then nonconformity will be sanctioned. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.23f.) Imitation is unilateral; the expectations only go in one direction (Bicchieri, 2017, 18ff.). At this point, a connection could be drawn to Gerbner’s cultivation theory, which implies that people watching television adapt their beliefs according to the world presented by television, due to their acceptance of it as a true representation of the real world (McQuail, 2010, p.554).
Coordination In contrast to imitation coordination is multilateral. Expectations of participating individuals must match (Bicchieri, 2017, 18ff.) and “stem from a desire to harmonize […] actions with those of others so that each of […] [the] individual[s] goals can be achieved” (Bicchieri, 2017, p.25f.).
Social norm
A social norm is a rule of behavior such that individuals prefer to conform to it on condition that they believe that (a) most people in their reference network conform to it (empirical expectation), and (b) that most people in their reference network believe they ought to conform to it (normative expectation). (Bicchieri, 2006, ref. in Bicchieri, 2017, p.35)
Social norms tell individuals how they are supposed to act, they express which behaviors are socially approved or disapproved of. In the social science approach, this would be called an injunctive norm. Bicchieri criticizes again, that the traditional definition of injunctive norm is not precise enough to distinguish it from
23 moral norms. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.30f.) Contrary to moral norms, social norms depend on expectations of collective compliance. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.33) Empirical and normative expectations are mandatory to maintain the norm, because self- interest is not immediate (Bicchieri, 2017, p.59). Social norms must be socially enforced with a system of sanctions (negative or positive). Otherwise people would not follow and the norm wouldn’t work. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.39) Individual compliance is determined by the sensitivity to the norm and the consequences of disobedience (Bicchieri, 2017, p.38) (see figure 07). Through Bicchieri’s approach on norms I have a framework and definitions at hand that let me identify, clearly distinguish and explain different kinds of collective behaviors, like customs, conventions or social norms. It will help me to recognize behavior mentioned in NYT articles. The illustrations above summarize Bicchieri’s classification and diagnostic process. The charts and the belonging definitions will be used to establish categories for my qualitative content analysis, during the coding and analysis process. Additionally Bicchieri provides a tool with her framework to explore and evaluate if and how messages have the ability to influence behavior, which I will describe below.
3.3.2.3 How can norms be influenced? Reasons for behavioral change can involve personal reasons for change10 and reasons motivated by social expectations. Due to the fact that norms are grounded in social expectations, to influence a norm always means to influence social expectations. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.106f.) But since norms are supported by beliefs, for a norm to change, beliefs would have to change first in order to establish reasons for change of behavior. Information, observation and experience can make individuals aware of false beliefs and thus induce change, which could be followed by a change of social expectations. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.123f.) For collective behavior to change, people need to have the proof that other people will participate in the change too and then actions can take place coordinated. New empirical expectations would arise followed by the abandonment of old normative expectations and the creation of new ones, and thus the norm would change. (Bicchieri, 2017, p.119ff.) In the table
10 such as receiving new factual information or a change of personal normative beliefs
24 below I will present an overview of factors that can influence change and the role that could be taken in it by media.
Table 01: Important factors to influence change according to Bicchieri (2017), own summary Theory Role of media
Reasons / motivation / collective desire to change Without reasons and motivation, no change Media can help to inform or show people would occur (p.107) problematic behavior and behavior of others. Awareness Individuals may not see problems with Present drawbacks and good alternatives. recent behavior or do not know about Make people aware of their and others’ beliefs possible alternatives (p.121f.). People are and expectations. (p.129) often not aware of their beliefs and expectations (p.128). Beliefs (factual / personal normative) For a change of behavior beliefs need to Distributing new factual information or letting change first in order to give reasons and the audience observe reality (emotional level can motivation. Belief change by itself is not often be more effective than rational level). enough motivation for behavioral change (p.115) Testimony is a good way to influence though (p.119). people, either through social proof (many think it’s good or true), a trusted authority or a recognized expert (p.124f.). (see McGuire / Source) Social expectations (empirical / normative) Mutual expectations can help or hinder Through the provision of information (e.g. what change. Expectations of what others do others are thinking and doing) and engaging influences people’s behavior (p.109). People people emotionally through telling stories, media need security and the knowledge that others can influence change. Consuming media also will change too and sanctions won’t occur stimulates discussion and therefore encourages (p.119). Therefore expectations change updates of expectations (p.147ff.). collectively if change happens (p.110). Coordination of change Because of social comparison collective norm Providing normative information can influence change only occurs coordinated. With change. But since people need the reassurance descriptive norms coordination through that other people are acting, or will act the same communication is enough but with social way, providing empirical information about norms participating individuals additionally others behavior has proven to be more effective need the confirmation that others will change in behavior change (p.152).
25 too. (It is not enough to know that other group members received the message as well.) (p.108f.)
Trendsetter People who take part in something new Not only individuals can be trendsetters. Groups before other people follow; also called “early or the media can function as trendsetters as well. adopters” (p.49) or “first mover” (p.163). They “initiate change, serve the critical role of They are often attributed by a “low risk signaling that change is indeed occurring, and sensitivity, low risk perception, low help to coordinate behavioral change on a allegiance to the standing norms, high broader level” (p.162). autonomy, and high perceived self- efficacy”(p.163).
Scripts and Schemata In her work Bicchieri (2017) also describes the concept of schemata and scripts. Referring to Fiske and Taylor, McClelland, Rumelhart and the PDP Research Group (2017, p.132) she states that we structure our world into schemata that are grounded in our experience and knowledge about the social and natural world; knowledge that can also be obtained by media. There are schemata for people, places, objects and events. Event schemata are called scripts (Shank and Abelson, 1977, ref. in Bicchieri, 2017, p.132) and describe specific behaviors for certain events that people can automatically engage in through the knowledge of the script (Bicchieri, 2017, p.131f.). Schemata, scripts and norms are closely connected. Based on the schemata people form expectations, and through the script they act on them and evaluate other peoples’ behavior accordingly (Bicchieri, 2017, p.131+135). This concept can be related to the representation theory and semiotic approach mentioned earlier, where schemata are called “maps of meaning” or “conceptual maps”.
The summarized table of important factors to influence change according to Bicchieri (2017) and the included role of media will be combined with the media effect factors and used to unravel the role of the NYT in regards to influence of change. Hence it will be used for the general qualitative analysis of all NYT articles as well as for the more thorough analysis of the example articles that I will be
26 carrying out. With the three different theoretical approaches described in this chapter I have a good and comprehensive framework for the analysis of my data and to investigate both research questions. The following literature review will also add depth to my framework and provide background on recent research concerning my topic.
4 Literature review of previous research To the best of my knowledge, there is neither literature published about the smartphone’s representation in media nor the media’s influence on the norms around smartphones. The best result of my inquiry is a study that researches “The construction of Symbolic Values of the Mobile Phone in the Hong Kong Chinese Print Media” (Yung, 2005). The research shows how print media represents mobile phones in Hong Kong during the years 2000 and 2001. The author suggests, that the media have contributed to an environment where the symbolic value of smartphones in society overtakes technical value. Symbolic values are constructed through a particular language style and linguistic strategies like naming practices and metaphors creating social identities for mobile phones and a social world for the technology with relationships and competition. In this case media takes part in reflecting and generating social meanings and changes perceptions of technology. (Yung, 2005, p.364f.)
On the influence of smartphones on our daily lives and society in general various research has been conducted; for example on the change of language (Ling, 2005; Segerstad, 2005; Androutsopoulos, 2011) or phone use in public and during social situations (Agger, 2011; Przybylski and Weinstein, 2013; Drago, 2015; Brown et al., 2016; Misra et al., 2016). To give a brief overview of the smartphone related research I will start by summarizing most important topics of research on smartphones to my field of study. Then I will proceed to the application of social norms theory and describe studied examples of interventions. And lastly turn to research of media influence on norms.
27 4.1 Smartphone in scientific research Since its accelerated dissemination and the increasing ubiquity of it, the smartphone is a much-researched phenomenon. Many different themes have been covered, but especially in recent years researchers are focusing on its negative effects. I will start with the omnipresence, proceed to benefits and then attend to the negative attributes of the device. This chapter will be based on my work on the use of smartphones during face-to-face conversations (Meyer zu Hörste, 2017).
4.1.1 Ubiquity of the smartphone Smartphones are “media convergence devices” (Adami and Kress, 2009, p.185) that combine and replace many different digital devices. With its mobile connection to the Internet, computer-like practicability, diverse communication and staying socially connected possibilities (Fortunati, 2002), entertaining factor, source for information and functionalities of a personal assistant, there are few things left that can’t be done with the help of a smartphone. Thus they found their way into almost every part of our lives. The many uses of the multipurpose tool and the fact that people spend evermore time with it, are “always on” (Gerlich et al., 2015; Rainie and Zickuhr, 2015) and the phenomena of absent presence11 (Fortunati, 2002; Gergen, 2002) engage many researchers.
4.1.2 Benefits of smartphone use Above I already named some of the smartphone’s purposes of use. For many people it is a great achievement to be mobile and still stay connected to their social-, work- or information-network. It has many advantages to be able to take a miniature computer-like device with Internet access with us wherever we go. People can make use of time that many would consider wasted12 (Fortunati, 2002, p.518), people can do more than one thing at a time (Fortunati, 2002; Gergen, 2002) and shorten time to wait on answers with an increased response behavior (Forgays et al., 2014). These are all measures to, as Fortunati (2002) calls it “expand time in thickness” (p.517), to make better use of the given time and to increase social productivity (p.514). Through the smartphone the user can be almost everywhere
11 constant division of consciousness 12 waiting in line, commute, etc.
28 he wants to be, even in different places13 at the same time (Fortunati, 2002, p.515). They can still contact their social network although they aren’t present and keep in touch with the outside world, which Couldry (2004) refers to as “liveness” (p.255). Being able to reach out to one’s peer group in situations of loneliness, anxiety or insecurity can have positive effects of providing or reestablishing security and stability (Fortunati, 2002, p.522f.). Further, smartphones are frequently used for convenience, simplifications, assistance with various matters, diversion, entertainment, and as control center in combination with so-called smart devices (Sarwar and Soomro, 2013; Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2016). In the discussion section I will revisit some of the benefits and negative effects to discuss if the NYT presents these issues in a similar manner to the academic research.
4.1.3 Negative effects of smartphone use With all the benefits and possibilities of this technology people become accustomed to their perpetual access and “umbilical cord” (Fortunati, 2002, p.518). Concluding from my previous work (Meyer zu Hörste, 2017) this adaption will eventually lead to a dependency. As numbers from market research (Lella, 2017) confirm smartphone usage is constantly increasing, illustrating the pervasion into everyday live and the seemingly inability of limitation (Oulasvirta et al., 2011). Subsequently this can lead to negative consequences like disturbance of others and self. Others for example can be disturbed when they are snubbed or ignored during social interactions14 (Przybylski and Weinstein, 2013; Angeluci and Huang, 2015; Drago, 2015; Brown et al., 2016; Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2016; Moser et al., 2016), are suddenly part of an intimate space of others15 (Forgays et al., 2014; Rainie and Zickuhr, 2015) or through distracted drivers or walkers (Hassani et al., 2016). The smartphone user himself can also be greatly influenced by his smartphone habits. According to certain scholars (Fortunati, 2002; Gergen, 2002) the constant urge to communicate or use the phone in other ways and multitask leads to the omission of time for reflection and relaxation, and hence can lead to technostress or even addiction (Park, 2005; Salehan and Negahban, 2013; Sarwar
13 immaterial 14 e.g. during conversations, meals, at the cash register or public transport 15 conversations in public
29 and Soomro, 2013; Lee et al., 2014). There is no general consensus among researchers about the topic of smartphone or Internet addiction. Many researchers explore this field, and studies suggest that smartphone use can lead to addiction (Salehan and Negahban, 2013). But there are also researchers who infer that smartphones are rather habit-forming than addictive and that the frequent habitual use can better be labeled as annoyance than addiction (Oulasvirta et al., 2011). This issue leads me to the social norms approach.
4.2 Examples of applied social norms theory Berkowitz (2004), one of the founders of the social norms approach and social norms marketing, suggests that behavior is based more on “perceptions of how other members of our social group think an act”16 (p.5) than on actual norms and that peer influences have a greater impact on individual behavior than biological, personality, familial, religious, cultural and other influences (Berkowitz & Perkins, 1986a; Borsari & Carey, 2001; Kandel, 1985, and Perkins, 2002 in Berkowitz 2004). The difference between perceived norms and actual norms are described as misperceptions. Through interventions it is tried to correct misperceptions of norms with a provision of normative feedback. (Berkowitz, 2004) Even though success and effectiveness of interventions with normative influence is claimed (Berkowitz, 2004, p.2), criticism about the evidence of success and behavioral change as well as methodological limitations of their evaluations have been voiced (Lapinski and Rimal, 2005, p.128; Schultz et al., 2007, p.429). Schultz et al. (2007) provide a possible explanation for the lack of success in form of “boomerang effects” (p.430). People measure the appropriateness of their behavior on the perceived norm and how close their behavior is to the norm, yet it doesn’t matter if they are above or below the norm. Meaning descriptive normative information on occurrence of undesirable behavior may lead to an increase of the behavior by individuals, that have until then stayed below the norm. A solution to this dilemma comes from the focus theory of normative conduct, which suggests that the effect might be prevented by adding an injunctive message that the behavior is undesirable and disapproved of. (Schultz et al., 2007, p.430)
16 perceived norms
30 4.3 Media influence When it comes to media influence on norms, research about sexuality or smoking can be found. The conducted studies conclude, that the indirect influence from perceived peer norms and the assumed influence of the media content on peers are greater than the direct influence of media exposure, even if the assumed influence on peers are misperceptions. „The more subjects thought other students were exposed to pro smoking content the higher their estimates of peer smoking.“ (Gunther et al., 2006, p.62)
„Regardless of being possibly exaggerated and incorrect, adolescents’ heuristic estimate of media effects on peers may produce real and essential effects on them- selves.“ (Chia, 2006, p.600)
Studies of Chia, and Chia and Gunther also offer the projection effect as an explanation for their study results. The projection effect states that individuals project their own attitudes on peers and form perceived peer norms in this way. (Chia, 2006 p.601; Chia and Gunther, 2006, p.315) Chia and Gunther (2006) state further: “Finally, and most important, the projection results affirm the validity of the effects of presumed media influence, as presumed influence remains significant even after controlling for the robust effects of students’ own sexual attitudes. “ (p.315)
I thereby conclude, that the presumed media influence is greater than the actual and direct media influence. For my analysis this implies that the influence of the perception of NYT articles in the individuals reference network is supposedly greater than the direct influence the NYT article has on the reader.
5 Data and methodology To find an answer to my research questions I opted for a thematic text analysis with a quantitative and a qualitative part. Since I already had assumptions about the outcome of RQ1 I decided to work with the aforementioned hypotheses. For the purpose of verifying the hypotheses I found a quantitative analysis of my data suitable, whereas I found more value in a qualitative analysis for RQ2 because I wanted to examine it in an explorative way without previous conjectures. All in all I find that the mix of quantitative and qualitative analysis as well as the deductive and
31 inductive approach provides me with more in-depth knowledge and different perspectives. Even though the testing of hypotheses usually refers to the paradigm of positivism, I pursued a social constructivist point of view throughout my work, which according to Collins (2010) “challenges the objectivist stance of positivism” (p.40). But since paradigms are supposed to reflect the world views of the researcher, are a social construct themselves and their relationship to methodology is constantly evolving, I do not see a conflict in this matter (Collins, 2010, p.49). In this chapter I will elaborate which data was used and how it was selected for my work and go further into detail on how my content analyses were conducted.
5.1 Data The data for research was accessed through the search option of the New York Times Website17, with the search term “smartphone” and then limited to the specific dates of 01.01.2007 - 31.12.2007 and 01.01.2016 - 31.12.2016. The outcome for 2007 was 63 results and 1.145 for 2016 (see figure 08 and 09).
Figure 08: Screenshot of search results on NYT website for “smartphone” year 2007 (NYT Search ‘Smartphone’ 2007)
17 https://www.nytimes.com
32
Figure 09: Screenshot of search results on NYT website for “smartphone” year 2016 (NYT Search ‘Smartphone’ 2016)
These results still included articles with the keyword “smartphone” only mentioned in various contexts but not as the main topic. Since these articles will not support finding an answer to my research questions I excluded them from my data population. For the selection process I established criteria (see figure 10) to exclude incongruous articles with a pre-selection process, where I looked at a number of different articles from both years to familiarize myself with reasons for exclusion. After the criteria were established I applied them on both search results.
33
Figure 10: Criteria for exclusion of articles
After the selection process I had two sample populations; the 2007 population included 28 samples and the 2016 population covered 44 articles (see appendix). This was a result I did not expect at first since the number of NYT articles with the keyword “smartphone” from 2007 (63 articles) was wide apart from 2016’s number (1.145 articles), I was surprised, that the actual 2016 population (44 articles) was not significantly greater than the 2007 population (28 articles). I think there are three main reasons how this could be explained: (a) Since the smartphone was much more common in 2016 than in 2007 it was mentioned in a lot more articles that were not smartphone related18. (b) In 2016 less reviews of various phones were written (30% of all articles) than in 2007 (54%). (c) Much more other smartphone related topics were discussed in 2016 that were not on the 2007’s agenda that I excluded from my sample because smartphones were not the main topic19. For my content analysis I defined the sampling and coding units both as NYT articles; every article is a sample and will be coded separately as one unit.
18 e.g. politics, sports, arts etc. 19 apps, smart devices, but mostly reports about economy issues of the smartphone companies
34 5.2 Methodology The coding categories were constructed deductively and inductively in a multistage process of categorizing and coding as described by Kuckartz (2014): First I created sections labeled after McGuire’s media effect factors to group and create the main coding categories. I then formulated main categories derived from the research question, hypotheses and the framework from McGuire, Hall and the norm theories as well as from the described previous research. For RQ2 I furthermore added extra categories grounded in Bicchieri’s norm theory (see table 10).
Table 02: Sections and main coding categories
In a third step I searched through the data, starting to categorize the articles20 to build sub-categories where applicable and modify, adapt and differentiate the main categories according to the findings. Further I built new main categories that were not evident before. Subsequently I coded the entire data set with the new categories (see codebook in appendix). All quantitative categories were exhaustive and most of them mutually exclusive. In case of characterizations where multiple answers were possible, I additionally coded the data into positive, negative or neutral if applicable
20 10 for each year
35 to have mutually exclusive data for each article. To evaluate and compare the quantitative coded data I extracted the numbers and proportions of the sub- categories of both years, additionally built different pivot tables and diagrams where results were significant. For the evaluation of the qualitative data I searched for collective behavior, expectations and common themes from the theoretical framework and coded material. Thus I could identify norms and ways of influence on norms and behavior according to my framework. After the qualitative analysis of all the samples, I decided to perform a thorough analysis of one example article of each population with McGuire’s media effect factors and Bicchieri’s norm theory to obtain more detailed data and be able to analyze and discuss influence factors on the grounds of a specific example.
5.3 Quality and Ethics
5.3.1 Quality According to Kuckartz (2014) classical and long recognized quality standards in quantitative research are objectivity, reliability and validity. For qualitative research he argues referring to Flick “the classical standards cannot simply be transferred […]; rather they have to be modified and extended in order to take the procedural nature of qualitative research into account (see Flick, 2009, pp. 373-375). (Kuckartz, 2014, p. 152f.)” In the following table Kuckartz presents the comparison of classical quality standards with new standards for qualitative research according to Miles and Huberman (1995, ref. in Kuckartz, 2014, p.152), which I chose as a guideline for the quality of my work.
Table 03: Quality Standards within Quantitative and Qualitative Research (Miles and Huberman (1995), ref. in Kuckartz 2014, p.152)
36 To ensure quality, validity, credibility and replicability of my work I conducted my research in a responsible and structured manner. However I am aware that there are certain limitations regarding the implementation of my method. Due to the timeframe of this thesis I was not able to do a pretest or code the material a second time to check for intracoder-reliability (Flick, 2016), nor was it possible to work with a second coder. These measures would have reduced possible human errors and subjectivity. A precaution I took for errors was to spread the coding to different days, so I could review previous coding with a fresh eye and spot errors. Additionally the production of a codebook makes my research more comprehensible and replicable. The use of both quantitative and qualitative text analyses, the theoretical approach from three different angles, as well as the consideration of data from two different years almost ten years apart – which allows me to make comparisons, detect differences and extrapolate trends – grants me more insights and in addition strengthens the validity, credibility and transferability of my work. Conclusions for the selected years can be drawn and generalized for both years because my sample constitutes of the whole population of data from 2007 and 2016.
5.3.2 Ethics The material I used for the content analysis already existed, was published by the NYT and can still be accessed online. Further the method of content analysis is unobtrusive (Krippendorff, 2004, p.40). Therefore the material is not biased through me, nor is there an ethical issue since my work does not infringe personal rights.
6 Research results and analysis
6.1 Research questions I
6.1.1 Results To find the answer to my first research question I will look back on the two hypotheses that I formulated at the beginning, to analyze if they prove valid or not.
37 H1 – In 2007 the coverage of smartphones will be mainly positive and focus on technological aspects.
H2 – In 2016 the coverage will be more critical about the consequences of the pervasion and influence of the smartphone in society.
6.1.1.1 Tone of article To do this I am looking at different results from my coding table, starting with the overall tone of the articles. For 2007 (see figure 11), the tone in articles of the NYT about smartphones is mainly positive. 82% are written with a positive tone (64% positive and 18% very positive) compared to a low 4% of negative articles with 14% being neutral. In 2016 the numbers have almost evened out with a small majority (39%) of the articles written in a neutral tone, followed by 34% negative and 27% positive.
Tone of article
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% very negative negative neutral positive very positive 2007 (n=28) 0% 4% 14% 64% 18% 2016 (n=44) 0% 34% 39% 27% 0%
Figure 11: Overall tone of examined NYT articles, 2007 (n=28) and 2016 (n=44) compared in %
6.1.1.2 Tone about smartphones A similar pattern is to be found in the category how the author writes about smartphones in the examined articles (scale from enthusiastic to very critical) (see figure 12). In 2007 smartphones are predominantly described positive (75%) or even enthusiastically (14%) (4% neutral and 7% negatively) whereas in 2016 positive, neutral and negative descriptions make out 27% each of the articles with an additional 18% with very negative pictures of smartphones and thus leading to a majority of negative descriptions. The results in these two categories tone and tone
38 about smartphones, show that the coverage in the NYT about the smartphone was more positive in 2007 than in 2016 and compared to 2007 more articles had a negative tone or were critical about the device. Consequently these findings support both my hypotheses.
Tone about smartphones
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% very critical critical neutral positive enthusiastic 2007 (n=28) 0% 7% 4% 75% 14% 2016 (n=44) 18% 27% 27% 27% 0%
Figure 12: Tone about smartphones, 2007 (n=28) and 2016 (n=44) compared in %
6.1.1.3 Style In both of the above-mentioned categories is also a trend from 2007 to 2016 that the amount of neutral articles is increasing. This trend matches the reversing numbers of the article styles (see figure 13), which switched from 43% formal and 57% personal in 2007 to 55% formal and 46% personal in 2016. A more personal written article includes the opinion of the author; hence it tends to be either in a more positive or negative tonality. Formal articles on the other hand are usually more objective and therefore more often neutral.
39 Style
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% formal personal 2007 (n=28) 43% 57% 2016 (n=44) 55% 45%
Figure 13: Overall article style, 2007 (n=28) and 2016 (n=44) compared in %
6.1.1.4 Smartphone name / label Additionally I examined the articles for names that smartphones were called and if the names were rational (like smartphone, iPhone, Google Phone) or emotional terms (like Jesus phone). 2007 emotional names were used in 11% of the articles and in 2016 it was only one article, which makes out 2%. Even if these numbers aren’t significant because of the in general low level of emotional names for smartphones in the examined NYT articles, this result supports the already showing trend that the part of neutral articles with a more objective and less emotional view of the smartphone increased from 2007 to 2016. Accordingly my findings regarding the labeling of phones in the NYT, do not coincide with the results from the study of symbolic value construction in Hong Kong Chinese print media (see Yung, 2005 and p.27); the NYT does not primarily change perceptions of technology by constructing social values through a naming practice or identity creation. An explanation for this could be differences in culture.
6.1.1.5 Smartphone characterization Looking at terms how smartphones are characterized, the five most named characterizations in 2007 (nTotal=6621) are entertaining, simplifying, useful, versatile
21 total of all smartphone characterizations mentioned in the 2007 population (57 positive / 9 negative)
40 (each mentioned 5 times) and sleek (4 times) and in 2016 (nTotal=14222) causing problems (mentioned 16 times), ubiquitous (12 times), distracting (11 times), addictive (9 times) and fragmenting attention (8 times). Figures 14 and 15 additionally show that positive characterizations are rather found in 2007 but are more diverse than the negative characterizations. Negative characterizations are scarcely found in 2007 articles and more common in the 2016 population. In general positive descriptions (86%) are dominating in 2007 and negative descriptions (59%) are the majority in 2016, but not as dominant (see figure 16).
n
Figure 14: Smartphone characterization, positive descriptions, 2007 (n=57) and 2016 (n=58) unit n positive descriptions in population
n
Figure 15: Smartphone characterization, negative descriptions, 2007 (n=9) and 2016 (n=84) unit n negative descriptions in population
22 total of all smartphone characterizations mentioned in the 2016 population (58 positive / 84 negative)
41 Smartphone characterization
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% 2007 (n=28) 2016 (n=44) positive 86% 41% negative 14% 59%
Figure 16: Smartphone characterization, 2007 (n=28) and 2016 (n=44) compared in %
These findings are very relevant in the validation process of my hypotheses and answering my research question, because the characterization of the smartphone is a core theme for the question and hypotheses. Furthermore the results show very clear, that in 2007 the smartphone was represented mainly positive by the NYT, and that this doesn’t apply for 2016 anymore. Even with still 41% of positive characterizations, the 59% of negative characterizations show that critical voices became louder in 2016. Especially with strong words like causing problems, distracting, addictive and fragmenting attention in the top five mentioned descriptions, it indicates the engagement of the newspaper with consequences and influence of the smartphone on society.
6.1.1.6 User characterization I examined the characterization of the smartphone user further. For each article I captured if the user was portrayed neutral, positive or negative and additionally coded how the user was described. Results show that in the vast majority of 2007’s articles the user was characterized as neutral (96%) (4% positive and 0% negative) (see figure 17). In 2016 the image shifted; in 48% of the articles the user was still pictured as neutral, but negative in 43% with a remaining 9% positive (see figure 18). The result of the coding of the single descriptions of the user in 2007’s articles was inconclusive due to the high number of neutral user. In 2016 (n=9023) however
23 total of all user characterizations mentioned in the 2016 population
42 less focused (10 mentions), distracted (9 mentions), dependent and screenscrolly (both 7 mentions) were the most non-neutral user descriptions. A further user category I compared was mentioning of teenagers as smartphone users. In 2007 teenagers were mentioned in only one article, of 2007’s articles (n=28), compared to nine articles in 2016 (n=44). The higher count of teenage users in 2016 is another indicator of a coverage about the influence of the smartphone on society. Thus, like the characterization of the smartphone the description of the user supports my hypotheses as well.
User characterization User characterization 2007 (n=28) 2016 (n=44) 4% 0%
Neutral Neutral 43% 48% Positve Positve Negative Negative 96% 9%
Figure 17: User characterization in %, 2007 (n=28) Figure 18: User characterization in %, 2016 (n=44)
6.1.1.7 New York Times Sections The Section of the NYT where most articles from both years were published is by far the Technology section. 86% of 2007’s articles were published in the Technology section, followed by 7% in Business and 4% each in Bits and Media, which are technology related sections. In the 2016 population a mere 55% are found in the Technology section. Compared to 2007 there is a greater spread throughout the sections and themes other than Technology and Business occur, more societal themes like Fashion&Style (7%), Health (7%), Art&Design (5%) and also the Opinion Pages (7%) (see figure 19). This is a great indicator that articles about smartphones have shifted from technological aspects in 2007 to more societal relevant aspects in 2016.
43 New York Times Sections
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Art&Design Business Health Opinion pages Technology world
2007 (n=28) 2016 (n=44)
Figure 19: New York Times Sections, 2007 (n=28) and 2016 (n=44) compared in %
6.1.1.8 Main topic To investigate this further I divided the article’s main topics into three thematic groups; technology related topics (e.g. reviews, reports of new releases etc.), topics concerning societal issues (e.g. smartphones in relationships, phone use and distraction etc.) and other. In 2007 no topics were about societal issues and 86% technology related (14% other) (see figure 20).
Main topic 2007 Main topic 2016 (n=28) (n=44)
0% 14% 9% tech tech society society 39% 52% 86% other other
Figure 20: Main topic of article, 2007 (n=28) Figure 21: Main topic of article, 2016 (n=44)
In 2016 we have a different picture: technology is still the main issue with 52%, but societal issues follow close behind with 39% (9% other) (see figure 21). As mentioned earlier, the percentage of reviews decreased from 54% of 2007’s articles to 30% in 2016 (see figure 22). All of these results strengthen my findings from the NYT sections.
44 Reviews 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2007 2016 (n=28) (n=44) other article 46% 70% reviews 54% 30%
Figure 22: Proportion of reviews compared to other articles, 2007 (n=28) and 2016 (n=44) compared in %
6.1.1.9 Audience addressed Another interesting category concerning the validation of the hypotheses is the addressed audience. During the coding process the same two main audience categories emerged in both years; either tech people were especially addressed or no one in particular (everyone). The proportions however switched from 43% of articles addressing tech people and only 36% directed at everyone in 2007 to a majority of 46% addressed to no one in particular and just 30% to tech people anymore in 2016 (see figure 23). This too supports my hypotheses.
Audience addressed
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% everyone tech people other 2007 (n=28) 36% 43% 21% 2016 (n=44) 45% 30% 25%
Figure 23: Audience addressed in article, 2007 (n=28) and 2016 (n=44) compared in %
45 6.1.1.10 Use purpose The 2007 and 2016 graphs from the category use purpose seem very similar at first. With a closer look it is noticeable that in 2007 the focus of the use purpose lies in typical functions of a phone: communication (34%), entertainment (29%), mobile computing (9%) and business (9%). And in 2016 the use purpose spreads out wider, socialize (10%) and information retrieval (10%) are following communication (20%) and entertainment (17%), which stay on top and use purposes like take part, distraction, pass-time, feel better and identity building appear in 2016. This too indicates, that in 2007 the NYT coverage focused on technological aspects and shifted in 2016 more to societal relevant issues.
Use purpose
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
2007 (n=59) 2016 (n=120)
Figure 24: Named use purpose of smartphone, 2007 (n=59) and 2016 (n=120), unit %
6.1.2 Analysis Especially with the clear findings in the categories tone of article, tone about smartphones, smartphone characterization, NYT sections and main topics as well as further strong indications of positive coverage, with a focus on technology in 2007 and a more critical/negative coverage with a focus on the consequences of the ubiquitousness and impact of the smartphone on society in 2016, I find both my hypotheses proved valid and therefore true. According to my text analysis findings I am concluding that the NYT represents the smartphone in 2007 as an entertaining, simplifying, useful, versatile and sleek technological device that is mainly used by early adopters and technology interested people for communication, entertainment, business and mobile computing. In 2016
46 it is mainly represented as a ubiquitous gadget, that can cause problems, distract, be addictive, fragment attention and is constantly used by mostly everyone for communication, entertainment, to socialize or retrieve information. Following the wider semiotic approach of representation, objects convey meaning and make use of signs and hence can be analyzed through a transfer of Saussure’s linguistic concepts (Hall, 1997b, p.182) (see p.11). Accordingly, the object smartphone (the electronic apparatus) can be seen as a signifier. Together with the mental concept of smartphone (the signified) it becomes a sign with meaning: an electronic device that we can use to communicate, for entertainment, connect to the internet, to take pictures with etc. (see figure 25) Most people would agree on this
Figure 25: Illustration of sign according to Saussure (ref. in Hall, 1997b, p.179) and the two levels of meaning of the semiotic approach (ref. in Hall, 1997b, p.183), applied to the object smartphone, my own visualization meaning. The semiotic approach claims further, that there are two levels of meanings. Next to the more obvious descriptive level of denotation (described above) there is another underlying level of connotation (Hall, 1997b, p.183) (see p.11). For this second level meaning, the signifier is the first level meaning of smartphone. The second sets of signifieds are social concepts, which are connected to the obvious meaning of smartphone through codes, also referred to as maps of meaning (Hall,1997b, p.179) or schemata (Bicchieri, 2017), and are the results of social conventions and one’s own belief. Through this relation of the denotation of smartphone with social concepts a social meaning of smartphone emerges (see
47 figure 25). Because of the personal nature of the code the social meaning is diverse. The second level meaning is not the same for everybody. But people with a similar code will also have a similar social meaning of the smartphone. What does this mean in regards of the representation of the smartphone by the NYT? Looking at the first level meaning of smartphone in the articles of both years, the smartphone is described as a technological device that is mainly used to communicate and for entertainment purposes in 2007 as well as in 2016. Thus the denotation of the smartphone stayed prevailing the same. This is comprehensible since the essential functions of a smartphone have not change much and the first level meaning of smartphone has not much leeway for interpretation. Keeping the divergent results for 2007 and 2016 of my text analysis in mind, it has to be different for the connotation level and the social meaning of the smartphone. According to my findings the NYT changed their tone about smartphones from mostly enthusiastic and positive in 2007 to predominantly critical and negative in 2016. The code24 changed. And therefore the connections made from the obvious meaning of smartphone to the social concepts are different for the two years. The category smartphone characterization provides good examples in this case. In 2007 smartphones were among others often described as entertaining, simplifying, useful and versatile and would therefore be connected to related social concepts. In 2016 instead descriptions like causing problems, distracting, fragmenting attention or even addictive were in the lead, consequently connections to appropriate social concepts would be drawn. Concluding the connotation – the social meaning of smartphone is represented differently by the NYT in 2007 and 2016. In 2007 the smartphone’s connotation is cool (Biggs, 2007) and sleek (Fackler, 2007), it is not for everybody but wanted by everybody (Markoff, 2007a) and therefore could be seen as a status symbol (Mozur, 2016). In 2016 the smartphone’s connotation gets a more negative twist. Critical voices about smartphone behavior and etiquette (Foster, 2016; Paul, 2016) are raised and the calls for more awareness (Gonchar, 2016; Wayne, 2016), control and restrictions are getting louder (Chen, 2016a; Jolly, 2016). Having a smartphone is seen as common. Heavy or constant use, especially in inappropriate situations will be looked at skeptical or negative (Fisher, 2016; Keh, 2016). For a few, unlimited smartphone use is even seen as something with severe
24 grounding in maps of meanings and social conventions
48 consequences that can lead to addiction (Brooks, 2016; Gonchar, 2016). Nevertheless, in 2016 the smartphone is not solely described negative. 27% of the NYT coverage is positive and smartphones are described as gratifying (Brooks, 2016; Wayne, 2016) and helpful (Graeber, 2016; Kang, 2016). But, as mentioned before (see p.13) for the transmission of a meaning not only the sender is important but the receiver as well. Sender (NYT) and receiver (audience) need a shared code so that messages and underlying meanings can be exchanged. If the reader has a different view of the world as the authors of the NYT he will presumably interpret articles differently than a corresponding reader. Additionally since codes are learned and unconsciously internalized by taking part in the social and cultural life, media and therefore the NYT can also influence these codes (Chung and Rimal, 2016, p.18) and subsequently the creation of meanings. This leads me directly to RQ2; how the NYT influences the norm of smartphone behavior, because codes and norms are closely connected (Bicchieri 2017, p.132).
6.2. Research question II To analyze RQ2 I first want to look at the general potential for influence of the NYT with the help of McGuire’s media effect factors. These factors are a good indicator for the determination of influence potential; the better the NYT, or the article complies with the factors, the greater is the potential for influence and the more successful could new or different codes be internalized by readers. The compliance differs from article to article and reader to reader. Below I generated a table relating the media effect factors to the NYT as a source in general.
Table 04: Media effect factors of McGuire (2001) applied to the New York Times as source, own analysis Media effect factors New York Times Source The NYT is a big, international, widely spread and therefore powerful newspaper with a good reputation and high credibility in many countries. Since its more liberal orientation (news.bbc.co.uk, 2004) the NYT will appear more attractive and relatable to liberal readers. (see context)
49 Message Naturally this factor depends on the article itself and the message it wants to bring across. Impact depends on repetition of the topic, needs of the reader, consistency, the readers involvement, arguments and the appeal (emotional/rational) (McQuail, 2010) Channel Newspapers are usually read alone, which means the reader is more likely to be influenced by it. It also depends on the mood of the reader and the amount of messages received. (McGuire, 2001) Additionally the section of the NYT, where an article is published determines as well how much it is read and who reads it. Audience Demographics and personalities of the reader matter effect wise. NYT readers are more likely to have a higher education and knowledge of current events or topics and consequently the ability to understand and be influenced by topics discussed in the NYT (Street et al., 2012). Destination or target variables Impact is affected by attitudes, actions and behavior of the targeted reader. (McGuire, 1989)
I infer that for many (especially liberal) readers the NYT is a credible and reliable source and pivotal conditions to generate an impact are given. However most of the influence depends on the message itself and other variables. This is why I chose (as described in chapter 5.2) to perform a thorough analysis of one exemplary article of each population. For the analysis I will not only look at the media effect factors but also apply Bicchieri’s norm theory. For the 2007 population, I chose to analyze a review (see table 05 for analysis and appendix for original article), because reviews make out 54% of 2007’s articles and in addition underline the technological focus of the population. Therefore a review is a good example article.
50 Table 05: Analysis of smartphone review NYT 2007 with concepts of McGuire (2001) and Bicchieri (2017), own analysis Categories from „Circuits: A Musical Smartphone, Aiming to Increase theoretical framework the Cool Quotient“ (Biggs, 2007) (see appendix) NYT article / review of Motorola Q Music 9M, written by Jason Biggs; Source credible and experienced source Message Smartphone review, printed about a page long Mix of facts and positive, more persuasive descriptions of the phone. Fulfills the need for a smartphone recommendation, gives information about the phone and reassurance that this phone is safe to buy. Mix between rational and emotional appeals; author names facts, but also tells the reader the phone will help them to look “cool”
Channel The article was published in the technology section of the NYT. It is therefore easy to find for people looking for smartphone reviews and recommendations. Additionally it is most likely seen by the target group tech interested people.
McGuire (2001) Audience The article appeared in the technology section but is easily written and understandable for everybody, naming the most important facts and features but also providing a little bit of a personal view. The review is aimed at people interested in a new phone. People in this target group are more likely to be effected by this article than others. Furthermore the article appeals to a specific group of phone owners, who are interested in listening to music, need an easy to use phone and want to be “cool”. Target variables see audience Expectation Empirical expectation; others will also read this review and buy this phone, if the reader buys the phone he will not be the only one with it,
therefore it is safe to buy, Motivation Fulfills the need to fit in, be fashionable, cool and liked Behavior The review could lead to imitation; respectively the reader could follow the review and buy the phone. Especially when people are
Bicchieri (2017) uncertain they are looking for information and recommendations. The review functions as social proof verifying the phone as a good choice. Inter- or Independent Interdependent
Applying Bicchieri’s concept I identified imitation as a behavior, touched by the article. Smartphones were relatively new to most people in 2007; hence there was a lot of uncertainty for many to choose which one they should buy. In situations like
51 this and because people have the desire to be right and belong, they tend to copy successful actions of others and thereby obtain social proof for their actions (see Imitation) (Bicchieri, 2017). When reading a positive review of a phone the reader presumably has different expectations: a) the article is written by an expert and by writing positively about the phone he verifies the phone as safe option to buy. Moreover in this article he creates the expectation to be “cool” with this phone (Biggs, 2007), which could suit the reader’s need to be liked and cool. b) The reader knows that many other people will read this review and eventually some of them will follow the ‘advice’ given and buy the phone. And to fulfill the need to belong it’s safer to follow the behavior of others (Bicchieri, 2017). According to Bicchieri this is an empirical expectation (What will other people do?). Since no sanctions and therefore no normative expectations are involved in this case this behavior grounds in a descriptive norm (see figure 07). Due to the limited target group, the potential of influence of this article is also limited to certain reader. If the reader is not looking to buy a new phone or is not interested in this kind of phone (too expensive, other preferences etc.) the article will not appeal to him. On the other hand, if the reader is looking for a phone like this the impact on him might be even greater. Compared to three other NYT smartphone reviews in 2007, this article was not written in a very positive tone in general, or enthusiastically in regards to the phone but only positive. Subsequently the emotional influence of this review is less compared to the mentioned articles. But what determines the potential for influence of this article the most are the emerging empirical expectations. Readers are more influenced through the expectations what other people will do, than through the provision of information about the attributes of the phone (Bicchieri, 2017, p.152)(see table 01). And because of this it is determined for the impact that the article is written from a trustworthy expert in a personal style. Thus the reader will think other people will trust the expert and buy the phone. The articles of the 2016 population – I verified with RQ1 – are more concerned with the consequences of pervasion and influence of the smartphone in society. Thus I chose one out of the eight very critical articles that had a relevant societal topic25
25 screen time of teenagers
52 and many relevant themes that can be connected to the framework for an insightful analysis (see table 06).
Table 06: Analysis of smartphone related article NYT 2016 with concepts of McGuire (2001) and Bicchieri (2017), own analysis Categories from „In ‚Screenagers’, what to do about too much screen time“ theoretical framework (Jolly, 2016) (see appendix) Source NYT article/Interview with Dr. Delaney Ruston, edited by Jennifer Jolly; credible source, interview partner (testimony) is physician (expert/ informational influence) and mother (emotional influence)
Message Interview about documentary film with the topic screen time of teenagers, printed about five pages long, Includes factual information through studies but works also on emotional level, therefore it is a mix between rational and emotional appeals. Additionally works with direct appeals to the reader, sometimes
even in a normative way. Creates awareness. Channel The article was published in the health section of the NYT. This gives the topic even more seriousness and underlines the appeal character of it. Mc Guire (2001) Audience The article is directed towards families with children and people that are helpless with the handling of time spent by teenagers in front of a screen (smartphone, videogames etc.) Target variables The impact of the article depends on the readers attitude about this topic Expectation Empirical and normative expectations. Other people (director and her network) do not let their children play with smartphones that much. The readers are supposed to have rules for smartphone use and limit the screen time for their children but also for themselves. Social sanctions could occur if readers do not behave accordingly,
moreover it could be bad for the children’s health. Motivation Article creates awareness of problematic behavior and thus gives reasons for change Behavior The article could lead to an update of expectations of the reader. The
Bicchieri (2017) interview and the mentioned documentary film could start further discussions about the topic and further influence expectations of other people. It could therefore be part of a coordination of expectations and behavior. If the expectations represented by the article are dominant in the reference network, people will behave accordingly.
53 Inter- or Independent interdependent
In the above described article the author interviews a director about her documentary “Screenagers” and its content, teenagers spending too much time with their smartphones. For this article the director of the documentary functions, next to the author and the NYT as additional source. Within this function she has a special role as well: as physician she is an expert and as a mother of two teenagers she is a relatable figure, who can also claim an emotional level. She basically functions like a double testimony (see table 01). This style reflects throughout the article, with mentioned studies factual information is included and with personal stories of the mother the article works on an emotional level. On top of these rational and emotional appeals, the author and the director work with direct appeals to the audience; e.g. author asks in the beginning: “Sound familiar?” (Jolly, 2016, p.1) or when the director states: “They can’t do it without you, and they shouldn’t have to.” (Jolly, 2016, p.3) Especially with a sensible topic like children, the direct addressing of the audience is very effective. Applying it to Bicchieri’s concepts the director’s direct appeal is a normative influence (Bicchieri, 2017, p.23f.). Most likely normative expectations emerge for the reader (what they think they ought to do). Social sanctions could be feared if one doesn’t conform to the normative expectations. In this case the reader is supposed to set up screen time rules and limit the teenagers smartphone use (Jolly, 2016, p.4). The mother’s behavior (e.g. giving guidelines to her children and obeying them herself) and the supposed reaction of other readers (will establish rules after reading article) could be seen as empirical expectations. With empirical and normative expectations present, this behavior could, according to Bicchieri (2017) be classified as social norm. If a reader of the article is not behaving according to the social norm (not setting children limits (Jolly, 2016, p.3)), the article could create awareness about the noncompliance and the underlying problem (children need and want rules (Jolly, 2016, p.3)). Through this awareness, the distribution of factual information (studies correlating smartphone use and reduced attention spans as well as negative effects on learning (Jolly, 2016, p.2f.)) emotional influence (comparison with drug use (Jolly, 2016, p.4)) beliefs about the situation might shift. And changed beliefs could work as motivator for a change of behavior. Solely belief alteration is not enough motivation to modify behavior
54 though (Bicchieri, 2017, p.119). The reader needs to be aware, that other people are following this social norm or will be following it after reading the article and negative sanctions will occur in case of disobedience. As mentioned before people are rather influenced by expected behavior of others than by their own beliefs, consequently before behavior of a reader would indeed alter, coordination of change is required (Bicchieri, 2017) (see table 01). The director’s statement at the end of the article could be seen as declaration that she wants to start a coordinated change and intervention against too much smartphone use of teenagers:
“I want to spark a movement to get everyone, from parents to policymakers, to watch the movie, then have a ‘town hall’ style conversation afterward about how we can best help kids lead more balanced lives. I see this as the first step. (Jolly, 2016 p.5)”
If hypothetically the NYT would continue this story, follow up on discussions about the film and report reactions of viewers and their opinion (e.g. they started to set up rules for screen time in their family after watching the film). The reader of this article would receive confirmation that other reader or viewer of the film changed their behavior and they would not be the only ones setting up rules. In contrast, other people from the reference network could see it as positive if the reader would set up rules themselves. This is only one possible scenario for consequences of the article though and there are many more factors influencing the situation that I did not acknowledge in the analysis. If the reader’s reference network for example does not comply with a social norm as described above, social sanctions would not occur. And if the reader is not strongly affected by the normative, emotional or informational influence of the article, his belief would not change and therefore no reason for change would exist. The potential influence of the article on the reader, the sensitivity to a norm and the consequences of disobedience all play a part in this (Bicchieri, 2017, p.38) (see Social Norm). Regarding the potential influence of the article I conclude that for a certain audience26 the impact is high, because of the involvement of so many persuasive parameters27. Even the fact, that the article was published in the health
26 e.g. parents with teenage or younger children 27 emotional and rational appeals, style, likeableness and expertise of source etc.
55 section gives the topic seriousness and puts an emphasis on the message (see Channel). But as mentioned before the potential for influence depends on many factors and cannot be determined without specifications.
Summarizing, in both thorough analyzes of NYT articles, I found different concepts that can be connected to Bicchieri’s norm theory. In the review the concept of imitation was indicated, with emergence of empirical expectations. And in the second article an attempt for coordinated change of a social norm was referenced, with exertion of influence on beliefs and behavior through creation of awareness, providing factual information, emotional influence and most important through social expectations28. To increase the validity and reliability of my findings, I compared the results of the qualitative analysis of all samples with the above described thorough analyzes. All described concepts and factors of influence could be found in further articles of 2007 or 2016, although in different frequencies of occurrence (see table 07).
Table 07: Comparison of results of thorough qualitative analyzes of two example articles and the analysis of all samples, own analyzes Concept / Description of articles Example articles Factor of influence Imitation all reviews + articles positively (Biggs, 2007; Markoff, 2007b; describing phones like iPhone or Nocera, 2007) Google Phone Coordination “App Makers Reach Out to the (Dougherty, 2016) Teenager on Mobile”
Creation of awareness Critical articles, articles about (Boudette, 2016; Guo and Ives, distracted driving and walking 2016)
Factual information All articles including facts, which are (Wayne, 2016) almost all, especially studies because they are a seen as reliable source Emotional influence Either personal written articles that (Guo and Ives, 2016) are more relatable that way, or articles with emotional topics, e.g.
28 empirical and normative
56 articles mentioning children, teenagers
Empirical expectations All articles where behavior of other (Egan, 2016) people is described, observation of reality Normative expectations Article with normative influence, the (Dougherty, 2016; Guo and reader is under the impression he Ives, 2016) ought to do something. “App Makers Reach Out to the Teenager on Mobile”
Additionally two more concepts mentioned by Bicchieri emerged in the analysis of all samples: trendsetter and forming of schemata and scripts through observation of reality, which I will elaborate in the following. As described in table 01, media can function as a trendsetter. In their role as journalists NYT authors can, or are even supposed to cover issues that are new to or not favored by the wider society. If a new topic is covered by the NYT this coverage can initiate behavioral change, show their readers, that change is occurring and therefore take part in coordination of change (Bicchieri, 2017). Because of the reach of the NYT covered topics are spread to a wider audience and thus change is accelerated. Examples from my material for trendsetting are the hype of the iPhone, which wouldn’t have been as massive if the media wouldn’t have been enthusiastic about it (Pogue, 2007). Or the increasing critique of unlimited smartphone use in many articles of 2016 (Jolly, 2016; Paul, 2016; Wayne, 2016). The critical coverage creates awareness and can lead to discussion and an update of expectations (Bicchieri, 2017). However examining the NYT’s role as trendsetter, it has to be considered, that the NYT is not the only media covering the trending topics. Schemata, which can be compared to the code from the semiotic approach and scripts29, are grounded in experience and knowledge about the social world (Fiske and Taylor 1991; McClelland, Rumelhart, and PDP Research Group 1986; Rumelhart 1998, ref. in Bicchieri, 2017, p.132). This knowledge can be obtained (see p.26) through information and observation of reality through media and therefore the NYT. According to Bicchieri (2017) expectations are formed based on schemata. And
29 event schemata
57 other people’s behavior is evaluated through scripts. Consequently the NYT can indirectly influence how expectations emerge. Furthermore this inference connects RQ1 and RQ2. By representing smartphones in a certain way, the NYT influences schemata and scripts around smartphones and has subsequently – albeit little – impact on how people expect others to behave with their device and how they are supposed to behave themselves. This eventually leads to an effect on norms of smartphone behavior. By applying Bicchieri’s concepts to my analysis and examining my research material in regards to factors for potential influence on norms (see table 01), I came to the conclusion that the NYT has a potential impact by - distributing factual information - emotional influence - display of reality - creating awareness - guidance and advice for imitation - taking part in coordination - setting of trends - change of beliefs - representation of topics relevant to schemata and scripts - and conveying or updating of social expectations In regards to norms, these factors are not equally measured. Since norms are based on social expectations, norms cannot be influenced without also influencing social expectations (Bicchieri, 2017) (see p.22). Consequently the NYT cannot change norms immediately. Instead it has the potential to influence normative behavior in the above-mentioned ways. As my analysis reveals, the potential of influence on norms depends on many different factors and to determine the extent of the influence is difficult. Factors include the media effect factors according to McGuire (2001), autonomy and norm sensitivity of the reader and possible consequences (Bicchieri, 2017) and therefore depend to a great extend on the specific article and reader. Nevertheless I can infer from applying Bicchieri’s concepts that the greatest potential of influence emerges from conveying empirical as well as normative expectations. However all named factors are intertwined, the many factors not
58 directly influencing expectations do so indirectly as described in the examples above.
7 Discussion
7.1 Societal Implications The analysis of RQ1 shows that in both examined years the obvious meaning of smartphone represented by the NYT has not changed. In 2007 as well as in 2016 a smartphone is represented as technological device that is mainly used to communicate and entertain oneself. Concerning the connotation of smartphones however the representation is divergent and my hypotheses proofed valid; the NYT’s representation of the social meaning of smartphone is predominantly positive in 2007. The handheld device is adored and often described enthusiastically e.g. as revolutionary (Helft, 2007; Helft and Markoff, 2007; Nocera, 2007). The dominating topics of coverage are new phone releases or attributes of smartphones and have a technological character. Regarding the NYT’s representation of the connotation of smartphones in 2016 the meaning has changed. Smartphones are characterized more negative than in 2007, sometimes pictured very negative as causing problems or distracting. Nevertheless positive descriptions and articles focusing on technology can still be found. But critical coverage on consequences of the dissemination and impact of the smartphone on society is more common. Another interesting finding of my content analysis is that many topics from recent smartphone research are also represented in the NYT articles (see table 08).
Table 08: Comparison of topics recent research and NYT articles Topic Recent Research New York Times articles (only examples) (only examples) Always on (Gerlich et al., 2015) (Dougherty, 2016; Egan, 2016; Jolly, 2016) Absent presence, multitasking, (Fortunati, 2002; Gergen, (Egan, 2016; Wayne, 2016) or no time for reflection 2002) Staying connected (Couldry, 2004; Fortunati, (Brooks, 2016; Paul, 2016) 2002) Expand time (Fortunati, 2002) (Paul, 2016) Providing security and stability (Fortunati, 2002) (Paul, 2016)
59 Simplification (Chotpitayasunondh and (Miller, 2007; Pogue, 2007) Douglas, 2016) Dependency (Meyer zu Hörste, 2017) (Wayne, 2016) Distracted drivers or walkers (Hassani et al., 2016) (Fisher, 2016; Guo and Ives, 2016) Snubbing or ignoring of others (Chotpitayasunondh and (Foster, 2016) Douglas, 2016; Przybylski and Weinstein, 2013) Addiction (Oulasvirta et al., 2011) (Chen, 2016b; Jolly, 2016; Keh, 2016)
Even though there is no explicit connection to the research itself, a few articles are referencing similar studies. But most of them seem to be independent of research conducted and are rather based on personal experiences of the authors or recent events. In accordance with my hypotheses, almost all articles found in compliance with the topics concerning social life from recent research, are from the 2016 population. Furthermore the majority of theses topics are about negative effects of smartphones. This is true for both, recent research and NYT articles. This could lead to the assumption that the connotation of smartphones has changed from positive to a rather critical meaning for many people from the devices early days until now. This would be interesting to investigate further. Even more interesting considering my finding in the analysis of RQ2, that RQ1 and RQ2 can be related. And thus the NYTs representation of smartphones has a potential to have an effect on normative behavior through influencing smartphone related schemata and scripts. Results from my analysis, reveal that the NYT’s potential on normative influence of smartphone behavior is mainly exerted through social expectations. Which is also grounded in the framework of Bicchieri’s norm theory stating that behavior is more affected by what individuals believe others do and approve of than what the individuals beliefs themselves. Further factors of influence related to normative behavior and social expectations are factual information, emotional influence, display of reality, creating awareness, imitation, coordination, setting of trends and change of beliefs. To bring my research into a broader perspective I compared my results of the investigation of RQ2 to the findings of previous research of applied social norms theory (see p.30) and media influence (see p.31). My conclusion coincides with the
60 research results of Berkowitz, who claims that behavior is based more on perceived norms30 than on actual norms. Compared to the studies of Gunther et al. (2006) and Chia (2006) concluding the indirect influence from perceived peer norms and the assumed influence of the media content on peers are greater than the direct influence of media exposure (see p.31) my findings seem appropriate. Considering all of my research results, I think that my work not only demonstrates how different smartphones are represented in 2007 and 2016 by the NYT and how the newspaper has a potential for normative influence on smartphone behavior. But also conveys how the newspaper can influence readers in general, which factors matter regarding influence and thus create more awareness. Since I observed that research considering the representation of smartphones and norms of smartphone behavior is scarce I think that my work can supply valuable information and insights and hopefully give an impulse for further research.
7.2 Limitations and further research Due to the scope of this paper my work was limited to the NYT, predominantly the area of the USA and the years of 2007 and 2016. Considering these limitations it would be insightful to examine the research questions with other media, either from a different country31 or a different medium32 and compare the results. This would be especially interesting in Asia as I touched upon differences of my results from the USA and other research conducted in Hong Kong (see p.40). Further one could conduct a broader representative study with different media channels so conclusions about media in general could be made. After comparing similarities of topics in recent research and NYT articles it would be interesting to me if results from other media are coinciding as well. Another good approach could be to investigate the perception of media influence on norms or the perceived norms around smartphones in general, since this emerged to be an important factor in the construction of social norms. Conducting this research I often thought about how the analyzed articles would be perceived by “the other side” – the reader. Additionally and since I think it could become a more discussed topic as smartphone
30 which can be compared to Bicchieri’s social expectations 31 e.g the Guardian 32 e.g. TV, social media
61 usage time and dependency will increase even more, smartphone addiction or annoyance interventions could be implemented and researched. Especially because smartphone addiction or annoyance has according to Jolly (2016) many similar attributes to smoking, alcohol or drug abuse. And in these cases it was proved that positive results with interventions can be achieved if campaigns are targeted and planned in a right way to counteract on these topics (Berkowitz, 2004; Schultz et al., 2007; Bicchieri, 2017). I think this would be an interesting and worthy topic to research. Especially because mobile phone use is also associated with health risk behaviors like smoking or alcohol use (Koivusilta et al., 2005), thus research could also be combined.
8 Conclusion
The aim of this thesis was to investigate (1) how smartphones are represented by the NYT in 2007 and 2016 and (2) what potential influence the NYT has on the norms of smartphone behavior. On the topic of smartphone representation by media as well as on the potential influence of media on the norms of smartphone behavior previous research is scarce and very little was found during the work of this thesis. Therefore I conclude that the results of this paper provide valuable insights and help to encourage further research in this field. The research was conducted in two parts both with a content analysis of NYT articles from 2007 and 2016 with smartphones as main topic. Part 1 to investigate RQ1 with a quantitative content analysis set out to validate the two previously formed hypotheses: H1 – In 2007 the coverage of smartphones will be mainly positive and focus on technological aspects. H2 – In 2016 the coverage will be more critical about the consequences of the pervasion and influence of the smartphone in society. And part 2 to explore RQ2 through a qualitative content analysis. The applied theoretical framework consists of three different approaches. Hall’s (1997b) work of representation, McGuire’s (2001) media effect factors and social norms theory. For the latter mostly Bicchieri’s (2017) theory on social norms was used.
62 Concerning RQ1 both hypotheses could be clearly validated through the main findings of the quantitative content analysis. Through the application of the representation theory and the thereby included semiotic approach two levels of meaning of smartphone could be identified: The obvious meaning of smartphone and the more underlying level of connotation, which is more open to interpretation and depends on the code that grounds in social conventions and experiences of the individual. Resulting from the analysis I conclude that the connotation of smartphone is represented differently in 2007 and 2016 by the NYT. As assumed in 2007 smartphones are portrayed predominantly positive with very few negative articles. Most named characterizations of the device are entertaining, simplifying, useful and versatile. The categories NYT section, main topic and audience addressed further revealed the focus on technological aspects. In 2016 the connotation shifted to a more negative and critical meaning. Smartphones were described as causing problems, distracting, fragmenting attention or even addictive. And the coverage proofed to be more about societal issues and the consequences of the pervasion of smartphones. By connecting my findings to previous conducted research on smartphones I came furthermore to the conclusion that similar topics in the research on smartphones and NYT articles about smartphones were covered. In regards to RQ2 results reveal that the NYT’s potential on normative influence of smartphone behavior is mainly exerted through social expectations. Which could be described by Bicchieri’s (2017) words “Interdependence not independence, rules social life.” (p.10) Social expectations consist of empirical expectations (how an individual expects other people will behave) as well as normative expectations (expectations an individual has off how other people think he ought to behave). Other factors of potential impact of the NYT are the distribution of factual information, emotional influence, display of reality, creation of awareness, guidance and advice for imitation, taking part in coordination, setting trends, belief change, and representation of topics relevant to schemata and scripts. These factors are all interrelated and the determination of the influence is difficult to determine. A further interesting finding of this thesis is that RQ1 and RQ2 are connected. Through the representation of topics (here smartphones), schemata and scripts can be built and changed. And thus they are also a factor of potential influence on the norms of smartphone behavior. Through comparing my results to previous research in the
63 fields of applied social norms theory and media influence I detected that all findings of mentioned research coincide. By answering the research questions and validating the hypotheses through a structured and well-grounded analysis I think that I could fulfill the aim of the thesis.
64 References
Adami E and Kress G (2009) The social semiotics of convergent mobile devices: New forms of composition and the transformation of habitus. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication: 184–97.
Agger B (2011) iTime: Labor and life in a smartphone era. Time & Society 20(1): 119–136.
Androutsopoulos J (2011) Language change and digital media: a review of conceptions and evidence. Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. Novus, Oslo. Available from: http://lanchart.hum.ku.dk/research/slice/publications_and_news_letters/publications/standard_lan guages/Androusopoulos_- _Language_change_and_digital_media_A_review_of_conceptions_and_evidence_-_p_145-159.pdf (accessed 8 June 2017).
Angeluci ACB and Huang G (2015) Rethinking media displacement: the tensions between mobile media and face-to-face interaction/Repensando o deslocamento da mídia: as tensões entre as mídias móveis ea interação face-a-face. Revista FAMECOS 22(4): 173.
Berkowitz AD (2004) The Social Norms Approach: Theory, Research, and Annotated bibliography. Available from: http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/social_norms.pdf (accessed 20 April 2017).
Bicchieri C (2017) Norms in the wild: how to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bicchieri C and Muldoon R (2014) Social Norms. Spring 2014. In: Zalta EN (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/social-norms/ (accessed 1 June 2017).
Biggs J (2007) Product Information on Motorola Q Music 9M Smartphone. The New York Times, 30th August. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/technology/circuits/30phone.html (accessed 15 May 2017).
Bloomberg.com (2012) Before IPhone and Android Came Simon, the First Smartphone. 29th June. Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-06-29/before-iphone-and- android-came-simon-the-first-smartphone (accessed 29 May 2017).
Boudette NE (2016) Biggest Spike in Traffic Deaths in 50 Years? Blame Apps. The New York Times, 15th November. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/business/tech- distractions-blamed-for-rise-in-traffic-fatalities.html (accessed 13 May 2017).
65 Brooks D (2016) Intimacy for the Avoidant. The New York Times, 7th October. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/opinion/intimacy-for-the-avoidant.html (accessed 13 May 2017).
Brown G, Manago AM and Trimble JE (2016) Tempted to text: College students’ mobile phone use during a face-to-face interaction with a close friend. Emerging Adulthood 4(6): 440–443.
Cellan-Jones R (2014) World’s first ‘smartphone’ celebrates 20 years. BBC News, 15th August. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28802053 (accessed 29 May 2017).
Chen BX (2016a) What’s the Right Age for a Child to Get a Smartphone? The New York Times, 20th July. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/technology/personaltech/whats-the- right-age-to-give-a-child-a-smartphone.html (accessed 12 May 2017).
Chen BX (2016b) Why You May Want a Smaller iPhone, and Your Questions Answered. The New York Times, 23rd March. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/technology/personaltech/who-will-like-the-new-smaller- iphone-se.html (accessed 11 May 2017).
Chia SC (2006) How Peers Mediate Media Influence on Adolescents’ Sexual Attitudes and Sexual Behavior. Journal of Communication 56(3): 585–606.
Chia SC and Gunther AC (2006) How Media Contribute to Misperceptions of Social Norms About Sex. Mass Communication and Society 9(3): 301–320.
Chotpitayasunondh V and Douglas KM (2016) How ‘phubbing’ becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior 63: 9–18.
Chung A and Rimal RN (2016) Social norms: a review. Review of Communication Research 4: 1–28.
Collins H (2010) Creative research: the theory and practice of research for the creative industries. Required reading range : module reader, Lausanne, Switzerland: AVA Pub. SA.
Couldry N (2004) Liveness,‘reality,’ and the mediated habitus from television to the mobile phone. The communication review 7(4): 353–361.
Dillard J and Shen L (2012) The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc. Available from: http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_persuasion2ed (accessed 26 April 2017).
Dougherty C (2016) App Makers Reach Out to the Teenager on Mobile. The New York Times, 1st January. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/business/app-makers-reach-out- to-the-teenager-on-mobile.html (accessed 18 April 2017).
66 Drago E (2015) The Effect of Technology on Face-to-Face Communication. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications 6(1). Available from: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1137/the-effect-of-technology-on-face-to-face- communication (accessed 8 June 2017).
Egan T (2016) The Eight-Second Attention Span. The New York Times, 22nd January. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/opinion/the-eight-second-attention-span.html (accessed 18 April 2017).
Fackler M (2007) Rival Manufacturers Chasing the iPhone. The New York Times, 2nd July. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/02/technology/02cellphone.html (accessed 15 May 2017).
Fisher J (2016) Safer Alternatives for Drivers Who Text Are Just Around the Corner. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/05/02/how-to-stop-people-from-texting-while- driving/safer-alternatives-for-drivers-who-text-are-just-around-the-corner (accessed 14 August 2017).
Flick U (2016) Sozialforschung: Methoden und Anwendungen: ein Überblick für die BA-Studiengänge. 3. Auflage. Rororo Rowohlts Enzyklopädie, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.
Forgays DK, Hyman I and Schreiber J (2014) Texting everywhere for everything: Gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human Behavior 31: 314–321.
Fortunati L (2002) The mobile phone: Towards new categories and social relations. Information, Communication & Society 5(4): 513–528.
Foster BL (2016) Married to Their Smartphones (Oh, and to Each Other, Too). The New York Times, 28th October. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/style/smartphones-iphone- marriage-husbands-wives-technology.html (accessed 13 May 2017).
Friedman TL (2016) Trump and the Lord’s Work. The New York Times, 3rd May. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/opinion/trump-and-the-lords-work.html (accessed 11 May 2017). gartner.com (n.d.) Gartner Says Annual Smartphone Sales Surpassed Sales of Feature Phones for the First Time in 2013. Available from: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2665715 (accessed 30 May 2017).
Geiger A (2017) Millennials are the most likely generation of Americans to use public libraries. Pew Research Center. Available from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/21/millennials- are-the-most-likely-generation-of-americans-to-use-public-libraries/ (accessed 15 August 2017).
67 Gergen KJ (2002) 14 The challenge of absent presence. Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance: 227.
Gerlich RN, Drumheller K, Babb J, et al. (2015) App Consumption: An Exploratory Analysis of the Uses & Gratifications of Mobile Apps. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal 19(1): 69.
Gonchar M (2016) Does Technology Make Us More Alone? The New York Times, 14th October. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/learning/does-technology-make-us-more- alone.html (accessed 13 May 2017).
Graeber L (2016) Solving Mysteries at the American Museum of Natural History, Smartphone in Hand. The New York Times, 14th April. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/arts/design/solving-mysteries-at-the-american-museum- of-natural-history-smartphone-in-hand.html (accessed 11 May 2017).
GSMArena.com (n.d.) IDC report says smartphones outsell computers for the first time. Available from: http://www.gsmarena.com/idc_report_says_smartphones_outsell_computers_for_the_first_time- news-2303.php (accessed 30 May 2017).
Gunther AC, Bolt D, Borzekowski DLG, et al. (2006) Presumed Influence on Peer Norms: How Mass Media Indirectly Affect Adolescent Smoking. Journal of Communication 56(1): 52–68.
Guo O and Ives M (2016) A Toddler Dies as Her Mother Checks Her Phone, and China Wrings Its Hands. The New York Times, 1st November. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/world/asia/china-mobile-phone-mother-daughter.html (accessed 13 May 2017).
Hall S (ed.) (1997a) Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. Culture, media, and identities, London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage in association with the Open University.
Hall S (1997b) The work of representation. In: Ouellette, L. ed., 2013. The media studies reader. Routledge.
Hassani S, Kelly EH, Smith J, et al. (2016) Preventing distracted driving among college students: Addressing smartphone use. Accident Analysis & Prevention 99, Part A: 297–305.
Helft M (2007) For Google, Advertising and Phones Go Together. The New York Times, 8th October. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/business/media/08googlephone.html (accessed 15 May 2017).
68 Helft M and Markoff J (2007) Google Enters the Wireless World. The New York Times, 5th November. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/technology/05cnd-gphone.html (accessed 15 May 2017).
Jolly J (2016) In ‘Screenagers,’ What to Do About Too Much Screen Time. Well. Available from: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/in-screenagers-what-to-do-about-too-much-screen- time/ (accessed 11 May 2017).
Kang C (2016) Bridging a Digital Divide That Leaves Schoolchildren Behind. The New York Times, 22nd February. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/technology/fcc-internet- access-school.html (accessed 11 May 2017).
Keh A (2016) Trending at Halftime: N.B.A. Players Checking Their Phones. The New York Times, 20th April. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/sports/basketball/nba-players- checking-phones-at-halftime.html (accessed 11 May 2017).
Khalaf S and Kesiraju L (2017) U.S. Consumers Time-Spent on Mobile Crosses 5 Hours a Day. Flurry Blog. Available from: http://flurrymobile.tumblr.com (accessed 10 August 2017).
Koivusilta L, Lintonen T and Rimpelä A (2005) Intensity of mobile phone use and health compromising behaviours—how is information and communication technology connected to health- related lifestyle in adolescence? Journal of Adolescence 28(1): 35–47.
Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.
Kuckartz U (2014) Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. Available from: http://methods.sagepub.com/book/qualitative-text-analysis (accessed 31 July 2017).
Lapinski MK and Rimal RN (2005) An Explication of Social Norms. Communication Theory 15(2): 127–147.
Lee Y-K, Chang C-T, Lin Y, et al. (2014) The dark side of smartphone usage: Psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress. Computers in Human Behavior 31: 373–383.
Lella A (2017) Smartphone Usage Has Doubled in the Past Three Years. comScore, Inc. Available from: http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/Smartphone-Usage-Has-Doubled-in-the-Past-Three-Years (accessed 15 May 2017).
Ling R (2005) The Sociolinguistics of SMS: An Analysis of SMS Use by a Random Sample of Norwegians. In: Mobile Communications, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Springer London,
69 pp. 335–349. Available from: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-84628-248-9_22 (accessed 8 June 2017).
Mallinson K (2015) Smartphone Revolution: Technology patenting and licensing fosters innovation, market entry, and exceptional growth. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine 4(2): 60–66.
Markoff J (2007a) Apple Introduces Innovative Cellphone. The New York Times, 10th January. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/technology/10apple.html (accessed 18 April 2017).
Markoff J (2007b) Google Phone. The New York Times, 4th November. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/technology/04google.html (accessed 15 May 2017).
McCarty B (2011) The History of Smartphones. The Next Web. Available from: https://thenextweb.com/mobile/2011/12/06/the-history-of-the-smartphone/ (accessed 30 May 2017).
McGuire WJ (1989) Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In: In Rice, R.E. (ed.), Public communications campaigns, Beverley Hills, Sage Publications, 1989, p.41-70.
McGuire WJ (2001) Input and Output Variables Currently Promising for Constructing Persuasive Communications. In: Public Communication Campaigns, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc., pp. 22–48. Available from: http://sk.sagepub.com/books/public-communication-campaigns-3e/n2.xml (accessed 23 April 2017).
McQuail D (2010) Mcquail’s mass communication theory. 6th ed. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Merriam-Webster (n.d.) Definition of SMARTPHONE. Available from: https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/smartphone (accessed 29 May 2017).
Meyer zu Hörste H (2017) The use of smarphones during face-to-face conversations. Malmö Högskola.
Miller SC (2007) Motorola’s Q Global Smartphone. The New York Times, 8th November. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/technology/personaltech/08phone.html (accessed 15 May 2017).
Misra S, Cheng L, Genevie J, et al. (2016) The iPhone effect: the quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environment and Behavior 48(2): 275–298.
70 Moser C, Schoenebeck SY and Reinecke K (2016) Technology at the table: Attitudes about mobile phone use at mealtimes. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, pp. 1881–1892. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2858357 (accessed 8 June 2017).
Mozur P (2016) Apple iPhone, Once a Status Symbol in China, Loses Its Luster. The New York Times, 27th April. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/technology/apple-china-iphone- earnings.html (accessed 11 May 2017). news.bbc.co.uk (2004) Findings on 9/11 split US press. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3816021.stm (accessed 10 August 2017).
Nocera J (2007) iPhone Spin Goes Round and Round. The New York Times, 30th June. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/business/30nocera.html (accessed 15 May 2017).
NYT Search ‘Smartphone’ 2007 (n.d.). Available from: https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection®ion=TopBar&W T.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=Homepage#/smartphone/from20070101to20 071231/allresults/1/allauthors/oldest/.
NYT Search ‘Smartphone’ 2016 (n.d.). Available from: https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection®ion=TopBar&W T.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=Homepage#/smartphone/from20160101to20 161231/allresults/1/allauthors/oldest/.
Ouellette L (ed.) (2013) The media studies reader. New York ; London: Routledge.
Oulasvirta A, Rattenbury T, Ma L, et al. (2011) Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16(1): 105–114.
Oxford Dictionaries | English (n.d.) smartphone - definition of smartphone in English | Oxford Dictionaries. Available from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/smartphone (accessed 29 May 2017).
Park WK (2005) Mobile Phone Addiction. In: Mobile Communications, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Springer London, pp. 253–272. Available from: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-84628-248-9_17 (accessed 8 June 2017).
Paul P (2016) Every Day’s a Holiday (or Two). The New York Times, 14th April. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/fashion/holidays-social-media.html (accessed 11 May 2017).
71 Pogue D (2007) Apple Waves Its Wand, Again. The New York Times, 10th January. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/technology/10cnd-pogue.html (accessed 18 April 2017).
Poushter J (2016) Smartphones are common in advanced economies, but digital divides remain. Pew Research Center. Available from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2017/04/21/smartphones-are-common-in-advanced-economies-but-digital-divides-remain/ (accessed 18 May 2017).
Przybylski AK and Weinstein N (2013) Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(3): 237–246.
Pulitzer Prizes (2017) Pulitzer Prizes. Available from: http://www.nytco.com/pulitzer-prizes/ (accessed 10 August 2017).
Rainie L and Zickuhr K (2015) Americans’ views on mobile etiquette. Pew Research Center. 2015.
Salehan M and Negahban A (2013) Social networking on smartphones: When mobile phones become addictive. Computers in Human Behavior 29(6): 2632–2639.
Sarwar M and Soomro TR (2013) Impact of Smartphone’s on Society. European journal of scientific research 98(2): 216–226.
Savage P (1995) Designing a GUI for Business Telephone Users. interactions 2(1): 32–41.
Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, et al. (2007) The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychological Science (0956-7976) 18(5): 429–434.
Segerstad YH af (2005) Language Use in Swedish Mobile Text Messaging. In: Mobile Communications, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Springer London, pp. 313–333. Available from: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-84628-248-9_21 (accessed 8 June 2017).
Statista (2016) Smartphone sales worldwide 2007-2016 | Statistic. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263437/global-smartphone-sales-to-end-users-since-2007/ (accessed 18 May 2017).
Street 1615 L., NW, Washington S 800, et al. (2012) Section 4: Demographics and Political Views of News Audiences. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Available from: http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news- audiences/ (accessed 3 August 2017).
72 Street 1615 L., NW, Washington S 800, et al. (2017) Mobile Fact Sheet. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/ (accessed 15 May 2017).
Sullivan M (2015) Opinion | Times Reaches Online Milestone, but Many Challenges Await. The New York Times, 15th August. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/public- editor/times-reaches-online-milestone-but-many-challenges-await.html (accessed 10 August 2017).
Wayne T (2016) The End of Reflection. The New York Times, 11th June. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/fashion/internet-technology-phones-introspection.html (accessed 12 May 2017).
Wikipedia (2017a) iPhone. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPhone&oldid=782703846 (accessed 30 May 2017).
Wikipedia (2017b) Open Handset Alliance. Available from: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Handset_Alliance&oldid=163537498 (accessed 30 May 2017).
Wikipedia (2017c) Smartphone. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smartphone&oldid=782776493 (accessed 29 May 2017).
Wikipedia (2017d) The New York Times. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_New_York_Times&oldid=794799261 (accessed 10 August 2017). www.idc.com (n.d.) IDC: Smartphone OS Market Share. Available from: https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os (accessed 30 May 2017).
Yung V (2005) The construction of symbolic values of the mobile phone in the Hong Kong Chinese print media. In: Mobile Communications, Springer, pp. 351–366. Available from: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/1-84628-248-9_23.pdf (accessed 2 May 2017).
73 Appendices
Table of Contents
1. Codebook / Category definitions 2. Full list of sample NYT articles 2007 + 2016 3. NYT Article 2007: Circuits: A Musical Smartphone, Aiming to Increase the Cool Quotient 4. NYT Article 2016: In ’Screenagers’, What to Do About Too Much Screen Time
74 Codebook / Category definitions
Theoretical framework Main Category Subcategory Definition
Article data Sample No Pop No Title Link date articel length pages website measured in pages with safari Mc Guire reader view, printed as pdf input communication factors Source / who speaker NYT reporter author of article NYT Columnist Voice of article whos's interests / issues are represented? Message / what Style formal regular article personal / column written as column or with personal style personal/interview interview with opinion expressed Tone neutral very positive Overall tone of article, are more positive, positive negative or neutral words used? negative very negative Tone about smartphones enthusiastic Which tone is used to describe positive smartphones? Are descriptions made neutral enthusiastically, positive, neutral, critical or critical very critical? very critical Smartphone characterization useful entertaining helpful simplifying unifying versatile ubiquitous gorgeous convenient addictive limited causing problems sleek stylish beautiful elegant amazing annoying flashy fancy reduced cool unique lousy problematic unstable For whole category: revolutionary words from the articles used to describe a rocking smartphone are used as subcategories slim powerful multiple answers possible natural stunning special case unifying: luxurious if merging of iPod and phone gratifying or the use of one phone irresistable for mails and calls needed are mentioned distracting code as unifying tiring customized/ customizable great excellent comfortable fragmenting attention stellar frustrating stable fast For whole category: words from the articles used to describe a smartphone are used as subcategories
multiple answers possible
special case unifying: if merging of iPod and phone or the use of one phone for mails and calls are mentioned code as unifying
Codebook / Category definitions
capable ugly engaging desireable antisocial not trustworthy smart high end durable jewel miraculous dangerous mediocre underwhelming decent Smartphone characterization negativ each article classified as either negative, positiv positive or neutral neutral Smartphone name / label Name / label name mentioned rational then categorised either emotional or User characterization I Neutral user special dependent in control involved contradicted Apple Fan non geek fashion interested screenscrolly For whole category: crisis victim words from the articles used to describe a parents smartphone user are used as subcategories addicted out of control multiple answers possible shortsighted less focused special case neutral: helpless / if user is not characterized code as neutral having problems taking part interestet distracted Journalists impatient conscious Couples obssesed overusing User characterization II negativ each article classified as either negative, positiv positive or neutral neutral User characterization III teenager / children mentioning of teenager or children EXAMPLE QUOTE FROM ARTICLE Norm / values 07-10 Cellphones have become a critical part of daily life, For whole category: something we can copy any mentioning of norms, values, or barely do without for normative behavior an hour, much less days at a time Channel / New York Times Sections Technology via which media Business Opinion pages Fashion&Style Media For whole category: Bits New York Times Section Health as stated on the website Your money Art&Design Sports The learning network world Codebook / Category definitions
Recipient / Audience addressed tech people to whom gamer phone owner For whole category: everyone audience addressed coded according to Businesspeople main topic/issue of article, texter if no specific theme occurs stylish people code as everyone families iphone people traveler Context / use situation code as stated in the articles, if nothing regarding what specific is mentioned and suitable code everyday use use purpose communication calling, messaging,mail are mentioned music, games, internet, camera or photos entertainment are mentioned pass time identity building with smart device with other equipment convenience share experience sharing is mentioned socialize social media is mentioned distraction business For whole category: babysit cildren described use purposes from the articles maps / GPS are used as subcategories mobile computer special cases as mentioned above or below information retrival study / learn assistance / help virtual assistent is mentioned alarm clock finances feel better take part charging shopping Main Issue / Topic code as described in the articles review yes or no Occasion (events, conferences, code as described in the articles research study etc.) Reference to study etc. code if study is mentioned EXAMPLE QUOTES FROM ARTICLE Bicchieri 16-10 collective behaviour or other 52 percent of adult smartphone owners copy mentioned behavior from articles use mobile banking services. independent / interdependent independent either or if applicable benefits of using banking app, copy identified factual or personal normativ convinience, more beliefs, empirical or normative expectation expectation / belief control of finances fulfill needs copy identified reasons, motivation and convinience needs motivation save money comments remarks if applicable Full list of sample NYT articles 2007 + 2016
Sample No Pop No Title Link date
2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01 New Mobile Phone Signals /09/technology/09cnd- 07-01 1 Apple’s Ambition iphone.html 09.01.07 Apple Introduces Innovative http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01 07-02 2 Cellphone /10/technology/10apple.html 10.01.07
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01 07-03 3 Apple Waves Its Wand, Again /10/technology/10cnd-pogue.html 10.01.07 How E.T. Might Phone Home, if http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01 07-04 7 Home Had a G.S.M. Network /25/technology/25treo.html 25.01.07 Maker of Mobile Games Brings http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03 07-05 11 Line to BlackBerry /26/technology/26game.html 26.03.17 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05 /03/technology/03POGUE- 07-06 15 Pogue’s Picks EMAIL.html 03.05.07 A BlackBerry for Collars of all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05 07-07 17 colors /10/technology/10pogue.html 10.05.07 https://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/ Cell Phone Tip: Use It As a Silent 2007/05/21/cell-phone-tip-use-it- 07-08 18 Alarm as-a-silent-alarm/ 21.05.07 A slimmed-down smartphone http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05 07-09 19 that's not a leightweight /24/technology/24phone.html 24.05.07 iPhone Spin Goes Round and http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06 07-10 26 Round /30/business/30nocera.html 30.06.07
Rival Manufacturers Chasing http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07 07-11 28 the iPhone /02/technology/02cellphone.html 02.07.07 Nokia, Without Fanfare, Introduces a http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07 Superphone Without Contract /05/technology/circuits/05phone.h 07-12 29 Obstacles tml 05.07.07 You Can Roam the World and http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07 Still /26/technology/circuits/26blackbe 07-13 33 Stay in Touch rry.html 26.07.07 A Cellphone for Those With a http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08 Modest /16/technology/circuits/16phone.h 07-14 35 Need to Send Messages tml 16.08.07
Circuits: A Musical Smartphone, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08 Aiming to Increase the Cool /30/technology/circuits/30phone.h 07-15 39 Quotient tml 30.08.07 The Case of the Subpar http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09 07-16 43 Smartphone /08/business/08nocera.html 08.09.07 Full list of sample NYT articles 2007 + 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09 Juggling the Choices of Phoning /17/business/businessspecial2/17p 07-17 46 From Abroad hones.html 17.09.07 https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/20 New Ideas in Thin Computing – 07/09/24/new-ideas-in-thin- 07-18 48 III computing-iii/?_r=0 24.09.07 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/1 For Google, Advertising and 0/08/business/media/08googleph 07-19 51 Phones Go Together one.html 08.10.07 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10 (Mostly) Good Things in a Small /11/technology/circuits/11pogue.h 07-20 52 Package tml 11.10.07 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11 Circuits: Slick Moves From a /01/technology/personaltech/01p 07-21 54 Smartphone hone.html 01.11.07 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11 07-22 55 Google Phone /04/technology/04google.html 04.11.07 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11 Google Enters the Wireless /05/technology/05cnd- 07-23 56 World gphone.html 05.11.07 Google Enters the Wireless http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11 07-24 57 World /06/technology/06google.html 06.11.07 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11 Reaching for Apple, Falling /08/technology/personaltech/08p 07-25 58 Short ogue.html 08.11.07 For All You Smartphone Users With Big Thumbs: Motorola’s http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11 New Q Global Aims to /08/technology/personaltech/08p 07-26 59 Encourage You to Type hone.html 08.11.07 CIRCUITS: A Fashion-Conscious http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12 Smartphone, Cloaked in a /06/technology/personaltech/06p 07-27 61 Mirror hone.html 06.12.07 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12 A Phone’s Makeover Goes /13/technology/personaltech/13p 07-28 62 Beyond Cosmetics hone.html 13.12.07 Full list of sample NYT articles 2007 + 2016
2016 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 1/03/business/app-makers-reach- App Makers Reach Out to the out-to-the-teenager-on- 16-01 3 Teenager on Mobile mobile.html 01.01.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 The Eight-Second Attention 1/22/opinion/the-eight-second- 16-02 50 Span attention-span.html 22.01.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 2/22/technology/samsung- Samsung Announces Gear 360, announces-a-new-virtual-reality- 16-03 124 a New Virtual Reality Camera camera.html 21.02.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Bridging a Digital Divide That 2/23/technology/fcc-internet- 16-04 129 Leaves Schoolchildren Behind access-school.html 22.02.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 2/25/technology/personaltech/tips- Tips and Myths About Extending and-myths-about-extending- 16-05 133 Smartphone Battery Life smartphone-battery-life.html 24.02.16 https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/20 Hey Siri, Can I Rely on You in a 16/03/14/hey-siri-can-i-rely-on- Crisis? Not Always, a Study you-in-a-crisis-not-always-a-study- 16-06 170 Finds finds/ 14.03.16
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/20 In ‘Screenagers,’ What to Do 16/03/15/in-screenagers-what-to- 16-07 171 About Too Much Screen Time do-about-too-much-screen-time/ 15.03.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Samsung’s Smartphones Aren’t 3/17/technology/personaltech/ma the Problem (Just Prune the Bad ke-a-samsung-smartphone-great- 16-08 175 Apps) by-switching-out-its-apps.html 16.03.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Why You May Want a Smaller 3/24/technology/personaltech/wh iPhone, and Your Questions o-will-like-the-new-smaller-iphone- 16-09 193 Answered se.html 23.03.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 3/27/your-money/why-i-dont- Why I Don’t Make Financial make-financial-decisions-on-my- 16-10 198 Decisions on My Smartphone smartphone.html 25.03.16 Farhad and Mike on How Apple’s https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 New, Smaller iPhone Is Easing 3/27/technology/farhad-and-mike- the on-how-apples-new-smaller- 16-11 199 Pain iphone-is-easing-the-pain.html 26.03.16 Full list of sample NYT articles 2007 + 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 4/07/technology/personaltech/ho How to Switch to iPhone From w-to-switch-to-iphone-from- Android: Patience and android-patience-and- 16-12 231 Persistence persistence.html 06.04.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 4/17/fashion/holidays-social- 16-13 250 Every Day’s a Holiday (or Two) media.html 14.04.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Solving Mysteries at the 4/15/arts/design/solving-mysteries- American at-the-american-museum-of- Museum of Natural History, natural-history-smartphone-in- 16-14 254 Smartphone in Hand hand.html 14.04.16
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Choosing to Skip the Upgrade 4/21/technology/personaltech/cho and Care for the Gadget You’ve osing-to-skipthe-upgrade-and-care- 16-15 265 Got for-the-gadget-youve-got.html 20.04.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 4/21/sports/basketball/nba- Trending at Halftime: N.B.A. players-checking-phones-at- 16-16 269 Players Checking Their Phones halftime.html 20.04.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Apple iPhone, Once a Status 4/28/technology/apple-china- 16-17 281 Symbol in China, Loses Its Luster iphone-earnings.html 27.04.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 4/30/arts/design/at-the-brooklyn- Who’s in Charge at the Brooklyn museum-with-a-chatty-curator-in- 16-18 289 Museum? It Could Be You your-pocket.html 29.04.16
Safer Alternatives for Drivers https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo Who Text Are Just Around the rdebate/2016/05/02/how-to-stop- 16-19 292 Corner people-from-texting-while-driving 02.05.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 5/26/technology/personaltech/a- A Traveler’s Guide to Taking a travelers-guide-to-taking-a- 16-20 347 Smartphone Abroad smartphone-abroad.html 25.05.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 6/12/fashion/internet-technology- 16-21 377 The End of Reflection phones-introspection.html 11.06.16 https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/20 16/06/22/living-with-a-teenage- 16-22 400 Living With a Teenage Data Hog data-hog/ 22.06.16 Full list of sample NYT articles 2007 + 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 7/21/technology/personaltech/wh What’s the Right Age for a Child ats-the-right-age-to-give-a-child-a- 16-23 468 to Get a Smartphone? smartphone.html 20.07.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Edward Snowden to Help 7/22/technology/edward-snowden- Develop a Safer Phone for to-help-develop-a-safer-phone-for- 16-24 473 Journalists journalists.html 21.07.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Should You Charge Your Phone 8/22/technology/personaltech/cha 16-25 612 Overnight? rge-phone-overnight.html 22.08.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 8/24/technology/daily-report-a- Daily Report: A New Android for new-android-for-a-new-tech- 16-26 619 a New Tech World world.html 23.08.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Alphabet Ends Effort to Create 9/03/business/google-alphabet- 16-27 661 Modular Smartphone project-ara-smartphone.html 02.09.16 Samsung to Recall 2.5 Million https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Galaxy Note 7s Over Battery 9/03/business/samsung-galaxy- 16-28 664 Fires note-battery.html 02.09.16 Farhad’s and Mike’s Week in Tech: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 What? No More iPhone 9/04/technology/farhads-and- Headphone mikes-week-in-tech-what-no-more- 16-29 669 Jack? iphone-headphone-jack.html 03.09.16 IPhone 7 and Wireless https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Headphones: Analyzing Apple’s 9/08/technology/apple- 16-30 675 Announcements iphone.html 07.09.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Apple Moves Toward a Wireless 9/08/technology/iphone-7-apple- 16-31 679 Future, One Tweak at a Time headphone-jack.html 07.09.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Apple’s iPhone 7 and Watch 9/08/technology/personaltech/ap Updates: What You Really Need ples-latest-what-you-really-need- 16-32 682 to Know to-know.html 07.09.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 What’s Really Missing From the 9/08/technology/whats-really- New iPhone: Cutting-Edge missing-from-the-new-iphone- 16-33 683 Design dazzle.html 07.09.16 Galaxy Note 7 Owners Are https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 Urged to Stop Using Their 9/10/technology/samsung-galaxy- 16-34 695 Phones consumer-product-safety.html 09.09.16 Full list of sample NYT articles 2007 + 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0 IPhone 7 Review: Though Not 9/15/technology/personaltech/iph Perfect, New iPhones Keep one-7-review-though-not-perfect- Apple’s new-iphones-keep-apples- 16-35 706 Promises promises.html 13.09.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1 Google Introduces the Pixel, Its 0/05/technology/google- Own introduces-the-pixel-its-own- 16-36 814 Smartphone smartphone.html 04.10.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1 0/07/opinion/intimacy-for-the- 16-37 845 Intimacy for the Avoidant avoidant.html 07.10.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1 Does Technology Make Us More 0/14/learning/does-technology- 16-38 925 Alone? make-us-more-alone.html 14.10.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1 0/20/technology/personaltech/go Google Pixel Review: Assessing ogle-pixel-review-assessing-the- 16-39 950 the New Smartphone new-smartphone.html 18.10.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1 0/19/technology/daily-report- Daily Report: Google Pixel and google-pixel-and-the-new-long- 16-40 952 the New Long Game game.html 18.10.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1 Married to Their Smartphones 0/30/style/smartphones-iphone- (Oh, marriage-husbands-wives- 16-41 1005 and to Each Other, Too) technology.html 28.10.16 A Toddler Dies as Her Mother https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1 Checks Her Phone, and China 1/02/world/asia/china-mobile- 16-42 1016 Wrings Its Hands phone-mother-daughter.html 01.11.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1 Biggest Spike in Traffic Deaths 1/16/business/tech-distractions- in 50 blamed-for-rise-in-traffic- 16-43 1051 Years? Blame Apps fatalities.html 15.11.16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1 Auto Safety Regulators Seek a 1/22/business/auto-safety- Driver regulators-seek-a-driver-mode-to- 16-44 1068 Mode to Block Apps block-apps.html 22.11.16 Product Information on Motorola Q Music 9M Smartphone - The New York Times 15.05.17 19:04 Circuits: A Musical Smartphone, Aiming to Increase the Cool Quotient By JOHN BIGGS AUG. 30, 2007
A funny thing happened when Motorola first introduced its Q smartphone. It found that many buyers were casual users, not BlackBerry converts itching for an e-mail fix. The company decided to make the Q look a little cooler and added music and easy-to-use messaging features — thus the new Q Music 9M.
The 5-ounce 9M, which costs $249 with a two-year contract and discounts, has a 2.5-inch screen and rubberized keys and back panel. It runs on Verizon’s high-speed data network and works with the V Cast music service, so you can wirelessly download songs for $1.99 over the air — although you can also put your own music into the phone’s 64 megabytes of memory or a supplemental mini SD card (not included).
The phone also has a unique user interface that focuses on many of the music- and media-playing functions and hides most of the complex features. A small program automatically connects to many standard e-mail services, including GMail and Hotmail. Meanwhile, the red-and- black color scheme will help in your efforts to look cool and casual. JOHN BIGGS
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/technology/circuits/30phone.html Seite 1 von 1 In 'Screenagers,' What to Do About Too Much Screen Time - The New York Times 12.05.17 00:25 In ‘Screenagers,’ What to Do About Too Much Screen Time By Jennifer Jolly March 15, 2016 1:32 pm
In a scene from the film “Screenagers,” Dr. Delaney Ruston buys her daughter, Tessa, her first smartphone.
In the new documentary “Screenagers,” children can’t resist the pull of electronic devices, and parents don’t know what to do about it.
Sound familiar?
The average child in America spends more time consuming electronic media than going to school, with many teenagers going online “almost constantly.” And parents aren’t necessarily being good role models. A British study showed that while six in 10 parents worried that their children spend too much time in front of a screen, seven in 10 children worry that their parents are the ones who are plugged in and tuned out.
Dr. Delaney Ruston, the director of “Screenagers” and a physician serving as filmmaker in residence at Stony Brook Medicine in New York, says that
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/in-screenagers-what-to-do-about-too-much-screen-time/ Seite 1 von 5 In 'Screenagers,' What to Do About Too Much Screen Time - The New York Times 12.05.17 00:25
screen time remains a topic that’s often contentious and downright confusing. I spoke with Dr. Ruston about her own family’s messy struggles with digital distractions, and about the surprising insights she learned making this film. Here’s an edited version of our conversation.
Where did the idea for this documentary come from?
When I started the film, I was a mom having a hard time with my own teenage kids. My 14-year-old son wanted to play more video games, and my 12-year-old daughter was always on social media. I was at a loss. I would suddenly get mad and then feel guilty. I realized speaking with other parents that we all felt paralyzed about our kids and screen overload and that it’s only getting worse.
At the same time, I was seeing more of this issue with my patients. As a primary care doctor, I saw more and more kids of all ages and backgrounds glued to a screen. I felt a real need to understand the science around screen time and kids. And as a filmmaker who has worked on other movies for social change, I wanted to share my journey in order to help others who are struggling with these issues as well.
What’s the impact of modern technology on our children’s brains?
Excessive use of screens could harm the physical development of young people’s brains. Studies show a correlation between too much screen time and worse attention spans, as well as negative effects on learning. We talk about two really important studies in the the film, one with mice and another with preschoolers.
In the first study, scientists found that when young mice are repeatedly exposed to flashing sounds and lights that mimic screen time, they develop fewer nerve cells in the parts of the brain that control learning and memory. The same stimulus doesn’t affect brains of adult mice. There’s something unique about the way screen time impacts the developing brain.
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/in-screenagers-what-to-do-about-too-much-screen-time/ Seite 2 von 5 In 'Screenagers,' What to Do About Too Much Screen Time - The New York Times 12.05.17 00:25
In the other study with preschoolers, researchers divided 60 kids into two groups. Half watched fast-paced images on screens for about 10 minutes, while the other half drew with crayons in another room. Then all the kids took the same test of cognitive skills. The kids who were exposed to the screens did significantly worse on the exams.
Our current fast-paced digital media, from flash games and online videos, to social media feeds and constant texting, seems to tire the brain. This has major implications for kids and how they reach their full academic potential.
The movie starts with your almost 13-year-old daughter trying to convince you she needs a smartphone. What’s the big lesson for other parents here?
I want every parent to know two main scientific facts: The first is that the part of the brain responsible for things such as planning, decision-making and impulse control (the frontal cortex) grows slowly over the teen years and is not fully developed until our 20s. The second is that screen time releases the chemical dopamine in the reward centers of the brain, and there is no other time in life when you’re as susceptible to that pleasure- producing chemical than in adolescence.
The worst thing a parent can do is hand over a smartphone and hope for the best. But parents often feel like trying to set limits is pointless, that the cat is out of the bag, tech is everywhere. I hear all kinds of excuses. But kids’ brains aren’t wired to self-regulate. They can’t do it without you, and they shouldn’t have to.
What should parents do then?
Given the right guidelines, kids can increase self-control over time. And that’s a more important indicator of success than even I.Q. I was really surprised, and you’ll see in the film, kids consistently told me that they want rules around their screen time.
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/in-screenagers-what-to-do-about-too-much-screen-time/ Seite 3 von 5 In 'Screenagers,' What to Do About Too Much Screen Time - The New York Times 12.05.17 00:25
So you have set guidelines. Two of our rules are: No phones in bedrooms at night, and no phone use in the car. We use alarm clocks and talk with each other instead. Those are the easy ones. For the rest of the “rules,” and what you’ll see after a few painful mistakes on my part in the film, is that it’s best to create a contract with your kids’ input.
It also helps if mom and dad aren’t checking their phone every five minutes.
That’s right. Kids don’t want to be held to a higher standard than their parents, and that’s a big issue. You can’t punish your kids for breaking the rules when you can’t put your own devices down. Also, don’t make rules that don’t make sense, and remember that humans respond better to reward than punishment.
Speaking of punishment, there’s a part in the movie where a parent is scared of taking away video games because of the huge fights it causes.
Whenever we try to enforce a screen limit there can be a tremendous backlash. Knowing the science behind this behavior helps to understand why kids respond so fiercely in the heat of the moment.
The dopamine we get from screen time is the same chemical released with activities such as drinking alcohol. The many hours of dopamine released with screen-based activities can affect the brain in serious ways. For example, research shows that those who play a lot of video games — about three hours a day — have M.R.I. brain scans that reveal similar patterns as people addicted to drugs.
You don’t sugarcoat the potential for disaster here.
On any given day, 70 percent of boys are playing video games, and they play close to 2.5 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
People like to rebut any negative talk about video games with the evidence
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/in-screenagers-what-to-do-about-too-much-screen-time/ Seite 4 von 5 In 'Screenagers,' What to Do About Too Much Screen Time - The New York Times 12.05.17 00:25
that some games can improve visual acuity and problem solving. But are we, as parents, as a society, comfortable with kids giving up 15 plus hours of their lives every week for these video games they’re playing? Do you even know what games they’re playing?
Eighty percent of video games have violent content. With these games, the data shows an increased risk in aggressive thoughts and actions. It is not surprising that these games are not increasing thoughts of empathy and generosity — the traits that I would hope as a society we would want to promote.
The good news is that data also reveals that prosocial video games increase the chance that kids will be more helpful to others. Those are the games where you work to help someone, build a community or collaborate with others in a positive way. I just wish the industry would develop more “cool” prosocial games.
What do you hope happens now that the film is out and people are talking about it?
I want to spark a movement to get everyone, from parents to policymakers, to watch the movie, then have a “town hall” style conversation afterward about how we can best help kids lead more balanced lives. I see this as the first step.
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/in-screenagers-what-to-do-about-too-much-screen-time/ Seite 5 von 5