MAXWELL HUBBERT MOBILE PHONES IN

SOCIAL SETTINGS How and what mobile phones are used for during face-to-face conversations

Malmö Högskola, Spring 2016 Master’s in Media and Communication Studies: Culture, Collaborative Media, and Creative Industries Faculty of Culture and Society at the School of Arts and Communication. Supervisor Pille Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt

One Year Master´s Thesis (15 ECTS Credits)

Hubbert 2

Table of Contents 1.0 Abstract 3 2.0 Introduction 4 3.0 Literature Review 7 3.1 Uses and Gratification Research 8 3.2 Mediatization Research 12 3.3 Social Presence Theory/ Self-Determination theory /Mindfulness Research 14 3.4 Theory of Affordances 18 3.5 Research Relating to Problematic Mobile Phone Use 19 3.6 Benefits of Mobile Communications 24 4.0 Data Collection & Analysis Methodology 27 5.0 Analysis 33 5.1 H1- The majority of phone use will not be related to the face-to-face conversation. 35 5.2 H2- Increased phone use will be related to phone use that is not related to the face-to-face conversation. 40 5.3 H3- Friends will be most likely to use the phone for purposes of socialization with non-present relationships. 43 6.0 Discussion 47 7.0 Conclusion 50 8.0 References 52 9.0 Appendix 58

Hubbert 3

1.0 Abstract Mobile phone use while in the presence of physical conversational partners is a reality in modern day life. Many researchers have investigated how different subgroups use mobile phones and the consequences of such use. The goal of this research was to determine how mobile phones are used in social settings when face-to-face conversations are taking place. The main questions that the research attempted to solve were: (1) If the phone use was related to the conversation at hand, (2) if the intensity of phone use was correlated to how the phone was used, (3) and if phones are used during conversations in different ways depending on the relationships and demographics of the conversational partners. The research was conducted in Malmö, Sweden at bars and cafes´ by administering a semi structured verbal interview on people seen using their cell phones while in face-to-face conversations. Relevant demographic information was recorded as well as five open ended questions. The questions were aimed at understanding how the phone was used, and the phones use in relation to the physical conversation. The research was conducted using the research paradigm of Positivism and the data was analyzed using an Inductive research strategy. Uses and Gratifications theory was the main theory that this research was viewed through. In addition, relevant information was drawn from various psychological theories as well as problematic mobile phone research. The findings show that the majority of phone use is unrelated to the conversations at hand. But often this phone use is re-integrated into the conversation at a later time. It was also found that phone use related to information retrieval was most likely to be related to the face-to-face conversation. Additionally, the data showed that conversational partners that use the phone a lot are highly unlikely to be using the phone in relation to the conversation. The data showed that friends are most likely to not use the phone in relation to the conversation. Hubbert 4

2.0 Introduction

In the early 1990s the western world saw the introduction of portable handheld mobile phones, with the widespread adoption of mobile phones coming between 1995 and 1998 (Wikipedia, 2016). The first iPhone was released in mid 2007, (Wikipedia, 2016), and has since been widely associated with being the first widely distributed smart phone. Its release represents a shift from standard mobile phones to the smart phone era (Goggin, 2013). Mobile phones are changing the communication traditions of families, friends, and social networks (e.g., Goggin, 2003; Przybylski, 2012; Liu, 2014; Coyne, 2013). However, research into how mobile phones are used in social settings, and the effects of such use, has largely lagged behind the rapid development of the mobile technologies. Currently young adults in developed countries use digital media devices in excess of 12 hours per day (Coyne, 2013). The impact of mobile phones on face-to-face communication has received little academic investigation and should be researched further.

This papers goal is to look at how people in social settings use their cell phones, and why they are using their cell phones. The data is approached with the Uses and Gratifications theory as its main theoretical reference (Dunne, et al., 2010). This Uses and Gratifications theory states that people seek out and use different media to satisfy specific psychological needs. I believe this theory is especially applicable, to mobile phone use research, because the mobile phone is now the dominant medium for consuming media as well as connection to social networks. People experience their lives through the mobile phone and therefore make decisions about how they wish to interact with the world through the phone. The goals of this research project are to explore the uses of mobile phones while in Hubbert 5 social co-present settings, and to see if these uses complement or detract from the face-to-face conversation at hand. The study also aims to add to the body of knowledge surrounding whether phone use in face-to-face conversations has an impact on interpersonal relationship development and communication.

The research project was conceived out of my personal observation of an increased use of mobile phones when people are in public places socializing. Reinsch labels the action of participating in multiple conversations simultaneously as multicommunicating (Reinsch, 2008, p. 391). I have noticed that, over the past few years, it has become more common to see people interacting with their cellphones while in face-to-face conversations. My initial assumptions were that the use of a cellphone while participating in face-to-face communication would be detrimental to the conversation at hand, and result in less relationship development and a lower overall quality of conversation.

Although I have some previous experience with observing people using their phones while in co-present situations the research strategy that was used in this project is the Inductive research strategy. The research projects general outline is the collection of data and then drawing general conclusions from the collected data. The data the I have received from my survey has been coded into a qualitative form which has allowed me to do comparative analysis’s. I have observed this approach in the majority of the literature that is closely correlated to the motivations and uses of mobile phones. This has led me to undertake this research project using the research paradigm of Positivism. As I am gathering data using the scientific and combining this with previous research that has been obtained similarly I think that it is justifiable to assume that this form of data collection and analysis is a valid one and thus is supported by the naturalism doctrine (Blaikie, 2007).

Hubbert 6 This research interviews were conducted in Malmö, Sweden at bars and cafe´s with a structured five question survey administered verbally. Relevant demographics were noted, and answers were recorded in a written log book. I have, based on my pre-existing assumptions and theoretical review, three hypotheses for the data that was collected.

H1- The majority of phone use will not be related to the face-to-face conversation.

H2- Increased phone use will be related to phone use that is not related to the face-to-face conversation.

H3- Friends will be most likely to use the phone for purposes of socialization with non-present relationships.

The research project begins with a literature review of relevant theories, and related research, connected to mobile and face-to-face communication. The literature review covers Uses and Gratification theory, Mediatization theory, Self- determination theory, Social Presence theory, Mindfulness research, theory of Affordances, research into problematic mobile phone use, and research related to benefits of mobile phone use. The literature review is followed by the data and methodology section, an analysis of findings, a discussion, and finally conclusions about the research.

Hubbert 7

3.0 Literature review

The ways in which people interact with each other in face-to-face communication are often accompanied by mediated forms of communication. The most ubiquitous device for mediated communications is currently the mobile phone. According to the Swiss Federal Statistics Office as of 2013 most countries in Europe have more than one mobile phone subscription per inhabitant, in Sweden it was 1.30 subscriptions per inhabitant. Additional statistics show that around 83% of Swedes use smartphones as of 2015, with a 10% growth rate year over year (Statista, 2016). This literature review gives a theoretical and empirical examination of the research surrounding how people use their phones during face- to-face communication, and if the phone use is related to the present conversation. The literature review additionally addresses the impacts that mediated communication may have upon face-to-face communication. I have attempted to give an impartial overview of the available research and have therefore included sections addressing both the positive and negative effects of mobile communications. As I am attempting to find out how people are communicating with relation to their cell phones, I think that it is important to have a literature review that is relatively broad so that I can have a solid understanding of the competing motivations for communication.

Introduction to Literature

Due to the rapid advancement of digital communications there is an abundance of proposed theories and themes on how to classify and organize the Hubbert 8 research surrounding mobile phone use. The ever-changing nature of digital communications, and the explosive growth that has been seen since the advent of the smart phone, has made it difficult for researchers to develop strong theories in relation to how mobile phones are used. In this literature review I will discuss the research that is most relevant to how mobile communications interact with face-to- face communications. This includes Uses and Gratifications theory, theory of Affordances, problematic uses of mobile phones, mobile phone addiction theories, Social Presence Theory, Self-Determination theory, Mindfulness theories, benefits of mobile communication, and multi-communication research.

3.1 Uses and Gratification Research

The Uses and Gratification theory is a theory that states that individuals seek out specific medias to fulfil specific needs. People are goal oriented and approach and use specific medias to satisfy specific personal needs (Kuss, 2011). In the current media saturated environment that we live in multiple media complete for user’s attention. Since people have a finite amount of attention and time they must be selective about which applications are best able to fulfil their needs such as connection, relational maintenance, information acquisition, and status. Uses and Gratification research focuses on what people do with media instead of what media does to people

Blumler and Katz (1974) were some of the first media effects researchers to use the Uses and Gratifications theory to look into how people use different media to receive information (Gerlich, 2015). According to Katz four needs are satisfied by users’ consumption of messages. (1) Social and personal needs are used to reinforce their idea of self as well as personal relations. (2) Media is used to escape from current physical reality in the form of fun and entertainment. (3) Media Hubbert 9 is used for the satisfaction of cognitive/informational needs. (4) Affective-aesthetic needs, used to reinforce emotional and pleasurable experiences (Curras-Perez, 2014, p.1480).

More recent researchers have further simplified the groupings of gratifications into two categories, the first being how people derive value from the content that is received through the media and the second being the value of the experience of interacting with the media (Chen, 2005). I agree with this simplification as it allows for me as a researcher to clearly distinguish between when people use the cellphone in relation to the conversation or for other habits that they have developed around their cellphone use. The content related gratifications from cell phone use have been divided into seven factors: fashion/status, mobility, affection/sociability, immediate access, instrumentality, and reassurance (Papahariss & Rubini, 2000, p.179). With relaxation/entertainment falling under the value of experience category of interacting with the media (Gerlich, 2015). It is often the case that these uses overlap in real world use, nonetheless it has still been useful to this research to think of the gratifications in these categories to aid in the analysis of the data.

Engaging in multiple forms of communication is referred to as multicommunicating (Reinsch, Turner &Tinsley, 2008, p. 391). Research has shown that multicommunicating has been found to be driven largely by a desire for emotional gratifications (Seo, 2015). Seo´s research found that people often receive emotional gratification from multicommunicating even though they are not consciously seeking this gratification. This same research has found that other seemingly rational motives such as time constraints have not been found to be correlated with multicommunicating. Multicommunicating with the purpose of connectivity has been researched briefly and the initial findings point to there being a difference between how men and women use cellphones while in co-present Hubbert 10 situations (Seo, 2015, p. 677). Research has shown that women are more likely to use their cellphones with the purpose of connecting with their outside social networks while in a face-to-face conversation. This link has not been observed with men. “Wanting to be always connected and being available to others seems to play an important role in understanding females’ uses of mobile phones and multicommunicating behaviors” (Seo, 2015, p. 677). The sex of the conversational partners has been noted in the demographics to see if there were different gratifications received in this research project.

Social networking sites (SNS) have been studied and the data shows that people use SNS´s for different purposes based on their own personal orientations. Most commonly SNS´s are used for relationship maintenance and group identification, upwards of 80% of respondents in a university sample claimed they used the SNS´s because all of their friends did (Kujath, 2011). This supports the Uses and Gratifications premise that if if people have a need to connect with others they will find a suitable medium to satisfy this need (Chen, 2010). As I expected to find many responses in my research relating to SNS`s I thought that it would be interesting to see if my respondent’s gratifications sought would be similar to that of previous research. SNS research has also found that these sites are used for the formation of social capital and are important for maintaining weak relationships (Kuss, 2011). Curras-Perez has found that most needs related to SNS can be grouped into 3 categories (Curras-Perez, 2014, p. 1480). (1) Functional needs relating to using the SNS as a contacts database/ event updates, calendar. (2) Social needs related to providing support for social circles and as a way to have communication with others. (3) Psychological needs can be fulfilled by feeling part of a community, access to groups and memberships, etc. These grouping can be used in the analysis to further narrow and classify the found uses.

The generally agreed upon most important motivation for using SNS´s is the Hubbert 11 third category of satisfying psychological needs (Curras-Perez, 2014, p. 1481). Curras-Perez (2014) cites the work of Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) which claimed that according to Social Capital Theory, early SNS´s were primarily used for the exchange of information in exchange/resulting in basic psychological needs like affections, gratitude, and socialization being achieved. Uses and Gratifications theory states that people seek out medias to fulfil needs, so if the need is fulfilled they will continue to use the same medium. Research has shown that it is the duration in terms of months and years that is most effective in determining gratifications received instead of how many hours someone uses a specific medium (Chen, 2011). As the data in my research has many accounts of using social networks it will be interesting to see what needs are most often being fulfilled and see if they are correlated to the existing research.

Additionally, Uses and Gratifications theory has been used to study how and why teenagers use mobile phones (Topalli, 2016). This study found that teenagers are most likely to use the mobile phone to access social networks, play video games, and assist in school related activities. However, the majority of research subjects in my sample were no longer teenagers so this theme will not be developed.

Uses and Gratification Theory research is not universally agreed upon as a valid theory for investigating media effect. The opponents of this theory justify their criticisms by highlighting the lack of evidence showing connections between gratifications sought and gratifications obtained (Curras-Perez, 2014). Although there is a lack of evidence showing direct correlation between sought gratifications and obtained gratifications it is still a useful theory in that it provides a map of how to think about the different motivations for communications. Additionally, it has been shown that people may seek out one gratification and incidentally receive another as was the case with Seo´s research (2015). Dunne et al. (2010) sites the Hubbert 12 work of Severin & Tankard (1998) with another criticism that posits that the methodology often relies on self-reporting by respondents for the generation of data (Dunne et al., 2010). However, the flexibility to allow for self-reporting seems to be very beneficial for researching communication patterns, otherwise motivations and actions would all too often be hidden. A further criticism has been that the Uses and Gratifications theory often results in the generation of a list of reasons of why people interact with media (Dunne et al., 2010, p. 48). This seems to me to be a very weak criticism as the generation of the motives of use would seem to be valuable information achieved by research. Some level of self-reporting is necessary to discern the motivations of cell phone use, and the goal of this research is to gain a better understanding of the uses and motivations of cell phone. Therefore, I believe that this research into cell phone use is very well suited to be examined through the lens of the Uses and Gratifications theory.

3.2 Mediatization Research

On the other end of the research spectrum from Uses and Gratifications research is a theory of research that focuses on how media and media institutions exert influence over social institutions and individuals that have to accommodate and work with media to achieve their goals. Mediatization is not to be confused with the concept of mediation which is the use of a medium while communicating that distorts the message and reception of such message, though mediation is part of mediatization research. Simply put the research focuses on how media affect society and culture (Hjarvard, 2008). One of the first focuses of mediatization research was on the impact that media has on politics and how politics has had to change and adapt to new forms of media. One such change has been that there is Hubbert 13 now an abundance of information available, therefore attention is increasingly valuable and is fought over by different political actors and media institutions. It will be interesting to see how dominant the mainstream applications have become with regards to use by individuals, given that cellphones have the potential to access the entire internet.

Another pillar of mediatization research is the role of media in social change. Schulz (2004, p.87) outlines four distinct processes by which media change communication patterns and human interactions. (1) Media allow people to communicate over larger areas of time and space. (2) Media can act as a substitute to social activities that were previously carried out in person. (3) Media facilitates an amalgamation of activities “multi-communication”, whereby media is allowed access to all aspects of daily life. (4) The growth of media has enabled it to have a larger role in society, and now demands that people accommodate for media and adhere to the rules and routines that media encourages. These four pillars of mediatization all work together to make media into a richer more “real” environment which leads to and expansion of the interaction available as well a larger acceptance of the digital spaces that people ever increasingly live in (Hjarvard, 2008). One such consequence of this is that face-to-face communication is given a different role in society due to its change in cultural significance, while at the same time other media are mimicking face-to-face communication, further reducing the circumstances where face-to-face communication is required. It will be interesting to see how easily these categorizations will fit into this research projects data, and to see which themes are most dominant.

Hubbert 14

3.3 Social Presence Theory/ Self-Determination theory /Mindfulness Research

Mindfulness research, Social Presence theory, and Self-Determination theory are included in this literature review to provide an overview of the best psychological practices of interpersonal communication. This provides a backdrop of how and why people communicate best, thus allowing this research project to draw more generalizable, and research backed, conclusions from data. There are many psychological, philosophical, and spiritual traditions that encourage and promote the practice of mindfulness (Warren, 2003). Mindfulness is defined as being conscious and attentive to what is taking place in the present (Brown, 2003, p. 822). Giving enhanced attention to current experiences allows for people to focus on the moment and task at hand. The action of practicing mindfulness while communicating allows people to notice and attend to the subtle emotions that run through conversations and are conveyed through verbal and non-verbal cues. When one is attuned with their emotions, and the emotions of the current situation, they are said to have high emotional intelligence. This is achieved by being present and mindful of the emotional state of oneself and the immediate company that one is in (Warren, 2003). A subtopic that will be discussed in the discussion will be if the data shows that there is a disconnect between the uses and potential motivations for uses, and if this disconnect is caused by a lack of mindfulness while in conversation.

Self-Determination theory (SDT) is a theory that suggests that people are autonomously motivated to grow personally when their psychological needs of competence, psychological relatedness, and autonomy are satisfied (Wang, 2014). Most relevant to this research is peoples need for psychological relatedness. Psychological relatedness can be defined as the general human disposition to Hubbert 15 desire interaction, connection, and caring from other people (Baumeister, 1995). The majority of people that were interviewed for this research were in conversation with friends, presumable satisfying their need for relatedness. The mobile phones introduction into conversations allows individuals another pathway to satisfy this need through interaction with larger social networks. However, as Social Presence theory shows this extra pathway may be detrimental to achieving the highest rate of return on time spent socializing due to not capitalizing fully on the advantages of face-to-face communication (Stafford, 2012).

SDT suggests that mindfulness is needed to act in a way that is consistent with ones needs, values, and interests. The vast majority of people have an interest in developing meaningful relationships, thus people should practice mindfulness while in social settings (Park, 2013). To achieve these goals people must be able to focus on their goals and and control their habits, automatic thoughts, and unhealthy behaviors. Practicing mindfulness has been shown to encourage this as well as enhancing present experiences with vividness, clarity, and higher levels of relatedness (Warren, 2003) SDT research has shown that practicing mindfulness is related to and can predict well-being, and less emotional and cognitive disturbance by serving as a self-regulatory function. SDT research is particularly of interest to this research projects as many instances of habitual use of the mobile phone have been observed throughout the interviews. SDT helps to explain why this might be as well as potentially why people are acting against their own interests by multicommunicating when in co-present situations.

Social Presence Theory (SPT) states that different communication mediums allow for different levels of social presence. This is understood as being on a continuum with written communication at the bottom end and face-to-face communication on the top end. SPT research is concerned with which mediums are most suitable for different forms of relationship maintenance. As not all Hubbert 16 relationships are close, it is posited that different forms of mediated communication are advantageous over face-to-face communication, as they are able to allow for the appropriate levels of attention and commitment. But for effective interpersonal communication it is face-to-face communication that is considered most effective (Stafford, 2012). Given that we live in a world that people often travel and relocate the option of face-to-face communication is not always a possibility. In this world the mobile phones ability to connect loved ones and reduce feelings of loneliness, isolation, and anxiety are the best option possible, so far (Liu, 2014). SPT will allow me to value the different forms of communication that people interact with in this research project. It will give me a basis to draw conclusions about the perceived value that people draw from their mobile communications.

Closely related to social presence is the newfound phenomenon of perpetual connectivity. Perpetual connectivity, or “always availability” (Park, 2013, p. 182) is the situation where people are always available for contact and are in fact expected to be available for communications. If one adheres to this then it is understandable that face-to-face communications will often be interrupted by other forms of communication (Stafford, 2012). This research project will investigate if there is a link between feelings of obligation and actual use

Research by Bayer et al. (2015) has focused on the relationship between mindfulness- the mental state of being present in the moment and aware of your feelings; and automaticity- the ability to perform and action with little thought (Bayer et al., 2015, p. 77). The study found that texting automatically is negatively related to trait mindfulness. This suggests that people that do not actively practice mindfulness and respond to unconscious desires to fulfil emotional needs through the cellphone are likely not as engaged in conversation as those who resist the urge to look and use their cellphones. This research suggests that using a mobile phone while in a face-to-face conversation diminishes the conversation quality Hubbert 17 (Bayer et al., 2015, p. 86). This is supported by research on how perceived attention to conversation influences beliefs about conversational partners and conversational subject matter (Rosenfeld, 2015). In this study it was found that diverting attention away from a face-to-face conversation led to decreased interest in the conversational partner as well as decreased interest in conversational matter by the person who was distracted. This research lends credibility to the assertion that mobile phone use is detrimental to face-to-face communication.

There is a term “absent presence” ( Gergen, 2002 P. 227, Rettie, 2005) that describes the duality of using a mobile device in a public space. This term describes that the act of being physically present but mentally in another space. Being present is defined as being in a situation or environment. So one is present on their phone they cannot be wholly present in the physical place that their body occupies. Relationship development is dependent upon empathic understanding, therefore people who are involved in co-present situations have a lower empathetic attention to their physical counterpart (Rettie, 2005). It is also argued that face-to- face conversations are not “supplemented or substituted by mediated types of communication.” (Angeluci, 2015, p. 175). I think that my research is going to show that there is a distinct division between complementary uses and substituted uses.

Hubbert 18

3.4 Theory of Affordances

James Gibson is credited with the concept of affordances. According to this theory all mediums of communication have prominent characteristics within them that facilitate certain uses. That is to say that some technologies and media will be perceived by the majority of social actors as having a semi defined role upon what they are best able to do (Hjarvard, 2008, p. 121). For example, a cell phone can be used to write an essay on but a computer is generally accepted as a better tool due to the inherent affordances that the computer has. This is because a computer with its large keyboard and screen have what is called a “perceived affordance” for writing. A perceived affordance is a use that is dependent upon the desired objective of the user. This is one of the major dilemmas that the modern cell phone has. It is a tool that is perceived as the social lifeline to one’s social network and is seen as a tool that can be used at all times and have preference over one’s physical surroundings. This research will add to the body of knowledge concerned with what some of the most perceived affordances of the cell phone are. While the data shows that people use the mobile phone for many purposes the most reoccurring purposes can been seen to be more readily perceivable in theory.

James Gibson´s theory of Affordances provides a theoretical umbrella to what has been discussed so far. Simply put the mobile phone enables people to participate in the world unimpeded by time and space. But this affordance of total freedom operates within the boundaries of established societal norms and practices. The Uses and Gratifications theory allows me as a researcher to uncover the underlying motivations for this readily perceived affordance. The review of SDT, SPT, and research into mindfulness allows for a deeper understanding of the motivations surrounding mobile phone use and multi- communicating. Hubbert 19

3.5 Research Relating to Problematic Mobile Phone Use

As of the writing of this paper there is no consensus on whether or not individuals can be considered medically addicted to their mobile devices. However, correlations have been demonstrated between phone use and negative life consequences. One of the most widely accepted consequence of mobile phone use is the correlation between driving and phone use, resulting in lack of attention capabilities, even when using hands-free devices (Barkana, 2004). This is so widely accepted in the literature that I will not develop this theme further. But this concept of not being able to concentrate on two things at once, combined with the mindfulness research, lends credibility to the believe that when the mobile phone is being used for multi communication the face-to-face conversation will suffer.

Joel Billieux is the most published researcher attempting to prove this connection between Problematic Mobile Phone Use (PMPU) and addiction. In 2008 Billieux developed the Problematic Mobile Phone Use Questionnaire (PMPUQ). This was developed in response to the observation that mobile phones are increasingly disturbing social activities. The PMPUQ attempts to target dangerous/prohibited use, financial problems, and dependencies resulting from phone use. His study found correlations between amounts of sms´s sent and lack of impulse control, as well as elevated depression levels in relation to sms´s sent. The study also showed that men were more likely to use phones in dangerous situations and for sensation seeking, while women have higher levels of urgency, defined as having strong impulses to use the phone in times of emotional stress (Billieux, 2008). However, the findings of this research appear to often be based on assumptions and conjunctions instead of scientific causation. That being said this research project will draw on some of these findings and attempt to corroborate Hubbert 20 them if possible. The lack of a clinical diagnosis of addiction does not mean that phones do not have negative effects on people lives. A Swiss study showed that 30% of people surveyed consider themselves addicted to their phones (Billieux, 2012). Young adults spend more time interacting with digital media, upwards of 12 hours per day, than any other activity (Coyne, 2013). Nomophobia is defined as the fear of not being able to use one’s cellphone (Wikipedia, 2016). Neuroticism and extraversion have also been linked to PMPU (Igarashi, 2008). The extroverted personality trait has been linked to PMPU with extroverts being driven by the need to develop relationships as well as communicate with non-present relations. Igarashi believes: “There is no doubt that compulsive use of text-messages is the most fundamental characteristic of dependency.” This quote sums up his finding neatly by stating that this is the reality of mobile phone use currently. The neurotic pathway has been explained as a dependency by individuals to be constantly reassured of existing relational status (Seo, 2015). Also decreased impulse control has been linked to PMPU and impulse control is highly related to addictive behaviors. Additionally, low self-esteem has been linked to low impulse control in relation to PMPU (Bianchi, 2005). This research project does not go into the personality traits of the participants, but this perspective on the negative effects of compulsive use does help to support some of the data that has been collected.

Given that mobile phones are a relatively new phenomenon longitudinal studies are needed to prove these theories. Billieux proposes a pathways model of PMPU with four main pathways (1) impulsive pathway; (2) relationship maintenance pathway; (3) extroversion pathway; (4) cyber addiction pathways (Billieux, 2012). This was later refined to three pathways described as (1) an excessive reassurance pathway; (2) an impulse-antisocial pathway; (3) An extraversion pathway. This is the only comprehensive model that has been found in this literature review that attempts to explain a road map towards the Hubbert 21 classification of PMPU as a clinical addiction. Although this model is well reasoned there is currently a lack of supporting evidence to confirm or deny its validity. This review of Billieux´s work is intended to lend evidence in support of the position that there can be negative consequences of phone use. This research combined with the SDT and mindfulness research create a compelling argument for restraining from using mobile phones without clear gratifications sought.

Phubbing (Angeluci, 2015, p. 174) is a combination of the words phone and snubbing. It is used to describe the circumstance where a phone is interacted with instead of a physically present person. A study performed on Chinese and Brazilian students found that there are different culturally accepted norms relating to phubbing, with Chinese performing phubbing on friends and acquaintances but not close family and girlfriends/boyfriends. While Brazilians performed phubbing on everyone except for parents (Angeluci, 2015). For Chinese respondent’s spontaneity was the most significant cause of phubbing. It will be interesting to see if this research projects data agrees with these findings. Both groups expressed that these actions had negative effects on the capacity to talk and express opinions while in face-to-face situations. This is directly related to the Postmodernist Theory of mediatization where media has become so real and vivid that it appears to be more real than the physical and social reality and therefore commands the attention of the users regardless of time and place (Hjarvard, 2008). In fact, studies have shown that a significant portion of couples that eat together regular interrupt their meals to check for messages on their cellphones. The researchers concluded that this was because the mere presence of a cellphone orients people to thinking about their wider ranging social circles and therefore think about events outside of their immediate social context (Przybylski, 2012). Again this ties back into the SDT and the importance of being mindful about one’s actions. While this research project does not address the mere presence of a phone it will add the the data on how couples use their phones when in each other’s presence. Hubbert 22

Engaging in multiple forms of communication has been linked to ADHD and research shows that people with ADHD often are prone to a restlessness that inclines them to constantly be multicommunicating even when a clear goal is not present (Seo, 2015). This leads to less attention for the co-present conversational partner and therefore a negative influence on interpersonal relationships (Turkle, 2011). When an interpersonal relationship is in the beginning stages this can be especially detrimental. Research shows that while people are getting to know each other it is important to participants to have their self-disclosures met with an appropriate amount of empathy. If a conversational partner is engaged in multi- communication it is difficult to be attentive enough to give this empathy that is necessary for relationship formation (Przybylski, 2012). Some studies have even shown that the presence of a mobile phone is enough to be detrimental to relationship development. Results of this experiment showed that the presence of a mobile phone was able to inhibit the development of closeness and trust, reduce empathy, and reduce meaningful conversational topics (Przybylski, 2012). When seen through the lens of Uses and Gratifications theory it would appear that there is a disconnect between peoples uses and desired gratifications. This research project will attempt to confirm to which extent this is the case.

Another avenue of research into the effects of mobile phone use is the use of mobile devices in public places. The mobile phone allows for individuals to turn a public place into a private space (Turkle, 2008; Lasen, 2005, p.25), similar to the concept of absent presence. This can be seen as a distraction for co-present individuals that are then expected to apply private norms to public spaces (Park, 2013). Additionally, people can decide more and more who it is that they interact with because of the mobile phones ability to take one out of the public space while still in a public place. This is especially relevant to this research project because its relation to when people use their phone for personal reasons while in the presence Hubbert 23 of someone else. A new norm has been developed where it is accepted to be in a face-to-face conversation and exclude the other co-present individual for other social groups ( Park, 2013, p. 184).

Research has shown that people who interact with SNS´s often do so at the expense of their real life communities (Kuss, 2011). This can create a self-fulfilling cycle which leads to less feeling of physical communities and therefore more dependency on SNS´s. This has been correlated to people who are introverts and have low self-esteem. High levels of SNS´s use has also been linked to increased jealousy, and obsessive behaviors by some users (Coyne, 2103). Not all research is in agreement about the effects of high SNS´s use. For example, some research has shown that increased levels of SNS´s use and cell phone use results in increased face-to-face social interaction time (Coyne, 2013). This research project will attempt to confirm these findings.

Other research has shed light onto how the availability of mobile communications allows for the psychological separation of physically present relations. Research has shown that pre-teens often use mobile devices during family gatherings leading to strained immediate relationships with parents (Stafford, 2012). SDT would argue that the pre-teens may actually be fulfilling their needs, values, and interests best by participating in these communication practices if their main goal is to develop their social networks, however misguided the goal might be (Park, 2013). This research acknowledged that it is also often the parents that use their phones with the same result. Other research has highlighted that minors having mobile phones decreases the interaction that parents have with their children friends due to the absence of land line phone use (Srivastava, 2005). This is because when calling a fixed telephone there is no assurance of who is going to pick up. This leads parents to having less control and understanding of their Hubbert 24 children's social lives. This is especially worthy of research because it is the family relationships that are often considered to be the conveyers of society and cultural values through their reproduction of stable and predictable elements of modern society. The institution of the family is responsible not only for the nuclear family but also the close social actors that interact with the family and derive meaning and social understanding from the family. When this connection is lost in both a direct and indirect way it is possible that culture and society will change rapidly from the traditional norms that have been adopted over generations (Hjarvard, 2008).

3.6 Benefits of Mobile Communications

Most of the research that this literature review has encountered has focused on the negative aspects of mobile communication in relation to face-to-face communication. This is most likely due to the prevailing moral panic surrounding the changes that communication is going through (Wikipedia, 2015). But that is not to say that there are not many positive aspects of mobile communications. Mobile phones allow for communication without the constraints of physical proximity (Billieux, 2012; Wellman, 2001; Park, 2013). Long distant relationships are able to be maintained allowing for people to travel and live where they desire without damaging important relationships (Stafford, 2012). Additionally, large social networks are much easier to maintain due to SNS´s that are available through the mobile phone (Seo, 2015; Rettie, 2008). While some research emphasizes the negative impacts of not using fixed land lines anymore other research shows how the adoption of mobile phones increases the availability and amount of time that is spent speaking with family members due to ease of use and mobility (Liu, 2014).

Hubbert 25 Mobile phones also allow for relational maintenance with the ability to carefully cultivate correspondence how one sees fit (Billieux, 2015). This is especially beneficial for people that are not comfortable in social interactions that can have a limiting effect on people’s ability to express emotions. While the data that that this research project has collected does not address the time spent cultivating messages, the occurrence of SMS´s are much higher than phone calls. This literature sheds light onto why this might be. SNS´s in particular have been shown to allow for introverts to maintain social networks and gain self-esteem (Kuss, 2011). In other studies, it has been found that shy communicators feel more comfortable in mediated interactions (Stafford, 2012).

Contrary to Billieux´s 2008 research it has been found the increased use of communication tools by young adults is related to reduced depressive symptoms. This study found that young adults value close friendships and relationship development, and that the use of SNS allowed for emotional support, trust building, and sharing activities that resulted in more intimate relationships (Subrahmanyam, 2008). If social activities are carried out through the phone during face-to-face conversations it could be beneficial for the participant using the phone. Additionally, some research has shown that interruptions to face-to-face dialog is not necessarily perceived as negative. It has been demonstrated that when individuals receive a text message, and discuss the message with their co-present partner, no relational damage occurs and co-present partners often can have a feeling of inclusion in the other relationship (Stafford, 2012). This research project will investigate how often interruptions are re-introduced into the conversation, and this may lead the findings towards different conclusions about the effects of interruptions to face-to-face conversations.

For good or for bad the sense of belonging has been transformed from a physical space with social actors, to one’s communicative network (Rettie, 2005). Hubbert 26 But this space potentially has simply moved online since research has shown that internet access and online discussion groups like Twitter and Facebook bolster community connections, though not as strongly as face-to-face interactions (Chen, 2011). These SNS´s allow for for larger and more diversified social networks that in turn should allow for a people to obtain more specialized attention to gratifications that are sought (Liu, 2014).

Hubbert 27

4.0 Data Collection & Analysis Methodology

This study was conceived from my personal experience of seeing an increased level of phone use in face-to-face interactions in my personal and professional life. I wanted to design a study that would allow me to see what people do on their phones, when having face-to-face conversations, as well as if what people did on their phones has anything to do with the present conversation. Although I have some previous experience with observing people using their phones while in co-present situations the research strategy that was used in this project is the Inductive research strategy. This strategy I believe is most useful because it allows me to overcome many preconceptions that I may have surrounding the issues of mobile phone use while in face-to-face conversation. Some of the literature review and supporting evidence draws upon the Retroductive RS, but the goal of this research is to explain the uses; not to uncover the underlying motivations for such uses (Blaikie, 2007, p. 8).

The research projects general outline is the collection of data and then the drawing of general conclusions from the collected data. This has led me to undertake this research project using the research paradigm of Positivism supported by the naturalism doctrine (Blaikie, 2007).

With the guidance of my thesis advisor, Pille Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, a structured interview was developed. It was decided that the date, time, sex, location, age, intensity of use, and atmosphere would be recorded, as well as five open ended Hubbert 28 questions. (1) What was your phone used for? (2) How do you know each other? (3) How did the phone contribute to the conversation? (4) How typical was this conversation in relation to the phone use? (5) Are you local or visiting?

The first question is intended to get a list of applications that the phone was used for, unrelated to why it was used. This was intended to get people to disclose as many uses as possible without reflection on what they were used for. The second question is aimed at revealing relation status. Viewed through the lens of Uses and Gratifications theory I will be able to discern if relational status is related to different communication objectives. The third question is related to motivations of use and allowed me to understand how and why the different applications were used. The fourth question was intended to get people to further disclose their communication practices with the goal of getting people to open up. This allowed me to get more information about how the mobile phone was used. The fifth question was included based on the belief that the phone may have different perceived affordances if the user is in an unfamiliar location.

The interviews have been conducted in Malmö, Sweden at cafes´ and bars where people often hang out with friends and acquaintances. The decision of who to approach was determined by if I observed people using a mobile phone while in the presence of one or two acquaintances. I limited the sample pool to this demographic to attempt to get people when they are interacting with a specific person opposite themselves. Before approaching the research subjects, I observed how much time they spent on their mobile phones. I decided to group people into three groups comprised of low intensity users, medium intensity users, and high intensity users. I defined low intensity users as people that only occasionally Hubbert 29 looked at their phones and when doing so did not interact with the phone for more than a 30 seconds. Medium intensity users are defined as people that interacted with their phones throughout the conversation but spent the majority of the time in conversation with the present person. High intensity users are defined as people that interacted with their phone constantly, rarely setting the phone down on table, and using the phone at least once every 2 minutes. The interviews were conducted in locations that I usually attend, and therefore the respondents are generally in the early adulthood age range.

The interview started with me approaching the observed group of people and telling them that I had a research project, with Malmö University, that had to do with how people use their mobile phones when out with friends. I then asked if they could help me out by answering a few questions. I directed the questions at the individual that I observed using the mobile phone the most. Without exception it was always the case that the research subjects answered together and discussed their answers between eachother. Interviews usually lasted between 3-5 minutes, sometimes with a longer discussion following the interview. Interview responses were recorded physically into a pre-prepared log book. The log book was transcribed onto the computer the same or next day as to not lose any of the subtleties recorded in the log book.

Originally it was planned to audio record all conversations and then transcribe the conversations from Swedish to English. But due to the amount of background noise at bars and the intrusive nature of having audio recording equipment it was decided to keep a physical log book instead. This log book was carried with me for the duration of two weeks and interviews were conducted when the opportunity presented itself. My own biases about approaching people and asking about personal information was an interesting obstacle to overcome. I initially believed that people would be not interested in participating in such an encounter but have Hubbert 30 been surprised in people’s openness to answering the research questions. One of the limitations of conducting the surveys with this method is the possibility of limited information disclosure by the participant due to not feeling comfortable disclosing such personal information to a stranger. I attempted to overcome this limitation by be as professional as possible and reassuring the interviewees that all the information was confidential and anonymous.

A total of 40 interviews were conducted between April 20th, 2016 and April 30th, 2016. In total 82 individuals were interviewed. The 82 interviewees were between the ages of 19-45 years old and there were 52 women and 30 men. There were four separate group dynamics that were observed in the research. The first was two females in conversation labeled F/F, the second group dynamic was one male and one female M/F, the third dynamic was two male M/M, and the fourth dynamic was three females F/F/F. There was a total of 19 interviews with F/F respondents, eight interviews with F/M respondents, 11 interviews with M/M respondents, and two interviews with F/F/F/ respondents (Appendix A).

After the log book was transcribed into a word document the results to the first question were coded and numbered, giving 153 responses that were coded into 30 observed different applications that the mobile phone was used for. The 30 observed uses of the mobile phone are as follows. 1. Calendar (n=7) 2. Facebook Feed (n=12) 3. Instagram (n=13) 4. Internet looking up sports (n=1) 5. SMS (n=28) 6. Phone call (n=6) 7. Tinder (n=9) 8. Facebook messenger (n=6) 9. Internet (n=4) 10. Snapchat (n=13) 11. Job internal website (n=2) 12. Stocks (n=2) 13. Photos (n=11) 14. Schedule (n=3) 15. Email (n=11) 16. WhatsApp (n=5) 17. Weather app (n=3) 18. Internet shopping (n=1) 19. Pinterest (n=1) 20. Map (n=3) 21. Notes (n=1) 22. Internet ticket search (n=1) 23. Hotel app for booking (n=1) 24. Yelp- reviews app (n=1) 25. Hemet (n=1) 26. Google bookings (n=1) 27. Betting site (n=1) 28. Football scores site (n=2) 29. Tradera Hubbert 31 auction site (n=1) 30. Blocket auction site (n=2). (See Figure. 1)

Figure 1. All observed uses of mobile phone shown in percentage of total recorded responses (n=153).

Hubbert 32

A limitation of the data set is both its size and distribution of participants. In future research I would like to have a larger data pool as well as more conversations documented between couples and family members. This would allow for more accurate comparisons between the ways in which different relationships affect communication patterns.

This research project has the aim of investigating what people do with their phones while multicommunicating. I have, based on my pre-existing assumptions and theoretical review, three hypotheses for the data that was collected.

H1- The majority of phone use will not be related to the face-to-face conversation.

H2- Increased phone use will be related to phone use that is not related to the face-to-face conversation.

H3- Friends will be most likely to use the phone for purposes of socialization with non-present relationships.

Hubbert 33

5.0 Analysis

As Fig. 1 shows there were 30 distinct applications that mobile phones were used for in my study. This information shows the frequency of use, but does not say anything about the way in which the application was used. For example, someone looking at Facebook can be doing this for entertainment purposes or they can be updating their status for social purposes. A phone call can be used for informational purposes, planning, or social purposes. For this reason, I pulled from previous Uses and Gratification research (Gerlich, 2015) and created five categories of uses that the mobile phones were used for. I labeled these five uses (1) Entertainment- this is when a phone is used for the viewing of pleasurable material (n=17). (2) Information- this is when the phone is used to look up information that is relevant to the immediate situation. (3) Social- this is when the user actively reaches out to their social network and or responds to their social network (n=35). (4) Pictures- this is when the phone is used as a picture viewing device enabling the owner to show images to their conversational opposite (n=10). (5) Planning- this is where the phone is used for the planning of future events not occurring during the conversation (n=16). These five categories correspond to the original four categories that Blamer and Katz laid out in 1974 (Curras-Perez, 2014, p.1480), with the addition of a fifth category of Planning. I decided to add this category because of the prevalence of planning related activities in my data (See Fig. 2). Hubbert 34

Figure 2. Distribution of uses based on Uses and Gratification categorizations (n=89).

Distribution of uses based on Uses and Gratification categorizations (n=89)

16; 18% 17; 19%

10; 11% 11; 13%

35; 39%

Entertainment Information Social Pictures Planning

I categorized the uses by going through the transcripts and coding for the way that the specific applications were used in each conversation. I did this so that the uses of the phone would be more accurately shown instead of just the labelling of the specific function that the phone was used for.

This grouping of the different uses gives a more accurate description of what phones are used for in face-to-face conversations. In total the conversations showed there to be 89 distinct uses. The distribution shows that people us the phone primarily for social (39%), followed by entertainment (19%), planning (18%), information retrieval (12%), and showing of pictures (11%). This distribution Hubbert 35 supports the Social Capital theories assertion that social networks are primarily used for satisfying psychological needs, in this case the need to socialize (Chen, 2011). Uses and Gratifications theory would say that people have a need to socialize and have found a medium, the cell phone, that allows them to fulfil this need (Gerlich, 2015).

5.1 H1- The majority of phone use will not be related to the face-to-face conversation.

Hypothesis 1 was analyzed by comparing the total number of stated uses vs. the amount of applications that were used to assist and or discussed in the conversation. In total there were 153 independent uses stated by the 82 respondents. Of the 153 states uses 40 were used in direct relation to the face-to- face conversation. Additionally, there were 30 uses that were not related to the conversation but were discussed afterwards with the conversational partner.

Fig. 3 Distribution of the total stated uses in relation to if use was related to the conversation (n=153).

Uses of Phone Related to Conversation (n=153)

30; 20% 40; 26%

83; 54%

Mentioned in Conversation No Relation to Conversation Used in Coversation

Hubbert 36 These figures support H1 as only 26% of stated uses were directly related to the conversation and an additional 20% were discussed afterwards. This figures show that the majority of phone use is not related to the conversation at hand. This can be related to the mediatization research on social change, and how the mobile phone is requiring more space in the social arena. This data demonstrates the four processes of how mediatization is affecting social change. The data from Fig.1 and Fig. 3 show that people are communicating without the barriers of location and time, that the mobile phone is substituting face-to-face communication with mediated forms, that people are multicommunicating, and that social norms have changed to allow for all of these processes to take place (Schulz, 2004). However, these numbers may not accurately reflect the duration and intensity of use of the individual applications. Thus potentially minimizing the actual time spent on the applications that were associated with the conversation.

To visualize the way that the mobile phone was used in the conversation I coded the information into dialogue maps. The dialog maps start with a blue circle representing the face-to-face conversation and then an orange circle representing how the phone was used within that conversation. The phone can be used either in direct relation to the conversation or as an un-related activity. If the phone is used for an unrelated activity, it can either stay as an unrelated activity or can be reintroduced into the conversation. I observed seven distinct dialogue maps within my data sample (See Fig 4). (1) The phone is used for unrelated purposes; some uses are re-introduced and some are left personal. (n=3) (2) The phone is used for unrelated and related purposes; the unrelated uses are re-introduced. (n=2) (3) The phone is used only for unrelated purposes; all uses are re-introduced to the conversation. (n=7) (4) The phone is used for unrelated and related purposes; the unrelated uses Hubbert 37 are not reintroduced. (n=17) (5) The phone is used only for related purposes. (n=5) (6) The phone is used only for unrelated purposes; the uses are not re- introduced to. (n=3) (7) The phone us used for unrelated and related purposes; the unrelated uses are re-introduced and left personal. (n=3)

Fig. 4 Seven distinct dialogue maps relating to the way that mobile phones are used in face-to-face conversations (n=40).

Hubbert 38 Fig. 4 shows that there is a diversity of ways that the mobile phone is used in social settings and that unrelated uses of the mobile phone are often re-introduced into the conversation. When the data is presented in this manner it shows that the mobile phone was used in relation or re-introduced into the conversation in 37 out of 40 interviews. This can be seen as evidence of the mobile phone supporting conversations and potentially adding to the quality of the face-to-face conversation (Stafford, 2012). This information goes against H1.

Another way that I have tested H1 is to look into the most occurring uses of the mobile phones. The top 6 uses for the phone were the Facebook Feed, Instagram, SMS, SnapChat, Photos, and Email, in total accounting for 88 individual accounts, resulting in 58% of the total recorded responses. As the Fig. 5 shows there is a fairly even distribution of around 15% for five of the six applications, with SMS´s accounting for 32% of the distribution.

Fig. 5 Top 6 uses of the mobile phone accounting for 58% of the overall uses (n=88).

Top six applications used (n=88)

12; 14%

28; 32% 11; 12%

11; 12%

13; 15% 13; 15%

SMS Instagram Snapchat Photos Email Facebook Feed

Hubbert 39 Given that the mobile phone has potentially an infinite amount of applications it is interesting that there has been such a dramatic consolidation of the applications that are used by the research subjects. This may be the result of the fight over people’s attention that Hjarvard emphasized in his mediatization research (Hjarvard, 2008). Only one participant mentioned time restraints as a motive for using their cellphone while in conversation, this corroborates the findings that time restraint is not linked to socialization practices (Seo, 2015). This research stated that with the abundance of information currently available political and commercial actors will fight to have control over people’s attention. The data shows that people have largely conformed to using Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat for their socialization and entertainment needs.

The use of these six applications were stated as being related to the conversation at hand 16 times in total, meaning that they were only directly related to the conversation at hand 18% of the time. The outlier in this grouping is the use of the phone as a picture viewing platform. 72% of the time when the phone was used to show pictures were directly related to the conversation at hand. This I think is because the phone is being used in a different way. When showing a picture, the phone us being used as displaying device instead of a mobile communication device. The phone is then being used more like a physical artefact of one’s life instead of a connected device enabling communication. This is a very clear demonstration of the multiplicity of affordances that the mobile phone has (Hjarvard, 2008, p. 121).

When the different data analyses are compared to each other the evidence shows that H1 is overwhelmingly supported. The majority of phone use is unrelated to the conversations at hand.

Hubbert 40 5.2 H2- Increased phone use will be related to phone use that is not related to the face-to-face conversation.

H2 was analyzed by comparing the applications stated to be used to aid the conversation, to the overall intensity of phone use. I hoped to find out if the intensity of use was related to applications being used to aid the face-to-face conversation. In total the data shows that there were 10 conversations labeled low intensity, 21 conversations labeled medium intensity, and 9 conversations labeled high intensity. There were in total 18 uses of the mobile phone that were stated as being directly related to the conversation at hand (See Fig. 6)

Fig. 6 Applications directly related to conversation in relation to intensity of phone use by conversational partners (n=40).

Application Directly Related to Conversation vs. Intensity of Overall Phone Use (n=40)

Count of Schedual U Count of Photos U Count of Job Web U Count of Internet U Count of Snapchat U Count of Calendar U Count of Weather U Count of Shopping U Count of Map U Count of Email U Count of SMS U Count of Notes U Count of Tickets U Count of Hotel U Count of Yelp U Count of Hemnet U Count of Sports U Count of Auction U 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Low Use Medium Use High Use

Hubbert 41

Fig. 6 shows that there were 40 individual confirmed uses, assisting the conversation, distributed over the 18 applications. This figure is shown to demonstrate that there is a wide variety of applications that are used when in relation to the conversation. This suggest to me that the most occurring applications are not used to aid conversations but rather it is specific applications that can give relevant information that is sought out to aid in conversations. Six of the 18 applications were only named once as being directly related to conversation and 17 out of 18 applications were cited by three or less conversations as being relevant to the conversation. Again the outlier in applications relevant to conversation is using the phone to view pictures which was cited by 10 conversations.

When looking at the applications, that were used directly in relation to the conversations, there are 12 (Auctions, sports, hemnet, yelp, hotel, tickets, map, weather, email, shopping, internet, and calendar) out of 18 that can be considered information retrieval applications (See Fig. 6). This suggests that applications that are used to assist conversations are often applications that allow for the retrieval of information specific to the conversation at hand, instead of applications that allow for socialization or other functions. It appears that the use of these applications is related to being primarily focused on the face-to-face conversation. This makes sense if Self Determination theory and Social Presence theory are taken into account. By being present in the conversation people are more likely to be attuned to the goal of socializing with the person opposite them (Warren, 2003). This in turn leads people to using their mobile phones for purposes related to the conversation, instead of the automatic actions of using the phone for entertainment and socialization that are related to lower conversational quality (Bayer et al. 2015). By using the phone as an information retrieval tool people are demonstrating that they are involved in the conversations and seek to use the phone to compliment the Hubbert 42 conversation. When the uses of the mobile phone are compared to the intensity of use the data shows that all groups use the phone most for socializing followed by entertainment purposes. Missing is the use of the phone for information retrieval in the High Use group (See Fig 7).

Fig. 7 Intensity of use compared with the Uses and Gratifications categorization (n=89).

Intensity of Use vs Uses of Mobile (n=89) 20 18 18 16 14 12 10 9 10 8 8 8 6 5 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 0 Low Use Medium Use High Use

Entertainment Information Seeking Social Picture Viewing Planning

This suggests that conversations where the mobile phone is most prevalent are not using the phone for information retrieval, which is highly associated with being relevant to the conversation at hand. This shows that the conversational partners that are in High Use groups are experiencing an “absent presence” (Gergen, 2002 P. 227, Rettie, 2005), and are potentially demonstrating symptoms of PMPU (Billieux, 2012). If the goal of meeting up with friends is to socialize and develop meaningful bonds, as Social Presence theory states, then the High Use Hubbert 43 participants are using their phones in a way that is not congruent with Self- Determination theory and therefore exhibiting signs of compulsive use.

Taking into account the previously mentioned analyses, it is concluded that the data supports H2 that increased use of the mobile phone during face-to-face conversations is unrelated use.

5.3 H3- Friends will be most likely to use the phone for purposes of socialization with non-present relationships.

By comparing the relationship of the conversational partners to the uses of the mobile phone I was able to determine how the different relationships affects the uses of the mobile phone. Again the data from Fig. 2 shows the distribution is as follows: Entertainment (n=17), information retrieval (n=11 social activity (n=35), picture viewing (n=10), planning activities (n=16). The distribution of relationships is 30 friendships, 3 work colleagues, 2 family members, and 5 couples. Fig. 8 shows when these two sets of data are combined.

Hubbert 44 Fig. 8 Relationship of conversational partners compared with Uses and Gratifications classifications (n=89).

Relationship vs Uses of Mobile (n=89)

40 35 35

30 28

25

20 17 16 14 15 11 9 10 10 10 6 4 4 4 5 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 Friends Work Associate Family Couple Grand Total

Count of Entertainment Count of Info Count of Social Count of Pictures Count of Planning

This comparison shows that work associates are likely to use the phone for information retrieval, planning activities and social contact related to the conversation. Family members are likely to use the phone for entertainment purposes and socialization. Couples are most likely to use the phone for planning, information retrieval, and socialization. And friends have a representation distributional of the total data, this is due to the majority of respondents affiliating with the friendship category. The data shows that work associates, family members, and couples are less likely to participate in “phubbing” (Angeluci, 2015, p. 174), but there is not a large enough data set to realistically expand these findings beyond this study. Therefore, this research project cannot confirm or deny H3.

When the group dynamic is compared with the Uses and Gratification classification some interesting trends emerge. The data collected shows that the Hubbert 45 40 groups are divided into 19 groups of two female’s F/F, eleven groups of two male’s M/M, eight groups of one female and one male F/M, and two groups of three female’s F/F/F. Fig. 9 shows the relationship between group dynamics and Uses and Gratification classifications.

Fig. 9 Group dynamic of sexual orientation compared with Uses and Gratifications classifications (n=89).

Group Dynamic vs. Uses (n=89)

20 18 18 16 14 12 10 9 10 8 8 6 5 5 5 6 4 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 F/F M/M M/F F/F/F

Entertainment Information Seeking Social Picture Viewing Planning

This comparison shows that F/F groups are very likely to participate in socialization activities and very unlikely to participate in information seeking. As information seeking has already been correlated to mindfulness, and Self- Determination theory, it appears this group may have different underlying motivations for coming together for face-to-face conversations. It could be that F/F feel a stronger attachment to non-present social groups and have a stronger feeling of “always availability” (Park, 2013, p. 182). Research has shown that multicommunicating can have a positive effect on face-to-face communication satisfaction if the communication partner later converses with the co-present individual about the multicommunicating (Stafford, 2012). When this information is taken into consideration, and the frequency of re-integration of socialization Hubbert 46 activities into the conversation is counted, it shows that F/F conversations often reintroduce separate social activities into the face-to-face conversation (See. Fig. 10).

Fig. 10 Shows the number of times that a non-related social phone activity is re-introduced to the conversation after the activity has occurred, as well as the number of times that a non-related social phone activity is not re-introduced to the the conversation (n=35).

Re-introduction of Non related Social Activites vs Non re- introduced Social activities (n=35)

1 F/F/F 1

1 M/F 4 Not Introduced Social

5 Re-introduced Social M/M 3

6 F/F 13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

This suggests that it is possible the F/F conversations may use the re- integration of social activities to re-inforce face-to-face communication. Unfortunately, my data collection did not contain questions about why people used the specific applications, so for now I can only describe how the phone was used.

The fifth survey question asking if the respondents were local or visiting resulted in four conversations having someone who was not a local. Of these four conversations three had one local person and one visitor. One conversation was observed with both participants visiting. Unfortunately, due to the low sample size I feel that any generalizations that I could draw from this data would be not be of value to this project. Hubbert 47

6.0 Discussion

Given the relatively recent and continuous rise of mobile communications there is a lack of peer reviewed research in relation to the uses of mobile phones, as well as the consequences of these uses. One large difficulty with studying how mobile phones affect people is that the mobile industry is changing very rapidly and data that is only a few years old is out of date and does not represent the current mobile communications atmosphere. New technologies come and grow and disappear in the course of just a few years; others grow with seemingly exponential speed. Simply put It is difficult for research to keep up with the rapid change in the industry. This has made the literature review difficult to complete because the small scope of up to date literature.

The hypotheses were largely conceived from pre-existing assumptions about how mobile phones are used. The concept of moral panic (Wikipedia, 2015) seems especially suited to this situation. In the media and society there is a lot of discussion around the negative consequences of the rise of the mobile connected society. When this research project was suggested I had a quite deterministic view of what I expected to find in the research. However; much of this moral panic that is displayed in the media is based on opinions and not scientific evidence. The most prominent advocate, of the negative consequences of mobile phone use, that I have found is Joël Billieux. Even Joël Billieux expresses his concerns about drawing conclusions from the current research because of the lack of coherency and the lack of longitudinal studies available (Billieux, 2008, p. 1208).

The decision to do a semi structured survey on the public, in non-controlled environments, should be taken seriously even if there is potential for the data to not be generalizable to the wider public. I chose to use this method of interview Hubbert 48 because it is the most accurate way to get answers about cell phone use directly from users. I believe that the lack of a controlled environment is outweighed by the benefits of fresh memory on the part of the participants.

By doing interviews, in person, with random research subjects it is possible that there was information left out by the research subjects. This could be caused by a myriad of reasons including privacy, embarrassment, or being uncomfortable being interviewed. Although interacting with a phone, while in a social setting, is a reality of the times there is still a social stigma attached to this practice. This could have led people to disclose more information about the applications that were used in relation to the conversation at hand.

When the results from this research are compared with SDT it suggests that people should be more attentive to their goals and motivations. The mobile phone allows for a plethora of gratifications which is a great tool for people if it used in the correct manner. An assumption that I have carried throughout this research is that the main goal of being present with someone else is to socialize with them. It is possible that this is not the main goal for many and therefore the use of the mobile phone for entertainment and socialization could be completely rational and in line with their gratifications sought.

After seeing the results related to H1 it can be concluded that people are not using their phones in relation to the face-to-face conversation. Even if this is in line with their goals, the opportunity for relationship development is being missed by not fully taking advantage of the power of face-to-face communication. I would suggest that people be more strategic with their goal management, and when they are in the presence of friends they should devote less time to their wider social circles. This will enable the formation of stronger social bonds and lead to a stronger social network. Of course if you are bored with your conversational Hubbert 49 partner it is possible that developing your wider social network may be more beneficial to your overall goals.

There are many limitations of this research. I would have liked to have a larger sample size. This would have allowed me to have more data to work with and therefore I would have been able to produce more accurate generalizations. A larger sample size would have enabled me to have more diversity in my data and this would have allowed me to draw more comparisons between how the phone was used by different demographics. For future research I suggest that there be more interviews conducted on M/M, and M/F conversations as well as on conversations between couples, family members, and work colleagues. This would allow more accurate comparisons between different demographics. It would have been beneficial to get more information on why people were using the applications, not just how they were using them.

Future Research should be conducted doing longitudinal studies of how people use their mobile phones while in face-to-face conversations. Studies analyzing the relationship between multi-communication and satisfaction/empathy development would be useful for a better understanding of the benefits and consequences of mobile phone use. It would also be of value to conduct controlled experiments to study the difference of content discussed in face-to-face conversations controlling for the use of mobile phones.

Unfortunately, the fifth interview question was not used at all in this research. If there had been more data, this question could have been very insightful into developing generalizations about how people use phones differently depending on their location.

Hubbert 50

7.0 Conclusion

Overall I found this research to be very interesting and informational. The Inductive RS has worked well with this type of research and the interview format. The Uses and Gratifications theory worked well as a lens to view my findings and to see motivations for actions. If I were to do it again I would use a different form of data collection to make it easier to get a larger sample size. Approaching research subjects was difficult and in some cases awkward. That being said, the data that was generated from the interviews was fairly easy to work with, and the research has made some valid generalizations about how phones are used in relation to face-to-face conversations.

H1- The majority of phone use will not be related to the face-to-face conversation.

The data shows that the most common uses of the telephone were rarely directly related to the conversation at hand. The abundance of applications used in relation to the conversation shows that often it is specific applications that are used for information retrieval that are directly relevant to the face-to-face conversation. This suggests that most of what people do on their phones, while in face-to-face conversations, is detrimental to the conversation at hand because the phone is taking their attention away from their co-present partner (Rosenfeld, 2015). Although the majority of phone use did not have direct relation to the conversation it was found that most conversations did discuss what the phone was used for to some degree. This suggests that the phone is being used in some capacity to aid the face-to-face conversation (Stafford, 2012). Although many of the applications that are used are re-introduced into the conversation the data shows that the majority of use is unrelated. Therefore, H1 is supported by the data. Hubbert 51

H2- Increased phone use will be related to phone use that is not related to the face-to-face conversation

The results show that conversations with high mobile phone use are unlikely to use specific applications that are relevant to the discussion at hand. The results also show that high use conversations are unlikely to use the phone in information seeking applications.Since it is information seeking activities that are most often directly related to conversations I conclude that my H2 is supported by the data.

H3- Friends will be most likely to use the phone for purposes of socialization with non-present relationships. When the relationship between the conversational partners’ groupings, and the Uses and Gratifications categorizations, were analyzed the data shows that compared to the other groups friends are the most likely to participate in socialization activates. This supports my H3 but there is not enough data on the other categories of relationships to confirm this hypothesis. More interviews would need to be conducted on work associates, family members, and couples to establish a credible distinction between the group dynamics.

Hubbert 52

8.0 References

Alan César Belo Angeluci & Huang, G. 2015, "Rethinking media displacement: the tensions between mobile media and face-to-face interaction FAMECOS, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 173.

Barkana Y, Zadok D, Morad Y, Avni I. 2004, Visual field attention is reduced by concomitant hands-free conversation on a cellular telephone. Am J Ophthalmic 138 (3): 347-53

Baumeister, R.; Leary, M. R. 1995, "The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation".Psychological Bulletin 117: 497– 529.

Billieux, J. 2012, "Problematic use of the mobile phone: A literature review and a pathways model", Current Psychiatry Reviews, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 299-307.

Billieux, J., Philippot, P., Schmid, C., Maurage, P., De Mol, J. & Van der Linden, M. 2015, "Is Dysfunctional Use of the Mobile Phone a Behavioural Addiction? Confronting Symptom-Based Versus Process-Based Approaches: Conceptualizing Mobile Phone Dysfunctional Use", Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 460-468.

Billieux, J., Philippot, P., Schmid, C., Maurage, P., De Mol, J. & Van der Linden, M. 2015, "Is Dysfunctional Use of the Mobile Phone a Behavioural Addiction? Confronting Symptom-Based Versus Process-Based Approaches: Hubbert 53

Blaikie, N. 2007, Approaches to Social Enquiry. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brown, K.W. & Ryan, R.M. 2003, "The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well-Being", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 822-848.

Coyne, S.M., Padilla-Walker, L.M. & Howard, E. 2013, "Emerging in a Digital World: A Decade Review of Media Use, Effects, and Gratifications in Emerging Adulthood", Emerging Adulthood, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 125-137.

Curras-Perez, R., Ruiz-Mafe, C. & Sanz-Blas, S. 2014, "Determinants of user behaviour and recommendation in social networks: An integrative approach from the uses and gratifications perspective", Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 114, no. 9, pp. 1477-1498.

Dunne, Á., Lawlor, M. & Rowley, J. 2010, "Young people's use of online social networking sites - a uses and gratifications perspective", Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 46-58.

Gergen, K. J. 2002, The challenge of absent presence. In C.A Grant & G. LadsonBillings (Eds.), Dictionary of multicultural education, (pp. 227-241.) New York : Oryx press

Gerlich, R.N., Drumheller, K., Babb, J. & De'Armond, D. 2015, "App consumption: an exploratory analysis of the uses & gratifications of mobile apps", Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 69.

Hubbert 54 Hjarvard, S. 2008, The Mediazation of Society. A Theory of the Media as Agents of Social and Cultural Change. Nordicom Reviw 2

Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R.F., Förster, G. & Vohs, K.D. 2012, "Everyday temptations: An experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 102, no. 6, pp. 1318-1335.

Hofmann, W., Friese, M. & Strack, F. 2009, "Impulse and Self-Control from a Dual- Systems Perspective", Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 162-176.

Igarashi, T., Motoyoshi, T., Takai, J. & Yoshida, T. 2008, "No mobile, no life: Self- perception and text-message dependency among Japanese high school students", Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 2311-2324.

Kujath, C.L. 2011, "Facebook and MySpace: complement or substitute for face-to- face interaction?",Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, vol. 14, no. 1- 2, pp. 75

Lasen, A. 2005, History repeating? A comparison of the launch and uses of fixed and mobile phones. In Mobile World (pp. 29-60). Springer London.

Leung, L., & Wei, R. 2000, More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the cellular phone. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 308– 320.

Liu, X., Liu, X. & Wei, R. 2014, "Maintaining social connectedness in a fast- changing world: Examining the effects of mobile phone uses on loneliness among teens in Tibet", Mobile Media & Communication, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 318-334. Hubbert 55

Mieczakowski, A., Goldhaber, T., & Clarkson, J. 2011, Culture, communication, and change: Report on an investigation of the use and impact of modern media and technology in our lives. Culture, communication, and change. Cambridge, UK: Engineering Design Centre, University of Cambridge.

Nickerson, R., Isaac, H. & Mak, B. 2008, "A multi-national study of attitudes about mobile phone use in social settings", INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 541-563.

Papacharissi, Z. & Rubin, A.M. 2000, "Predictors of Internet Use", Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 175-196.

Park, S. 2013, "Always On and Always With Mobile Tablet Devices: A Qualitative Study on How Young Adults Negotiate With Continuous Connected Presence", Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol. 33, no. 5-6, pp. 182-190.

Plant, S. 2000, On the mobile. The effects of mobile telephones on social and individual life. Retrieved from http://www.Motorola.com/mot/documents/0,1028,333,00.pdf

Przybylski, A.K. & 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, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 237-246.

Hubbert 56 Reinsch, N.L., Turner, J.W. & Tinsley, C.H. 2008, "Multicommunicating: A Practice Whose Time Has Come?", The Academy of Management Review, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 391-403.

Rettie, R. 2005, Presence and embodiment in mobile phone communication. PsycghNology Journal. 3(1), 16-34.

Rosenfeld, M., Calero, C.I., Slezak, D.F., Garbulsky, G., Bergman, M., Trevisan, M. & Sigman, M. 2015, "Neglect in Human Communication: Quantifying the Cost of Cell-Phone Interruptions in Face to Face Dialogs: e0125772", PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 6.

Seo, M., Kim, J. & David, P. 2015, "Always Connected or Always Distracted? ADHD Symptoms and Social Assurance Explain Problematic Use of Mobile Phone and Multicommunicating", Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 667-681.

Severin, W. & Tankard, J.1998, Communications Theory, Longman, New York, NY.

Schulz, W. 2004, "Reconstructing Mediatization as an Analytical Concept", European Journal of Communication, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 87-101.

Stafford, L. & Hillyer, J.D. 2012, "Information and Communication Technologies in Personal Relationships", Review of Communication, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 290.

Statista. 2016, Smartphone penetration . [online] Available at: http://www.statista.com/statistics/488351/smartphone-penetration-sweden/ [Accessed 10 May 2016]. Hubbert 57

Topalli, B. 2016, "The Mobile Phone & Its Impact In Teenagers`Daily Life", European Scientific Journal, vol. 12, no. 8.

Turkle, S. 2011, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, Basic Books, New York.

Wang, X. & Li, Y. 2014, "TRUST, PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED, AND MOTIVATION TO PRODUCE USER-GENERATED CONTENT: A SELF-DETERMINATION PERSPECTIVE", Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 241.

Wikipedia. 2016, History of mobile phones. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mobile_phones [Accessed 17 May 2016].

Wikipedia. 2015, Moral Panic. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic [Accessed 11 May 2016].

Wikipedia. 2016, Nomophobia. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomophobia [Accessed 17 May 2016].

Hubbert 58

9.0 Appendix

Appendix A -Interview transcripts

Interviews Transcription

The interviews consisted of 5 open ended questions with the possibility of further discussion afterwards. The five questions were: 1.What was your phone used for? 2.How do you know each other? 3.How did phone contribute to conversation? 4.How typical was this conversation in relation to phone use? 5.Are you local or visiting?

The date was recorder and displayed in a Month/Day format. The time was recorded using a 24 hour clock in hour: minute format. The sex of the research subjects was recorded using a FF- two females, MF- one male and one female, MM- two males, FFF- three females. The age of the research subjects was recorded and displayed as Age/Age. The intensity of use was recorded on a sliding scale of Low, Medium, High. I defined low intensity users as people that only occasionally looked at their phones and when doing so did not interact with the phone for more than a 30 seconds. Medium intensity users are defined as people that interacted with their phones throughout the conversation but spent the majority of the time in conversation with the present person. High intensity users are defined as people that interacted with their phone constantly, rarely setting phone down on table, and using the phone at Hubbert 59 least once every 2 minutes. The Location was recorded as the specific restaurant or cafe´ in Malmö that the interview took place. The atmosphere was recorded with a general synapsis of how the mood felt and how many people were in the immediate vicinity.

Interview 1 4/20, 10:50, FF, 21/26, Medium, Cafe Dofflen, Sunny morning. 10 people outside in cafe

1. Going to a meeting, going to see where it is. what time. Facebook, Instagram, social media. Used when you get tired of talking with the other person. 2. Are in the same class at dentistry school. 3. yeah we talked a bit about the meeting. Also use phone to look at stuff and then talk about what you saw. Talk about something and then look it up on the phone. Used to start a conversation. 4. Pretty typical, standard. 5. Both study here.

Extra. They thought that it was pretty standard to use your phone without really thinking about it and then blend that information into the conversation. But more often it was the process of looking at the phone and then getting material from social media and then blending that in with the conversation.

Interview 2 23/4 22:19, MM, 34, 31, Little use, Moosehead bar, Night partying, lots of people in small groups 1. The phone was used for checking up on some sport scores that were or personal interest to me. Also to see what some other friends were doing I used SMS. 2. Yes close friends 3. No the phone had nothing to do with the conversations, but the scores were shown and briefly talked about. 4. Very usual to use the phone like this, always have the phone to look up stuff and contact other people. 5. local

Interview 3. 23/4 22:34, FF, 26,26, Medium, Moosehead Bar, Night partying, lots of people in small groups 1. Used the phone to check Facebook messages, sms other friends, called my boss to make sure about the schedule for the next day, looked at the calendar Hubbert 60 to see what was coming up in the week, looked at Instagram to be amused, showed pictures to each other. 2. Studied together, now are friends 3. Showed some pictures that were seen on Facebook to catch up, show pictures in photo library as well. 4. Not really, haven't seen each other in a while so wouldn't want to be on the phone but it just kind of happens 5. Local/visiting Extra- phone is mostly being used to show what is going on in life via pictures and funny texts.

Interview 4. 23/4, 22:47, FF, 25,27, little use, Moosehead bar, Night partying, lots of people in small groups 1. Used for looking on Tinder, sms with friends, looking at Facebook feed and Facebook messages, Instagram 2. Very good friends 3. Nothing to do with conversation but show the content of the messages and pictures to each other and talk about them. 4. very normal to use the phone when talking, have a whole other social world out there to communicate with 5. Local

Interview 5 24/4, 20:43, MM, 37,42, Medium, Moose, Rainy day calm atmosphere 20 people in small groups of 1-4 people 1. Phone was used to sms with the wife to see how kids where and plans for next day/week. 2. friend/ work colleague 3. Kinda, phone was used to see if I needed to go home directly or if could stay for another hour. 4. Pretty normal, have to stay connected to life 5. local

Interview 6 24/4 22:31, FF, 20/19, little use, Moosehead, Rainy day calm atmosphere 20 people in small groups of 1-4 people 1. Facebook feed and messages, answer message that was received, sms. 2. Friends 3. Not at all, showed message and then talked briefly about it. 4. normal 5. local extra- one of the girls did not have a phone only and iPad that was connected to Wifi.

Interview 7 27/4, 20:27, FFF, 32, 29, 22, High, Moosehead, Relaxed atmosphere 40+pers small groups early bar atmosphere Hubbert 61 1. SMS, Facebook, Tinder, FB messanger, Safari internet, Stocks, Pages, Email, Show pictures, Snapchat 2. Friends 3. Show pictures to each other and show sms´s. 4. standard, always use the phone a lot 5. local Extra- all three on the phone both for personal use as well as related to conversation

Interview 8 27/4, 21:17, FF, 22,23, Medium, Moosehead Bar, Starting to be night time. 50+people drinking and conversation. 1. SMS, Snapchat 2. friends 3. No, Answer sms that was received. Try to get a mutual friend to come and hang out. So yes it was brought up in the conversation 4. Normal 5. Local Mostly was used for answering incoming mails and sms

Interview 9 27/4 22:28, FFF, 34, 25, 20, Medium, Moosehead Bar, 50+people drinking and conversation. 1. Facebook, snapchat, sms, calendar to plan a vacation. 2. Family, sisters and a niece. 3. One of the participants had a phone that had a broken camera, and this was discussed as well as the planning of the vacation. But not for the other uses of the phone 4. Yes, always on the phone when with others, rarely is conversed about. 5. Local sisters with niece visiting.

Interview 10, 27/4, 22:27, MM, 21,23, High Use, Moosehead Bar, 50+people drinking and conversation. 1. SMS, Snapchat, Facebook messenger, show pictures to eachother 2. Friends 3. Yes and no. Pictures were shown to each other of life events. But phone was used to plan work obligations and connect with people that were not present about future plans. 4. Kind of, it is common to show pictures about life events but also is common to do other stuff on phone not related to present moment. 5. Local Extra. The pictures that were shown were brought up through the conversation so the phone was an assistant to the conversation

Interview 11, 27/4, 22:52, MM, 33,31, High Use, Moosehead Bar, 50+people Hubbert 62 drinking and conversation. 1. Facebook, Show pictures, show funny/ weird stuff that is found on the internet when browsing, Tinder 2. Friends 3. Yes, normal. They hang out all the time so know everything that is going on in each others life so is common to cruise on the phone and show stuff that has happened in their social networks. 4. Yes, when with guy friends, girlfriends require more attention. 5. Local

Interview 12, 27/4, 23:40, FF, 25,25 High Use, Moosehead, Inside bar calm atmosphere no other people except bartender. 1. Snapchat, calling for future meeting with someone else. 2. Friends 3. No, everything was for personal use 4. Yes, always on the phone, 5. Local Extra- feels addicted to the phone, always looking at it even when no purpose is present.

Interview 13, 28/4, 9:45, FF, 29, 32, medium, Cafe Dofflen, morning, a few people drinking coffee 1. calendar planning, email, showing pictures, sms. 2. Friends out with babies 3. yes, showing pictures. the other email and sms not discussed 4. Normal 5. local always on phone or fall behind in obligations to answer

Interview 14 28/4, 10:10, MM, 22,23, Medium, Cafe Dofflen, morning 5-6 people around with coffee. 1. Looking at school schedule and email. planning day and night after school, instagram, Facebook feed. 2. school friends 3. No, talking about school but not to do with what is being done on phone 4. Normal 5. Local

Interview 15 28/4, 10:23, MF, 21, 19, Medium, Cafe Dofflen, Late morning 7-8 people drinking coffee on their phones 1. Instagram, Facebook, email, whatsapp, 2. school friends 3. No, but phone conversation is integrated into real conversation by mentioning stuff from whatsapp conversation Hubbert 63 4. yes 5. local

Interview 16 4/28, 18:04, FF, 22, 23, High use, Moosehead bar, Early evening, small groups of people with coffee and beers. 1. Snapchat, whatsapp, email responses, take pictures. 2. Friends 3. Show snapchats to each other, sending whatsapp to see if others will join. Using phone to facilitate conversation decisions 4. Normal 5. Local

Interview 17, 28/4, 18:27, FF, 26, 26, Medium, Moosehead Bar, Early evening, small groups of people with coffee and beers. 1. Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook messenger, show pictures, Tinder 2. Friends/work colleagues 3. Showing pictures to each other, and talking about Tinder guys profiles 4. Normal 5. Local

Interview 18, 28/4, 20:14, MF, 25, 23, Low, Moosehead Bar, Early evening, small groups of people with beers and dinner. 1. Calendar, email, sms 2. Couple, together 3. Planning for tomorrow looking at calendar, SMS with others not discussed 4. Normal to always answer incoming SMS 5. Local

Interview 19, 28/4, 20:34, FF, 28, 28, High, Moosehead Bar, 50+ people drinking and conversation in small groups. 1. Facebook, SMS, Email, Snapchat, Weather, 2. Friends 3. Yes, checking weather and talked about that, and showed snapchat 4. yes 5. local

Interview 20, 28/4, 21:15, MM, 27, 28, Medium, Moosehead bar, 50+ people drinking and conversation in small groups. 1. Web shopping, comparing prices, google maps, Tinder 2. Friends 3. yeah talking about fishing and looking where to go and what new stuff to get for the summer 4. No, Only with this friend Hubbert 64 5. Local

Interview 21 28/4, 21:54, FF, 23,26, Low, Moosehead bar, 50+ people drinking and conversation. 1. Instagram, Snapchat, 2. Sisters 3. Took photo for snapchat, otherwise just talking 4. yes, usually more but with sister so have lots to talk about 5. Local

Interview 22, 28/4, 22:12, MM, 32, 34, Medium, Moosehead Bar, 50+ people drinking and conversation Calendar, email, sms, search/google 1. Work colleague, 2. Making plans for tomorrow, need to send emails and check calendar for this 3. Normal to use phone to plan out day 4. Local, visiting

Interview 23, 28/4, 22:29, FF, High, Moosehead Bar, 50+ people drinking and conversation 1. Snapchat, Facebook messenger, Instagram, SMS, Talk on phone, take pictures, Pinterest, Tinder 2. Friends 3. Yeah show snapchat pic, take snapchat pic, talk about phone call, and show Pinterest pic of what was in conversation 4. Normal to always be on phone no matter what 5. Local

Interview 24 28/4, 23:34, MM, 27, 26, Medium, Moosehead bar, 40+ people drinking and in small groups 1.SMS, phone, picture library, work website 2. Friends 3. Yes, show pictures and show work website sales numbers 4. Normal, usually have phone 5. Local

Interview 25, 29/4, 23:34, MF, 45, 38, Low, Mooshead, 0+ people drinking and in small groups 1. Email, Map, SMS 2. work colleague 3. Yes, answer work email and discuss, make plan for next days work 4. standard to discuss this stuff when out with work colleague 5. Local, visiting Planning work day for visiting sales person, show them where we will go and such Hubbert 65

Interview 26, 29/4 00:35, FF, 23, 24, Moosehead bar, Bar atmosphere with people drinking and talking 1. Snapchat, Intagram, FB feed 2. friends 3. No, talk about what was seen on Facebook feed 4. Normal 5. Local

Interview 27, 29/4, 11:40, FF, 28, 29, Medium, grey a few people drinking coffee. 1. Calendar, Facebook messenger, sms, email 2. Friends 3. No, just mention a bit about what has been done on phone 4. Normal 5. local

Interview 28, 29/4, 12:15, MF, 28, 30, Low, Cafe Dofflen, 3 groups of 2 people and a few alone. 1. Weather, map, notes 2. together, couple 3. Plan next 2 days visiting, 4. When traveling pretty standard stuff 5. Visiting

Interview 29, 29/4 20:18 MM, 28, 29, Medium, Moosehead bar, Early evening with beers and dinner 1. Internet search, email, sms 2. Friends through work 3. Show lamps and lighting with internet and email. sms unrelated 4. with this specific friend, otherwise no 5. Local

Interview 30, 29/4, 21:11, MF, 31, 30, Medium, Mooshead bar, Bar atmosphere with lots of people drinking 1. SMS, Facebook feed, Intagram, Whatsapp, Internet search for concert tickets, Hotel app, yelp 2. Couple 3. Yes concert, yelp, hotel discussed because planning trip together, the rest not 4. yes, phone always being used 5. Local

Interview 31, 29/4, 21:45, FF, 28,28, Medium, Moosehead bar, Bar atmosphere Hubbert 66 with lots of people drinking 1. Hemet, SMS, google booking reservation 2. Friends 3. Yes talked about desire to get house and showed nice ones on hemet, and booked restaurant for tomorrow 4. Normal 5. Local

Interview 32, 29/4, 21:59, FF, 27, 25, High, Moosehead bar, Bar atmosphere with lots of people drinking. 1. Snapchat, sms, FB messenger, Tinder, phone 2. Friends 3. yes, SMS with others and say hi from both people, discuss what they say. fill in person what happened on phone call. 4. Normal 5. Local

Interview 33, 29/4, 22:50, MM, 39, 42, Medium, Moosehead bar, Bar atmosphere with lots of people drinking. 1. SMS, phone 2. Friends 3. Yeah discuss what is happening on SMS´s. But not really part of conversation that we are having. 4. Normal 5. Local

Interview 34, 30/4, 11:40, FF, 21,20, Low, Coffee House, cafe feel with 10 people around 1. SMS, Intagram, photos 2. Friends 3. Show photos from camera roll when talking about what has happened recently 4. Normal 5. Local

Interview 35, 30/4, 12:15, FF, 30,31, High, Coffee House, Cafe feel with 10 people around some in groups some alone 1. SMS, Tinder, Weather app 2. Friends 3. No, Show Tinder profiles and talk about dating history 4. Normal 5. Local

Interview 36, 30/4, 16:20, MM, 29,30, Medium, Moosehead bar, Late afternoon, semi full restaurant with people drinking and having coffees Hubbert 67 1. Betting site, football score tables, football sheduals, SMS 2. Friends 3. Yes, conversation about football and using phone to look up stats and see when games are 4. Normal if with this type of friend 5. Local

Interview 37, 30/4, 17:10, MF, 30,35, Medium, Moosehead bar, early bar atmosphere with lots of groups of people talking. 1. Tradera, blocket, SMS, Calendar, pictures, 2. Couple 3. Yes, talking about the week to come and planning with calendar and showing stuff for sale on shopping sites. 4. Yeah working and planning requires a phone 5. Local

Interview 38, 30/4, 17:45, FF, 26,27, Medium, Moosehead bar, early bar atmosphere with people drinking and having fun 1. SMS, Snapchat, Intagram, Whatsapp 2. Friends 3. Yes, talked about responses from sms´s and show pictures from Instagram 4. Normal 5. Local

Interview 39, 30/4, 18:20, MF, 28, 30, Low, Moosehead, Early bar atmosphere with people drinking and talking 1. Tinder, Pictures, SMS, Blocket 2. Friends 3. Play on tinder together swiping , show and discuss new purchases on Blocket and show life pictures 4. Normal 5. Local

Interview 40, 30/4, 21:18, MF, 27, 30, Medium, Moosehead bar, Bar atmosphere with people drinking and talking 1. Instagram, SMS, Picture album, Stocks 2. Couple 3. No, yes, show stocks and talk a bit about the market and also look at picture of schedule to see what can be done the rest of the week 4. Normal 5. Local

Hubbert 68 Appendix B- Charts and graphs Figure 1. All observed uses of mobile phone shown in percentage of total recorded responses (n=153).

Hubbert 69 Figure 2. Distribution of uses based on Uses and Gratification categorizations (n=89).

Distribution of uses based on Uses and Gratification categorizations (n=89)

16; 18% 17; 19%

10; 11% 11; 13%

35; 39%

Entertainment Information Social Pictures Planning

Fig. 3 Distribution of the total stated uses in relation to if use was related to the conversation (n=153).

Uses of Phone Related to Conversation (n=153)

30; 20% 40; 26%

83; 54%

Mentioned in Conversation No Relation to Conversation Used in Coversation

Hubbert 70

Fig. 4 Seven distinct dialogue maps relating to the way that mobile phones are used in face-to-face conversations (n=40).

Hubbert 71 Fig. 5 Top 6 uses of the mobile phone accounting for 58% of the overall uses (n=88).

Top six applications used (n=88)

12; 14%

28; 32% 11; 12%

11; 12%

13; 15% 13; 15%

SMS Instagram Snapchat Photos Email Facebook Feed

Fig. 6 Applications directly related to conversation in relation to intensity of phone use by conversational partners (n=40).

Application Directly Related to Conversation vs. Intensity of Overall Phone Use (n=40)

Count of Photos U

Count of Internet U

Count of Calendar U

Count of Shopping U

Count of Email U

Count of Notes U

Count of Hotel U

Count of Hemnet U

Count of Auction U 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Low Use Medium Use High Use

Hubbert 72

Fig. 7 Intensity of use compared with the Uses and Gratifications categorization (n=89)

Intensity of Use vs Uses of Mobile (n=89) 20 18 18 16 14 12 10 9 10 8 8 8 6 5 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 0 Low Use Medium Use High Use

Entertainment Information Seeking Social Picture Viewing Planning

Fig. 8 Relationship of conversational partners compared with Uses and Gratifications classifications (n=89).

Relationship vs Uses of Mobile (n=89)

40 35 35

30 28

25

20 17 16 14 15 11 9 10 10 10 6 4 4 4 5 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 Friends Work Associate Family Couple Grand Total

Count of Entertainment Count of Info Count of Social Count of Pictures Count of Planning

Hubbert 73 Fig. 9 Group dynamic of sexual orientation compared with Uses and Gratifications classifications (n=89).

Group Dynamic vs. Uses (n=89)

20 18 18 16 14 12 10 9 10 8 8 6 5 5 5 6 4 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 F/F M/M M/F F/F/F

Entertainment Information Seeking Social Picture Viewing Planning

Fig. 10 Shows the number of times that a non-related social phone activity is re-introduced to the conversation after the activity has occurred, as well as the number of times that a non-related social phone activity is not re-introduced to the the conversation (n=35).

Re-introduction of Non related Social Activites vs Non re- introduced Social activities (n=35)

1 F/F/F 1

1 M/F 4 Not Introduced Social

5 Re-introduced Social M/M 3

6 F/F 13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Hubbert 74 Appendix C- Excel worksheets used to analyze data.

Fig. 11 First page of Excel worksheet

Fig. 12 Second page of Excel worksheet

Hubbert 75

Fig. 13 Third page of Excel worksheet

Fig. 14 Fourth page of Excel worksheet

Hubbert 76