Cell Phone Use Latency in a Midwestern USA University Population

  • Daniel J. Kruger
  • Ailiya Duan
  • Dora Juhasz
  • Camille V. Phaneuf
  • Vibha Sreenivasa
  • Claire M. Saunders
  • Anna M. Heyblom
  • Peter A. Sonnega
  • Michele L. Day
  • Stephanie L. Misevich
Brief Report

Abstract

Cell phones are integral to the lives of contemporary university undergraduates in the USA. Observers documented cell phone use in public spaces within or immediately surrounding a large public university campus in the Midwestern USA. Individuals (N = 2013) were monitored from the time they entered a “waiting space,” either a line at a coffee shop or fast food restaurant, a bus stop, or an open area outside of a large lecture hall. Observers recorded whether individuals were using their cell phones when they arrived or began using their phones during the observation, recording the number of seconds between arrival and cell phone use. The majority of individuals (62%) were observed using their cell phones, 32% when they arrived, and 30% initiated use after arrival. The majority (55%) of the latter group initiated use within 10 s of arrival and 80% initiated use within 20 s of arrival. Women were more likely to use their phones than men and individuals engaged in a live conversation were less likely to use their cell phones. There was a weak trend for longer latencies in cell phone use for those in live conversations, although it did not reach statistical significance.

Keywords

Cell phones Cell phone addiction Observational research University Cell phone dependence Cell phone use latency Undergraduates 

References

  1. Asselbergs, J., Ruwaard, J., Ejdys, M., Schrader, N., Sijbrandij, M., & Riper, H. (2016). Mobile phone-based unobtrusive ecological momentary assessment of day-to-day mood: an explorative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18, e72. doi:10.2196/jmir.5505.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bittman, M., Brown, J. E., & Wajcman, J. (2009). The cell phone, constant connection and time scarcity in Australia. Social Indicators Research, 93, 229–233. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9367-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boase, J., & Ling, R. (2013). Measuring mobile phone use: self-report versus log data. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 508–519. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Chavez, A. (2014). Out of sight is not out of mind: the impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 290–297. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, Y.-F., & Katz, J. E. (2009). Extending family to school life: college students’ use of the mobile phone. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 179–191. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. New York: Harper and Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finkel, J. A., & Kruger, D. J. (2012). Is cell phone use socially contagious? Human Ethology Bulletin, 27, 15–17.Google Scholar
  8. Forgays, D. K., Hyman, I., & Schreiber, J. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything: gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 314–321. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Katz, J., & Aakhus, M. (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Langdon, K., Farris, S. G., Øverup, C. S., & Zvolensky, M. J. (2016). Associations between anxiety sensitivity, negative affect, and smoking during a self-guided smoking cessation attempt. Nicotine & Tobacco Research., 18, 1188–1195. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntv253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lepp, A., Li, J., Barkley, J., & Salehi-Esfahani, S. (2015). Exploring the relationships between college students’ cell phone use, personality and leisure. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 210–219. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pew Research Center. (2015, April 01). The Smartphone Difference: US smartphone use in 2015. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/
  14. Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 541, 34–141. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058.Google Scholar
  15. Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., & Carrier, L. M. (2012). IDisorder: understanding our obsession with technology and overcoming its hold on us. New York: Palgrave-MacMillian. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006.Google Scholar
  16. Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., & Rokkum, J. (2013b). The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: an empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2501–2511. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Rab, S. A., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013a). Is Facebook creating “iDisorders”? The link between clinical symptoms of psychiatric disorders and technology use, attitudes and anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1243–1254. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Kleef, E., van Trijpa, H. C. M., & Luning, P. (2005). Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 181–201. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.05.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Xie, W., & Newhagen, J. E. (2014). The effects of communication interface proximity on user anxiety for crime alerts received on desktop, laptop, and hand-held devices. Communication Research, 41, 375–403. doi:10.1177/0093650212448670crx.sagepub.com.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel J. Kruger
    • 1
  • Ailiya Duan
    • 2
  • Dora Juhasz
    • 2
  • Camille V. Phaneuf
    • 2
  • Vibha Sreenivasa
    • 2
  • Claire M. Saunders
    • 2
  • Anna M. Heyblom
    • 2
  • Peter A. Sonnega
    • 2
  • Michele L. Day
    • 2
  • Stephanie L. Misevich
    • 2
  1. 1.Population Studies Center, Institute for Social ResearchUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Literature, Sciences, and ArtsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations