See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285948122

The Impact of Mobile Use on Teenagers’ Socialization

Article  in  The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences: Annual Review · January 2010
DOI: 10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v05i04/51690

CITATIONS READS
4 4,191

2 authors:

Stefania Kalogeraki Marina Papadaki

University of Crete University of Crete
32 PUBLICATIONS   158 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LIVEWHAT TRANSSOL View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stefania Kalogeraki on 20 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Encyclopedia of Mobile
Phone Behavior
Zheng Yan
University at Albany, State University of New York, USA
Managing Director: Lindsay Johnston
Managing Editor: Austin DeMarco
Director of Intellectual Property & Contracts: Jan Travers
Acquisitions Editor: Kayla Wolfe
Production Editor: Christina Henning
Development Editor: Erin O’Dea
Multi-Volume Book Production Specialist: Denna Jo Zombro
Typesetters: Lisandro Gonzalez, Kaitlyn Kulp, Cody Page, Amanda Smith
Cover Design: Jason Mull

Published in the United States of America by

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2015 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Encyclopedia of mobile phone behavior / Zheng Yan, editor.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4666-8239-9 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-8240-5 (ebook) 1. Cell phones--Social aspects. 2. Mobile
communication systems--Social aspects. 3. Interpersonal communication--Technological innovations--Social aspects. I.
Yan, Zheng, 1958-
HE9713.E63 2015
303.48’33--dc23
2015003299

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

12 Category: Activities and Processes

The Impact of Mobile Phones on

Teenagers’ Socialization and Emancipation

Kalogeraki Stefania
University of Crete, Greece

Papadaki Marina
University of Crete, Greece

INTRODUCTION al., 2005). For instance, Oksman and Rautiainen

(2002, p.29) underline that the device is character-
The mobile phone has become an indispensable ized from parents “as a small investment for the
mean of communication, as according to the child’s safety,” whereas others advocate that the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) mobile phone acts as a “magic helper” that aids
in 2013 there were almost as many mobile-cel- parents to monitor teenagers’ location in order to
lular subscriptions as people in the world (ITU, guarantee their safety in mobility, especially during
2013). The device constitutes an important tool the night (Fortunati & Manganelli, 2002, p.19).
of communication of individuals with diverse Through the instrumental components of mo-
demographic traits but its critical role has been bile phone communication, social and expressive
emphasized specifically for teenagers who have uses are accomplished (O’ Brien, 2010; Ling
adopted mobile phones with a surprising speed & Bertel, 2013) as the device enhances social
(Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010; Ling interactions and bonding with those in teenag-
& Bertel, 2013). ers’ intimate sphere. The mobile phone provides
Teenagers’ proneness to adopt mobile phones a direct communicative channel between users
is primarily associated with its functions including and peer groups, parents and children; hence
instrumental (for instance, micro-coordination, ac- the device allows teenagers to develop intensive
cessibility and safety issues) as well as social and interactions and reinforce their ties with their
expressive uses (Ling, 2004; Castells, Fernandez- family and peers (Oksman & Rautiainen, 2002;
Ardevol, Qiu, & Sey, 2007). With respect to the Ling & Yttri, 2002; Green, 2003; Srivastava,
former, perhaps the most fundamental function is 2005; Matsuda, 2005; Castells et al., 2007; Ling,
micro-coordination that allows teenagers to plan 2004, 2007, 2009). However, the instrumental and
and re-plan their social activities with parents social functions of mobile phones are intertwined
and peers providing both temporal and spatial with critical impacts on teenagers’ parental and
flexibility (Ling & Yttri, 2002). Similarly, ac- peer group interactions. For instance, Pain et al.
cessibility contributes to a sense of permanent (2005) underline that:
availability; situation that has been described by
Licoppe (2004) as “connected presence.” Mobiles may reduce the fears of parents and
The mobile phone may also act as a safety young people by allowing contact which is not
link in cases of actual emergency; hence security spatially or temporally bounded…Mobile phones
reasons are critically important for both parents may expand young people’s geographies, allow-
and teenagers to have mobile phones (Pain et ing them a wider spatial range unsupervised, and

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8239-9.ch002

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 Category: Activities and Processes

thus empower young people in reclaiming public The first section of the chapter summarizes the
spaces, or contract them as a further means for current scientific knowledge in mobile phones’ A
parents to monitor and control young people’s impacts on the dynamics of parental and peer
movements (Pain et al., 2005, p. 815) group interactions and bonding during teenag-
ers’ socialization and emancipation. The second
In line with these arguments, the mobile phone, section provides an empirical example of these
on the one hand, acts as a mean of intra-family impacts presenting the results of a quantitative
coordination and as a symbolic ‘umbilical cord’ study among teenagers in a Greek semi-urban
that provides a permanent channel of communica- area. The last section of the chapter suggests some
tion between parents and teenagers intensifying considerations for future research.
parental supervision and control (Green, 2002;
Ling 2004; Geser, Késia, & Trench, 2006; Chen &
Katz, 2009). On the other hand, teenagers’ mobile CURRENT SCIENTIFIC
phone communication creates a greater space for KNOWLEDGE IN MOBILE PHONES’
interaction with their peers and enhances freedom IMPACTS ON SOCIALIZATION
from parental surveillance playing a critical role AND EMANCIPATION
in their socialization and emancipative processes
(Oksman & Rautianen, 2003; Ling & Yttri, 2006; The word adolescence is Latin in origin, derived
Ling 2007, 2009; Clark 2013). from the word adolescere meaning to “grow up” or
Socialization can be defined as “the process “mature” or “grow into adulthood.” Adolescence
by which we learn the ways of a given society or can be defined as a transitional phase in human de-
social group so that we can function within it” velopment where biological, cognitive, emotional,
(Elkin & Handel, 1989, p. 2). Specifically about psychological and social characteristics are chang-
adolescent socialization, it is an active and col- ing from what is typically considered child-like
lective process, where parents, peers, educational to what is considered adult-like (Lerner, Boyd, &
institutions and media play a pivotal role in the Du, 2010). Some of the chief developmental tasks
ways that adolescents internalize the values, norms involve the establishment of autonomy or inde-
and beliefs of a given society in order to join the pendence, the development of personal identity,
adult world. Teenagers’ emancipation consti- the emancipation from one’s parents as well as the
tutes the process of becoming independent from choice of functional roles in terms of lifestyles and
familial sphere and establishing own identity as relationships (Coleman & Hendry, 1990). Digital
independent social actors with their own beliefs media including among others mobile phones have
and values, as well as being responsible for their brought about important changes in the ways that
own affairs and actions (Arnett, 1997). these developmental tasks are performed which
Although mobile phone studies have become divert from older generations (Arnett, 1995). As
increasingly popular over the last decade, the Ito et al. (2010) underline:
impact of mobile phone communication on teenag-
ers’ socialization and emancipative processes is a Today’s youth may be engaging in negotiations
relatively new area of research. Professor Richard over developing knowledge and identity, coming
Ling at the IT University of Copenhagen in Den- of age, and struggling for autonomy as did their
mark is a leading scholar providing the earliest predecessors, but they are doing this while the
(Ling, 2004; Ling, 2005a; Ling & Yttri, 2006) as contexts for communication, friendship, play, and
well as the most recent work in the specific topic self-expression are being reconfigured through
(Ling 2007, 2009; Ling & Haddon, 2008). their engagement with new media (Ito et al.,
2010, p.1)

13
The Impact of Mobile Phones on Teenagers’ Socialization and Emancipation

In the transitional phase from childhood to sphere (Nurullah, 2009). Ling and Yttri (2006)
adulthood the peer group plays a pivotal role as conceptualize emancipation in terms of power
it provides the adolescent with a group that he/ relations and individuals’ movement from a power
she can form his/her own identity and establish structure into another. However, the authors under-
himself/herself as an independent social actor who line that specifically for teenagers this movement
is outside from the parental sphere and control is different as:
(Rubin, 1985). It is at this point that digital media
and specifically the mobile phone has altered teen- Adolescents do not necessarily have a simple
agers’ socialization from family towards an outside moment when they move from one set of circum-
world as it allows intense social interactions with stances to another in a dramatic leap, but, rather,
peers beyond parental surveillance and monitor- two or more structures coexist, and individuals
ing. For instance, Ling (2009) advocates that: must negotiate their position within each of these
simultaneously. During their teens, however, the
Mobile communication has clear impacts on the adolescent moves from being largely oriented to
transition from child to adolescent and finally to their family of origin to being more oriented to-
adulthood. The mobile provides the link between ward their peer group (Ling & Yttri, 2006, p.220)
the teen and his or her peer group. Thus, the device
can help to open up a personal space for teens in The mobile phone has contributed to teenagers’
which they can begin to explore the different issues transition from the sphere of the parents to the
at hand…It is a device through which they can peer group affecting the ways that they become
examine the different issues with their peers and… emancipated from their parents (Ling, 2005a,
patch together solutions to these issues in their 2007, 2009; Oksman & Rautianen, 2003; Clark,
movement towards adulthood (Ling, 2009, p.58). 2013). Teenagers’ fast adoption of mobile phones
has altered their interactions and consequently
In line with the above arguments, mobile media the power dynamics of parents and peer groups
scholars underline that the rapid adoption of mobile in adolescents’ emancipative processes. Mobile
phones has speeded up teenagers’ socialization phones enhance teenagers’ sense of independence
towards their peers as it has enhanced their sense and autonomy from familial sphere by becom-
of independence from the familial environment ing more tightly connected to their peers beyond
(Green, 2003; Ling & Yttri, 2002, 2006). The parental surveillance (Ling 2007, 2009). Studies
device provides greater levels of privacy and conducted in different parts of the world provide
autonomy by subverting the control imposed by similar conclusions, i.e. mobile phone communica-
parents and other traditional agents of socializa- tion intensifies social interactions with peers and
tion (Ito & Okabe, 2005; Ling & Yttri, 2006). The facilitates group cohesion. For instance, studies
subversion of parental control is crucial during in Europe (e.g., Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2002;
socialization, as it contributes to the maintenance Lobet-Maris & Henin, 2002; Doring, Hellwig, &
of a sense of independence and autonomy in the Klimsa, 2005; Ling, Bertel, & Sundsøy, 2011), in
process of identity formation (Ling, 2002; Mante the Arab world (e.g., Ibahrine, 2008), in the United
& Piris, 2002; Selwyn, 2003; Ito, 2005). States (e.g., Choi, 2004) and in East Asia (e.g.,
Holmes and Russell (1999, p.69) underline Ito & Okabe 2005; Miyata, 2006; Kobayashi &
that teenagers’ new “interactive and wearable Ikeda, 2007) underline that young actors’ mobile
technologies” have caused “a tectonic shift in phone communication enhances social interac-
the contemporary formation of adolescent iden- tions beyond parental control and fosters strong
tity.” A critical component in teenagers’ identity ties with peers.
formation is their emancipation from the familial

14
 Category: Activities and Processes

Although mobile phone communication rein- the cohesion in the family unit (Kopomaa, 2000;
forces peers’ role in teenagers’ socialization and Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2002; Castells et al., A
emancipative processes, the dynamics of parental 2007). The role of the mobile phone as a com-
power and control remain strong. Mobile phones ponent of family bonding is associated with its
provide teenagers a greater sense of freedom but instrumental features that allow intensive social
this freedom is a conditional one since parents interactions with parents in order to coordinate
can track down their children at any time (Had- daily routines and practical issues (Ling & Yttri,
don, 2000). Williams and Williams (2005, p. 324) 2002; Oksman & Rautiainen, 2002; Ling, 2005b;
emphasize the dual role of mobile phone com- O’Brien 2010).
munication by advocating that “mobile phones The specific section is a snapshot of the current
facilitate the extension of children’s boundaries scientific knowledge associated with the impacts
while simultaneously stretching the authority of mobile phone communication on teenagers’
of the parents across time-space.” Some mobile interactions and bonding with family and peers.
media scholars use the metaphor of the ‘um- Moreover, it provides a review of mobile research
bilical cord’ to describe the mobile device as a literature with respect to the critical role of mobile
permanent communicative channel that exposes phones in the power dynamics of parents and
teenagers to increased forms of parental surveil- peer groups during adolescents’ socialization and
lance (Ling 2004; Geser, 2005; Spungin, 2006; emancipative processes. The following section
Chen & Katz, 2009). Moreover, Katz and Aakhus presents an empirical example of these impacts
(2002) describe mobile phone communication as using data from a representative sample of teenag-
a form of ‘perpetual contact’ that enforces ‘mobile ers residing in a Greek semi-urban area.
parenting’, i.e. family’s monitoring and regulat-
ing of teenagers’ activities without temporal and
spatial restrictions (Kopomaa, 2000; Green, 2002; AN EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE
Oksman & Rautiainen, 2002). OF MOBILE PHONES’
During socialization and emancipative pro- IMPACTS ON SOCIALIZATION
cesses issues of power and control between AND EMANCIPATION
parents and teenagers are played out through
mobile phone communication (O’ Brien, 2010). Data, Participants, and
However, teenagers may elude parental surveil- Measurements
lance and carry out social activities independent
of parental monitoring. For instance, teenagers The study uses data from a representative sample of
may circumvent or resist to the parental control students between 12-18 years old living in a Greek
and regulation by developing what Green (2002, semi-urban area (Kasteli) in Crete. The cluster
p.39) terms “parent management strategies,” i.e. sampling technique is applied using as clusters
practises to avoid providing exact information of the different classes from the two gymnasiums
their whereabouts and activities in order to gain and the two high schools in the semi-urban area
some privacy. These practises do not necessarily under study. Given that students’ population is
break up teenagers’ relations with the family unit N=670 the sample size for a=5% is calculated at
(Green, 2002; Ito, 2005). Generally, the mobile n=250 students (Yamane, 1967). The response rate
phone by providing an instantaneous communi- for the total sample is 72.4% (n=181) including
cation link fosters better relationships between 56.1% male and 43.9% female students attending
parents and teenagers (e.g., ability to deal with gymnasium (48.6%) and high school (51.4%). The
issues on the spot, increased trust etc) reinforcing mean age of participating students is 15.5 years

15
The Impact of Mobile Phones on Teenagers’ Socialization and Emancipation

old. The study was conducted in May 2010 under scale’. A single factor is extracted accounting for
the permission of the Greek Ministry of Education 52.7% of the total variance (Eigenvalue=2.64).
and the Greek Pedagogic Institute. The factor is labelled “Mobile phone attachment”
The questionnaire includes items for respon- and it is considered to be a reliable measure of
dents’ demographic characteristics as well as teenagers’ attachment to their mobile phones
specific features of mobile phone usage (e.g., main (Cronbach α=.85).
reason for buying mobile phone, important utilities To assess teenagers’ instrumental and social
of the device, expressive and instrumental func- functions of mobile phones specific items are used
tions etc). The extent of teenagers’ mobile phone measuring availability (e.g., “With my mobile
attachment is assessed with five questions derived phone I can communicate at any time wherever I
in a modified version from Rubin’s (1981) ‘Televi- am,” “With my mobile my family does not worry so
sion affinity scale’ which originally measures the much as they can contact me at anytime wherever
importance people assign to the television. The I am”), micro-coordination (e.g., “With my mobile
scale has been adapted to study media other than I can better coordinate my different activities,”
television, such as talk radio (e.g., Armstrong & “With my mobile I can easily and fast arrange
Rubin, 1989; Rubin & Step, 2000) and used in a to go out with my friends”) safety utilities (e.g.,
modified version to investigate internet use (Pa- “With my mobile I feel safe, because in case of
pacharissi & Rubin, 2000) and mobile dependency emergency (e.g., accident) I can call wherever I
(Chen, 2009). In the present study the modified am”) as well as issues associated with teenagers’
5-item Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5= emancipation (e.g., “My mobile makes me feel
strongly agree) ask students whether they agree/ much older than my age”). Table 2 presents the
disagree with specific statements such as “Using results of factor analysis for the items measur-
my mobile phone is very important in my life,” ing teenagers’ mobile communication functions.
“I would feel lost without my mobile phone,” “If The analysis indicates two factors accounting
my mobile phone stops working, I will miss it for 64.08% of the total variance. The first factor
very much” etc. accounts for 51.02% (Eigenvalue=4.08) of the
Table 1 presents the results from factors total variance explained including items that are
analysis for the items derived from the modified associated with the instrumental usages of mobile
version of Rubin’s (1981) ‘Television affinity phones, i.e. availability, micro-coordination and
safety issues. Reliability analysis indicates that
the specific factor, which is labeled “Availability-
Table 1. Factor loadings for the items measuring
micro-coordination-safety” is a reliable measure
teenagers’ attachment to mobile phones (“Mobile
(Cronbach α=.91). The second factor accounts
phone attachment”)
for 13.06% (Eigenvalue=1.04) of the total vari-
Factor ance explained including only the item that refers
1 to the mobile phone as an emancipative tool
Using my mobile phone is one of the most .70 (“Emancipation”).
important things in my everyday life
For the assessment of the extent of social
If my mobile phone stops working, I will miss it .83
very much
interaction and bonding via the mobile phone
selected measures from Procidano and Heller’s
Using my mobile phone is very important in my life .72
(1983) scales of friends’ and family’s perceived
I could easily do without my mobile phone for .58
several days social support are applied. The original measures
I would feel lost without my mobile phone .75 are modified into stimulus statements to assess
Eigenvalue 2.64 teenagers’ mobile phone communication with
Variance explained 52.7% friends and family members associated with

16
 Category: Activities and Processes

Table 2. Factor loadings for the items measur-

Factor analysis is applied to the items measuring
ing teenagers’ mobile communication functions
the modified version of Rubin’s (1981) ‘Television A
(“Availability-micro-coordination-safety” and
affinity scale’ to construct the “Mobile phone at-
“Emancipation”)
tachment” scale (see Table 1). The same analysis
Factor Factor
is performed for mobile phone communication
1 2 functions to construct the “Availability-micro-
With my mobile phone I can communicate .77 coordination-safety” and the “Emancipation”
at any time wherever I am scales (see Table 2). Pearson correlation analysis
My mobile makes me feel much older .97 detects potential associations between the above
than my age
scales as well as social support from friends and
With my mobile I can easily and fast .79
arrange to go out with my friends family via mobile phone communication (see
With my mobile I feel safe, because in .78
Table 3). Multiple regression analysis evaluates
case of emergency (e.g., accident) I can the impact of different components on teenagers’
call wherever I am
mobile phone attachment (see Table 4). Statisti-
With my mobile I can always be reached .77
by those who want to contact me
With my mobile I can cancel even last .80 Table 3. Correlations between “Mobile phone
minute an arrangement
attachment,” “Availability-coordination-safety,”
With my mobile I can better coordinate .69 “Emancipation,” “Friends’ social support via
my different activities
mobile,” “Family’s social support via mobile”
With my mobile my family does not .73
worry so much as they can contact me at
anytime wherever I am 1 2 3 4

Eigenvalue 4.08 1.04 1. Mobile phone -

attachment
Variance explained 51.02% 13.06%
2. Availability- .17* -
Notes: Factor loadings ≤.2 are suppressed coordination-safety
3. Emancipation .33*** .02 -
4. “Friends’ social .48*** .12 .17* -
issues such as emotional and moral support, support via mobile”
solving problems, receiving and providing ad- 5. “Family’s social .21** .10 .09 .46***
vice, disclosure of intimate matters etc. Similar support via mobile”
modified items have been applied to explore the Notes: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p ≤.001
impact of mobile phone on socialization processes
(Chen, 2009). A composite score (mean) from the Table 4. Multiple regression analysis for teenag-
5-point Likert-type items (1=strongly disagree, ers’ mobile phone attachment (n = 148)
5 = strongly agree) is constructed with higher
scores indicating higher levels of social support b SE b β

via mobile phone communication. The composite Constant -2.4 .71

scores are considered to be reliable measures of Gender (Male) .08 .15 .04
social support from friends (Cronbach α=.95) Age -.00 .04 -.01
and family (Cronbach α=.96) via mobile phone “Friends’ social support via .69 .13 .42***
mobile”
communication.
“Family’s social support via -.03 .09 -.02
mobile”
Statistical Analysis
Availability-coordination- .10 .07 .10
safety
Descriptive analysis is used to explore the main Emancipation .26 .07 .26***
trends in teenagers’ mobile phone communication. Notes: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p ≤.001

17
The Impact of Mobile Phones on Teenagers’ Socialization and Emancipation

cally significant levels are reported for p values less correlation between “Emancipation” and social
than or equal to.05. The analyses are performed support from friends via mobile communication
with SPSS 19.0. (p≤.05) provides some preliminary evidence
that the mobile phone is a device through which
Results teenagers’ emancipation is mediated.
Table 4 reports the results from the multiple
The descriptive analysis demonstrates that the regression analysis for the variables predicting
vast majority of students (95.6%) have a mobile teenagers’ mobile phone attachment. The specific
phone that on average acquired when they were ap- model explains 31.5% (R2=.315) of variance in
proximately 12 years old. The majority of students teenagers’ mobile phone attachment (p≤.001).
(65.1%) state that the main reason to acquire the Tolerance factors and Variance Inflation Factors
device was their personal choice; however 13.4% (VIF) are greater than.72 and less than 1.38, respec-
report that it was mainly because all of their friends tively, indicating no multi-collinearity problems
have mobile phones. Only 4.7% of the respondents between the independent variables under study.
support that they bought a mobile phone because The multiple regression model indicates that
it was their parents’ choice. Most of the students respondents’ demographic characteristics (such
use mobile phone as a communicative tool, i.e. for as age and gender), mobile phones’ instrumental
phone calls (83.6%) and sending short messages functions of “Availability-micro-coordination-
(SMS) (75.4%). Additive features of the device safety” and the indicator measuring social sup-
such as music (70.2%) and photos (49.1%) are port from family via mobile communication
important; however games (22.8%) and internet are non-significant predictors of mobile phone
(14.6%) are less popular. attachment. On the contrary, the indicators of
Moreover, the descriptive analysis demon- “Emancipation” (p≤.001) and social support from
strates teenagers’ expressive and instrumental friends via mobile communication (p≤.001) are
functions of mobile phone communication with the only significant predictors of teenagers’ mobile
their peers, as 32.7% of them use very often the phone attachment. The highest beta coefficient (β)
device to talk for their love affairs and 44.6% to is detected for friends’ social support via mobile
arrange to meet up. On the contrary, mobile phone phone (b=.42) indicating that the specific variable
communication with parents primarily involves has the greatest effect for predicting teenagers’
instrumental and logistical usages, as teenagers attachment to their mobile devices.
very often use the device to inform their parents
their whereabouts (46.1%) and to ask something
(41.5%). DISCUSSION
Table 3 presents the results from correlation
analysis indicating that teenagers’ attachment to The mobile phone has become the favoured
their mobile phones is significantly correlated with communication hub for the majority of teenag-
“Availability-micro-coordination-safety” (p≤.05) ers in the developed world and increasingly in
and “Emancipation” indicators (p≤.001) as well the developing one (Lenhart et al., 2010; Ling &
as with social support from friends (p ≤.001) Bertel, 2013). The chapter summarizes the current
and family members (p≤.01) via mobile phone scientific knowledge and provides an empirical
communication. The inter-correlation between example of the impacts of teenagers’ mobile phone
friends’ and family’s social support (p≤.001) in- communication on the dynamics of parental and
dicates that the device enhances social interaction peer group interactions during their socialization
and bonding in the peer group but not at the cost and emancipation from parents.
of family cohesion. Additionally, the significant

18
 Category: Activities and Processes

The results of the analysis demonstrate that The pivotal role of the mobile phone as a device
in line with previous research, teenagers’ attach- through which teenagers’ emancipation is medi- A
ment to their mobile phone is significantly cor- ated is further supported in multiple regression
related with its instrumental functions including analysis. Mobile phones as emancipative tools
micro-coordination, availability as well as safety as well as social support from friends via mobile
issues (Ling, 2000). Moreover, the character of communication are the only significant predictors
teenagers’ communication with their family is of teenagers’ attachment to their mobile phones.
primarily focused on practical and logistical issues The findings underscore that mobile phones
(e.g., informing their parents their whereabouts provide a “back door of communication” (Kas-
and asking them something) (Ling & Yttri, 2002; esniemi & Rautiainen, 2002, p.171) that affect
Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2002). On the contrary, the power dynamics of parental and peer group
peer group interactions via mobile phones involve interactions during the crucial developmental
coordinating issues as well as more expressive period of adolescence. Mobile phone communica-
and emotional usages such as talking for their tion reinforces peers’ role in teenagers’ socializa-
romantic relationships (Ito et al., 2010). tion and emancipation from their familial sphere
Despite the differences in the content of the (Oksman & Rautianen, 2003; Ling & Yttri, 2006;
mobile phone communication, teenagers’ attach- 2005b, 2007, 2009), however such reinforcement
ment to their devices is associated with its social does not take place at the cost of family cohesion
functions as a mean of social interaction and bond- and bonding (Geser, 2005; Castells et al., 2007).
ing both with family and peers. The significant
inter-correlation between social support from fam-
ily and friends via mobile phone communication FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
provides some preliminary evidence that whilst the
device intensifies social interactions and bonding The last few years mobile phones have been
with peers, it does not act as the breaker of the morphed into multimedia devices that are capable
family ties (Geser et al., 2006). On the contrary, of multiple tasks including among others taking
via its instrumental functions the mobile phone photos, recording videos and internet uses that
enhances social interactions, emotional attach- allow further interactions via social networking
ment and strong ties between family members websites (such as Skype, Facebook, Twitter). Fu-
(Castells et al., 2007; O’Brien 2010). Although ture research directions should focus on whether
past research reports that mobile phones reinforce these new features speed up teenagers’ socializa-
family’s (Geser, 2005; Spungin, 2006) and peers’ tion towards their peers and contribute to their
cohesion (Skog, 2002; Boase & Kobayash, 2008) emancipation from parents as well as impact on
empirical evidence for the simultaneous role of interrelated processes such as the development of
the device is scarce. self-identity. Future studies can examine whether
Moreover, the correlation analysis uncovers the the mobile phone device acts as a fashion item and
critical social function of the mobile phone as an status a symbol (through new models or branded
emancipative tool from the familial sphere echo- phones of high-end fashion designers or specific
ing Ling’s words (2000, p. 118) that the device is features such as wireless synergies) by becoming
“almost an icon through which one can show oth- an important element of teenagers’ socialization
ers that they have achieved an independence from into the management of self-identity.
their parents and are quickly becoming adults.”

19
The Impact of Mobile Phones on Teenagers’ Socialization and Emancipation

REFERENCES Clark, L. S. (2013). The parent app: Understand-

ing families in the digital age. New York, NY:
Armstrong, C., & Rubin, A. (1989). Talk Oxford University Press.
radio as inter personal communication.
Journal of Communication, 39(2), 84–94. Coleman, J., & Hendry, L. (1990). The nature of
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1989.tb01031.x adolescence. Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/
Routledge.
Arnett, J. (1995). Adolescent’s uses of media for
self-socialization. Journal of Youth and Adoles- Doring, N., Hellwig, K., & Klimsa, P. (2005).
cence, 24(5), 519–533. doi:10.1007/BF01537054 Mobile communication among German youth. In
K. Nyiri (Ed.), A sense of place: The global and
Arnett, J. (1997). Young people’s conceptions the local in mobile communication (pp. 209–220).
of the transition to adulthood. Youth & Society, Vienna, Austria: Passagen Verlag.
29(1), 3–23. doi:10.1177/0044118X97029001001
Elkin, F., & Handel, G. (1989). The child and
Boase, J., & Kobayashi, T. (2008). Kei-Tying society: The process of socialization (5th ed.).
teens: Using mobile phone e-mail to bond, New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
bridge, and break with social ties: A study of
Japanese adolescents. International Journal of Fortunati, L., & Manganelli, A. (2002). Young
Human-Computer Studies, 66(12), 930–943. people and the mobile telephone. Revista De
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.07.004 Estudios De Juventud, 52, 59–78.

Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J., Geser, H. (2005). Is the cell phone undermining
& Sey, A. (2007). Mobile communication and the social order? Understanding mobile technology
society: A global perspective. Cambridge, MA: from a sociological perspective. In P. Glotz, S.
MIT Press. Bertschi, & C. Locke (Eds.), Thumb culture: The
meaning of mobile phones for society (pp. 23–35).
Chen, Y.-F. (2009, May). The mobile phone and New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
socialization: Family vs. friends. Paper presented
at the 59th annual meeting of the International Geser, H., Késia, U., & Trench, S. (2006). Pre-teen
Communication Association, Chicago, IL. cell phone adoption: Consequences for later pat-
terns of phone usage and involvement. In Sociology
Chen, Y.-F., & Katz, J. (2009). Extending fam- in Switzerland: Sociology of the mobile phone.
ily to school life: College students’ use of the Online Publications Zürich. Retrieved May 13,
mobile phone. International Journal of Human- 2014, from http://socio.ch/mobile/t_geser2.htm
Computer Studies, 67(2), 179–191. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhcs.2008.09.002 Green, N. (2002). Who’s watching whom? Moni-
toring and accountability in mobile relations. In
Choi, J. (2004, October). Exploring characteris- B. Brown, N. Green, & R. Harper (Eds.), Wire-
tics of cellular phone communication of the US less world: social and interactional aspects of the
college students. Paper presented at the Mobile mobile age (pp. 32–45). London, UK: Springer-
Communication and Social Change Conference, Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0665-4_3
Seoul, Korea.

20
 Category: Activities and Processes

Green, N. (2003). Young people and mobile tech- Ito, M., & Okabe, D. (2005). Intimate connec-
nologies. In J. Katz (Ed.), Machines that become tions: Contextualizing Japanese youth and mobile A
us: The social context of personal communication messaging. In R. Harper, L. Palen, & A. Taylor
Technology (pp. 201–217). New Brunswick, NJ: (Eds.), The inside text: Social, cultural and design
Transaction Publisher. perspectives on SMS (pp. 127–143). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-
Haddon, L. (2000). The social consequences
3060-6_7
of mobile telephony: Framing questions. In R.
Ling & K. Thrane (Eds.), Sosiale konsekvenser Kasesniemi, E., & Rautiainen, P. (2002). Mobile
av mobiltelefoni: Proceedings fra et seminar om culture of children and teenagers in Finland. In
samfunn, barn og mobiltelefoni [The social con- J. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact:
sequences of mobile telephony: The proceedings Mobile communication, private talk, public
from a seminar about society, mobile Telephony performance (pp. 170–192). Cambridge, UK:
And Children] (pp. 2-6). Oslo: Telenor R&D. University Press.
Holmes, D., & Russell, G. (1999). Adolescent CIT Katz, J., & Aakhus, M. (2002). Introduction:
use: Paradigm shifts for educational and cultural Framing the issues. In J. Katz & M. Aakhus
practices? British Journal of Sociology of Educa- (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communica-
tion, 20(1), 69–78. doi:10.1080/01425699995506 tion, private talk, public performance (pp. 1–14).
Cambridge, UK: University Press. doi:10.1017/
Ibahrine, M. (2008). Mobile communication and
CBO9780511489471.002
sociopolitical change in the Arab world. In J. E.
Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication Kobayashi, T., & Ikeda, K. (2007). Jakunen-so
studies (pp. 257–272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. no syakaika katei ni okeru keitai me-ru riyou
doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262113120.003.0019 no kouka: Pa-sonaru nettowa-ku no dousitsusei
ishitsusei to kan-yousei ni chu-moku shite [The
International Communication Union (ITU).
effect of mobile phone e-mail on socialization
(2013). The world in 2013: ICT facts and fig-
during adolescence: Focusing on homogeneity and
ures. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from http://www.
heterogeneity in personal networks and tolerance].
itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/
Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 82–94.
ICTFactsFigures2013-e.pdf
Kopomaa, T. (2000). The city in your pocket:
Ito, M. (2005). Mobile phones, Japanese youth,
Birth of the mobile Information society. Helsinki,
and the re-placement of social contact. In R. Ling
Finland: Gaudeamus Kirja.
& P. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile communications:
Re-negotiation of the social sphere (pp. 131–148). Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S. W., & Purcell,
London, UK: Springer. doi:10.1007/1-84628- K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones. Washington,
248-9_9 DC: Pew Research Center.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, Lerner, R. M., Boyd, M. J., & Du, D. (2010).
R., Herr-Stephenson, B., … Tripp, L. (2010). Adolescent development. Corsini Encyclopedia
Hanging out, messing around, geeking out: Kids of Psychology, 1–2.
Living and learning with new media. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.

21
The Impact of Mobile Phones on Teenagers’ Socialization and Emancipation

Licoppe, C. (2004). Connected presence: The Ling, R., Bertel, T. F., & Sundsøy, P. R. (2011).
emergence of a new repertoire for managing social The socio-demographics of texting: An analysis of
relationships in a changing communications tech- traffic data. New Media & Society, 14(2), 281–298.
noscape. Environment and Planning. D, Society & doi:10.1177/1461444811412711
Space, 22(1), 135–156. doi:10.1068/d323t
Ling, R., & Haddon, L. (2008). Children, youth
Ling, R. (2000). We will be reached: The use of and the mobile phone. In K. Dortner & L. Living-
mobile telephony among Norwegian youth. In- stone (Eds.), International handbook of children,
formation Technology & People, 13(2), 102–120. media and culture (pp. 137–151). London: Sage.
doi:10.1108/09593840010339844 doi:10.4135/9781848608436.n9
Ling, R. (2002). Adolescent girls and young adult Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2002). Hyper-coordination
men: Two sub-cultures of the mobile telephone. via mobile phones in Norway. In J. Katz & M.
Revista De Estudios De Juventud, 57, 33–47. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile com-
munication, private talk, public performance (pp.
Ling, R. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell
139–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA:
Press.
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2006). Control, emancipa-
Ling, R. (2005a). Mobile communications vis-
tion, and status: The mobile telephone in teens’
a-vis teen emancipation, peer group integration
parental and peer relationship. In R. Kraut, M.
and deviance. In R. Harper, A. Taylor, & L. Palen
Brynin, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Computer, phones,
(Eds.), The inside text: Social perspectives on SMS
and the internet: Domesticating information
in the mobile age (pp. 175–189). London, UK:
technology (pp. 219–234). New York, NY: Oxford
Klewer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-3060-6_10
University Press.
Ling, R. (2005b). Life in the nomos: Stress,
Lobet-Maris, C., & Henin, J. (2002). Talking with-
emotional maintenance, and coordination via the
out communicating or communicating without
mobile telephone in intact families. In A. Kavoori
talking: From the GSM to the SMS. Revista De
& N. Arceneaux (Eds.), The cell phone reader:
Estudios De Juventud, 57, 101–114.
Essays in social transformation (pp. 61–85). New
York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Mante, E., & Piris, D. (2002). SMS use by young
people in the Netherlands. Revista De Estudios
Ling, R. (2007). Children, youth and mobile com-
De Juventud, 57, 47–58.
munication. Journal of Children and Media, 1(1),
60–67. doi:10.1080/17482790601005173 Matsuda, M. (2005). Mobile communication and
selective sociality. In M. Ito, D. Okabe, & M.
Ling, R. (2009). Mobile communication and teen
Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, portable, pedestrian:
emancipation. In G. Goggin & L. Hjorth (Eds.),
Mobile phones in Japanese life (pp. 123–142).
Mobile technologies: From telecommunications
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
to media (pp. 50–61). New York, NY: Routledge.
Miyata, K. (2006, June). Longitudinal effects of
Ling, R., & Bertel, T. F. (2013). Mobile commu-
mobile internet use on social network in Japan.
nication culture among children and adolescents.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
In D. Lemish (Ed.), The Routledge international
International Communication Association, Dres-
handbook of children, adolescents and media (pp.
den, Germany.
127–133). London, UK: Routledge.

22
 Category: Activities and Processes

Nurullah, A. S. (2009). The cell phone as an agent Rubin, L. (1985). Just friends: The role of friend-
of social change. Rocky Mountain Communication ship in our lives. New York, NY: Harper. A
Review, 6(1), 19–25.
Selwyn, N. (2003). Schooling the mobile genera-
O’Brien, M. (2010). Consuming talk: Youth cul- tion: The future for schools in the mobile-networked
ture and the mobile phone. (Unpublished doctoral society. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
Dissertation). National University of Ireland, 24(2), 131–144. doi:10.1080/01425690301905
Maynooth, Ireland.
Skog, B. (2002). Mobiles and Norwegian teen:
Oksman, V., & Rautiainen, P. (2002). I’ve got my Identity, gender and class. In J. Katz & M. Aakhus
whole life in my hand. Revista De Estudios De (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication,
Juventud, 52, 25–32. private talk, public performance (pp. 255–273).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Oksman, V., & Rautianen, P. (2003). Perhaps it is
a body part’: How the mobile telephone became Spungin, P. (2006). Family and relationships: The
an organic part of the everyday lives of Finnish influence of the mobile phone on the family. The
children and teenagers. In J. Katz (Ed.), Machines Carphone Warehouse, 27-34.
that become us (pp. 293–308). New Brunswick,
Srivastava, L. (2005). Mobile phones and the
NJ: Transaction.
evolution of social behaviour. Behaviour & In-
Pain, R., Grundy, S., Gill, S., Towner, E., Sparks, formation Technology, 24(2), 111–129. doi:10.1
G., & Hughes, K. (2005). So long as I take my 080/01449290512331321910
mobile: Mobile phones, urban life and geographies
Williams, S., & Williams, L. (2005). Space invad-
of young people’s safety. International Journal of
ers: The negotiation of teenage boundaries through
Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 814–830.
the mobile phone. The Sociological Review, 53(2),
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00623.x
314–331. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00516.x
Papacharisi, Z., & Rubin, A. (2000). Predic-
Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory
tors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting &
analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper and
Electronic Media, 44(2), 175–196. doi:10.1207/
Row.
s15506878jobem4402_2
Procidano, M., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures
of perceived social support from friends and
ADDITIONAL READING
from family: Three validation studies. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 11(1), 1–24. Brown, B., Green, N., & Harper, R. (Eds.). (2001).
doi:10.1007/BF00898416 PMID:6837532 Wireless world: Social and interactional aspects
Rubin, A. (1981). An examination of television of the mobile age. London, UK: Springer-Verlag.
viewing motivations. Communication Research, Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J.,
8(2), 141–165. & Sey, A. (2007). Mobile communication and
Rubin, A., & Step, M. (2000). Impact of moti- society: A global perspective. Cambridge, MA:
vation, attraction, and parasocial interaction on MIT Press.
talk radio listening. Journal of Broadcasting & Clark, L. S. (2013). The parent app: Understand-
Electronic Media, 44(4), 635–654. doi:10.1207/ ing families in the digital age. New York, NY:
s15506878jobem4404_7 Oxford University Press.

23
 The Impact of Mobile Phones on Teenagers’ Socialization and Emancipation

Goggin, G., & Hjorth, L. (Eds.). (2009). Mobile Ling, R., & Campbell, S. W. (Eds.). (2009).
technologies: From telecommunications to media. The reconstruction of space and time: Mobile
London, UK: Routledge. communication practices. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Harper, R., Taylor, A., & Palen, L. (Eds.). (2005).
The inside text: Social perspectives on SMS in the Ling, R., & Campbell, S. W. (Eds.). (2011). Mobile
mobile age. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Press. communication: Bringing us together and tear-
doi:10.1007/1-4020-3060-6 ing us apart. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Katz, J. (Ed.). (2003). Machines that become us:
The social context of personal communication Ling, R., & Pedersen, P. (Eds.). (2005). Mobile
technology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction communications: Re-negotiation of the social
Publishers. sphere. London, UK: Springer.
Katz, J. (2006). Magic in the air: Mobile com-
munication and the transformation of life. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Katz, J. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of mobile commu- Adolescence: The transitional period from
nication studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. childhood to adulthood.
doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262113120.001.0001 Bonding: The development of close ties and
Katz, J., & Aakhus, M. (Eds.). (2002). Perpetual relations between an individual and his/her family
contact: Mobile communication, private talk, pub- members and/or friends.
lic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni- Emancipation: The process of being set free
versity Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511489471 from parental authority and control.
Micro-Coordination: Individuals’ nuanced
Kraut, R., Brynin, M., & Kiesler, S. (2006). coordination of every day activities.
Computer, phones, and the internet: Domesti- Parental Surveillance: The parental restric-
cating information technology. New York, NY: tions and control over teenagers’ lives to ensure
Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:o their safety and protection.
so/9780195312805.001.0001 Safety: The feeling of being safe due to the
Lemish, D. (Ed.). (2013). The Routledge inter- ability to call for help in case of an emergency.
national handbook of children, adolescents and Self-Identity: The awareness of one’s own
media. London, UK: Routledge. identity or individuality.
Social Interactions: The process by which
Ling, R. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell individuals act and react to those around them
phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: including among others family members and peers.
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Socialization: The process whereby an in-
Ling, R. (2008). New tech, new ties. How mobile dividual acquires a personal identity and learns
communication is reshaping social cohesion. the social norms, values, skills and behaviors that
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. are necessary for participating within his or her
own society.
Ling, R. (2012). Taken for grantedness. The em-
bedding of mobile communication into society.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

24

View publication stats