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

net/publication/8451447

Back from the Beach but Hanging on the Telephone? English

Adolescents' Attitudes and Experiences of Mobile Phones and the
Internet

Article in Cyberpsychology & behavior: the impact of the Internet, multimedia and virtual reality on behavior and society · July 2004
DOI: 10.1089/1094931041291321 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

73 346

2 authors:

Dominic Madell Steven J. Muncer

South Auckland Social Wellbeing Board Teesside University
26 PUBLICATIONS 485 CITATIONS 135 PUBLICATIONS 4,294 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Psychometrics and Human Life History Indicators View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dominic Madell on 08 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

13658C07.PGS 6/15/04 2:37 PM Page 359

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR

Volume 7, Number 3, 2004
© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Back from the Beach but Hanging on the Telephone?

English Adolescents’ Attitudes and Experiences
of Mobile Phones and the Internet

DOMINIC MADELL and STEVEN MUNCER

ABSTRACT

Recently, a number of commentators have suggested that growth in use of the Internet may
be slowing,1–3 and its impact may have been exaggerated.4 However, a disproportionate num-
ber of the nonusers tend to be those over the age of 50, and the young are most likely to go on-
line eventually.5 Therefore, the most appropriate people to survey with regard to Internet use
are adolescents and young adults who are likely to be the Internet users or nonusers of the fu-
ture. This survey was conducted to find out more about the activities and opinions of sec-
ondary-school aged children who do, and do not, use the Internet. Mobile phone use was also
examined in this survey as this has also shown a meteoric rise in adults and more particularly
in young people.6 Generally, the survey revealed that children aged between 11 and 16 years
old are quite comfortable with the Internet, use it a moderate amount and for a variety of pur-
poses. However, boys were more likely to use the Internet than girls and sometimes for
slightly different purposes. Reasons for not using the Internet generally revolved around a
lack of access to equipment. Furthermore, a higher percentage of adolescents have mobile
phones than adults and girls are more likely to own a mobile phone than boys. Mobile
phones were also used for a variety of purposes, most notably making and receiving calls and
text-messaging. The most common reasons for children not owning a mobile phone was be-
cause they had no need for one. Finally, a significant positive relationship between the use of
emails and text messaging suggests that the mobile phone may supplement some of the pre-
vious functions of the Internet.

INTRODUCTION U.S. Census Bureau of 2001,8 51% of households

have Internet access. This has increased from 26%

O VER THE LAST DECADE, the use of the Internet

has grown at a phenomenal rate. Between
1995 and 1999, the online population in the United
in 1998 and 18% in 1997. In Britain, the number of
Internet users has also risen dramatically from
960,000 in June 1997 to over 34 million in Septem-
States went from 9% to 56%.7 This 600% increase ber 2002.9 The Internet is now also a part of daily
since late 1995 confirms the Internet as the fastest life for many people in the UK: by September 2001,
growing technology in the world. According to the around 9.7 million, or 39% of households in the UK,

Department of Applied Psychology, Queen’s Campus, University of Durham, Durham, United Kingdom.

359
13658C07.PGS 6/15/04 2:37 PM Page 360

360 MADELL AND MUNCER

were able to access the Internet from home.10 This up with online availability. Two-thirds of U.S.
figure was four times higher than it was less than households with a child (aged 3–17 years) have a
3 years previously. Furthermore, according to the computer, and 53% have Internet access. In com-
April 2002 National Statistics Omnibus Survey, parison, only 45% of households without a school-
56% of all adults in the UK have accessed the Inter- aged child have a computer, and only 37% of this
net at some time. In only the month prior to their group have Internet access. Of U.S. children aged
survey, 46% of the entire adult population had ac- 12 to 17 years, 48% used the Internet at home.
cessed the Internet. It has been pointed out on many occasions that
While the development of the Internet has been the size of the Internet and the number of users is
greater in western countries, there can be little difficult to calculate. Furthermore, there can be lit-
doubt that a large number of people around the tle doubt that some of the estimates have been in-
world are now Internet users; Nua11 have examined flated by commercial demands.13 Perhaps the best
many published surveys over the last 2 years and way of getting a picture about Internet use is to sur-
provided an educated guess that worldwide, in vey the general public or to rely on data collected
May 2002, there were 580.78 million online, with from large scale surveys.14 Clearly in this regard,
185.83 million in Europe, 182.67 million in Canada the most appropriate people to survey will be ado-
and the United States, and 167.86 million in Asia lescents and young adults who are likely to be the
and the Pacific. The uptake of the Internet has oc- Internet users, or perhaps nonusers of the future.
curred rapidly by many populations. Research on Internet use by young people has
However, recently there have been a number of been carried out in various countries around the
commentators suggesting that perhaps the growth world. For example, D’Haenens15 examined data
of use in the Internet,1–3 and its impact have been from a survey of 11,000 6- to 16-year-olds in Europe
exaggerated.4 Wyatt et al.3 pull together a variety of concerning many aspects of the media, and stated
sources of evidence to suggest that Internet use is that a quarter or more of families in Israel, Sweden,
no longer growing particularly quickly and may Denmark, and Finland had PCs equipped with a
well be in decline. For example, even in the United modem, as compared to Germany, Spain, France,
States, it is estimated that half of adults do not have and the UK, where fewer than one in 10 families had
Internet access, and more importantly 57% of these such access. This figure was two in 10 for Flanders,
were not interested in getting online.11 Further- Switzerland, Italy, and the Netherlands. The most af-
more, there are some concerns that users are using fluent families in these countries were much more
the Internet less, with 24% of users between the likely to have Internet access than those with the low-
ages of 18 and 29 spending less time online than est incomes. This was most visible in Switzerland,
6 months previously.11 It has been suggested that France, and the UK. In these countries, families in the
for some users, the Internet bug may have been just highest grade were five times more likely to have In-
that—a 24-hour flu, not a life-changing event.11 ternet access than those in the lowest grade. It was
Woolgar4 supported the position that access may only in Flanders and Denmark that differences due
not be universally wanted with his first rule of vir- to socio-economic status were negligible. D’Haenens
tuality, that uptake of new technologies will depend also quoted other figures relating to children: well
on social context. He also noted that an OFTEL sur- under 10% of European children or Israeli girls had
vey in 2001 showed a small fall in the percentage of access to a PC and modem in their bedroom. But a
UK households with Internet access between May quarter of Israeli boys had it. There was a gender dif-
and August 2001. Indeed, a more recent survey of ference, with boys in all countries more likely than
Internet access shows that although there was a girls to have their own Internet access, except in
slight recovery and an increase in homes with Inter- Spain where girls and boys were more equal. Only in
net access from October 2001 to February 2002, the Switzerland were children from less affluent families
figure appears to have reached a plateau at about less likely to have personal Internet access.
42% of UK homes with Internet access.12 In the UK, Powell16 stated that an increasing
It should be noted, however, that there is evi- number of the UK’s youth were accessing the Inter-
dence that a disproportionate number of the net and suggested that a survey in the Spring 2001
nonusers tend to be those over the age of 50 and indicated that 75% of 11- to 19-year-olds had ac-
that the young are most likely to go online eventu- cessed the Internet at some time in their lives. Only
ally. This has been referred to as the “gray gap.”5 6 months later, this figure was now 80%. These fig-
Furthermore, those adults with children are more ures have quite possibly changed since this time,
likely to have Internet access, which means that but might indicate a continued growth in Internet
adults of the future are likely to have grown use by young people.
13658C07.PGS 6/15/04 2:37 PM Page 361

BACK FROM THE BEACH BUT HANGING ON THE TELEPHONE? 361

Powell16 also found that whilst the number of chil- vey was collected from a special “prototype”
dren using the Internet grew, the types of things that school for new technology, which had extensive
young people used the Internet for were also con- computer facilities and programs. Hence, the find-
stantly changing. For example, in early 2000, 41% of ings from this study are unlikely to be typical.
12–17-year-olds who accessed the web claimed to Another technology that has shown a rapid ad-
visit music and MP3 sites. However, in spring 2001, vance in terms of usage in the last decade is the mo-
this fell to 34% and according to Powell’s data from bile phone. In January 1999, about 27% of U.K.
November 2001, the figure was 26%. Whether in fu- householders owned or used a mobile phone; in
ture fluctuations in purpose of Internet use will sta- November 2002, that figure stood at 69%, where it
bilize remains to be seen. appears to have leveled out.12 It is also worth not-
Nachmias et al.17 looked at Internet use in 384 ju- ing that the impact of mobile phones is perhaps
nior-high and high-school students in Israel. This more visible than Internet use. As Cooper et al.20
study examined the purpose and pattern of usage by wryly point out, the fact that people speaking into
12–18-year-old young people. The study found that their mobile phones saying “Hello, I am on the
about half (46.6%) of the population used the Inter- train” has become a national joke points to the mo-
net. With regard to employing it as a source of infor- bile phone’s ubiquity. There has been considerable
mation, the vast majority of participants used the interest in the health hazards of mobile phone
Internet for entertainment and leisure, such as games use21,22 and on the effect of driving performance.23
and hobby sites (28.3% visited game sites, and 53.7% There have, however, been few surveys of the use
visited hobby sites frequently). However, the pri- of mobile phones by adolescents.24,25 Nevertheless,
mary use of Internet by children was for communica- there is evidence that mobile phone ownership
tion such as E-mail and chat (52.6% of the sample may be higher among children from 11 to 16 than
used the Internet for these purposes frequently). The among adults, with 76% of children having their
average number of hours per week students spent own phone.6 Furthermore, a slightly higher per-
using the Internet was 5 h 50 min, and 57.1% of the centage of secondary school-aged females (80%)
so-called “Internet Users” had a personal E-mail ac- owned their own phone than did boys (72%). The
count. Only 8.5% of the Internet Users had a personal popularity of text messaging is also well evi-
web-page. Nachmias et al.17 also found that children denced, with 96% of children saying that they had
in this study learned to use the Internet at home communicated via this method.
(82.4%) rather than at school (17%). Accessibility to
the Internet from home influenced young people’s
Reasons for this study
use of the Internet most in this study.
Ebersole18 looked at how students in 10 public At the moment, online access and use appears to
schools in a western state in the United States in have either stalled or reached a plateau. However,
2000 viewed the Internet and how their attitudes these figures may not be an accurate guide to the
towards it affected their use of it for educational future as they are largely based on the current adult
purposes. The ages of participants ranged from 10 population. With this in mind, the following survey
to 21 years old. It was found that students visited was conducted to find out more about the activities
commercial sites far more frequently than other and opinions of secondary-school aged children
types, and whilst students reported their purpose who do, and do not, use the Internet. At the same
for using the World Wide Web as “research and time there has been less emphasis on the use of the
learning” 52% of the time, a sample of sites they ex- mobile phone although this has also shown a mete-
amined revealed that only 27% of the sites were ac- oric rise in both adults and more particularly in
tually suitable for that purpose. The analysis of young people. In this survey, we hope to shed light
visited sites found that those rated as “unsuitable on what may or may not be going to happen with
for academic research” were visited by students Internet use and mobile phone activity. In particu-
twice as often as sites rated “suitable.” The sites lar, we want to know whether children have also
visited most frequently were commercial, and these “gone back to the beach” or are indeed hanging on
were rated as having the lowest educational value. the telephone.3
Finally, La Ferle et al.19 surveyed 189 teenagers
aged 14–19 and found that the most common use
of the Internet amongst them was for research MATERIALS AND METHODS
(82.4%), followed by homework (65.9%), finding
out about news and current events (43%), and This was a descriptive survey. A questionnaire
health education (33%). However, data for this sur- was created, of which many of the dimensions
13658C07.PGS 6/15/04 2:37 PM Page 362

362 MADELL AND MUNCER

measured were the same as those found in surveys most deprived ward in England. Finally, School D
of adult Internet Use on the National Statistics web- was located in Yarm. This was rated 6,896th most
page (www.statistics.gov.uk). This is the UK’s offi- deprived ward in England.
cial statistics site. The Internet surveys conducted School A was a mixed comprehensive, with
by this organization are “developed in consultation pupils aged between 11 and 16 years. The mean
with international organizations” and are also in- GCSE point score for 15-year-olds was 40.5 for
formed by “other National Statistics Institutes in- pupils in this school in the year 2000. School B was
cluding Canada and Australia.”10 The Internet was also a mixed comprehensive, with pupils aged be-
also searched for examples of other questionnaires tween 11 and 16 years. The mean GCSE point
that focussed on Internet use in order to inform the score for 15 year olds in this school was 40.2 in the
creation of this one. Once a draft of the question- year 2000. School C was also a mixed comprehen-
naire had been completed, it was circulated sive with pupils aged between 11 and 16 years.
amongst several members of the ESRC-funded The mean GCSE point score for 15 year olds in this
“Virtual Society,” the social science of electronic school was 35.2 in the year 2000. Finally, School D
technologies’ programme. Any amendments to the was also a mixed comprehensive with pupils aged
questions and layout of the questionnaire were between 11 and 18 years. The mean point score for
then incorporated into the design. The resulting 15 year olds in this school was 51.0 in the year
questionnaire contained twenty questions about 2000.
Internet use with “tick-box” responses (although Of the sample, 64.1% (n = 859) came from
space was also included for participants to write School A, 28.8% (n = 386) came from School B,
answers not found on the tick-box list) and six 3.7% (n = 49) came from School C, and 3.4% (n =
questions about mobile phone use. Copies of the 46) came from School D; 50.5% of the participants
questionnaire are available online at (either web or (n = 677) were male, and 49.1% (n = 658) were fe-
http://psynts.dur.ac.uk/staff/madell.htm). male. Students were aged between 10 and 19 years
old, although the vast majority of students were
aged 11–16 (only three students lay outside this
Sample information
range, one being 10 years old and two being 19
A total of 1,340 secondary-school students from years old). The mean age of males was 13.2 years,
schools in Teesside were surveyed. Teesside is an and the mean age of females was also 13.2 years.
area in the North-East of England. According to the With regard to ethnicity, 91.6% of the participants
Family Expenditure Survey (Expenditure and Food could be described as White, 1.0% of the sample
Survey from Jan. 4, 2001),10 26% of households in could be described as African/Afro-Caribbean,
the North-East had access to the Internet compared 0.3% of the sample could be described as Asian,
to a national UK average of nearly 40% between 0.3% could be described as Oriental, and 0.1%
October 2000 and September 2001. could be described as Arabic. The remainder
Four secondary schools participated in the sur- (6.7%) of the participants did not state their ethnic
vey. These were based in four different wards of background.
Teesside (the term “ward” describes the electoral
divisions within the local authority). According to
Procedure
the National Statistics website (www.neighbour-
hood.statistics.gov.uk/home.asp), which quotes In two cases (Schools A and B), questionnaires
figures from the Department of Transport, Local were delivered to the school for teachers to admin-
Government and the Regions, Indices of Depriva- ister and collect. In the other two cases (Schools C
tion 2000, in the year 2000 Stockton-on-Tees was and D), the experimenter administered and col-
the 111th most deprived district in the UK out of lected the questionnaires himself. Participation in
354 districts. the survey was voluntary.
The schools were based in the following wards:
School A was located in Wolviston. In 2000, the In-
dices of Deprivation ranked Wolviston 6,723rd RESULTS
most deprived ward in England (out of a total of
8,414 English wards, where 1 was the most de- A copy of the full 26-item questionnaire and the
prived and 8,414 was the least). School B was lo- data from the full questionnaire are available for
cated in Fairfield and this was ranked the 4,403rd downloading on (http://psynts.dur.ac.uk/staff/
most deprived ward in England. School C was lo- madell.htm). Below we have highlighted what we
cated in Marsh House. This was ranked the 2,965th consider to be the most important results.
13658C07.PGS 6/15/04 2:37 PM Page 363

BACK FROM THE BEACH BUT HANGING ON THE TELEPHONE? 363

Internet-related questions high” (13.1%) and “cost of computer/software too

high” (5.9%) both being less important, perhaps be-
How many children use the Internet? Of the par-
cause the children surveyed would not generally
ticipants that answered the question, it was found
be responsible for paying for these expenses. Lack
that 83% used the Internet. There was a significant
of knowledge about how to use the Internet did not
gender difference in that 85.7% of males used the
seem to be a concern for most children, with the
Internet as opposed to 80.2% of females (2 = 7.091,
reasons “no one in household knows how to use it”
df = 1, two-tailed p < 0.01). This result is in the same
(10.8%) and “lack of confidence/skills” (8.6%)
direction but slightly larger than that found by
being of relatively minor significance. Those partic-
Powell,16 who found that boys were only 2% more
ipants who stated that they did use the Internet
likely than girls to have used the Internet. Odell et
were then asked a number of other questions con-
al.12 also found few gender differences with regard
cerning Internet use. These follow:
to Internet use in their sample, and Miller et al.25
made a similar finding with their sample of mid-
How many children who use the Internet also have a
dle-school students from the United States. Nach-
computer at home? Of those who used the Internet,
mias et al.17 also found a gender difference, but
94.8% answered that they had a computer at home,
slightly larger than the one noted here. In their
compared to only 64.4% of those who did not use
sample, 56% of boys were classed as Internet Users
the Internet.
as opposed to 38% of girls. Furthermore, Schu-
macher and Morahan-Martin26 found that males
How often do children use the Internet for E-mail and
were more likely to have used the Internet than fe-
the World Wide Web? The next questions asked
males. Overall, there seems to be support for the
participants how often they used the Internet for E-
view that there is a gender difference in Internet
mail and how often they used it for the World Wide
use by adolescents, but as with adults that gap is
Web. The modal category for participants’ use of
small and seems to be narrowing.
the Internet for E-mail and the World Wide Web
was “a few times a week,” although a considerable
Why don’t some children use the Internet? Those proportion of respondents used the Internet more
participants who did not use the Internet were or less often for these purposes as well. There was a
asked why they did not by asking them to endorse significant correlation between use of E-mail and
any reasons from a list of 15 derived from research use of the Internet for the World Wide Web (r =
with adults. The most common reasons given by 0.504 p < 0.001).
children for not using the Internet were associated
with lack of access to facilities, for example: “do not For how many hours a week do children use the Inter-
have computer at home” (35.6%), “do not have ac- net? Participants were then asked for how many
cess to equipment” (27.5%) and “do not have hours a week they used the Internet. The modal
equipment at home” (20.7%). Another important and median response, given by 27.5% of partici-
factor amongst non-users seemed to be a basic lack pants was 2–4 h a week. The responses to this ques-
of interest or motivation: fairly high up the list of tion fitted a positively skewed normal-shaped
reasons for not using the Internet were such rea- distribution, although there was also a “kick” in the
sons as “lack of interest” (22.1%), “no need” tail of it: a subgroup of 4.8% claimed to spend more
(21.2%), “have not got round to it yet” (20.7%), and than 40 h a week using the Internet. This set of find-
“do not have time” (16.2%). These figures are simi- ings are rather less than those found previously,
lar to those found in adults who don’t use the Inter- and lend some support to Wyatt’s position that per-
net and suggest that these young people would fall haps Internet use might be in decline. For example,
into the categories of non-user that Lenhart5 de- Nachmias et al.17 found that the girls in his sample
scribes as Eagers (those who will probably get on it spent a mean of 4 h 37 min per week using the In-
sometime in the future) and Reluctants (those who ternet and the boys 6 h 38 min. Our sample showed
don’t think they are missing much by not being on- a similar gender difference, in that the number of
line). Few appear to have the characteristics of the hours per week that males used the Internet was
Nevers (those who had a very poor opinion of the significantly higher than the category that females
Internet), a view held by only 7.7% of these non- used it (U = 122823.5, p < 0.0005).
users, which is not surprising as research suggests
that these tend to be much older. Cost considera- For what purposes do children use the Internet?
tions came lower down for most of the sample, The most common use of the Internet was for play-
with the reasons “cost of accessing the Internet too ing or downloading music (67.2%), followed by
13658C07.PGS 6/15/04 2:37 PM Page 364

364 MADELL AND MUNCER

general browsing or surfing (56%), and then using 0.001). However girls used the Internet more than
E-mail (54.8%). There is then a big drop to the next boys for E-mail (females 61.3%, males 48.6%, 2 =
most common use, which is finding information re- 17.66, p < 0.001), finding information related to edu-
lated to education (28.4%). This data contrasts with cation (females 34.9%, males 22%, 2 = 22.103, p <
that of the U.S. Census Bureau8 and also that of 0.001) and using chat rooms (females 28.8%, males
Nachmias et al.,17 who both found that the most 12.6%, 2 = 44.219, p < 0.001). Most of these findings
common use of the Internet by their sample of chil- are congruent with those of Odell et al.,12 who found
dren was for communication, such as chat and/or gender differences in the same direction for “re-
E-mail (72.9% in the U.S. Census Bureau sample searching purchases” (similar to “finding out infor-
and 52.6% in Nachmias et al.’s sample), as opposed mation about goods and services”), “using E-mail,”
to playing or downloading music. It is possible that “school research” (similar to “finding information
some of the E-mail function of the Internet is being related to education”), “music” (similar to “playing
taken up by text messaging and mobile phone calls, or downloading music”), and “games” (similar to
which again would lend support to Wyatt’s view “downloading software, including games”). How-
that perhaps the use of the Internet is in decline. ever, Odell et al.12 found gender differences in the
The U.S. Census Bureau’s sample was also more opposite direction for “chat” (similar to “using chat
likely to use the Internet for educational purposes: rooms or sites”).
68.1% used the Internet for “research or courses for
school” in their sample as opposed to 28.4% who From where do children access the Internet? Most
used the Internet for “finding information related participants (88.9%) used the Internet at home or at
to education” in this one. However, it might be pos- someone else’s home (79.8%) and also at school or
sible that the children in the U.S. Census Bureau’s another educational setting (85.2%). This finding is
sample who stated that they used the Internet for similar to that of Nachmias et al.,17 who also found
educational purposes were exaggerating how that the children in their study most commonly
much they did this. For example, in his study, Eber- learned to use the Internet at home.
sole18 found that although students reported using
the Internet for research and study 52% of the time, How long do children’s Internet sessions last? The
only 27% of the sites they accessed were actually modal response here was 46–90 min, with 34.5% of
suitable for this purpose. the sample using the Internet for this length of
While it is dangerous to make too much of any time. It should be noted, however, that a consider-
differences between schools in our sample because able proportion of the participants (12.4%) stated
of the small numbers of students in the most ad- that their typical Internet session lasted more than
vantaged school, it should be noted that slightly 180 min, and that 8.5% of participants use the Inter-
more students (43.9%) in this school used the Inter- net for less than 15 min session.
net for educational purposes. However, if we com-
pare schools D and B, which have similar numbers, How often do children feel confused when using the
but a 9.8 difference in GCSE scores, they do not Internet? Most (32.7%) “rarely” felt confused.
have significantly different numbers of students Only 9.1% of the sample “frequently” felt confused.
using the Internet for educational purposes (2 = These results indicate that generally the partici-
2.88 p = 0.09). pants were quite comfortable in using the Internet;
There is no significant gender difference overall however there was a significant gender difference
in the number of purposes for which participants with females significantly more often confused
use the Internet, with males indicating an average than males when using the Internet (U = 113192.00,
2.93 uses and females an average of 2.80. However p < 0.0005). This finding is somewhat congruent
there are gender differences in the particular pur- with that of Miller et al.25 In their study, partici-
poses for which the Internet is used. pants rated themselves on their ability to use the
Boys were more likely than girls to use the Inter- Internet on a scale of 1–5, where 1 = I am an expert
net for playing or downloading music (males 72.4%, and 5 = I am not very good at it yet. They found
females 61.5%; 2 = 14.97, p < 0.001), surfing (males that there was a statistically significant difference
61.1%, females 50.5%; 2 = 12.58, p < 0.001) finding with girls rating themselves as worse than boys
information about goods and services (males 26.6%, (scores: 2.73 females vs. 2.27 males). The result
females 16.4%; 2 = 16.87, p < 0.001), buying or or- from the present study is also similar to that found
dering goods, tickets, and services (males 20.6%; fe- by Schumacher and Morahan-Martin,26 who dis-
males 12.2%; 2 = 14.19 p < 0.001) and downloading covered that males were more experienced and had
software (males 8%, females 1.3%; 2 = 26.75, p < higher skill levels with the Internet than females,
13658C07.PGS 6/15/04 2:37 PM Page 365

BACK FROM THE BEACH BUT HANGING ON THE TELEPHONE? 365

except with E-mail. Females also reported higher non–mobile phone–owning group, and males
levels of incompetence and discomfort with the In- (58.1%) were more likely than females (40%) to
ternet in their study. agree with this reason (2 = 5.756, df = 1, two-
tailed p < 0.05). There was then a considerable
What do children consider are the biggest problems drop to the next most common reason for not
with the Internet? “Pages taking too long to load” owning a phone, which was “Have not got round
was the biggest problem for the participants, with to buying one yet” (27.1%). Cost considerations
65.7% of the sample giving this response. “Irrele- were the next two most important reasons that
vant pop-up information” was the next biggest some individuals gave: “Cost of handset too
problem, with 53.3% of participants stating that great” (15%) and “Cost of line rental too great”
this concerned them. (11.8%). Only a small minority of children were
concerned about purported health risks associ-
How important do children consider the Internet to ated with mobile phones: just 9.1% gave “Fear
be? Most participants (31.5%) thought the Inter- that using mobile may damage health” as a reason
net was “somewhat” important in their lives, al- for not owning one. The children surveyed in this
though significant numbers also found the Internet sample seemed quite happy with current mobile
more or less important than this. Males did not per- technology: only 5.9% stated that their low opin-
ceive the Internet to be any more important in their ion of it was the reason that they did not own a
lives than females (U = 139147.5, p > 0.05). It is mobile phone (all of these were males, 2 = 6.993,
worth noting that a significant minority of partici- df = 1, two-tailed p < 0.01), and only 2.1% did not
pants thought that the Internet was of no impor- understand mobile technology.
tance (8.2%) or of limited importance (27.5%).
For which purposes do children use their mobile
How satisfied are children with the Internet? Of phones? “Making calls” (91.9%) and “text messag-
participants, 89.5% were either “totally,” “very,” or ing” (89.4%) were the most common uses of mobile
“somewhat” satisfied, with the most common re- phones, with “receiving calls” (80%) coming
sponse being “very” satisfied (44.5%). Only 10.4% shortly behind these reasons. While there were
were either “a little” or “not at all” satisfied. These gender differences in sending text messages (males
results indicate that, overall, the students were 84.8%, females 93.8%; 2 = 23.366, df = 1, two-tailed
fairly happy with the Internet. p < 0.0005), there were no significant differences in
either making (males 92.6%, females 91.3%; 2 =
0.596, df = 1, two-tailed p > 0.05) or receiving calls
Mobile phone-related questions
(males 78.7%, females 81.4%; 2 = 1.287, df = 1, two-
Ownership of a mobile phone. Of participants, tailed p > 0.05). Only 13.1% of the secondary-school
86% owned a mobile phone, with significantly students surveyed used their mobile phones to ac-
more females (89.7%) owning their own phone cess the Internet with significantly more males
than males (82.3%) (2 = 14.54, p < 0.001). This con- doing so (males 15.9%, females 10.6%; 2 = 6.799, df
firms previous findings that adolescents are more = 1, two-tailed p < 0.01). Of the children surveyed,
likely to own or use mobile phones than adults. 14% used their mobile phones for “other pur-
The results are similar to those found in the Child- poses.” These commonly included playing games
wise Monitor survey and also confirm the slight or getting new ring tones.
but significant sex difference. Internet nonusers are
also slightly but significantly more likely not to How often do children use their mobile phones for var-
own a mobile phone (19.5%) than Internet users ious purposes? The modal category for making
(12.2%0; 92 = 9.27, p = 0.002). The majority of chil- phone calls was “a few times a week but less than
dren had acquired a mobile phone in the last once a day” (26.3%) although a similar proportion
2 years (57.7%), with 24.9% in the last year. The pat- (23.6%) also made phone calls “2–5 times a day.”
tern of age and length of time using a mobile phone The modal category for sending text messages was
suggests that the majority of children own a mobile “2–5 times a day” (27.2%), with females sending
at around the age of 12. more messages (U = 119262, p < 0.0005), and for ac-
cessing the Internet was “never” (78.3%), with
Why don’t some children own mobile phones? By males being more likely to access it (U = 132673, p <
far the most common reason for not owning a mo- 0.05). There was a significant correlation between
bile phone was because they had “No need for the number of calls made and the number of text
one.” This reason was given by 51.3% of the messages sent (r = 0.525, p < 0.001). There were also
13658C07.PGS 6/15/04 2:37 PM Page 366

366 MADELL AND MUNCER

significant correlations between the number of text keeping it to a reasonable amount. Most used it to
messages sent and use of the Internet for E-mail access the web or check E-mail “a few times a
purposes (r = 0.196, p < 0.0005) and also between week,” and the modal response to the question,
the number of phone calls made and the use of the “For how many hours a week do you use the In-
Internet for E-mails (r = 0.09, p = 0.006). It should ternet?” was “2 to 4 hours.” Internet sessions typi-
also be noted that a considerable minority (7.9%) of cally lasted for 46–90 min, and most children
participants sent more than 16 text messages per (31.5%) considered the Internet “somewhat” im-
day, and the majority sent at least one text message portant in their lives (only 11.1% considered it
a day (68.3%). It is possible that these figures go very important). Nevertheless, there was a small
some way toward explaining the discrepancy be- subgroup of participants who used the Internet
tween our participants and previous adolescent for more than 40 h per week. Perhaps this group
studies, which show a greater use of E-mail. Fur- could be studied further to see if it differs from
ther they may lend support to the view that the In- other students in terms of sociability, educational
ternet is becoming less important, perhaps because achievement, or indeed any other aspect of per-
the mobile phone is becoming more important, par- sonal development.
ticularly for younger people. This study has confirmed previous findings that
boys were both more likely to use the Internet and
spent more time per week accessing it than girls.
CONCLUSION This is one area that would benefit from further in-
vestigation: is there something about the Internet
It is hoped that this survey has provided an ac- that appeals to boys and not girls, and if so, what is
curate description of Internet and mobile phone it? Or are boys simply encouraged to access the In-
use amongst young people. The results have ternet more than girls? Also, do differences in lev-
shown that, in general, children aged between els of use reflect the fact that girls are less proficient
11 and 16 years old are quite comfortable with the with the Internet, or do they just make more dis-
Internet, with only 9.1% feeling “frequently” con- criminating use of it? It is worth noting, however,
fused by it. Furthermore, children use the Internet that although the difference is statistically signifi-
for a variety of purposes, most commonly, down- cant it is fairly small.
loading music, general browsing and surfing, and From the answers that children gave, the reasons
using E-mail, although the number using E-mail is that some of them do not use the Internet seemed
less than previously found. As children seem to be to revolve around a lack of access to equipment
familiar with and interested by the Internet, it rather than a strong antipathy to the Internet. Girls
might also be constructive for teachers and par- and boys might use the Internet for slightly differ-
ents to encourage children to use it for educa- ent purposes, for example males were more likely
tional purposes more often, as only 28.4% of the to use it for playing or downloading music, and
sample did this. girls for E-mail.
As stated previously, the Family Expenditure The results suggest that a higher percentage of
Survey (Expenditure and Food Survey from Jan. 4, adolescents have mobile phones than adults and
200110) found that only 26% of the households in also that girls are more likely to own a phone. The
the North-East had access to the Internet compared to relationship between use of E-mails and text mes-
a national UK average of nearly 40% between Octo- saging suggests that the mobile phone may to
ber 2000 and September 2001. Nevertheless, 83% of some extent supplement one of the previous func-
the children surveyed in this sample used the Inter- tions of the Internet. The number of participants
net, and 88.9% of Internet users accessed the Inter- who do not consider the Internet to be that impor-
net from home. Furthermore, there was no tant supports to some extent Wyatt and others’
evidence that children in the more deprived areas position that the importance of the Internet might
of this region used the Internet any less than those have been overstated by some. It is indeed possi-
in the more prosperous areas. Finally, there were no ble that although academics have underestimated
differences between the schools in the four differ- the importance of the mobile phone, adolescents
ent areas in whether or not children had access to a have not.
computer at home or how important the Internet All in all, however, the results of this survey in-
was to them. dicate a generation who are comfortable with and
It is also true that, for the main part, children are enthusiastic about the new technology and its
were very sensible about their use of the Internet, applications.
13658C07.PGS 6/15/04 2:37 PM Page 367

BACK FROM THE BEACH BUT HANGING ON THE TELEPHONE? 367

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 15. D’Haenens, L. (2001). Old and new media: access

and ownership in the home. In: S.L. Livingstone
This study was funded by the University of and M. Bovill (ed.), Children and their changing media
Durham. environment: a European comparative study. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 53–85.
16. Powell, J. (2001). Mediaweek: TGI examines whether
internet usage amongst the young has peaked [On-
REFERENCES Line]. Available: www.bmrb.co.uk/news/newsstory
1. Thomas, G., & Wyatt S. (2000). Access is not the only cfm?id=423.
problem: using and controlling the internet. In: S. 17. Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., & Shemla, A. (2000). In-
Wyatt (ed.), Technology and inequality: questioning the ternet usage by students in an Israeli high school.
information society. London: Routledge, pp. 21–45. Journal of Educational Computing Research 22:55–73.
2. Wyatt, S. (2000). Talking about the future: metaphors 18. Ebersole, S. (2000). Uses and gratifications of the web
of the internet. In: N. Brown, B. Rappert, & A. Webster among students. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com-
(eds.), Contested futures. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 19–21. munication 6:1–16 [On-line]. Available: www.ascusc.
3. Wyatt, S., Thomas, G., & Terranova, T. (2002). They org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/ebersole.html.
came, they surfed, they went back to the beach: con- 19. La Ferle, C., Edwards, S., & Lee, W. (2000). Teens’ use
ceptualizing use and non-use of the internet goes of traditional media and the internet. Journal of Ad-
here. In: S. Woolgar (ed.), Virtual society? Technology, vertising Research 3:55–65.
cyperbole, reality. Oxford: OUP, pp. 23–41. 20. Cooper, G., Green, N., Murtagh, G., et al. (2002). Mo-
4. Woolgar, S. (2002). Five rules of virtuality. In: S. bile society? Technology, distance and presence. In:
Woolgar (ed.), Virtual society? Technology, cyperbole, S. Woolgar (ed.), Virtual society? Technology, cyperbole,
reality. Oxford: OUP, pp. 1–22. reality. Oxford: OUP, pp. 206–302.
5. Lenhart, A. (2000). Who’s not online: 57% of those 21. Yaguchi, H., Nobutomo, K., Shingu, K., et al.
without Internet access say they do not plan to log on (2000). Attitudes of undergraduate students to elec-
[On-line]. Available: www.pewinternet.org. tromagnetic fields. International Medical Journal
6. Childwise Monitor. (2002). Children and their media 7:265–272.
[On-line]. Available: www.childwise.co.uk/monitor. 22. Preece, A. (2000). Mobile phones and human heads.
htm. Neuroreport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience
7. Harris Poll No. 76. (1999). Online population growth Research 11:1.
surges to 56% of all adults [On-line]. Available: 23. Garcia-Larrea, L., Perchet, C., Perrin, F., et al. (2001).
www.harrisinteractive.com/harris poll/index.asp? Interference of cellular phone conversations with vi-
PID=9. suomotor tasks: An ERP study. Journal of Psychophysi-
8. U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Home computers and in- ology 15:14–21.
ternet use in the United States [On-Line]. Available: 24. Funston, A., & MacNeill, K. (1999). Mobile matters:
www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf. young people and phones [On-Line]. Available:
9. Office for National Statistics. (2002). Internet access: www.dcita.gov.au/crf/paper99/funston.html.
households and individuals [On-line]. Available: 25. Miller, L.M., Schweingruber, H., & Brandenburg,
www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/intacc0702.pdf. C.L. (2001). Middle school students’ technology
10. Bowman, J. (2002). The impact of the internet and practices and preferences: re-examining gender dif-
other ICTs on society. Office for National Statistics ferences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hyper-
[On-line]. Available www.statistics.gov.uk/themes/ media 10:125–140.
economy/articles/general/downloads/NEMW(08) 26. Schumacher, P., & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gen-
JB e-society.pdf. der, internet and computer attitudes and experi-
11. Nua Internet Survey. (2002). How many online [On- ences. Computers in Human Behaviour 17:95–110.
line]. Available: www.nua.ie.
12. Odell, P.M., Korgen, K.O., Schumacher, P., et al.
(2000). Internet use among female and male college Address reprint requests to:
students. CyberPsychology & Behavior 3:855–862.
Dr. Dominic Madell
13. Jordan, T. (2001). Measuring the internet: Host
counts versus business plans. Information, Communi-
Department of Applied Psychology
cation and Society 4:34–53. Queen’s Campus
14. Burrows, R., Loader, B., Pleace, N., et al. (2000). Vir- University of Durham
tual community care? Social policy and the emergence Durham, U.K.
of computer mediated social support. Information,
Communication and Society 3:95–121. E-mail: D.E.Madell@durham.ac.uk
View publication stats