Science & Technology

Cell phone science

Claude Fischer

My attention was recently drawn to the topic of cell phones and not just because … hold on a sec … um, no messages … of the phone sitting next to my keyboard, but because I was reading two books … wait, what’s the ball score? … No change … where was I? …. oh, yeah, two books – Rainie and Wellman’s Networked and Doron and Jeffrey’s The Great Indian Phone Book – and a few other items on the topic. Cell phones have spread across the globe faster and deeper than any other technology. Understanding why and with what consequence is a new frontier in social science research.

The mobile or cell phone emerged around 1980; almost no one had one. As late as 2000, there was about one cell phone subscription for every 12 human beings in the world; this year, there is about one subscription for every single human being. This must mean something.

The latest Sunday New York Times Book Review presented the intriguing thoughts of many novelists on the question of what the advent of internet devices did to story-telling. The new technologies have blown up a number of plot lines – hero stranded, boy and girl unable to re-find one another, mysterious stranger comes to town, and so on. Get on your phone! Send a text! Google him! What’s the problem?

Some interesting and perhaps unexpected findings are coming out of research into the sociology of cell phones. One finding is that, however cell phone obsessed we think we are … um, did I just hear a buzz? Is that for me? … Americans are mobile laggards.

 Slow talkers

Given Americans’ affluence, given the nation’s lead in technology – Defense Department ARPA, Google, NSA, Apple, and all that – and given our boasting about a competitive entrepreneurial environment, you’d think that Americans would be the most mobile-phoned-up people in the world. Not by a long shot. The latest numbers show that there are about 98 cell phone subscriptions for every 100 Americans. We are down in the middle of the pack and way behind, say, the Finns (173), Italians (159), and Malaysians (141), albeit ahead of the Canadians (76).

More striking, comparing subscription rates to national wealth has us at the bottom: Americans have about 20 subscriptions per million dollars of national GDP; Indians have 470 subscriptions per million dollars. Perhaps something about the North American cell phone industry – the sunk costs in sunken wires, corporate oligopoly, I don’t know – has slowed the spread of mobiles here, or perhaps North Americans don’t want cell phones as much as other people do. The central want for cellphones, separate from any practicalneed, seems to be social chit-chat.

What do cell phoners do when they phone?

The first wireless phones were, as were the first wired phones, expensive, clumsy devices for doing business and business is still a big use for cell phones around the world. Researchers have tried to estimate what the introduction of cell phone service has meant for economic growth in poorer nations and indications are that it contributes at least modestly to growth, notably for otherwise poorly-connected rural populations (e.g., here and here).

But the real enthusiasm for cell phones, which exploded once the devices became easier to use and especially once the prices plummeted, was (as it was for land lines) for personal conversation, be it voice or text: checking in, asking for updates, discussing family and friends (i.e., gossip), asking for advice or just for validation, spreading personal news, more gossip, etc. Rainie and Wellman document the enthusiasm among North Americans, particularly younger ones, and Doron and Jeffrey do the same among Indians, particularly poorer ones.

This rush to chat has raised some concerns about a hidden cost to all that connectivity: that deeper relations among people are weakened as cell phoners ignore the person in front of them to check whether they have messages on their äppäräts from people distant from them. (Ironically, the arrival decades ago of cheap television and personal radios led to worries that being disconnected from other people would weaken intimate bonds.)

The research suggests a much more mundane conclusion. So far – who knows what will happen when today’s teen texters turn thirty? – the best guess is that adoption of the device has not much affected face-to-face intimacy but has led to more frequent communication with intimates. The evidence for this comes mainly from studies of what happened to social relations during the roughly twenty years of the cell phone’s diffusion. For example, a recent study of five western nations, including the U.S., found that adults reported seeing their mothers in person just as often in 2001 as adults did in 1986, while communicating with their moms more often. Other research discussed by Rainie and Wellman and elsewhere (e.g., here) is consistent.

Then there are studies, also reported by Rainie and Wellman and by others (e.g., here), showing that more active cell phone users tend to be generally involved socially more than less active users are. (The worries about e-communications undermining community are also addressed in these earlier blog posts: here and here.)

However mad for cell phones Indians — or Kenyans or Chinese or whoever — are, Americans seem a bit less mad for them. Television sets appear to have spread much more quickly in 1950s America than cell phones did in the last 20 years. Maybe Americans are just less into all that chit-chat.

Cross-posted from Claude Fischer’s blog, Made in America: Notes on American Life from American History.

Bookmark and Share
Comments to "Cell phone science":
    • Hassan

      The latest figures I have seen indicate that as many as a half or more of American homes still have landline systems installed. They might not be being used as much as before, but people continue to keep them in operation for various reasons. I, myself, prefer to ‘chat’ on a system that affords me greater voice clarity, and distance between my brain cells and radiation-emitting phone!

      [Report abuse]

    • Jack

      In Vietnam is the same too, there are lots of people using landline. But recently have declined slightly since smartphone shipments rise quite rapidly. Basically landline little influence on health than mobile phones. For now, the landline is still the main and important.

      [Report abuse]

    • MargueriteSMarshall

      We all know that the cycle of electronics consumerism is broken. Because it’s an endless money drain for consumers to keep their gadgets current. Because the never ending desire to show off new features leads to bloat and complexity of design.

      [Report abuse]

    • Cam

      I have been under the impression for a long time that the biggest reason for the slower response to cell phones in America compared to some other nations is the great disparity in landline phone service. In nations where cell phones are nearly ubiquitous, such as India and China, landline phone service is not nearly as developed as it is here.

      After all, here, until a couple decades ago, we enjoyed highly efficient, relatively inexpensive, nearly universal phone service. Yes, it was, as we now know, a monopoly. But as many seniors enjoy recalling, the system worked, and our newer landline systems remain reliable and relatively inexpensive.

      The latest figures I have seen indicate that as many as a half or more of American homes still have landline systems installed. They might not be being used as much as before, but people continue to keep them in operation for various reasons. I, myself, prefer to ‘chat’ on a system that affords me greater voice clarity, and distance between my brain cells and radiation-emitting phone!

      Others believe landlines provide security in power outages, and some simply cling to old habits and prefer to not have to constantly ‘charge’ at least one of their phone systems.

      In short, many, if not most, Americans have a choice, and this reflects our still-extraordinary level of relative wealth compared to much of the rest of the world.

      Not our propensity to chat, which appears, highly intact…:)

      [Report abuse]

    • Harshada

      May be you are right, Cam, that the land-line phone service may be much developed in America compared to India or other countries, but still we can’t carry it while moving out of our house.

      In India, in spite of having landlines at home, people mostly prefer using mobile phones. They not only use single mobile per person, but they usually have 2-3 mobiles at a time.

      Also, I am surprised to know about the huge difference between the subscription rates of America and India.

      Regards,
      Lauree

      [Report abuse]

    • Simo Ait Laamoud

      Personally i had a hard time when i decided to get a cell phone plan, ’cause I was confused due to the huge offers on the market. That’s why I did some research on the internet and asked friends and family about the best carriers in my area. To help other people choose the right cell phone plan, I created a website, Compare Cell Phone Plans.

      [Report abuse]

    • Peter Tester

      Cell phone plans are very confusing indeed, and these new early phone upgrade options only add to the confusion.

      The best decision I have ever made was taking control of my cell phone bill as follows: I transferred my phone number to Google Voice ($20 fee 1 time), which provides free text and call forwarding. I then signed up for a prepaid cell phone plan and set GV to forward all calls. For accessing messages and call log, I use the GV app. I actually prefer this because if i lose the phone, I just change the GV passwords and no actual private data can be accessed.

      I had a lot of trouble picking a prepaid provider because they don’t explicitly tell you which network they operate on. I found 1 site that actually lets you filter prepaid carriers by network, http://www.allprepaidplans.com

      [Report abuse]

Leave a comment

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


3 + = 8