This study investigates older adults’ perceptions of mobile phone use during face-to-face interactions and social gatherings. Data were derived from 9 semistructured focus group interviews. Study participants were older adult residents of Michigan, US (N = 77). Focus groups were held in both urban and rural locations and our sample was heterogeneous in terms of race and socioeconomic status. Older adults in this study reported that the mobile phone behavior displayed by their younger family members during face-to-face interactions and family gatherings breaches their expectations regarding appropriate etiquette and manners. Specifically, participants reported they view mobile phone use during face-to-face interactions as disruptive to communication quality, offensive, and a potential signal of inattention, which may curtail intergenerational communication and hinder their sense of copresence. Limitations of our study and directions for future research are discussed.
AbeeleM. M.AntheunisM. L.SchoutenA. P. (2016). The effect of mobile messaging during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 562–569.
2.
AllredR. J.CrowleyJ. P. (2017). The “mere presence” hypothesis: Investigating the nonverbal effects of cell-phone presence on conversation satisfaction. Communication Studies, 68, 22–36.
BaldassarL. (2008). Missing kin and longing to be together: Emotions and the construction of co-presence in transnational relationships. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 29, 247–266.
5.
BallC.FrancisJ.HuangT.KadylakT.CottenS. R.RikardR. V. (2017). The physical–digital divide: Exploring the social gap between digital natives and physical natives. Journal of Applied Gerontology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0733464817732518
6.
BayerJ. B.CampbellS. W.LingR. (2016). Connection cues: Activating the norms and habits of social connectedness. Communication Theory, 26, 128–149.
7.
BerenguerA.GoncalvesJ.HosioS.FerreiraD.AnagnostopoulosT.KostakosV. (2017). Are smartphones ubiquitous?: An in-depth survey of smartphone adoption by seniors. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 6, 104–110.
8.
BurgoonJ. K.BullerD. B.HaleJ. L.de TurckM. A. (1984). Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10, 351–378.
9.
BurgoonJ. K.GuerreroL. K.FloydK. (2016). Nonverbal communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
BurgoonJ. K.HaleJ. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communications Monographs, 54, 19–41.
11.
CastellsM.Fernández-ArdèvolM.Linchuan QiuJ.SeyA. (2009). Mobile communication and society: A global perspective (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
12.
ChotpitayasunondhV.DouglasK. M. (2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 9–18.
13.
CohenS.UnderwoodL. G.GottliebB. H. (2000). Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
ComunelloF.Fernández-ArdèvolM.MulargiaS.BelottiF. (2016). Women, youth and everything else: Age-based and gendered stereotypes about digital technology among elderly Italian mobile phone users. Media, Culture & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0163443716674363
15.
CottenS. R.FrancisJ.KadylakT.RikardR. V.HuangT.BallC.DeCookJ. (2016). A tale of two divides: Technology experiences among racially and socioeconomically diverse older adults. In ZhouJ.SalvendyG. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 9754. Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Design for Aging. ITAP 2016 (pp. 167–177). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39943-0_16
16.
CumiskeyK. M. (2005). “Surprisingly, nobody tried to caution her”: Perceptions of intentionality and the role of social responsibility in the public use of mobile phones. In Mobile communications (Vol. 31, pp. 225–236). London, UK: Springer.
17.
CumiskeyK. M. (2011). Mobile symbiosis: A precursor to public risk-taking behavior. In LingR.CampbellS. W. (Eds.), Mobile communication: Bringing us together and tearing us apart (pp. 17–36). New Brunswick: NJ: Transaction.
18.
Fernández-ArdèvolM.IvanL. (2013). Older people and mobile communication in two European contexts. Romanian Journal of Communication & Public Relations, 15, 83–98.
19.
Fernández-ArdèvolM.PrietoL. A. (2012). Mobile telephony and older people: Exploring use and rejection. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 3, 9–24.
20.
ForgaysD. K.HymanI.SchreiberJ. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything: Gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 314–321.
21.
FortunatiL. (2005). Mobile telephone and the presentation of self. In LingR.PedersenP. E. (Eds.), Mobile communications: Re-negotiation of the social sphere (Vol. 31, pp. 203–218). London, UK: Springer.
22.
GergenK. J. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In KatzJ. E.AakhusM. (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 227–241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
24.
GoffmanE. (1963). Behavior in public place. New York, NY: The Free Press.
25.
HaddonL. (2011). Domestication analysis, objects of study, and the centrality of technologies in everyday life. Canadian Journal of Communication, 36, 311–323.
26.
HallJ. A.BaymN. K.MiltnerK. M. (2014). Put down that phone and talk to me: Understanding the roles of mobile phone norm adherence and similarity in relationships. Mobile Media & Communication, 2, 134–153.
27.
HalpernD.KatzJ. E. (2017). Texting’s consequences for romantic relationships: A cross-lagged analysis highlights its risks. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 386–394.
28.
HamillL.LasenA. (2005). Mobile world: Past, present and future. London, UK: Springer Science & Business Media.
29.
HinikerA.SchoenebeckS. Y.KientzJ. A. (2016). Not at the dinner table: Parents’ and children’s perspectives on family technology rules. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1376–1389). New York, NY: ACM.
30.
HouseJ. S.LandisK. R.UmbersonD. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540–545.
31.
HumphreysL. (2005). Cellphones in public: Social interactions in a wireless era. New Media & Society, 7, 810–833.
32.
KatzJ. E. (2006). Magic in the air: Mobile communication and the transformation of social life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
33.
KatzJ. E.AakhusM. (Eds.). (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
LacohéeH.WakefordN.PearsonI. (2003). A social history of the mobile telephone with a view of its future. BT Technology Journal, 21, 203–211.
35.
LicoppeC. (2004). “Connected” presence: The emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22, 135–156.
36.
LingR. (2002). The social juxtaposition of mobile telephone conversations and public spaces. Conference on the Social Consequence of Mobile Telephones, Chunchon, South Korea.
37.
LingR. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
38.
LingR. (2016). Soft coercion: Reciprocal expectations of availability in the use of mobile communication. First Monday, 21(9). doi:10.5210/fm.v21i9.6814
39.
LingR.CampbellS. W. (Eds.). (2011). Mobile communication: Bringing us together and tearing us apart. New Brunswick: NJ: Transaction.
40.
LingR.DonnerJ. (2013). Mobile communication. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
41.
LingR.JulsrudT.KroghE. (1997). The Goretex principle: The hytte and mobile telephones in Norway. In HaddonL. (Ed.), Communications on the move: The experience of mobile telephony in the 1990s (COST248 report) (pp. 97–120). Brighton, Sussex: Telia.
42.
LingR.McEwenR. (2010). Mobile communication and ethics: Implications of everyday actions on social order. Etikk i praksis – Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 4, 11–26.
43.
LinkeC. (2013). Mobile media and communication in everyday life: Milestones and challenges. Mobile Media & Communication, 1, 32–37.
44.
Miller-OttA. E.KellyL. (2015). The presence of cell phones in romantic partner face-to-face interactions: An expectancy violation theory approach. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 253–270.
45.
Miller-OttA. E.KellyL. (2017). A politeness theory analysis of cell-phone usage in the presence of friends. Communication Studies, 68(2), 190–207.
46.
Miller-OttA. E.KellyL.DuranR. L. (2012). The effects of cell phone usage rules on satisfaction in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 60, 17–34.
47.
MisraS.ChengL.GenevieJ.YuanM. (2016). The iPhone effect: The quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environment and Behavior, 48, 275–298.
48.
MoserC.SchoenebeckS. Y.ReineckeK. (2016). Technology at the table: Attitudes about mobile phone use at mealtimes. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1881–1892). New York, NY: ACM.
49.
NimrodG. (2016). The hierarchy of mobile phone incorporation among older users. Mobile Media & Communication, 4, 149–168.
50.
NowakK. (2001, May). Defining and differentiating copresence, social presence and presence as transportation, Presence 2001 Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
51.
NowakK. L.BioccaF. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence, 12, 481–494.
52.
PattersonM. L. (1973). Compensation in nonverbal immediacy behaviors: A review. Sociometry, 36, 237–252.
53.
PrzybylskiA. K.WeinsteinN. (2013). Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 237–246.
54.
RainieL.ZickuhrK. (2015). American’s views on mobile etiquette: “Always on” mobile connectivity poses new challenges for users about when to be present with those nearby or engaged with others on their screens. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/americans-views-on-mobile-etiquette/
55.
ReisH. T.ShaverP. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In DuckS. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
56.
RobertsJ. A.DavidM. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134–141.
57.
RoweJ. W.KahnR. L. (1997). Successful aging. The Gerontologist, 37, 433–440.
58.
SawchukK.CrowB. (2012). “I’m G-mom on the phone”: Remote grandmothering, cell phones and inter-generational dis/connections. Feminist Media Studies, 12, 496–505.
59.
StemlerS. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7, 137–146.
60.
ThoitsP. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 145–161.
61.
TurkleS. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from ourselves. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.
62.
ZhaoS. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of copresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 445–455.
63.
ZhaoS.EleshD. (2008). Copresence as “being with.”Information, Communication & Society, 11, 565–583.
