“Can you hear me now?”:The paradoxes of techno-intimacy via the use of

mobile communication technology in public.

Kathleen M. Cumiskey, Ph.D.The College of Staten Island

The City University of New York (CUNY)

OVERVIEW OF TALK

• Provide theoretical evidence for the effect of perspective-taking on explaining social behavior (attribution theory).

• Report the results of research study = attribution theory as it relates to public mobile phone use.

• Understanding attribution theory consciousness around biased interpretation of other people’s public mobile phone use as compared to own use.

• The “techno-intimacy” paradox of maintaining dual role (as mobile user and observer to other’s use).

Theoretical Foundationsattribution theory: how people explain the behaviors of

others (often those in close proximity). fundamental attribution error: the tendency to

overestimate the role of dispositional factors and underestimate the role of situational factors in explaining others’ behavior.

self-serving bias: tendency to attribute behavior consistent with our self-image to our disposition and to attribute behavioral inconsistencies, to situational factors.

actor vs. observer duality: switching perspective does influence attribution process.

Research Questions

Do people judge the mobile phone behavior of others differently than their own use?

Do people make dispositional attributions for the public mobile phone use of others?

Do people make situational attributions for their own use?

How does this impact the incorporation of the use of personalized mobile communication devices within public space?

METHOD

Study conducted in New York City, at the College of Staten Island, in Staten Island.

Total number of participants: 171. Mean age of the participants: 23.7 years old

(range = 17 – 56 years old). 112 participants were female (65.50 %) and 59 were male (34.50 %). Two forms of a questionnaire consisting of 30 questions were used in

this study. “Self-survey” = questions related to participants’ own public mobile

phone use (n = 84). “Others survey” = questions related to other people’s public mobile

phone use (n = 87).

Profile of Participants asMobile Phone Users

89.5 % of participants (n = 153) currently owned and used a mobile phone.

Length of mobile phone use: from 2 weeks to 10 years; average use = 3 years.

Number of phone conversations per day: 0 to 30; over half of participants have at least 5 conversations a day.

Participants reported strong liking of having a mobile phone. The average rating was 4.21.

ANOVA for Public Mobile Phone Use Items on Survey

2.98

3.32

3.75

2.54

3.54

4.1

2.88

4.24

3.48

3.85

0 1 2 3 4 5

Getting calls inpublic demonstrates

value (ns)

User unaware ofsurroundings**

Dangerous to usewhile driving*

User can do mostthings and talk at

same time*

User answers nomatter who is

around**

5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagee; 5 = Strongly agree)

Others

Self

** p < .001* p < .05

ANOVA for Public Mobile Phone Use Items on Survey

3.03

3.18

2.85

2.83

2.69

3.11

4.28

4.08

2.23

3.81

0 1 2 3 4 5

User uses phone insame way areothers do (ns)

User uses phone inpublic when

bored**

User depends onphone for social

life**

User only answersphone when

important call**

User answers nomatter what they

are doing**

5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagee; 5 = Strongly agree)

OthersSelf

** p < .001* p < .05

Legitimate Use Response

“I must begin by telling you that I have my phone for emergencies only so my conversations are not very interesting, my most recent was when I was shopping with my children and my husband called to tell me that he was home from work and gave his suggestions for dinner” (Female, 27, White, Upper middle class).

Legitimate Use Response

Those taking the self survey reported:

They used their phone for emergencies only.

Their use was often determined by the situation:i.e. had to call to get help; had no other time to call-OR- “SOMEONE CALLED ME!”

Public mobile phone “rudeness” as indicator of attributional bias

“A very annoying woman speaking about her boss. She was very loud and didn't care about keeping her voice down. She was a huge gossip and spoke about a number of her co-workers. This woman just spoke about nonsense, things that she could have waited to speak about when she got home.” (Female, 25, White, Middle-class).

Public mobile phone “rudeness” as indicator of attributional bias

Those taking the others survey reported: Other people used their phones in public

inappropriately.

Participants made dispositional attributions for others’ use (“they are rude”, “inconsiderate”).

Participants felt ignored, disrespected by other’s use; noted other observers shared in the discomfort.

ATTENTIVENESS AND SATISFACTION

Attentiveness is key to responsible public mobile phone use.

The “techno-intimacy” of mobile phone use may satisfy ourselves, yet it “threatens” those in close proximity to us.

The tenor of “face-to-face” interaction is changed.

Changing the tenor of face-to-face