New Media & Community - g42

Researchers have studied adolescents’ new media use, particularly that of the internet, cell phones, text messaging, and online gaming, often finding patterns of similarity across the use of these new media among adolescents. Both Ling and Yttri and Ito and Okabe studied mobile telephony, including text messaging, of adolescents in two different countries, Japan and Norway, and found a few similar relationships between the media use of adolescent members of each of these two societies. Both articles found very high adoption rates of the mobile phone medium among adolescents, stating that young people use their phones more and spend a greater amount of time on them as compared to other age groups. Also, both articles discuss power structures between teens and parents, which they determined was impacted by cell phone use. Ling and Yttri found that adolescents’ mobile phones can draw attention away from family gatherings, rituals and interactions, allowing teens to have contact with their friends during times that were exclusively family time in the past, such as evening meals or vacations. However, mobile phones were also used as a method that parents used to control their children, as parents were able to monitor their activities, acting as a “direct channel to the child regardless of time or place”. Similarly, Ito and Okabe also discuss the regulation and control that adolescents are subjected to by their parents, typically as a result of their financial dependence and restriction of access to a full set of adult rights and resources. The authors state that adolescents’ communication is regulated by adults (as well as peers) by the place and time of day, and that “access to mobile media takes a central role in managing and inflecting that control”. Ito and Okabe even acknowledge Ling and Yttri’s research saying that the cross-cultural similarities in cell phone use of teens is in part an “outcome of the similarities in the institutionalized status of youth”.

Ling and Yttri’s study also discusses the impact of mobile phone use on social interaction among peers, which is similar in theme to Ling et al’s 1997 and 2002 studies that also discussed the use of mobile phone use in social situations, particularly those within the public realm. Similarly, a parallel can also be drawn between Ling et al’s 1997 and 2002 studies and Ito and Okabe’s paper in that both discuss the situations in which mobile phones are appropriate for use and instances in which use is considered inappropriate.

However, there are also limitations in both articles. Ito and Okabe’s article is limited in the fact that it only examines the adolescents of Japan. Similarly, the majority of these adolescents were from the Tokyo Kanto region, which prevents generalizability to other countries due to the differences between inhabitants of different nations and also limits generalizability across Japan because the sample is not representative of the country as a whole. Also, the sample for this study was extremely small, with only 24 people interviewed total, which also introduces bias into the research because the sample may be too small to be generalized to the larger population. Ling and Yttri’s method includes somewhat less flaws, due to its larger sample and its use of nationally representative sample surveying from 9 different European countries as its quantitative research. However, adolescents from countries outside Europe are not included within in the study’s sample, preventing generalizability to a large portion of the world. Also, this study has another limitation in that some of its statements are not supported with empirical data and are not cited, as exemplified by its discussion of the statement that some peers are more influential in their peer groups, such as those who are good at telling jokes or singing (p. 228).

The other two articles, by Mesch and Talmud and by Farrell, discuss the new media of the Internet and online gaming respectively and their impact upon adolescents. Mesch and Talmud’s article primarily focuses upon the strength, intimacy and closeness of adolescent social relationships and the origin of these social ties. These authors found that teens perceived themselves to be less close with online friends than face-to-face friends and that online ties seem to be weaker than face-to-face ties among adolescents. This was due to the lesser content and activity multiplexity of online relationship, as online ties were typically restricted to nonpersonal topics and not everyday activities. This finding correlates with Hampton et al’s 2003 study, which found that being wired (use of the internet and neighborhood email lists) fostered weak tie formation, and did not lead to much, if any, strong tie formation. Hampton’s forthcoming study also found that only one study participant indicated that they had made a “close” friend as a result of the new e-neighbors service, whereas the majority of new ties made were weak. However, Mesch and Talmud’s study is limited in its generalizability because its sample only contained adolescents who lived in Israel, and thus these findings are not generalizable to other countries because of the differences which exist between Israeli adolescents and those of other nationalities. The study is comprised of a random, representative sample of Israeli teenagers, which is a strength of the study, as it is generalizable to Israeli adolescents as a whole. Also, the range of options presented for topics discussed and activities participated in with friends were not altogether comprehensive, as many teens may talk about and do other activities with their friends than those listed on the surveys, so this may be a source of bias because important discussion topics and activities may be left out.

Farrell’s article about online gaming provides a fascinating portrayal of online addiction that affects some adolescents. This article supplies examples that help to illustrate the manifestation and effects of internet addiction, which are described in Wieland’s article. Farrell discusses cases of internet addiction that exemplify many of the Wieland’s stipulations for internet addiction and the criteria of Young’s Internet Addiction test, as cited in Wieland’s article. Wieland’s paper states that symptoms of internet use include social isolation and academic failure, both of which are illustrated by Farrell’s article. Farrell describes a male college student whose friends drifted away and grades dropped due to excessive World of Warcraft use, and another student whose GPA fell from a 3.6 to a 0.2. However, this article does not provide any original research to support its claims. It does provide some empirical data to support its claims, but the majority of assertions are merely supported by quotations from student abusers and school administrators, and it is lacking in quantitative data that assesses the amount of students internet addiction afflicts and other facts that it asserts. For example, the article states that “gambling and online-game sites attract many more men than women, but female students are just as inclined as males” to send a great amount of time on the internet. However, Farrell does not support this statement, and many others, with any empirical data or figures, presenting a limitation to her work.

Questions:

What other activities and topics of conversation could Mesch and Talmud have added to their list to make their list more comprehensive?

Does Farrell only cite extreme examples of internet abuse or are these cases more common among university students than one would typically think?