In the United States, we live in a world where ten year old children now have cell phones and other media devices. Today’s articles move past the larger debate of social capital, and move toward the effects on individuals, specifically adolescents. Our readings thus far have focused mainly on the United States, but in Ling and Yttri’s study, they researched adolescents from Norway. Similarly, Ito and Okabe’s study researched adolescents from Japan, specifically from the Tokyo region. These studies found a few similarities that cross cultural boundaries, at least for first world nations. Ling and Yttri as well as Ito and Okabe found a high adoption rate of the cell phone medium in the adolescent age group. This finding is not surprising considering the relatively new medium that young people are drawn to. As with any new medium, people who have grown up around a certain medium do not know life with out it, for the most part. Therefore, it is not surprising to me that both of these studies found that adolescents take to cell phones more so then other age groups.
Both of these articles also discuss the power relationships that are impacted by the use of cell phones. The power relationship between parents and their children has been affected by the rise of mobile phones. Now, parents can choose to give their child a cell phone in order to have constant contact with their child, and they also control the time of day and the place. This provides parents with the control because adolescents are economically dependent on their parents. With such control over a device that adolescents want, it requires that children are dependent on their parents for the use of this device. This concept of monitoring a child may seem great at first, but it is a double edged sword. Parents can not control who their child is text messaging or calling, nor can they monitor the purpose, regardless of how strict they may be. In the larger picture of social capital, Ling and Yttri discuss the impact of the cell phones on family time. Adolescents with cell phones are distracted from time that was previously just for family, and now they are able to interact with their friends on their mobile device rather then focusing on their family. This influence on social interactions between family members is also dependent on the strictness of the parents regarding when their child can use their cell phone. I feel that this aspect of control varies from family to family making it difficult to standardize the expectations of adolescents with their mobile devices.
The other two articles discuss new media and its impact on adolescents. Farrell’s article dives into internet addiction and gaming, with a more in depth look at specific examples. This article is a strong supplement to Wieland’s article that we read about internet addiction. I found this intriguing because Wieland’s article set out the basic guidelines to understand what internet addiction was, but this article grabs the reader’s attention by taking a closer look. Wieland highlighted the symptoms of internet addiction, including academic failure. Farrell’s article supports this with an example of a student whose grades fell from a 3.6 to a .2. I found it interesting that college students are negatively affected by the internet even though it’s immediate consequences are far better then something like drinking.
The last article by Mesch and Talmud discusses the strength of adolescent social ties with regards to the internet. These authors found that adolescents do not feel as close to on-line friends as they do face-to-face friends. Part of the weakness in on-line ties is a result of the complex media and the tendency to discuss non-personal topics and everyday events and activities. This is interesting because we have read studies that concluded it is possible to create close friends on-line. I believe that the strength in ties depends on the user, going back to the article discussing introverts and extroverts.
Finally, I believe it is important to acknowledge the limitations of a few of the studies. First, the studies by Ling and Yttri as well as Ito and Okabe are conducted in first world countries. While some people like to believe that first world countries are the only places that matter, these studies cannot be generalized to the whole world. Also, Ito and Okabe’s study is only conducted in a portion of Tokyo, making it difficult to generalize for the rest of the nation. The sample size that Ito and Okabe used is also a matter of concern. Only 24 people were surveyed, far supporting that this survey cannot be generalized. Farrell’s article allows for self-reporting, which presents a problem. Many people blame the internet for different reasons, but I believe that issue could be deeper. My problem with Wieland’s article, from a previous week, was the feeling that many of the symptoms of internet addiction also crossed boundaries with other disorders. I believe that the examples that Farrell used may have been skewed by the self reporting nature of the study. An internet addict that may have something deeper that is fundamentally off probably would not report anything that is not readily apparent.
Questions: Farrell gives examples of extreme cases, are less extreme cases still supportive?
In third world countries there are large cities where cell phones are used, what is the effect of adolescent cell phone use in third world countries, (e.i. Kenya )?
Comments (2)
I agree with your analysis of Ito & Okabe’s article on the effect of cell phone use on parent-child power relationships. I, too, think that the power relationship is affected in two different directions. For parents, the idea of giving their child a cell phone means that they can get in touch with him/ her at any time to find out where they are or who they are with. However, the teens’ responses in focus groups reflect otherwise. The teens claim that if they don’t want to tell their parents where they are or who they are with they can either lie about it or just not answer the phone call at all. In response to that, now there are cell phones on the market that have GPS locating devices in them which let parents know exactly where their children are at all times. Although I think these phones are used mostly for much younger children, they do enhance parents’ ability to keep track of their children through cell phones. In regards to the teens’ responses of ignoring a parent’s phone call, I know that my parents did not tolerate excuses such as “I didn’t hear my phone ring,” or “I didn’t have service.” Cell phones definitely provide another avenue of control for parents. Further, cell phones allow teens more privacy in their phone conversations, especially through text messages. Although parents may hear their teen’s cell phone ring and may ask who is calling, they may not realize that their teen is receiving text messages. Therefore, their teen’s social activities are more private, thus, giving the teen more control in the relationship.
Posted by g34 | November 5, 2006 3:44 PM
Posted on November 5, 2006 15:44
Allowing your child to have and use a cell phone is two sided, you may be able to contact your child at any time but they can also contact anyone else at anytime as well. But if parents really wanted to they could easily track their children's cell phone use. Online bills make the amount of minutes, who talked to who and when, and other information available at anytime and up to the day. Voice and text messaging are not as easy to track, but their available can be taken away by the parent. When new media come out there is a lot of blame thrown at it if the technology causes any problems or could potentially cause problems in the future. Part of that blame stems from the fact parents and authority figures have not figured out how to control the use of the medium, and the fear turns into blame.
Posted by Jared | November 7, 2006 3:19 AM
Posted on November 7, 2006 03:19