141

 

'l‘wuitt’tlis

\ LlBRARY “
2000‘ M'Ch'Qan State l

1%

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

The Perceived Rudeness of Public Cell Phone Behavior

presented by

Jonathan Forma

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Sociology

 

 

Ii
/ fififivfl N7!-

Major Profes’sor’s Signature
3 /9 '7 /0 57

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:lProj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

 

 

 

THE PERCIEVED RUDENESS OF PUBLIC CELL PHONE BEHAVIOR

By

Jonathan F orma

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTERS OF ARTS

Sociology

2009

ABSTRACT

THE PERCIEVED RUDENESS OF PUBLIC CELL PHONE BEHAVIOR

By

Jonathan Forma

Three studies were conducted to answer the question of why the use of a cell phone in
public space is considered rude. The first study focused on what correction should be
made to the average decibel (dB) level of a cell phone conversation. The second study
took place covertly in a public setting and found that after controlling for certain
variables, cell phone users talk (on average) 1.899 st louder than two co-present face-
to-face individuals having a conversation. The third study built upon previous research
that found hearing only one half of the conversation leads to a greater perception of
rudeness from the participant. The speaker’s volume was also recorded and controlled
for. The results of the third study show that when only hearing one side of the
conversation, participants rate the speakers as more rude. The amount of time the
observers themselves use a cell phone lessens this effect. Results show that the more
time spent using a cell phone, the lower the rating of rudeness given to other cell phone
users. The increased volume of cell phone users and the effect of only hearing one side of
a conversation seems to disrupt the social situation being defined by observers. This leads
to a greater perception of rudeness of public cell phone behavior. Cell phone users may
be rated as less rude than two people having a co-present face—to-face conversation

because of a combination of expectations and the observers own cell phone habits.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................ iv
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
THE SOCIAL LANDSCAPE OF CELL PHONES .......................................... 4
A FRAMEWORK FOR CELL PHONE RESEARCH ....................................... 6
STUDY ONE ...................................................................................... 8
Overview.: ................................................................................ 8
Method ...................................................................................... 8
Results ...................................................................................... 9
Study One Discussion ................................................................... 10
STUDY TWO ...................................................................................... 11
Overview .................................................................................. 1 1
Participants ................................................................................ 1 1
Method ...................................................................................... 1 1
Results ...................................................................................... 12
Study Two Discussion ................................................................... 14
STUDY THREE ................................................................................... 16
Overview ................................................................................... 16
Participants ................................................................................ 1 7
Research Assistants (actors) ............................................................. 17
Method ..................................................................................... 1 8
Independent and Dependent Variables ................................................ 19
Results .................................................................................... 22
Study Three Discussion ................................................................. 25
GENERAL DISCUSSION ....................................................................... 29
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 33
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 35

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Recorded Volume in dB Meter as a Function of Background Noise,
Conversation Volume, and Number of Speakers ........................................... 10

Table 2. Descriptives of Corrected dB Level (after a 3.000 dB correction to cell

phone condition) ................................................................................ 12
Table 3. Corrected dB Level of Males and Females ....................................... 13
Table 4. Corrected Average conversation dB level regressed on having a cell

phone, the presence of a male, and background noise ..................................... 13
Table 5. Descriptions of Independent and Dependent Variables ......................... 22

Table 6. Perceived volume regressed on demographic variables, background
dB level, conversation dB level, and how many sides of the conversation
were heard ....................................................................................... 22

Table 7. The effects of actual volume, whether or not you can hear only

one side of the conversation, how much a participant uses a cell phone,
and experimental conditions on the rudeness rating ........................................ 24

iv

Introduction

Cell phone use has drawn the ire of many. Advanced technology coupled with the
relatively cheap cost of cell phones has increased the pervasiveness of cell phone use in
public spaces. Not surprisingly, as usage increases in public space, some find cell phone
behavior rude and annoying.

Examples of perceived rudeness that stem from cell phone use range from the
US. judge that was removed from the bench for jailing 46 people because none of them
took responsibility for a ringing cell phone in his courtroom (Franklin, 2007) to
individuals that have purchased cell phone jamming devices (Richtel, 2007). Swanbrow
(2005) administered a survey to a nationally representative sample of 752 Americans.
60% of all respondents said that public use of cell phones has disturbed or irritated them.
42% of the respondents believed that there should be laws that prohibit people from
talking on cell phones in public spaces, such as museums, in movie theaters, or in
restaurants.

Given this perception of rudeness, the question becomes what specifically makes
the behavior of cell phone users seem rude? Monk, Fellas, and Ley (2004) attempted to
ascertain why one individual having a cell phone conversation in a public setting may
seem rude, but conversations in the same environment between two co-present
individuals are not. They discuss three explanations for the negative reaction to cell
phone users: (i) different conversations — there is something different about the way that
people talk when using a cell phone; (ii) the need for observers to listen —— with a cell
phone an observer only hears one side of the conversation and is frustrated at not hearing

the other side; (iii) negative attitudes toward cell phones in general (Monk, Fellas, and

Ley (2004, p.301). Under the heading of differing conversations, the authors suggest that
one factor might be that an individual having a conversation is more likely to talk louder
when using a cell phone.

Monk et al (2004) found evidence they claim indicates that loudness cannot
explain the whole effect. Two researchers staged a conversation while either waiting at a
bus station or riding on a train. Half of the conversations used cell phones and half were
co-present face-to-face conversations. During the cell phone only condition, observers
could only see one researcher, and thus could only hear one side of the conversation. The
volume of the conversations was controlled at one of two-levels: the researcher’s usual
speech level, and exaggeratedly loud. Afier being exposed to the conversation, the
previously unaware participants were approached and asked to give ratings about the
conversation. They found that cell phone conversations were significantly more
noticeable and annoying than face-to-face conversations even though the volume and
content were equal.

While controlling for the volume of the actors’ voices makes sense in this
experimental context, it does not provide insight into the volume of real life cell phone
users. Are people in public space who are listening to either a cell phone conversation or
a co-present face-to-face conversation exposed to similar levels of loudness? Put another
way, do cell phone users talk louder than people in a co-present conversation? This study
will answer three central questions. First, do cell phone users talk louder than
participants engaged in a two-person co-present conversation? Second, are cell phone
conversations perceived as more rude even if you control for volume, and if so, is this

because respondents can only hear one side of the conversation? Lastly, are people who

use cell phones more tolerant of cell phone usage? Thus far, research studies on
perceptions of cell phone users have not controlled for volume in an experimental setting
by using a dB meter. My study uses an experimental design that collects data in a public
environment. If cell phone users speak at a louder volume than people in a co-present
conversation, experimental designs that merely control for volume by controlling how
loud research assistants or actors speak are not accurately replicating real world
conditions. The research I present in this paper will not only answer these questions, but
will also interpret them in light of previous work on social interaction in public space by

Goffman (1959).

The Social Landscape of Cell Phones

Telephones are no longer linked to a particular space. Technological advances
have allowed for the creation of situations in which users are no longer confined to a
specific place when using a phone. A few researchers have taken ideas from this new
reality a step further and explored the responses of cell phone users when receiving a call
in a public space. Exploring this reality is something that most of us do on a day-to—day
basis; however, it is unlikely that we fully understand or analyze the various processes
involved in answering a cell phone call in a public space. Unlike using a phone in a
workplace setting or in a household, the rules for when and where to answer a cell phone
call (or to make one) are based on the conditions of a constantly transforming social
landscape. This lack of linkage to a particular space has the potential to cause a wide
range of social reactions depending upon the particular context of a situation.

The process of using a phone has become ‘democratized’ and ‘individualized’
(Garcia-Monteset et al, 2006). The process of individualization can promote certain
changes in behavior. For instance, by answering a call while occupying a public space, a
person creates tension between what he or she is doing at the moment and the attention
needed for the incoming call. By accepting the call, the user commits his or her attention
to being in two different places at once, both the physical situation the user was in before
the call and the mental situation generated by the cell phone conversation. This process
causes the distinction between the “public” self and the “private” self to become blurred.
Behaviors or conversation topics best reserved for non-public space may be presented to

the surrounding observers, leading to perceptions of greater rudeness. No longer is a

person operating in just the context of his or her public situation or thinking in just the
context of his or her private call, but rather in a juxtaposition of both.

Despite this conflict, there are still a number of different responses available to
individuals when receiving a call while occupying a public space. Receiving a call while
occupying a public space tends to be met by one of three responses (Plant, 2002). One
response is flight, in which users immediately remove themselves from their physical
social situation. Another is suspension. In using the suspension response, call recipients
stop whatever they are doing, remain in the same location, and for the duration of the call
focus on the private self involved in the cell phone conversation while cutting themselves
off from their public social setting. Last is persistence, in which users stay engaged with
whatever physical social situation they were in prior to the call and at the same time also

attempt to manage the conversation on the mobile phone.

A Framework for Cell Phone Research

The previous section gives a very brief description of ways in which cell phone
users interact within their social landscape when using a cell phone. This brief analysis,
while setting the stage for further study, does not constitute a framework for thinking
about the perception of rude behavior on the part of cell phone users. A sociological
perspective from which social life can be studied can be found in the work of Erving
Goffman. Applying a dramaturgical analysis to the question of perceived cell phone
rudeness opens the door to new ways of thinking about acceptable social behavior in the
context of cell phone use.

Goffrnan uses concepts, such as “team” and “participant” (1959) in order to study
the various processes taking place in a social situation. The definition of a situation
“projected” (1959, p.77-78) by one individual is an integral part of the definition of the
situation created in conjunction with other members sharing the same space. Participants
do not necessarily have to be part of a “team” in order to contribute to defining a
situation. The process of defining and shaping a situation is shared among individuals in
that situation, irrespective of their roles. Individuals present in a social situation share a
goal, even if the goal is temporary and not necessarily contemplated in a conscious
manner. That goal is defining a situation.

In the past, some of Goffman’s work has been focused on face-to-face
interactions between individuals. His work provides a starting point from which to study
the effects of cell phones on perceptions and attitudes in a public space. Analyzing the
effects of cell phones through the lens of defining the situation provides a sociological

explanation for the perception of rude cell phone behavior that advances Goffman’s work

on interpersonal interaction into the wireless era. By using a cell phone in public space
and by speaking at a greater volume, individuals may disrupt the definition of the
situation others have created. In essence they are no longer playing their role and are in
fact disrupting the role-playing of others. This would explain why using a cell phone is
considered rude in some situations, while in the same situation a discussion between two
co-present individuals is not considered rude. However, the question still remains of
what mechanism causes the disruption of the social situation. The analysis of cell phone

user’s volume in the sections that follow will provide this mechanism.

Study One

Overview

When measuring two co-present participants engaged in a conversation, the
average dB level is likely to be higher because both sides of the conversation are heard.
In contrast, even if cell phone users indeed speak at a greater volume, they do not speak
the entire time because they must also listen to the person on the other end of the phone.
In order to correct this it was necessary to determine how many st are added to the
average dB level when both sides of the conversation are heard. The first study was

designed to answer this question.

Method

Sixty trials were run. The variables in each trial were: (i) the background dB level
(coded as background noise) (three conditions - 54 st, 64 st, 73 st), (ii) the
conversation level (coded as conversation noise) (two conditions - average or loud), (iii)
number of speakers (one or two). Background noise was varied through the use of music.
For instance, a song played for one minute with an average dB level of 54 st would be
used to simulate an environment where the background dB level was 54. The same
method was used for the trials with an average background dB level of 64 and 73.

The trials with only one speaker simulated cell phone conversations and the trials
with two speakers simulated a two-person co-present conversation. The same
conversation was used for each of the one and two person conditions. For the two-person
condition the speakers each spoke for 30 seconds and for the one-person condition the

speaker spoke for 30 seconds. The instrument was tested and it was determined that

speaking continuously for 30 straight seconds and then being silent for 30 seconds
recorded the same average dB level as speaking for 10 seconds and then pausing for 10
seconds and repeating this pattern for a total of one minute (other variations were also
tried).

During each trial the average sound level was recorded for one-minute. For the
first 20 trials the average backgound sound level was experimentally held to a one-
minute average of 54. Five of the trials had one speaker speaking at an average volume,
five trials had two speakers speaking at an average volume, five trials had one speaker
speaking at a loud volume, and five trials had two speakers speaking at a loud volume.
Another 20 trials were run with a background dB level of 64 st and then a final 20 were
run with a background sound level of 73 st.

In the trials with one speaker speaking, the speaker spoke for 30 seconds and then
stopped for the remaining 30 seconds. In the two person trials, the speakers each spoke
for 30 seconds. The purpose was to ascertain how many st needed to be added to a
conversation when an additional speaker was present. These results are shown in table 1.

Results

Table 1. Recorded Volume in dB Meter as a Function of Background Noise,
Conversation Volume, and Number of Speakers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unstandardized. Unstdzed Standardized
Coefficients Coeff. Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

Constant 26.027 1.820 14.302 .000
Background Noise .536 .025 .842 21.223 .000
(dB)
Conversation Volume 3.267 .392 .331 8.338 .000
(dB)
A Second Speaker 3.000 .392 .304 7.658 .000

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dependent Variable--Average dB level for one minute recorded by dB meter

Table 1 shows the results of a regression analysis with the dependent variable
being the average dB level for one minute. The results show that the addition of a second
speaker adds 3.000 st to the total recorded dB average.

Study 1 Discussion

Accurately comparing the volume of a cell phone conversation with a two-person
co-present conversation is difficult because measuring the cell phone conversation means
that the measurement is only including the volume of one speaker, and not recording the
volume of the speaker on the other end of the phone. The results show that the addition
of a speaker adds 3.000 st to the average dB level of the conversation. This means
3.000 st should be added to the average dB level recorded in cell phone conversations.
In study two, this information will be used to correct for only hearing one side of a cell

phone conversation.

10

Study Two
Overview

The second study was designed to test whether or not participants using a cell
phone spoke louder than two participants engaged in a co-present conversation. Monk et
al (2004) controlled for volume by having the researchers speak at a normal or loud
volume. However, it is unclear whether this accurately represents real world conditions.
It is important to determine if observers in a public space regularly hear cell phone
conversations that are louder than other conversations taking place because loudness may
play a role in affecting an observer’s perception of rude behavior. The average dB of
participants in a public setting level was covertly recorded using a decibel meter.
Individual cell phone users as well as co-present face-to-face participants were both

studied.

Participants

The participants in this experiment were 90 people (30 cell phone users and 60
people having face-to-face conversations) found on the campus of a large mid‘westem

state university.

Method

Two locations were selected. The first was a food court, and the second was a
lobby area outside of the food court. These locations were chosen because of specific
seating arrangements in each that would allow me to get close to the participant(s)
without arousing suspicions. In addition, the food court area was usually louder and the

lobby area was usually quieter, thus allowing for some variance in the background levels

11

of noise. Armed with a Radioshack Sound Level Meter (50—126dB range), I would wait
until either a person on a cell phone or two people having a face—to-face conversation sat
in either of these areas. I would approach the seating areas and sit within two to three
feet of the participant(s). I would then discreetly record the average dB level of the
conversation for one minute. Cases in which the conversation ended and the participants
left before one minute of the average dB level was recorded were not included in the final
results.

In order to control for the level of background noise, a one-minute record of the
average background noise dB level was made either immediately before or after the
conversation average dB level was recorded. The gender of the participants was also
recorded based on observations made by me. Thirty cell phone conversations and thirty
co-present conversations were recorded. This procedure was conducted with the
approval of Michigan State University’s IRB.

Results

Table 2. Descriptives of Corrected dB Level (after a 3.000 dB correction to cell
phone condition)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error of
Mean
Cell phone 30 65.9667 2.35597 .43014
Co-Present 30 65.3000 2.45160 .44760

 

The mean dB level of cell phone users was .667 st higher than people speaking
in a Co-Present conversation. An increase of 10 st means that the sound is 10 times as
great. An increase of one dB means the sound is the 10th root of 10 (1.258) times as
great. An increase of .667 st means the sound is 1.166 times as great. The final results

show that in this experiment, the sound of cell phone users on average 1.166 times as

12

 

great as non-cell phone using participants. Next, the gender of the participants was

controlled for because males may talk louder.

Table 3. Corrected dB Level of Males and Females

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender N Mean (dB) Std. Deviation Std. Error of
Mean
M (all) 12 66.9167 2.84312 .82074
F (all) 18 65.3333 1.78227 .42008
MF 12 64.9167 2.42930 .70128
MM 7 66.1429 1.95180 .73771
FF 1] 65.1818 2.82199 .85086
Total 60 65.6333 2.40738 .31079

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results in table 3 show the average dB level based on the gender of those that
had the conversation. The groups for the cell phone conditions were M and F (male and
female). The co-present conversations consisted of three groups (MM, MF, FF)
depending upon the gender of those in the conversation. Males with or without cell
phones had the highest average corrected dB level. In addition, it should be noted that
conversations with only females comprised a higher percentage of the cell phone sample.
In the cell phone condition males made up 40% of the sample, and in the co-present
condition a male was present in 19 of the 30 cases (63.3%). Because the average dB
level was higher for males 1 recoded the data into two separate groups, a group composed
entirely of males (M and MM) and groups not composed entirely of males (F, FF, MF) in

order to control for gender in the linear regression analysis.

Table 4. Corrected Average conversation dB level regressed on having a cell phone,
the presence of a male, and background noise

 

 

 

 

Unstandardized Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Constant 26.878 6.982 3.849 .000

 

 

 

 

 

 

l3

 

Table 4 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

Cell Phone @B) 1.899 .567 .398 -3.349 .001
Male Present (dB) 1.014 .541 .197 1.872 .066
BackgroundflNoise .600 .1 10 .639 5.464 .000
(dB)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dependent Variable—Average corrected dB for a one-minute conversation

Using a linear regression model, the average conversation dB level was regressed
on a number of factors. Even controlling for background noise and gender, using a cell
phone still had a significant effect (alpha <. 05) on the average conversation dB level.
Using a cell phone increases the average corrected dB level of the conversation. Before
controlling for gender and background noise the average difference between a cell phone
conversation and a co-present conversation was less than one dB. After controlling for
those variables the results from table 4 show that using a cell phone adds 1.899 st to the
conversation average. If, for example, the conversation average was 60 st, adding
1.899 st to the average is the equivalent of 155% of the volume at 60 st.

Background noise also had a significant effect. Having a male present increased the
average dB level, but did not have a significant effect at alpha <. 05.
Study Two Discussion

Cell phone conversations have been demonstrated to be louder on average than
co-present face-to-face conversations. Also, controlling for whether or not the participant
is a male causes an increase in the amount of st using a cell phone adds to the
conversation. The earlier studies cited above controlled for volume by having the
researchers talking on a cell phone talk at the same volume (normal or loud) as the
researchers having co-present conversations. The results of the above study show that

this is not an accurate reflection of reality. Cell phone users speak louder; so the question

14

 

becomes what effect does this have on the observer’s perception of the speaker’s
rudeness? The third research study takes these findings into account and measures the
actual volume of the researchers in order to determine the effect volume has the

perception of rude behavior.

15

Study Three
Overview
The third study was designed to answer four central questions.
1) Are cell phone conversations perceived as ruder even if you control for
conversation volume?
2) If so, is it because you can only hear one half of the conversation?
3) Is it possible that observers think cell phones are rude because they think they are
loud- even when they are not?
4) Are people that talk on cell phones more tolerant of cell phone use in public

space?

The study design called for two research assistants (actors) to act out a scenario
on a bus. Certain variables were manipulated in order to answer the questions listed
above. The manipulated variables were whether or not a cell phone was present and
whether or not the observer could hear both sides of the conversation. By manipulating
whether or not a cell phone was used in the conversation I could see if there was an
independent effect of cell phones on the rudeness rating given by the participants. I also
manipulated whether or not observers could only hear one side of the conversation.
Obviously observers could only hear one side of the conversation when a cell phone was
used, but I also included a condition with two co-present face-to-face actors having a
conversation. One of the actors was instructed to speak at a normal volume, and the other

was instructed to speak at a whisper (inaudibly). These different conditions allowed me to

16

conduct tests of the questions listed above. A full list of the variables measured and
manipulated during study 3 can be found at the end of the methods section.

In addition, I was interested not only in the actual volume (as recorded by the
decibel meter), but also in perceived volume. In the previous study I showed that cell
phone users on average speak louder. In measuring perceived volume I am considering
the possibility that cell phone conversations are perceived to be louder than a co-present
conversation of the same volume.

Participants

Participants for the second round of data collection were 160 people found riding
the bus on an on-campus route at a large mid-westem university. Participants that sat
within five seats of the actors carrying on a conversation were approached and asked,
“Excuse me, but did you notice that girl(s)?” If the participant answered yes than he or
she was asked if they would like to fill out a short questionnaire. Those that consented
were given a consent form and the questionnaire. Observers that were seen listening to
music via a personal music device were not approached. After turning in the filled out
questionnaire participants were handed a piece of paper that told them the conversation
they heard was staged and that the bus patrons they were rating were actually research
assistants.

Research Assistants (actors)

This study required the help of two research assistants (actors). Two female
freshman students that attended the university were employed. Both were acquainted
with me beforehand and were compensated for their time. The actors were required to

memorize both sides of a short two-person conversation. This same conversation was

17

used in all five conditions of the study and the roles the actors played were alternated so
that in each condition the actor(s) would play role one half of the time and role two half
of the time.

Method

Five different conditions were used in this part of the study. Each condition had a
total of 32 completed surveys. Two conditions were cell phone only conditions. This
means that only one actor was used and she would only speak on a cell phone during this
time. One condition was composed entirely of actor one and the other condition was
composed entirely of actor 2. Two other conditions were co-present conversations in
which one actor would speak normally and the other would speak using a whisper, but
would otherwise act normally. The final condition was a co-present conversation with
both actors speaking normally.

I, and either one or two actors (depending upon the condition), would board a bus
driving an on-campus route. I would record the dB level of the background noise on the
bus for one minute prior to the actor beginning her conversation. After recording the
background noise dB level, I would discreetly signal the actor(s) to begin. The seating
arrangement on the bus allowed me to sit directly next to the actors and still discreetly
record the dB level. The conversation would last approximately one minute, during
which I was covertly recording the combined dB level of the actor and the background.
After the conversation was finished the actor(s) would get up and go to another area of
the bus as if they were going to exit the bus at the next stop. It was during this time I
would ask the surrounding observers (bus patrons) if they had noticed the conversation

and would like to fill out the questionnaire. The roles and conditions were alternated so

18

that in any given research session multiple conditions were employed, not just the same
condition repeated over and over until the proper amount of questionnaires were
completed.

In order to test the effects of the different conditions used in the study (cell phone,
co-present hear both sides of conversation, co-present hear one side of the conversation)
it was necessary to dummy code the variables. The cell phone group and the co-present
hear two sides of the conversation group were the tested groups and the co-present hear
one side of the conversation group was the reference group. This means that the results
shown in table 7 show the comparisons between the cell phone group and the excluded
group, as well as the co-present hear two sides of the conversation group and the
excluded group.

Independent and Dependent Variables

Table 5 lists the items that I have chosen to operationalize the various concepts in
my analysis framework. I now describe exactly how the various concepts I used in my
research were measured. Of the survey questions described here, the questions were
changed to a plural form in conditions in which two actors were present (co-present
conditions) and kept in a singular form when respondents were asked to rate one actor
(cell phone conditions).

It is important to understand not only how, but also why these variables were
either manipulated or asked about in the survey. The variable that was manipulated was
the condition. An actor using a cell phone, two actors speaking co-presently (one
inaudibly), and two actors speaking co-presently with both being audible were the

different conditions that were used. The results of these manipulations allowed me to test

19

independently for the effects of using a cell phone in the conversation as well as for the
effects of hearing only one side of the conversation.

Various measures of volume were also recorded using a decibel meter. The dB
level of the conversation was measured in order to test for the effects of volume on the
respondent’s rating and the background dB level (of the bus) was measured in order to
control for background noise. The participant was also asked to rate the volume of the
actor(s) in order to see if perceived volume had an independent effect on perceived
rudeness. Furthermore, participants rated the rudeness of the actors. This measure was
an important dependent variable and was needed in order to assess the perceived rudeness
of the actor’s behavior. And finally, demographic variables and variables associated with
the participant’s own cell phone behavior were gathered. Information about the personal
habits of the participant’s cell phone use was needed to assess whether it made in a
difference in perceiving rudeness. Demographic variables were gathered to see if they
had any independent effects.

Condition- The condition (1-3) refers to what situation was being studied. Condition one
was the condition in which one actor speaking on a cell phone was studied. Condition
two refers to the condition where multiple actors were used, one speaking at a normal
volume and one speaking quietly. In the third condition two actors would speak at a
normal volume.

Background dB Level- The combined dB level of the bus one minute prior to the
experiment beginning.

Conv. dB Level— The dB level of the bus and actor while the experiment was taking place.

20

Rudeness Rating- Respondents were asked to rate the behavior of the actor(s) on a scale
from one to ten with one being labeled extremely polite and ten being labeled extremely
rude.

Volume Rating- Respondents were asked to rate the volume of the actor(s) on a scale
from one to ten with one being labeled extremely quiet and ten being labeled extremely
loud.

Noticeable Rating- Respondents were asked to rate how noticeable the actor(s) was on a
scale from one to ten with one being labeled “not noticeable” and ten being labeled “very
noticeable”.

Age- Self-reported by respondents

Gender— Self-reported by respondents. Females were coded as zero and males were
coded as one.

Minutes from plan- Participants were asked to write down the amount of basic weekday
minutes their cell phone plan provided them with each month. If the respondent did not
answer this question or wrote that he or she did not know, the response was coded as
missing. In addition, some respondents replied with the answer “unlimited’. These
responses were recoded into the highest amount of minutes given as a response. The
responses were recoded as 2000 minutes.

Minutes Used— Respondents were asked, “Yesterday during the entire day and night, you
used how many minutes.” The respondents were than asked to circle one of five choices
that were ranges of minutes. The choices were: (1)0-15 min, (2)16-45 min, (3)46 min- 1
1/2 hours, (4)1 1/2 -3 hours, and (5)over 3 hours. These ranges were subsequently recoded

using the midpoint of the various ranges in order to more clearly interpret the results.

21

The midpoints of each option were: (1) 7.5 min, (2) 30 min, (3) 67.5 min, (4) 135 min,

and (5) 205 min. Since the fifth option did not have an upper limit in terms of the

number of minutes used, I assigned a value of 230 minutes (3.8 hours) as an upper limit.

Table 5. Descriptions of Independent and Dependent Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev

Condition 160 1 3 1.8 .7506
Background dB Level 160 70 79 74.62 1.990
Conv. dB Level 160 69 81 75.43 2.124
Rudeness Rating 160 1 8 3.93 1.821
Volume Rating 160 2 10 5.22 l .578
Noticeable Rating 160 1 10 5 .06 1 .904
Age 160 18 22 19.01 1.022
Gender (O=F) (1=M) 160 0 1 .3062 .46238
Minutes on Plan 1 17 100 2000 741.6 625.05
Minutes Used 160 7.5 205 50.3437 51.389
Results

Table 6. Perceived volume regressed on demographic variables, background dB

level and conversation dB level, and how many sides of the conversation were heard

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unstandardized Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Constant 7.210 5.592 1.289 .199
Age -.010 .126 -.007 -.O81 .936
Male .397 .285 .116 1.393 .166

 

 

 

 

 

 

22

 

 

Table 6 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes Used the .001 .003 .045 .531 .596
Previous Day

Bus Background -.O87 .105 -.l 10 -.831 .408
dB Level

Conversation dB .060 .097 .080 .615 .540
Level

Heard Cell Phone .136 .295 .042 .462 .645
Heard Two Sides -.160 .352 -.041 -.456 .649

 

a. Dependent Variable: Perceived Volume
b. R-Squared = .020

Demographic variables, background dB level, conversation dB level, and hearing
one or two sides of the conversation did not have any significant effects on the perceived
volume ratings. Perhaps the most interesting finding is that the actual conversation
volume did not have a significant effect on perceived volume. This means that the actual
loudness of the actor did not have an effect on the rating of the actor’s volume.

Once again some variables needed to be dummy coded in order to properly
analyze the results. The cell phone group and the co-present hear two sides of the
conversation group were the tested groups and the co-present hear one side of the
conversation group was the excluded group. As you can see from table 6, there was no
significant difference between both groups and the excluded group. Hearing one side of
the conversation did not have an effect on the volume rating.

The initial question was whether or not cell phone users are perceived as being
louder than two people having a co-present face-to-face conversation even when the
volume is the same. Because perceived volume is not significantly affected by the

experimental condition (or for that matter any other variables) I have chosen to not

23

 

include it as an independent variable in the subsequent analysis. Using the actual volume

of the conversation (recorded by the dB meter) is sufficient.

Table 7. The effects of actual volume, whether or not you can hear only one side of

the conversation, how much a participant uses a cell phone, and experimental
conditions on the rudeness rating

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mo- Unstandardized Unstandardized Standardized
del Coefficients Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 Constant 12.317 6.221 1.980 .049
Minutes Used the .000 .003 -.017 -.209 .835
Previous Day
Male -.235 .325 -.060 -.722 .471
Age -.128 .143 -.072 -.893 .373
Bus Background .021 .1 19 .023 .176 .861
dB Lev
Conversation dB -.098 .111 -.115 -.888 .376
Lev
2 Constant 9.434 5.867 1.608 .060
Minutes Used the .034 .127 .020 .265 .792
Previous Day
Male -.285 .298 .072 .958 .340
Age -.029 .132 -.016 -.217 .828
Bus Background -.O31 .110 -.034 -.281 .779
dB Level
Conversation dB -.031 .102 -.O37 -.309 .758
Level
Heard Cell Phone -1.083 .309 -.292 -.350 .001
Heard Two Sides -.2065 .368 -.455 -5.61 .000
3 Constant 8.970 5.844 1.535 . 127
Minutes Used the .007 .004 .200 1.636 .104
Previous Day
Male -.302 .297 -.077 -1 .01 .311
Age -.020 .131 -.011 -.151 .880
Bus Background -.036 .109 -.039 -.327 .744
dB Level
Conversation dB -.018 .102 -.021 -.l77 .860
Level
Heard Cell Phone .085 .690 .023 .123 .902
Heard Two Sides -1.432 .812 —.316 -1.76 .080
Minutes Used * -.525 .277 -.399 -1.89 .060
Heard Cell Phone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24

 

Table ucont’d)

 

 

Minutes Used * -.302 .319 -.180 -.949 .344
Heard Two Sides

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Dependent Variable: Rudeness Rating
b. R-Squared: Model 1 = .018, Model 2 = .019, Model 3 = .214

The results from model 2 (table 7) show that the cell phone condition is not
perceived significantly (alpha=.001) less rude than the co-present hear one side of the
conversation condition. Also, the co-present hear both sides of the conversation
condition is significantly (alpha=.000) less rude than the co-present hear two sides of the
conversation condition. This means that the co-present hear both sides of the
conversation condition was the least rude, the cell phone condition was rated the second
rudest, and the co-present hear only one side of the conversation condition was rated the
rudest condition. The cell phone seemingly makes it less rude to only hear one side of
the conversation.

Alone, the independent variable for minutes used is not significant, however, the
interaction term of minutes used and the cell phone condition is very close to being
significant at alpha<.05 (sig=.060). This implies that the amount of time participants use
a cell phone affects their perceived rudeness of other cell phone users. In addition,
controlling for the interaction of “minutes used” and “heard cell phone” caused the
significance of the “heard cell phone” dummy variable to go from sig=.001 (model 2) to
sig=.902. The direction of the relationship is negative, meaning that the use of more
minutes leads to lower ratings of rudeness.

Study Three Discussion
What is there about a cell phone conversation that makes observers think the cell

phone user is being rude? It is not due to something unique about a cell phone. The

25

 

reason the user is perceived as rude is because observers can only hear one side of the
conversation. The results (table 7) show that the co-present conversation condition,
where only one side of the conversation was heard, received the highest rudeness ratings,
followed by the cell phone condition, and finally the co-present hear both sides of the
conversation condition. Cell phone conversations elicited higher rudeness ratings than
two people talking, but ratings that were significantly lower than two people talking with
observers only being able to hear one side of the conversation. This implies that adding a
cell phone to the conversation somehow mitigates the rudeness associated with only
hearing one side of the conversation.

One explanation that fits with Goffman’s (1959) earlier work is that when
individuals define a situation in a public setting, an observer already has an expectation
of only being able to hear one side of a cell phone conversation. In contrast, it is
unexpected to be able to hear only one side of the conversation when observing two
individuals talking face-to-face. The “need to listen” is involved in eliciting higher
rudeness rating levels because it is something unexpected when listening to a two-person
conversation. Because the expectations of hearing a cell phone conversation include only
hearing one side of the conversation, the rudeness rating is not as high. Accordingly,
another reason why cell phone conversations are thought to be rude that expands upon
this knowledge needs to be developed.

The results from study two give a possible explanation as it was found that cell
phone users talk louder on average than co-present individuals. However, the results
from study three show that actual volume did not have a significant effect on the rudeness

rating given by participants. One explanation that was also explored had to do with the

26

 

 

perceived volume of the cell phone user. The analysis shown in table 6 showed that
perceived volume was not significantly affected by the experimental conditions and was
also not significantly affected by any other independent variable. The effect of perceived
volume on rudeness ratings does not provide an adequate explanation for why cell phone
users are thought to be ruder.

The results from the third study also show that the interaction effect of the amount
of time the participants spent on a cell phone the previous day and the “heard cell phone
dummy condition is very close to being significant at alpha<. 05 and is significant at
alpha<. 10. It seems as though the participant’s use of a cell phone does affect the
perception of other cell phone users. This might also explain why the actors in the cell
phone condition were rated significantly less rude than in the co-present hear one side of
the conversation condition. The observers own cell phone habits seem to affect
perceptions about other cell phone users. Using participants of college age probably
enhanced this effect. An interesting way to further test this explanation in the future
would be to see whether this relationship exists in age groups that are less likely to use
cell phones.

Finally, the results of the regression model with perceived volume as a dependent
variable not only showed that the actual volume of the conversation did not have a
significant effect on the perceived volume measure given by participants, but that no
independent variable had an effect on perceived volume. There is also one explanation
for these results that has to do with the methods employed in this study. One possible
problem with this study was that the measurements of the actual volume of the

conversations taking place on the bus were potentially not as accurate as they needed to

27

 

be. The bus was (sometimes) a rather noisy environment and it is possible that the
measurements were not always accurate. Although care was taken to control for the
general background dB level on the bus, it is possible that this was not enough and the
background noise had a greater influence than expected. Also, small variance in the
conversation dB levels could have lowered the correlation. In the future, I suggest taking
a measurement of the background noise for both the minute prior to the actors speaking
and for the minute after the actors have finished speaking. Having a separate recording
of the background dB level while the research assistants are playing their parts might also
be a good measurement (although care should be taken to make sure the research

assistants voices are not measured at the same time).

28

General Discussion

These studies were done in order to answer the question of why cell phone use in
public space is considered rude. The framework used to consider these results has been
crafted from some of Goffrnan’s (1959) earlier work on social interactions in public
space. When individuals gather in a public setting they (knowingly or otherwise) engage
in actively defining the situation that they are in. An individual who disrupts this process
or engages in activities contrary to the situation that is being defined may be perceived as
behaving rudely.

The results from study two show that cell phone users speak on average at a
slightly louder dB level than two participants in a co-present face-to-face conversation.
As far as I know, until this study there was no evidence, outside of anecdotal, that cell
phone users actually talk louder. If these results are analyzed using the aforementioned
framework the explanation of why cell phone use in public space is considered rude
would have something to do with the cell phone user’s loudness disrupting the process of
defining a situation by perhaps drawing more attention. Even when not using the
framework derived fiom Goffrnan’s work, we would probably expect that individuals
being louder than average in a public setting would get ruder ratings than those talking at
a more average dB level. However, the results of study three show that this explanation
is not telling the whole story.

One way to think of this in the context of defining a social situation is that the
expectations of participants were that cell phone users would talk louder. These
expectations could have been built up over time as the participants had more and more

experiences with cell phone users who, as evidenced by study two, talk on average at a

29

louder volume. The definition of the situation already included “loudness” as somehow
attached with cell phone users.

This explanation is perhaps further justified by the finding that the “heard cell
phone condition” elicited less rude ratings than the co-present hear only one side of the
conversation condition. In defining a social situation participants expected to hear only
one side of the conversation from cell phone users, but expected to be able to hear both
sides of the conversation when two co-present individuals were having a conversation.
Cell phone users therefore fit the social definition of the situation expected by
participants more closely than two individuals talking with only one side of the
conversation being heard.

The social setting used for study three might also have been crucial in
determining the results. Defining a social situation hinges on the expectations associated
with that situation. Different public settings most likely will elicit different ratings of
rudeness. Conducting this study in a restaurant, for example, might have altered the
ratings given by participants.

The results of my study also closely resemble those found in Monk, Fellas, and
Ley (2004). In their research, Monk and colleagues found that ratings for a cell phone
conversation were very similar to ratings of a co-present one-person audible
conversation. Specifically, participants were asked to respond on a scale of 1 to 5 where
1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree to the statement, “The conversation was
annoying.” The mean and standard deviation of answers for the cell phone condition

were 2.65 (1.42) and for the co-present one-person audible were 3.10 (1.37). Similarly,

30

the results for my experiment showed the same trend, that is, co-present hear one side of
the conversation groups were rated as ruder than the cell phone group.

These results support the same general trend that Monk and colleagues reported.
Conditions in which participants could only hear one side of the conversation were rated
as more rude and annoying than conversations where participants could hear both sides of
the conversation. Monk and his colleagues explain these results in terms of a ‘need to
listen’. The ‘need to listen’ explanation is basically that participants have a desire to hear
both sides of the conversation, and that frustration at only being able to hear one side of
the conversation produces higher rudeness ratings for the groups where only one side of
the conversation is heard. The ‘need to listen’ may play a part in the rudeness rating;
however, the results of both studies (this study and Monk et al) showed that two persons
having a co-present conversation were rated as ruder than those using a cell phone. The
‘need to listen’ explanation does not firlly explain this trend.

Another explanation might also account for these results. Results from the third
study showed an interaction effect between the amount of minutes used by participants
and the “heard cell phone” condition. The cell phone use habits of observers in a public
environment affect the way observers perceive the behavior of other cell phone users.
The results imply that the more time an observer spends using a cell phone, the lower the
perceived rudeness of other cell phone users.

This is an interesting finding that brings up a number of questions that
unfortunately cannot be answered with the data collected in this study. Do different types
of cell phone behavior lead to different effects on the perceptions of other cell phone

users? Do other activities involving a cell phone (such as internet browsing) also alter

31

 

 

perceptions of other cell phone users? All of these questions should be explored in the
future through the study of cohort effects as well as using surveys that ask more
specifically about the types of cell phone behavior users engage in.

Despite these conclusions, there are weaknesses in this study that need to be
addressed. I felt it was necessary in the second study to collect data in a public setting
with the participant being unaware. This is because the data might be biased by social
desirability if the participants were aware their volume was being recorded. Because
collecting data in a public setting introduces many factors outside of my control, it is
possible that the data is not as precise as it needs to be (as I noted with the results from
the third study). Controlling for background noise was how I dealt with these random
factors, however, when dealing with small differences in the dB level, precision is very
important and the level of precision needed may not have been entirely achieved.

Another weakness of this study is that the two research assistants who acted out
the scenarios on the bus were both young freshman women. The second study showed
that controlling for male voices made a difference in the dB difference between cell
phone conversations and co-present conversations. In the future, I would suggest having
alternate groups of actors that either included one male, or were composed entirely of

males. The rudeness ratings might be lessened or exacerbated by these changes.

32

Conclusion

In a world full of increasing amounts of technical advancement, social life in
public space is going to be affected by the increasing array of personal devices and
gadgets that are being developed. Social conflict about the use of such devices will
certainly arise as personal preference and convenience of use is put up against the social
judgment of surrounding bystanders. As new technology arises, such as cell phones
capable of playing music at volumes audible to other bystanders (Wang, 2005), the use of
drarnaturgical analysis to study the impact on social norms will be helpful in combining
thoughts about different issues into one overarching framework of analysis.
Dramaturgical analysis will let researchers discuss the social impacts of new technology
without having a separate framework for each individual device.

The expectations associated with defining a situation in a public setting leads to
differing rudeness ratings of cell phone users and those talking co-presently. When
listening to a cell phone conversation observers expect to only hear one side of the
conversation. The expectation fits with reality and cell phone users are not rated as
rudely as when only one side of the conversation is heard from co-present individuals
having a face-to-face conversation. Cell phone habits may also affect the perceptions of
other cell phone users, as increased cell phone use seems to lead to lower rudeness
ratings. In addition, the increased loudness of cell phone users can be used to explain why
cell phone users are still rated ruder than those talking co-presently where both sides of
the conversation can be heard.

My research also brings up some further questions about the perception of cell

phone use in public space that should be studied in the future. The experimental design

33

used in this study asked for the perceptions of a cell phone user’s behavior, but did not
ask the reasons behind the rating given. Now that there is evidence that people speak
louder when using a cell phone, it would be interesting to see if this is a typical reason
given when asked about the perception of a cell phone user. Cell phones are not going
away and are at the forefront of technology that intrudes upon public space. This makes

cell phones the appropriate vehicle for studying new technology and its impact on social

life.

34

REFERENCES

Franklin, K. (2007). Judge Removed After J ailing Entire Courtroom. Retrieved
November 29, 2007, from Telegraph Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/worldnews/ 1 5708 04/ J udge-removed-after—j ailing-entire-courtroom.html

Garcia-Montes, J ., Domingo, M., & Perez-Alvarez, M. (2006). Changes in the Self
Resulting from the Use of Mobile Phones. Media Culture Society, 28, 67-82.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday
Publishing.

Monk, A., Fellas, E., & Ley, E. (2004) Hearing only One Side of Normal and Mobile
Phone Conversations. Behaviour and Information Technology, 23 (5), 301-305.

Monk, A., Jenni, G, Parker, 8., & Blythe, M. (2004). Why are Mobile Phones Annoying?
Behaviour and Information Technology, 23 (1), 33-41.

Plant, S. (2002). On the Mobile: The Effects of Mobile Telephones on Social and
Individual Life. Retrieved March 2007, from Motorola Website: http://www.
motorola.com/mot/doc/0/234_MotDoc.pdf

Richtel, Matt. (2007). Devices Enforce Cellular Silence, Sweet but Illegal. Retrieved
November 4, 2007, from New York Times Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
2007/1 1/04/technology/04j ammer.htrnl?__r=1 &scp=1&sq=Devices%20Enforce%2
OCellular%20Silence,%20Sweet%20but%20111egal&st=cse

Swanbrow, D. (2005). Cell Phone Survey Shows Love Hate Relationship. Retrieved
March 14, 2005, from University of Michigan Website: http://www.ur.umich.edu/
0405/l\/Iar21_05/06.shtm1

Wang, J.' (2005). Youth, Culture, Music, and Cell Phone Branding in China. Global
Media and Communications, 1 (2), 185-201.

I
I
Illl.
I
|||l
Ill
Ilill.

‘illllmiii‘llGZ 8121

3 1293

illllllllllllllllllllll