Smartphone Use in Everyday Life and Travel

Abstract

The smartphone penetrates many facets of everyday life, including travel. As such, this article argues that since travel can be considered a special stage of technology use, understanding how the smartphone shapes the tourist experience cannot be separated from the way it is used in one’s everyday life. On the basis of a study of American travelers, this study uses adaptive structuration theory as a lens to identify a number of spillover effects from smartphone use in everyday life into travel. The results of this study offer several important implications for both research and practice as well as future directions for the study of mobile technology in tourism.

Keywords

smartphone mobile technology tourist experience adaptive structuration theory

Introduction

The smartphone has become fully integrated into our lives, including travel. A number of recent tourism studies have examined the changes brought by the use of mobile devices such as the smartphone in tourist behavior including the tourist experience (e.g., Kramer et al. 2007; Kim, Park, and Morrison 2008; Paris 2012; Rasinger, Fuchs, Beers, and Hopken 2009; Tussyadiah and Zach 2012; Wang, Park, and Fesenmaier 2012; Wang, Xiang, and Fesenmaier, forthcoming). These studies have documented the impact of the smartphone on different aspects of the tourist experience including information search, travelers’ use of idle times such as waiting for bus, on-site decision making, and experience documentary and sharing. Importantly, this research indicates that the use of smartphones in the context of travel leads to a “re-articulation of tourism” (Hannam, Butler, and Paris 2013, p. 8) because it blurs a number of important “binaries” that have been used to characterize the travel experience, including home/away, authentic/inauthentic, leisure/work, host/guest, extraordinary/mundane, and present/absent (Hannam, Sheller, and Urry 2006). That is, the pervasive connectivity of the Internet through mobile devices mediates tourist experiences such that they are often de-exoticized (Larsen, Urry, and Axhausen 2007). An important aspect of the mediation process is that it results from the “spillover” effect of daily life whereby people carry skills, routines (e.g., reading news and participating in social networks), and habits established in their daily lives into travel (Currie 1997; MacKay and Vogt 2012; White and White 2007). In particular, MacKay and Vogt (2012) found that one’s attitudes toward technology as well the as the skills and knowledge of how to use smartphones is gained during everyday use, and this “new perspective” is translated into use during travel. Further, recent studies indicate that the use of information technology to link tourists to their “home world” during travel leads to a new blurring of space, which Pearce (2011) and Pearce and Gretzel (2012) characterize as “digital elasticity.” As such, it is argued in this paper that everyday life and travel should not be viewed as completely separated entities, but rather special cases of each other. Unfortunately, little is known about the underlying processes that shape (and/or reshape) smartphone use and tourist experiences. Therefore, it is important to gain a better understanding of the relationships between smartphones in one’s daily life and in pleasure travel. With this in mind, the goal of this particular study is to examine how travelers’ everyday use of smartphones influences their daily lives and how these practices spill over to the tourist experience.

Background

The concept of the touristic experience has gone through several paradigm shifts along with the changes of people’s lifestyle, society, and technology (Uriely 2005). In particular, the conceptualizations of the touristic experience were once based on its distinctiveness from everyday life; for example, Cohen argued that “tourism is essentially a temporary reversal of everyday activities—it is a no-work, no-care, no-thrift situation” (1979, p. 181). Similarly, MacCannell (1973) stated that modern individuals lived in an “inauthentic” status and they only can find the authentic experience by breaking the bonds with their everyday experience. Thus, these perspectives of the tourist experiences emphasized the escape from everyday activities and the suspension of the norms and values established within our daily lives (Smith 1978; Turner and Ash 1975).

Since the early 1990s, however, scholars have challenged the notion of the separation of tourist experience and daily life (Lash and Urry 1994; Munt 1994; Urry 1990) where they argued that there is a mutual penetration of the experiences from travel context and everyday life context. For example, Lash and Urry (1994) proposed the idea of the “end of tourism” wherein they argued that the “tourist gaze” which was once believed to be confined to tourism is now seen as accessible in everyday life; indeed, they argued that work-related activities are often combined with tourist-oriented activities (Pizam, Uriely, and Reichel 2000; Uriely 2005; Uriely and Reichel 2000). These scholars also argued that today’s mobile technology influences travel in many ways. Particularly, tourists can help in maintaining social activities with families and friends through the use of mobile technology during the trip (White and White 2007), and that the continuous and instant communication with people out of the travel context can trigger reflection and new interpretation of the current experience (Mascheroni 2007); indeed, the recent research by MacKay and Vogt (2012) found that the use of information technology in daily life can spill over to the travel context. Further, Jansson (2007) argued that mobile technology changes the nature of travel by “decapsulating” the tourist experience wherein the sense of adventure and escape diminishes because of better information about the place and the reconnection with the tourist’s everyday living environment. Finally, Pearce and Gretzel (2012) argued that the tourist experience should be understood as involving “ongoing connections which render everyday life and vacation time mutually influential” and used the term “digital elasticity” to describe tourists’ use of mobile technology to link to their home worlds (p. 27).

Although the tourism literature provides substantial evidence describing the use of information technology in everyday life and travel, there seems to be few substantive theoretical explanations for these findings. Indeed, the dominant paradigm used to examine the adoption of mobile information services is the Technology Acceptance Model (and its extensions), which is a basic derivative of the Fishbein and Ajzen model of theory of reasoned action (Eriksson and Strandvik 2009; Kim, Park, and Morrison 2008; Kim, Ahn, and Chung 2012; Peres, Correia, and Moital 2011; Tsai 2010). These studies confirm that the adoption of mobile information services in travel is often influenced by a number of factors including perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived risk. However, these studies contribute little to our understanding of how smartphone use actually shapes trip planning and, consequently, the tourist experience for two particular reasons (Bagozzi 2007). First, they focus primarily on the general adoption and use of smartphones, rather than the functions and mobile information services that might be used specifically during the travel process. A smartphone is a miniaturized computer that integrates an agglomeration of multiple digital devices such as camera, mp3 player, GPS, and an operating system that supports potentially thousands of mobile computing software (apps); thus, the use of smartphones can vary significantly depending on the specific functions and applications adopted and used. As part of this process, the adaptive–evolving use of technology may deviate from the originally intended or designed purposes, resulting in higher heterogeneity of smartphone uses among users. Second, TAM-based studies focus solely on the cognitive perceptions toward smartphones when used to support travel; however, as argued by Benbasat and Barki (2007) and Bagozzi (2007), one’s cognitive perceptions cannot be distinguished from its origins, which is critical when seeking to understand the processes linking the various stages or processes of use. Indeed, the use of technology can be shaped by many other factors, including previous use experience and the attitudes and patterns of use developing in the postadoption stage. Importantly, TAM-based models treats the independent variables as deterministic properties of adoption and use and fail to reflect the underlying processes that link these factors within an overall system-of-effects. Therefore, researchers have been encouraged to “broaden their perspective of system use from one that exclusively focuses on a narrow ‘amount’ view of users’ direct interaction with systems to one that also includes users’ adaptation, learning, and reinvention behaviors around a system” (Benbasat and Barki 2007, p. 215).

With the above discussion in mind, it is posited in this study that a slightly modified version of adaptive structuration theory (AST) proposed by DeSanctis and Poole (1994) represents a very useful perspective for understanding postadoption behavior and the integration of technology into existing social structures and processes (Markus and Silver 2008). In particular, from an organizational perspective, technology adoption can be described as an “appropriation process” whereby existing norms and routines adapt to include some, all, or none of the new structures. However, others have argued that this perspective can be easily extended to the use of information technology by individuals (Karahanna, Straub, and Chervany 1999; Wiredu 2007). Figure 1 illustrates this appropriation process whereby individuals within a social group adapt to the technology on the basis of the interaction of three sets of input factors: (1) the structure of the advanced information technology, (2) structures set up by the task or social environment, and (3) the group’s internal system (e.g., existing styles of interacting). Importantly, the appropriation process begins with a selection from possible appropriation moves because the user(s) can appropriate a given technology in different ways. For example, one may choose to (1) directly use the technology as it is designed, (2) relate the technology to other things (e.g., procedures, tools) existing, (3) constrain and interpret the technology in use, or (4) make judgments about the technology. In the second stage of the process, users “appropriate” the features of technology for different instrumental uses depending on their specific context. Finally, the individuals develop new attitudes toward the features of technology where the results of this process are new social structures (interaction styles), new decision processes, and different decision outcomes.

Figure 1.

Adaptive structuration theory (Adapted from DeSanctis and Poole 1994).

Adaptive structuration theory provides a view that considers both technology and the subjectivity of the individuals, which is substantively different from the deterministic point of view of TAM (and similar models) which posit that the availability of mobile technology directly influences the tourist experience. Further, AST considers the resources and rules provided by the technology that can constrain individuals’ intention to use and the nature of use, and it acknowledges the subjectivity in determining not only the adoption of technology but also the actual use and impacts of technology. In addition, AST considers the factor of time (i.e., the length of use) in shaping the impact of technology adoption. Therefore, it is argued in this paper that AST provides a rich theoretical framework for the study of smartphone use in everyday life and travel. Specifically following from AST (see Figure 2), it is argued that a person first learns, adapts, and reinvents the use of smartphones within the context of everyday life wherein smartphones and the smartphone applications provide a series of resources and rules. Then, the person selectively adopts the resources and learns and adapts to the rules according to the actual needs in everyday life within a different context such as travel. The person may experience a process of appropriation which leads to new patterns (i.e., structures) in areas such as communication, entertainment, and information consumption. Finally, these new structures lead to outcomes such as new social obligations and personal habits. Importantly, this theory explicitly incorporates spillover effects and is consistent with the notion of digital elasticity as proposed by Pearce and Gretzel (2012) wherein people extend this process of adaptation to support various aspects (and stages) of travel. Thus, it is argued that the effects of smartphone use on tourist experience are outcomes of the structuration of smartphones in people’s everyday life and the spillover effects in the travel context.

Figure 2.

The structuration process of smartphones in everyday life and the impact on tourist experience.

Research Method

The goal of this study is to identify the relationships between the use of the smartphone in one’s everyday life and those during travel using adaptive structuration theory as the guiding lens. It is argued that this goal can be addressed best through in-depth dialogue with subjects who have had relevant experience (Denzin and Lincoln 2008). Therefore, this study employed in-depth interviews to collect information regarding people’s use of smartphones in daily life, the changes smartphone users experienced in their communication and information consumption, and the nature and impact of smartphone use for travel. The informants were recruited through Survey Sampling International (SSI), a survey sampling company who maintains a large online panel with American consumers. Specifically, SSI contacted a random sample of American travelers and invited them to participate in the project. A follow-up e-mail introduced them to the goals of the study, solicited their willingness to participate and set a schedule for the interview. The interview process resulted in twenty-four complete interviews, including five pretest interviews which used same interview questions as the formal ones and nineteen formal interviews (see Table 1 for the informants’ profiles). In the formal interview process, following the concept of data saturation, the analysis demonstrated that the concepts and patterns became stable at the 15th informant. That is, the analysis of the last four informants (informants 16th to 19th) did not lead to any changes in the codebook and/or results. Follow-up interviews were then conducted to clarify the points mentioned by the informants, confirm researcher’s interpretation, and to further explore the relationships among concepts which were identified in the prior analyses. The follow-up interview invitations were sent to the 11 informants who indicated their willingness to participate in a follow-up study; of these, 7 interviews were completed. Interview questions and their purposes were listed in Table 2.

Table 1.

Profiles of Informants.

No.	Gender	Age Group	Smartphone Use Profile
1	F	18–30	iPhone, 2 years
2	F	18–30	iPhone, 1.5 years
3	F	18–30	Blackberry, 2 years
4	M	18–30	iPhone, 1 year
5	F	18–30	iPhone, 2 years
6	F	51–60	Motorola, 2 years
7	F	61–70	HTC, less than 1 year
8	M	41–50	iPhone, 3 months
9	F	18–30	Samsung, 3 months
10	M	18–30	Motorola, 1.5 years
11	M	51–60	HTC, 1 year
12	M	51–60	iPhone, 7 months
13	F	31–40	HTC, 2 years
14	M	18–30	Samsung, 8 months
15	M	18–30	Blackberry, 2 years
16	M	61–70	iPhone, 7 months
17	F	51–60	Samsung, less than 1 year
18	F	51–60	LG, 7 months
19	M	41–50	Motorola, 1 year
20	M	18–30	HTC, 8 months
21	M	31–40	HTC, 2 years
22	F	18–30	Samsung, 9 months
23	M	18–30	Nokia, 1.5 years
24	M	61–70	iPhone, 1 year

Note: Informants 1 to 5 participated in the pilot test. Informants 8, 9, 11, 15, 18, 19, and 22 participated in the follow-up interview.

Table 2.

Main Interview Questions and Purpose of Each Question.

Interview Questions	Purpose of the Questions
1. How do you use your smartphones in most days of your life? —Can you describe a typical day of the use of your smartphones?	To lead the informants to describe the use of smartphones and identify the use activities of smartphones in everyday life.
2. Do you feel any changes in terms of your everyday habits/routines or patterns of behavior in information acquisition/search brought by the use of smartphones?	To explore the relationship between the informant and smartphones, and identify the changes brought by the use of smartphones in informants’ lives.
3. For the most recent trip you mentioned, how did you use smartphones to plan or facilitate your trip? Why you used smartphones to do so?	To explore the use activities of smartphones in the whole travel process and to identify the associations between the use smartphones in both everyday and travel contexts.
4. Thinking about your travel planning and experience before you use smartphones, how many differences do the use of smartphones cause?	To explore the impact of the use of smartphones on travel experience including travel planning, travel activities, and other emotional influences.
5. Thinking about your use of smartphones in your everyday life and your use of smartphones in your travel, do you feel any difference in terms of the functions and information services you used?	To explore associations between the use of smartphones in travel and the use of smartphones in everyday life.

An informant had to meet the following three criteria in order to qualify for the interview. First, the informant should own and use a smartphone; that is, mobile phones using any of the following operating systems: Apple iOS (e.g., iPhone), Android (e.g., HTC Hero, Nexus One, Galaxy Nexus), or RIM (e.g., Blackberry). These were the top three smartphone platforms in 2011 and the first quarter of 2012, with more than 80% of all smartphone subscribers in the United States (comScore 2013). Second, the informant had traveled for leisure (nonbusiness) purposes at least three times in the past 12 months (from May 31, 2011, to May 30, 2012). The trip refers to pleasure, vacation, or personal trips that were at least 50 miles one-way away from home and included an overnight stay. Considering that the planning of and activities during business trips are usually out of the traveler’s control, business trips were excluded from this study. Also, one of the leisure trips had to have occurred within three months of the study date (from February 1 to May 31, 2012). This criterion was to ensure that the informant could recall the details of the trip and provide rich descriptions of the travel experience. Third, the informant must subscribe to an unlimited data plan for smartphone communication service. The diversities of smartphone use caused by the varieties of devices and infrastructure support were acknowledged but controlled in this study, because the focal phenomenon here (i.e., the spillover of smartphone use from daily life context to travel context) can only be best embodied by holding the technological environment consistent in both contexts. Also, the demographic characteristics of the informants were not used as criteria for selecting informants because this study attempted to achieve “a unified vision of the essences of a phenomenon or experience” (Moustakas 1994, p. 59), as opposed to a more traditional focus on explanation of variation in this phenomenon within the overall population, which would require a balancing of these characteristics such that they reflect the characteristics of American travelers. It is important to note that this study does not aim at the generalization of the results and demonstrating the differences among population and under different scenarios of travel, and the focus is to provide a new perspective to understand the mechanisms underlying the mediation of the smartphones in travel process.

The modified Van Kaam (1959) method of analysis was followed to analyze the transcripts. Specifically, qualitative data analysis started with data organization and preparation whereby the verbatim transcripts were made from interview audio recordings. Nvivo 9.0, a qualitative data analysis software, was then used to facilitate the management of transcripts and coding process. The unit of analysis was a sentence. The coding process followed Van Kaam (1959), whereby the sentences or paragraphs were examined to identify basic concepts; these concepts were then labeled based on the meanings indicated by the informant and/or concepts found in the literature. In order to improve the trustworthiness of the results, the strategies suggested by Lincoln (1985) including triangulation, member check, and intercoder reliability check were applied. First, an executive summary of the findings were sent via e-mail to the 19 informants for review; 11 of the informants replied to the e-mail and the results confirm the interpretation of the authors. Third, after the coding frame was developed, two coders worked independently to code the interview transcripts. Krippendorff’s (1980) alpha was used to measure the intercoder reliability; the results of this analysis using the online software ReCal was 0.73, thus confirming a high degree of consistency between the respective coders.

Findings

The interpretations of the study were guided using AST; in particular, the analyses were summarized to describe the processes whereby the use of smartphones in everyday living influences the tourist experience through the integration of smartphone use within one’s daily life and spill over into travel. As can be seen in Figure 3, five “themes” emerged from the interviewees’ responses, which are, from left to the right sequentially, everyday use of smartphones, feelings (based on the everyday uses), changes in everyday living, smartphone use in travel, and changes in tourist experience. The five themes were connected based on the informants’ explanation. The informants explicitly explained the outcomes of smartphone uses in daily lives, including their feelings and specific behavior changes in everyday living, and in turn, how these changes of feelings and behaviors in everyday living enhanced or at least maintained their uses of smartphones in daily lives. Further, the informants explained how these changes in daily lives influenced the uses in travel and tourist experience. The results of these analyses suggest that the underlying processes related to smartphone use change various aspects of our life that, in turn, affects the tourist experience through what can be described best as “spillover effects.”

Figure 3.

The relationship between smartphone use in daily life and travel.

The Use of Smartphones in Everyday Life and the Feelings

In Figure 3, a total of 21 activities were reported as daily uses of smartphones. The informants indicated that they used smartphones mainly for communication (calls, e-mails, and text messages), entertainment (music, movie, books, photos, and games), online social networking (use of social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter), information search and acquisition (news, stocks, weather, restaurant, shopping, general information search, and travel ideas), and facilitations (bank, alarm, calendar planner, and navigation). The structures of smartphones (i.e., the rules and resources afforded by the smartphones) in these aspects were integrated in the informants’ daily routines and social practices. For instance, some informants described similar patterns of smartphone uses in their daily lives (informants 5, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, and 23). These informants usually were woken up by the alarms of smartphones, and opened their eyes by checking some of these applications including news, social network apps (e.g., Facebook), and e-mails. Then, they listened to radios, news, or music with the smartphones on their ways to workplaces. During the day, they occasionally used smartphones to check weather, news and stock prices, found restaurant to dine out, or even looked for information for shopping and collected travel ideas, because either they did not want to use the computers at the workplace to do these things or there were no personal computers available at the workplace (e.g., for a cashier in the supermarket). In the evening, they sometimes use smartphones to surf online while watching TV. The above pattern is a typical one among the people who go to work everyday. The specific use of smartphones in daily life varies among the informants, and depends on informants’ personal background (e.g., profession, marriage status, and age). Some informants also mentioned different patterns of smartphone use in weekends and workdays (informants 5 and 14). Different from the workdays, over the weekends smartphones help informants find directions if they drive to somewhere unfamiliar and search for restaurants nearby if they go downtown for shopping.

Although the use of smartphones varies depending on the specific contexts, informants commented that smartphones were more or less part of their life and becoming their “companion” (informant 18), “secretary” (informants 11 and 20), “friends” (informants 13 and 17), and “safety guard” (informants 16 and 24). Informants perceived that smartphones made them feel “more connected,” “more informed,” “more innovative,” “more entertaining/fun,” and “more productive.” Because of the ubiquitous Internet connections, informants perceived that smartphones enabled them to get connected with family and friends all the time and also stay informed of news or other information such as stock prices changes that were important for them. Some informants used smartphones for innovative activities. For example, informants 7 and 22 reported that the use of a mobile application that can recognize people’s location and recommend restaurants was unimaginable before. Also, some informants (e.g., 5 and 13) appreciated their smartphones as great tools for entertainment because they can enjoy music on the way to work and play games during the breaks of work. Finally, some informants (e.g., informants 19 and 21) commented that smartphones enabled them to be more productive because they could complete many tasks such as replying to e-mails, planning upcoming trips, and paying bills while they were waiting for buses or in the line for supermarket cashiers. In general, informants confirmed that the use of smartphones in daily lives made them feel something different.

Changes in Everyday Living Due to the Use of Smartphones

With the use of smartphones in everyday living, informants were changing themselves in many aspects (see Figure 3). Informants described their changes in five aspects of life after the adoption of smartphones, including (1) increased communication with family and friends, (2) filling up all downtimes, (3) increased information search activity, (4) exploring new apps/learning about technology, and (5) replacing the laptop/desktop computer for small tasks. Each of these aspects of smartphone use is described below.

Increased communication with family and friends

Informants increased the communication with their families and friends through two kinds of use activities of smartphones: text messaging and online social networking. Particularly, with the intuitive input methods (e.g., hand writing and voice input) and a large screen, smartphones support a variety of apps such as Whatsapp, Wechat, and Messenger to facilitate the exchange of texts, pictures, audios, and even videos. Several informants reported that they increased the use of message apps due to convenience. Informants increased browsing and use of online social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, etc., so they became more informed about their friends’ activities, news, and status. Also, they could make sure their friends were informed about themselves. Informant 1 described that she felt lonely when she had lunch alone in the restaurants. One of the ways she could escape from loneliness was to take a photo of her food and post it on Facebook. Then she could enjoy the instant feedback from her friends. Informant 4 described that the use of Facebook had become part of his life and his smartphone provided a good support:

It’s just like a cultural thing because people are always doing that (take photo and sharing). If someone goes to a new place the picture’s up. And I think it’s like just wanting to share the excitement. And it’s also about getting that affirmation from your peers because then everyone comments on it and says, “Oh that looks beautiful and I hope you’re having a great trip.” It’s the personal interaction that I think a lot of people my age crave, and you do it now with it (smartphone) anytime.

Filling up all downtimes

Informants indicated that the use of smartphones changed the ways they used downtime such as workplace breaks, commuting to work, or waiting in line. They used smartphones to do a variety of things in downtime such as playing games (15), searching for travel ideas (10), and watching movies (2 and 12). Informant 2 observed that people in the subway were all using smartphones to do something and she also got used to entertain herself with the smartphone once she had fragmented breaks:

I remember one time in the subway where almost everybody’s using iPhone, so nobody’s looking at each other. They just pretend they are busy even though they’re probably not; they are just playing a game. And then sometimes I don’t have anything to check, like I read all the e-mails, I read all the blogs, and I know what are the deals today, and I know what’s going on in Yelp. But, I still just play with it and pretend that I’m busy. (informant 2)

Increased information search activities

Informants reported that they tended to do more information search. Informants 3, 4, 11, 15, and 18 reported that they increased their use of smartphones to access online information sources. Informant 3 said that she was now very likely to use smartphone to find solutions if she was in the middle of discussions with friends or families and encountered uncertain situations. Informant 3 felt that chances of information search anytime and anywhere offered by smartphones made her productive and well informed before making decisions. Informant 14 reported that he did more information search than before because of convenience and curiosity, and he learnt more things from such behavioral changes. Similarly, informant 4 said:

It’s satisfying getting that instant answer. It’s definitely something that I enjoy having that capability to just get instant answers whenever I need them.

Exploring new apps/learning about technology

Some informants (e.g., informants 6 and 18) reported that they became more “tech savvy” after the adoption and use of the smartphone. Informant 6 mentioned that she felt she understood technology better and she became addicted to her smartphone. She felt that there should be apps for everything and she had to keep learning about them. Informant 18 also reported that she become more serious about learning new technology and new apps because she had benefits from smartphone applications. So she was always curious about what kinds of apps her friends had.

Replacing the laptop/desktop, increasing use of smartphone apps

Last, the informants reported that smartphones were replacing the desktop or laptop computer, and some of them reported that a smartphone is an extension of the desktop or laptop computer. For example, informant 11 mentioned, “it’s an extension of my communication tool.” Because of the ubiquitous Internet access, portability, and ease of use, informants used smartphones to perform many tasks that were used to be performed only on the platform of a desktop or laptop. These activities included checking e-mails, checking news, and information search. Such use of smartphones led to two outcomes: One is the decrease of the use of a desktop or laptop to perform the aforementioned tasks. For example, informant 15 mentioned in both first and follow-up interviews that he moved many tasks to the smartphone platform:

With my regular phone the only thing I used to do was call up people or text message. After that there was absolutely nothing I was using my phone for. But right now, I have converted my uses of many things which I do on a laptop, at least to 20 to 30 percent onto my smartphone. Which I can do on the go now . . . which I was never able to do before.

Another outcome was the increase of the activities such as checking e-mails, news, and Facebook with the smartphone because of its ubiquitous Internet connection, and the informants felt that they became more connected with others and do more things with the fragmented time (more productive):

Smartphones, to a certain degree, enlarged my presence—of my time reading the news. (informant 11)

I’m probably on Facebook at least four to five times a day, if not more. But, yes, that has definitely increased my usage since I’ve had the smartphones. (informant 22)

In addition, informants perceived that the multi-functional smartphones can replace many other digital tools. For example, everyday activities such as listening to music, navigation, and taking photo used to be completed separately with mp3 player, GPS, and camera before the adoption of the smartphone. With the smartphone, informants completed these tasks with only one device.

Use of Smartphones in Travel and the Spillover Effects

Informants described their use of smartphones in the context of travel for 22 activities in the areas of communication, social activity, entertainment, facilitation, and information acquisition and search. In particular, they indicated that a large part of smartphone uses during travel originated from their daily lives because of habits and social norms and obligations. Figure 3 shows that informants who reported the uses of smartphones in travel, in many cases, are same with these uses in their everyday life. Only seven activities (marked with an asterisk), including Internet surf, flight track/check-in, ticket booking/purchase, (find) things to do, flight reservation, hotel reservation, and final deals, are different from the activities reported in daily life.

In the uses of smartphones for facilitation purposes, three items were the same in both contexts, including navigation, weather checking, and calendar planner (named as “itinerary management” in the travel context). Three kinds of uses of smartphones including alarm, banking, and checking stock prices are missing the context of travel. Informants 12 and 15 indicated that they did not need to use these in trips. Because of different information needs in the specific circumstances, informants reported different uses of smartphones for information search in everyday life and travel. In everyday life, informants used smartphones to help decision making at shopping (e.g., Quick Scan, a QR code app), to search for information whenever they wanted to know something, and to collect travel ideas. During trips, the use of smartphones for information search seems to be much more purposeful as compared to information search in everyday context. Informants reported the search for flights, things to do, hotels, tickets, and deals in travel. The only one activity in common in both contexts in terms of information search is that the smartphone was used to look for restaurants and find customer reviews and menus before making decisions.

Informants explicitly indicated the spillover effects of the smartphone in their everyday lives into the context of travel. Figure 3 demonstrates the spillover effects by connecting the changes in everyday living due to the use of smartphones with the use of smartphones in travel. For instance, when explaining the motivations that drove certain kinds smartphone uses (e.g., making calls, checking e-mails, text messaging, and Facebook activities) in travel, informants indicated that they felt more social obligations during trips because they have got used to the frequent communication and connection with family, friends, and even workplaces in their daily lives. Also, the informants developed new routines or even habits such as regularly checking e-mails, taking photos and sharing with others immediately, and regularly checking Facebook. These routines and habits were carried to the context of travel. For example, informant 11 reported that he got used to checking e-mails every 15 to 20 minutes. Informant 2 also reported that she checked her e-mail every half an hour. For informant 2, checking e-mail at a regular basis almost became a habit for her. Informants 15 and 13 reported photo-taking and sharing on the Facebook during trips. In their descriptions of the everyday living with the smartphone, informant 15 reported that he became used to sharing photos on Facebook. When explaining the motivations that drove the uses such as listening to music, playing games, reading books and news, watching movies, and doing Internet surfing during the downtimes in trips, the informants explained that they got used to deal with downtimes in this way in daily lives.

Besides habits and routines, the spillover effects also included mentalities of smartphone use. Informants associated their information search behavior in trips with their daily use pattern of smartphones for information search. Informant 22 mentioned that she became very dependent on the smartphones for decision making. She felt that she needed to search for information whenever she wanted to make a decision after the adoption of the smartphones.

I’ve become so dependent on the Smartphone to do a lot of the deciding for me. I feel if this sort of technology were to disappear, it’s like, what now? Do I go back to what I was doing before?

She reported that she used the smartphone to a great extent to search for information for restaurants, historical buildings, hotels, and attractions. And, in the follow-up interview, she confirmed that she increased the information search activities during trips because she believed that every step in the trip would be improved.

Also, the informants reported that their trips benefited from their intentions to learn new technology and new applications that were derived from their daily lives. As reported by informants 6 and 18 that they increased the learning of technology and became more technology savvy, they adapted their behaviors in the context of travel accordingly. Informant 6 reported that she tried several new apps during her trip to New York, such as Hotels and TaxiMe, to help her locate hotels nearby and quickly get a taxi. Although she never used these apps in her everyday living, she explored these applications before her trip. Informant 6 believed that

there’s an app for everything. The thing is, I always say that my cell phone is smarter than I am. It’s got so much on it that I don’t even realize probably how to use it.

Last, the informants reported that they used smartphones to book shows, flights, and hotels (informants 15, 18, and 22), and they said they felt comfortable and smooth when they made transactions on the mobile platform because of their experience with it in daily lives (e.g., replace laptop/desktop for small tasks).

Changes in the Tourist Experience

Informants reported the changes of their tourist experiences in terms of activities and emotions. Interestingly, the use of smartphones in different areas, such as communication, social, entertainment, facilitation, and information acquisition and search, led to different changes in the tourist experience. First, most informants who used smartphones for communication (i.e., messages and calls) and social activities (i.e., participation in Facebook and Twitter) reported that they perceived their tourist experiences were more connected with family and friends and more secure. For example, informant 3, comparing her recent trips with trips before she adopted the smartphone, felt that travel at that time isolated her from her friends:

I would say it’s pretty different. I remember when I was little and I’d go over to Ireland with my dad. . . . Now looking back at it like now, I wouldn’t want to leave the country without my phone because I’ve just become so used to it. To me like I get worried if I didn’t know what’s going on with some people. So it’s definitely a different experience. . . . I can say that with my phone is probably better. But I don’t think I could live without my phone or whatever. I think it’s different also because you’re younger.

Several informants (5, 6, 12, and 22) highlighted the sense of security brought by the smartphone. Informant 12 mentioned that:

I think it’s also brought safety features. I am not young anymore. If I’m someplace . . . say something happened to me and I fell down . . . then they can activate my phone so as long as my phone is on they can find me. Or a car crash or anything like that.

Second, the use of smartphones for entertainment allowed informants (e.g., 4 and 5) to enjoy or be themselves during trips. Informant 5 described the reasons to use her smartphone for music and reading:

I think when you travel you have a lot of down time. . . . I found that on the bus I could listen to music or podcast. And, that allowed me to catch up on sleep. . . . It also let me focus. And so you wanted to . . . I don’t know how to describe it. . . . Like a bubble. Even if you’re on a train full of people when you’re listening to music it’s like you’re by yourself.

Third, the use of the smartphone for facilitation purposes such as managing itinerary, navigation, flight check-in is likely to shape the perceptions of convenience and efficiency. Informant 18 reported that her trips became smoother than before because she could always check her itinerary on the smartphone, so she would not miss any flights or trains. Informant 19 reported the usefulness of the smartphone in terms of helping him manage his flights especially, as he flies standby frequently.

Finally, the use of the smartphone for information acquisition and search led to the perceptions such as “more informative,” “getting better value from trips,” “more confident about travel,” and also led to the changes of travel behaviors, including “more flexibility during trips,” “more en-route planning,” “less prior planning,” and even “more trips.” For instance, in terms of en-route activities, informants considered their trips more flexible because the smartphone provides them with the access to information sources almost anywhere and anytime. With smartphone, travelers can change their plans if the planned activities did not meet their expectation. Also, many informants (13 of 19) reported that travel planning changed after they adopted smartphones. Informants interpreted the meaning of “changes” in two ways. Some of them referred to as “less planning.” Because of the ubiquitous Internet access, the informants reported that it is unnecessary to plan out everything and prepare all travel information (e.g., directions and phone numbers) before the trip. As such, the travel planning became easy and quick. As informant 18 mentioned:

I would say I worry less. I do less of map gathering. I don’t do that anymore and I don’t worry about the extracurricular stuff like what buses to take and what cabs to take because I make sure I have an app on the phone that I can go into it immediately and find out how to get on the cab. I used to spend hours going online and printing out bus shuttle schedules and coordinate everything for about a week before I would travel. With the app, if I’m going to be taking the MTA, which is the train, all I have to do is I have an app for that one too.

For other informants, “changes of planning” referred to the ease of use of the smartphone compared to other alternative ways of planning. Particularly, for planning during trips the smartphone provides “the most convenient” solution to search for information in order to understand geographic environment (informants 1and 2), arrange the things to do in the destination (informants 3, 8, and 9), and cope with the unexpected situations (informants 6 and 17). Informant 5 mentioned that she increased her travel frequencies due to the easy planning of trips with the smartphone.

Discussion

This study confirms previous research indicating that the use of smartphones clearly has the potential to substantially alter the tourist experience. In particular, the results show that the different uses of smartphones in everyday living are associated with different perceptions toward the capability of smartphones and, in turn, how travelers communicate, consume information consumption, and use their time. Figure 4 summarizes these findings by illustrating the processes wherein the use of smartphones explicitly involves the adoption of the resources and rules that govern their use (i.e., structures). For instance, the adoption of Whatsapp, an instant message application, suggests that travelers like to maintain contact with their friends in a more convenient and timely manner as the app alerts them for every message received. The adoption of Pandora, a music radio application, suggests that travelers enjoy “cheap and convenient” music that is tailored to their interests in exchange for the insertion of several advertisements between songs. Importantly, the use of these systems leads to new feelings (i.e., spirits of smartphones) and therefore changes in behavior. For example, informants indicated that they felt more connected with family and friends due to the convenience provided by smartphone apps. They also felt better informed in many situations as they had easy access to many online information sources. So they kept using these mobile applications in their trips (i.e., spillover effects). For instance, one informant indicated that he was used to checking customer reviews before making decisions on restaurants within his daily life and that this “habit” continues during most of his travels; similarly, many informants used their smartphone to check Facebook while they were on the road. Thus, it is concluded that these new behaviors and feelings such as social obligations “spill over” or “bounce” into their travel. Furthermore, the use of smartphones in the context of travel extends the structures and spirits of smartphones into trips, so that tourist experiences are changed.

Figure 4.

Conceptual framework linking the use of smartphones in everyday living and the tourist experience.

The results of this study offer several implications for the study of technology and tourism. First, this study emphasizes the importance of understanding travelers’ actual use of technology as a way to learn about the impact of IT on travel and tourism. Existing studies on IT, especially mobile technology and tourism, focus primarily on issues related to the adoption of technology. However, it is argued that the adoption of technology represents the beginning of potential uses as well as the initiation of possible influences. This study applies adaptive structuration theory to study the phenomenon and offers a rich description of how the use of the smartphone for travel is shaped in an appropriation process whereby people learn from their use of the smartphone in their everyday life. Within this framework, this study confirms that the impact of technology on travel evolves as the traveler gains experience using new technologies and the affordances of this technology. Further, this study contributes to the concept of “de-exoticising tourism” (Larsen, Urry, and Axhausen 2007) wherein it confirms that tourism is a special stage of technology use that is connected with other settings including one’s everyday life (Gretzel 2011). That is, this study is consistent with the results of previous studies (Currie 1997; MacKay and Vogt 2012; White and White 2007) indicating that the spillover effects in which the patterns of use of the smartphone in everyday life are extended to the travel context. This is important in that the impact of technology on tourists is inherently related to the impact of technology on all other aspects of everyday life. Indeed, the applications of IT tools in the context of travel originate from the uses of these tools in other contexts, because many of them are initially designed for a broader purpose to facilitate people’s everyday living other than specifically for travel. Therefore, it is important to consider the extension and influence of adoption and use of ICT in other contexts to study IT and tourism. Finally, an important lesson tourism practitioners can take away from this study is the interconnectedness of different locales, contexts, and channels of information and communication for today’s smartphone-equipped tourists. Because mobility-specific services (e.g., location-based services) are becoming even more important and more powerful, tourism marketers need to understand those tools and channels tourists use on a daily basis in their everyday living context.

While descriptive in nature, this study provides a useful foundation for future research. For example, the spillover effects should be further mapped in order to gain a more thorough understanding of the tools and channels travelers use under different circumstances. Researchers may link this to the concept of “big data” to develop various data collection and analytical systems across various channels and different contexts (e.g., everyday living and travel). Further, a normative model could be formulated and tested in order to fully grasp the true meaning of everyday use of the smartphone and its impact on the tourist experience. With this in mind, it is believed that the framework proposed here provides a valuable foundation for developing a much richer understanding of the touristic experience and mobile technologies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Dan Wang is an Assistant Professor. Her research interests include technology mediated tourist experience, mobile marketing, and tourists Internet behavior.

Zheng Xiang is an Assistant Professor at Virginia Tech. His research interest lies in information systems, hospitality and tourism marketing, and emergent technologies.

Daniel R. Fesenmaier is a Professor at University of Florida. His research interest lies in travel behavior, information systems, and online tourism marketing.

References

Bagozzi

R. P.

(2007). “The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8 (4): 244-54.

Benbasat

Barki

(2007). “Quo vadis: TAM.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8 (4): 211-18.

Cohen

(1979). “A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences.” Sociology, 13 (2): 179-201.

comScore. (2013). “comScore Releases the ‘2013 Mobile Future in Focus’ Report.” comScore Press Releases, February 25. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/2/comScore_Releases_the_2013_Mobile_Future_in_Focus_Report

Currie

R. R.

(1997). “A Pleasure-Tourism Behaviors Framework.” Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (4): 884-97.

Denzin

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2008). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. London: Sage.

DeSanctis

Poole

M. S.

(1994). “Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory.” Organization Science, 5 (2): 121-47.

Eriksson

Strandvik

(2009). “Possible Determinants Affecting the Use of Mobile Tourism Services.” Communications in Computer and Information Science, 48:61-73.

Gretzel

(2011). “Intelligent Systems in Tourism: A Social Science Perspective.” Annals of Tourism Research, 38 (3): 757-79.

10.

Hannam

Butler

Paris

C. M.

(2013). “Developments and Key Issues in Tourism Mobilities.” Annals of Tourism Research, 44 (1): 171-85.

11.

Hannam

Sheller

Urry

(2006). “Editorial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings.” Mobilities, 1 (1): 1-22.

12.

Jansson

(2007). “A Sense of Tourism: New Media and the Dialectic of Encapsulation/Decapsulation.” Tourist Studies, 7 (1): 5-24.

13.

Karahanna

Straub

D. W.

Chervany

N. L.

(1999). “Information Technology Adoption across Time: A Cross-sectional Comparison of Pre-adoption and Post-adoption Beliefs.” MIS Quarterly, 23 (2): 183-213.

14.

Kim

D. Y.

Park

Morrison

A. M.

(2008). “A Model of Traveller Acceptance of Mobile Technology.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 10 (5): 393-407.

15.

Kim

Ahn

Chung

(2012). “Examining the Factors Affecting Perceived Enjoyment and Usage Intention of Ubiquitous Tour Information Services: A Service Quality Perspective.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18 (6): 598-617.

16.

Kramer

Modsching

Hagen

Gretzel

(2007). “Behavioural Impacts of Mobile Tour Guides.” Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, 2007 (2007): 109-18.

17.

Krippendorff

(1980). Content Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

18.

Larsen

Urry

Axhausen

K. W.

(2007). “Networks and Tourism: Mobile Social Life.” Annals of Tourism Research, 34 (1): 244-62.

19.

Lash

Urry

(1994). Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.

20.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage.

21.

MacKay

Vogt

(2012). “Information Technology in Everyday and Vacation Contexts.” Annals of Tourism Research, 39 (3): 1380-401.

22.

Markus

M. L.

Silver

M. S.

(2008). “A Foundation for The Study of IT Effects: A New Look at DeSanctis and Poole’s Concepts of Structural Features and Spirit.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9 (10): 609-32.

23.

MacCannell

(1973). “Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings.” American Journal of Sociology, 79 (3): 589-603.

24.

Mascheroni

(2007). “Global Nomads’ Mobile and Network Sociality: Exploring New Media Uses on the Move.” Information, Communication and Society, 10 (4): 527-46.

25.

Munt

(1994). “The ‘Other’ Postmodern Tourism: Culture, Travel and the New Middle Class.” Theory, Culture and Society, 11:101-23.

26.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological Research Method. London: Sage.

27.

Paris

C. M.

(2012) “Flashpackers: An Emerging Sub-culture?” Annals of Tourism Research, 39 (2): 1094-115.

28.

Pearce

P. L.

(2011). Tourist Behaviour and the Contemporary World. Bristol: Channel View.

29.

Pearce

Gretzel

(2012). “Tourism in Technology Dead Zones: Documenting Experiential Dimensions.” International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 12 (2): 1-20.

30.

Peres

Correia

Moital

(2011). “The Indicators of Intention to Adopt Mobile Electronic Tourist Guides.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 2:120-38.

31.

Pizam

Uriely

Reichel

(2000). “The Intensity of Tourist-Host Social Relationship and Its Effects on Satisfaction and Change of Attitudes: The Case of Working Tourists in Israel.” Tourism Management, 21 (4): 395-406.

32.

Rasinger

Fuchs

Beer

Hopken

(2009). “Building a Mobile Tourist Guide based on Tourists’ On-Site Information Needs. Tourism Analysis, 14 (4): 483-502.

33.

Smith

(1978). Host and Guests. Oxford: Blackwell.

34.

Turner

Ash

(1975). The Golden Hordes. London: Constable.

35.

Tsai

C. Y.

(2010). “An Analysis of Usage Intentions for Mobile Travel Guide Systems.” African Journal of Business Management, 4 (13): 2962-70.

36.

Tussyadiah

I. P.

Zach

(2012). “The Role of Geo-based Technology in Place Experiences.” Annals of Tourism Research, 39 (2): 780-800.

37.

Uriely

(2005). “The Tourist Experience: Conceptual Developments.” Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (1): 199-216.

38.

Uriely

Reichel

(2000). “Working Tourists and Their Attitudes to Hosts.” Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (2): 267-83.

39.

Urry

(1990). The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.

40.

Van Kaam

A. L.

(1959). “Phenomenal Analysis: Exemplified by a Study of the Experience of “Really Feeling Understood.” Journal of Individual Psychology, 15:66-72.

41.

Wang

Park

Fesenmaier

D. R.

(2012). “The Role of Smartphones in Mediating the Touristic Experience.” Journal of Travel Research, 51 (4): 371-87.

42.

Wang

Xiang

Fesenmaier

D. R.

(Forthcoming). “Adapting to the Mobile World: A Model of Smartphone Use.” Annals of Tourism Research.

43.

White

N. R.

White

P. B.

(2007). “Home and Away: Tourists in a Connected World.” Annals of Tourism Research, 34 (1): 88-104.

44.

Wiredu

G. O.

(2007). “User Appropriation of Mobile Technologies: Motives, Conditions and Design Properties.” Information and Organization, 17 (2): 110-29.