Abstract
Use of media devices has evolved over the past 10–15 years and the resulting effects on family communication are of interest for this study. Through 26 semi-structured interviews, the authors sought to understand the role mobile devices play in family communication. Qualitative grounded theory analysis was used to find themes and interpret results (Creswell, 2013). One overarching paradoxical theme emerged from these data, family connect–family disconnect. In family connect, categories of across distance, reassurances, and boundaries are shared. Within family disconnect, distractions, misunderstandings, and negative emotional responses are conveyed. Future research avenues recommended are decision making related to mobile devices based on values and morals, in-depth social media and app usage, emoji emotional responses, individuals under 18 and between 18 and 30 years old, and a network analysis of one extended family.
Keywords
Introduction
The market for and accessibility to technology has grown dramatically, particularly in the past 10–15 years. Only 40% of computer owners had Internet in the year 2000 (Hughes & Hans, 2001). Today, computers and mobile devices with 24-hour Internet connectivity are in the hands of consumers of all ages. For example, grandparents are motivated to use new avenues of communication with their grandchildren (V. M. Gonzalez, Jomhari, & Kurniawan, 2012). According to the Pew Research Center, 68% of adults in the US have smartphones (Anderson, 2015). These numbers significantly rise for the adults aged 18–29, 86% of them own a smartphone as well as 83% of adults aged 30–49 do (Anderson, 2015). There is a downward trend in smartphone ownership as adults get older. However, 58% of adults aged 50–64, and 40% of adults 65 and older own smartphones (Anderson, 2015). Family members of all ages engage with technology to support family communication (Siibak & Tamme, 2013).
The accessibility to mobile devices is multigenerational and as such this project explores the current roles these mobile devices play in family communication. Family will be defined as multigenerational; ranging in and outside the four walls of the home. Expanding to intergenerational family members and by accepting the participants’ definition of family (live-in partners, friends, step families, etc.), the study will strengthen and better represent the diverse 21st-century family. The term “mobile devices” will refer to smartphones and tablets. This research strives to offer synthesis and expansion of previous literature considering the increased usage of mobile devices while exploring multigenerational family communication.
21st-century technology and human communication culture
Beyond age, culture, and technological confidence, relevant reasons for why people choose mobile devices are task capabilities, communication ease when traveling (mobility), and safety (Sarker & Wells, 2003). A remarkable grade earned or a simple text of love can promote family connectedness via mobile devices (Padilla-Walker, Coyne, & Fraser, 2012). Challenges in planning and discussing family calendars, activities, and commitments can prove simpler with the use of mobile devices. Coordinating activities, primarily children’s schedules, is a positive use of mobile devices within the family dynamics (Devitt & Roker, 2009; Khan & Markopoulos, 2009; Stafford & Hillyer, 2012). Additionally, follow-up communication, reminders, schedule changes, and time constraints can all be rapidly communicated to one or many people within seconds (Khan & Markopoulos, 2009; Linke, 2012; Stafford & Hillyer, 2012).
While convenience is often highlighted as one of the positive functions mobile devices provide to family units, safety factors are typically strong motivators for acquiring them (Devitt & Roker, 2009; Livingstone & Das, 2010). The ability to reach out to another family member with a quick text or call to announce an arrival time provides reassuring safety updates (Linke, 2012; Villegas, 2013). Parents find solace in knowing their children are at home safe and/or can monitor them when out of the home (Campbell & Russo, 2003; Livingstone & Das, 2010). Not only do older children need the ability to contact parents, but caregivers of young children also need that ability (Palen & Hughes, 2006). According to Padilla-Walker et al. (2012), cell phone use is one form of media usage that impacts multifarious family interactions, dynamics, and household guidelines. That being said, concerns have also been raised regarding young people becoming socially withdrawn (Christensen, 2009; Devitt & Roker, 2009), as well as concerns surrounding bullying and intimidation that may arise by using social media and mobile devices (Devitt & Roker, 2009).
History is being altered to a world of online friends, followers, and contacts; all of which conceivably changes family communication (Padilla-Walker et al., 2012). According to Devitt and Roker (2009), parents respond favorably to addressing difficult issues via the mobile phone versus face-to-face communication. Conversely, Yarosh, Chew, and Abowd (2009) theorize mobile phones are primarily good for use as a check-in, not for meaningful conversations. Results of this media-driven communication can be positive or negative; however, research indicates that when using it properly, connectedness is maintained (Padilla-Walker et al., 2012). Communicative foundations, however, are only strengthened if they are reciprocated. Unanswered or ignored texts, emails, or social media posts negatively impact relational dynamics (Padilla-Walker et al., 2012). Carvalho, Francisco, and Relvas (2014) posit that while increased communication avenues via mobile devices are positive, the resulting reduction in face-to-face communication can negatively alter overall family closeness. Thus, mobile devices can be paradoxical in the sense that both positive and negative experiences result from their usage.
Paradox defined by Jarvenpaa and Lang (2005) is “a situation, act, or behavior that seems to have contradictory or inconsistent qualities” (p. 7). In this case, we seek to explore what these paradoxical qualities are in an intergenerational family setting. Both positive and negative nuances of mobile devices continue to grow as new technology develops (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005), which makes such paradoxes relevant to explore. In their research, Jarvenpaa, Lang, and Tuunainen (2005) argue that eight paradoxes exist that shape user experiences from the perspective of improving mobile device design to aid users with technology coping strategies. With respect to this study, two paradoxes are explored. First, empowerment–enslavement in which the 24/7 capabilities and new found freedom are a double-edged sword of both connectivity and distance. Second, how engaging and disengaging with mobile devices has altered family communication patterns as by replacing the home’s communication nucleus, the landline family phone. Family members’ ownership of individual mobile devices has thus led to a disengagement from family life.
One example of how disengagement may occur due to mobile devices happens when they are utilized during family meal times. Media at mealtimes can interrupt viable opportunities to connect conversationally through stories, joys, and concerns (Villegas, 2013). According to Chitakunye and Takhar (2014), there is a generational divide regarding the appropriateness of having mobile media at the table. While teenagers focus on the positive uses of mobile devices during mealtimes, many parents believe they hinder family communication and quality time. As a result, opposing beliefs surfaced between parent and child regarding this new digital influence on the family ritual.
Beyond mealtime interactions is the development of a boundary between work and home. According to Taylor (2013), adults as easily engross themselves in technology as children do; checking email, texting, exploring social network pages, and even exploiting technology as a babysitter. However, parents oftentimes find themselves struggling to separate home and work because the constant availability can be disturbing and distracting (Khan & Markopoulos, 2009; Middleton & Cukier, 2006). As such, the empowerment–enslavement paradox argues that the efficiency to improve work productivity is offset by increased work pressure or the inability to separate work from home (Jarvenpaa et al., 2005). While work issues generate these paradoxical dilemmas, another consideration was that traveling family members need to develop boundaries between the simultaneous use of communication and mobility (Linke, 2012).
Beyond face-to-face mealtime interactions is the concern for absent family members who can use technology as a conduit for family communication, offering opportunities to be present together (Licoppe, 2004). With the evolution of transnational communication from letter writing to email, the email transcends temporal and spatial boundaries and provides more relational intimacy (Wilding, 2006). Some ways to manage the distance are Skype and other video chat options, as well as using surveillance where webcams are installed in homes to provide a live feed (Francisco, 2015). Both options allow building of intimacy; however, the latter opens up discussions about boundaries. Beyond the virtual intimacy, technology creates opportunities to secure emotional support and offer caregiving in an effort to maintain intergenerational family cohesiveness (C. Gonzalez & Katz, 2016; Wilding, 2006). At one time, distance was a substantial barrier to communication and now mobile devices serve to break down that barrier (Wilding, 2006).
Media plays a vital role within families, a role that drives how we operate and mediate our lives (Livingstone & Das, 2010). As technology continually evolves, the evolution and development of new media bring about new influences on family communication (Carvalho et al., 2014; Devitt & Roker, 2009; Linke, 2012; Livingstone & Das, 2010; Villegas, 2013). Additionally, research can benefit from exploring intergenerational participants outside of the four walls of the home to yield broader results on the 21st-century family (Carvalho et al., 2014; Devitt & Roker, 2009; Hughes & Hans, 2001; Padilla-Walker et al., 2012; Siibak & Tamme, 2013). With these variables in mind, this study strives to explore multigenerational and multihome family communication through examining the research question: What current roles do mobile devices play in family communication?
Method
Participants
Employing snowball and convenience sampling (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011), the primary author conducted 26 in-depth, semi-structured interviews (Bernard, 2002). Snowball sampling began with members of the first author’s professional and personal networks. These participants then provided the first author with referrals for interviews. Further research might select members of the same family unit to conceptualize the role of mobile devices in a family. Table 1 illustrates the breakdown of the 26 participants. The interviews were conducted either in quiet and neutral spaces (23) or via Skype (3) when it was convenient to the participant. The goal in the selection of the interview site was to provide the participant with the most comfortable atmosphere. Participants were given pseudonyms by the first author to provide anonymity (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Linke, 2012).
Participant gender and age breakdown.
Potential participants were given an informed consent form fully explaining their rights and were required to sign prior to officially beginning (Bernard, 2002; Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
Of the 26 participants, 12 identified as male and 14 as female; ages ranged from 30 to 70 years old. The 30- to 70-year-old age range was selected due to the interest in intergenerational family communication. For example, a 30-year-old might have a partner, children, and perhaps older parents, grandparents, or aunts and uncles. This age range provides participants the opportunity to be both a parent and a child. In the US, the mean age for women to have children is 26.3 (Mathews & Hamilton, 2016) and for men it is 30.0 (Khandwala, Zhang, Lu, & Eisenberg, 2017). Procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of a university located in Pennsylvania.
Data collection
Corbin and Strauss (2015) define semi-structured interviews as those where the same questions are covered within the process, however, questions and comments can be added depending upon the direction and flow of the interview. During the interview, rapport was established first, followed by motivation for the study, and then discussion of the actual questions. Participants were each asked 17 core questions. The core questions asked participants to define terms such as family as well as helping the interviewer understand how they used mobile technology in their daily lives. Questions also asked how they used their mobile devices at home and how other family members engaged with them. Participants were asked to share anecdotes about using mobile technology while in family outings, any issues that may have arisen, and how they created, if any, boundaries. Interviews lasted between 18 and 57 minutes. Given that this is a substantial length range, the authors were able to discuss all core questions with all participants. Although the data in the shorter interviews were not as rich as the data from the longer interviews, they were still significant. So as not to rely solely on interviewer’s memory, two recording devices were used with participants’ consent (Bernard, 2002). The primary author then transcribed the interviews.
Data analysis
The data were analyzed by both authors in the tradition of grounded theory and by employing Owen’s (1984) thematic analysis procedures, noting repetitiveness and forcefulness to assist in the interpretation of data. The first author used the transcribing process to get acquainted with the data and used microanalysis as an analytic tool to decipher categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Next, the authors conducted open, axial, and selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The authors began by coding the same interview separately and discussing their codes to ensure consistency. After discussing the results, they coded a second interview separately. After the second interview was coded and discussed, the authors were comfortable moving on separately. Periodically, they checked in and eventually created a list of open codes based on all the interviews. In vivo coding was also completed at this time in order to ground the data in the words of the participants (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). Preexisting codes from the literature were not employed in this case due to the grounded theory approach to the research. Additionally, since extant literature has failed to specifically focus on the intergenerational differences in mobile communication, the authors did not want to be constricted by previously established codes. The process of open coding or creating categories by the constant comparative approach yielded open codes (Creswell, 2013). During axial coding, the authors developed the codes by looking for connections. This, then led to selective coding when the authors continued to merge and integrate the categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). From the six open codes, one overarching paradoxical theme surfaced from the data. The paradox of mobile device usage is family connect–family disconnect.
Results
When defining family, participants included immediate family, extended family, and close friends. The data illustrated a paradox of connect–disconnect. Often, participants referred to the ways mobile devices helped unite them. Most notable was how they fostered connections in terms of geographic distance, reassurances, and establishing communicative boundaries. Participants also discussed the role mobile devices played in family disconnect. To this effect, participants discussed instances when mobile devices led to misunderstandings, distractions, and negative emotional responses. Paradoxically, the same device that fosters family connection is also blamed for disconnecting families. As participants discussed their engagement with mobile devices and how they fostered family connection and disconnect, intergenerational differences became apparent.
Family connect
Every participant (N = 26) discussed how mobile devices helped maintain and establish family connections. Across all generations, participants were grateful for the power of mobile devices to keep their family connection. Mostly, for how they could maintain family connections with family members who were not geographically close.
Across distance
Several participants discussed the important role mobile devices played in keeping connected with their family members who were deployed in the military. One participant, Elaine (age range: 30–39), discussed how mobile devices fostered connection while her husband served in Afghanistan. She said, “It really did keep me and my husband in touch with each other while he was deployed and it kind of was the basis of our relationship when it first started.” Elaine and her husband relied heavily on their mobile devices because they were not able to see each other for 5 months after they started dating. This connection helped them build a relationship that resulted in marriage. Similarly, Diane (50–59) explained how her niece Erica “used Skype whenever her husband was overseas. He was in the military and . . . that kind of helped him . . . keep in touch . . . so that they weren’t so far removed.” According to Diane, this connection was especially important because Erica’s young daughter could talk and see her dad regularly. Diane also used mobile devices to connect with him when she was afraid for him or missed him. Along the same lines, Jed (50–59) spoke of a coworker who uses Facetime with his deployed son, “it’s amazing that you’re over in Afghanistan and can talk to your family via video phone.” Mobile devices played an important role in these families’ lives during a time when they were apart. Mark (40–49) argued that mobile technology would have been helpful for him when he was deployed. He said, “I would have died to have this technology being so far away from home . . . I see this technology as a real plus for the future as a way to stay connected with families.” Mobile devices are notably an important tool in fostering family connections for military families while their loved ones are deployed; however, it is also an important tool for all families who are geographically dispersed. Their family connection can be facilitated by technology when physical connection is not possible. All our participants discussed this benefit (N = 26).
Nolan (30–39) expressed how important it was for him to be able to communicate using his smartphone when he was away on business for 5 months, “We used it about 4 times a week . . . it was all done mobile to mobile cause I did not have a laptop . . . it was all . . . done with a smartphone.” Diane and Darwin (60–69) both shared their experiences in connecting with younger family members who do not live near. Diane loves her smartphone because “the majority of my nieces and nephews are out of state and when I wake up on Christmas morning . . . I text each of them an individual message.” Darwin uses mobile devices to communicate with his grandchildren. He argued that because of mobile devices, “those two boys know their grandma and grandpa in a way that they would never ever . . . without that by seeing them twice a year they would have no relationship with them.” Darwin’s argument was that without the mobile devices, they would have difficulties forming a relationship due to the lack of contact. Darwin explained he enjoyed the connection with his 6- and 8-year-old grandchildren in a game where he can buy dragons for them over mobile devices. “I think it is kind of neat for an old guy to be able to do that . . . [when they say] . . . I need dragons pap pap.” When Reed’s (50–59) son studied abroad in Spain, he enjoyed communication with him via their mobile devices, “we will talk to you [Reed’s son] tomorrow as opposed to just off he goes for 10 days and we will see you in 10 days.” Peggy’s (40–49) friends, who are like family to her, could use Facetime to show her their new home, which is about 10 hours away, “It was so cool to see their entire in-ground pool and their patio area completely covered in snow.” These examples point to the next theme that emerged from the data, which is how family communication is reassured because of mobile devices.
Reassurance
Parents and nonparents alike realize the benefit of communicating with children and the peace of mind provided by mobile devices. The primary benefits to parents were safety and peace of mind. Carley (50–59) explained, “If I were a parent and I was working and I wanted to make sure my child got home okay, I might say well that’s worth $1 million dollars to me.” She confessed she initially got a phone for her daughter for her own reassurance. Carley said, “I could get a hold of her when I wanted to . . . so I did it mostly for myself.” Jane (40–49) got her daughter a phone when she first started leaving her at events like soccer practice, “I just felt comfortable dropping her off and leaving her . . . if she has a phone with her or something happens then she can get in touch with me.” Although Jack (40–49) is opposed to his kids having phones during the school day, he sees the benefits of it during after-school activities. Jack finds it beneficial for parents to know “if they were involved in activity and needed to contact them [parents] for pick up and ya know if they were at the place safe.”
Upon reflecting on children’s use of mobile devices, Becky (60–69) shared that “there’s a couple little girls . . . maybe 6 or 7 . . . they take it [mobile device] to like a birthday party . . . if there’s any issues . . . not having a good time . . . she calls her mon . . . mom comes and picks her up.” The child has an escape from uncomfortable situations and the parent is reassured that their child can reach them as needed. As Tim (50–59) summarized, “it gives parents a little bit more peace of mind . . . to have more contact with their kids.” Cameron (30–39), while not a parent yet, believes that “any adult that’s in charge of the younger child feels the safety and knowing that they can contact to the kids.” Collectively, participants shared the reassurances mobile devices offered to keep their family connected. An important part of establishing and fostering these connections is setting important communicative boundaries.
Boundaries
A boundary here is defined as a mobile device parameter with the goal of improving family communication and connection. Participants discussed how proactively creating mobile device boundaries allowed for balance between verbal and nonverbal family communication. Katie (40–49) shared, “we already have boundaries . . . when I am with him [boyfriend] or . . . my other family members, I try to be present and talk as opposed to sticking my face in my phone . . . that’s a personal set boundary.” This empowers Katie to interact and actively connect with her family rather than multitasking between them and her mobile device. However, Elaine feels enslaved by the device; it is difficult to put it down. She explained her family consciously sets boundaries for themselves, especially around their young daughter, We need to make sure we are getting enough attention to our daughter . . . not just sitting on our phone . . . make sure she is getting read to . . . played with . . . I lose track of time sometimes when I’m on my phone and I feel bad.
Participants also explained what they expect from others.
Becky shared that her daughter and son-in-law are very particular about her grandchildren’s mobile device usage, “if someone comes to their house to visit, they don’t play any iPads, they talk.” The parents “try to get them to talk to people rather than . . . sit and finger that phone, they are not allowed to do that.” Becky appreciates this and enjoys having conversations and connecting with her grandchildren; she believes her daughter and son-in-law are doing the right thing for fostering family connection. Setting those boundaries and finding the proper approach can be a challenge, as evidenced from discussion with some participants. Mark reflected on parents’ responsibilities to create boundaries, “You really have to set the limits of what is acceptable and what’s not.” He talked specifically about the dynamics of car rides, kids, and communication, “In car rides where they used to be a great time to connect and talk and then you look back and their face is buried in their phones . . . that becomes a challenge as a parent.” Within discussions of boundaries, Mark and other participants explained they try to open lines of communication with their children to improve engagement when mobile devices cause disengagement from family members in their physical space, such as on a car ride. George (30–39) and his wife approach boundaries with their sons in a unique way. Rather than giving an allotment of screen time per day, they handle it on a per request basis. George described their approach as “you ask, then we will decide if you can have time allotted . . . we don’t set the standard that you will always have 30 minutes . . . so it’s a complete unknown.” He explained that with this approach, they learned that it rarely gets asked for, making the boundary the norm.
As participants communicated how mobile devices help keep them connected, they also discussed the peace of mind afforded by mobile devices. Participants discussed the importance of being able to stay in contact with family members who were not geographically close and the reassurances that mobile devices offered in fostering family connection. However, paradoxically, they also discussed how family connection was disrupted because of mobile devices.
Family disconnect
While mobile devices are a catalyst for family connection, all but one of the participants (n = 25) had a specific story when they caused family disconnect. This included distractions that drew attention away from face-to-face communication at disagreeable moments, misunderstandings caused by interpretation of text messages, and disconnect that elicited negative emotional responses.
Distraction
Across the generations, participants discussed how mobile devices caused interruptions or distractions in their lives. Nolan talked about the role he allows his cell phone to play during fishing trips, “I take the phone with me, but I don’t wear it on me . . . with all the notifications . . . all these reminders and stuff . . . I mean your phone is going off every 10 minutes.” The mobile device serves to enslave him; he is then robbed of a more peaceful experience on the water with family and/or friends. Elaine, who lives in a different state than her parents, discussed her mother’s use of mobile devices during visits, “My mom gets distracted very easily when I talk to her . . . if she’s on her iPad . . . or whatever . . . she gets distracted and it’s kind of annoying.” Elaine felt that her mom was not focusing on her and the family, but overly involved in whatever device was causing disconnect from their conversation. Jack explained that his kids get frustrated with his inability to put aside his mobile device when he comes home from work. Jack said, “I’m still dealing with work-related issues . . . I’m constantly gravitating towards it and I have to consciously disconnect . . . when I am home I’m distracted.” Jack explained his paradoxical dilemma. He needed to avoid disconnect within his family and instead connect with his children when he gets home from work. No commonalities in age defined this; the distractions occurred with parents, kids, and spouses. Some participants, like Jack, admitted that they were the individual causing the distraction.
Participants also shared stories of partners becoming distracted from one another by their mobile devices. Alan (30–39) explained that, at times, when he and his wife are out to dinner and waiting for their meal, they pull out their cell phones to check their social media statuses rather than conversing with each other. He felt that was not the best use of their time out, as he stated “the downfall is that you look at it [cell phone] when you’re sitting there when you should be talking to the person sitting with you.” Katie’s online shopping on her mobile device causes distractions in her relationship with her boyfriend. She explained, “David gives me a lot of grief for doing online shopping and it might be when Sunday morning he’s reading the paper, but somehow my online shopping is distancing.” David views the cell phone as a distraction to their Sunday morning time together. However, Katie jokingly added that it can be a double standard. Interestingly, she shared this about David, “unless he wants NFL scores then he’s perfectly fine with it.” While David, who is in the 60- to 69-year-old age bracket, found Katie’s online shopping disengaging from their quiet couple time, he did not find using it for sports scores to pose that same issue. Beyond partner distractions, participants with children discussed how mobile devices caused interruptions during family times.
Participants shared that common distraction situations with families were at the dinner table and during car rides. According to Maggie, “having their phones out during a car ride . . . they are distracted by the phone . . . I would be talking to somebody . . . realizing they weren’t paying attention . . . too busy doing something on the phone.” She further explained about their dinner times, “they can’t sit and eat dinner without it going off or checking it.” Evelyn (40–49) discussed how she feels her children’s distraction with the mobile device at meal times is the biggest detriment of having the technology. She said, “they’re distracted with the phone . . . they are not engaged with you, they are communicating with somebody else.” As our participants shared, distractions added to the challenge of keeping families connected and focusing on each other. Another struggle our participants experienced with mobile devices was the ease of being misunderstood or misunderstanding others.
Misunderstandings
Misunderstandings, often influenced by lack of tone and nonverbal cues, were frequently brought up by participants, “You cannot read tone . . . that’s caused issues with probably anyone that’s ever sent or received a message,” argued Wade (30–39). He despises this about mobile devices. Jackie (30–39) explained, “the message or the tone . . . can be misinterpreted . . . we are unclear of their meaning . . . often we can’t tell if there’s an undertone of them being annoyed . . . or agitated.” Jackie illustrated that in moments like that, she just ends up making a phone call rather than continuing to text. Katrina (40–49) also believes the lack of tone and inability to assess nonverbal communications to be a downside of mobile devices and one that causes misunderstandings, you “don’t really get to see your emotions . . . you don’t know exactly their tone.” Sometimes, texting leads individuals to make incorrect judgments, as shared by Alan; he said, “you can read between the lines that aren’t there . . . it turns into . . . a spat . . . blows into something huge . . . it just gets ugly very fast over text.” It can be difficult to decipher what a person means without tone and facial expressions. Brian (60–69) prefers talking to people, “The voice, you don’t know [from texts] what they are really trying to say . . . it just seems sterile.” Throughout the interview, Brian brought up concerns about using texting on mobile technology as a primary form of communication. Participants were concerned about tone as a catalyst for being disconnected.
Misunderstandings also escalate across distance when face-to-face follow up is not possible. Elaine shared how an upload to social media caused an embarrassing misunderstanding for her deployed husband. Elaine said, “he saw these pictures on Facebook . . . he was hurt, he was embarrassed . . . thought something was happening.” Elaine explained that her husband misinterpreted a post from a mutual friend. Katrina had a similar situation when she misunderstood a post from her deployed son, This one picture . . . they were smoking this stuff what’s it called, hookah? . . . I immediately seen it and was getting ready to . . . give him a few choice words . . . a younger person in my office was around my son’s age and they were like “it’s not reefer, it is hookah.”
Katrina misunderstood her son’s picture, which in this case happened due to an intergenerational difference, and misinterpreted what was being smoked in the picture. As the participants shared their frustrations, it became evident that misunderstandings are common and a challenge for this form of communication because they tend to elicit negative emotional responses.
Negative emotional response
The distractions and misunderstandings often lead to negative emotional responses, as the participants noted. Whether individuals do not respond, do not engage, or have differing views on the appropriate use of the mobile device, situations can become volatile. Carley explained that her sister would get “so mad” due to her management of her mobile device, “I first got a cell phone, it was strictly for me . . . I didn’t care if people could get a hold of me or not.” Her sister expected Carley to be a more involved mobile device user and this caused some conflict. Becky and Brian, both empty nesters with grandchildren, become annoyed when their communication advances are ignored, “I get angry . . . I don’t like those feelings,” shared Becky. Brian said, “they won’t answer the damn phone because they choose to ignore me.” Both Brian and Becky feel slighted when family intentionally choose to disengage and ignore their calls. Brian also expressed frustration when his grandkids were grounded from using their mobile devices. Brian said, “it irritates [me] . . . I never know if he’s being punished this week.” Darwin also explained that his children and grandchildren spend their face-to-face time with their faces on their mobile devices, another form of family disengagement, “That bothers me; maybe I’m old school but it bothers me.” His time to connect with his grandchildren is being taken up by their mobile devices.
Mary (40–49) found herself disturbed by her sons’ behavior with mobile technology. She said, “if I see them sitting there for . . . a straight hour . . . it makes me crazy.” Further, she discussed that she becomes irritated when she must call them multiple times to get their attention “and they have their nose in a game.” Peggy shared similar frustrations within her extended family. Describing her sister-in-law’s around-the-clock mobile device behavior, Peggy shared, “she is not part of the conversation . . . totally engaged in Candy Crush on her phone . . . it really irritates certain family members . . . drives them crazy . . . they take it extremely offensively.” This elicits negative emotional responses from her husband and her mother-in-law since it is impossible to connect with someone who is constantly on their phone.
Family disconnect is often caused by distractions and misunderstandings that can lead to negative emotional responses. Finding the appropriate balance with communication tools can be an ongoing challenge within the paradox of family connect–family disconnect. Jack’s view on mobile devices highlights their paradoxical nature, “it’s a blessing and a curse at the same time.”
Intergenerational differences
Benefits to family connection were infused within the intergenerational stories and participant accounts, thus no remarkable differences were reported. Participants recognized ways the devices enabled connection, particularly across distance. Further, participants of all ages worked to set boundaries within their family, noted challenging situations, and the 50+ generation appreciated the younger generation’s efforts to instill boundaries within their families. However, several intergenerational differences were noted regarding mobile device usage that can cause misunderstandings and family disconnect.
Unlike family connect, family disconnect manifested itself differently between intergenerational family members in terms of usage and expectations of others’ usage. Differences included adoption of devices by those over 60. Katrina and Jackie shared that reasons for differences in device adoption are physical. Jackie admitted her father gets very frustrated, “He says his thumbs are too big.” Similarly, Katrina explained, “my dad, he’s having a hard time with the phone, seeing the phone . . . he’s physically unable, but it’s also a lot for them to learn . . . they’re not interested in learning.” Both examples illustrate a disconnect simply by family members not adopting the device. The challenges go beyond physical abilities to a lack of motivation to embark on learning to use the mobile device. Conversely, participants in the 30–59 age range did not express that as an issue for their personal adoption of mobile devices.
Beyond adoption, incorporating the mobile device as a family communication tool also has its intergenerational challenges. Darwin admitted that his children and grandchildren “are dragging me a little bit into texting.” Though he tries to connect with them in this way, he has concerns about their mobile device behavior while they are visiting with him. He is amongst other 60+ individuals that believe they have a different standard than younger family members regarding mobile device etiquette. Darwin argued, “I care, I’m offended, but they are not offended . . . they don’t care [that] they are talking and if they get interrupted, big deal.” Darwin is referring to having face-to-face family time while the mobile device is being used simultaneously. The decision to adopt or use mobile devices is closely followed by intergenerational differences in how it is being used.
Participants in the 60+ age range had difficulty understanding the reason for using the mobile device for short, efficient communication rather than using the phone feature or using longer texts. Jed claimed that “older people get discouraged . . . all he does is just say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’” Jed, who is in his 50s, observes 10- to 13-year-old kids in his family and their interactions with older family members. The older relatives do not understand the one-word answers. Jed shared his aunt’s complaints that “she’ll text . . . a detailed text, she wants information . . . they don’t answer or it’s . . . ‘yes’ or ‘no.’” Similarly, Cameron explained that his mom often misconstrues his short texts. Katrina said her parents think there’s a problem if she doesn’t call. Both Cameron and Katrina exhibited frustration for these communicative situations. The 60+ generation feel as if they are being ignored or dismissed. Brian expressed his frustration regarding his grandson’s occasional removal of his mobile devices. This situation rendered Brian unable to communicate with his grandson without using the parents as gatekeepers. Peggy’s mother-in-law believes that face-to-face time is lacking, “they [her mother-in-law’s generation] get mad . . . they get very mad. They don’t understand mobile technology.”
Considering the paradoxical effects of mobile technology use, this study brings attention to the communicative dynamics between the 60+ generation and the under-59 generation, which showed some challenges in understanding each other and in how to use the mobile device to communicate. While Yarosh et al. (2009) argue mobile devices are only effective for quick messages, not for meaningful conversations, participants in the 60+ generation disagree. Jed spoke of that issue regarding his aunts and Cameron discussed how his mother reacted negatively to one-word efficient responses. Others, such as Brian and Becky, simply feel ignored by the younger generation’s brevity. Katrina’s parents feel slighted as if they were not liked due to mobile device miscommunication, which, from their perspective, has decreased family communication. It is important to understand the various generations’ usage and expectations of others’ usage in order to facilitate healthy family communication. While the intergenerational differences primarily surfaced within the family disconnect portion of the paradox, it is important to recognize that there was not a generational gap found in family connect. Family members spanning the generations studied here recognized the benefits of mobile devices for family connection, but struggled to understand each other’s usage decisions.
Discussion
These results illustrate the consistency of this research with relevant literature while at the same time expanding our understanding of how the growth in use of mobile devices and their usage practices create a paradox within family communication. Paradox literature relevant to this study highlights two paradoxes, empowerment–enslavement and engaging-disengaging (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005). This study found the overarching paradoxical theme to be family connect–family disconnect. Consistent with the current research, it has been shown that mobile devices have the capability of fostering family connectedness (Devitt & Roker, 2009; Khan & Markopoulos, 2009; Linke, 2012; Padilla-Walker et al., 2012; Stafford & Hillyer, 2012; Villegas, 2013; Wilding, 2006) as well as causing family disconnect (Carvalho et al., 2014; Chesley, 2005; Chitakunye & Takhar, 2014; Khan & Markopoulos, 2009; Padilla-Walker et al., 2012; Villegas, 2013). Further, our understanding of the intergenerational differences regarding mobile devices and family communication was explored.
Increased mobile device ownership has resulted in their upgrade as an integral part of family communication. This relationship between mobile devices and family communication, however, is paradoxical, as the participants illustrated how mobile devices help families connect and disconnect. The family connection theme uncovered specific instances of closing the geographic gap, offering reassurances, and establishing boundaries. Participants discussed the positive role mobile devices can have in helping military families stay connected. The reassurance mobile devices offered our participants gave them the ability to know family members were safe. Reassurances and establishing boundaries are extremely positive assets afforded within family communication through use of mobile devices (Linke, 2012; Villegas, 2013; Wilding, 2006). Jarvenpaa et al.’s (2005) research found that coping strategies are imperative to help ameliorate the paradox of enslavement–empowerment by balancing the freedom the mobile device offers. This study highlights boundaries akin to Jarvenpaa, Lang, and Tuunainen’s coping strategy suggestion as means of regulating the family connect component. Along with the benefits, however, came some challenges.
We also found examples of family disconnect. Participants shared situations of misunderstandings, distractions, and negative emotional responses caused by mobile device usage. They discussed the annoyance of the distraction mobile devices caused at mealtimes. This finding supports current literature on dissension at mealtimes (Chitakunye & Takhar, 2014; Villegas, 2013). Others have discussed the importance of establishing barriers in order to avoid family disconnect; for example, Taylor (2013) discussed how adults can become just as engrossed as children in technology. The paradox of engaging–disengaging (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005) is foundational to the family disconnect paradox in this study.
Within the overarching theme of connect–disconnect, there were instances of miniparadoxes articulated by participants. While Katie’s boyfriend found her online shopping to cause a relational disconnect, his use of the device for checking sports scores did not cause disconnect, from his perspective. Elaine struggles to pay enough attention to her young daughter due to her mobile device usage, yet she gets annoyed with her mother for becoming engrossed in her iPad, therefore, ignoring her. Jack has an internal struggle about disconnecting from work in order to connect with family. Jack knows the mobile device causes a disconnect, yet the distraction is strong and he recognizes his difficulty to connect with his children.
Chitakunye and Takhar (2014) uncovered that an intergenerational divide exists in relation to mobile device usage belief systems specific to mealtimes. The results within this study take that to a new level by uncovering belief systems regarding the use of mobile devices for family communication during other family moments, as well as the level of engagement in texting and/or the phone feature. By focusing on intergenerational participants (see Table 1) outside the four walls of the home, this study allows a broader understanding of mobile devices’ influence on 21st-century family communication. By using mobile devices as a communication tool, relationships of parents, children, nonparents, grandparents, and even close friends are influenced both positively and negatively. Accordingly, intergenerational nuances are highlighted within the paradox of family connect–family disconnect.
This study brings attention to that disconnect with rich empirical data to add to the body of literature, yet its limitations pave the way for multiple discovery opportunities in future research.
Limitations and future research
Limitations noted within the findings guide the recommendations for further research. Future research studies should expand into appropriate and inappropriate decision making in relation to the use of mobile devices. The participants shared some details on bullying, intimidation, and general poor decisions of use that impact others. While this study discussed proactive approaches such as setting boundaries, it did not delve into the specific values and morals that drive the decision-making process. Participants shared concerns about misunderstandings and how lack of tone and nonverbal communication with mobile devices can influence the dynamics of family relationships. Accordingly, it is suggested to expand this research into the use of apps, as well as the use of emojis as emotional responses and their role in the effectiveness of communication.
Through the much needed expansion of age and generation in this study, the results offer broad perspectives. However, the participant selection could be expanded even more to explore parents’, kids’, and siblings’ interactions for an adequate assessment of the family relationship and communication implications of using mobile devices. That being said, it is recommended to repeat a similar study with similar questions to gather viewpoints of adolescents, teenagers, and young adults (12–29). Additionally, a network analysis study focusing on one extended family is recommended.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.