Not So Different? Student and Professional Perceptions of Mobile Phone Etiquette in Meetings

Abstract

Previous studies have noted the difficulties students have in understanding and adapting to professional workforce policies, especially mobile device usage and e-etiquette. This study focuses on determining how closely students and working professionals align in their perceptions of appropriate mobile phone usage during business meetings. After comparing the 476 student responses from our survey with a previous study, we found that student and professional perceptions aligned frequently; however, gender, age, and year in school influence student perceptions. The article concludes with suggestions for teaching and future research.

Keywords

mobile phone business communication etiquette pedagogy

According to thePew Research Center (2017), 95% of Americans own a mobile phone—and of those, 77% own a smartphone. This ubiquity has changed the way people communicate, access information, do business, and entertain themselves. In fact, from 2012 to 2015, Americans have increasingly used their smartphones to participate in video chats, shop online, and stream movies and music (Anderson, 2016). Moreover, the number of Americans using their smartphones to get directions or access information related to a location has increased from 74% to 90% during that same time period (Anderson, 2016).

The increased reliance on smartphones also impacts how business professionals communicate with other professionals. Mobile phone messaging, conference calls, and video chats can now be used in place of face-to-face meetings for short, instant communication. In some instances, however, mobile phone usage may disrupt, rather than enhance, communication (Washington, Okoro, & Cardon, 2014). For example, using a mobile phone in social settings can result in other people forming negative opinions of the mobile phone user.Vanden Abeele, Antheunis, and Schouten (2016)found that people who used their mobile phone during a conversation were perceived as less polite and less attentive. Moreover, the quality of face-to-face interactions decreases when mobile phones are used during the conversations (Turkle, 2011;Vanden Abeele et al., 2016).

Since mobile phone usage can negatively impact face-to-face conversations, some researchers have focused on perceptions of mobile phones during business meetings. For example,Washington et al. (2014)found that professionals rarely consider mobile phone usage appropriate in business meetings. Similarly, another survey found that 94% of people believe it is inappropriate to use a mobile phone in a meeting (Rainie & Zickuhr, 2015). In fact, the only locations that were more inappropriate for mobile phone usage were churches and movie theaters (Rainie & Zickuhr, 2015). College students seem to have similar perceptions of appropriate and inappropriate usage, with churches and movie theaters rated high on the list of inappropriate phone usage locations (Lipscomb, Totten, Cook, & Lesch, 2007). Similarly,Chambliss et al. (2015)found that nearly half (44%) of young adults surveyed reported that they were bothered by mobile phone usage during face-to-face interactions.

That said, previous studies have noted the difficulties students may have in understanding and adapting to professional workforce policies, especially regarding mobile device usage and e-etiquette (Langland, 2009;Leland, 2005). Moreover, younger mobile phone users (from 18 to 34 years) rely heavily on text messages, which can result in them feeling anxious or unhappy when separated from their mobile phones (Forgays, Hyman, & Schreiber, 2014). Younger mobile phone users also expect people to respond quickly to text messages (Forgays et al., 2014). Those tendencies may lead younger workers to carry and use mobile phones in a variety of social settings, such as a classroom or meeting. In fact, one study found that 92% of students admitted to texting during a class, and 30% indicated that they use mobile phones in class every day (Tindell & Bohlander, 2012).

Washington et al.’s (2014)research provided statistics regarding professional perceptions of appropriate and inappropriate mobile phone usage in business meetings. In doing so, they indicated that instructors of business and professional communication could use their findings to help students understand appropriate mobile phone etiquette in meeting settings. SinceWashington et al.’s (2014)research was published, similar studies have been conducted in different cultural workplace settings, such as a study of Chinese professionals’ perceptions of mobile phone usage in meetings (Cardon & Dai, 2014), as well as research regarding Turkish business professionals’ perceptions of mobile phone usage at work and, in particular, during meetings (Nasir & Kurtuluş, 2017). To date, however, no similar studies have been conducted to understand student perceptions of mobile phone usage in formal and informal business meetings. Yet in order to help students prepare for those professional situations, instructors must first understand how student perceptions compare with professional norms—and, as a result, what lessons need to be taught or reinforced through course materials, class discussions, and other mechanisms.

Therefore, the question this article addresses is whether students—many of whom have not been exposed to business meeting settings and who are more likely than older adults to be constantly online and rely on their smartphones (Anderson, 2016)—hold similar or different perceptions of appropriate mobile phone usage in business meeting settings in comparison with current working professionals. Our study intends to improve understanding in this area of research in order to help business and professional communication instructors lead substantive class discussions regarding effective business meeting communication norms and practices.

Background and Literature Review

While ownership of many digital devices (such as desktop and laptop computers, game consoles, MP3 players, and e-book readers) has plateaued or declined (Anderson, 2015), mobile phone and smartphone ownership has steadily increased. For example, 95% of Americans now own a mobile phone, and smartphone ownership has increased from 35% in 2011 to 77% in 2017 (Pew Research Center, 2017). In fact, smartphone ownership is nearly saturated in some market segments (Anderson, 2015), including 18- to 29-year-olds at 92% ownership and people living in households earning $75,000 or more per year at 93% ownership (Pew Research Center, 2017).

The high levels of mobile phone and smartphone ownership have changed the way people integrate their mobile phones into their daily lives. For example, 90% of Americans use a smartphone for directions or information related to their location, and 67% listen to music online (Anderson, 2016). Similarly, smartphone video chats have increased 47%, and movie/television streaming on smartphones has increased to 33% of Americans (Anderson, 2016). Some mobile phone users who are known asnomadic workerseven use their phones to conduct business while away from an office and working from their cars (Laurier, 2002;Wickham & Vecchi, 2009). In addition to changes in usage, more people have become dependent on their smartphones as their main access to the Internet, instead of purchasing a separate home broadband service (Pew Research Center, 2017).

People are not only dependent on mobile phones for access to the Internet and information but also for peace of mind. For example, on average, people check their phones once an hour (“Cell Phone Addiction,” 2012), and 84% of mobile phone owners could not go an entire day without having and checking their mobile phone (Duerson, 2012). Although there is a large body of research related to mobile phone separation, for the purposes of this study, it is important to note that there are identifiable psychological and physiological effects. For example, one study found that 46% of smartphone users say theycouldn’t livewithout a mobile device (Smith, 2015). According toSmith (2015), 77% of people reported feeling attached to their mobile phones because the devices help them avoid boredom. YetAoki and Downes (2003)noted that other people experience a sense of loss and disconnection when separated from their mobile phones. That sensation may be termedthe fear of missing out, which refers to “fears, worries, and anxieties people may have in relation to being out of touch with the events, experiences, and conversations happening across their extended social circles” (Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013, p. 1842). In addition to emotional fears, mobile phone separation may lead to increased heart rate, anxiety, and blood pressure, as well as a decline in cognitive performance (Clayton, Leshner, & Almond, 2015). Based on those psychological and physiological effects, some workers may actually experience worse performance (due to increased anxiety, etc.) by being separated from their phones than they would be if they were exposed to their mobile phone’s alerts or ringing (Clayton et al., 2015).

However, once a worker is distracted by a mobile phone ringing or a message alert, it may take up to a half hour to get back on track (González & Mark, 2004). In addition, the other workers in the room may be negatively affected. AsCampbell (2008)stated, those bystanders “may find it irritating that the mobile phone detracts from their own personal engagement in a setting that calls for their dedicated attention” (p. 78). Moreover,Przybylski and Weinstein (2013)found that even the existence of a mobile phone in a face-to-face communication setting may impede people’s ability to form personal connections. In other words, the stimuli from (or presence of) a mobile phone in a meeting setting may disrupt the person who owns the phone, the other meeting attendees, and the personal connection that should be taking place.

To understand how mobile phones affect business meetings specifically,Washington et al. (2014)conducted two surveys with a total of 554 participants nationwide. The results indicate perception differences based on both age and gender. For instance, younger working professionals (21 to 30 years) perceived mobile phone usage for actions such as texting and emailing to be appropriate in both formal and informal meeting settings, while men were almost twice as likely as women to perceive mobile phone usage as appropriate in informal settings (Washington et al., 2014). Although Washington et al. included younger working professionals in their study, it is unclear how students (who have not yet entered the workforce) perceive mobile phone usage in business meeting settings. Therefore, our study extendsWashington et al.’s (2014)work by focusing on college-level students. Understanding student perceptions of mobile phone usage in business settings and comparing them with working professionals’ perceptions can help business and professional communication instructors better prepare students for internships and employment. It can also help current working professionals prepare for younger workers to join their organizations.

Method

Our study’s objective was to understand student perceptions of appropriate mobile phone behavior during formal and informal meetings and to compare them with the perceptions of working professionals.

The location of our study was a small Midwestern university. The undergraduate student population at the time of this study was 10,467 students (based on the full-year equivalent enrollment calculation). Student participants were recruited in various large lecture classes between October 2015 and December 2015. Participation in the survey was completely voluntary, and no identifiable information was collected.

The anonymous survey was completed online by a large random sample of participants (N= 476). The survey questions (see theappendix) related to the appropriateness of mobile phone actions, which were based on the actions inWashington et al.’s (2014)survey. For the purposes of this study, however, the action “browsing the Internet” was divided into two actions: “browsing the Internet (unrelated to the meeting’s discussion)” and “searching the Internet (to answer questions raised in the meeting).” Dividing this action into two actions enabled us to measure perceptions of Internet searches that were related to a meeting compared with Internet searches that were unrelated to a meeting. Students were asked to evaluate the appropriateness of nine actions in both informal and formal meetings:

Making and answering calls

Writing and sending texts or emails

Checking text messages or emails

Checking time with phone

Checking incoming calls

Bringing a phone to a meeting

Excusing oneself to answer calls

Browsing the Internet (unrelated to the meeting’s discussion)

Searching the Internet (to answer a question raised in the meeting)

A 4-point Semantic Differential scale (consistent withWashington et al., 2014) was used to measure appropriateness: 1 =usually appropriate, 2 =sometimes appropriate, 3 =rarely appropriate, and 4 =never appropriate. The survey also included questions related to demographics in order to establish correlations between gender, age, education, and major. Demographic and classification data were measured using categorical question format. Comparisons between different categories were assessed using crosstab analysis with a chi-square test, while comparisons between categories and interval scale data were performed using analysis of variance (Ftest) and comparisons between interval scale data were assessed with linear regression (Ftest). All statistical significance was tested at thepvalue of .05.

Respondents were approximately 51% male and 49% female undergraduate students from six colleges within the university: liberal arts, science and engineering, business, education, health, and public affairs. However, most respondents (76%) were from the school of business. Respondents also represented all undergraduate levels, although freshmen only equaled 2% of respondents. Finally, the respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 30+ years old; however, 81% of respondents were 18 to 23 years old at the time the survey was conducted. SeeTable 1for detailed demographic information.

Table 1.

Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents.

	Count	Percentage
Gender
Male	241	51
Female	235	49
Age, years
18-20	184	39
21-23	199	42
24-26	52	11
27-29	20	4
30+	21	4
Academic year
Freshman	10	2
Sophomore	106	22
Junior	237	50
Senior	123	26
Major
Liberal arts	47	10
Science and engineering	36	8
Business	362	76
Education	3	<1
Health and human services	26	5
Public affairs	2	<1
Total	476	100

Approximately three fourths of the students surveyed were recruited in large lecture, business communication courses. Although those courses covered professionalism and etiquette in meetings as well as small-group communication, they did not focus specifically on mobile phone usage. The other one fourth of students surveyed were recruited in a general education psychology course that included students from a wide range of majors throughout the university. As a result, the study allowed researchers to focus on the preferences of business school and business and professional communication students, while comparing the results with students across the university to identify possible differences by major.

Results

Personal Mobile Phone Usage

We found that nearly all respondents were active users of mobile phones for a variety of activities. For example, nearly all respondents regularly used a mobile phone to check the time (96%), make and answer calls (98%), and send and read texts (99%). In addition, most respondents regularly used a mobile phone to send and receive emails (81%), send and receive social media messages (89%), and even browse and search the Internet (93%).

Although there were no significant gender differences regarding the usage of mobile phones to check the time, send and read texts, and browse or search the Internet, we found that females use mobile phones more than males to make more calls (crosstab, χ²test,p= .036), to send and read more emails (crosstab, χ²test,p= .001), and to send and read more social media (crosstab, χ²test,p= .001).

In terms of usage differences by age group, the only significant difference was that younger participants (aged 18 to 23 years) indicated that they use mobile phones to send and receive social media far more than other ages (crosstab, χ²test,p= .001). Similarly, only one significant difference in mobile phone usage was found when comparing career fields. According to our survey data, science and engineering students indicated they use mobile phones to send and read social media far less than other majors (crosstab, χ²test,p= .001).

Last, we found no significant differences between students’ year in school and their use of mobile phones to check the time, make calls, send and read texts, send and read social media, and browse or search the Internet. However, our findings did indicate that freshmen use mobile phones to send and read emails more than students in other academic year categories (crosstab, χ²test,p= .028). That finding may be the result of the small number of freshmen who participated in the study (n= 10, which was only 2% of all participants).

Overall, our data indicated that most of the students in each academic year category regularly use mobile phones to send and read emails: 100% of freshmen, 83% of sophomores, 83% of juniors, and 72% of seniors. This finding is interesting in light of the often-repeated phrase that “email is dead”—especially among younger generations who are just starting to enter the workforce (Wohlsen, 2014). This topic is discussed more in the concluding section focused on implications and future research.

Formal Meetings

The survey asked respondents to evaluate the appropriateness of nine activities in a formal meeting setting. In general, respondents indicated it isnot appropriateto use a mobile phone in a formal meeting to make or answer calls (M= 3.54,SD= 0.715), write or send texts/emails (M= 3.58,SD= 0.717), check text messages or emails (M= 3.52,SD= 0.770), check incoming calls (M= 3.29,SD= 0.852), check the time (M= 3.19,SD= 0.951), or browse the Internet on topics unrelated to a meeting’s discussion (M= 3.85,SD= 0.515). However, respondents believed itwould be appropriateto excuse oneself to answer calls (M= 2.74,SD= 0.832), bring a mobile phone to a formal meeting (M= 2.33,SD= 1.012), and use a phone to search the Internet in response to a question raised in the discussion (M= 2.50,SD= 0.936).

In terms of demographic differences, we found that females disapprove of making and answering calls, writing and sending texts/emails, checking texts/emails, checking calls, and even bringing a mobile phone to a formal meeting more than males do (crosstab, χ²test,p< .05). In addition, when we compared those activities with the academic year categories, we found one significant difference: As the year in school increased, students were more likely to perceive bringing a mobile phone to a formal meeting as inappropriate (β = −0.087,SE= 0.04,p= .029).

Informal Meetings

The survey also asked respondents to evaluate the appropriateness of the nine activities in an informal meeting setting. In general, respondents indicated it is appropriate to do most of the activities, except for browsing the Internet when it is unrelated to the meeting’s discussion (M= 3.28,SD= 0.866). Of the activities that are deemed appropriate, respondents indicated that it is most appropriate to bring a phone to an informal meeting (M= 1.67,SD= 0.801), to search the Internet to answer a question raised in an informal meeting (M= 1.86,SD= 0.913), and to excuse oneself from an informal meeting to answer a call (M= 1.93,SD= 0.835).

In terms of demographic differences, we found that as their academic year increased, respondents were more likely to believe it is appropriate to check a mobile phone to see who was calling in an informal meeting (β = 0.107,SE= 0.058,p= .066). Similarly, as age increased, respondents were more likely to believe it was appropriate to excuse oneself from an informal meeting to answer a call (β = 0.0169,SE= 0.075,p= .024). However, as a person’s age increased, respondents believed checking texts/emails was more inappropriate during an informal meeting (β = −0.221,SE= 0.097,p= .023). Finally, in terms of gender, females were more likely than males to disapprove of all nine activities (analysis of variance,Ftest,SD> 0.9,p< .05).

Discussion

Previous studies have noted the difficulties students may have in understanding and adapting to professional workforce policies, especially regarding mobile device usage and e-etiquette (Langland, 2009;Leland, 2005). This study was designed to extend research conducted byWashington et al. (2014)in order to determine how closely students and working professionals align in their perceptions of appropriate mobile phone usage during formal and informal business meetings.

Formal Meetings

Our data indicate that, in broad terms, business student perceptions align well with professional perceptions of appropriate mobile phone actions in formal meetings (seeFigure 1).

Figure 1.

Percentage of students and professionals who indicated they would rarely or never perform each action in a formal meeting.

For example,Washington et al. (2014)found that professionals believe theleastappropriate mobile phone actions include

Making and answering calls

Writing and sending texts/emails

Checking texts/emails

Browsing the Internet

On the other hand, professionals believe the following actions to bemoreappropriate in a formal meeting:

Excusing oneself to answer calls

Bringing a phone to a meeting

SeeTable 2for detailed data fromWashington et al. (2014).

Table 2.

Professional Perceptions of Appropriateness of Mobile Phone Actions During Formal Meetings.

	M	SD	# who say rarely/never	% who say rarely/never
Make and answer calls	3.39	0.82	305	87.1
Write and send texts or emails	3.38	0.87	294	84.0
Check texts or emails	3.15	0.95	266	76.0
Browse Internet	3.17	0.95	265	75.7
Check time w/phone	2.75	1.03	202	57.7
Check incoming calls	2.73	0.98	196	56.0
Bring phone to formal meeting	2.63	0.97	195	55.7
Excuse oneself to answer call	2.69	0.88	191	54.6

Source. Washington et al. (2014). Reproduced by permission.

When compared with the professionals’ perceptions, students perceived the same four actions as beingleastappropriate during a formal meeting:

Browsing the Internet (unrelated to the meeting)

Making and answering calls

Writing and sending texts/emails

Checking texts/emails

Similarly, students were in agreement with professionals that excusing oneself to answer calls and bringing a phone to a meeting aremoreappropriate.

One interesting finding is that students distinguished the appropriateness of browsing/searching the Internet based on whether that action related to the meeting’s discussion. Specifically, students perceived browsing the Internet (unrelated to the meeting) as theleastappropriate action a person could take when attending a formal meeting. In contrast, students perceived searching the Internet (related to the meeting) as the second most appropriate action (ranking just below bringing a phone to a formal meeting in terms of appropriateness). SeeTable 3for detailed data related to formal meeting actions.

Table 3.

Student Perceptions of Appropriateness of Mobile Phone Actions During Formal Meetings (Ranked From Least Appropriate to Most Appropriate).

	M	SD	# who say rarely/never	% who say rarely/never
Browse Internet (unrelated to meeting)	3.85	0.515	456	95.8
Make and answer calls	3.54	0.715	443	93.0
Write and send texts or emails	3.58	0.717	439	92.2
Check texts or emails	3.52	0.770	423	88.8
Check incoming calls	3.29	0.852	384	80.6
Check time w/phone	3.19	0.951	355	74.6
Excuse oneself to answer call	2.74	0.832	296	62.2
Search Internet (related to meeting)	2.50	0.936	203	42.6
Bring phone to formal meeting	2.33	1.012	195	41.0

Informal Meetings

In terms of informal meetings, student perceptions again aligned well with professional perceptions of appropriate mobile phone actions (seeFigure 2).

Figure 2.

Percentage of students and professionals who indicated they would rarely or never perform each action in an informal meeting.

For example,Washington et al. (2014)found that professionals believe theleastappropriate mobile phone actions in an informal setting include

Writing and sending texts/emails

Making and answering calls

Browsing the Internet

Checking texts/emails

Although they are in a slightly different order, those are the same four actions that professionals perceived as being the least appropriate in a formal meeting as well. On the other hand, professionals believe the following actions to bemoreappropriate in an informal meeting:

Checking the time with a mobile phone

Bringing a phone to a meeting

SeeTable 4for detailed data fromWashington et al. (2014).

Table 4.

Professional Perceptions of Appropriateness of Mobile Phone Actions During Informal Meetings.

	M	SD	# who say rarely/never	% who say rarely/never
Write and send texts or emails	2.89	0.97	232	66.3
Make and answer calls	2.69	0.92	215	61.4
Browse Internet	3.83	1.02	215	61.4
Check texts or emails	2.59	0.97	186	53.1
Excuse oneself to answer call	2.23	0.90	119	34.0
Check incoming calls	2.23	0.91	118	33.7
Check time w/phone	2.19	0.96	115	32.9
Bring phone to informal meeting	1.92	0.88	77	22.0

Source. Washington et al. (2014). Reproduced by permission.

Once again, the student perceptions nearly mimic the professional perceptions. When compared with the professionals’ perceptions, students perceived the same four actions (although in a slightly different order) as beingleastappropriate during an informal meeting:

Browsing the Internet (unrelated to the meeting)

Making and answering calls

Writing and sending texts/emails

Checking texts/emails

Similarly, students were in agreement with professionals that bringing a phone to a meeting would bemoreappropriate. Here again, however, students distinguished between the appropriateness of browsing/searching the Internet based on whether that action related to the meeting’s discussion. As they did with formal meeting appropriateness, students perceived searching the Internet (related to the meeting) as the second most appropriate action (ranking just below bringing a phone to an informal meeting in terms of appropriateness). SeeTable 5for detailed data related to students’ perceptions of informal meeting actions.

Table 5.

Student Perceptions of Appropriateness of Mobile Phone Actions During Informal Meetings (Ranked From Least Appropriate to Most Appropriate).

	M	SD	# who say rarely/never	% who say rarely/never
Browse Internet (unrelated to meeting)	3.28	0.866	385	80.9
Make and answer calls	2.71	0.889	278	58.4
Write and send texts or emails	2.67	0.930	270	56.7
Check texts or emails	2.59	0.943	246	51.6
Check incoming calls	2.36	0.943	206	43.3
Check time	2.12	0.957	152	31.9
Excuse oneself to answer call	1.93	0.835	110	23.1
Search Internet (related to meeting)	1.86	0.913	94	19.8
Bring phone to informal meeting	1.67	0.801	79	16.6

In general, student perceptions were in alignment with professional perceptions, and the student perceptions were remarkably consistent in terms of actions they perceived as least and most appropriate, regardless of whether the meeting was formal or informal. Although that consistency may imply that students are not able to differentiate formal from informal meeting etiquette, it should be noted that professional perceptions were also fairly similar between the two settings (with only minor differences in ranking).

Since the survey conducted byWashington et al. (2014)did not distinguish between reasons for browsing/searching the Internet, we were not able to compare our data with the professional perceptions. However, students did align with the professional perception that browsing the Internet on a mobile phone for reasons unrelated to the discussion is inappropriate in both formal and informal meetings. We believe it is also a positive note that students were able to distinguish between related and unrelated browsing/searching. Since related browsing/searching may be helpful in answering a question raised during a meeting, it is understandable why students perceived that action as appropriate in both formal and informal settings.

Student Versus Professional Demographic Perceptions

When comparing student and professional demographic data, we found a number of similarities. For example, in terms of gender,Washington et al. (2014)found that female professionals are less accepting of mobile phone usage during informal meetings, while our study found that female students are less accepting of mobile phone usage in both formal and informal meetings. Those findings are interesting in light of our finding that female students use mobile phones more than males to make more calls, send and read more emails, and send and read more social media. In other words, female students are more likely than males to use mobile phones to stay connected outside of meetings but disapprove of using them during meetings.

Similarly, our study aligns withWashington et al.’s (2014)finding that younger people are more accepting of mobile phone usage in meetings. In particular, we found that as students’ ages increase, they are less accepting of checking texts/emails during an informal meeting. In addition, as their year in school increases, students are less likely to even bring a mobile phone to a formal meeting. This may indicate that students develop more professional perceptions about business and communication etiquette as they progress through college.

Implications and Future Research

Although perceptions of mobile phone usage may be influenced by cultural values and contextual norms (e.g.,Campbell, 2008;Shuter & Chattopadhyay, 2014), students must be exposed to specific situations or concepts in order for that influence and acculturation to occur. In other words, appropriate business behaviors are not inherently known, but must be learned or experienced. The question this article addressed is whether students—many of whom have not been exposed to business meeting settings and have a greater likelihood of relying on mobile phones rather than face-to-face communication—understand appropriate mobile phone usage in business meeting settings in comparison to current working professionals. Although previous studies have noted the difficulties students have in understanding and adapting to professional policies such as mobile device usage and e-etiquette (Langland, 2009;Leland, 2005), our study found that student perceptions align fairly well with professional perceptions of appropriate mobile phone usage during meetings. Instead of refuting previous studies’ findings, our research may provide a glimpse of the acculturation process when students begin to assimilate to the professional business culture. Specifically, we found that students tend to develop more professional perceptions of appropriate behavior as they progress through college. In other words, as they progress through their studies, students work through some of the differences and difficulties to slowly develop a better understanding of workplace expectations and etiquette. The paragraphs below expand on that finding in more detail with suggestions for both teaching and future research.

Although we found that students tend to develop more professional perceptions of appropriate behavior as they progress through college, our research did not indicate where or how students were taught this behavior. This is important because it would help instructors understand which sources or activities are most effective at preparing students for professional meeting behaviors. Although one resource may be textbooks, we reviewed six popular textbooks on business and professional communication and were unable to find information regarding mobile phone etiquette in meetings. In fact, most textbooks offer only one or two brief mentions of mobile phones, without providing specific suggestions or exercises regarding phone etiquette in meeting settings.

Another source might be professional development activities (such as job shadowing, internships, campus leadership meetings, etc.) that are available to students as they progress through college. This might explain the business acculturation process—namely, why increases in age and year in school result in phone usage perceptions that mimic working professionals. In other words, older, more experienced students may have participated in more professional development activities and, as a result, have witnessed appropriate and inappropriate behaviors in those settings. After all, in contexts where college students have personal experience (such as churches and movie theaters), their perceptions align with the norms of older adults (Lipscomb et al., 2007;Rainie & Zickuhr, 2015).

That said, instructors of business and professional communication can play an important role in helping students develop those understandings. First, instructors can encourage professional development opportunities. Those opportunities may include job shadowing and internships, but they may also include conducting informational interviews or attending campus organization meetings for course credit. Second, instructors who want to help students develop those understandings sooner, or who want to make sure students do not fall through the cracks (especially those students who do not participate in professional development activities for various reasons), can assign readings from trusted business publications or field-specific trade journals to help students learn appropriate behaviors in specific settings or industries (which is important because a large health care organization may have different policies for mobile phone usage than a small tech start-up). Third, after students participate in developmental activities or review trusted sources on business etiquette, instructors can lead class discussions on the lessons learned as well as differences in terms of industry, gender, age, and so on. During such conversations, it may be useful for instructors to connect mobile phone usage in meetings to the etiquette in settings that students are familiar with, such as churches and movie theaters.

In addition to those suggestions for teaching, we identified three areas that deserve further research. First, since this study mimickedWashington et al.’s (2014)research on formal and informal meetings, we did not focus specifically on virtual meetings (with or without webcams) or conference calls in which participants were located at remote sites. Although some work has been done on perceptions of multitasking during meetings (Marlow, van Everdingen, & Avrahami, 2016), more information is needed in order to understand student and professional perceptions of appropriate mobile phone usage in remote meeting settings.

Second, our data indicated that most of the students in each academic year category regularly use mobile phones to send and read emails; however, the percentage appears to decrease as the year in school increases: 100% of freshmen, 83% of sophomores, 83% of juniors, and 72% of seniors. This finding is interesting in light of the often-repeated phrase that “email is dead”—especially among younger generations who are just starting to enter the workforce (Wohlsen, 2014). Despite such claims, recent research indicated that students prefer to use email instead of social media for professional and academic communication (Towner & Klemz, 2016). Our research can be seen as extending that finding by clarifying that students tend to use their mobile phones when sending and reading emails. Future research might focus on email usage by younger generations as compared with their social media usage. In particular, studies could focus on response times for email versus social media, which subjects or topics younger generations prefer to discuss using email or social media, longitudinal studies on perceptions of email and social media usage (especially as students transition from their early college years to the professional workplace), and even correlations between industries and email or social media usage. Additionally, studies may focus on the perceptions or stereotypes that current working professionals may use to label younger generations’ communication preferences—and how those stereotypes influence professional communication in companies with prominent generational gaps among their employees.

Finally, in terms of gender,Washington et al. (2014)found that female professionals are less accepting of mobile phone usage during informal meetings, while our study found that female students are less accepting of mobile phone usage in both formal and informal meetings. This finding is particularly interesting because our study also found that females use mobile phones more than males to make more calls, to send and read more emails, and to send and read more social media. In other words, females are more likely to use mobile phones, but are less likely to view their usage as appropriate in a meeting setting. This finding aligns with previous research findings that females tend to believe mobile phones should be more restricted in social settings (Forgays et al., 2014). Although those results may indicate differences in the ways that genders perceive communication technology, it may actually be that males and females react differently to the nonverbal signal associated with looking at a mobile phone screen rather than the other people in a room. Since the act of looking at a mobile phone screen sends a nonverbal message of disinterest in face-to-face interaction (Nakamura, 2015), and since females are more likely than males to use mobile phones in order to avoid interaction with other people (Baron & Campbell, 2012), females may be more likely to view mobile phone usage in a business meeting as inappropriate or even disrespectful. Again, more information is needed before this explanation can be confirmed. Therefore, we recommend further research (perhaps through interviews and focus groups combined with actual business meeting observations) on the thoughts that guide female perceptions of mobile phones in business meeting settings.

Footnotes

Appendix

Authors’ Note

An early version of the data was presented at the 81st annual meeting of the Association for Business Communication, Albuquerque, NM, 2016. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of St. Cloud State University (Approval No. 1296-1835).

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

Emil B. Towneris an associate professor of business communication in the Herberger Business School at St. Cloud State University. His research interests focus on professional and technical communication.

Heidi L. Everettis an assistant professor in the School of Communication and Journalism at Minnesota State University Moorhead. Her research focuses on ethics, advertising, and technical communication.

Bruce R. Klemzis a professor of marketing in the Herberger Business School at St. Cloud State University. His research focuses on the use of technology in services and international service settings.

References

Anderson

(2015).Technology device ownership: 2015. Retrieved from Pew Research Center website:http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/

Anderson

(2016).More Americans using smartphones for getting directions, streaming TV. Retrieved from Pew Research Center website:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/29/us-smartphone-use/

Aoki

Downes

E. J.

(2003).An analysis of young people’s use of and attitudes toward cell phones.Telematics and Informatics,20,349-364.

Baron

N. S.

Campbell

E. M.

(2012).Gender and mobile phones in cross-national context.Language Sciences,34,13-27.

Campbell

S. W.

(2008).Perceptions of mobile phone use in public: The roles of individualism, collectivism, and focus of the setting.Communication Reports,21,70-81.https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210802301506

Cardon

P. W.

Dai

(2014).Mobile phone use in meetings among Chinese professionals: Perspectives on multicommunication and civility.Global Advances in Business and Communication Conference & Journal,3,1-27.

Cell phone addiction driven by impulsivity, materialism: Study.(2012,November 29).Huffington Post. Retrieved fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/cell-phone-addiction-instant-messaging-impulsivity-_n_2213086.html/

Chambliss

Short

Hopkins-DeSantis

Putnam

Martin

Millington

. . . Lee

(2015).Young adults’ experience of mobile device disruption of proximate relationships.International Journal of Virtual Worlds and Human Computer Interaction,3,10-17.

Clayton

R. B.

Leshner

Almond

(2015).The extended iSelf: The impact of iPhone separation on cognition, emotion, and physiology.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,20,119-135.

10.

Duerson

M. H.

(2012,August 16).We’re addicted to our phones: 84% Worldwide say they couldn’t go a single day without their mobile device in their hand.Daily News. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/addicted-phones-84-worldwide-couldn-single-day-mobile-device-hand-article-1.1137811/

11.

Forgays

D. K.

Hyman

Schreiber

(2014).Texting everywhere for everything: Gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use.Computers in Human Behavior,31,314-321.

12.

González

V. M.

Mark

(2004).“Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness”: Managing multiple working spheres. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp.113-120).New York, NY:ACM.https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985707

13.

Langland

(2009).Evolving e-etiquette in the workplace.National Association of Colleges and Employees Journal,69,37-40.

14.

Laurier

(2002).The region as a socio-technical accomplishment of mobile workers. In Brown

Green

Harper

(Eds.),Wireless world: Social and interactional aspects of the mobile age(pp.46-61).London, England:Springer.

15.

Leland

(2005,July 9).In the cell-etiquette wars, the workplace is a front line.The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/business/worldbusiness/in-the-celletiquette-wars-the-workplace-is-a-front.html

16.

Lipscomb

T. J.

Totten

J. W.

Cook

R. A.

Lesch

(2007).Cellular phone etiquette among college students.International Journal of Consumer Studies,31,46-56.

17.

Marlow

van Everdingen

Avrahami

(2016).Taking notes or playing games? Understanding multitasking in video communication. InProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(pp.1726-1737).New York, NY:ACM.https://doi.org./10.1145/2818048.2819975

18.

Nakamura

(2015).The action of looking at a mobile phone display as nonverbal behavior/communication: A theoretical perspective.Computers in Human Behavior,43,68-75.

19.

Nasır

Kurtuluş

(2017).Perceptions of business professionals towards mobile device usage.Online Journal of Science and Technology,7(3),74-79.

20.

Pew Research Center. (2017).Mobile fact sheet. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/

21.

Przybylski

A. K.

Murayama

DeHaan

C. R.

Gladwell

(2013).Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out.Computers in Human Behavior,29,1841-1848.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014

22.

Przybylski

A. K.

Weinstein

(2013).Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,30,237-246.

23.

Rainie

Zickuhr

(2015).Americans’ views on mobile etiquette. Retrieved from Pew Research Center website:http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/americans-views-on-mobile-etiquette/

24.

Shuter

Chattopadhyay

(2014).A cross-national study of cultural values and contextual norms of mobile phone activity.Journal of Multicultural Discourses,9,61-70.

25.

Smith

(2015).U.S. smartphone use in 2015.Retrieved from Pew Research Center website:http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/

26.

Tindell

D. R.

Bohlander

R. W.

(2012).The use and abuse of cell phones and text messaging in the classroom: A survey of college students.College Teaching,60,1-9.https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2011.604802

27.

Towner

E. B.

Klemz

B. R.

(2016).Social media in business and professional communication courses: A survey of student preferences.Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,79,331-347.https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615628017

28.

Turkle

(2011).Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other.New York, NY:Basic Books.

29.

Vanden Abeele

M. M. P.

Antheunis

M. L.

Schouten

A. P

. (2016).The effect of mobile messaging during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality.Computers in Human Behavior,62,562-569.

30.

Washington

M. C.

Okoro

E. A.

Cardon

P. W.

(2014).Perceptions of civility for mobile phone use in formal and informal meetings.Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,77,52-64.

31.

Wickham

Vecchi

(2009).The importance of business travel for industrial clusters: Making sense of nomadic workers.Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography,91,245-255.

32.

Wohlsen

(2014,January 21).The next big thing you missed: Email’s about to die, argues Facebook co-founder.Wired. Retrieved fromhttp://www.wired.com/2014/01/next-big-thing-missed-facebook-co-founder-says-email/