Technology Gap: Exploring the Demographic Difference in Smartphone Appeal and Usage

McNair Scholar: Tony Pattin, Indiana University Bloomington Faculty Mentor: Dr. Jeffrey Bardzell, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University Bloomington Summer 2011

Abstract: Interactive technology such as smartphones creates a different user experience for mobile adopters. Three concerns that will be discussed in this paper are: design features, user behaviors, and felt experiences. The present study will be exploring the demographic differences of smartphones users and how income and education level affect smartphone adopters usage and appeal. Age being one of the main factors, this research will examine both younger and older smartphone users. This study shows how socioeconomic statuses affect users attraction to certain phone features, which leads to different individual experiences during human-system interaction between both age cohorts.

As the McNair Scholars Program faculty research mentor for Tony Pattin, I approve this paper. Faculty Research Mentor Signature: _______________________________________ Date: _____________________
This project is funded by a four-year $1,083,020 grant from the U.S. Department of Education Grant # P217A80085

Tony Pattin

Smartphone Appeal and Usage

Introduction

For consumers today, especially in the present digital age, advanced wireless mobile technology, such as smartphones are becoming more ubiquitous. With an estimated 4.6 billion mobile phones sold globally, mobile smartphones are the most popular personal technology (International Telecommunications Union, 2010). The use of smart phones has increased, and the market provides a variety of smartphones for consumers, such as Android, IOS, Windows, and BlackBerry. There has been a major rise in competition between the existing mobile providers. Recently, it was reported that Android takes up almost 50% of the smartphone market with Apples IOS being the second largest smartphone market worldwide (Canalys, 2011). In order to compete with popular devices, companies are gradually improving both the design and developer features of these new devices, keeping users eager for the next available device. Given the popularity of smartphones, it is important to know what features are attractive to younger and older mobile users. Three concerns that will be discussed in this paper: design features, user behaviors, and felt experiences. This research hypothesizes that these three elements are different among younger low/high SES mobile users and older low/high SES users. Smartphones are primarily designed for young and middle aged users. Younger adults use their mobile phones for listening to music, sharing videos, playing games, performing general Internet functions, and keeping in touch with friends. Because these age groups are the target market, older adopters are often ignored in literature. In addition to examining the age differences in smartphone usage, this paper will explore income and level of education to understand if within different age groups; certain SES factors influence the interaction with and usage of smartphones.

Review of Literature

2.1 Age Difference in Smartphone Attraction When mobile users between the ages 16 and 22 years old, is looking to purchase a smartphone, an initial perception of the smartphone is important. Usually, an initial perception is made based on an attractor that draws the user to the particular device (Carroll & Howard, 2002). Mobile designers concentrate on younger users preferences, since they are the majority of population that uses these devices. Younger people have different preference styles than older users. This group has become aestheticized with their personal technology (Wilska, 2003). Self- expression and having their individual identity expressed through their gadgets are part of how younger adults consume new emerging technology (Wilska, 2003). Studies have shown that not only is a technological function of a new tool important when considering adopting mobile phones, but younger adopters perceive smartphones as fashion (Jiang, 2011). It is important for them to discover their own style, and these individual styles can be seen in their interaction with mobile telephones. Additionally, Jiang (2011) noted that some functional advantages that young people found useful in smartphones were a full size screen, endless list of applications, and reliable Internet access. Comparing smartphones to older model mobile phones (which do not have
1 The 2011 McNair Scholars Research Program

Tony Pattin

Smartphone Appeal and Usage

many applications, email, games, etc.), younger users were displeased with their old devices because of the lack of Internet and design of the phone. Second to aesthetics, cost is another important attractor that influences the purchases of these devices. The younger mobile users determine if the device is affordable, and if they cannot afford this technology, they will reject it (Carroll & Howard, 2002). A recent study showed that younger mobile users see the importance of having features on their phones such as alarm clocks, calendar, and email (Rahtmati et al., 2011). However, having an easy to use menu, alarm clocks and calendars on smartphones were also attractive and important features to older users (Ziefle & Bay, 2005). Even though these features were important to this age group, it was often harder for older adopters to use these services with ease. According to Ziefle and Bay (2005), knowledge of how functions are arranged hierarchically and where each function is located, improves performance when using mobile phones. Younger users have a higher knowledge of the functions on smartphones compared to older users. The reasons older users have difficulty is that they are less experienced with menu-driven technology or they have a decline in memory capacity that does not let them remember the functions easily, as seen in younger adopters (Ziefle & Bay, 2005). The need for mobile Internet services and the various applications that are available are not as important to older users. The older generation use mobile phones for limited purposes and do not intend to download music or play games as much (Kurniawan & Mahmud, 2011). Massimi and colleagues (2007) note that when observing older users, they often engaged in the following interactions with their phones: receiving phone calls, adding notes to both their calendar and address book, and taking pictures. Older users work well multiple applications and voice functions, as long as they are not too complex. Essentially, it appears that older users have different preferences than do younger users. Further, in Ziefles (2002) research, she finds that mobile users perform better when dealing with phones that are less complex. The complexity of mobile devices is affecting older adults between 50 and 64 years of age, because they usually take more time to complete mobile tasks. A lot of new devices have complex menu structures and older adopters may struggle with understanding these menu interfaces due to a decrease in cognition skills, particularly spatial visualization abilities, over time. That is why some older users desire their mobile devices to have large display screens, and the ability to zoom in and out on text (Kurniawan, 2008). 2.2 How Income Affects Mobile Experience Wireless technologies such as mobile devices, are commonly expected to have a higher correlation with adopters, who have a higher income (Castell et al, 2004). Mobile devices are becoming more advanced, and applications are becoming more expensive, thus creating the assumption that there is a higher adoption of mobile devices in high socioeconomic statuses (Castell et al, 2004). Castell and colleagues (2004) note that in a national representative survey in 2000 showed that users income is an important predictor of mobile phone adoption. Income is often a reason for mobile adopters to either continue or stop using emerging technology.
2 The 2011 McNair Scholars Research Program

Tony Pattin

Smartphone Appeal and Usage

In contrast to those with higher income, younger users that are in a household where the

income is under $30,000 a year are more likely to pay their own phone plan (Brown et al., 2011). In fact, 23% of teens with low income pay their own phone bills, and only 4% of teens from households with higher incomes pay their own phone bills. Research by Brown, Campbell, and Long (2011) shows that younger adults that paid their own phone bill used more of the features and services that the phone offered than younger users that did not pay their monthly bill. Lower income youth use their mobile devices for the Internet at significantly higher rates than teens that have higher household earnings. In households that earn less than $30,000 per year, 41% of youth use their mobile phones to access the Internet compared 23% of youth in households that earn more than $30,000 per year (Brown, Campbell & Ling, 2011). This disparity may exist because lower income teens lack access to other information communication technologies (ICT), such as PCs and tablets. Therefore, low income users accept mobile technology as an alternative way to access the Internet. Smartphones tend to be inexpensive and provide access to the Internet for young users with lower household incomes who do not have the Internet on desktop computers or laptops. Rice & Katz (2003) show that in the United States, and in developing countries, it is usually the lower income population that uses mobile technology before any other adopters, due to the lack of access to other wireless communication technology. 2.3 Mobile adoption in Education Education is often correlated to comfort in the use of high technology (Wareham, Levy, & Shi, 2003). However, it has been reported that mobile devices require less technological proficiency to operate than desktop and laptop computers. Therefore, some mobile adoption barriers that are associated with lack of education may be eliminated (Wareham, et al, 2003). Mobile phones have evolved, and designers have continued to make sure these new wireless technologies are user friendly for the general population, so that education is not a significant predictor for mobile adoption than it has been previously found (Wareham et al, 2003). When looking at students, the majority of students own a simple mobile phone (86%), with only 12% of undergraduates owning a smart phone in 2007. This is a big increase in smartphone ownership compared to 2005 when the percentage was only 1.2% (Caruso & Salaway, 2007). Younger students are majority of users that have adopted and use advanced mobile wireless technology. Smith, Caruso and Salaway (2007), note that students who stated that they used the Internet from their mobile devices were most likely to be early adopters of the emerging technology. Young college students were found to mainly use their devices to communicate on social networking sites, entertainment, social communication, and emergency purposes (Cotten, 2008). When studying the adoption of smartphone application usage in college students, 50% of downloaded applications were games. Games were also where majority of the students spent their money (Rahmati et al., 2011). Although games are installed on smartphones more than other applications, social networking still accounts for more usage
3 The 2011 McNair Scholars Research Program

Tony Pattin

Smartphone Appeal and Usage

than other media/entertainment applications. Social networking applications and games tend to be the most adopted by this cohort. Rahmati and colleagues (2011) confirm this in their research. They found that these applications are often installed and uninstalled more than reference and news applications. Younger users are most likely to get bored with their entertainment applications and tend to keep applications around longer that provide good use of functionality. What seem to be the most important features on smartphones to most of the students were the alarm clock, calendar, and email. These listed applications helped students throughout their college years and were used most often for professional reasons. Games and social networking applications were used for personal communication and are not as important (Rahmati, 2011). 2.4 Limitations There has been little to no research on smartphone usage and appeal among older adopters to determine if smartphones serve the same purpose for this group as they do for younger users. According to Renaud and Bijon (2008), the appropriation phase is often skipped among older adopters. Appropriation happens when the user evaluates the technology after the buying stage and adapts to it, so that it can satisfy their daily needs. Not participating in this stage often can lead older users to a poor mobile experience. For example, ease of learning, and the usability of a smartphone tends to be a problem that arises among older adopters. In addition, little is known about differences among the older adopters SES, particularly income, and how they are likely to affect users interaction with smartphones. The lack of understanding about older smartphone users is possibly due to phone designers and researchers not including older peoples opinions and attitudes when developing mobile phones (Kurniawan, 2008). It is not commonly found in articles how statuses, such as income, level of education, and work status affect the access of mobile technology for older users. For example, when looking at how SES affects access, it was often discussed in articles how someone who cannot afford this technology compared to someone who can afford it. Although this seems relative to the current research study, there was no discussion on how this access affects their appeal or usage towards the mobile wireless technology. Therefore, the present research is exploring how these variables affect the usage and appeal users have with emerging technologies.

The 2011 McNair Scholars Research Program

Tony Pattin

Smartphone Appeal and Usage

Research Methods

3.1 Research Questions I am investigating younger and older adopters use of smartphones and how their behaviors and experiences are different. While using income and education as subvariables, the question that is raised here is: Do certain socioeconomic statuses affect the experience and behavior that mobile consumers have with their devices? The research is hypothesizing that design features, user behavior, and felt experiences are different among the young and older cohorts. To gather information on behaviors and experiences on the selected sample, several questions were created for each concern: Behavior: 1. How does income affect how different age groups use smartphones? 2. Does income influence how older and younger users interact with different mobile applications? 3. Do students who attend college use different applications than other SES groups? 4. How do low SES students and high SES students interact differently with smartphones than older adults in low and high SES groups? Experience: 1. Why are younger adopters more interested in the appeal and usage of mobile technology than older users? 2. Do income and education affect older users mobile experience differently than younger mobile adopters? 3. Do users have higher satisfaction with smartphones if they have high SES? a. Do users have a higher satisfaction with smartphones if they have low SES? 4. Does compulsive usage lead to personal satisfaction in smartphone users in different SES groups? These questions will help me get a better understanding of how SES factors influence smartphone usage within different demographic groups. My interest is finding the needs and desires of smartphone adoption and why particular cohorts use the emerging technology. For future purposes, this will enable designers to help improve the design process for different SES users. 3.2 Field Study Participants Users in the study will consist of both young college students and older adults. There will be 50-100 participants recruited from two different socioeconomic status groups gathered at a public research university, Indiana University. Some of the students will live on campus while others will live in off campus housing. Majority of the older adopters will not be living on campus, so gathering information for this group will require more work. Once having enough participants for the study, the two demographic groups will then be separated into low SES groups and high SES groups, with an emphasis on income and

The 2011 McNair Scholars Research Program

Tony Pattin

Smartphone Appeal and Usage

education. Demographic variables will consist of both women and men between the ages of 18 and 34 and 50 and 64. 3.3 Questionnaire To collect data, there will be an online survey/questionnaire (See Appendix A). The questionnaire will cover questions regards to demographic and SES information, appeal towards smartphones, features used during interaction, and what they like most about their mobile device. There will be an online questionnaire available along with me distributing questionnaires offline randomly throughout Bloomington. This is to ensure that I reach a generalization of participants who have low and high SES. For older adopters, I will be visiting locations where I can potentially find users who are between the ages of 50 and 64. All participants are required to have ownership of a smartphone when completing the survey. 3.4 Expected Findings Smartphones have become an integral part of both younger and older adopters daily lives. When it comes to smartphone usage in the two demographic groups, there are many features and applications that are downloaded and used by both groups. Features that are used most often by both groups of users are social communication, email, and news. Although younger user and older users share some common interest when using features on their device, older adopters significantly have more issues when interacting with their device such as, ease of learning and usability. Aside from usage, young mobile adopters tend to focus on aesthetics when purchasing their mobile device while older users do not pay as much attention to detail when it comes to smartphones. To sum up, I expect to see findings that there is similar application usage among both demographic groups but income and education do have an effect on the behavior and experience between the two age groups There is also higher satisfaction among the younger smartphone users and to enhance higher satisfaction in older adopter their needs to be an increase in easy of learning and usability.

The 2011 McNair Scholars Research Program

Tony Pattin

Smartphone Appeal and Usage

References
[1]Brown, Campbell, Ling. Future Internet (2011) Mobile Phones Bridging the Digital Divide for Teens in the US? Available at http://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/3/2/144 [2]Carroll, J, Howard, S, Peck, J, & Murphy, J. (2002`). A field study of perceptions and use of mobile telephones by 16 to 22 year olds. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Applications, 48-61. [3]Carroll, J, Howard S, Vetere, F, Peck, J, & Murphy, J. (2002). Just what do the youth of today want? Technology appropriation by young people. 35th Conference on System Science. Hawaii: IEEE. [4]Caruso, J, Salaway, G. (2007). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Educause Center for Applied Research, 1-15. [5]Castells, M, Ardevol, M, Qiu, J, Sey, A. (2004). The mobile communication society: A cross cultural analysis of available evidence on the social use of wireless communication technology. [6]Jiang, H. (2011). Young people's adoption and consumption of a cultural commodityiPhone (Doctoral dissertation). London School of Economics and Political Science, London, England. [7]Karlson, A, Meyers, B, Jacobs, A, Johns, P, & Kane, S. (2009). Working overtime: patterns of smartphone and pc usage in the day of an information worker. 399-405. [8]Kurniawan, S. (2008). Older People and mobile phones: A multi-method investigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 889-901. [9]Kurniawan, S, Nugroho, Y, Mahmud, M. (2006). A study of the Use of Mobile Phones by Older Persons. [10]Ling, C, Hwang, W, Salvendy, G. (2006). Diversified users satisfaction with advanced mobile phone features. [11]Marcial, L. (2010). A comparison of screen size and interaction technique: Examining execution times on the smartphone, tablet, and traditional desktop computer. School of Library and Information Science, 1-71.
[12]Massimi, M, Baecker, R, Wu, M. (2007). Using Participatory Activities with Seniors to Critique, Build, and Evaluate Mobile phones. 155-162

[13]McLeod, E. (2009). The use (and disuse) of mobile phones by baby boomers. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 28-38.

The 2011 McNair Scholars Research Program

Tony Pattin

Smartphone Appeal and Usage

[14]Oulasvirta, A, Wahlstrom, M, Ericsson, K. (2010). What does it mean to be good at using mobile device? An investigation of three levels of experience and skill. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 155-169. [15]Park, B, Lee, K. (2011). The effect of users characteristics and experiential factors on the compulsive usage of the smartphone. [16]Pattison, M, Stedmond, A. (2006). Inclusive design and human factors: designing mobile phones for older users. PsychNology Journal, 267-284. [17]Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. NCB University Press, 9, 1-6. [18]Rahmati, A, Shepard, C, Tossell, C, Dong M, Wang, Z, Zhong, L, & Kortum, P. (2011). Tales of 34 iPhone Users: How they change and why they are different. [19]Renaud, K, Biljon, J. (2008). Predicting Technology Acceptance and Adoption by the Elderly: A Qualitative study. Available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/vyl1bbk926wfcww3/ [20]Rice, R.E; Katz, J.E. (2003). Comparing Internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides of usage, adoption, and dropouts. Telecommunications & Policy, Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596103000685 [21]Wareham, J, Levy, A, Shi, W. (2003). Wireless diffusion and mobile computing: implications for the digital divide. Telecommunications Policy, 439-457. [22]Wilska, T. (2003). Mobile Phone Use as Part of Young Peoples Consumption Styles. Journal of Consumer Policy, 441-463. [23]Ziefle, M, Bay, S. (2004). Mental Models of a Cellular Phone Menu. Comparing Older and Younger Novice Users. Available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/vyl1bbk926wfcww3/

The 2011 McNair Scholars Research Program

Tony Pattin

Smartphone Appeal and Usage

Appendix A
Survey of Smartphone Usage [1] In what year were you born? _________________ [2] What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed? a. No schooling complete b. High school graduate c. Some college d. Associate degree e. Bachelors degree f. Masters degree g. Doctorate degree [3] Which of the following statements apply to your occupational status? a. Unemployed b. Looking for work c. Homemaker d. Retired e. Employed f. Part time g. Full time h. Student [4] What is your net annual income? a. Less than $30,000 b. $30,000 - $44,999 c. $45,000 - $59,999 d. $60,000 - $74,999 e. $75,000 - $89,999 f. $90,000 - $104,999 g. More than $105,000 [5] Do you use or own a smartphone as your primary mobile phone? (For example, a mobile phone that provides advanced features such as an operating system, web access, QWERTY keyboard, and downloading applications). a. Yes b. No [6] What smartphone brand do you use? a. b. c. d. e.
9

IPhone Android Windows Blackberry Palm

The 2011 McNair Scholars Research Program

Tony Pattin

Smartphone Appeal and Usage

f. Other : _____________ [7] How often do you use your smartphone for the following features? I use my smartphone for Social Networking Games Email News Web Browsing Calendar Reading books (i.e. kindle reader) Weather Music Alarm Clock [8] What other features do you use for your smartphone that are not listed above? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

[9] How often do you use your smartphone in these following situations? Often Work Related Tasks School Related Tasks While driving Walking somewhere Before going to bed Eating Public Transport (Riding bus, train, car) Social gatherings (meetings, parties, etc.) [10] What other situations do you use your smartphone for that are not listed above? Sometimes Rarely Never

[11] How often do you perform these individual tasks on your smartphone? Often Text messaging (SMS) Multimedia messaging (MMS)
10 The 2011 McNair Scholars Research Program

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Tony Pattin

Smartphone Appeal and Usage

Taking Photos Video/Audio Recording Tweeting Updating Facebook Status Email Navigation (Maps and GPS) [12] What other tasks do you perform on your smartphone besides those listed above?

[13] What would you consider most important when purchasing your smartphone? Choose all that apply a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Screen Size GPS enabled Surfing the Internet Wi-Fi The look and feel of the device Ability to use a keyboard Ease of use Email Price

[14] On a scale from 1-5, How satisfied are you with your current smartphone? Where 5 being extremely satisfied and 1 being extremely dissatisfied. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Extremely Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Extremely Satisfied

11

The 2011 McNair Scholars Research Program