Public Cellphone Use Does Not Activate Negative Responses in Others…Unless They Hate Cellphones

Abstract

Ostracism dramatically reduces psychosocial well-being. Many studies have examined ostracism within digital environments, but to our knowledge no one has examined ostracism as manifested through public cellphone use. Experimental data revealed that public texting or reading on a cellphone was less ostracizing to copresent others than face-to-face ostracism but more ostracizing than face-to-face inclusion. Though cellphone use was somewhat ostracizing it did not prompt negative psychological effects, supporting the notion of cellphone taken-for-grantedness. Exceptions were found for those reporting phone technostress; these individuals were negatively affected by exposure to someone reading on a cellphone. Findings extend the ostracism paradigm to a new context and support research on the importance of attitudes and norms in shaping the effects of public cellphone use.

Many of us can recall uncomfortable instances of being at the edges of a social gathering and not being invited in. Over the last decade, ostracism research has demonstrated the profound negative effects of social exclusion on a variety of psychological states, including self-esteem, belonging, personal control, and mood (Williams & Sommer, 1997; Williams, 2001, 2009). This same paradigm has been applied to digital ostracism, including exclusion from a virtual ball toss or three-way texting conversation (Smith & Williams, 2004; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000). A new form of digital ostracism has become increasingly common but, to our knowledge, has yet to be investigated using the ostracism paradigm. Most of us have been subject to and perpetrator of ostracism in the form of public texting or other public cellphone use. Ever-changing norms of cellphone use, and variation in norms across cultural and demographic groups (see Baron & Segerstad, 2010; Campbell, 2007; Ito, 2005) further complicates navigation of the “potentially volatile” social spaces created by public cell phone use (Cumiskey, 2005).

Computer-mediated communication theory on the richness and intimacy of digital communication (e.g. Valkenburg & Peter, 2007; Walther, 1996), coupled with findings of negative attitudes towards public cell phone use (Cumiskey, 2005; Ranie & Zickuhr, 2015), suggests that cellphone exclusion may indeed activate the negative effects of ostracism. At the same time, mobile research points to the integration of cellphones into every aspect of private and social life (Gergen, 2002; Ling, 2012). If cellphones have achieved a status of taken-for-grantedness (Ling, 2012), their use in public may not activate the same negative effects of ostracism caused by other forms of social exclusion, despite sometimes being a tool for exclusion. This study was designed to explore these two differing perspectives on the effects of public cellphone use for bystanders by applying the validated ostracism paradigm. Experimental results suggest that individual attitudes and social norms regarding cellphones play a role in determining the effects of public cellphone use on one's mental state. That is, for those people that feel overwhelmed by cellphones in daily life, a form of technostress, being ostracized by someone reading on a cellphone is upsetting. For most, however, public texting or reading on a cellphone has little-to-no negative effect on others' psychological state. Limitations of the study and directions for future research are discussed.

The Need-Threat Model of Ostracism

Ostracism, or the “perception of being ignored by others in one's presence,” has been examined in social psychology for nearly 20 years (Williams & Sommer, 1997, p. 693; Williams, 2009). It is enacted in everyday life when “we sit for an entire bus ride without speaking to the person next to us; individuals standing beside us in the elevator do not acknowledge us” (Williams and Zadro, Williams, 2001). The initial ostracism paradigm relied on a ball toss between two confederates and a third participant (Williams & Sommer, 1997). A ball was tossed equally among all members of the group as they ostensibly waited for the real study to begin. In the control condition, all members of the group participated equally in the game. In ostracism conditions, confederates initiated the ball toss but began excluding the participant from the game after the first minute or so of play. Using validated self-report measurement, researchers have consistently found that this form of social exclusion activates a four-part need-threat response (Williams, 2001; Williams, 2009). That is, excluded participants' have a reduced sense of belonging, self-esteem, control over their environment, and even report having a less meaningful existence. Previous research finds that these four needs overlap to some degree but are conceptually different (Williams, 2009). Each need is an essential component for maintaining an overall high quality of life, and is typically acquired through positive social interactions (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Williams, 2001). In addition to the need-threat response, participants often experienced reduced positive affect as indicated by a scale assessing mood (see Williams, 2007 for review). Together, these initial ostracism findings underscore the importance of social integration in everyday interactions.

Subsequent ostracism research has investigated similar effects in other settings (Williams, 2009), including a variety of digital contexts (see Wesselmann & Williams, 2011). Exclusion in a virtual ball toss activates the same four-part need-threat response, worsens mood (Williams et al., 2000), and can also simulate a physical experience of pain, according to fMRI studies of brain activation (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). This is true even when participants are told that technical difficulties prevent them from being included in the virtual game, which points to the role of social integration as a basic, noncognitive driver of human survival. Ostracism has also been manipulated in chat interactions, group texting, and immersive virtual reality, all to similar ends (Kassner, Wesselmann, Law, & Williams, 2012; Smith & Williams, 2004; Williams et al., 2002). As Wesselmann and Williams write regarding digital ostracism (2011, p. 134), “ostracism is likely to be detected in any form of electronic-based communication because social interaction is implied in myriad ways (e.g., email addresses, chat room screen names, and online profiles).”

In previous research on digital ostracism all interactions take place in the same digital environment (e.g. chat, text, etc.; e.g. Kassner et al., 2012; Smith & Williams, 2004; Williams et al., 2002). In those cases, digital ostracism was tested to enhance methodological control in an experimental setting (e.g. Goodacre & Zadro, 2010; Kassner et al., 2012) or explore the unique consequences of exclusion in virtual environments (Williams et al., 2002). For example, participants excluded in chat rooms were found to respond with a virtual bravado, including becoming actively hostile, which Williams and colleagues have associated with flaming and other online antisocial behaviors. These responses are different from those found in other offline ostracism research, and point to the utility of exploring digital ostracism as a new phenomenon. The findings do not, however, tell us about cross-channel ostracism, such as the experience of being ignored or excluded by someone using their cellphone in a public social setting.

Cellphone Ostracism

Over 80% of cellphone owners send or receive text messages (Pew Research Center, 2015), and more than half do so in the physical presence of others (Ranie & Zickuhr, 2015). Gergen (2002) refers to this private use of cellphones in public spaces as absent presence, and points out the potential harm it may have for interpersonal relationships when physical relationships are “defined as secondary, not significant after all” (p. 238). Indeed, public phone use is associated with fewer conversations between strangers (Campbell & Kwak, 2011), it reduces helping and smiling at strangers (Banjo, Hu, & Sundar, 2008), and 80% of people believe that cellphone use in social contexts hurts social interaction to some degree (Ranie & Zickuhr, 2015). In fact, even those that engage in public phone use often criticize others who do the same (Cumiskey, 2005). Many scholars have probed the nuances of how and why people use phones in public spaces (Campbell, 2007; Cumiskey & Ling, 2015; Humphreys, 2005; Ito, 2005; Ling, 2002), but, to our knowledge, the effects of this absence presence on individual psychological states have not been experimentally tested.

Meaningful mediation

Previous research on digital interpersonal communication supports the hypothesis that public texting is another form of social exclusion. Research finds that, like face-to-face communication, digital communication is an important means of relationship building (e.g. Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007; Walther, 1996). For example, diary study findings reveal that text-based interactions are rated to be as meaningful as face-to-face interactions, and are more important for changes in self-esteem (Gonzales, 2014). The psychological benefits of face-to-face communication may even be enhanced in computer-mediated contexts, where increased disclosure may lead to greater intimacy (Valkenburg & Peter, 2009), or the same information may simply be perceived as more intimate (Jiang, Bazarova, & Hancock, 2011). In other words, if SMS text conversations are as meaningful and intimate as face-to-face conversations, it follows that being excluded from these text conversations may produce feelings of social ostracism. Thus, given previous findings that ostracism need-threats are activated in digital environments (Smith & Williams, 2004; Williams et al., 2002), and evidence that a digital conversation can be as or even more intimate and meaningful than a face-to-face conversation (Gonzales, 2014; Jiang et al., 2011; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009), we isolate one aspect of public cellphone use and test the following first hypothesis:\

H1: Texting in the presence of others will have the same negative effects on need-threats and mood as face-to-face exclusion.

Evolving Norms

Despite evidence that public cellphone use is ostracizing, research on mobile media suggests that norms of mobile adoption accommodate their constant presence. Ling (2012) writes, “On the one hand, the mobile phone has become more central to the functioning of society; on the other hand, it is also becoming less worthy of notice. Perhaps the thing that is remarkable is that it has become taken as a given” (p. viii). Related, previous researchers have highlighted the fluidity with which people move between and even integrate mobile and physical engagement (e.g. Humphreys, 2005; Ito, 2005). This appreciation of cellphone ubiquity, or taken-for-grantedness, is consistent with Katz's (2003) much earlier work, Machines That Become Us. There the authors examine how mobile phones are “assimilated into people's lives, bodies, and homes” (p. 1). Thus, as cellphones have become assimilated into public spaces it is possible that public cellphone use is no longer ostracizing, but, like televisions in a restaurant or magazines in a doctor's office, have become a mild nuisance or mindless distraction.

Research findings support this reconceptualization of public cellphone use. Over the last decade U.S. users have learned to renegotiate public space to accommodate public cellphone use (Humphreys, 2005). Cross-cultural research has identified how different norms (e.g. phone use in grocery stores, theaters, public transportation) have evolved in different cultural contexts (Baron & Segerstad, 2010; Campbell, 2007; Ito, 2005); and within those spaces, norms within small, personal networks play a key role (Campbell & Russo, 2003). Especially within young adult networks, it is not unusual to be on the phone while engaged in face-to-face interaction (Cahir & Lloyd, 2015; Hall, Baym, & Miltner, 2014; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). Although users often delineate off-limits moments (Hall et al., 2014), especially during periods of interpersonal intimacy (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015), these findings reveal that overall young people are comfortable with and accustomed to ongoing cellphone use in contemporary face-to-face settings.

Given changing norms of public cellphone use, then, it is possible that texting has become normalized so as to preclude the negative effects of ostracism. That is, if cellphones have truly become taken-for-granted, public texting may not activate the same negative responses as face-to-face exclusion. We therefore pose the following contrasting hypothesis:

H2: Like face-to-face inclusion, public texting will not have the same negative effects on need-threats and mood as face-to-face exclusion.

Consistent with the second hypothesis, we further explore the notion that personal attitudes towards cellphones may influence reactions to public cellphone use. In Gershon's (2010), Break-Up 2.0, she uses the phrase media ideologies, to refer to differing beliefs in “how a medium communicates and structures communication” (p. 18). While some may find it acceptable to break-up over text, for example, others may not. Problems arise when people with differing media ideologies interact with technology in the same space. Indeed, a recent examination of public texting reveals polarized responses to this phenomenon (Cahir & Lloyd, 2015). While some participants expressed irritation (e.g. ‘are you going to talk to me?’ p. 714), others treated it as the new normal (e.g. you don't really notice it, to tell you the truth, p. 715). According to these findings, varying individual attitudes towards cellphones may be a moderating factor in determining the effects of cellphone-induced ostracism.

In exploring attitudes, we turn to the concept of technostress (Ragu-Nathan, Tarafdar, & Ragu-Nathan, 2008). Technostress was first articulated in the organizational literature to describe “individual's attempts to deal with constantly evolving ICTs and the changing physical, social, and cognitive responses demanded by their use” (p. 418). Original findings revealed that individuals who experienced greater technostress in the workplace had reduced job satisfaction (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008). The concept has evolved to address the relationship between everyday media use and psychological well-being (Brooks, 2015; Lee, Chang, Lin, & Cheng, 2014). Most relevant to this study, Lee and colleagues (2014) adopted the measure to assess frustrations with mobile phones (e.g. I feel my personal life is being invaded by mobile phone technologies). They find that those who express frustrations towards cellphones also experience greater social anxiety and less control. We use this same measure of phone technostress to explore the relationship between attitudes towards cellphones and the effects of being ignored by a stranger on a cellphone:

H3: Individual attitudes of cellphone technostress will moderate the negative effects of cellphone ostracism on need-threats and mood.

Finally, we examine whether cell phone sociality is necessary to induce the negative effects of ostracism. On one hand, some research emphasizes the intimacy and meaningfulness of social digital interactions (Gonzales, 2014; Jiang et al., 2011; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009), which suggests that mediated sociality with other humans may be critical. On the other hand, the media equation hypothesis suggests that the human brain has not evolved to assimilate 20th-century technology, hence people treat new technology as social beings (i.e. not wanting to negatively rate a computer just used) (Reeves & Nass, 1996). There is also evidence that people are intensely attached to their mobile technology in particular (Katz, 2003). By that rationale, interaction with a cellphone itself may be perceived as a form of social interaction. In order to tease apart the effects of a social cellphone-based interaction from simply staring at one's phone, we pose an investigatory research question:

RQ1: How will participants respond to someone reading on their phone (a nonsocial interaction) compared to someone texting (a social interaction)?

Methods

Participant and Design

Participants were 98 students from a university in the Midwestern United States. They received extra credit for their research participation. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: traditional face-to-face exclusion (n = 18), cellphone reading exclusion (n = 21), cellphone texting exclusion (n = 20), and traditional face-to-face inclusion (n = 18).

Procedure

Days prior to participating in the in-lab study, participants were sent a link to an online questionnaire measuring technostress along with a reminder about the time and location of the in-lab study. Once at the lab, participants reviewed the informed consent and then were asked to leave their things, particularly any other electronic devices, in a locker. In order to have a legitimate reason for asking participants to store their things we combined the ostracism study with an unrelated EEG study. Participants were told that cellphones could interfere with the bio-measures used in that study. After completion of the EEG study, the participants were escorted into another room to complete the cellphone ostracism study. Depending on the condition, either one (cellphone conditions) or two (face-to-face conditions) confederates were sitting in the room waiting for the participants. Chairs were arranged approximately 1.5 meters apart from each other based on the procedure developed by Williams and colleagues (2002). After the participant was seated, the experimenter told the participant and confederate(s) that they were next going to participate in a study on impression formation in casual settings (Filipkowski & Smyth, 2012). They were told to interact with each other for about 10 minutes, at which point the experimenter would return and have them each complete a questionnaire on their impressions of “self, others, and the conversation” (see Filipkowski & Smyth, 2012, p. 1247). She started a timer before leaving and informed the participant and confederate(s) that they should end their discussion when the timer ended.

Based on the social ostracism paradigm (see Williams et al., 2002), the discussion period occurred in two phases. The confederate(s)' main objective in Phase 1 was to establish a relaxed atmosphere that was consistent across all conditions. A confederate always started the conversation by initiating introductions. Confederates then followed a memorized script about local music in order to keep the content as consistent as possible across all participants. At the end of Phase 1 the experimenter would provide the confederate(s) with an auditory cue from outside the door to signal the condition and start of Phase 2.

Using a similar scenario as Filipkowski and Smyth (2012), at the beginning of Phase 2 one confederate would ask about an obscure local band. In the face-to-face inclusion condition, the two confederates briefly talked about the local band and related topics, but the participant was included in the conversation throughout Phase 2 and the conversations were balanced between the three individuals. In the face-to-face exclusion condition, the second confederate would immediately respond that s/he knew the band and they would spend the next 7 min talking only to each other about the band and related topics. During this time, no matter what the participant said or did she was ignored.

Cellphone conditions followed a protocol similar to that used in the face-to-face exclusion condition. In the texting condition, after the confederate and participant briefly discussed the local band, the confederate received a text-message from the experimenter. The confederate then diverted his/her attention to the text messages, pretending to engage in a text conversation with another person on the phone, and terminated all face-to-face conversation with the participant for the remaining portion of Phase 2. The experimenter kept sending text messages to the confederate's phone at regular intervals so that participants could hear that the confederate was continuing to receive text messages. The confederate was instructed to keep staring at the phone making no eye contact with participant and act as if s/he was highly engaged in the text conversation, sometimes smiling or laughing. No matter what the participant said or did to reinitiate the conversation she was ignored.

In the cellphone reading condition, after the confederate and participant briefly discussed the local bands, the confederate articulated wanting to look up a local band on his/her phone, ended the conversation with the participant, and then began to read on the phone for the rest of the experiment. Again, no matter what the participant said or did to reinitiate the conversation she was ignored. Cellphone conditions were designed to be naturalistic, but also ostracizing in a manner commonly experienced in public settings.

When the timer sounded, the experimenter returned to the room and participants were issued the postexperimental questionnaire. After completing the questionnaire, participants were thoroughly debriefed as to the purpose of the study and thanked. The experimenter explained that the real purpose of the experiment was to “study the effect of exclusion by other people or the use of technology during a short conversation” as it affects “their feeling of being excluded.” Special care was taken to explain to participants that they were randomly assigned to conditions and that exclusion was not based on their personal characteristics or behaviors.

Measures

Manipulation check

The manipulation check was assessed by two 5-point questions used in previous ostracism studies (e.g. I was ignored and I was excluded; Williams, 2009, α = .93), ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely).

Need-threat response

The extent to which needs were threatened was assessed with four scales (Williams, 2009). Each scale consisted of 5 items designed to assess one of the four need-threat responses: belonging (e.g. I felt “disconnected”, α = .85), self-esteem (e.g. I felt insecure, α = .86), control (e.g. I felt I was unable to influence the action of others, α = .60), and sense of meaningful existence (e.g. I felt invisible, α = .79). The items were assessed on 5-point scales (1 = not at all and 5 = extremely).

Mood

The mood scale consisted of eight 5-point items designed to assess participants' positive and negative affect (Williams, 2009, α = .90). This item was also assessed on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely).

Phone Technostress

The scale consisted of 6 dichotomous items designed to assess participants' feeling of distress associated with mobile phone use (e.g. I feel my personal life is being invaded by mobile phone technologies, T/F; Lee et al., 2015). Items were adopted from the original technostress scale that measured general ICT stress (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008). Participants were asked to indicate agreement or disagreement with each item and items were summed for a single technostress score (1–6, α = .62). The scale was then reversed so that low scores reflected low technostress. Although this alpha is lower than the traditional cutoff of .70, given the validity of the scale established in previous studies we maintain the 6-item scale used by Lee and colleagues (2014).

Results

Ostracism Effects

Manipulation check

Previous ostracism research has assessed participants' perceptions of being ignored and excluded as a check on the ostracism manipulation (Williams & Sommer, 1997; Williams, et al., 2002; Williams, 2009). A one-way ANOVA revealed an overall effect of the manipulation on participants' experiences of being ignored F (3, 73) = 4.60, p < .01, η²_partial = .16, and excluded F (3, 73) = 3.59, p = .02, η²_partial = .13.¹ A Tukey's pair-wise comparison of differences at p < .05 reveals that participants in the face-to-face inclusion condition felt less ignored (M = 1.17, SD = .38) and less excluded (M = 1.39, SD = .98) than those in the face-to-face exclusion condition (ignored: M = 2.56, SD = 1.24; excluded: M = 2.56, SD = 1.15). Mean reports of being ignored (reading: M = 1.76, SD = 1.18; texting: M = 2.10, SD = 1.41) and excluded (reading: M = 1.62, SD = 1.07; texting: M = 1.85, SD = 1.31) in the phone conditions were in-between the means of those in the face-to-face inclusion and exclusion conditions. There was no statistical difference in perceptions of being ignored and excluded for participants in either cellphone condition and any other conditions, except for a marginal difference in feeling ignored for those in the texting and face-to-face inclusion conditions (p = .07), and a marginal difference in feeling excluded for those in the reading and face-to-face exclusion conditions (p = .06). Findings suggest that cellphone use is not as ostracizing as face-to-face exclusion, but is more ostracizing than a face-to-face conversation.

In addition to the manipulation check, the experimenter asked confederate(s) if they noticed anything unusual after each participant left the lab. The confederate(s) reported that most participants in exclusion conditions stopped making efforts to re-engage soon after the onset of exclusion stage. However, two participants in the texting condition, four participants in the cellphone reading condition, and one participant in the face-to-face exclusion condition tried very hard to include the confederate(s) into the conversation, and persisted in talking to themselves. These supplementary data underscore the overall effectiveness of the manipulation.

Need-threat responses

To test the effects of this moderate level of cellphone ostracism (competing H1 and H2), we measured a need-threat response, composed of perceptions of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningfulness (Williams, 2009). First, we created a need satisfaction index, combining all four needs to test the manipulation on individual's overall need-threat response. A one-way ANOVA demonstrated a significant main effect of condition on need-threat response F(3,73) = 5.64, p < .01. Tukey's analysis of pairwise differences reveals that these effects are largely due to differences between those in the face-to-face exclusion condition and all other conditions. Participants showed significantly stronger need-threat response in the face-to-face exclusion condition than in the texting (p = .02), reading, or face-to-face exclusion condition (p < .01). When testing the effects of the manipulation on each specific need, similar patterns occurred. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of condition on perceptions of belonging F (3, 73) = 7.10, p < .01, η²_partial = .23, self-esteem F(3, 72) = 6.44, p < .01, η²_partial = .21, and control F(3, 72) = 4.34, p < .01, η²_partial = .15, and a marginally significant effect on perceptions of a meaningful existence F(3, 73) = 2.41, p = .07, η²_partial = .09 (see Figure 1 for means). Tukey's analysis of pairwise differences reveals that again these effects are largely due to differences between those in the face-to-face exclusion condition and the other conditions. Participants felt less belonging in the face-to-face exclusion condition than in the texting (p = .08), reading, or face-to-face inclusion conditions (both p < .05). Likewise, participants had lower self-esteem in the face-to-face exclusion condition than in all other conditions (p < .05). There was no statistical difference in participants' perceptions of belonging or self-esteem across any of the other three conditions. A similar pattern of results was found for participants' perceptions of control. This time differences in perceived control were marginally significant for the two face-to-face conditions (p = .08), though participants felt less control when excluded face-to-face than when excluded by someone reading or texting on a cellphone (p < .05). Finally, there was a marginally significant difference in participants' sense of meaningfulness between those in the face-to-face inclusion condition and those in the face-to-face exclusion condition (p = .09). Again, mean ratings of perceived meaningfulness for those in the texting and cellphone reading conditions were not statistically different from each other or from face-to-face conditions conditions. Overall these findings support H2, and do not support H1.

Mood

Lastly, previous studies of ostracism have examined temporary negative effects of ostracism on mood. As with the previous measures, a one-way ANOVA revealed an overall significant effect of condition on mood, F (3, 72) = 4.34, p < .01, η²_partial = .18 (see Figure 1 for means). As in the previous analyses, participants were in a worse mood following the face-to-face exclusion condition compared to those in the other conditions (p = .06 - .001). There were no statistical differences between participants in the other three conditions. Again, these findings support H2, but do not support H1.

Moderation of TechnoStress

Initial tests comparing the first two hypotheses show more support for a taken-for-grantedness perspective on public cellphone use (H2). The question remains, however, about how individual attitudes about mobile phones might affect this experience. If most people do not mind being ignored by someone else on a cellphone because cellphone use has become normalized, what happens when someone has not embraced this widespread integration of cellphones (H3)? To further test the role of individual attitudes in shaping the effects of digital ostracism, we examine the moderating effect of cellphone technostress (Lee et al., 2014).

Participants were assessed for different levels of technostress prior to coming to the lab (range 1–6, 1 = No Phone TechnoStress, 6 = High Phone TechnoStress). Approximately 38% or participants reported no pre-existing technostress (1), though 50% reported some technostress (2–3) and 12% reported relatively high levels of technostress (4+). To test H3 an ANCOVA was conducted with an interaction between technostress and condition for each of the four need-threat measures and mood. As indicated in Table 1, the interaction term was significant between technostress and condition for each outcome variable. This was primarily due to the effect of technostress on those in the reading condition, as indicated by review of slopes for each condition for each outcome measure (Table 1). That is, technostress had a more prominent effect on those who were ignored by someone publicly reading on a cellphone than it did on those in other conditions. The majority of participants did not have pre-existing negative attitudes towards cellphones and were largely unconcerned with being ignored by someone else on the phone. However, if a participant did report negative attitudes towards cellphones, they experienced a dramatic sense of ostracism when ignored by a person reading on the phone, yielding support for H3.

Reading Versus Texting

Lastly, we explored whether participants felt differently when ignored by someone texting compared to being ignored by a person reading on the phone (RQ1). As noted above, post hoc analyses reveal that there were no differences for texting versus cellphone reading on any of the four need-threat measures or mood, and minimal differences on manipulation checks of being ignored and excluded. At the same time, technostress seemed to affect ostracism outcomes differently for those in the reading and texting condition. Those reporting pre-existing cellphone technostress were negatively affected by someone reading on a phone whereas they were not negatively affected by someone texting (Table 1). Possible explanations for this difference are explored below.

Discussion

Ostracism activates a need-threat response by weakening the sense of belonging and well-being typically achieved through healthy social interaction (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Williams, 2001). A disruption of social norms, such as being excluded from a ball toss or conversation, can activate the need-threat response, worsen mood, and even simulate physical pain responses according to fMRI imaging (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Williams & Sommer, 1997; Williams, 2001, 2009). These effects have also been found in virtual environments (Wesselmann & Williams, 2011), but had not been used to examine the effects of everyday ostracism often enacted by public cellphone use. Given evidence that public cellphone use can be ostracizing (Cahir & Lloyd, 2015; Ranie & Zickuhr, 2015), we tested competing predictions from computer-mediated communication and mobile research on the effects of being ignored by someone using a cellphone in a public space. In doing so, our first theoretical contribution was to apply the well-established ostracism paradigm to an increasingly everyday experience, thereby extending previous ostracism literature to a new ecologically valid domain.

Previous research in the field of computer-mediated communication and mobile media communication provided competing hypotheses about the potentially negative effects of public cellphone use. On one hand, the meaningful and intimate nature of computer-mediated communication (Ellison et al., 2007; Gonzales, 2014; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007), suggests that being excluded from a text exchange should activate negative responses comparable to face-to-face ostracism. In contrast, research from mobile studies suggests that cellphones have become highly integrated into daily life (Campbell, 2007; Gergen, 2002; Katz, 2003; Ling, 2012), such that public cellphone use would be excused. Indeed, the data largely support this latter perspective. Most participants were unaffected by public phone use, despite the fact that they perceived phone use as more exclusionary than face-to-face conversation, though less exclusionary than face-to-face exclusion. This intermediate experience of exclusion without negative psychological effects primarily demonstrates support for the taken-for-grantedness of cellphones. As Ling (2012) argues, perhaps this revolutionary new way of communicating has already been assimilated into the public space. Our second contribution, then, has been to extend the taken-for-grantedness framework to understanding of the effects of public cellphone use on bystanders.

The exception to these findings is for people that have pre-existing negative attitudes towards cellphones. The moderating effect of phone technostress demonstrates that, for the minority of people that feel overwhelmed by cellphones in daily life, being ostracized by someone reading on a cellphone is very upsetting. Interestingly, these people were not upset by someone texting. These findings complement data from Cahir and Lloyd (2015) that finds that texting may be excused as a necessary means of social organizing. Those that feel burdened by the constant presence of cellphones may be unable to excuse being ignored for a webpage or someone checking their calendar, but may be more tolerant of someone using the phone as a communication tool. Yet this was one of the few differences in responses to texting and reading on the phone. For most people, there was almost no difference in the ostracizing effects of texting versus reading on a phone, as both were generally nonthreatening public behaviors.

Limitations and Future Directions

Experimental methods limit the ability to generalize findings to broad demographics and contexts. For example, it is likely that these findings would vary for an older population; in a different national/cultural context; based on relationships of participants; or if the public texting took place in a more intimate setting, such as a restaurant or movie theater. Likewise, naturalistic settings of public cellphone use generally allow all parties to use their phones simultaneously, and, some people may excuse themselves or explain their motive for public texting (i.e. This is my mom, excuse me), which would likely diminish the negative effects of phone use. Indeed, as with face-to-face ostracism, public cellphone use can manifest in many different ways (e.g. ostracize-er responds to a text vs. initiates a text; reading something related vs. unrelated to the conversation), which we were unable to manipulate due to study constraints, but which are likely to influence its psychological effects.

Another major concern regarding the experimental manipulation is whether or not participants were truly ostracized in the cellphone conditions. Indeed, the confederate(s) could not control how the conversation unfolded exactly in each session. However, the experimenter met with the three confederates once every week for 3 months before data collection began to develop scripts for each condition and practice as a team. Before the onset of official experimentation we were confident that we had developed successful exclusion conditions that made each team member who acted as an “ostracize-ee” feel uncomfortable even when they knew what was going on. To avoid participants perceiving the cellphone use as an emergency, the confederate was trained to act as if s/he was having fun while on the phone. Data from the manipulation checks support these efforts.

Of course, a difference between cellphone and face-to-face interactions is that only one side of the digital exchange is physically present for the experience. This obscures some of the motivation behind cellphone-based ostracism, which may partially explain these effects (Cahir and Lloyd, 2015). That is, it may be easier to justify some forms of digital ostracism when only half of the actors are present. To explore this, future studies could operationalize and measure motivational factors. For example, if participants referenced the purpose of the exchange by talking to themselves (e.g. Oh, I hope she's OK! v. That's a stupid video) or the relationship of the interactant (e.g. Ugh, Mooommmm v. My roommate is so annoying), this would test previous qualitative findings that certain texts are necessary and acceptable, based on the context and tie-strength of the interactant. Participants should also be asked why they imagine they are being ostracized as a way to gauge the relationship between negative effects of public cellphone use and perceptions of intentionality. Also, additional research on technostress is important. It is unclear exactly what causes phone technostress, whether or not it is a fixed state, and what additional psychological consequences it may have. It is possible that technostress is a merely proxy for a more general social anxiety, which may shape the effects of all forms of social interactions. This interpretation is consistent with previous findings (Lee et al., 2014), but requires further attention. Finally, it is unknown how these findings would map onto reactions to public cellphone voice conversations. Although we refer to public cellphone use throughout the paper, we only examined the effects of texting and reading on the phone, given methodological constraints and a dearth of research on the effects of mobile voice on CMC. Future studies could broaden this question to include other forms of public cellphone use as well.

Conclusion

These findings lend support for previous research on mobile media communication and also provide insight into the changing experience of cellphone use. Continuing to identify and develop points of intersection between psychological CMC and mobile studies may serve to sustain and strengthen each area of research, especially as they become increasingly intertwined. Doing so is a challenge, as each area often employs different epistemological and methodological approaches, but hopefully the scholarly gains are worth the limitations associated with this type of analysis.

More practically, many of us have heard others balk at the pervasive use of cellphones in public, and may have echoed those concerns in reaction to groups of people standing silently together staring at their phones. These data suggest that, while these behaviors may be somewhat exclusionary, they may not be psychologically threatening for those standing by. This of course differs for those that experience phone technostress. For those people, public phone use is incredibly uncomfortable, approximating the negative experiences found in previous ostracism research. But for most of us, public cellphone use does not dampen mood or threaten a sense of social belonging. Instead, it appears that cellphones are a benign distraction. By applying the ostracism paradigm to this new context, we gain additional insight into why so many of us persist in doing something that people generally agree is inappropriate (Cumiskey, 2005; Ranie & Zickuhr, 2015), and are faced with new questions that can and should be answered in order to better understand the role of mobile phones in public spaces.

Note

References

About the Authors

Amy L. Gonzales (PhD., Cornell University) is an assistant professor in Communication Studies at Indiana University. Her research examines the health and well-being benefits of using digital technologies, especially for people from disadvantaged communities, and the consequences of having that access disrupted. Address: The Media School at Indiana University, 1229 E. 7^th St. Bloomington, IN 47405. E-mail: [email protected]

Yijie Wu is a Ph.D. student in the School of Communication at Florida State University. Her research examines users' psychological process during Human Computer Interaction, especially in the area of health. Address: The School of Communication at Florida State University, 3144 University Center C, Tallahassee, FL 32306–2664. E-mail: [email protected]