CC BY-NC-ND
0ELSEVIER
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
The action of looking at a mobile phone display as nonverbal behavior/ communication: A theoretical perspective
I CrossMark
Takashi Nakamura *
Faculty of Humanities, Niigata University, ¡karashi 2-8050, Nishi, Niigata, Japan
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Available online 19 November 2014
Keywords: Mobile phone Smartphone Nonverbal behavior Nonverbal communication Power of sight Goffman
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the now-common action of looking at a mobile phone display, thereby offering insight into the present communication situation in an era in which the use of high-performance mobile phones has become ubiquitous. In this study, the action of looking at a mobile phone display is considered nonverbal behavior/communication. This study applies a basic, general model to elucidate the present situation of face-to-face communication in light of the increasing prevalence of social interaction via mobile phone use. The results derived from the model include mobile phone users' increasing social power and an accumulation of potential discontent in relation to different interpretations. This study concludes that in an era of high-performance mobile phones, the social context in face-to-face communication can be influenced by the act of looking at a mobile phone display.
© 2014 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
1. Introduction
In 2012, the ITU reported that the number of mobile cellular subscriptions in the world had reached 6.8 billion, which corresponds to a global penetration of 96% (Press Release in ITU official page). As the number of mobile phone users (including smartphone users in this study) increases, we have observed that individuals look at their mobile phone displays with significantly greater frequency than previously. Prior to 2000, a majority of users employed only the talking function of their mobile phones. Currently, however, mobile phones are used for a variety of functions including reading mail, accessing web and location-based services, and playing music. The convenience and portability afforded to users by their mobile phones has supported a trend among users to look at their mobile phone displays regardless of whether they are within range of mobile service.
Previous studies have raised concerns over the action of looking at mobile phone displays, citing potential physical harm to users. For example, both pedestrians and drivers could cause traffic accidents while being distracted by texting (Nemme & White, 2010; Schwebel et al., 2012). Recently, however, mobile phone use has also raised concern in a social context. The Wall Street Journal published a column (Shellenbarger, 2013), ''Just Look Me in the Eye Already: The Workplace Perils of Staring at Our Phones and Elsewhere; The Ideal Gaze Lasts 7 to 10 Seconds'',' in which declining eye contact as a consequence of mobile phone use was
* Tel./fax: +81 25 262 6452. E-mail address: takashi-nakamura@human.niigata-u.ac.jp
highlighted as a growing concern. One reason cited for decreasing eye contact is the frequency and repetition with which individuals check their mobile devices. The column emphasized that decreasing eye contact negatively influences individuals' sense of emotional connection and their ability to influence or impress others.
Baron and Campbell (2012) investigated gender-based differences in mobile phone use, finding that female users employed mobile phones more frequently than male users to intentionally avoid interaction with strangers or acquaintances. The authors also observed a trend in which experienced users, when faced with undesirable social interactions, looked at mobile phone displays rather than pretending to talk. Nakamura (2007) studied the behavior of Japanese mobile phone users, claiming that the action of looking at a mobile phone display deserves further study in the context of face-to-face communication.
In the present study, the action of looking at a mobile phone display is considered nonverbal behavior/communication. We therefore propose a model integrating motivations for and interpretations of this action. The model draws on the results of previous studies to define relevant variables. The results are subsequently discussed in the context of face-to-face communication theory.
2. Research on mobile phone use
2.1. In public spaces
Current research on mobile phone use in public spaces is divided into two camps. The first focuses on physical threat.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jxhb.2014.10.042 0747-5632/© 2014 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Pedestrians or drivers using their mobile phones are unaware of their surroundings and can thus cause accidents while distracted by handheld devices (Nemme & White, 2010; Schwebel et al., 2012). Many previous studies have cautioned against mobile phone use while in transit in an effort to avoid repeating incidents ending in physical harm that have repeatedly been documented by the media.
The second camp focuses on the sociability of mobile phone users. By the middle of the first decade of the millennium, issues related to mobile phone use in public spaces were raised regarding telephone conversations, with studies highlighting factors such as annoyance, discomfort, manners, and ethics, among others. Ling and Donner (2009) reviewed the debate on emergent norms in public spaces. Since then, the focus of research has gradually shifted to include all elements of mobile phone use (e.g., texting, browsing the web, using location-based services) that have affected daily life and changed the nature of modern sociability. Turkle (2011) asserted that mobile phone use in public spaces diminishes sociability. In contrast, de Souza e Silva and Frith (2012) proposed that mobile interfaces 'lead to the construction of new types of spaces filled with meaning and sociability' and that 'location-aware devices have the potential to connect people with others nearby.'
This controversy is indicative of the rapid increase in the use of mobile phone displays in public spaces and thus highlights the need to investigate and define acceptable limitations surrounding their use. Users' motivations for looking at mobile phone displays, for example as an intentional strategy to avoid acquaintances or strangers, must therefore be classified.
2.2. With familiar persons
Today, individuals often rely on their mobile phones to maintain or develop relationships with familiar people (parents, siblings, children, peers, and friends). For example, parents may ensure that their children carry mobile phones to assuage safety or other parental concerns (Matsuda, 2008), and college students may similarly use mobile devices to connect with their parents. In addition, it has been argued that students need mobile phones to fulfill their familial roles, to share experiences, and to receive emotional support from their parents (Chen & Katz, 2009). Pierce (2009) established a positive correlation between the absence of social anxiety among teenagers (feeling comfortable when talking with others) and their ability to make friends online. Although it is widely considered unacceptable behavior, some young adults in intimate relationships use mobile phone functions to monitor their partners (Burke et al., 2011).
Though many studies characterize mobile phones as indispensable tools in the construction and/or maintenance of familiar relationships, the mobile phone itself is intrinsically ambivalent. Mobile phones can be used to connect with individuals who are otherwise unable to engage in face-to-face communication for geographic or social reasons. Some people may therefore become uncomfortable when their conversation partners look at the displays of their mobile phones without permission, a sentiment that often goes unexpressed. However, others accept such 'looking' and do not feel uncomfortable when their conversation partners do this (Nakamura, 2013). Thus, there are various, sometimes contrasting, ways in which familiar persons perceive the action of looking at a mobile phone display. Therefore, a 'normative guideline' of the action remains to be constructed.
2.3. Nonverbal behavior/communication
Subjects of nonverbal communication are diverse, and nonverbal signals can be expressed through multiple channels ranging
from subtle (e.g., voice intonation) to more obvious signals involving gestures. Knapp et al. (2013) summarized historical trends in nonverbal research (pp. 21-25). Since the 1950s, the amount of scientific research has significantly increased. The 1960s showed an explosive increase in the number of research topics. For example, Goffman (1959) and Goffman (1963) analyzed human behavior from a social performance/presentation perspective. Hall (1966) identified four types of informal spaces, whereas Kendon (1967) highlighted the significance of eye movement as behavior. Based on their psychological experiments, Argyle and Dean (1965) proposed an equilibrium theory regarding compensation behavior to adjust spaces and eye movements. Such research related to sociability, body movement, space, and gaze supports the basic idea that the action of looking at a mobile phone display is an example of nonverbal behavior/communication. In the 1950s and 1960s, scholars proposed many basic theories about face-to-face communication and developed several tenets of nonverbal behavior/communication that inform research on this subject today. In the 1970s, nonverbal research attempted to address public interest and summarize as well as synthesize related literature. After the 1970s, scholars continued to specialize or identify ways in which a variety of nonverbal signals worked together. However, they have consistently focused on 'raw' physical movement rather than gestures, e.g., using a hand tool such as a mobile phone. Even as recently as 2010, the social implications of mobile phone display use had yet to be adequately addressed.
The action of looking at a mobile phone display has become a ubiquitous part of modern life, occurring in public and private spaces alike. As an action that necessitates some degree of physical movement, the act of looking at a display screen thus necessarily involves nonverbal signals. Moreover, users may look at their mobile phone displays with strong intent even when this action is non-essential (Nakamura, 2007). Research has indicated that some users intentionally look at their mobile phone displays to avoid unwanted conversation, similar to the way in which one may have traditionally used a device or read a newspaper (de Souza e Silva & Frith, 2012; Baron & Campbell, 2012). Currently, the action of looking at a mobile phone display should be regarded as a complicated nonverbal behavior that occurs either intentionally or unintentionally. Further research focusing on the action of looking at a mobile phone display as nonverbal behavior/communication is therefore needed.
3. Mobile phone use in Japan
In Japan, mobile phones spread widely and rapidly in the 1990s; subscription numbers equated to about half of the total population until the end of the decade. In 1999, the largest telecommunications company, NTT docomo, started its 'i-mode' service, which enabled e-mail and web access by providing Internet capabilities on mobile phones. Thereafter, the most popular use of mobile phones shifted from telephonic communication to e-mail (Okada, 2005). Such usage inevitably forced many people to use their mobile phones while looking at the displays but not talking. In the first half of the 2000s, the number of e-mail and web users on mobile phones rapidly increased, and they soon began to involve mobile phone usage in all circumstances of their daily lives. Okabe and Ito (2005) indicated that many passengers in Japanese trains silently operated their mobile phones without talking. Furthermore, it became concurrently popular to use the camera function installed on many mobile phones. Some users learned to share their daily information with colleagues (Kato et al., 2005), increasing opportunities to look at mobile phone displays. Before the worldwide popularity of smartphones such as the iPhone 3G in 2008, the multitasking high-performance mobile phone was widely used in Japan.
Beginning in the first half of the 2000s in Japan, it became an ordinary occurrence to see someone operate his/her mobile phone in public spaces while walking, sitting, waiting and so on. Fujimoto (2005) discussed 'multitasking' mobile phone usage from the perspective of Japanese culture, using the term 'nagara' (while doing something else). By introducing Japanese historical persons who carried out great works through 'nagara' actions, he emphasized that 'nagara' action, such as incessant transmissions of e-mail while walking, symbolized an aspect of Japanese culture.
In the meantime, Nakamura (2007) investigated the action of looking at a mobile phone display as nonverbal behavior/communication. It declared that many users in Japan learned to act as though they were intentionally looking at their mobile phone displays to signal 'co-present' persons, even though such usage was not originally installed in mobile phones. Such usage was sometimes performed not only as a 'nagara' action but also as a purposeful intrigue to react to a current situation.
Nakamura (2008) indicated that many users intentionally looked at their mobile phone displays not only to avoid engaging with others (acquaintances or strangers) but also to inform them of a sort of social message in public spaces. Nakamura and Oe (2009) investigated the demographic tendency in Japan to perform a nonverbal action with mobile phones in certain common situations in public spaces. The rate of the female informant's intention to use a mobile phone as described was higher than that of the male, and that of the young was higher than that of the old. In public spaces, many people intentionally looked at their mobile phone displays in various situations because they knew that their body actions would inevitably send messages to others as nonverbal behaviors. Nakamura and Oe (2010) indicated that many users came to perform the action of 'showing' their own mobile phone displays to others as nonverbal behaviors. The 'showing' action could be interpreted as the message, 'I am trusted' by the observers. Many users understood such an interpretation by observers from their own experience; sometimes, they intentionally utilized the 'showing' action to prove their friendships and to construct/ maintain social relationships with the observers. Nakamura (2013) investigated the demographic tendency in Japan to interpret a familiar person's action of looking at his/her own mobile phone display without permission. Interpretations of the action were broadly trifurcated (refusal, holding and allowance). Many users changed their interpretations according to the 'actor,' and some users would change their interpretation based on the experience of their own nonverbal behavior/communication. Even in face-to-face communication with familiar persons, the action was intentionally used; the interpretation of the action would depend on the relation with the actor.
In the 2010s, high-performance smartphones have become widespread; it is quite common to see someone looking at his/ her mobile phone display anywhere in the world. Whether intentionally or not, an actor inevitably sends a message as nonverbal behavior; how an observer interprets such actions should be considered. To understand such nonverbal behavior and interactive communication, a primitive and theoretical model should be constructed. Previous studies are integrated into the model as mentioned below, although they could be biased toward Japanese culture.
4. Classifying motivation
For human communication to exist, a source must send a message, and a receiver must receive and interpret that message. According to Richmond et al. (2011), nonverbal behavior occurs when a message is intentionally or unintentionally transmitted by a sender independent of language, and nonverbal communication
occurs when a receiver receives and interprets nonverbal behavior as a message. From a nonverbal behavior/communication perspective, the motion of the body during mobile phone display use corresponds to nonverbal behavior, whereas the reception and interpretation of transmitted information corresponds to nonverbal communication. In this section, the movement of the user's body is considered nonverbal behavior.
4.1. Distant communication
Mobile phone users are often visually alerted to incoming distant communications by their phone displays. Distant communication, which occurs through a mobile phone's essential function, can be distinguished from interpersonal communication (i.e., voice conversation or text message) and communal communication through a web service (i.e., information from a web server or social media notification). Motivations for looking at a mobile phone display for its essential function can thus be classified as follows:
1-A: To answer the ringing and/or vibrating for interpersonal
communication.
1-B: To answer the ringing and/or vibrating for communal communication via a web service.
Grellhesl and Punyanunt-Carter (2012) analyzed seven gratifications from texting in their Uses and Gratification theory. They found that the highest gratification from texting was accessibility/mobility, in line with the findings of Leung and Wei (2000). Accessibility/mobility is also needed for the action of looking at a mobile phone display because it realizes motivations 1-A and 1-B.
As is well known, because of the accessibility/mobility of mobile phones, mobile phone users have not only obtained greater power to connect to others but have also been required to be prepared for such connections at any time. They are required to check frequently for notifications received by their phones. Actions derived from motivations 1-A or 1-B are caused by external calling; they reflect the sociability of mobile phone users.
A mobile phone can be considered as insensitive and forcible media because external calling could disturb the user anytime, anywhere, regardless of whether it is convenient for him/her. However, it gives him/her a reason to pick up the mobile phone and to look at the display. Conversely, utilizing the insensitivity and forci-bility of external calling, a mobile phone user can perform the action of looking at his/her mobile phone display anytime, anywhere, unless circumstances prevent doing so (Nakamura, 2007).
4.2. Internal functions of mobile phones
Mobile phones record received and sent text messages, and maintain a history (or 'log') of spoken conversations and other communications. Users may therefore refer to a phone's visual log (Ling, 2008) to instantly reinitiate or continue communications via their mobile phones. In addition, many users utilize the integrated scheduling functions of their mobile phones to reference their calendars or plan events. Mobile phones thus become tools by which individuals manage human relationships by surveying past, present, and future communications. For many users, this management function is an important motivation for the action of looking at mobile phone display in their daily lives.
Mobile phones (especially smartphones) can store a large volume of photographs, books, games, and videos, allowing users to retain preferred content in a convenient, mobile format. The desire to revisit this content is, therefore, another important motivator driving the action of looking at a mobile phone display. Another source of motivation, concurrent with the trend toward the mandatory use of mobile phones for business and education purposes
is the use of mobile phones as a tool for work or learning. Furthermore, many users utilize additional features, such as built-in cameras and information exchange units (e.g., IC chip), to fulfill those daily demands that cannot be satisfied through distant communication or information storage. Motivations to look at a mobile phone display based on internal functionality can be classified as follows:
2-A: To manage personal human relationships.
2-B: To use the storage function for enjoyment.
2-C: To use applications for work or learning.
2-D: To use incorporated devices.
The classification from 2-A to 2-D was performed with regard to the installed functions in a mobile phone. The instrument's resources are suitably allocated to meet users' demands associated with the accessibility/mobility of the device. The most favorable functions are preferentially equipped and provide increasing occasion to look more frequently at the mobile phone display in users' daily lives.
Motivation 2-A can be realized with a feature phone if the text function is installed and the communication log can be viewed. Motivations 2-B, 2-C and 2-D require high-performance resources in a mobile phone. In the 2010s, many types of smartphones can supply such functions, and many users have bought smartphones to use them in their daily lives. Smartphones have apparently increased opportunities to gaze at displays.
Importantly, the function of managing human relationships (motivation 2-A) to some degree involves a user's private information; therefore, users are required to operate their mobile phones without their actions being overtly visible. Many users attempt to keep their mobile phone displays unviewable by others as a matter of course, even when it is obvious that they are focusing on their mobile phone displays. To cause an intentional action to be interpreted as nonverbal behavior, the ability to manage human relationships is essential. In other words, such a user needs the ability to intentionally gaze at a display to control the surrounding situation, even with a feature phone with text and communication logs.
4.3. Surrounding context I: Being alone in public spaces
Mobile phones can bring enjoyment to users through web services and/or games. Many users look at their mobile phone displays when alone in a public space as a source of entertainment; others do so in the company of friends or other familiar persons
- a phenomenon that will be discussed later. As Nakamura (2007) has noted, individuals looking at their mobile phone displays in public are perceived as busy and less approachable. Although some users access their mobile phone only for enjoyment, others do so intentionally to send a nonverbal message to surrounding persons indicating that they are not to be disturbed. The use of the auditory function of mobile phones in intentional nonverbal messaging (i.e., pretending to talk and/or intentional talking) has been noted by mobile communication researchers (e.g., Caronia & Caron, 2004). However, the intentional action of looking at a mobile phone display has not really been a key point of focus.
Previous studies have established several reasons for the intentional use of mobile phone displays in public spaces, the primary motivation being the avoidance of engagement with surrounding individuals. de Souza e Silva and Frith (2012) described the derivative history of such mobile 'interfaces' as beginning with books, newspapers, the Walkman, and iPods. According to the authors, individuals have used these interfaces - including mobile phones
- to manage and control over-stimulation from the urban
environment. As Baron and Campbell (2012) noted, more than 60% of university students (and more than 70% of female students) look at their mobile phone displays (referred to in their article as 'playing with its functions, e.g., checking old text messages or playing games') to avoid conversation with acquaintances or strangers. Such use of mobile phones to distract users or to 'hide' them in public spaces is widely documented.
Another observed reason for the intentional use of mobile phone displays in public is the desire in a user to communicate nonverbally his/her 'contextual multiplicity.' For example, a mobile phone user can look at his/her phone display to silently convey the statement, 'I am here because I have a reason to be' (a phenomenon reminiscent of the act of waiting in a predetermined meeting space). Because a mobile phone user can interact with other users at any time, he/she is always engaged in 'contextual multiplicity.' This means that he/she can connect with others, that others may urgently need to connect with him/her, that he/she has some high-priority social relationships and that, at any time, he/she can simultaneously confront both the current situation and others who exist elsewhere. The action of looking at a mobile phone display can nonverbally express that the user is busy with his/her contextual multiplicity. Therefore, a user can sometimes intentionally pretend to express his/her contextual multiplicity with this action, even when there is no need to use the mobile phone. Such usage openly informs the user's own presence; this is different from the previous usage, which is employed to conceal him/herself (Nakamura, 2008).
Motivations to look at a mobile phone display based on the surrounding context can be classified as follows:
3-A: To avoid engagement with the surroundings.
3-B: To express the user's contextual multiplicity.
4.4. Surrounding context II: In the company of familiar persons
While engaged in welcome face-to-face conversation, individuals often ignore the passage of time. Mobile phone displays may therefore be used to discreetly check the time or receive message notifications during the course of the interaction, a means of mobile phone usage widely deemed socially acceptable. The use of mobile phone displays during face-to-face communication may occur, however, for additional reasons.
First, users may look at their mobile phone to enhance the ongoing conversation with visual or informational anecdotes. For example, individuals engaged in a conversation may reference their mobile phones to search a webpage, call up a map service, check a schedule, review stored photographs or movies, play new music, demonstrate new applications, or use other functions. Nakamura and Oe (2010) noted that 'the action of ''showing'' mobile phone displays to others' is becoming more popular in face-to-face communication, creating an impression of friendliness and sympathetic rapport between conversation partners. In such a case, the action of looking at a mobile phone can be perceived as a welcome addition to the conversation.
Second, users may take out their mobile phones to express or conceal negative feelings toward the ongoing face-to-face conversation, or to escape it entirely. Mobile users making use of this strategy may feel uncomfortable with the topic of conversation or have no interest in the interaction at all. Such behavior has been observed among users espousing opinions different from others present, users wishing to terminate conversations entirely, or users attempting to avoid verbal abuse. Face-to-face communication with familiar persons is not always positive and may thus instigate the intentional action of looking at a mobile phone display (Nakamura, 2007).
Motivation to look at mobile phone displays according to surrounding context can be classified as follows:
4-A: To check the time or receive communication notifications.
4-B: To enhance ongoing conversations with informational
anecdotes.
4-C: To express or conceal negative feelings or to escape from
an ongoing conversation.
Technological devices are often used in ways that differ from their installed functions. Mobile phone users can thus exploit their phones in unexpected ways such as to express or conceal uncomfortable feelings. Although other motivations for the action of looking at a mobile phone display may exist, those described in Sections 4.1-4.4 are the most common. Fig. 1 illustrates this model.
5. Action of looking at mobile phone display: A model
The action of looking at a mobile phone display has become increasingly universal; many have witnessed these actions in daily life and have occasionally engaged in such behavior themselves. We therefore need a basic, general model of nonverbal behavior/ communication depicting mobile phone users' typical motivations for the action of intentional use according to situational context and social relationships, and outlining receivers' interpretation of intentional messaging.
Fig. 2 depicts one of the simplest communication models. Here, the sender's motivation and performed behavior corresponds with the receiver's interpretation. If receivers wish to better 'read' a sender (in other words, to understand the sender's motivation), these receivers will most likely follow a model similar to that in Fig. 2.
Brunswik's basic lens model (Brunswik, 1955) presented both encoding and decoding processes with parallel paths for transmitting information. In that model, communication is embedded according to cultural convention frameworks, social relationships, and situational contexts. Observing an individual engaged in the act of looking at a mobile phone display, one may gather a variety of information such as the actor's facial expressions, his or her eye movement, behavior, the duration or quickness of the action itself, and other behavioral cues. Fig. 1 emphasizes that mobile phone
Motivation
Behavior
*■ Interpretation
Fig. 2. Basic model of communication.
display use stems from various types of motivations. To simplify, social relationships and situational contexts are divided into two groups: 'being alone in public spaces' and 'staying with familiar persons.' Both cases involve similar motivations for distant communication and internal function.
As mentioned in Section 4, motivations 1-A and 1-B are derived from external callings (distant communication), while motivations 2-A to 2-D are dependent on the internal functions installed in a mobile phone (a smartphone includes the high-performance functions). Motivations 3-A, 3-B, 4-B, and 4-C are caused by surrounding circumstances, such as where mobile phone users are and whether the use is intentional, although only motivation 4-A should be considered as stemming from an internal function. These three categories of motivation (distant communication, internal function, and intentional use) are contained within the two subdivisions of 'being alone in public spaces' and 'staying with familiar persons.'
Even in the case of a feature phone with text and history logs, the model can be applicable. Motivations 2-B to 2-D and 4-B need a high-performance smartphone; however, the others can support the three categories of motivation, both in the subdivision 'being alone in public spaces' and in the subdivision 'staying with familiar persons.' The action of looking at a mobile phone display as nonverbal behavior/communication can be realized with a feature phone, although it is much more obvious with a smartphone.
When considering the action of looking at a mobile phone display, it is difficult to judge whether the action is caused by the arrival of a message (external calling for distant communication) because the onscreen image can be easily concealed (because of the privacy inherent in the internal function). A user can intentionally take such an action at any time without observers verifying its authenticity (intentional use). If he/she can perform the action at his/her convenience, a mobile phone can be used as a tool adjustable to any communication situation as needed. Thus, the three categories of motivations enable a user to perform the action of looking at a mobile phone as a measure. On the other hand, the
Fig. 1. Model for the action of looking at a mobile phone display.
observer (receiver) of the action must be unaware of the type of operation the actor has performed. The variety of motivations in Fig. 1, compared to Fig. 2, depicts such asymmetry between 'actor' and 'observer.'
In public spaces, a nonverbal signal such as the action of looking at a mobile phone display might play an important role in territorial defense and/or in controlling eye behavior. Although the receiver's perception of the action in public spaces undoubtedly deserves further investigation, and the interpretation of this action should be subject to more precise subdivision, we can adopt the single interpretation used in Fig. 1: 'He/She seems busy.' Each of these categorical motivations could be further subdivided into specific situations encountered in daily life.
A receiver's interpretation of communications transmitted as the product of a sender's action of looking at a mobile phone display may be classified into three distinct categories for actions undertaken while in the company of familiar persons. The first alternative ('rejection') and the third alternative ('acceptance') lie in direct contrast to one another, thus indicating that the action can result in different perceptions. The second alternative ('holding') includes a range of perceptions that depend on social relationships (Nakamura, 2013). Further research is needed to develop a more detailed classification system.
Because of the widespread use of mobile phones, a receiver of intentional messaging may later become an intentional sender in his or her own right. Receivers may alter their interpretation by reflecting upon their own behavior, just as senders may adapt their actions to suit the interpretation of the other's action. Mobile phone users are challenged to continually improve their nonverbal behavior/communication. To achieve this, Fig. 1 requires a feedback loop. As Knapp et al. (2013) stated, nonverbal behavior must be understood not only through the signals to which meaning is attributed but also through the very process of attributing meaning (p. 9). Although the model presented in this study can be developed further, it serves as a foundation for future research.
6. Advantage and discontent
Fig. 1 represents two considerations: mobile phone users' increasing social power and the accumulation of potential discontent. It is difficult to both identify a sender's motivation and anticipate the receiver's interpretation of the action of looking at a mobile phone display. However, it should be emphasized that the power of mobile phone users is increased in face-to-face communication in which people are physically 'co-present' (Goffman, 1963).
In the early years of mobile phones, when functionality was limited only to speaking, the motivation to look at a display screen was restricted to checking the time or viewing notifications. After the addition of text mail, mobile phone users were further motivated not only to look at their mobile phone displays but also to spend time reading messages. This evolution provided users with a reason to look at a mobile phone display for as long as was needed, and some users developed the ability to intentionally control their eye behavior while doing so. This action thus became an act of 'double concealment,' which means that observers could not see the onscreen image to determine whether the action was authentic (Nakamura, 2007).
Double concealment is made possible by those social norms that have created an environment in which mobile phone users' privacy is respected, regardless of whether the phone is used for distant communication (e.g., 1-A: To answer incoming interpersonal communications via ringing and/or vibrating alerts) or for its internal functions (e.g., 2-A: To manage personal human relationships). Many mobile phone users enhance conversation in
face-to-face communications using web services, storage functions, and other features (as in motivation 4-B). As the action of looking at a mobile phone display has become an increasingly familiar phenomenon, society has learned to accept public mobile use despite having insufficient information to understand the actor's motivations or feelings at the moment of use (Nakamura, 2007). Consequently, we must wait for the actor's next action. Anticipating respect from observers, mobile phone users intentionally exploit social norms to maintain their advantage and adjust relationships with surrounding individuals during face-to-face communication.
Goffman (1959) claimed that 'the arts of piercing an individual's effort at calculated unintentionality seem better developed than our capacity to manipulate our own behavior, so that regardless of how many steps have occurred in the information game, the witness is likely to have the advantage over the actor' (p. 8). Here, the witness (or observer) of the actor's behavior holds an advantage over the actor in face-to-face communication because the actor cannot completely control the observer's favorable impressions, and the observer may easily sense the actor's intention by interpreting nonverbal behavior. (In the sentence, the terms 'information game' and 'advantage' mean that the balance of social power between them should be assumed to be somehow even.) According to Goffman, the observer may detect the actor's true intention in the information game. However, in the mobile phone era, relative advantage is reversed through visual observation. Double concealment causes an actor's nonverbal behavior during the act of looking at a mobile phone display to remain unknown. Furthermore, respect for the privacy of mobile users has become a social norm because of the device's potential as a conversation tool. Though actors may intentionally manipulate mobile phones when desired, observers remain unable to readily detect what an actor is thinking at the moment of use. This disparity thus enhances mobile phone users' social power.
Foucault (1995) emphasized the power of sight. In Bentham's Panopticon, Foucault tells us that a guard has an advantage over his prisoner. A prisoner cannot help feeling that he is under surveillance, regardless of whether the guard is actually watching. The Panopticon is designed so that the walls are parallel to the sight line of the guard and the actions of the prisoners are constantly observable. The behavior of a prisoner (actor) is restricted by the sight of a guard (observer); likewise, an actor is disciplined by the power of an observer's sight. Foucault related the story of the Panopticon, criticizing the modern social system in which surveillance has become increasingly commonplace. However, in face-to-face communication in the mobile phone era, it is the observer who is disciplined. The action of looking at a mobile phone display is obscured by double concealment. The observer must therefore withhold judgment until the actor engages in a more telling behavior following mobile phone use. An observer is thus prevented from interpreting the actor's behavior while looking at the actor's own mobile phone display with any certainty even if it is intentionally misleading. Thus, actors rather than observers now hold the advantage.
Currently, many observers have their own mobile phones. They may therefore engage in their own mobile phone use to gain an advantaged position. It has been reported that most people not only experience constraint but also learn to use the action of looking at their mobile phone displays to gain advantageous positions during face-to-face communication. Such alternation occurs silently, nonverbally, and efficiently. Thus, individuals have begun using mobile phones to regulate face-to-face communications, although the phones' primary function remains distant communication.
The second consideration is the accumulation of potential discontent. As mentioned earlier, an observer's interpretation of a
familiar person's use of a mobile phone display can be divided into three categories. Nakamura (2013) reported that approximately half of Japanese survey respondents rejected the idea of interpreting the actions of familiar persons without permission; thus, they belonged to the first (X) group in Fig. 1. Nearly half of the remaining respondents interpreted it as 'hold.' In other words, although respondents feel slightly uncomfortable, they do not express their feelings. Such respondents thus were considered as belonging to the second (Y) group. The remaining respondents did not feel uncomfortable and accepted the action; thus, they belonged to the third (Z) group. Ultimately, Nakamura (2013) argued that more than half of Japanese respondents feel uncomfortable when witnessing without permission mobile phone use by familiar persons. Even when observers experienced social pressure to respect private mobile phone use by others, many expressed displeasure, thus further advancing the potential for discontent.
In Fig. 1, the first (X) and third (Z) groups are shown to have opposite interpretations for the same action. The distribution of the trifurcated categories should be investigated in greater detail.
7. Conclusions and discussion
The purpose of the current paper was to utilize previous research conducted in Japan to develop a general model for categorizing and interpreting the meaning of the action of looking at a mobile phone display. This model is premised upon the notion that gazing at a phone display is a form of nonverbal behavior/communication and that such communication has four main aspects. First, it can communicate to observers that one is busy and/or that one belongs in a particular social context or physical location. Second, when the phone user is interacting with one or more acquaintances or friends, gazing at a phone display can communicate that the user is rejecting said acquaintances. That is, when someone looks away from a face-to-face interaction to examine a phone, it implies that the phone communication is more important than the face-to-face interaction; otherwise, the phone user would ignore the phone rather than their companion(s). Third, such behavior can signal to observers that the user is asking/telling the observers to ''hold'' or wait. Finally, the phone gazer may join with observers by using the phone to collect information to use collaboratively with observers (e.g., when a member of a face-to-face dyad or social group looks up movie times or a restaurant address in the service of facilitating a social activity). These are not, of course, the only possible explanations of mobile phone gazing; however, these themes are very likely universally valid.
What is also very interesting about this model is that it repositions the phone user behind something akin to the ''fourth wall'' (i.e., the imaginary wall that separates an audience from actors on a stage during a play). From this vantage, phone users are allowed to manage how they are perceived (i.e., they can use the act of gazing at their phones to control their face-to-face interactions in the manner discussed above, even if there is actually no new data on their phone).
Given these four potential explanations for why someone might look away from a face-to-face interaction to gaze at a phone, a polite observer must wait and gather more information before making attributions about the meaning of a mobile phone user's actions. Consequently, while the observer is disadvantaged by not having an immediate and simple explanation for the behavior of the phone gazer, the opposite is true for the gazer (i.e., the gazer is empowered by this inherent ambiguity of intent; the user has relevant information that the observer does not possess). Therefore, the action has introduced a 'disadvantaged position' in face-to-face communication for the observer, while the gazer gains an advantage because the gazer has the power to keep the observer ignorant of the true content of any mobile phone variables.
Parsing the dynamics of such interactions is the purpose of the current paper, and our conclusions suggest that future work is needed in this domain. Specifically, in addition to empirically validating the current model with Japanese samples, future research will need to address the cross-cultural validity of this theory. Acar (2014) noted that the use of social media in many countries correlates with some cultural barometers. Therefore, the meaning of new behaviors that evolve from new media will likely also be socially defined. As Farman (2012) described, 'our bodies, our spaces, and our technologies are all formed within culture, and subsequently work within the bounds of culture to transform it' (p. 25). Thus, the current paper lays the groundwork for future work to explore more extensively how the use of mobile phones is changing both our cultural mores and our languages. Our work highlights the fact that even the simple act of gazing at one's mobile phone may influence not only face-to-face communication but also power relationships between participants.
Such discussion should be recognized not only among researchers but also among people in general. It should be in the very nature of things that people desire to adjust to a situation involving face-to-face communication. It is easy and convenient to use the action of looking at a mobile phone display, and it would often make an atmosphere more comfortable. However, the action influences not only the situation of face-to-face communication but also the power relationships between participants. People should be more conscious of the effects of such differences in communication, and researchers should explore in more depth the effects that looking at a mobile phone display have on communication. Finally, we anticipate that further research on power relationships can be applied to compare the action of using other tools, such as wearable devices.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their inspiring and helpful suggestions. The author is indebted to Prof. Koichi Osada about the theory of Goffman, and to Adam Acar and Hiroko Oe for many suggestions. And the author thanks Enago (http://www.enago.jp) and Elsevier language editing service for the English language review.
References
Acar, A. (2014). Culture and social media: An elementary textbook. Cambridge:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289-304.
Baron, N. S., & Campbell, E. M. (2012). Gender and mobile phones in cross-national
context. Language Sciences, 34(1), 13-27. Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in functional
psychology. Psychological Review, 62,193-217. Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to control intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1162-1167. Caronia, L., & Caron, A. H. (2004). Constructing a specific culture: Young people's use of the mobile phone as a social performance. Convergence: The Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 10(2), 28-61. Chen, Y.-F., & Katz, J. E. (2009). Extending family to school life: College students' use of the mobile phone. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 179-191.
de Souza e Silva, A., & Frith, J. (2012). Mobile interfaces in public spaces. New York: Routledge.
Farman, J. (2012). Mobile interface theory. New York: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison (2nd ed.). New York: Vintage.
Fujimoto, K. (2005). The third-stage paradigm: Territory machines from the girls' pager revolution to mobile aesthetics. In M. Ito, D. Okabe, & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. New York: Free Press.
Grellhesl, M., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2012). Using the uses and gratifications theory to understand gratifications sought through text messaging practices of male and female undergraduate students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2175-2181.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Kato, F., Okabe, D., Ito, M., & Uemoto, R. (2005). Uses and possibilities of the Keitai camera. In M. Ito, D. Okabe, & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22-63.
Knapp, M. L., Hall, J. A., & Horgan, T. G. (2013). Non-verbal communication in human interaction (international edition of 8th revised ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Leung, L., & Wei, R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: A use-and-gratification study of the cellular phone. Journalism &Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 308-320.
Ling, R. (2008). New tech, new ties: How mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Ling, R., & Donner, J. (2009). Mobile communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Matsuda, M. (2008). Children with Keitai: When mobile phones change from "unnecessary" to "necessary". East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 2(2), 167-188.
Nakamura, T. (2007). Looking at "Keitai" (mobile phone) displays as a form of nonverbal communication. Journal of Japan ¡nformation-Culturology Society, 14(1), 31-38. in Japanese.
Nakamura, T. (2008). Mobile phones as tools for 'wearing' multi-contextuality. Journal of Japan ¡nformation-Culturology Society, 15(1), 12-19. in Japanese.
Nakamura, T. (2013). Refusal, holding and allowance of non-verbal communication looking at 'Keitai' displays. The ¡nfosocionomics Society, 7(2). in Japanese.
Nakamura, T., & Oe, H. (2009). Looking at ''Keitai'' (mobile phone) displays' as a form of non-verbal behavior in public spaces. The ¡nfosocionomics Society, 4(1), 27-37. in Japanese.
Nakamura, T., & Oe, H. (2010). Another form of non-verbal communication: Showing the users' own mobile phone displays. Journal of Japan ¡nformation-Culturology Society, 17(1), 11-18. in Japanese.
Nemme, H. E., & White, K. M. (2010). Texting while driving: Psychosocial influences on young people's texting intentions and behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42-4, 1257-1265.
Okabe, D., & Ito, M. (2005). Keitai in public transportation. In M. Ito, D. Okabe, & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Okada, T. (2005). Youth culture and the shaping of Japanese mobile phone media: Personalization and the Keitai internet as multimedia. In M. Ito, D. Okabe, & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1367-1372.
Press Release (11/Oct/2012). ¡TU releases latest global technology development figures. ITU official page. <http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/ 70.aspx> Retrieved 24.11.13.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Hickson, M. (2011). Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal relations (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
Schwebel, David C., Stavrinos, D., Byington, K. W., Davis, T., O'Neal, E. E., & de Jong, D. (2012). Distraction and pedestrian safety: How talking on the phone, texting, and listening to music impact crossing the street. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, 266-271.
Shellenbarger, S. (2013). Just look me in the eye already—The workplace perils of staring at our phones and elsewhere; The Ideal Gaze Lasts 7 to 10 Seconds. The Wall Street Journal. 28.05.13.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
