1. • Unobtrusive observers conducted 55 observational
sessions in 18 locations between October and December
2015.
• Locations were selected based on their potential for
observing individuals in a “waiting space/time,” where
individuals arriving at a location would be waiting in a
customer service line for food and/or beverages (80% of
observations), at a campus bus stop (5% of observations),
or in a public lobby area for a room to open for a class or
event (15% of observations).
• Observations were conducted between 9:00 AM and 9:00
PM. All locations were within or in the immediate
surrounding area of a large public university campus in the
Midwestern USA.
• Individuals (N = 2013) were monitored from the time they
entered the “waiting space.” Observations were
discontinued (or not included for analyses) if the waiting
time in a customer service line was less than one minute
and if there were too many individuals present to
simultaneously monitor and accurately document all of
them.
• Observers used a digital clock to record arrival time and
documented whether or not individuals were using their
cell phones upon arrival or began using their phones during
the observation, recording the number of seconds between
arrival and cell phone use.
• Observers recorded individuals’ gender and whether they
were engaged in a live conversation.
Customer service
line for food and/or
beverages
Campus bus stop Public waiting area
Cell phone use latency in a Midwestern university area population
Michele Day,Camille Phaneuf, Ailiya Duan, Peter Sonnega, Stephanie Misevich,
Anna Heyblom, Dora Juhasz, Claire Saunders, Vibha Sreenivasa, & Daniel Kruger
Abstract
We examined cell phone use usage and latency, the
time it takes for an individual to use a cell phone when
arriving in a waiting space/time in public spaces
around a Midwestern university area. The majority of
individuals used their cell phones; those who were not
using their phones when they arrived typically
initiated use within 20 seconds.
Background
Results
Cell phones are integral to the lives of contemporary
university undergraduates in the United States.
Midwestern college students reported using cell phones
an average of 290 minutes (nearly five hours) per day
(Lepp, Li, Barkley, & Salehi-Esfahani, 2015). The ability
of cell phones to operate in virtually any space means
that the ability to connect with others is continuous
(Katz & Aakhus, 2002). Because social interactions and
other uses of cell phones are constantly available, one
could always be connected and any 'down time' is an
opportunity for cell phone use.
There is considerable research on the psychology of cell
phone use, though most of the literature is based on
survey studies. Precise data on usage patterns are
typically proprietary. Observational research can
address research questions outside the proper scope of
surveys. We expected cell phone use to be high
(observed in the majority of individuals) and that most
of those who initiated cell phone use after arrival would
do so within the first minute. We predicted that women
would be more likely to use cell phones and people
engaged in live conversations would both be less likely
to use cell phones and have higher cell phone latencies
when they did use phones.
Katz, J., & Aakhus, M. (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private
talk, public performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lepp, A., Li, J., Barkley, J., & Salehi-Esfahani, S. (2015). Exploring the relationships
between college students’ cell phone use, personality and leisure. Computers in
Human Behavior, 43, 210-219.
Method
Observation locations:
• Most individuals (62%) used their cell phones, 32%
when they arrived and 30% after arrival.
• Of those who initiated use 55% did so within 10
seconds and 80% within 20 seconds of arrival.
• Women (63%) were more likely to use phones than
men (59%), Z = 2.68, p = .007, however there was
no sex difference in latencies, t(613) = 1.50, p =
.135, d = .12.
• Those engaged in a live conversation were less
likely to use their cell phones (43% vs. 70%), Z =
11.20, p < .001, however the trend for longer
latencies was not statistically significant, t(543) =
1.78, p = .076, d = .16.
• No sex difference in likelihood of location, Z = 1.84,
p = .065, or live conversation, Z = 0.667, p = .505.
Conclusions
Our hypotheses were mostly supported, apparently
any "down-time" is an opportunity for cell phone
use, especially among those not in a live
conversation. We demonstrate the value of
observational studies for understanding technology
use; our results complement those of self-report
survey research. We believe that our observational
data are unique, as even proprietary industry data on
cell phone usage patterns do not include information
on the social context.