Developing and Validating a Measure of Consumer Well-Being in Relation to Cell Phone Use

Developing and Validating a Measure of ConsumerWell-Being in Relation to Cell Phone Use

M. Joseph Sirgy & Dong-Jin Lee & Kunal Kamra &

John Tidwell

Received: 30 October 2006 /Accepted: 3 September 2007 /Published online: 15 September 2007# Springer Science + Business Media B.V./The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) 2007

Abstract This paper reports on an effort to develop a consumer well-being measurein relation to cell phone use. The measure is based on the theoretical notion that theperception of the overall quality-of-life impact of the cell phone on users isdetermined by their perceptions of the impact of the cell phone in various lifedomains such as social life, leisure life, family life, education life, health and safety,love life, work life, and financial life. In turn, the perception of impact of the cellphone in a given life domain (e.g., social life, leisure life) is determined byperceptions of benefits and costs of the cell phone within that domain. We conductedtwo major studies to select items capturing perceived benefits and costs that arepredictive of perceived quality-of-life impact of the cell phone.

Keywords Cell phone well-being . Mobile phone well-being .

Consumer well-being with cell phone . Consumer well-being with mobile phone .

Quality of life and cell phone . Quality of life and mobile phone

Applied Research in Quality of Life (2007) 2:95–123DOI 10.1007/s11482-007-9033-3

M. J. Sirgy (*)Department of Marketing, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, 2025 Pamplin Hall, Blacksburg, VA, USAe-mail: [email protected]

D.-J. LeeYonsei University, Shinchon 134, Seodaemun, Seoul, South Koreae-mail: [email protected]

K. KamraFreddie Mac, 8200 Jones Branch Drive, MS 430, McLean, VA 22102-3110, USAe-mail: [email protected]

J. TidwellV Resources, 3224 Brookings Court, Fairfax, VA 22031, USAe-mail: [email protected]

Cellular phone has a greater impact on one’s everyday life (Olsen 2006). In 2006,close to one billion hand phone sets were sold worldwide (GMA News andPublication Affairs 2007; Gartner’s Report 2005). Cell phones are becoming morefeature rich, offering a convergence of voice, data, and video communications(Pandey 2007).

The use of cell phone provides many benefits that enhance the quality of life. Thecell phone’s variety of features and functions allow users to do their work, help incases of emergency, bond with friends, enjoy games, and express themselves (Nair2007). Cell phones are becoming increasingly personalized and fashion items(Pandey 2007). The use of cell phone also comes at a cost. Research has found thatthe use of cell phone can cause work worries that spill over into the home (Chesley2005). The microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause brain tumor. Usingcell phone while driving is a significant distraction that contributes to trafficaccidents (Nair 2007).

Despite the importance of cell phones in our everyday lives, there are no studiesof mobile communications that developed or employed measures of consumer well-being related to the use of cell phones. The closet construct to consumer well-beingin relation to cell phones is customer satisfaction. Here, many studies of mobilecommunications employed global measures of customer satisfaction (e.g., Gerpott etal. 2001; Heikkila 2002; Kim et al. 2004; Lin and Wang 2006; Nysyeen et al. 2005).Global measures of customer satisfaction focus on generalized positive and negativefeelings directed to the product or service at large. For example, in the context ofmobile communications a global measure of customer service related to Nextel couldbe “Rate your overall satisfaction with Nextel. Very dissatisfied, somewhatdissatisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat satisfied, and very satisfied.”Global measures of customer satisfaction are useful in tracking the overallperformance of competitive brands over time and in assessing the antecedents andconsequences of customer satisfaction. But inherently they are not diagnostic interms of the understanding and capturing the sources of satisfaction that affectoverall satisfaction. Such a measure of customer satisfaction is referred to as“formative” (in contrast to “reflective” measures of customer satisfaction that captureoverall satisfaction).

There have been attempts to generate formative measures of customer satisfactionwith mobile communication products and services. For example, Lee et al. (2001)employed a customer satisfaction measure of mobile communications involvingthree dimensions: (1) satisfaction with pricing plan; (2) satisfaction with coreservices (coverage of the calling area and clarity of sound); and (3) satisfaction withvalue-added services (precision of billing service and easy access to provider).Sharma and Ojha (2004) developed and validated a multi-item measure of serviceperformance in mobile communications. A pool of 16 items was developed to covermultiple aspects of service performance and tested using a sample of 120 customers.The construct validity of the multi-aspect service performance measure wasdemonstrated through convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity tests.

But again, formative indicators of customer satisfaction with a cell phone do notcapture consumer well-being with cell phones. The latter construct not only capturescustomer satisfaction but the extent to which the cell phone plays an important rolein life satisfaction. This is what we mean by consumer well-being.

96 M.J. Sirgy, et al.

In this paper, we report two studies designed to develop a consumer well-beingmeasure of mobile communications. Our consumer well-being measure is designed tocapture customer satisfaction across the various life domains of consumers: social life,leisure life, family life, education life, health and safety, love life, work life, andfinancial life. Within each of these consumer life domains, a cell phone is perceived tohave certain benefits; that is, it contributes to the overall well-being in that life domain.Cell phones are also perceived to be associated with certain costs with that life domaintoo. Hence, the extent to which the cell phone contributes to the quality of a givendomain is a direct function of the tradeoff between these perceived benefits and costs.

The purpose of this paper is to report two studies designed to develop and test thenomological (predictive) validity of a measure capturing perceived quality-of-lifeimpact of the cell phone. Given validation, this measure can be used to gather dataon cell phone use periodically, and the data should assist public policy makersdevelop policies to ensure that the use of cell phone is a positive force in people’slives. The results of this study also provide telecommunications industry with anunderstanding of benefits and costs in relation to use of cell phone, and thisunderstanding should help marketers make industry-wide decisions to ensure that theuse of the cell phone impacts the quality of life of users in positive ways.

Theory Guiding the Development of Cell Phone Well-Being Measure

Sirgy et al. (2006) developed a measure that captures the perceived quality-of-lifeimpact of the Internet. They theoretical notion guiding that measure was thatconsumers’ perception of impact of the Internet on their overall quality-of-life isdetermined by the extent to which the Internet impacts their consumer well-being,social well-being, work well-being, leisure well-being, education well-being,community well-being, sexual well-being, etc. In other words, the overall quality-of-life impact perception is determined by their overall perception of the impact ofthe Internet on their various life domains. In turn, within each of these life domains,consumers have perceptions of Internet benefits and costs. For example, in thecontext of consumer life, the perceived impact of the Internet on consumer well-being is determined by perceived benefits (e.g., buying products through the Internetis beneficial because there is no sales pressure from sales people, Internet shoppingis very convenient, Internet shopping allows consumers to shop around moreeffectively, it allows consumers to locate the right product that matches their needs).The perceived impact of the Internet on consumer well-being is also determined byperceived costs (e.g., risk of deception, risk of ordering the wrong item, risk of fraud,lack of tangibility, delay of gratification, lack of customer service, SPAM, lack ofsecurity, lack of privacy, identity theft, and so on). Therefore, these perceptions ofbenefits and costs within a life domain determine the overall perception of impact of theInternet in that life domain.

The theoretical model used by Sirgy et al. (2006) to develop their measure ofInternet well-being was used to develop our measure of cell-phone well being. Inother words, consumers have positive and negative experiences with their cellphones in a variety of life domains, namely social life, leisure life, family life,education life, health & safety, love life, work life, and financial life. The perception

A measure of consumer well-being in relation to cell phone use 97

of benefits and costs of cell phone within each life domain affects the perception ofhow the cell phone impacts the user’s well being in relation to that life domain.Similarly, the user’s perception of the overall quality-of-life impact of the cell phoneis determined by the user’s perception of the cell phone’s impact in the various lifedomains (see Fig. 1).

Qualitative Research and Hypothesis Generation

We conducted a focus group study to identify those particular life domains mostaffected by cell phones. Another goal of the focus group was to identify perceptionsof cell phone benefits and costs within those life domains significantly affected bycell phone use. Based on the focus group results, we deduced the following testablehypotheses that will be used to test the nomological (predictive) validity of the cellphone well-being measure. The focus group involved 15 college students and cellphone users. These students were recruited from a marketing research class at a largeuniversity in the U.S. Extra-credit points were provided to the focus groupparticipants as an incentive for participation. The focus group had one moderatorand multiple observers. The moderator began by asking how a cell phone impactsthe quality of life of the cell phone user. The moderator probed the focus groupparticipants to identify specific life domains in which the cell phone played a majorrole in affecting quality of life (good and bad). Once these life domains were

Fig. 1 The benefits and costs of cell phone use and perceived quality of life impact of cell phone use


identified, the moderator then asked the participants to analyze each identified lifedomain regarding: the most and least beneficial aspects of the cell phone in thatparticular domain. The feedback from the focus group gave us the foundation togenerate identify the very specific conceptual dimensions of the cell phone well-being measure, which we will describe in some detail in the sections below.

Perceived QOL Impact of Cell Phones and Perceived Impact of Cell Phones in LifeDomains

What life domains are likely to be most significantly influenced by cell phone use?Our focus group study led us to believe that the cell phone plays an important role inthe following life domains: social life, leisure life, family life, education life, healthand safety life, love life, work life, and financial life (see Fig. 1). We hypothesizethat the perceived QOL impact of cell phone is determined by the perceived impactof cell phones in those life domains. Based on this analysis, we offer the followinghypothesis for empirical testing.

H1 The impact of cell phones on overall QOL is influenced by: (a) perceived cellphone impact on social life, (b) perceived cell phone impact on leisure life, (c)perceived cell phone impact on family life, (d) perceived cell phone impact oneducation life, (e) perceived cell phone impact on health and safety life, (f) perceivedcell phone impact on love life, (f) perceived cell phone impact on work life, and (g)perceived cell phone impact on financial life.

Perceived Impact of Cell Phones in Social Life

The focus group results indicated that the perception of the cell phone impact on thequality of life is very much affected by the use of the cell phone in social life. Thefocus group also helped us identify following perceived benefits in the socialdomain. First, cell phones are an excellent device for chatting with friendsirrespective of proximity. Second, possessing the latest and most stylish cell phoneallows users to show off their latest innovations to their friends – again a topic ofconversation among friends. Third, cell phones allow users to interact with friends atfar away places – international destinations. Fourth, cell phones aid in keepingcontact with friends – past and present. Fifth, cell phone cameras can be used to takephotos and share them with friends. Sixth, downloading and playing latest ring tonescan often be a source of topic for social interaction and a way to impress friends.Seventh, cell phones allow users to text message their friends – another way offacilitating social interaction and network with friends.

In relation to perceived costs, we were able to identify four costs related to the useof cell phones in the social life domain. First, cell phones have become a statussymbol leading to showmanship and peer pressure. Second, cell phones ringing(eliciting contact with friends) can be disruptive when the contact occurs at timeswhen the users are having a good time interacting and socializing with other friends.Third, communicating with friends by cell phone is less satisfying than interactingwith these friends face-to-face. Fourth, cell phones can be very addictive and it


might lead users to be overtly dependent on their cell phones. Based on the focusgroup analysis, we propose the following hypothesis for empirical testing:

H2 Perceived benefits and costs in social life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in social life. Specifically, the perceived benefits that affect theoverall perception of cell phones in social life include: The perceived benefits of thecell phone in social life are: (a) chatting with friends, (b) showing off to friends, (c)calling friends internationally, (d) staying in touch with friends, (e) taking pictures offriends, (f) downloading ring tones that impress friends, and (g) networking withfriends through text messaging. Perceived costs that affect the overall perception ofcell phones in social life include: (h) cell phones becoming a status symbol leadingto peer pressure, (i) interruptions of good times with friends, (j) not interacting withfriends face-to-face, and (k) addiction to chatting with friends.

Perceived Impact of Cell Phones in Leisure Life

The focus group results indicated that the perception of the cell phone impact on thequality of life is very much affected by the use of the cell phone in leisure life. Thefocus group also helped us identify the following as perceived benefits in leisure life.First, cell phone provides a medium through which the user can be amused,especially when alone and feeling bored. Second, the camera in the cell phones canbe used for leisure purposes. Third, cell phones can be used to surf the internet forchecking e-mail, reading news, etc. – again a source of amusement and a way tocombat boredom. Third, new features on the cell phone allow for latest music to bedownloaded and played. Fourth, many cell phone users download music for fun.Fifth, playing games on the cell phone is a very common amusement activity.

Two types of perceived costs in the leisure life were identified by the focus group.First, cell phones can be a big nuisance during leisure time (e.g., ringing cell phonesinterrupting a peaceful nap or night time sleep). Second, possession of a cell phonemay tempt the user to waste much time playing games and chit chatting with friendsinstead of using the same time for much needed and constructive purposes. Based onthis analysis, we put forth the following hypothesis for empirical testing:

H3 Perceived benefits and costs in leisure life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in leisure life. Specifically, the perceived benefits that affectthe overall perception of cell phones in leisure life include: (a) use of cell phone foramusement during travel, (b) use of camera for leisure, (c) surf the Internet for fun,(d) download and play music for fun, and (e) play video games for fun. Perceivedcosts that affect the overall perception of cell phones in leisure life include: (g) notime to relax because of cell phone interruption, and (h) cell phone chatting takesaway from quality leisure time.

Perceived Impact of Cell Phones in Family Life

The focus group results indicated that the perception of the cell phone impact on thequality of life is very much affected by the use of the cell phone in family life. The


focus group also helped us identify the following as benefits in the family lifedomain. First, text messaging is typically used as a convenient way of keeping intouch with family without calling. Additionally interaction can be kept to aminimum with the text messaging feature. Second, camera can be used to sharepictures and experiences with family especially with the young (e.g., collegestudents) who live away form home. Third, cell phones allow family to keep intouch with each other when all the family members are living separate from eachother. Fourth, cell phones can be used for instant consultation with family whenmaking important decisions.

The perceived costs in the leisure life that were identified from the focus groupwere as follows. First, since the family is accessible always through the cell phone,the incentive to interact in person (face-to-face) is diminished. That is, cell phoneshave made meeting in-person with family members more occasional and less regular.Second, family members often call at inopportune times (i.e., distracting orinterrupting an important task performed by the message recipient). Third, cellphones ringing (the urge to respond and actually responding) often interrupt goodfamily togetherness and is irritating to family members. Based on the precedingdiscussion, the following hypothesis is proposed for testing.

H4 Perceived benefits and costs in family life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in family life. Specifically, the perceived benefits that affectthe overall perception of cell phones in family life include: (a) text messaging forcommunication with family members, (b) camera for sharing pictures with familymembers, (c) staying in touch with family, and (d) consulting family members onpersonal matters. Perceived costs that affect the overall perception of cell phones inleisure life include (e) reducing the motivation to meet in-person with familymembers, (f) family members calling at inopportune times, and (g) interruptingquality time with family members.

Perceived Impact of Cell Phones in Education Life

The focus group results indicated that the perception of the cell phone impact on thequality of life is very much affected by the use of the cell phone in education life. Inthe education life domain, cell phones are used daily and have both costs andbenefits associated with them. Following are the benefits identified from our focusgroup study. First, cell phones allow individuals to easily set up conference calls,helping in the completion of class projects. Second, text messaging allows easyaccess and communication with classmates working on group projects and otherclass assignments. Third, the alarm function is used to frequently wake up, or notifystudents of deadlines and impending appointments. Fourth, the cell phones’ cameraallows for picture taking related to class projects. Fifth, accessing the internet allowsfor real-time access to information needed to complete class assignments andprojects. Sixth, cell phones facilitate access to setting up meetings with classmatesfor studying purposes.

The perceived costs in education life are the following. First, cell phones can be amajor source of interruption during study times, especially before and during exam


time. Second, cell phones ringing during meetings with professors or during the classhours are extremely irritating to the user, class at large, and especially the professor.Following is the hypothesis we propose for education life.

H5 Perceived benefits and costs in education life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in education life. Specifically, the perceived benefits that affectthe overall perception of cell phones in education life include: (a) setting upconference calls with other classmates for study purposes, (b) using text messagingto interact with classmates for study purposes, (c) using the alarm function to meetdeadlines and make appointments related to school work, (d) using the phone’scamera for school work, (e) accessing the internet for school work, and (f) ease ofbeing accessible to classmates for study purposes. Perceived costs that affect theoverall perception of cell phones in education life include: (g) interruption duringstudy time, and (h) disturbance during meetings and class.

Perceived Impact of Cell Phones in Health and Safety Well-Being

The focus group results indicated that the perception of the cell phone impact on thequality of life is very much affected by the use of the cell phone in health and safetylife. Based on our focus group analysis, we identified the following benefits of a cellphone in the realm of health and safety. First, a cell phone user can use their cellphone to communicate with others when the cell phone user runs into trouble on theroad (e.g., car break down, calling for help to assist others in duress). Second, thecell phone user can call for assistance while hiking, camping, or doing otheractivities, especially if they have health problems.

We also identified two perceived costs related to health and safety. First, takingon cell phones can take drivers’ focus and concentration off the road, causing orcontributing to traffic accidents. Second, some researchers have found evidence tosupport the hypothesis that radio waves from cell phone usage can cause braintumors. This finding was publicized in the media causing worry by some cell phoneusers. Based on the preceding discussion, we offer the following testable hypothesis:

H6 Perceived benefits and costs in health and safety life affect the overall perceptionof the impact of cell phones in health and safety life. Specifically, the perceivedbenefits that affect the overall perception of cell phones in health and safety lifeinclude: (a) seeking road assistance and (b) seeking assistance at times of duresswhile engaging in outdoor activities. Perceived costs that affect the overallperception of cell phones in health and safety life include: (c) driving impairmentand (d) the possible negative impact on health.

Perceived Impact of Cell Phones in Emotional (Love) Well-Being

The focus group results indicated that the perception of the cell phone impact on thequality of life is very much affected by the use of the cell phone in love life. Basedon our focus group analysis, we identified the following benefits of a cell phone in


the realm of love life. First, a cell phone makes it easier for the user to keep up withthe whereabouts of his or her significant other. Second, the cell phone user can sendpictures to his or her significant others frequently by using the cell phone camera.Furthermore, the user can store pictures of his or her significant other. Third, the cellphone is frequently used to set up dates with significant other(s).

We also identified three perceived costs related to love life. First, having a cellphone and staying in constant touch with a significant others takes away the urgeand motivation to get together with one’s significant other, which is not necessarily agood thing for a healthy relationship. Second, the cell phone can be a nuisance whenthe user is enjoying intimate moments with his or her significant others when theyare interrupted by the ringing of the cell phone. And a third perceived cost is thenuisance of being interrupted by one’s significant other at inopportune times (e.g., animportant work meeting). Based on the preceding discussion, we offer the followingtestable hypothesis:

H7 Perceived benefits and costs in love life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in love life. Specifically, the perceived benefits that affect theoverall perception of cell phones in love life include: (a) keeping up with significantother, (b) using camera to send pictures to significant other, and (c) setting up dateswith significant other. Perceived costs that affect the overall perception of cellphones in love life include: (d) lessening the need to get together often withsignificant other, (e) being a nuisance during intimate moments with significantother, and (d) significant other calling at inopportune times.

Perceived Impact of Cell Phones in Work Life

In the work life domain, cell phones are used daily and are associated with perceivedcosts and benefits. The focus group revealed the following perceived benefits. First,text messaging allows business people to easily contact colleagues. Second, cellphones allow individuals to easily set up conference calls, helping ease the flow ofbusiness communication. Third, the cell phone’s camera allows easy picture takingfor business purposes. For instance a real estate broker would take a picture of ahome and sends it to a prospective client on the spot. Fourth, accessing the internetallows for real-time access to information from websites around the world. Thishelps make employees more effective in completing tasks in which informationobtained from the Internet can be helpful. Fifth, cell phones make employeesaccessible at all times to colleagues and co-workers, especially during emergencies.

The following perceived costs were also found to be associated in the work lifedomain. First, cell phones ringing during meetings can be very distracting anddisrupt the flow of the meeting. Second, cell phones can interrupt business work. Inmany professions and places of business, it is not considered professional to allowthe cell phone to ring at the office.

H8 Perceived benefits and costs in work life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in work life. Specifically, the perceived benefits that affect theoverall perception of cell phones at work include: (a) using text messaging to


communicate with co-workers, (b) setting up business dates and conference calls, (c)using the camera feature for business purposes, (d) accessing the internet forbusiness purposes, and (e) being accessible to colleagues. Perceived costs that affectthe overall perception of cell phones in work life include: (f) disturbing businessmeetings, and (g) interrupting the work flow.

Perceived Impact of Cell Phones in Financial Life

The financial life domain, in this case, refers to the aspects of one’s finances andfiscal transactions directly related to cell phone use. Our focus group identified thefollowing list of benefits of a cell phone on the financial life domain. First, accessingreal-time stock quotes on a cell phone allows the stock trader to capitalize onopportunities to buy and sell stocks at better prices. Second, cell phones can be usedto connect with sources of funding and obtain money in a time of need (e.g., collegestudent contacting parents to wire money dealing with a predicament). Third, payingbills can be done by cell phone-bills can be paid anytime, anywhere. Fourth, cellphones can help individuals effectively keep track of their finances by accessingtheir online bank.

There are several drawbacks to having cell phones in the financial life domain.First, the cell phone’s basic package can be a major financial burden on the monthlybudget. Second, charges for additional features including ring tones, games, andinternet access can add up to become an additional financial burden. Third, using toomany minutes in a month often causes extremely high charges (i.e., overages)resulting in additional financial strain.

H9 Perceived benefits and costs in financial life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in financial life. Specifically, the perceived benefits that affectthe overall perception of cell phones in financial life include: (a) using the phone tocheck stock quotes, (b) seeking money quickly from sources of funding, (c) payingbills, and (d) checking account balances. Perceived costs that affect the overallperception of cell phones in financial life include: (e) the cost of a monthly cellphone plan, (f) the financial burden of add-ons, and (g) the financial burden ofoverage charges.

Study 1

Study 1 involved a survey of cell phone users at a major university in the USA usinga convenience sample of 197 college students. Data collection was done via a web-based survey. Students taking a variety of marketing classes at a large universitywere encouraged to complete a web-based survey questionnaire for extra classcredit. We used a college student sample in this study because this population issomewhat homogenous; students are heavy users of cell phones and quality of life islikely to be significantly influenced by cell phones.

Out of 197 students, 112 (56.8%) respondents were male and 85 (43.2%) werefemale. In terms of age, 39 (19.7%) respondents were 19–20, 93 (47.3%)


respondents were 20–22, 16(8.2%) respondents were 23–25, and 49 (24.8%) wereabove 25 years old.

The Cell Phone Well-Being Measure

The cell phone well-being measure is shown in Table 1. As shown in the table, themeasure captured the major dimensions and sub-dimensions of the construct. Thedependent variable is perceived quality-of-life impact of cell phone. That constructwas measured using four items on 5-point Likert-type scales (e.g., “Overall, I feelthat my cell phone has improved the quality of my life”). See complete list of itemsin Table 1 with descriptive statistics.

The predictors of this dependent variable are eight factors (see Table 2): (1) globalperception of impact of the cell phone on social life, (2) global perception of impactof the cell phone on leisure life, (3) global perception of impact of the cell phone onfamily life, (4) global perception of impact of the cell phone on education life, (5)global perception of impact of the cell phone on health and safety, and (6) globalperception of impact of the cell phone on love life, (7) global perception of impact ofthe cell phone on work life, and (8) global perception of impact of the cell phone onfinancial life.

The global perception of impact of the cell phone on social life was capturedusing the following item: “Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to mySOCIAL LIFE. The cell phone contributes significantly to enhancing my sociallife.” The global perception of impact of the cell phone on leisure life was capturedusing the following item: “Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to myLEISURE LIFE. The cell phone contributes significantly to enhancing my leisurelife.” The global perception of impact of the cell phone on family life, education life,health and safety, love life, work life, and financial life were similarly measured (seeTable 2).

The perceived benefits and costs within each of the eight life domains were asfollows: The perceived benefits of the cell phone on social life are: (1) chatting withfriends, (2) showing off to friends, (3) calling friends internationally, (4) staying intouch with friends, (5) taking pictures of friends, (6) downloading ring tones thatimpress friends, and (7) networking with friends through text messaging. The exactmeasures of these sub-dimensions are shown in Table 3. The perceived costs onsocial life sub-dimensions are: (1) cell phones becoming a status symbol leading topeer pressure, (2) interruptions of good times with friends, (3) not interacting with

Table 1 The perceived QOL impact of cell phone measure (with descriptive statistics)

Measurement item Study 1 Study 2

Overall, I feel that my cell phone has improved the quality of my life 3.9 (0.7) 3.5 (0.9)My cell phone has truly enriched my life overall 3.4 (1.0)My cell phone plays an important role in life in general 3.7 (0.9)I don’t think I can be happy without my cell phone 2.6 (1.2)My life is more complete with my cell phone 3.1 (1.2)

Descriptive statistics reported are means and standard deviations (in parentheses). Study 2 has only oneoverall item.


friends face-to-face, and (4) addiction to chatting with friends (see Table 3 for exactmeasures and descriptive statistics).

The perceived benefits of the cell phone on leisure life are: (1) use of cell phonefor amusement during travel, (2) use of camera for leisure, (3) surf the Internet forfun, (4) download and play music for fun, and (5) play video games for fun. Theexact measures of these sub-dimensions are shown in Table 4. The perceived costson leisure life sub-dimensions are: (1) no time to relax because of cell phoneinterruption, and (2) cell phone chatting takes away from time devoted to qualityleisure (see Table 4 for exact measures and descriptive statistics).

The perceived benefits of the cell phone on family life are: (1) text messaging forcommunication with family members, (2) camera for sharing pictures with familymembers, (3) staying in touch with family, and (4) consulting family members onpersonal matters. The exact measures of these sub-dimensions are shown in Table 5.The perceived costs on family life sub-dimensions are: (1) reducing the motivation tomeet in-person with family members, (2) family members calling at inopportunetimes, and (3) interrupting quality time with family members no time to relax becauseof cell phone interruption (see Table 5 for exact measures and descriptive statistics).

The perceived benefits of the cell phone on education life are: (1) setting upconference calls with other classmates for study purposes, (2) using text messagingto interact with classmates for study purposes, (3) using the alarm function to meet

Table 2 Measures pertaining to perceived QOL impact on specific life domains (with descriptivestatistics)

Conceptual dimension Measurement item Study 1 Study 2

Perceived QOL impacton social life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to mysocial life. The cell phone contributes significantly toenhancing my social life

3.2 (1.2) 2.9 (1.3)

Perceived QOL impacton leisure life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to myleisure life. The cell phone contributes significantly toenhancing my leisure life

2.2 (1.0) 3.0 (1.2)

Perceived QOL impacton family life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to myfamily life. The cell phone contributes significantly toenhancing my family life

3.5 (1.1) 3.3 (1.3)

Perceived QOL impacton education life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to myeducation life. The cell phone contributes significantlyto enhancing my education life

2.4 (1.0)

Perceived QOL impacton health and safety

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to myhealth and safety. The cell phone contributessignificantly to enhancing my health and safety

3.6 (0.9) 3.8 (1.0)

Perceived QOL impacton love life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to mylove life. The cell phone contributes significantly toenhancing my love life

3.4 (1.2) 3.1 (1.5)

Perceived QOL impacton work life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to mywork life. The cell phone contributes significantly toenhancing my work life

2.8 (1.1) 3.4 (1.6)

Perceived QOL impacton financial life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to myfinancial life. The cell phone contributes significantly toenhancing my financial life

2.4 (1.1) 2.6 (1.4)

Descriptive statistics reported are means and standard deviations (in parentheses); study 2 does not haveeducation domain).


Table 4 Measures of perceived benefits and costs of cell phone in leisure life (with descriptive statistics)

Dimension Sub-dimension Measure Study 1 Study 2

Perceivedbenefits inleisure life

Use of cell phone foramusement during travel

I use my cell phone more when I amtraveling than when I’m not traveling(i.e. to amuse myself when I am alone)

3.1(1.1) 2.3(1.7)

Use of camera for leisure I use the camera on my cell phone forleisure purposes

2.1(1.1) 1.8(1.1)

Surf the Internet for fun I usually surf the internet through my cellphone for fun

1.8(1.0) 2.4(1.6)

Download and play musicfor fun

I frequently use my cell phone todownload and play music

1.7(0.9) 1.8(1.1)

Play video games for fun I frequently use my cell phone to playgames

1.9(0.9) 3.4(2.0)

Perceivedcosts inleisure life

No time to relax because ofcell phone interruption

I hardly get free time to relax withoutgetting interrupted by people contactingme on my cell phone

3.9(0.9) 2.3(1.2)

Cell phone chatting takesaway from time devotedto quality leisure

I waste a lot of time chatting on my cellphone instead of being more creativewith my leisure time

4.1(0.8) 3.6(1.8)

Descriptive statistics reported are means and standard deviations (in parentheses).

Table 3 Measures of perceived benefits and costs of cell phone in social life (with descriptive statistics)


Perceivedbenefits insocial life

Chatting with friends I use my cell phone a lot for chattingwith friends

3.8 (1.1) 3.3 (1.2)

Showing off to friends My cell phone has style. I like toshow it off to my friends

2.6 (1.2) 2.5 (1.4)

Calling friendsinternationally

I communicate with my friendsoutside of the US

1.6 (1.0) 4.4 (1.1)

Staying in touch withfriends

Keeping in touch with friends is somuch easier having a cell phone

4.3 (1.0) 3.4 (1.3)

Taking pictures of friends I use my cell phone to take pictures ofmy friends

2.3 (1.4) 3.1 (2.0)

Downloading ring tones thatwould impress friends

It’s cool to have ring tones of latestsongs

3.0 (1.3) 3.2 (1.3)

Networking w/friendsthrough text messaging

I use text messaging a lot to networkwith friends

2.8 (1.3) 2.7 (1.4)

Perceivedcosts insocial life

Cell phones becoming astatus symbol leading topeer pressure

I dislike the fact that a cell phone hasbecome a status symbol amongyoung people

2.7 (1.0) 3.1 (1.4)

Interruptions of good timesw/friends

Cell phone ringing interrupts goodtimes with friends

3.0 (1.0) 3.9 (1.2)

Not interacting with friendsface-to-face

I waste much time chatting on the cellphone instead of getting togetherwith friends

4.0 (0.7) 3.5 (1.7)

Addiction to chatting withfriends

I fear that I am becoming addicted tochatting with friends on my cellphone

4.3 (0.8) 2.9 (1.3)



deadlines and make appointments related to school work, (4) using the phone’scamera for school work, (5) accessing the internet for school work, and (6) ease ofbeing accessible to classmates for study purposes. The exact measures of these sub-dimensions are shown in Table 6. The perceived costs on education life sub-dimensions are: (1) interruption during study time, and (2) disturbance duringmeetings and class. (see Table 6 for exact measures and descriptive statistics).

The perceived benefits of the cell phone on health and safety are: (1) seeking roadassistance and (2) seeking assistance at times of duress while engaging in outdooractivities. The exact measures of these sub-dimensions are shown in Table 7. Theperceived costs on health and safety sub-dimensions are: (1) driving impairment and(2) the possible negative impact on health (see Table 7 for exact measures anddescriptive statistics).

The perceived benefits of the cell phone in love life are: (1) Keeping up with mysignificant other is much easier with my cell phone, (2) I use my camera phone tosend pictures to my significant other and store his/her pictures, and (3) I frequentlyuse my cell phone to set up dates. The exact measures of these sub-dimensions areshown in Table 8. The perceived costs on love life sub-dimensions are: (1) Sincegetting my cell phone, I talk with my significant other on the phone more instead ofphysically getting together, which is not good, (2) My cell phone in a nuisance to meduring intimate moments with my significant other, (3) My significant other bothersme by calling at inopportune times.

The perceived benefits of the cell phone in work life are: (1) using text messagingto communicate with co-workers, (2) setting up business dates and conference calls,(3) using the camera feature for business purposes, (4) accessing the internet forbusiness purposes, and (5) being accessible to colleagues. The exact measures ofthese sub-dimensions are shown in Table 8. The perceived costs on work life

Table 5 Measures of perceived benefits and costs of cell phone in family life (with descriptive statistics)


Perceivedbenefits infamily life

Text messaging forcommunication withfamily members

I use text messaging a lot to communicatewith my family

2.1(1.2) 1.8(1.1)

Using camera to sharepictures with familymembers

I frequently use my cell phone to sendpictures to my family

1.7(0.9) 3.0(2.0)

Staying in touch withfamily

I use my cell phone a lot to stay in touchwith my family

4.3(0.9) 2.0(1.2)

Consulting familymembers on personalmatters

.I frequently use my cell phone to consultmy family on personal matters

4.0(1.0) 3.5(1.3)

Perceivedcosts infamily life

Reducing the motivationto meet in-person withfamily members

I dislike the fact I hardly get together withmy family because we stay in touch bycell phone

4.0(0.8) 3.8(1.2)

Family members calling atinopportune times

My family often bothers me by calling onmy cell phone inopportune times

3.7(1.0) 2.3(1.2)

Interrupting quality timewith family members

I spend less quality time with my familybecause my friends are always calling meon my cell phone

4.2(0.8) 3.6(1.7)



Table 7 Measures of perceived benefits and costs of cell phone in health and safety (with descriptivestatistics)


Perceivedbenefits inhealth andsafety

Seeking road assistance I use my cell phone as security just incase I get stranded on the road

4.3(0.9) 2.2(1.1)

Seeking assistance at timesof duress while engagingin outdoor activities

I usually take my cell phone with mewhen I do outdoor activities such ascamping, fishing, hiking, etc. Knowingmy cell phone makes me feel safe

3.9(1.0) 4.5(0.8)

Perceivedcosts inhealth andsafety

Driving impairment I admit that I frequently use my cellphone while driving, impairing myability to drive safely

2.6(1.1) 1.9(1.1)

The possible negativeimpact on health

I am very concerned about thepossibility that the use of cell phones,especially excessive use, can bedetrimental to my health (i.e. radiowaves may cause brain tumors)

3.3(1.2) 3.5(1.3)


Table 6 Measures of perceived benefits and costs of cell phone in education life (with descriptivestatistics)


Perceivedbenefits ineducationlife

Setting up conference calls withother classmates for studypurposes

I frequently use the conferencecall option on my cell phone. forgroup meetings for class projects

1.7(0.9)

Using text messaging to interactwith classmates for studypurposes

I frequently use text messaging tocommunicate with classmatesregarding coursework

2.0(1.1)

Using the alarm function to meetdeadlines and makeappointments related to schoolwork

The best use of my cell phone isthe alarm function. I need it towake me up to go to class

2.6(1.4)

Using the phone’s camera forschool work

I frequently use my cell phone totake photos for class assignments

1.6(0.7)

Accessing the internet for schoolwork

I use my cell phone to access theinternet to help me with myschool assignments

1.5(0.7)

Ease of being accessible toclassmates for study purposes

I contact my classmates using mycell phone to get help studyingand completing class projects

3.5(1.3))

Perceivedcosts ineducationlife

Interruption during study time My cell phone often interrupts mystudy time

3.7(1.0)

Disturbance during meetings andclass

Cell phone ringing disturbs mymeetings with classmates and/orprofessors

3.3(1.2)

Descriptive statistics reported are means and standard deviations (in parentheses); study 2 does not havean education domain.


sub-dimensions are: (1) disturbing business meetings and (2) interrupting the workflow (see Table 9 for exact measures and descriptive statistics).

The perceived benefits of the cell phone in financial life are: (1) using the phoneto check stock quotes, (2) seeking money quickly from sources of funding, (3)paying bills, and (4) checking account balances. The exact measures of these sub-dimensions are shown in Table 9. The perceived costs on financial life sub-dimensions are: (1) the cost of a monthly cell phone plan, (2) the financial burden ofadd-ons, and (3) the financial burden of overage (see Table 10 for exact measuresand descriptive statistics).

Table 9 Measures of perceived benefits and costs of cell phone in work life (with descriptive statistics)


Perceivedbenefits inwork life

Using text messaging tocommunicate with co-workers

I use text messaging to communicatewith colleagues working on jointprojects

2.0(1.1) 3.5(1.7)

Setting up business datesand conference calls

I frequently use the conference calloption for meetings with my workcolleagues

1.9(1.0) 3.1(1.8)

Using the camera featurefor business purposes

I use my cell phone to take photos forwork related projects

1.7(0.9) 2.9(1.9)

Accessing the internet forbusiness purposes

I use my cell phone to connect to theinternet to help me with my workprojects

1.7(0.9) 2.8(1.7)

Being accessible tocolleagues

The cell phone helps me stay in contactwith my colleagues at work

3.5(1.1) 2.9(2.0)

Perceivedcosts in worklife

Disturbing businessmeetings

Cell phones ringing disturb meetingswith colleagues and/or my boss

3.4(1.1) 3.1(2.0)

Interrupting the work flow My cell phone often interrupts my work 3.7(1.1) 3.1(2.1)


Table 8 Measures of perceived benefits and costs of cell phone in love life (with descriptive statistics)


Perceivedbenefits inlove

Keeping up withsignificant other

Keeping up with my significant other ismuch easier with my cell phone

4.2(1.0) 3.1(1.6)

Use of camera to sendpictures to significantother

I use my camera phone to send pictures tomy significant other and store his/herpictures

2.0(1.1) 3.4(2.1)

Set up dates withsignificant other

I frequently use my cell phone to set updates

3.2(1.2) 3.5(1.5)

Perceivedcosts inlove

Lessens need to gettogether often withsignificant other

Since getting my cell phone, I talk with mysignificant other on the phone moreinstead of physically getting together,which is not good

3.8(1.0) 3.1(1.8)

Nuisance during intimatemoments withsignificant other

My cell phone in a nuisance to me duringintimate moments with my significantother

3.7(1.2) 3.5(1.6)

Significant other calling atinopportune times

My significant other bothers me by callingat inopportune times

3.8(1.0) 3.5(1.6)



The Survey Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire had three sections. The first section dealt with cell phoneownership, satisfaction and loyalty with the current carrier. The second section dealtwith the benefits and costs of cell phone in relation to life domains – social life,leisure life, family life, health and safety life, love life, work life, financial life, andoverall life. The third section dealt with demographics of the respondents.

Results

The conceptual model shown Fig. 1 was tested using regression analysis. Wedecided to use regression analysis since the model contains too many indicators toestimate the entire model as path analysis with formative indicators. We first testedthe effects of cell phone’s impact on eight life domains on cell phone’s overall QOL.We then tested the effects of benefits and costs within a life domain on theperception of the cell phone global effect of that life domain. We repeated the sameregression analysis for each life domain.

H1 posits that the impact of cell phones on overall QOL is influenced by: (a)perceived cell phone impact on social life, (b) perceived cell phone impact on leisurelife, (c) perceived cell phone impact on family life, (d) perceived cell phone impacton education life, (e) perceived cell phone impact on health & safety, (f) perceivedcell phone impact on love life, (g) perceived cell phone impact on work life, and (h)perceived cell phone impact on financial life. The results indicate that the overallQOL impact of cell phone is significantly affected by the cell phone’s impact onsocial life (beta=0.32; t=4.30), leisure life (beta=0.18; t=2.46), health and safety(beta=0.14; t=2.11), and love life (beta=0.20; t=2.56). By the same token, overall

Table 10 Measures of perceived benefits and costs of cell phone in financial life (with descriptivestatistics)


Perceivedbenefits infinancial life

Using the phone tocheck stock quotes

I often use my cell phone to check stockquotes

1.6(0.7) 2.3(1.7)

Seeking moneyquickly fromsources of funding

I frequently call my family on my cell phoneto obtain money for personal use

2.6(1.4) 2.2(1.6)

Paying bills I frequently use my cell phone to pay mybills

2.1(1.2) 2.2(1.7)

Checking accountbalances

I frequently check up on my bank/credit cardaccount using my cell phone

2.1(1.2) 2.3(1.8)

Perceived costsin financiallife

The cost of a monthlycell phone plan

Owning a cell phone is a drain on mymonthly budget

3.5(1.2) 3.9(1.5)

The financial burdenof add-ons

I end up paying a lot of money on my monthlycell phone bill because of extra services(pictures, games, internet access, ring tones,etc)

4.1(1.0) 3.5(1.4)

The financial burdenof overage charges

Overages on my calls are a significantfinancial burden

3.8(1.2) 3.7(1.7)



QOL impact of cell phone was not significantly predicted in the family life domain(beta=−0.04; t=−0.91), education life (beta=0.10; t=1.16), work life (beta=0.02; t=0.26), or financial life (beta=0.13; t=1.61). See Table 11.

Now let’s turn our attention to the impact of perceived benefits and costs ofthe cell phone in individual life domains. H2 posits that perceived values insocial life affect the overall perception of the impact of cell phones in social life.Specifically, the perceived benefits and costs that affect the overall perception ofcell phones in social life include: (a) chatting with friends, (b) showing off tofriends, (c) calling friends internationally, (d) staying in touch with friends, (e)taking pictures of friends, (f) downloading ring tones that would impress friends,(g) networking with friends through text messaging, (h) cell phones becoming astatus symbol leading to peer pressure, (i) interruptions of good times withfriends, (j) not interacting with friends face-to-face, (k) addiction to chatting withfriends. The results indicate that the following benefits and costs significantlyaffect the overall perception of cell phones in the social life: (a) chatting withfriends (beta=0.18, t=2.44), (d) staying in touch with friends (beta=0.19, t=2.97),(h) cell phones becoming a status symbol leading to peer pressure (beta=0.22, t=3.44), and (k) addiction to chatting with friends (beta=−0.15, t=−2.18). All otherbenefits and costs are not significantly predictive of overall perception of cell phonesin the social life. See results in Table 12.

H3 posits that that perceived value in leisure life affect the overall perception ofthe impact of cell phones in leisure life. Specifically, the perceived benefits and coststhat affect the overall perception of cell phones in leisure life include: (a) use of cellphone for amusement during travel, (b) use of camera for leisure, (c) surf the Internetfor fun, (d) download and play music for fun, (e) play video games for fun, (f) notime to relax because of cell phone interruption, (g) cell phone chatting takes awayfrom time devoted to quality leisure. The results indicate that the following benefitsand costs significantly affect the overall perception of cell phones in the leisurelife: (d) download and play music for fun (beta=0.19, t=1.97), (g) cell phonechatting takes away from time devoted to quality leisure (beta=−0.3, t=−3.77). SeeTable 13.

H4 posits that perceived value in family life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in family life. Specifically, the perceived benefits and coststhat affect the overall perception of cell phones in family life include: (a) text

Table 11 Test of H1 (regression results)

Dependent variable Sub-dimension Study 1 beta(t value)

Study 2 beta(t value)

Overall QOL Cell phone’s impact on social life 0.32 (4.30) 0.08 (2.33)Cell phone’s impact on leisure life 0.18 (2.46) 0.08 (2.15)Cell phone’s impact on family life −0.04 (−0.53) 0.25 (6.83)Cell phone’s impact on education life 0.10 (1.16)Cell phone’s impact on health and safety 0.14 (2.11) 0.18 (5.80)Cell phone’s impact on love life 0.20 (2.56) 0.12 (3.50)Cell phone’s impact on work life 0.02 (0.26) −0.01 (−0.41)Cell phone’s impact on financial life 0.13 (1.61) −0.01 (−0.37)

R2=0.53 R2=0.28


messaging for communication with family members, (b) staying in touch withfamily, (c) consulting family members on personal matters, (d) using camera to sharepictures with family members, (e) reducing the motivation to meet in-person withfamily members, (f) family members calling at inopportune times, and (g)interrupting quality time with family members. The results indicate that thefollowing benefits and costs significantly affect the overall perception of cell phonesin the family life: (b) staying in touch with family (beta=0.30, t=4.06), (c)consulting family members on personal matters (beta=0.36, t=4.92), and (d) usingcamera to share pictures with family members (beta=0.16, t=2.66). See Table 14.

H5 posits that perceived value in education life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in education life. Specifically, the perceived benefits and coststhat affect the overall perception of cell phones in education life include: (a) settingup conference calls with other classmates for study purposes, (b) ease of being


Dependent variable Independent variables: perceived benefitsand costs of cell phone in leisure life



Perception of global impact ofcell phone in leisure life

Use of cell phone for amusement duringtravel (benefit)

0.03 (0.57) 0.05 (1.66)

Use of camera for leisure (benefit) 0.14 (2.26) 0.12 (2.77)Surf the Internet for fun (benefit) −0.06 (−0.79) 0.03 (1.18)Download and play music for fun (benefit) 0.25 (2.67) 0.17 (3.97)Play video games for fun (benefit) 0.11 (1.63) 0.04 (2.06)No time to relax because of cell phoneinterruption (cost)

0.01 (0.11) −0.17(−5.94)

Cell phone chatting takes away from timedevoted to quality leisure (cost)

−0.35 (−3.99) 0.01 (0.21)

R2=0.51 R2=0.12


Dependent variable Independent variables: perceived benefitsand costs of cell phone in social life



Perception of global impact ofcell phone in social life

Chatting with friends (benefit) 0.18 (2.44) 0.10 (3.40)Showing off to friends (benefit) 0.04 (0.53) 0.02 (0.78)Calling friends internationally (benefit) −0.05 (−0.83) 0.00 (0.17)Staying in touch with friends (benefit) 0.19 (2.97) 0.21 (6.11)Taking pictures of friends (benefit) 0.07 (0.92) −0.04 (−1.11)Downloading ring tones that wouldimpress friends (benefit)

0.05 (0.68) −0.04 (−1.15)

Networking w/friends through textmessaging (benefit)

0.13 (1.78) 0.10 (3.0)

Cell phones becoming a status symbolleading to peer pressure (cost)

0.22 (3.44) −0.04 (−1.00)

Interruptions of good times with friends(cost)

0.11 (1.76) −0.14 (−4.41)

Not interacting with friends face-to-face(cost)

−0.04 (−0.64) −0.08 (−2.32)

Addiction to chatting with friends (cost) −0.15 (−2.18) −0.01 (−0.31)R2=0.45 R2=0.20


accessible to classmates for study purposes, (c) using text messaging to interact withclassmates for study purposes, (d) using the alarm function to meet deadlines andmake appointments related to school work, (e) using the phone’s camera for schoolwork, (f) accessing the internet for school work, (g) interruption during study time,(h) disturbance during meetings and class. The results indicate that the followingbenefits and costs significantly affect the overall perception of cell phones in theeducation life: (b) ease of being accessible to classmates for study purposes (beta=0.33, t=4.92), (c) using text messaging to interact with classmates for study purposes(beta=0.18, t=2.42), and (d) using the alarm function to meet deadlines and makeappointments related to school work (beta=0.21, t=3.23). See Table 15.


Dependent variable Independent variables: perceived benefitsand costs of cell phone in family life



Perception of global impact ofcell phone in family life

Text messaging for communication withfamily members (benefit)

−0.02(−0.33)

0.05 (1.29)

Staying in touch with family (benefit) 0.30 (4.06) −0.04 (−1.04)Consulting family members on personalmatters (benefit)

0.36 (4.92) 0.23 (6.64)

Using camera to share pictures with familymembers (benefit)

0.16 (2.66) 0.04 (1.11)

Reducing the motivation to meet in-personwith family members (cost)

−0.11(−1.63)

−0.06 (−1.82)

Family members calling at inopportunetimes (cost)

0.04 (0.60) −0.25 (−7.18)

Interrupting quality time with familymembers (cost)

−0.03(−0.48)

−0.07 (−2.04)

R2=0.43 R2=0.24


Dependent variable Independent variables: perceived benefits andcosts of cell phone in education life



Perception of global impactof cell phone in educationlife

Setting up conference calls with otherclassmates for study purposes (benefit)

0.04 (0.55)

Ease of being accessible to classmates forstudy purposes (benefit)

0.33 (4.92)

Using text messaging to interact withclassmates for study purposes (benefit)

0.18 (2.42)

Using the alarm function to meet deadlines andmake appointments related to school work(benefit)

0.21 (3.23)

Using the phone’s camera for school work(benefit)

−0.04(−0.48)

Accessing the Internet for school work(benefit)

0.12 (1.29)

Interruption during study time (cost) −0.09(−1.30)

Disturbance during meetings and class (cost) −0.04(−0.68)

R2=0.42


H6 posits that perceived value in health and safety life affect the overallperception of the impact of cell phones in health and safety life. Specifically, theperceived benefits and costs that affect the overall perception of cell phones in healthand safety life include: (a) seeking road assistance, (b) seeking assistance at times ofduress while engaging in outdoor activities, (c) driving impairment, (d) the possiblenegative impact on health. The results indicate that the following benefits and costssignificantly affect the overall perception of cell phones in the health and safety life:(a) seeking road assistance (beta=0.30, t=5.01), (b) seeking assistance at times ofduress while engaging in outdoor activities (beta=0.39, t=6.30), and (d) the possiblenegative impact on health (beta=−0.15, t=−2.65). See Table 16.

H7 posits that perceived value in love life affects the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in love life. Specifically, the perceived benefits and costs thataffect the overall perception of cell phones in love life include: (a) being easilyaccessible to a significant other, (b) the use of cameras to take photos, (c) the abilityto set up dates via a cell phone, (d) not meeting that often, (e) interruptions duringintimate times, (f) receiving calls at inopportune times. The results indicate that thefollowing benefits and costs significantly affect the overall perception of cell phonesin love life: (a) being easily accessible to a significant other (beta=0.44, t=6.99) and(c) the ability to set up dates via a cell phone (beta=0.24, t=3.62). See Table 17.

H8 posits that perceived value in work life affects the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in work life. Specifically, the perceived benefits and costs thataffect the overall perception of cell phones in work include: (a) being accessible tocolleagues, (b) using text messaging to communicate with co-workers, (c) Setting upbusiness dates and conference calls, (d) using the camera feature for businesspurposes, (e) accessing the internet for business purposes, (f) disturbing businessmeetings, (g) Interrupting the work flow. The results indicate that the followingbenefits and costs significantly affect the overall perception of cell phones in thework life: (a) being accessible to colleagues (beta=0.56, t=9.05) and (f) disturbingbusiness meetings (beta=−0.20, t=−2.62). See Table 18.

H9 posits that perceived value in financial life affects the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in financial life. Specifically, the perceived benefits and coststhat affect the overall perception of cell phones in financial life include: (a) seekingmoney quickly from sources of funding, (b) paying bills, (c) checking accountbalances, (d) using the phone to check stock quotes, (e) the cost of a monthly cellphone plan, (f) the financial burden of add-ons, (g) the financial burden of overage


Dependent variable Independent variables: perceived benefitsand costs of cell phone in health and safety



Perception of global impact ofcell phone in health and safety

Seeking road assistance (benefit) 0.30 (5.01) 0.01 (0.20)Seeking assistance at times of duress whileengaging in outdoor activities (benefit)

0.39 (6.30) 0.29 (8.79)

Driving impairment (cost) −0.06(−0.95)

−0.21(−6.35)

The possible negative impact on health(cost)

−0.15(−2.65)

−0.07(−2.33)

R2=0.40 R2=0.20


charges. The results indicate that the following benefits and costs significantly affectthe overall perception of cell phones in the education life: (b) paying bills (beta=0.30, t=4.28), (c) checking account balances (beta=0.29, t=4.04), and (g) thefinancial burden of overage charges (beta=−0.19, t=−2.95). See Table 19.

Discussion

The study findings make sense in light of the fact that the data belonged to a collegestudent sample. The perception of overall quality-of-life impact of the cell phonewas significantly predicted by four out of the eight life domains: social, leisure,health and safety, and love. Perceived cell phone impact on family, education, work,and financial life failed to predict the perception of overall impact. Inspecting thestandard deviations of the four predictors that failed to predict overall quality-of-lifeimpact, as well as the criterion variable, we find reasonable variance in these


Dependent variable Independent variables: perceived benefitsand costs of cell phone in work life



Perception of global impact ofcell phone in work life

Being accessible to colleagues (benefit) 0.56 (9.05) 0.2 (5.01)Using text messaging to communicate withco-workers (benefit)

−0.05(−0.58)

0.39 (13.21)

Setting up business dates and conferencecalls (benefit)

0.11 (1.22) 0.05 (1.48)

Using the camera feature for businesspurposes (benefit)

−0.11(−1.24)

0.06 (1.83)

Accessing the Internet for business purposes(benefit)

0.15 (1.64) 0.19 (5.39)

Disturbing business meetings (cost) −0.20(−2.62)

0.07 (1.91)

Interrupting the work flow (cost) −0.05(−0.59)

−0.06(−1.48)

R2=0.50 R2=0.57


Dependent variable Independent variables: perceived benefitsand costs of cell phone in love life



Perception of global impact ofcell phone in love life

Being easily accessible to a significant other(benefit)

0.44 (6.99) 0.14 (4.52)

The use of cameras to take photos (benefit) 0.01 (0.17) 0.05 (1.75)The ability to set up dates via a cell phone(benefit)

0.24 (3.62) 0.32 (10.71)

Replacing physical meetings with phonecalls (cost)

−0.12(−1.64)

−0.16(−5.56)

Interruptions during intimate times (cost) −0.10(−1.45)

−0.16(−4.13)

Receiving calls at inopportune times (cost) −0.11(−1.63)

−0.05(−1.32)

R2=0.46 R2=0.46


variables. Therefore, failure to predict overall quality-of-life impact cannot beattributed to lack of variance in the predictor or criterion variables.

With respect to the individual life domains, the results indicate that the followingbenefits significantly affect the overall perception of cell phones in social life:chatting with friends and staying in touch with friends. In contrast, cell phonesbecoming a status symbol leading to peer pressure and addiction to chatting withfriends were perceived costs that significantly predicted overall perception of cellphones in social life. With respect to leisure life, the benefit of downloading andplaying music for fun and the cost of chatting taking away from time devoted toquality leisure were found to be predictors of overall perception of cell phones inleisure life. In regards to family life, the results indicate that the following benefitssignificantly affect the overall perception of cell phones in the family life: staying intouch with family, consulting family members on personal matters, and using camerato share pictures with family members. Focusing on education life, the resultsindicate that the following benefits significantly affect the overall perception of cellphones in the education life: ease of being accessible to classmates for studypurposes, using text messaging to interact with classmates for study purposes, andusing the alarm function to meet deadlines and make appointments related to schoolwork. In relation to health and safety, the results indicate that the following benefitssignificantly affect the overall perception of cell phones in health and safety: seekingroad assistance and seeking assistance at times of duress while engaging in outdooractivities. One perceived cost was found to significantly predict the overallperception of cell phones in health and safety: the possible negative impact onhealth. With love life, the results indicate that the following benefits significantlyaffect the overall perception of cell phones in the love life: being easily accessible toa significant other and the ability to set up dates via a cell phone. With respect towork life, the results indicate one benefit significantly affect the overall perception ofcell phones in the work life: being accessible to colleagues. One cost was also foundto significantly predict the overall perception of cell phones in work life: disturbingbusiness meetings. Finally, in relation to financial life, the results indicate two


Dependent variable Independent variables: perceived benefitsand costs of cell phone in financial life



Perception of global impact ofcell phone in financial life

Seeking money quickly from sources offunding (benefit)

0.09 (1.46) 0.18 (3.95)

Paying bills (benefit) 0.30 (4.28) 0.04 (0.83)Checking account balances (benefit) 0.29 (4.04) −0.06

(−1.13)Using the phone to check stock quotes(benefit)

0.08 (1.21) 0.1 (2.53)

The cost of a monthly cell phone plan (cost) −0.05(−0.81)

−0.19 (−3.8)

The financial burden of add-ons (cost) 0.03 (0.44) 0.05 (1.55)The financial burden of overage charges(cost)

−0.19(−2.95)

−0.13(−2.72)

R2=0.40 R2=0.25


benefits (paying bills and checking account balances) and one cost (the financialburden of overage charges) significantly affect the overall perception of cell phonesin education life.

While the results provide support for the conceptual model, one can argue that theuse of the student sample limit generalizability of the study findings across differentpopulations. In order to test the external validity of study findings of study one, weconducted a second study using a significant number of adult consumers.

Study 2

To reiterate, the purpose of Study 2 is to test the generalizability of the findings instudy one using adult consumers. Study 2 also involved a web-based survey. In orderto collect data from a random sample of adult consumers that would closelyrepresent the US population, we used a reputed sample vendor to contact therespondents. The final sample involved 1,012 adult consumers. The qualifiedrespondents who finished the survey were entered into a cash drawing managed bythe sample vendor. Approximately, 1,400 email invites were sent out, and we had atotal of 1,012 completes with 162 disqualifieds and another 39 incompletes. Ourresponse rate was high at 87%.

Out of 1,012 respondents, 601 (59.4%) were male and 411 (40.6%) werefemale respondents. In terms of age, 160 (15.8%) respondents were 24–34, 193(19.2 %) respondents were 35–44, 286 (28.3%) respondents were 45–54 and 255(25.2%) respondents were 55–64 and 116 (11.5%) respondents were over 65.

The survey questionnaire was almost identical to that used in Study 1 with theslight exception that the measures pertaining to the education life domain weredeleted. We did this because the majority of the sample comprised of mature adultsbeyond college.

Results

As in Study 1, the conceptual model (as shown in Fig. 1) was tested using regressionanalysis (N=1,012). The results indicate that the perceived overall QOL impact ofthe cell phone was significantly predicted by the perceived impact on social life(beta=0.08, t=2.33), leisure life (beta=0.08, t=2.15), family life (beta=0.25, t=6.83), health and safety (beta=0.18, t=5.80), and love life (beta=0.12, t=3.50). Theoverall QOL impact of cell phone was not significantly predicted by perceivedimpact on financial life (beta=−0.01, t=−0.37) or perceived impact on work life(beta=−0.01, t=−0.41). See Table 11.

With respect to social life, the results indicate that the following benefitssignificantly affect the perception of overall impact of cell phones on social life:chatting with friends (beta=0.10, t=3.4), staying in touch with friends (beta=0.21,t=6.11), and networking w/friends through text messaging (beta=0.10, t=3.0). Twocosts were found to be significantly predictive of the perception of overall impact ofcell phones on social life: interruptions of good times with friends (beta=−0.14, t=−4.41) and not interacting with friends face-to-face (beta=−0.08, t=−2.32). SeeTable 12.


In relation to leisure life, the results indicate that the following benefitssignificantly affect the perception of overall impact of cell phones on leisure life:use of camera for leisure (beta=0.12, t=2.85), download and play music for fun(beta=0.13, t=3.24), and play video games for fun (beta=0.07, t=2.02). One costattributes was predictive of perception of overall impact of cell phone on leisure life,namely no time to relax because of cell phone interruption (beta=−0.17, t=−5.64).See Table 13.

In regards to family life, one perceived benefit was found to significantly affectthe perception of overall impact of cell phones on family life: consulting familymembers on personal matters (beta=0.23, t=6.64). In contrast, two perceived costswere predictive of perception of overall impact of cell phone on family life: familymembers calling at inopportune times (beta=−0.25, t=−7.18) and interruptingquality time with family members (beta=−0.07, t=−2.04). See Table 14.

Focusing on health and safety, the results show one benefit to be significantlypredictive of perception of overall impact of cell phones on health and safety:seeking assistance at times of duress while engaging in outdoor activities (beta=0.29, t=8.79). Two costs were found to be predictive of perception of overall impactof cell phones on health and safety: driving impairment (beta=−0.21, t=−6.35) andthe possible negative impact on health (beta=−0.07, t=−2.33). See Table 16.

In relation to love life, the results indicate that the following benefits significantlyaffect the perception of overall impact of cell phones on love life: being easilyaccessible to a significant other (beta=0.14, t=4.52) and the ability to set up datesvia a cell phone (beta=0.32, t=10.71). Two costs also were predictive: replacingphysical meetings with phone calls (beta=−0.16, t=−5.56) and (e) interruptionsduring intimate times (beta=−0.16, t=−4.13). See Table 17.

Concerning work life, the results indicate that the following benefits weresignificantly predictive of the perception of overall impact of cell phones on worklife: being accessible to colleagues (beta=0.16, t=5.55), using text messaging tocommunicate with co-workers (beta=0.36, t=13.89), setting up business dates andconference calls (beta=0.05, t=1.96), and accessing the internet for businesspurposes (beta=0.19, t=6.32). See Table 18.

Finally, in relation to financial life, the results indicate that the following benefitssignificantly affect the perception of overall impact of cell phones on financial life:seeking money quickly from sources of funding (beta=0.16, t=4.29) and using thephone to check stock quotes (beta=0.08, t=2.76). Two costs also were found to bepredictive: the cost of a monthly cell phone plan (beta=−0.19, t=−4.49) and thefinancial burden of overage charges (beta=−0.09, t=−2.38). See Table 19.

Discussion

Summary of Findings

The results indicate that the impact of cell phones on overall QOL is influenced byperceived cell phone impact on social life, leisure life, family life, education life,health & safety life, and love life. The impact of cell phones on overall QOL is not


significantly influenced by perceived cell phone impact on work life and financiallife. The findings are summarized in Table 20.

Perceived benefits and costs in social life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in social life. Those benefits and costs include: chatting withfriends (+), staying in touch with friends (+), cell phones becoming a status symbolleading to peer pressure (−) interruptions of good times with friends (−), notinteracting with friends face-to-face (−), and addiction to chatting with friends (−).

Perceived benefits and costs in leisure life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in leisure life. Those benefits and costs include: use of camerafor leisure (+), download and play music for fun (+), play video games for fun (+),no time to relax because of cell phone interruption (−), and cell phone chatting takesaway from quality leisure time (−).

Table 20 Summary of hypotheses

Hypothesis Study 1 Study 2

H1: Perceived QOL Impactof Cell Phone is influenced by

Social life (+) Social life (+)Leisure life (+) Leisure life (+)Health and safety life (+) family life (+)Love life (+) Health and safety life (+)

Love life (+)H2: Social life is influenced by Chatting with friends (+) Chatting with friends (+)

Staying in touch with friends(+)

Staying in touch with friends(+)

Peer pressure (−) Networking (+)Addition (−) Interruption (−)

No face to face interaction (−)H3: Leisure life is influenced by Camera (+) Camera (+)

Music (+) Music (+)Away from quality leisure (−) Video games (+)

Interruption (−)H4: Family life is influenced by Staying in touch (+) Consulting (+)

Consulting (+) Calling inappropriate times (−)Share pictures (+) Interruption (−)

H5: Education life is influenced by Access to classmates (+)Text messaging (+)Alarm (+)

H6: Health and safety life is influencedby

Road assistance (+) Outdoor assistance (−)Outdoor assistance (+) Impairment (−)Negative health impact (−) Negative health impact (−)

H7: Love life is influenced by Easy access (+) Easy access (+)Set up dates (+) Set up dates (+)

Replacing physical meetings(−)

Interruptions (−)H8: Work life is influenced by Access to colleagues (+) Access to colleagues (+)

Disturbing meetings (−) Text messaging to co-workers(+)

Access to internet (+)H9: Financial life is influenced by Paying bills (+) Seeking money (+)

Checking balance (+) Checking stock quotes (+)Over charges (−) Monthly cost (−)

Over charges (−)


Perceived benefits and costs in family life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in family life. Those benefits and costs include: staying intouch with family (+), consulting family members on personal matters (+), camerafor sharing pictures with family members (+), family members calling at inopportunetimes (−), and interrupting quality time with family members (−).

Perceived benefits and costs in education life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in education life. Those benefits and costs include: setting upconference calls with other classmates for study purposes (+), using text messagingto interact with classmates for study purposes (+), and using the alarm function tomeet deadlines and make appointments related to school work (+).

Perceived benefits and costs in health and safety affect the overall perception ofthe impact of cell phones in health and safety life. Those benefits and costs include:seeking road assistance (+), seeking assistance at times of duress while engaging inoutdoor activities (+), driving impairment (−) and the possible negative impact onhealth (−).

Perceived benefits and costs in love life affect the overall perception of the impactof cell phones in love life. Those benefits and costs include: keeping up withsignificant other (+), setting up dates with significant other (+), being a nuisanceduring intimate moments with significant other (−), and significant other calling atinopportune times (−).

Perceived benefits and costs in work life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in work life. Those benefits and costs include: using textmessaging to communicate with co-workers (+), being accessible to colleagues (+),being able to access to the internet (+), and disturbing business meetings (−).

Perceived benefits and costs in financial life affect the overall perception of theimpact of cell phones in financial life. Those benefits and costs include: using thephone to check stock quotes (+), seeking money quickly from sources of funding(+), paying bills (+), checking account balances (+), the cost of a monthly cell phoneplan (−), and the financial burden of overage charges (−).

A New Measure of Cell Phone Well-Being

Combining the results of studies 1 and 2, we are now in a position to offer a measureof cell phone well-being that is robust and predictive. This measure is shown inTable 21. We assembled this measure as a direct function of the predictiveness of theperceived benefits and costs on perceptions of cell phone impact within the variouslife domains concomitant with the predictiveness of perceptions of cell phone impactwithin the various life domains on the perception of overall quality-of-life impact ofthe cell phone.

Managerial and Policy Implications

These two studies suggest that the use of cell phones do indeed impact consumerwell-being through their social life, leisure life, family life, health and safety, andlove life. Thus it is important for marketers in the mobile communications industryto develop technologies and marketing programs to maximize benefits and minimizecosts in relation to those life domains. Marketers can also use our proposed measure


to monitor the well-being of their customer population. The same measure should beable to highlight strengths and weaknesses. Marketers should reinforce thosestrengths and remedy weaknesses. Doing so should further enhance customersatisfaction and well-being, which should further enhance customer loyalty anddecrease switching behavior.

By the same token, public policy makers working in government agenciesoverseeing the mobile communications industry (as well as executives representingtelecommunications industry associations) can use our cell phone well-beingmeasure to monitor the overall health of the industry. Again, the measure isconsidered to be highly diagnostic in the sense that it can reveal areas that

Table 21 The resultant predictive measure of cell phone well-being

Life domains Result

Perceived QOL impact of cellphone

Overall, I feel that my cell phone has improved the quality of my life

Perceived QOL impact onsocial life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to my social life. Thecell phone contributes significantly to enhancing my social life

Perceived QOL impact onleisure life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to my leisure life. Thecell phone contributes significantly to enhancing my leisure life

Perceived QOL impact onfamily life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to my family life. Thecell phone contributes significantly to enhancing my family life

Perceived QOL impact oneducation life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to my education life.The cell phone contributes significantly to enhancing my education life

Perceived QOL impact onhealth and safety

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to my health andsafety. The cell phone contributes significantly to enhancing my healthand safety

Perceived QOL impact on lovelife

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to my love life. TheCell phone contributes significantly to enhancing my love life

Perceived QOL impact onwork life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to my work life. Thecell phone contributes significantly to enhancing my work life

Perceived QOL impact onfinancial life

Overall, I feel that my cell phone is very important to my financial life.The cell phone contributes significantly to enhancing my financial life

Perceived benefits in sociallife

I use my cell phone a lot for chatting with friendsKeeping in touch with friends is so much easier having a cell phone

Perceived benefits in leisurelife

I use the camera on my cell phone for leisure purposesI frequently use my cell phone to download and play music

Perceived benefits in familylife

I frequently use my cell phone to consult my family on personal matters

Perceived benefits ineducation life

I frequently use the conference call option on my cell phone for groupmeetings for class projectsI frequently use text messaging to communicate with classmatesregarding courseworkThe best use of my cell phone is the alarm function I need it to wake meup to go to class

Perceived benefits in healthand safety

I use my cell phone as security just in case I get stranded on the road

Perceived costs in health andsafety

I am very concerned about the possibility that the use of cell phones,especially excessive use, can be detrimental to my health (i.e. radiowaves may cause brain tumors)

Perceived benefits in love life Keeping up with my significant other is much easier with my cell phoneI frequently use my cell phone to set up dates

Perceived benefits in work life The cell phone helps me stay in contact with my colleagues at workPerceived costs in financiallife

Overages on my calls are a significant financial burden


government and/or industry associations should develop policies. These policiesshould guide the firms within the industry to develop future technologies andmarketing programs that ultimately contribute to the quality of life of cell phoneusers.

References

Chesley, N. (2005). Cell phone raise work home stress: Cell phones blur boundaries between work andhome. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1237–1248.

Gartners’ Report (2005). Forecast mobile terminals worldwide, 2000–2009. Gartner.Gerpott, T. J., Rams, W., & Schindler, A. (2001). Customer retention, loyalty, and satisfaction in the

German mobile cellular telecommunications market. Telecommunications Policy, 25(4), 249–260.GMA News and Publication Affairs (2007). Our cell phone: Our life and work, January 27.Heikkila, J. (2002). From supply to demand chain management: Efficiency and customer satisfaction.

Journal of Operations Management, 20(6), 747–760.Kim, M.-K., Park, M.-C., & Jeong, D.-H. (2004). The effects of customer satisfaction and switching

barrier on customer loyalty in Korean mobile telecommunication services. TelecommunicationsPolicy, 28(2), 145–159.

Lee, J., Lee, J., & Feick, L. (2001). The impact of switching costs on the customer satisfaction–loyaltylink: Mobile phone service in France. Journal of Services Marketing, 15(1), 35–50.

Lin, H.-H. & Wang, Y.-S. (2006). An examination of the determinants of customer loyalty in mobilecommerce contexts. Information & Management, 43(3), 271–285.

Nair, I. (2007). Impact of mobile phones in daily life. Ezine Articles, June 13.Nysyeen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Thorbjornsen, H. (2005). Intentions to use mobile services: Antecedents

and cross-service comparisons. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 330–347.Olsen, S. (2006). Does cell phone’s impact outweigh PC’s? CNETnews, July 25.Pandey, S. (2007). Handset market: The growing market for mobile phone accessories. Retrieved from

http://www.abiresearch.com.Sharma, N. & Ojha, S. (2004). Measuring service performance in mobile communications. The Service

Industries Journal, 24(6), 109–120.Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Bae, J. (2006). Developing a measure of Internet well-being: Nomological

(predictive) validation. Social Indicators Research, 78(2), 205–249.


http://www.abiresearch.com

Documents

Developing and Validating a Measure of Consumer Well-Being in Relation to Cell Phone Use