Mobile Phone Use as Part of Young People’s Consumption Styles

ABSTRACT. The paper reports on an empirical study of the connection betweenconsumption patterns and mobile phone use. The data stem from a survey of Finnishyoung people aged 16–20. The results indicate that young people’s relationship tothe mobile phone is consistent with their general consumption styles. An “addictive”use of the phone was related to “trendy” and “impulsive” consumption styles and preva-lent among females. Technology enthusiasm and trend-consciousness was linked toimpulsive consumption and “hard” values and prevalent among males. A frugal mobilephone use was not related to gender but to environmentalism and thrifty consump-tion in general. The traditional gender division in mobile phone use styles that couldbe observed is interesting in the light of conjectures that genders are becoming morealike in their use of new technology. Technology enthusiasm, usually regarded as a“typically male” thing, was also linked to “female” consumption styles. This may reflectyoung men’s changing relationship to consumption.

YOUNG PEOPLE AS CONSUMERS IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY

The consumption and lifestyles of young people have always been lesscharacterized by the “traditional” collection of material objects thanis the case for older age groups (e.g., Wilska, 2002a). Hedonism,visibility, and open-mindedness have also been regarded as typicalof the consumption of young people. The consumption styles of youngpeople represent everything that theorists argue to be typical of today’s“postmodern” lifestyles and consumption. Apart from everyday lifehaving become “aestheticized” (Featherstone, 1991), consumption isregarded as much more than purchases of products and services.Instead, consumption is to a greater degree seen as a means of self-expression, individual identity-formation, creativity, or even art (e.g.,du Gay, 1996; Gabriel & Lang, 1996; Giddens, 1991). Unpredictabilityand the blurring of traditional styles are typical of

both postmodernconsumption and new technology. Moreover, the portrait of a post-modern consumer also includes eternal youthfulness or at least thepursuit of it. More and more, the lifestyles and consumption patternsof young people determine the consumption trends of the whole

Journal of Consumer Policy

26: 441–463, 2003. 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Terhi-Anna Wilska

Mobile Phone Use as Part of YoungPeople’s Consumption Styles

population. Similarly, the time spent at work or studying is expectedto contain more and more play, entertainment, and adventures (du Gay,1996; Langman, 1992; Mäenpää, 2003).

The digital media shows and the cyber-worlds of the new tech-nology respond perfectly to the need for play and entertainment.However, these media spectacles have been criticized for their allegedadverse effects on young people, such as isolation and false con-sciousness caused by the virtual world. Also the use of the mobilephone has caused public worry. The combination of private telecom-munication and the hanging around in public places has become a new,appealing way of keeping up social networks for young people(Gillard, Wale, & Bow, 1996, p. 149; Mäenpää, 2001, p. 122). Thishas reduced the possibility for parents to control their communication.Due to the youngsters’ personal mobile phones, parents do notnecessarily know the friends of their children any more. Also theuse of other ICT products is more “private” than before. Young peopleoften use their computers in their own rooms, in which they also watchtheir own TVs and videos (Coogan & Kangas, 2001; Suoranta &Lehtimäki, 2003; Wilska, 2002a).

However, there are also more optimistic views about the effectsof the information technology on children (e.g., Rushkoff, 1996;Tapscott, 1998; Turkle, 1996). According to Tapscott (pp. 7–9), thenew “Net-Generation” matures earlier and is more knowledgeable thanany of the previous generations. The differences between genders inthe use of the new technology are often reported to decrease, sincewomen and girls spend as much time on ICT as men and boys do.Furthermore, women use more Internet in their work (Nurmela, 2001;Nurmela, Heinonen, Ollila, & Virtanen, 2000). However, there is alot of divergent evidence on this. According to several studies, thetraditional gender roles still persist and many more women/girls thanmen/boys are afraid of ICT (e.g., Kangas, 2002; Oksman, 1999;Suoninen, 2003; Turkle, 1988; Wilska, 2002a).

As a result of growing influence of the “Net-Generation,” theimpact of youth and young people has increased not only in themanifestation of consumption styles but also as in the production ofthem. According to some theories, when moving from childhood toadulthood, most rites of passage are for sale in the marketplace. Onecan even argue that the actual significance of youth as a stage in lifelies in the ability to act as an independent consumer on the market(Griffin, 1997; Miles, 2000, p. 106). Today young people reach this

442 Terhi-Anna Wilska

stage earlier than before, and the discovery of one’s “own style”becomes important at a very early age. Thus, the pressures for keepingup with the “legitimate” styles have never been as strong as they arenow. According to Klein (1999) and Quart (2003), the logos andbrands of products have become ever more important for young con-sumers. However, Finland is still behind the United States and WesternEurope in terms of the development of consumerism and the consumersociety (Wilska, 1999, p. 194). As consumers, Finnish young peopleclearly are different from their parents as consumers, but consumptionand brands do not yet fill their lives to the same extent as is the casein countries with more established consumer cultures, such as GreatBritain or the United States.

According to the Finnish Youth Barometer, to be “trendy” wasthe most important purchase criterion for only two per cent of youngrespondents aged 18–30. The most important criteria were quality,price, and sustainability. Moreover, 80 per cent of the respondentsthought that when choosing products, they were unaffected by theopinions of their peers (Youth Barometer, 2001, publ. 2002). A recentcommercial study also indicates that young people do not have veryaffectionate relationships to brands (Norrena, 2002). However, it isobvious that Finnish young people have many different consump-tion styles.

FINLAND: A PIONEER IN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGY

The empirical study to be reported here explores the connectionbetween young people’s mobile phone use and their consumptionstyles. In Finland, mobile communication, as well as other informa-tion and communication technologies (ICT), is undoubtedly a veryimportant part of the everyday life of young people. ICT has greatlyaffected the lives of all Finnish people during the past decade.According to Manuel Castells, Finland is the first “real” informationsociety in the world (Castells, 2000, p. 72). This argument may beexaggerated, yet the shift from a country struggling with deepeconomic depression in the early 1990s, to a country pioneering ininformation and communication technology, has been very rapidindeed.

Finland is probably not the leading country in the world for all

Mobile Phone Use of Young People 443

diffusion of ICT products. In the European Union, Finland is in fifthplace as regards the number of Internet connections, and the wholeof EU is still behind the United States (Kuure, 2003, p. 16). However,in terms of the diffusion of mobile phones, Finland is number onein the world, and this particularly among young people. In 2002, about92 per cent of Finnish households owned at least one mobile phone.Most households had, in 2001, as many mobile phones as therewere members of household over the age of ten (Kuure, 2003,p. 14; Statistics Finland, 2001). As to usage, according to theEurobarometers, 93 per cent of Finnish young people aged 15–24 useda mobile phone regularly in 2001. In Sweden, the percentage was90 but in most other EU countries it was around 80 (Kuure, 2003,p. 19).

As in most other industrialized countries, young people in Finlandadopted the mobile phone earlier than the rest of the population.Already in 1994, 30 per cent of young people aged 16–24 had a mobilephone at their disposal. Within five years, the percentage tripled andit was almost 90 in 1998 (Statistics Finland, 1994, 1998). Since then,the number of mobile phone users has grown steadily and includesever younger age groups. In 2001, over a third of Finnish childrenaged 7–10 had their own mobile phones and about 70 per cent of themwere allowed to use one regularly (Suoranta & Lehtimäki, 2003, pp.33–34).

Although there is quite a lot of research on the different mobilephone use cultures of young people and children (e.g., Coogan &Kangas, 2002; Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2001; Oksman & Rautiainen,2002) the connection between mobile phone use and other consump-tion has not been studied empirically. One easily assumes that “all”young people own a standard Nokia youth model, and that the con-sumption (apart from certain fancy accessories) focuses mainly onminimization of the costs, taking advantage of the operators’ specialoffers, and on sending SMS messages and making “killer”-calls (onelets the ring tone beep only once, and then hangs up). What is notknown is whether the use of mobile communication and related tech-nology fits into some consumption styles better than into others.Another question is whether mobile technology can create newconsumption cultures. One can also ask how “technological” themobile phone is perceived to be by its users. For instance, are therenotable differences between genders in the use of mobile technology?


These are the main issues on which this article aims to shedlight empirically, using survey data on Finnish young people aged16–20.

THE EMPIRICAL STUDY: DATA AND METHODS

The data used in this study are derived from the survey “ConsumerCultures of Young People in the Information Society” which wascarried out in Finnish schools in the spring of 2001 (Autio & Wilska,2001). The target group of the survey was young people aged 16–20in upper secondary schools, vocational schools, and other middle-leveleducational institutes throughout Finland. Upper secondary schoolsincluded both “ordinary” schools and those that were specialized inscience, technology, and environmental studies. Other educationalinstitutions in our sample included middle-level business schools,schools of technology, schools of social services and vocationalschools. The schools were located in cities, small towns, and the coun-tryside, in both wealthy and deprived areas. The questionnaires werefilled out during school lessons, under supervision. The final samplesize was 637. There were slightly more girls (55%) than boys (45%)in the sample.

The main themes of the survey questionnaire given to the youngrespondents were their consumption and general economic well-being,their self-perceived consumption styles, use of the mobile phone,attitudes towards technology and the information society, and attitudestowards environmental and ethical issues in relation to consumerchoices. The respondents were also asked about the possession anduse of different goods and services, as well as about how they pre-dicted their futures as consumers.

In this article, I first look into the general structure of the con-sumption patterns of young people and their self-perceptions asconsumers. Then I scrutinize their use of the mobile phone and finallyfocus on the connection between mobile phone use, perceived con-sumption style, gender, and other possibly significant backgroundvariables.


THE CONSUMPTION STYLES OF YOUNG PEOPLE

Most young people in our sample regarded their economic positionas fairly good. However, more than a third of them thought thatalthough their families were well off, they themselves were short ofmoney. The socio-economic positions of the parents of the youngpeople were related to the young people’s perceptions of theireconomic situation, which was to be expected. The offspring of uppermiddle-class parents usually evaluated their economic situation morepositively than the children of lower middle-class or worker parents.However, the upper middle-class youngsters did not necessarily havemore pocket money at their disposal than other young people.Presumably, upper middle-class parents give money more generouslyfor specific purposes. Young people from self-employed families hadthe most money at their disposal, but they also had larger earningsfrom their own work.

The average pocket money received from parents and relativeswas approximately 50 per month. The amount was not quite enoughto finance leisure time spending, which actually required about 62each month. The gross earnings from their own employment wereabout 1700 per year. Most young people were able to put somemoney aside. Saving for a specific purpose was reported by slightlyless than half of the respondents. Daily expenditures included clothes,mobile communication, alcohol, travelling, sweets and soft drinks, andhobbies and other leisure time activities, such as sports. For most,parents contributed to leisure time expenditures. Items such as clothingor beauty care were supported less often than leisure-time related itemssuch as use of the mobile phone.

In addition to a mobile phone, the young people owned a lot ofother technical devices. The families of the respondents typicallypossessed more than one mobile phone, more than one televisionset, more than one video tape recorder, and more than one computer.Over half of the respondents had a TV of their own and over a thirdof them had also a personal video tape recorder. One third of therespondents used their own computers, and almost one fifth usedtheir own personal internet-connections. According to these results,the above-mentioned “privatization” of the consumption of technologyseems to be a fact. If over half of the teenagers use their own tele-vision sets, the nature of family leisure time and communication isbound to change. The television set is no longer the object around


which the whole family automatically assembles in the evenings.According to the study of Coogan and Kangas (2001), both teenagersand their parents are often so busy that they do not even see each otherproperly every evening. The connection is kept up virtually, so thatthe mobile phone acts as a kind of “remote control.” According toCoogan and Kangas, young people welcome the freedom of not beingsubjected to direct physical control, and the parents get a clearerconscience (p. 33).

However, not all young people are interested in spending moneyon technology. Several studies show that even in Finland there are lotsof young people, particularly girls, who are not interested in tech-nology or who are against it for some other reason (e.g., Oksman,2000; Wilska, 2002a; Youth Barometer, 2000, publ. 2001). Not allyoungsters are even interested in consumption as a whole. Althoughyoung people’s consumption is more impulsive, hedonistic, visible,and expressive than the consumption of older age groups, recentstudies have found different consumption styles also among youngpeople. For instance, many Finnish young people have very negativeattitudes towards loan and debt (Koljonen, 2002). Some young peopleconsciously lead very frugal lives. On the other hand, some desireluxury and are prone to self-indulgence, regardless of income (Wilska,2002a, 2002b; Wilska & Eresmaa, 2002). Other current consump-tion styles of young people include green consumerism, ethicallyconscious consumerism, and voluntary simplicity (Autio & Wilska,2003).

In this survey, respondents were asked to evaluate themselves asconsumers, on a five-point Likert scale, with respect to frugality, trend-consciousness, impulsiveness, individualism, and environmentalconsciousness. As can be seen in Table I, the majority of the respon-dents placed themselves in the middle categories for most consumptionstyles. The means of the values for self-perception on the 1–5 Likertscale indicate that the respondents were likely to regard themselvesas prudent, thrifty, and environmentally conscious consumers slightlymore often than they were likely to regard themselves as squan-derers, impulse shoppers, or free-riders. The means of individualismand trend-consciousness also indicate that the respondents more oftenregard themselves as trend-conscious and individualistic than aslaggards and mass consumers. To follow fashion and trends and yetto regard oneself as an individualistically oriented consumer reflectsthe (post-)modern consumer’s classical conflict: There are require-


ments for individualism on the one hand and pressures of the peergroup on the other (see, e.g., Gronow, 1997). This applies in partic-ular to young people who are right in the middle of the process ofconstructing their consumer identities.

It is not surprising that so many of the respondents regarded them-selves as slightly more frugal and environmentally conscious thanthe average. In general, Finnish people tend to see themselves asless materialistic than “the others.” In a “Finland 1999” lifestylesurvey, most consumers thought that they spent less than others onalmost everything (Wilska, 2002b, p. 199). This is what Lunt andLivingstone call cognitive resistance: To consciously distance oneselffrom the “heavy spenders” is a coping strategy in a rapidly changingmaterial culture (Lunt & Livingstone, 1992, pp. 155–156). Althoughthis kind of resistance is more typical of older consumers, even foryoung people the “ideal” consumer is still someone who aims at savingmoney and spends frugally (Autio & Wilska, 2003; Wilska, 2002b),an ideal the old generation wilfully passes on to the new.

However, an interesting finding in the Finland 1999 survey was thatthe use of ICT is generally regarded as “legitimate” consumption: Itis something people regard as useful and innovative. Thus, people“dare” to admit that they spend more money on ICT than they believeother people do (Wilska, 2002b, pp. 199–200). For instance, the atti-tudes of parents towards purchasing mobile phones for their offspringare generally positive, and phones are commonly bought for childrenas young as seven years of age. One should note that for the youngestchildren, the phone is usually intended as a “lifeline,” even if the


TABLE ISelf-Perceived Consumption Styles

Mean 1 2 3 4 5

Money slips through 3,18 10 22 22 33 13 I manage to my fingers save something

Trend-conscious 2,83 05 31 44 05 05 “Laggard”

Impulse shopper 3,13 09 23 26 31 11 Prudent consumer

Mass consumer 3,50 02 11 37 35 15 Individualist

Environmentally 2,72 04 37 43 13 03 “Free rider”conscious

children themselves see it mainly as a fancy toy (e.g., Suoranta &Lehtimäki, 2003). For teenagers, a mobile phone is regarded as aneveryday necessity.

YOUNG PEOPLE AS MOBILE PHONE USERS

With many young people, mobile connection is described as a“lifeline” (Oksman & Rautiainen, 2001). A mobile phone is also asymbol of belongingness to a group and as a part of one’s identity(Coogan & Kangas, 2001; Jokinen & Kangas, 2000; Nurmela et al.,2000). The identity is expressed both by “personalizing” the applianceitself (through design, size, the colour of covers, ring tones, logos,screensavers, and other accessories) and by the actual use (such astiming and placing the phone calls and messages) (Jokinen & Kangas,2000; Kopomaa, 2000).

A great majority (91%) of the young people in this survey had amobile phone at their disposal. However, not everybody owned thephone they used. About two thirds of the respondents had alreadyhad two or more mobile phones; ten per cent more than three dif-ferent phones. The length of the period the respondents had used amobile phone was approximately two years and six months. Theaverage phone bill was reported to be about 27, probably an under-estimate (see Nurmela et al., 2000, p. 17). The size of the phonebills varied a lot between respondents, though.

As mentioned above, parents usually supported their children’suse of a mobile phone. A mobile phone was the expenditure categorythat parents funded the most (apart from necessities such as food,housing, and transport). For the majority of the respondents, theparents paid all (54%) or most (11%) of their mobile phone bills.However, according to Coogan and Kangas, parents are usually notjust humble settlers of their youngsters’ bills. In many families thereare strict and clear rules for limiting mobile phone bills. Often thereare also specific “debt arrangement programmes,” should the limitsget exceeded (Coogan & Kangas, 2001).

Approximately 16 per cent of the respondents used the accountcontrol service provided by the operators. This control means that afterthe phone bill reaches a certain pre-determined level, one can’t makecalls or send text messages any more. In this survey, the use of accountcontrol correlated significantly with some of the self-perceived con-


sumption styles. Respondents who used the account control typicallyregarded themselves as heavy spenders, whose money “slips throughtheir fingers.” Those who did not use the account control more fre-quently thought that they were thrifty consumers than that theywere heavy spenders (Table II). This indicates both that young peoplerealize what kind of consumers they are, in this sense, and thatthey strive to control their own behaviour. It also suggests that theuse of the mobile phone may be connected to general consumptionstyles.

An average young phone user made or received from six to eightphone calls per day and exchanged the same number of text messages.Additional functions used most were the alarm, the calendar, and thecalculator (93%) and new logos and ringing tones (79%). Payabletext message services were popular (45%). In general, young people’suse of the different functions of the mobile phone has become moreversatile, compared to some previous studies (e.g., Nurmela et al.,2000, p. 16). However, new mobile phones include a vast numberof different functions, and nowadays companies rely heavily on thosenew functions in their marketing. The importance of young peopleas a target group is usually acknowledged. Nokia, for instance, firsttested new innovations such as the digital camera and MMS amongyoung customers (Mäenpää, 2003, p. 130).

MOBILE PHONE USE AND CONSUMPTION STYLES

The different ways of using a mobile phone, as well as its social andcultural meanings, were examined with a set of statements that


TABLE IIRespondents’ Use of the Account Control and Self-Assessed Ability to Save Money

(Per cent)

Money slips I manage through my to save fingers something1 2 3 4 5

Account control users 19 28 23 26 04Non-users of account control 08 21 22 36 13

Pearson

χ2 = 18.742; p < 0.001.

measured attitudes and everyday practices related to the mobilephone. A Likert scale from 1 to 5 was used for measuring the attitudes(1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). The data were thensubjected to a factor analysis. The goals of factor analysis are the sum-marization of correlations among variables and the reduction of a largeset of variables into a smaller number of factors. Factor analysisproduces several linear combinations of observed variables, and eachlinear combination is a factor. The set of factors are extracted fromthe correlation matrix and rotated to increase interpretability. It is agood statistical approach to use in the search for different dimen-sions within data containing a lot of variables. It carries with it thedangers of over-interpretation and over-simplification, especially ifused as the sole method, but despite its frailties, factor analysis iscommonly used in lifestyle and consumption style studies (see, e.g.,Johansson & Miegel, 1992; Katz-Gerro & Shavit, 1998).

In this analysis, principal component extraction was used tomaximize the extracted variance and Varimax rotation to minimize thecomplexity of factors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, pp. 610, 615). Athree-factor solution turned out to be the best choice. The three factorsexplained about 43 per cent of the total variance (Table III).

In the first factor, attitudes that emphasized the operative use valueof the mobile phone got high loadings. Factor 1 is termed “Addictiveuse.” For someone with a high score on the “Addictive use” factor,talking on the phone and sending and receiving text messages areimportant in themselves, even without a specific issue to talk about.If the phone is not at hand, one feels very uncomfortable. The“Addictive use” of the phone includes frequent checking for callsand messages, talking over the phone even in public places, and havingdifficulties in paying the phone bills.

Factor 2 is termed “Trendy use.” For someone with a high scoreon the “Trendy use” factor, the mobile phone itself is an importantgadget. It has to be new and “posh,” use the latest technology, prefer-ably be provided with an Internet connection. Moreover, the phonehas to fit into its user’s general image and clothing style. The operatorand the connection type are important: They have to be particularlytrendy.

On the third factor, “Thrifty use,” statements such as: “A basicphone is good enough” and “Price is the most important issue whenchoosing a phone” got high loadings. Advanced technology or newfunctions are not important. For someone with a high score on the



TABLE IIIFactor Analysis of Mobile Phone Use Styles

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 h2

Addictive Trendy Thriftyuse use use

It’s important for me to receive a lot of phone calls and text messages 00.694 00.566

I write a lot of text messages 00.679 00.469

I keep checking for possible phone calls and text messages all the time 00.614 00.418

I often make mobile phone calls without any particular purpose 00.557 00.320

I feel very uncomfortable, if, for some reason, my mobile phone is not with me 00.553 00.375

I often have difficulties in paying my mobile phone bills 00.549 00.305

I often talk over my phone in public places (such as buses, trains, cafes). 00.491 00.380

It’s important for me that there is an Internet connection to my phone 00.719 00.518

It’s important for me that my mobile phone uses the latest technology and is “posh” 00.671 –0.409 00.629

It’s important for me that my phone fits in with my clothing style and general image 00.619 00.397

I’ll probably use the mobile phone even more in the future 00.520 00.275

A three year old mobile phone looks too old-fashioned for me 00.516 00.414

I often change logos and/or ringing tones 00.447 00.443 00.407

Some operators or types of connections are more “trendy” than others 00.440 00.226

The cheapest phone model is good enough for me 00.745 00.683

Price is the most important issue when choosing a phone 00.788 00.623

A mobile phone is necessary only for connecting people and organizing things 00.493 00.321

Eigenvalue 04.195 01.790 01.342

Explained (%) 24.678 10.531 07.893 43.102

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.835. Bartlett Test of Sphericity = 1956.160, p < 0.001.

“Thrifty use” factor, the use of the phone is restricted to the neces-sary minimum.

By examining the factor scores for each respondent, a crudeestimate of the relative size of the various user groups can be obtained.In order to reduce the error variance, the factor scores to be investi-gated here were formed by weighing and summing only the highlyloaded variables for the particular factor (with loadings higher than0.35) and saved as standardized factor scores to make them compa-rable for further analyses (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 626).Then the number of respondents who had their highest factor scoresfor that particular factor was counted. One can see in Table IV thatit was most common to have the highest estimated factor score onthe “Thrifty” factor (40% of the respondents). About one third had thehighest score on the “Trendy” factor and about one fourth on the“Addictive” factor.

However, there could obviously be respondents who had high scoreson more than one factor. It was also likely that some respondentshad low scores on all factors. In order to find more distinctive groupsof respondents, new groups were formed by selecting only those whohad not only their highest score, but at least a value of +0.5 on thatparticular factor, as well as a low (less than +0.5) or negative scoreon the other factors. Table IV shows that when using this catego-rization, the size of each group groups diminished by around 15percentage units. The “Thrifty” group diminished the least, and stillcame to include over one fourth of the respondents. The “Trendy” and,in particular, the “Addictive” user groups shrank relatively more andwere thus more likely to overlap with other groups.

It is obvious that neither the addictive use of the phone nor tech-nology enthusiasm were the most distinctive features of the mobile


TABLE IVRelative Size of the Three Groups “Addictive Users,” “Trendy Users,” and “Thrifty

Users”

Factors % of respondents % of respondents N of valid with the highest with a high score cases on score on this factor only on this factor each factor

1. “Addictive use” 26 09 5662. “Trendy use” 31 15 5723. “Thrifty use” 40 26 582

use styles of young people. Moreover, many “Addictive” userswere likely to be “Trendy” or “Thrifty” as well. For most youngpeople, the relationship to the phone seems to be rather instrumental.However, this may not necessarily be perceived as the ideal phone usestyle. Lack of money may restrict the qualities and functions of themobile phone, even if one would like to use it more or to buy newaccessories.

Correlates of Styles of Use

An interesting question is whether mobile phone use styles are asso-ciated with the self-perceived general consumption styles and with therespondents’ socio-demographic background.

In order to examine this question, a multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA) was carried out. It is an extension of the analysis ofvariance (ANOVA), to be used when there is more than one depen-dent variable. ANOVA tests whether mean group differences on asingle dependent variable are likely to have occurred by chance.MANOVA does the same for a combination of two or more depen-dent variables (Pallant, 2001, p. 219; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001,p. 322). The dependent variables have to be related in some way, orthere should be some conceptual reason for considering them together(Pallant, 2001, p. 219). The variables must not be too highly corre-lated, though. In fact, a better choice is a set of dependent variablesthat are only moderately correlated or uncorrelated because they theneach measure a separate aspect of the influence of the independentvariables. On the other hand, if the dependent variables are totallyuncorrelated, the multivariate test is no more powerful than theunivariate and thus the advantage to MANOVA over separateANOVAs is small (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 357). The mainadvantage of MANOVA over separate ANOVAs for uncorrelateddependent variables is that the Type 1 error (rejecting the null hypoth-esis when it is true) is better controlled. Factor scores are oftenregarded as useful dependent variables for MANOVA, although theyare almost uncorrelated (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 626).

The standardized factor scores that had been created by using andweighing in the variables with the highest loadings on each factor wereused as dependent variables.

The results of the multivariate test for the independent variables(F-values of Wilks’ lambda) are presented in Table V which also



TABLE VThe Relationship Between Mobile Phone Use Styles, Gender, and Consumer Types

Shown by MANOVA

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3Addictive Trendy Thrifty use use use

B B B

Gender(Wilks’ lambda F = 22.92***)Girl 310 00.25 –0.37Boy 237 00 (a) 00 (a)

0F 09.13** 21.25*** 02.83

Trend-consciousness(Wilks’ lambda F = 6.58***)

1 Trend-conscious 029 01.06 01.45 –1.062 174 00.93 00.97 –0.783 241 00.72 00.63 –0.434 079 00.42 00.22 –0.195 “Laggard” 024 00 (a) 00 (a) 00 (a)

0F 08.45*** 17.94*** 10.26***

Impulsiveness (Wilks’ lambda F = 3.65***)

1 Impulsive shopper 045 00.61 00.66 –0.802 130 00.27 00.19 –0.203 152 00.13 00.27 –0.314 162 –0.15 –0.02 –0.135 Prudent consumer 058 00 (a) 00 (a) 00 (a)

0F 07.01*** 05.03** 05.34***

Environmental consciousness(Wilks’ lambda F = 1.94*)

1 Environmentally conscious 022 –0.34 00.562 202 –0.16 00.613 239 –0.02 00.444 070 00.10 00.355 “Free rider” 014 00 (a) 00 (a)

0F 01.71 02.55* 02.86*

Corrected model 0F 07.583*** 11.510*** 07.254**

100R2 15.6 21.9 15.0

*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.(a) The value is zero, because it is a reference category.

provide univariate F-values for each factor (Corrected model) andfor each independent variable separately.

Among the various independent variables, neither the socio-economic position of the parents nor the perceived economic situationturned out to be statistically significant in the multivariate test. Incontrast, distinguishing respondents according to gender and to someof the consumer typologies – trend-consciousness, impulsiveness,and environmental consciousness – led to significant differences withrespect to the combination of dependent variables. Interactionsbetween the independent variables were tested, but were not statisti-cally significant.

For each independent variable, one group is a control group. Allparameter estimates are expressed as a deviation from the mean valueof this control group (Norusis, 1990, p. 90; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001,pp. 51, 326). In Table V, the parameter estimates (B) thus indicate howmuch the means of the different levels of the independent variablesdiffer from the reference category (0). The p-value for F indicateswhether these differences are statistically significant. The R2 valuesindicate the explanatory power of the independent variables for eachfactor.

Table V shows that the “Addictive use” of the mobile phone, whichemphasizes the use value of the phone, is more typical of girls thanboys. Conversely, the “Trendy use,” in which the design and thetechnical functions of the physical apparatus is important, is moretypical of boys. For the “Thrifty use” factor gender was not statisti-cally significant, however. Impulsive and trend-conscious consumptionstyles are related to both the “Addictive use” and the “Trendy use”factors. The “Trendy use” factor is connected to the free-rider attitude,whereas “Thrifty use” is clearly connected to an environmentally con-scious consumption style. Being a “laggard” in the adoption of newtrends and fashions is also related to “Thrifty use,” and the same holdstrue for a prudent consumption style. Thus, thrifty mobile phone usehas different consumption style covariates than the other mobile phoneuses.

Gender Differences

The results suggest that the use of the mobile phone is not an isolatedpart of the lifestyles of young people, but is very clearly linked togeneral consumption patterns and lifestyles (see also Oksman &


Rautiainen, 2001, pp. 24–25). What is particularly interesting is thatone can discern more or less stereotypically gendered mobile phoneuse styles. Other analyses based on the same survey data support thegender division (Autio & Wilska, 2003; Wilska, 2002a). Accordingto these analyses, the differences between boys and girls are even moresignificant for ICT skills in general and for the attitudes towards theinformation society than for actual mobile phone use. Low ICT skillsand negative attitudes towards the information society are associatedwith both the female gender and an environmental-friendly con-sumption style. For the males, trend-consciousness. indifferencetowards environmental values, and technology enthusiasm are linkedto each other. The effect of gender is very strong (Wilska, 2002b,pp. 165–168). Three fourths of the boys thought that advanced tech-nology can solve environmental problems; the correspondingpercentage for the girls was 41. Conversely, over 50 per cent ofthe girls thought that technical developments make environmentalproblems worse, compared to only a fourth of the boys (Autio &Wilska, 2003, pp. 11–12).

There are numerous other studies suggesting that there is muchmore suspicion towards new technology among girls/women thanamong boys/men (e.g., Oksman, 1999, p. 174). In the general popu-lation, women’s computer skills are clearly less developed than thoseof men. Women also use the computers in less creative ways, eventhough in most work places women use computers more often thanmen do (Nurmela et al., 2000, pp. 23–24). Thus, it looks as if thetraditional hierarchy of the two genders is lurking behind the osten-tatious equality. Women and girls are “users only,” who, instructedby men, use the equipment that has been installed by men. Althougha woman may use the computer fluently, she is not expected toinstall it or to update the settings of the software (see also Gill & Grint,1995).

Teenager boys and girls own mobile phones equally often, but themeaning and the ways of using the phone vary between the genders.One reason for the greater ICT skills among boys and men in termsof the ICT products certainly lies in the “playful” nature of both thedigital technology and popular culture in general (Turkle, 1988, 1996).For children, getting used to computers usually starts with computergames, in which boys are usually much more interested than girls.As small children, boys and girls use the computers and play gamesalmost to the same extent, but the interest of girls tends to fade away


with age. One reason for this may be that the computers used bygirls are usually owned by their brothers, fathers, and boyfriends(Kangas, 2002, p. 151). According to our survey data, 48 per centof the boys had a computer of their own, but only 18 per cent of thegirls. A personal internet connection was held by 28 per cent of theboys but only 7 per cent of the girls. In another survey, Suoninen(2003) found almost the same results (p. 57).

Among very young mobile phone users the differences are smaller.According to Suoranta and Lehtimäki (2003), the use of the variousfunctions of the mobile phones (such as calling, sending messages,composing ring tones, playing games, buying logos) is rather similarfor girls and boys aged 7–10 (pp. 34–35). We don’t know how per-sistent this uniformity is, though. Whether the differences betweengenders melt away, or whether girls turn into traditional “female” userswhen they reach youth and adulthood, remains to be seen.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

This study examined the consumption styles of young people, theuse of the mobile phone and the connection between them. Accordingto the survey data, the respondents did not spend much of their ownon consumption, but their parents paid for quite a bit of the leisuretime expenses. The young people were also well equipped with tech-nical devices. The socio-economic characteristics of their familiesaffected somewhat the respondents’ perception of their own economicsituation. However, socio-economic background variables had noeffect on the self-perceived consumption styles or on the use of themobile phone. Young people acknowledged the consumer types theyrepresented, and were, of their own free will, prepared to controltheir consumption (particularly in terms of the mobile phone). Manyof them regarded themselves as thrifty consumers.

Although the mobile phone is usually regarded as an icon of thelifestyles of young people, it is not an isolated expenditure category.According to this study, their relationship to the mobile phone isconsistent with their general consumption styles. “Addictive” use ofthe phone is connected to heavy spending, a “trendy” consumptionstyle, and the female gender. Technology enthusiasm and trend-con-sciousness is linked to “hard” values, to a “trendy” consumption style,and the male gender. A frugal mobile phone use, in turn, goes with


environmentalism and careful consumption in general. The respon-dents likely to be “addictive” or “trendy” mobile users were clearlyfewer than the group of “thrifty” users. However, the “trendy” and“addictive” user groups overlapped the other groups more often thandid the “thrifty” group.

The link between consumption styles and the use of ICT productsis obvious, but not tremendously surprising. For some time, there havebeen visions about “the consumer of the future,” whose relation totechnology impacts on his/her whole way of life, including work andconsumption. Mika Pantzar categorizes the consumer types of thedigital era according to their relationships to the new technology.The individual’s relationship to technology can be work-related,playful, or artistic. Similarly, the consumers of the digital era can becharacterized as workers, hedonists, and artists (Pantzar, 2000, pp.206–207). Similar images appear in portraits of the post-modernconsumer who is usually characterized as self-expressive, individu-alist, hedonist, youthful, and creative.

The “traditional” gender division of the styles of mobile phoneuse is interesting in the light of recent discussions about the blurringof borders between genders with regard to ICT. Another interestingfinding is that trendy and impulsive consumption styles (that areusually regarded as “women’s stuff ”) are connected to technologyenthusiasm, which is usually seen as a “typical male” thing. Thismay also reflect young men’s changing relationship to consumption.In Finland young men aged 18–24 spend slightly more money onclothes than young women do (Statistics Finland, 2001). Moreover,in most Anglo-Saxon and European countries there has been a strongrise of markets for specifically male products, particularly for trendyclothes, cosmetics, and style magazines with the simultaneous adver-tising targeting men (Edwards, 2000, p. 135). Thus, it seems as thenew “cool” consumption styles include both “masculine” technologyand “feminine” trend-consciousness.

However, although those “cool” styles do exist among Finnishyoung people, they are not very frequent (see also Wilska, 2002b).It looks as if most young consumers are rather cautious or eventhrifty (or just short of money), and this is also reflected by their ratherinstrumental relationship to mobile communication. One must alsobear in mind that mobile phones and other ICT equipments still con-stitute only a part of the culture and lifestyles of young people,however important this part may be. Although a whole generation is


nowadays marked with the new N-sign, most of young people’s leisuretime consumption still consists of other things than the use of ICTproducts. Despite the rapid growth of ICT-related consumption, foryoung people clothes, private vehicles, fast food, alcohol, and leisuretravel are still at least as important ways of expressing lifestyles andidentities.

REFERENCES

Autio, M., & Wilska, T.-A. (2001). Consumer Cultures of Young People in theInformation Society survey. Statistical dataset. Helsinki: Finnish Youth ResearchNetwork & Helsinki University.

Autio, M. & Wilska, T.-A (2003). Vihertävät pojat ja vastuuttomat tytöt. Nuorten kulut-tajien ympäristöasenteet (Green girls and irresponsible boys. Environmentalattitudes of young consumers). With English summary. Nuorisotutkimus, 21(2), pp.3–18.

Castells, M. (2000). Information technology and global capitalism. In: W. Hutton &A. Giddens (Eds.), On the edge. Living with global capitalism, pp. 52–74. London:Jonathan Cape.

Coogan, K., & Kangas, S. (2001). Nuoret ja kommunikaatioakrobatia. 16–18 – vuo-tiaiden kännykkä – ja internet-kulttuurit (Young people and communicationacrobatics. The mobile phone and Internet cultures of young people aged 16–18).Helsinki: Elisa Tutkimuskeskus. Raportti 158.

du Gay, P. (1996). Consumption and identity at work. London: Sage.Edwards, T. (2000). Contradictions of consumption. Buckingham: Open University

Press.Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer culture & postmodernism. London: Sage.Gabriel, Y., & Lang, T. (1995). The unmanageable consumer. Contemporary con-

sumption and its fragmentations. London: Sage.Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity.Gill, R., & Grint, K. (1995). The gender-technology relation: Contemporary theory

and research. London: Taylor & Francis.Gillard, P., Wale, K., & Bow, A. (1998). The friendly phone. In: S. Howard (Ed.),

Wired up. Young people and the electronic media, pp. 135–152. London: UCLPress.

Griffin, C. (1997). Troubled teens: Managing disorders of transition and consump-tion. Feminist Review, 55, 4–21.

Gronow, J. (1997). The sociology of taste. London: Routledge.Johansson, T., & Miegel, F. (1992). Do the right thing – Lifestyle and identity in

contemporary youth culture. Malmö: Graphic Systems. Jokinen, K., & Kangas, S. (2000). Nufix – nuoret ja kommunikaatioakrobatia (Nufix

– Young people and communication acrobatics). Helsinki: Edita.Kangas, S. (2002). “Mitä sinunlaisesi tyttö tekee tällaisessa paikassa?” Tytöt ja

elektroniset pelit (“What is a girl like you doing in a place like this?” Girls andelectronic games). In: E. Huhtamo & S. Kangas (Eds.), Mariosofia. Elektronistenpelien kulttuuri, pp. 131–152. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Kasesniemi, E.-L., & Rautiainen, P. (2001) Kännyssä piilevät sanomat (Hiddenmessages on the phone). Tampere: Tampere University Press.


Katz-Gerro, T., & Shavit, Y. (1998). Stratification of leisure and taste: Classes andLifestyles in Israel. European Sociological Review, 14, 369–386.

Klein, N. (1999). No logo. Toronto: Knopf Canada.Koljonen, V. (2002). Nuorten velkaantuminen ja maksuhäiriöt (Young peoples’ indebt-

edness and insolvency). In: Autio, M., Eresmaa, I., Heinonen, V., Koljonen, V.,Paju, P., & Wilska, T.-A, Pakko riittää – Näkökulmia nuorten kulutukseen ja maksuhäiriöihin, pp. 12–111. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Network.Publication 24.

Kopomaa, T. (2000). Kännykkäyhteiskunnan synty (The emergence of the mobile phonesociety). Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Kuure, T. (2003). Teknologisoituva nuoruus tilastoina (Technologizing youth instatistics). With English summary. In: T. Kuure (Ed.) Nuorten elinolot – vuosikirja.Teknologisoituva nuoruus, pp. 11–27. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Network,Advisory Council for Youth Affairs (NUORA) and National Research andDevelopment Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES).

Langman, L. (1992). Neon cages: Shopping for subjectivity. In: R. Shields (Ed.),Lifestyle shopping: The subject of consumption, pp. 40–82. London: Routledge.

Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1992). Mass consumption and personal identity. MiltonKeynes: Open University Press.

Mäenpää, P. (2001). Mobile communication as a way of urban life. In: J. Gronow &A. Warde (Eds.) Ordinary consumption, pp. 107–123. London: Routledge.

Mäenpää, P. (2003). Mitä nuoret edellä . . . (What young people first . . .). With Englishsummary. In: T. Kuure (Ed.) Nuorten elinolot – vuosikirja. Teknologisoituvanuoruus, pp. 128–131. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Network, AdvisoryCouncil for Youth Affairs (NUORA) and National Research and DevelopmentCentre for Welfare and Health (STAKES)

Miles, S. (2000). Youth lifestyles in a changing world. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.

Norrena, V. (2002). Nuorten tunnesuhde brandeihin (Young people’s affections tobrands). Helsinki: Valores Consulting.

Norusis, M. J.(1990). SPSS advanced statistics user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.Nurmela, J. (2001). Three years of the Information Society. A longitudinal survey of

the use made of modern information and communications technology in Finland.Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Review 2001/4.

Nurmela, J., Heinonen, R., Ollila, P., & Virtanen, V. (2000). Matkapuhelin ja tietokonesuomalaisen arjessa (Mobile phone and computer in the everyday lives of Finnishpeople). Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Katsauksia 2000/2.

Oksman, V. (1999). “Että ei niinku tykkää ollenkaan tietokoneista . . . on vähänniinku outsider”. Tyttöjen tulkintoja tietotekniikasta (“You don’t like the computers. . . you are an outsider.” Girls’ interpretations of the information technology).In: P. Eriksson & M. Vehviläinen (Eds.) Tietoyhteiskunta seisakkeella. Teknologia,strategia ja paikalliset tulkinnat, pp. 173–186. Jyväskylä: SoPhi.

Oksman, V., & Rautiainen, P. (2001) “Tää on mun elämänkapula”. Matkaviestintälasten ja nuorten arjessa (“This is my lifeline.” Mobile communication in theeveryday lives of young people and children). Hyvinvointikatsaus, No. 3, pp. 24–28.

Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Buckingham: Open University Press.Pantzar, M. (2000). Tulevaisuuden koti. Arjen tarpeita keksimässä (The future home.

Inventing needs for everyday life). Helsinki: Otava.Quart, A. (2003). Branded. The buying and selling of teenagers. Cambridge, MA:

Perseus Publishing.Rushkoff, D. (1996). Playing the future: How kids’ culture can teach us to thrive in

an age of chaos. New York: HarperCollins.


Statistics Finland (1994). Household expenditure survey 1994–1996. Statistical dataset.Helsinki: Statistics Finland.

Statistics Finland (1998). Household expenditure survey 1998. Statistical dataset.Helsinki: Statistics Finland.

Statistics Finland (2001). Household expenditure survey 2001. Statistical dataset.Helsinki: Statistics Finland.

Suoninen, A. (2003). Tietokone taipuu moneksi – mihin sitä käytetään (The computeris versatile. How do young people use it?). In: T. Kuure (Ed.) Nuorten elinolot –vuosikirja. Teknologisoituva nuoruus, pp. 56–73. Helsinki: Finnish Youth ResearchNetwork, Advisory Council for Youth Affairs (NUORA) and National Researchand Development Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES).

Suoranta, J., & Lehtimäki, H. (2003). Verkostososiaalisuus ja nuoret (Network socia-bility and young people). In: T. Kuure (Ed.) Nuorten elinolot – vuosikirja.Teknologisoituva nuoruus, pp. 30–38. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Network,Advisory Council for Youth Affairs (NUORA) and National Research andDevelopment Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES).

Suosikki Nuorisotutkimus 2000 (2000). [Suosikki Youth Study 2000] B-Boys & FlyGirls.The Hit Generation. Helsinki: Suomen Gallup-Media Oy.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital. The rise of the net generation. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Turkle, S. (1988). Computational reticence: Why women fear the intimate machine.In: C. Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and women’s voices. Keeping in touch, pp.41–61. London: Routledge.

Turkle, S. (1996). Life on the screen. Identity in the age of the Internet. New York:Touchstone.

Wilska, T.-A. (1999). Survival with dignity? The consumption of young adults duringeconomic depression: A comparative study of Finland and Britain, 1990–1994.Turku: Turku School of Economics and Business Administration. Publications SerieA-3.

Wilska, T.-A. (2001): Nuorten toimeentulo ja kulutus (Disposable income andconsumption among young people). With English summary. In: T. Kuure(Ed.), Nuorisotilastovuosikirja 2000. Aikuistumisen pullonkaulat, pp. 52–59.Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Network, Advisory Council for Youth Affairs(NUORA) and National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health(STAKES).

Wilska, T.-A. (2002a): Laiteniilot ja perässähiihtäjät. Nuorten kulutustyylit ja teknolo-giasuuntautuminen (Enthusiasts and laggards. Young people, consumption styles,and attitudes towards technology). In: Autio, M., Eresmaa, I., Heinonen, V.,Koljonen, V., Paju, P., Wilska, T-A, Pakko riittää – Näkökulmia nuorten kulu-tukseen ja maksuhäiriöihin, pp. 144–175. Helsinki: Finnish Youth ResearchNetwork. Publication 24.

Wilska, T.-A (2002b): Me, a consumer? Consumption, identities and lifestyles intoday’s Finland. Acta Sociologica, 45, 195–210.

Wilska, T.-A., & Eresmaa, I. (2002): Nuorten toimeentulon subjektiivinen kokem-inen – arjen realismia vai tulevaisuuden kuvitelmia? (The subjective well-beingof young people. Realism or dreams?) In: Autio, M., Eresmaa, I., Heinonen, V.,Koljonen, V., Paju, P., Wilska, T-A, Pakko riittää – Näkökulmia nuorten kulu-tukseen ja maksuhäiriöihin, pp. 176–203. Helsinki: Finnish Youth ResearchNetwork. Publication 24.


Youth Barometer 2000 (2001). Selvitys 15–29 – vuotiaiden suomalaisten nuorten asen-teista (Report on the attitudes of Finnish young people aged 15–24). Helsinki:Advisory Council for Youth Affairs (NUORA). Publication 20.

Youth Barometer 2001 (2002). Selvitys 15–29 – vuotiaiden suomalaisten nuorten asen-teista (Report on the attitudes of Finnish young people aged 15–24). Helsinki:Advisory Council for Youth Affairs (NUORA). Publication 21.

THE AUTHOR

Terhi-Anna Wilska is a Research Coordinator in the Finnish Youth Research Network,Olympiastadion, Eteläkaarre, FIN-00250 Helsinki, Finland. Fax: +358-9-454 4837;e-mail: [email protected].


Documents

Mobile Phone Use as Part of Young People’s Consumption Styles