Issues in Business Management and Economics Vol.1 (3), pp. 047-060, July 2013
Available online at http://www.journalissues.org/journals-home.php?id=2
© 2013 Journal Issues
Original Research Paper
The adoption of mobile phone: How has it changed us
socially?
Accepted 7 July , 2013
Augustine Addo
Institute of Entrepreneurship and
Finance,
Department of Entrepreneurship
and Finance,
Kumasi polytechnic,
P. O. Box 845,
Kumasi,
Ghana.
Author Email:
[email protected]
Tel: +233263928024
Mobile phone use has changed from a percieved item of luxury to an every
day necessity for many people. This study therefore examined how the
adoption of mobile phones has impacted in changing the behaviour and
attitude of users. Kumasi Polytechnic was used as the study area. A total of
250 respondents were randomly selected for this study. Using indepedent
sample t-test and a descriptive case study in which a combination of
qualitative and quantitative techniques were used to analyze the data, the
study finds positive evidence of positive influence in mobile adoption in
enhancing communication is significant. Mobile phone has changed the way
people communicate and live by influencing peoples’ life in a wide scope
predicated to change society in a larger and deeper way more than its
intended use as communication tool. The adoption of mobile phones have
some negative effects such as enhancing crime, diversion of attention,
increased social anxiety and capturing obscene audio-visuals and these are
significant according to the t-test. It is also significant to note that
kidnapping with mobile phone is not common in Ghana as this is affirmed by
the t-test. Mobile phone has become part of our daily life and efforts should
be made to mitigate its negative influences.
Keywords: Mobile phone, social, Polytechnic, Ghana.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most technologically pervasive influences over
the past decade has been the mobile phone. Mobile phone
emerged as one of the defining technologies of our time
(Rainie and Keeter, 2006) and is having an impact on
society in terms of creating an informative, connected,
culturally innovative, participative, and converging society
and on personal life of users in many ways including time
use, privacy issues, emancipation, safety, individuality,
status and confidence, competence in communications and
connectedness, amusing, confidentiality, planned life, time
management (Rainie and Keeter, 2006; Fortunati, 2002).
The mobile phone has rapidly become an integral and
essential communication tool that is being used worldwide.
The global cellular phone market now estimates that there
were 1.8 billion subscribers in 2007 and this reached 3bn in
2010 (Reid and Reid, 2007). Mobile phones range widely in
price and functionality besides, texting and voice
capabilities, most phones offer tools such as address book, a
variety of ring tones, a camera, an alarm clock, a calendar
and MP3 player or radio, internet, and video capabilities.
Mobile phones have permeated across cultural groups,
economic strata and age cohorts (Katz, 2008; Ling and
Donner, 2007). Since their inception mobile phones have
enjoyed an especially uptake among teenagers and young
adults (Baron, 2010). Though Information Communication
Technology (ICT), internet and outsourcing have changed
the way every business is managed by providing
capabilities and have helped small or large organizations to
ever changing conditions, mobile technology is going to
alter the ways business is conducted. The biggest challenge
therefore is for an enterprise to adopt mobile technology to
create competitive edge, improves productivity and
profitability (Vivek, 2012). The introduction of smart
phones has provided additional impetus for the industry to
grow further. Smart phones are those that allow users to
surf internet, download music and other data services as
well as make calls and send text messages.
According to the Economist, (2008) the market for smart
Issues.Bus.Manag.Econ.
048
phones is expected to grow from $39bn in 2007 to $95bn in
2013 by which time they make up nearly half of handset
market by value.
Despite drawbacks in technology
upgrade, mobile usage continuous to rise for a variety of
reasons depending on age group (Canadian Wireless
Telecommunications Association, 2012). Although the
mobile phone market is the most vibrant for the years
below 25, its usage is welcomed among all sections of the
population from old age to office executives, homemakers
and students (Canadian Wireless Telecommunications
Association, 2012). A quarter of the population, aged 18-24
are claiming that mobile phones are more important than
TV, MP3 player and games console (Heeks, 2008). While
under-25s are seen to use their mobile phones mostly for
keeping in touch with their peers, parents use their mobile
phones to keep tabs on their children, grandparents use
theirs to bridge relationships with their grandchildren and
working population use it to co-ordinate office work from
home (Kushchu, 2007). It seems appropriate to analyze
mobile phone usage with vigor comparable to that given to
the internet. In Ghana there is little or no documented
evidence of the social impact of mobile phone on social
interactions and business. Given the importance of mobile
communication, the study seeks to fill the void by seeking
to find answers to the following question: what is influence
of mobile phone on our social relationship and its impact on
our people. The objective of the study is to seek to provide
empirical evidence of the influences on mobile phone
adoption as well as positive and negative effects of mobile
phone technology on everyday life of Ghanaian people and
on social interactions using Kumasi Polytechnic as a case
study in the Kumasi metropolis, Ashanti Region of
Ghana.The outcome of the study will inform policy
intervention in the areas of investment in mobile
telecommunication and further harness the positive
outcomes for economic growth. The study results will
bring forth the various negative aspects of mobile phone
use in the metropolis which will serve as basis for
instituting interventions to alleviate them and also serve as
a basis for further study.
Overview of the study area
Kumasi Polytechnic was established in 1954 to provide
high skilled tertiary and middle level manpower with
reference to manufacturing, commerce, science and
technology and to act as a catalyst for technological
development. It is one of the famous, elegant and vibrant
polytechnics in Ghana. It is a spectacularly beautiful
institution, which is located at the heart of the Garden city
of West Africa, the capital city of the Ashanti Region of
Ghana (Kumasi). It has within the period of its existence
become an important centre for the training not only for
Ghana but also for other African countries. Kumasi
Polytechnic was originally called Kumasi Technical Institute
(K.T.I). On October 13, 1963, the institution was converted
to a non-tertiary Polytechnic status under the Ghana
Education Service and it started offering technician,
diploma and sub-professional course alongside craft
courses that were being offered. From there onwards (that
is 1963), Kumasi Polytechnic concentrated on the
development of the technician course, ordinary diploma
programmes and other professional courses. Kumasi
Polytechnic has since 1993, come a long way to make its
mark in the country as strong and creditable tertiary
institute. It has been making steady strides in its quest to
fulfill its mandate of training the critical manpower made of
commerce and industry in Ghana. It has expanded from
three Faculties and one centre in 2009/2010 to six
Faculties, one school and two Institutes in the 2010/2011
academic year. Presently, the school population is about
10,586 and the school comprises of 27 departments
offering full time and part time programmes at tertiary and
non-tertiary levels. The institution is presently running
degree programmes in addition to its Higher National
Diploma (HND) programmes (Kumasi Polytechnic Manual,
2013; Wikipedia, 2013).
Literature review
Mobile phone technology
A mobile phone is a device that can make and receive calls
over a radio link while moving around a wide geographic
area (Wikipedia, 2013). It does so by connecting people by
connecting to a cellular network provided by mobile phone
operator, allowing access to the public telephone network.
Modern mobile phone supports a wide variety of other
services such as text messaging, MMS, email, internet
access, short range wireless communication, business
applications, gaming, video as well as computing
capabilities. From 1990 to 2011, world wide mobile phone
subscriptions grew from 12.4 million to 6bn, penetrating
about 87% of global population (Saylor, 2012). The rapid
development
of
mobile
telecommunication
as
communication tool since 1990s has made mobile phone to
influence the way people communicate and live. In addition,
it has influenced peoples’ life in a wide scope predicated to
change the society in an even larger and deeper way more
than its intended use as communication tool. Mobile phone
has come to assume a significance importance in societies
with various age using mobiles in their own way to suit
their individual needs. As more and more students
worldwide acquire and use mobile phones so they are
immersing themselves in test messaging.
Short Message Service (SMS) messaging
With the popularity of Short Message Service (SMS)
messaging (Corbett, 2009) individuals are using it more
and more. Test messaging is the practice whereby users of
mobile phone exchange brief message termed as “texting”
Addo
and the sender is called a “texter” (Dansieh, 2011). It is
used in place of voice calls in circumstances where it may
be impossible or inexpedient. In an effort to send more test
messages, a new language is being created that is making
experts worried that grammar will be overlooked (Crystal,
2008; Russell, 2010). Individuals who are regular “texters”
have created new acronyms for various words to get their
point/idea across faster than if they were to type out the
entire message (Rosen et al., 2009; O’Connor, 2005).
Sending and receiving text messages is a form of
communication with others that can be secretive and
discrete. Parents/Teachers cannot intercept or have access
to what is being sent forth and back (Reid and Reid, 2004).
Nokia in 2001 conducted a worldwide survey of 3,300
people; under age 45% and over 80% of those that were
surveyed reported that text messaging was the most used
function on their mobile phones (Reid and Reid, 2004).
Dogbevi (2008) reports that available statistics dates back
to 2000 when it was estimated that SMS sent from Ghana
grew from initial 22,000 to over 130,000 and could be
higher now.
The overview of mobile phone service and usage in
Ghana
The first cellular (mobile) service in Ghana was initiated by
Mobitel in 1992. In that year alone 19,000 Ghanaians
owned mobile phones. In 1998, the number of users in
Ghana increased to 43,000 and by the middle of 1999 the
number has increased to 68,000. By August 2012, the
number of mobile phone users in Ghana was estimated at
24.4 million (Eto, 2012). Mobile phones have been
influencing the way people communicate and live. With the
constant development of mobile technology, mobile phones
have both positive and negative influences in every aspect
of Ghanaian life and changes mobile phone bring to the way
we live have always been debated. Mobile phone as a
hybrid of computer and internet technologies have been
making an influence to people’s life in a wide scope and are
predicted to change the society in an even larger and
deeper way in future. The role of cellular has exceeded its
intended use as communication tool and is changing their
original purpose and has had a tremendous effect on the
nature of people’s communicate (Kushchu, 2007). Mobile
phones have allowed for more creativity and freedom in
defining oneself. A research group headed by the
coordinator of the Technology Assessment Project (TAP) of
the University of Ghana, Legon, took a study tour of some
selected districts in the central region of Ghana with
particular focus on fishermen; the study established that
the fishermen use the mobile phone to communicate with
agents and customers from various parts to find out where
prices of fishes were more competitive. They also use the
mobile phone to establish the whereabouts of their
colleagues at sea (http://coai.in).
049
Impact on society and social relationships
Mobile phones help to create an informative, connected,
culturally innovative, participative, and converging society
and contributions to collective welfare of the individuals via
social responsibility (Harsha et al., 2011). Mobile
communication has shown its power for collective activities
as well as on individual life. It can prevent isolating
members from social connection and empower citizens
through convenience for connecting to others and
availability of information and makes individuals to
participate in programs on TV, informing people and
creating more equal society and convergence in terms of
bridging digital divide especially for geographically
dispersed countries such as Brazil and India (Kushchu,
2007). It also increases social connections between
different segments of the society creating equalities and
distribution of wealth as well as creating positive changes
in the dynamics of the society which involves contributions
such as competence in communications, accessibility of
information, socialization, political and social union, youth
and new culture (Kim, 2004). With the creation and
accessibility of mobile phones, more and more individuals
own their own mobile phone and using them every day to
communicate within their social network. Mobile phones
also make individuals available anywhere, and anytime,
which changes the way that individuals are choosing to
interact in social settings with others.
The impact of
mobile phone on our personal life include constant
accessibility, emancipation, safety, individuality, status and
confidence,
competence
in
communications,
communications
and
connectedness,
amusing,
confidentiality planned life, time management and helps
individuals to remain in close and instantaneous contact
with members of their social network regardless of where
they are in the world. In addition to keeping up with social
relationships, individuals have also been able to increase
productivity with their work because they can be hundreds
of miles away from the office, and still have instant access
to their e-mail, documents and contacts wherever they are
(Tully, 2003). Social interaction signifies that people are
aware of the existence of others, and also it implies active
engagement between two or more parties (Banjor, Hun, &
Sundar 2007). Adolescents and young adults have the
desire to take risks with relationships, rules and roles
(Leung, 2008) as individuals seek out entertainment to
avoid boredom at appropriate and inappropriate times.
Many individuals believe that they cannot imagine not
having their mobile phone with them on a daily basis and
this is exaggerated in younger generations as they think
that they cannot imagine themselves without their phones
(Thompson & Cupples, 2008). This shows how younger
generation senses of self are tied up with this technology.
Individuals are attached to their mobile phones, which
enables them to think that they cannot function without
their mobile phone on a day-to-day basis. There are many
Issues.Bus.Manag.Econ.
050
factors that lead to mobile phone dependency and this
include, leisure, boredom, sensation-seeking behavior, low
self-esteem, constant accessibility, emancipation, safety,
individuality, status and confidence, competence in
communications, communications and connectedness,
amusing, confidentiality, planned life and time management
(Thompson & Cupples, 2008). The applications and uses of
mobile phones, drastically impact on the personal lives of
youngsters (Grimm, 2001). People are using smartphones
and personal digital assistants (PDAs) for an increasing
number of activities and often store sensitive data, such as
email, calendars, contact information, and passwords, on
the devices, the internet, GPS navigation, mobile
applications for social networking and keep a wealth of
personal information as recent innovations in mobile
commerce have enabled users to conduct many
transactions from their smartphone, such as purchasing
goods and applications over wireless networks, redeeming
coupons and tickets, banking, processing point-of-sale
payments, and even paying at cash registers (Ruggiero and
Foote, 2011). Bayes, von Braun, and Akhter (1999),
Goodman (2005), Frost and Sullivan (2006), and Kwaku
Kyem and LeMaire (2006) have shown how mobile phone
adoption leads to greater social cohesion and improved
social relationships. One study found that, from 2009 to
2010, the number of new vulnerabilities in mobile
operating systems jumped to 42%. Mobile phone adoption
appears to be surpassing, on a worldwide basis, the
popularity of TV sets as It is a technology that has been
given credit for saving lives, organizing terrorist efforts,
and overthrowing dictators (Katz and Aakhus, 2001).
Negative impact of mobile phone on society and social
relationships
As the constructive and positive impact of the cellphones
there are negative ones also like, using mobile phones for
kidnapping and blackmailing, capturing blue films, images
and capturing porn images. With public invasion which
means that you are invading into other’s personal spaces by
talking out loud about your own personal spaces coming off
as inconsiderate and/or rude and links to isolation of
oneself and this has several repercussions. In answering the
ringing mobile phone, the individual who is presently being
conversed with, has described feeling a sense of being left
alone, which can cause social anxiety, as well as
bitterness/annoyance towards the individual who
answered the phone call (Humphreys, 2009). There are
situations where children especially youngsters neglect
food, parents, relations, kith and kin while using their
mobile phones specially while smsing or texting (Nokia,
2002) and this drastically affects their personal life. On the
other hand there are many health hazards to which
youngsters and children become target. The radiofrequencies damage the tissues and genes of their young
body very soon. The negative impacts of mobile phones on
the personal life and social lives of individuals collectively
create an average impression on the economy, wherein it
suffers globally. Smartphones, or mobile phones with
advanced capabilities like those of personal computers
(PCs), are appearing in more people’s pockets, purses, and
briefcases. Smartphones’ popularity and relatively lax
security have made them attractive targets for attackers
(Panda Labs, 2011). Smartphones and personal digital
assistants (PDAs) give users mobile access to email, the
internet, GPS navigation, and many other applications.
However, smartphone security has not kept pace with
traditional computer security. Technical security measures,
such as firewalls, antivirus, and encryption, are not
common on mobile phones, and mobile phone operating
systems are not updated as frequently as those on personal
computers (National Institute of Standards and Technology,
2013). Mobile social networking applications sometimes
lack the detailed privacy controls of their PC counterparts.
Unfortunately, many smartphone users do not recognize
these security shortcomings. Many users fail to enable the
security software that comes with their phones, and they
believe that surfing the internet on their phones is as safe
as or safer than surfing on their computers (Trend Micro,
“Smartphone Users, 2009). Meanwhile, mobile phones are
becoming more and more valuable targets for attack as
people are using smartphones for an increasing number of
activities and often store sensitive data, such as email,
calendars, contact information, and passwords, on the
devices and these may get into the hands of unscrupulous
people. The number and sophistication of attacks on mobile
phones is increasing, and countermeasures are slow to
catch up (Cox, 2009).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study is a descriptive case study in which a
combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques was
used to collect data. A qualitative research approach is
suitable when human activities or when behavioral
patterns will be investigated and quantitative methods are
employed to describe the events and then organizes,
tabulates the data collection (Glass and Hopkins, 1984;
Firestone, 1987) to aid reader in understanding of the data
distribution. The study population constitutes all users of
mobile phones on the campus of Kumasi Polytechnic. A
total of 250 respondents were randomly sampled for the
study. Both primary and secondary data were used in the
study and the primary data were collected at the individual
level using mainly structured questionnaire with closed
ended questions where respondents were given options to
select the applicable response, semi structured and open
ended questions.
The questionnaires were selfadministered and were distributed during break hours of
respective classes. Respondents voluntarily participated in
the
study. The questionnaire began with socio-
Addo
Table 1: Socio-demographic Characteristics of
respondents
Variable
Age (in yrs.)
Below 30
31-40
41-50
51 and above
Total
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Martial Status
Single
Married
Divorced
Total
Occupation
Employed
Unemployed
Total
Frequency
Percentage
165
41
14
5
225
73.30
18.20
6.20
2.30
100.00
148
100
248
59.70
40.30
100.00
215
32
2
249
86.30
12.90
0.80
100.00
198
55
248
77.80
22.20
100.00
Source: Field Survey, 2013
demographic characteristics of the respondents, followed
by questions of their usage of mobile phones, to positive
and negative impacts of mobile phones on society. The
questionnaires were pre tested with 30 respondents from
the Kumasi Polytechnic campus and the resulting response
were then used to modify the questionnaires to ensure the
suitability of the questionnaire for the overall study. The
collected data were checked for completeness and accuracy
after which those certified to be completely and accurately
filled was numbered to avoid double entry. The coded data
were entered using Excel and the data were analyzed with
SPSS version 18 and the results presented in tables. The ten
hypotheses were formulated based as follows:
H1: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
with improving relationship.
H2: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
with enhancing communication.
H3: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
with access to information.
H4: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
with quick transfer of information.
H5: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
with improving social ties.
H6: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with diversion of attention.
H7: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with enhancing crime.
H8: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with kidnapping.
H9: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with capturing blue films and porn images.
051
H10: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with health related problems.
The null hypotheses were tested using independent sample
t-test at 5% significant level (see Appendices I and II)
RESULTS
The Table 1 below is a summary of the socio-demographic
characteristics involved in the study.
As can be seen most (77.30%) of the respondents were
below 30 years and the mean age of respondents was
27years and variability of 7. This shows that usage of
mobile phone is widely dispersed. The number of
respondents above 50years was 5 representing 2.3% of the
respondents. About 18% of the respondents were also aged
between 30-40 years. With respect to gender 59.7% of the
respondents were males while 40.30% were females.
Married respondents accounted for 12.9% while 86.30%
were single and 0.8% was divorced. With occupation,
77.80% are employed while 22.20% are unemployed
(Table 1). About 93% of the respondents indicated that
they do use mobile phones whereas 7% of the respondents
do not use mobile phone. On the question reasons for using
mobile phone, 67.3% indicated that they used mobile
phones to contact friends they do not usually meet, 55.2%
use the phone to consult in times of difficulties while 84.4%
of the respondents used it in accessing information 43.6%
used the mobile phone for business. A whopping 90% use
the phone in touch with family and friends. 98% of the
respondents have used phones for more than one year, 1%
for more than 6months but less than a year and another 1%
of the respondents have used phones for less than 6
months. About 68.8% of the respondents utilize the call
service of the service providers while 17.6% claimed they
often used the mobile phone for the short message service
and 10.4% of the respondents often use the Multimedia
Message Service while 28% of the respondents use the
chatting regularly. On the question how often they use their
phones, 60% of the respondents use their mobile phone
multiple times in a day, 12% used it ones to five times in a
week while 28% use their phones once a day.
About 95% of the responded indicated that mobile phones
are important to society while 5% of them thought
otherwise (Table 2). On the other hand, 98.7% of the
responded specified that, the use of mobile phone is
important in building and sustaining relationships while
1.3% however disagreed. The positive impacts mentioned
by the respondents include improving relationships,
representing 84.8%, access to information 63.2%,
improving
societal ties 80.4% and enhancing
communication was the most cited positive impacts of
mobile phone on society and this was indicated by 94% by
the respondents. The Appendix I depicts the independent
samples of t-test of positive impacts of mobile phone and
under the positive impacts it indicates that only the
Issues.Bus.Manag.Econ.
052
Table 2: Positive impact of mobile phone on society
Variable
Think mobile phone is important in society
Yes
No
Total
Mobile Phone is important in building and Sustaining good relationship
Yes
No
Total
Positive effect of mobile phones*
Improving relationships
Enhanced communication
Access to information
Quick transfer of information
Improving social ties
Source: Field Survey, 2013.
variable enhancing communication is significant with pvalue 0.000. Hence the null hypothesis of hypothesis two
being H2: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively
associated with enhancing communication is accepted and
the alternative is rejected . The rest of the variables
according to the hypotheses test are not significant
meaning that Ghanaians does not see mobile phone as
having impact in relation to improving relationships, access
to information, quick transfer of information and improving
social ties. Hence the null hypothesis of hypothesis two is
accepted being: that Mobile phone adoption intensity is
positively associated with enhancing communication is
accepted at 5% significant level whereas the null
hypotheses of the following hypotheses are rejected at 5%
significant level and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.
H1: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
with improving relationship
H3: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
with access to information
H4: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
with quick transfer of information
H5: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
with improving social ties
Table 3 presents the summary of negative impact of mobile
phones by respondents. About 59.7% of the respondents
indicated that the use of mobile phones contributes
negatively to society, whiles 40.3% of the respondents
think otherwise, Some of the negative effects cited include
enhancing crime representing 62.4%, diversion of attention
(driving and students) constitute 63.6% of the respondents,
health related problems made up of 43.6%, capturing blue
films and images and capturing porn images made up of
84.80% and 75.60% of the respondents indicated that
mobile phone were used in blackmailing.
Again, Table 3 shows that 2% of the respondents indicated
that mobile phones were used in kidnapping. The Appendix
Frequency
Percentage
212
12
224
94.6
5.6
100.00
229
3
232
98.7
1.3
100.00
212
235
159
187
204
84.8
94.0
63.2
74.8
80.4
*multiple response
II shows the independent samples of t-test of negative
effects of mobile phone and under the negative effects, it
indicates that all the variables namely diversion of
attention, enhancing crime, and kidnapping, capturing blue
films and porn images and health related problems are all
significant with p-value 0.000 or less than 5%. This means
that the null hypotheses of the following hypotheses are
accepted at 5% significant level and the alternate
hypotheses are rejected also at 5% significant level.
H6: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with diversion of attention.
H7: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with enhancing crime
H8: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with kidnapping
H9: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with capturing blue films and porn images
H10: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with health related problems
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The objective of the study seek to provide empirical
evidence of the influences on mobile phone adoption as
well as positive and negative effects of mobile phone
technology on everyday life of Ghanaians and their social
interactions. For this purpose a sample of 250 Kumasi
Polytechnic students were randomly surveyed in the
Kumasi metropolis, Ashanti Region of Ghana. The
hypotheses of the study are stated as follows:
H1: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
with improving relationship.
H2: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
with enhancing communication.
H3: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively associated
Addo
053
Table 3: Negative impact of mobile phone on society
Variable
Think mobile phone has contributed negatively to society
Yes
No
Total
Feel bored and worried without your mobile phone
Yes
No
Total
Use the mobile phone while driving
Yes
No
Total
Talk loudly on mobile phone in public places
Yes
No
Total
Do you sometimes fail to study or work because of mobile phone?
Yes
No
Total
Negative effect mobile phones*
Health related problems
Diversion of attention
Enhancing crime
Kidnapping
Blackmailing,
Capturing blue films and images and capturing porn image
Source: Field Survey, 2013
with access to information.
H4: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively
associated with quick transfer of information.
H5: Mobile phone adoption intensity is positively
associated with improving social ties.
H6: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with diversion of attention.
H7: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with enhancing crime.
H8: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with kidnapping.
H9: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with capturing blue films and porn images.
H10: Mobile phone adoption intensity is negatively
associated with health related problems.
Since their rapid growth (mobile phones) and popularity
in the late 1990s, mobile phones have become an essential
part of daily life (Keniche, 2006).
The results of the study revealed that the usage of mobile
phones is spreading among the younger generation
(Grimm, 2001; Curry, 2001, Wireless Phone Reliance, 2001)
as more than 90% of the respondents indicated that they do
use mobile phones and their reasons for using mobile
phones included contacting friends they do not usually
Frequency
Percentage
123
83
206
158
57
215
59.70
40.30
100.00
73.50
73.50
26.50
100.00
54
52
106
50.90
49.10
100.00
45
170
215
20.90
79.10
100.00
149
82
231
64.50
35.50
100.00
109
159
156
5.0
189
212
43.60
63.60
62.40
2.00
75.60
84.80
*multiple response
meet, keeping in touch with family and friends, (67.30%) to
consult in times of difficulties (55.20%) (Katz, 1997), for
information access (84.40%) and for business (43.60%)
thus creating mobile commerce or m-commerce. The extent
of use was high among respondents with majority of them
having mobile phones for more than a year (98%) and
multiple of times (60%).
Majority (90%) of the respondents revealed that they
depend on mobile phone heavily to keep in touch with
friends and for social networking while some of the
respondents also indicated the use of mobile phone is of
great importance since it helps them to contact friends,
make consultations, peer pressure to maintain a good
image and for access to information, surfing the internet
and chatting. Some said mobile telephony helps them to
receive and send money, help their business, enhancing
social image and status while others said that it offers good
value. Their reasons and responses were consistent to
many works done across the globe some of which indicates
that individuals especially students, voice to call to keep in
touch. Polytechnic students often accomplish this function
by dropping by a friend’s room, hanging out in public places
and spaces as well as initiating an IM conversation with
“what’s up”.
Issues.Bus.Manag.Econ.
054
Coordination
As mentioned in Ling and Yttri (1999; 2002), microcoordination is a common theme of mobile phone usage
among these young participants. This concept of microcoordination can extend to include getting someone in a
store to receive service from store personnel. Participants
agreed it all comes to the efficient use of time. The cell
phone allows individuals to utilize time otherwise wasted
and several participants described the use of cell phones to
maintain or manage privacy. Another reason giving by
respondents with mobile phones is the perception that
using mobile phones for long-distance communications is
more economical particularly to students and to the
feelings of being safe and secure by pretending to talk to
others in order avoid others and consists of variables
relating to the negative characteristics of cell phone use
such as distraction and embarrassment. The feelings of
disconnection and being lost without a cell phone
Pretend to talk
Sizeable numbers of students use phones to pretend to talk
to avoid talking with someone around. This behavior which
is typical of students helps them and gives them the ability
to control the terms of interpersonal communication.
Social pressure or peer pressure
Social pressure influences students to adopt mobile phone
which was found to be a very important in increasing the
probability of adoption of mobile phones. This means that
the likelihood of a respondent’s adoption of a mobile phone
increases with each additional member among the closest
members of network adopting a mobile phone. This is
consistent with the study since the study revealed that peer
pressure influences the use of mobile phones.
Other services provided by mobile phone
Mobile phone provides a lot of services ranging from SMS,
MMS, chatting among others. While 17.6% use their phone
for short messaging (Ross 2004; Butcher, 2009; Power and
Power, 2004; Agence France Presse 2010; Constitutional
Review Committee, 2010 and Crystal, 2008), 10.4 % of the
respondent uses their phones for MMS (Nokia, 2002) while
27.6% use their phones in chatting. This indicates that
respondents use phones for its primary purpose of calling
in order to stay in touch with friends and families. This is in
agreement with most studies
Motivation for making voice calls
The result of the study indicated that almost 70% of the
respondents use mobile phone for calling purposes. The
major motivation for making a voice call on a mobile phone
was to keep in touch and arranging to meet was the next
most common function of voice calls to rendezvous/
meeting in either a few minutes or hours (Baround Ling,
2003). This indicates that the respondents use mobile
phones for its primary purpose of calling for staying in
touch with friends and families. This was in agreement with
most studies. The major motivation for making a voice call
on a mobile phone was to keep in touch and arranging to
meet was the next most common function of voice calls, to
rendezvous in either a few minutes or few hours.
Positive effects of mobile phone
Most of the respondents 98.7% indicated that mobile phone
have positive effects in expressions of maintaining and
building social relationships, as well as enhancing and
improving communication, quick access to information and
increase productivity. This findings is consistent with and
affirms Tully’s (2003) and Vivek, (2012) observation that
mobile phone creates changes in the dynamics of the
society in terms of contribution such as competence in
communication, keep contact with distant relatives,
secondary acquaintances, accessibility of information,
socialization, political and social union, youth and new
culture. Another positive influence of mobile phones was
improvement in communication and strengthening societal
ties as mentioned by 94% and 80.4% of the respondents
respectively and this was consistent with the study by Cox
and Leonard (1990), but the independent samples t-test
shows otherwise. The acceptance of the null hypotheses
that mobile phone enhances communication shows that
Ghanaians value mobile in terms reaching their relatives
and friends anytime, anywhere and time they want. In
addition it has curtail unnecessary travelling and giving
information at the earliest possible time. However, the
study found that improving relations and improving social
ties are not significant because in Ghanaian settings, the
social ties already exist so they do not see how significant
mobile phones contributes rather mobile phones have
contributed to their social woes and anxiety through telling
lies as well as using it in nefarious and clandestine activities
and behaviours. Access to information and quick transfer
of information were not seen to be significant because,
probably this is due high illiteracy level of Ghanaians as
most cannot access information on the internet and also
most people cannot send text messages.
Negative effects of mobile phones
Some of the most concerned areas about the negativity of
mobile telephony are its usage while driving resulting in
diversion of attention and possibly causing accident,
kidnapping and blackmailing, capturing blue films and
images and capturing porn images. The study revealed that
about 64% of the respondents use mobile phones while
Addo
driving and this could have a detrimental outcomes (Mary
and Amanda, 2009; Madden & Lenhart, 2009; Madden &
Rainie, 2010). The increase and wide spread use of mobile
phones has also resulted in people feeling uncomfortable
without them, a situation known as monophobia
(Huffington Post, 2012), and having a deleterious effect of
mobile phones on relationships. It is significant to note that
a whopping 84.80% shows that mobile phone are used in
capturing blue films and images and capturing porn images.
In terms of negative effects of the mobile phone it is striking
to note that the respondents view mobile phone as
detrimental to Ghanaian society as all the null hypotheses
of the variables except kidnapping of independent samples
t-test in Appendix II indicates that they are all significant.
Despite the positive impacts, respondents view mobile
phone as a threat and this is consistent with the study by
Cox, 2009 and Ruggiero and Foote, (2011). It is also
significant to note that kidnapping is only 2%. This shows
that kidnapping is not common in Ghana as this is affirmed
by the t-test (see Appendix II).
Conclusion
Mobile phones have an effect on the way that individuals
function in society, and while there has not been a lot of
research on the effects of mobile phone use, it has both
positive and negative consequences. Mobile phones in their
small time in existence have changed the way in which
individuals are interacting with each other. Mobile phones
have provided avenues for individuals to stay connected on
a new level that does not depend on space or time, but is
readily accessible at anytime, anywhere. Mobile phone has
allowed social networks and relationships to be
strengthened as well as new relationships formed and have
also allowed individuals all over the world that, without the
mobile phone would never have access to all of the
networks, access information that they do through the
mobile phone. Even within such an ostensibly regular
people of mobile phone users Kumasi Polytechnic
community use of mobile phones and their attitudes
toward their mobile phone usage and in terms of the levels
of integrating mobile phones into their lives. Majority of
them use it to keep in touch with family and friends and to
access information. The most and least used mobile phone
services on campus of Kumasi Polytechnic are calling
service and Multimedia messaging services (MMS)
respectively. Majority of the respondents on Kumasi
Polytechnic campus believe that mobile phones have
positive impact on society and have contributed to easy and
quick access and transfer of information, enhancing
communication and improving relationships as well as
societal ties.
On the other hand about 60% of respondents also have the
perception that mobile phones have negative influence on
society and this includes enhancing crime, diversion of
055
attention and health related problems. While it has
provided a new avenue to social networking and
interactions, the change in the space and time concept has
also had a negative effect as well. Many of us have likely
experienced a situation where we have been in the
presence of a mobile phone user who is engaging in some
form of rude behavior that lacks respect for the individuals
around them. Mobile phones have changed the way that
individuals socially interact and individuals are
communicating more through text messages and mobile
phones than face-to-face, changing our social environment.
Individuals have become enveloped in their mobile phones
and less aware of their social surroundings, missing out on
possible new social interactions. Mobile phones have
become part of their lives and they actively use the phones
to keep in touch with people and manage their time
efficiently. Though this study is limited in sampling and
cannot be generalized to any larger population, it is
interesting to discover that such distinct attitudinal
differences exist among the mobile phone users. Mobile
communication technologies are advancing rapidly. For
example, mobile phones with Internet access and
multimedia capabilities are becoming common in all parts
of the world. With advances in technology come changes in
user’s attitudes toward those technologies. These generate
new social and cultural phenomena. These social and
cultural phenomena may change the way technology
evolves as well as our behavior and the society at large.
Future research work
There are still a lot of future research needs to be done on
the long-term effects of the mobile phone and social
relationships. What should be looked at is how the mobile
phone affects relationships over time, as well as what the
long term health effects are, and how the access and use of
mobile phones varies through different socioeconomic
classes. However, you can see from the study how in its
short history, mobile phones have already had a huge
impact on the way individuals interact with one another. To
fully understand the social and cultural changes brought
about by this technology, it is important to continue
investigating individuals’ current attitudes and uses toward
mobile phone technology.
REFERENCES
Agence FP (2010). “Text message cash transfers booming in
south, East Africa”. http://news.malaysia.msn.com.
Alexia C (2009). Cellular phones influence(s) and impact(s)
on social interactions and interpersonal relationships.
American College of Emergency Physicians Foundations
(n.d). Text messaging: Emergency physicians express
safety concerns as kids go back to school.
http://www.emergencycareforyou.org/YourHealth
Issues.Bus.Manag.Econ.
056
/Injury(Prevention/Default.aspx?id=1240
Banjo O, Hun Y, Sundar SS (2006). Cell Phone usage and
social interaction with Proximate others: Ringing in a
theoretical model.” Conference papers international
communication association: pp. 1-30.
Baron NS (2010). The Dark side of Mobile phones
Department of Languages and Foreign studies. American
University
Baron NS, Ling R (2003). See you on line: Gender Issues in
college student use of instant messaging. J. of Lang. Soc.
Psychol.; 23: 397-423.
Bayes A, Von Braun J, Akhter R (1999). Village pay phones
and poverty reduction: Insights from a Grameen Bank
initiative in Bangladesh (ZEF Discussion Papers on
Development Policy No. 8). TeleCommons Development
Group.
Retrieved
from
http://www.telecommons.com/villagephone/
Bayes
99.pdf.
Beranuy MA, Oberst U, Carbonell X, Chamarro A, (2001).
The problematic Internet and mobile phone use and
clinical symptoms in college students: The role of
emotional intelligence.
Butcher D (2009). Obama’s Ghana speech highlights
delivered live via SMS”. Mobile marketer. July Edition.
Canadian Wireless Telecommunication Association (2012).
Cell phone Cellular operators Association of India
Available: http:// coai.in
Choi S (2006). A double-edged Mobile Phone and” Smart
Mob.” [On line] http://next.joins.com/article/? NID=365
Computers in Human Behaviours. pp 1182-1187.
Consumer Attitudes study.(2012) Quorus Consulting Group
Inc. ( provide the year or delete it.)
Cox E, Leonard H (1990). Weaving Community Links: The
cost Benefits of Telephone in Maintaining the Social
Fabric through the Unpaid Work of Women. The Distaff
Papers,
Australia.
http://216.92.140.78/hosted
pages/Distaff/Telstra/3%20results.htm.
Crystal D (2008).Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford University
Press.
Curry S R (2001). Wireless trend taking hold. Advertising
Age 72 (26), S2.
Dansieh AS (2011). SMS Testing and its Possible Links to
Students’ Written Communication. Inter. J. Eng. Linguist.,
1(2):222-229
Dogbevi EK (2008). “How SMS technology is changing lives
in
Ghana.”
Ghana
Business
News.
http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com.
Economist (2008). Mobile phones; the battle for the smartphones
soul.
Available
at:
http://www.economist.com/node/12650273.
Eto D (2012). IT news Africa, National Communication
Authority, October 4th 2012.
Firestone WA (1987). Meaning in method: the rhetoric of
quantitative and qualitative research. Edu. Res., pp. 16–
21.
Fortunati L (2002). "The Mobile Phone: Towards New
Categories
and
Social
Relations."
Information,
Communication & Society 5(4):513.
Fortunati L (2002). Italy: stereotypes, true and false. In:
Katz, J., Aakhus, M. (Eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile
Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance.
Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 42–62.
Frost , Sullivan (2006). Social impact of mobile telephony
in
Latin
America.
GSM
LA.
http://www.gsmlaa.org/ªles/content/
0/94/Social%20Impact%20of%20Mobile
%20Telephony%20in%20Latin%20America.pdf
Glass GV, Hopkins KD (1984). Statistical methods in
education and psychology: Englewood Cliffs NI: Prentice
Hall
Government of Ghana, (2010). Reviewing the 1992
constitution. Accra: Constitutional Review Committee.
Goodman J (2005). Linking mobile phone ownership and
use to social capital in rural South Africa and Tanzania
Vodafone Policy Paper Series, No.2. In Africa: The impact
of mobile phones.
Granovetter M (1973). The strength of Weak Ties. Am. J.
Soc., 78:1360-1380 .
Grimm M (2001). Cutting the cord: Do cell phone makers
have generation Y_s number? American Demographics 1:
66–67.
Hardy A (1980). “The Role of the Telephone in Economic
Development.” Telecommunications Policy, 4(4):278-286
Harper R (Eds.), Wireless World: Social and Interactional
Aspects of the Mobile Age. Springer, New York, pp. 62–77.
Harsha da Silva D, Ratnadiwakara AZ (2011). Social
Influence in Mobile Phone Adoption: Evidence from the
Bottom of the Pyramid in Emerging Asia ,Mobile
Telephone Special Issue, 7(3):1-18.
Head W (2006). UK Youth Addicted to mobile phones.
VUNet.http://wwwvunet.com/vunet/news/2160972/vkyouthaddicted-mobile-phone.
Heeks R (2008). “Meet Marty Copper- the inventor of the
mobile phone”. BBC, 41 (6): 26-33.
http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp
?prid=20110404_03
Hubbard A, Han HL, Kim W, Nakamura L (2007). Analysis of
mobile phone interruptions in dating relationships: A
face threatening act. Paper Presented at the Annual
Conference of the International Communication
Association, San Francisco, CA, 5:24-28.
Humphreys L (2005). "Cellphones in public: social
interactions in a wireless era." New Media & Society
7(6):810-833.
Kamran S (2010). Mobile Phone: Calling and texting pattern
of college students in Pakistan”. Inter. J. Bus. Manage.
5(4):26-36
Katz JE (2008). “Mobile Media and Communication: Some
Important Questions.” Communication Mimeographic
74(3): 339-394
Katz JE (2007). "Mobile Media and Communication: Some
Important Questions."
Addo
Communication Monographs 74(3):389-394
(http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=aph&AN=26386708&site=ehostliv).
Katz JE (1997). Social and organizational consequences of
wireless communications: a selective analysis of
residential and business sectors in the United States.
Telematics and Informatics 14 (3): 223–256.
Katz JE, Aakhus M (2001) (Eds.). Perpetual contact. New
York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kenichi I (2006). Implications of Mobility: The uses of
personal communication media in everyday life. J.
commun. pp. 346-365
Kim H (2004). Mobile phone is my friend, inews24.
http://www.inews24.com/bizmeka/itinfo/news_view.ph
p/ g_serial=122565 and g_menu=029069
Kopomaa T (2000). The City in Your Pocket: Birth of the
Mobile Information Society. University Press Finland,
Helsinki.
Kumasi Polytechnic Manual, (2013).www.kpoly.edu.gh,
Kumasi Polytechnic, 2013
Kushchu I (2007). Positive contribution of mobile phones to
society. Mobile government consortium international
Kwaku Kyem PA, LeMaire PK. (2006). Transforming recent
gains in the digital divide into digital opportunities: Africa
and the boom in mobile phone subscription. Information
Systems in Developing Countries, 28. Retrieved from
http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/
article/viewFile/343/189
Laurier E (2002). The region as a socio-technical
accomplishment of mobile workers. In: Brown, B., Green,
N., Harper, R. (Eds.), Wireless World: Social and
Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age. Springer, New
York, pp. 46–61. Let’s talk cell phone survey compares
2000 and 2002 results. Telecom world wire, September
5, 2002.
Leung L (2008). “Leisure boredom, sensation seeking, selfesteem, and addiction: Symptoms and patterns of cell
phone use.” in Mediated Personal Communication. Edited
by S. B. Barnes, E. A. Konijn, M. Tanis, and S. Utz. New
York, NY: Rutledge .pp. 359-381
Ling R (2000). The Adoption of Mobile Telephony among
Norwegian Teens, May 2000. Telenor notat 57/2000.
Kjeller: Telenor R&D, 2000. [Online]. Available:
http://www.telenor.no/fou/program/
nomadiske/articles/07.pdf
Ling R, Yttri B (1999). Nobody sits at home and waits for
the telephone to ring: micro and hyper coordination
through the use of the mobile telephone. Retrieved May
13,
2002,
from
<http://www.telenor.no/fou/prosjekter/Fremtidens_Br
ukere/Rich/Nobody%20sits%20at%20home%20and%2
0waits. Doc>.
Ling R, Donner J (2007). Mobile communication. London
policy press.
Ling R (2000). “Direct and Mediated International in the
maintenance of social relationships.” In Sloane, A and Van
057
Rijn, F. (Ends): Home Information and Telematics:
Information, Technology and society. Kluwer, Boston,
pp.61-86.
Luck D, Rubin R.S (2012). [On Line] http://www.
managementparadise.com/forums/marketingresearch/2
06790=definitions-research-design.html.
Madden M, Rainer L (2010). Adults and cell phone
distributions. Pew Internet and American life project,
June 18.
Madden M, Lenhart A (2009). Teens and Distracted During.
URL: http://pewinternet.org/reports/2009 Teens-andDistracted-During.aspx.
Norton,
Seth
W.
(1992)
“Transaction
costs,
Telecommunication, and the Microeconomics of
Macroeconomics Growth.” Economic Development and
cultural change. 41(1):175-96.
National Institutes of Standards and Technology.
“Guidelines on Cell Phone and PDA Security (SP 800124).” http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800124/SP800-124.pdf.
Nokia (2002). “Are you ready for multimedia messaging
service: An evolutionary approach to implementing
MMS’? Nokia, www. Nokia.com.
O’Connor A (2005). “Instant Messaging: Friend or foe of
student writing.” New Horizons for Learning.
http://www.newhorizon.org/strategies/literacy/oconno
r.htm.
Palen L, Salzman M, Youngs E (2000). Going wireless:
behavior & practice of new mobile phone users.
CSCW_00, Philadelphia, PA.
Panda L (2011) “Quarterly Report Panda Labs (JanuaryMarch 2011).” http://press.pandasecurity.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/PandaLabs-Report-Q12011.pdf].
Plant S (2001). On the mobile: the effects of mobile
telephones on social and individual life. Available from
<http://www.motorola.com/mot/documents/0,
1028,
333, 00.pdf>.
Power MR., Power D (2004). Everyone here speaks txt: Deaf
people using SMS in Australia and the rest of the world.
Journal of Deaf Stud. Deaf Edu. 9:333-343
Puro J (2002). Finland: a mobile culture. In: Katz J, Aakhus
M (Eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication,
Private Talk, Public Performance. Cambridge University
Press, New York, pp.19-29.
Przybylski A.K, Weinstein (2012). Can you connect with me
now? How the presence of mobile communication
technology influences face-face conversation quality.
Journal of social and personal Relationships. DOT:
10.1177/0265407512453827
Raid DJ, Fraser JMR. (2007.) “Text or talk? Social Anxiety,
loneliness, and Divergent preferences for cell phone use.
“Cyber psychology and behaviours 10(3): 424-435.
Rainie L, Keeters S (2006). Cell phone use [online]. Pew
Internet
and
American
life
project.
http://www.pewinternet.org
Issues.Bus.Manag.Econ.
058
/pdfs/PIP_cell_phone_study.pd
Reid DJ, Fraser JMR. (2007). "Text or Talk? Social Anxiety,
Loneliness, and Divergent Preferences for Cell Phone
Use." Cyber Psychology & Behavior 10(3):424-435.
Ross W (2004). “Inside Information” BBC Focus on Africa
January- March 2004 Edition, London: BBC
Ruggiero P, Foote J (2011). Cyber Threats to Mobile
Phones: Carnegie Mellon University. Produced for USCERT, a government organization.
Russell L (2010). “The effects text messaging on English
grammar.” http://www.ehow.com/list_5828172_effectstext-messaging-english-grammar.html
Saylor M (2012). The mobile wave: how mobile Intelligence
will change everything. Perseus Books/ vanguard press.
P.5.
Schackner B (2002). More students opt for wireless phone:
colleges face loss of commissions. Knight Rider Tribune
Business News (August 30).
Sherry J, Salvador T (2002). Running and grimacing: the
struggle for balance in mobile work. In: Brown, B., Green,
N., Harper, R. (Eds.), Wireless World: Social and
Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age. Springer, New
York, pp. 108–120.
Sridhar KS, Sridhar V (2004). “Telecommunications
Infrastructure and Economics Growth: Evidence from
Developing countries, National Institute of public finance
and policy (new Delhi, India) working paper No. 14, 2004
Symantec. “Symantec Report Finds Cyber Threats
Skyrocket
in
Volume
and
Sophistication.”
http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.j
sp?prid=20110404_03
Stephenson W, (1953). The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique
and Its Methodology. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Taylor AS, Harper R (2001). The gift of the gab? A design
oriented sociology of young people’s use of _mobilize! _.
Retrieved from <www.surrey.ac.uk/dwrc/papers/atgiftofthegab.pdf>.
Teens Who Text. (2008). Communications of the ACM
51(11):19-19
(http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
aph&AN=35211892&site=ehostliv).
The Huffington post (2012). Cell phones may hurt
International Relationships just by being in the room. The
Huffingtonpost.com
Thompson L, Julie C (2008). "Seen and not heard? Text
messaging and digital sociality. "Seen and not heard? Text
messaging and digital sociality." Social & Cultural
Geography 9(1):95-108.
Trend Micro. “Smartphone Users: Not Smart Enough About
Security.”
http://trendmicro.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&ne
ws_item=738&type=archived&year=2009
Torero
M,
Chowdhury
S,
Bedi
AS.
(2002)
“Telecommunications Infrastructure and Economic
Growth: A cross-country Analysis.” Mimeo.
Townsend AM (2002). Mobile communications in the
twenty-first century city. In: Brown B, Green N
Tully CJ (2003). "Growing Up in Technological Worlds: How
Modern Technologies Shape the Everyday Lives of Young
People." Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society
23(6):444-456.
Vivek A (2012). Influence of mobile technology in business
growth. American Global Consulting
Wei R, Leung L (1999). Blurring public and private
behaviors in public space: policy challenges in the use an
improper use of the cell phone. Telematics and
Informatics 16, 11–26. Wireless Phone Reliance Grows,
2001. TWICE, November 12. p. 12.
Wikipedia (2013). Mobile phone. Available at
http://enn.wikipeadia.org/wiki/mobile_phone.
Wikipedia (2013). Kumasi Polytechnic
Addo
Appendix I
Positive influence of mobile phone Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances
Improving
relationships
Enhanced
communication
Access to
information
Quick transfer
of information
Improving
social ties
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Sig.
t
1.361
.244
10.718
.001
1.359
.245
.877
.350
.140
.708
-.621
-.551
-1.771
-1.175
-.831
-.789
-.514
-.479
-.192
-.183
df
248
21.556
248
20.241
248
22.024
248
21.892
248
22.044
Sig.(2tailed)
.535
.587
.078
.253
.407
.438
.608
.637
.848
.857
Mean
Difference
-.05217
-.05217
-0.9783
-.09783
-.09348
-.09348
-.05217
-.05217
-.01739
-.01739
Std.Error
Difference
.08397
.09472
.05524
.08323
.11246
.11844
.10157
.10893
.09069
.09525
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
-.21756
-.24884
-.20662
-.27130
-.31498
-.33909
-.25222
-.27815
-.19601
-.21491
.11321
.14449
.01097
.07565
.12803
.15214
.14787
.17381
.16123
.18013
059
Issues.Bus.Manag.Econ.
060
Appendix II
Negative effects of mobile phone independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
Diversion of
attention
Enhancing crime
Kidnapping
Blackmailing
Capturing blue films
and porn images
Health related
problems
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
F
Sig.
159.179
.000
115.861
.000
30.214
.000
8241.981
.000
1463.665
.000
266.875
.000
t-test for Equality of Means
t
-27.460-23.933
-30.754
-26.804
2.615
2.279
-13.521
-11.784
-8.745
-7.621
-18.812
-21.581
df
248
107.000
248
107.000
248
107.000
248
107.000
248
107.000
248
141.000
Sig.(2tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Mean
Difference
-.84259
-.84259
-.87037
-.87037
.04630
.04630
-.56481
-.56481
-.35185
-.35185
-.76761
-.76761
Std.Error
Difference
.03068
.03521
.02830
.03247
.01770
.02031
.04177
.04793
.04024
.04617
.04081
.03557
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
-.90303
-.91239
-.92611
-.93474
.01143
.00603
-.64709
-.65983
-.43110
-.44337
-.84797
-.83792
-.78216
-.77280
-.81463
-.80600
.08117
.08657
-.48254
-.46980
-.27260
-.26033
-.68724
-.69729