Behaviour & Information Technology
ISSN: 0144-929X (Print) 1362-3001 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20
How rude is rude: an exploratory study among
Australian Millennials, Generation ‘X’ and Baby
Boomers mobile phone users
Jennifer (M.I) Loh, Jane Strachan & Raechel Johns
To cite this article: Jennifer (M.I) Loh, Jane Strachan & Raechel Johns (2020): How rude is rude:
an exploratory study among Australian Millennials, Generation ‘X’ and Baby Boomers mobile phone
users, Behaviour & Information Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2020.1764106
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1764106
Published online: 12 May 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 10
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbit20
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1764106
How rude is rude: an exploratory study among Australian Millennials, Generation
‘X’ and Baby Boomers mobile phone users
Jennifer (M.I) Loha, Jane Strachanb and Raechel Johns
a
a
School of Management, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia; bSchool of Psychology, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
Research in both Organizational Behavior and Organizational Psychology has found that incivility
via mobile phone technology has reached pandemic proportions in our contemporary society
with significant negative impacts including poor physical and mental health. Porath and
Pearson’s incivility spiral theory posits that the low intensity nature of incivility does not exclude
it from becoming a precursors of workplace violence, aggression, harassment and conflict. In
fact, incivility has become even more prevalent through the advancement of technology (i.e.
mobile phone), increased global interactions and cultural diversity. Despite this, there is limited
understanding on the antecedents of mobile phone incivility and whether different generations
of Australian mobile users perceived incivility on the phone differently. To address this gap,
participants from Generation ‘Y’(Millennials), Generation ‘X’ and Baby Boomers were recruited
through snowball sampling and interviewed qualitatively about their lived experiences of mobile
phone incivility. Using an Interpretative Phenomenological Approach (IPA), five main themes
were identified. Results also indicated that Baby Boomers and Generation ‘X’ tend to be less
tolerant of technological incivility than Millennials. This suggests potential intergenerational
differences among different generations of Australians, resulting in negative interpersonal
interactions.
Received 5 November 2018
Accepted 29 April 2020
1. Introduction
The phenomenon of mobile phone incivility has resulted
in workers from Australia and the United Kingdom refusing service to customers talking on their mobile phones, as
this behaviour is deemed ‘rude’ (Carbone 2016; Craw
2013; Whyte 2013). Rude cell/mobile phone behaviours
include using a phone while speaking to someone else
or having a meal and talking loudly on a cell phone in
public (Civility in America 2013). According to Andersson and Pearson (1999), workplace incivility is generally
referred to as, ‘low intensity behavior with ambiguous
intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace
norms for mutual respect; and displaying a lack of regard
for others’ (457). In other words, it involves rude interactions between individuals that defy the norms for
mutual respect and ethical behaviours (Hanrahan and Leiter 2014; Reich and Hershcovis 2015).
The focus of most academic research on mobile phone
incivility tend to be in public versus private settings
(Hakoama and Hakoyama 2012; Leiter, Price, and Spence
Laschinger 2010; Norman and Bennett 2014; Porath and
Pearson 2013; Washington, Okoro, and Cardon 2014).
Most of these studies have also tended to study mobile
phone incivility among young adults in America
CONTACT Jennifer (M.I) Loh
Jennifer.Loh@canberra.edu.au
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
KEYWORDS
Incivility; mobile phone
technology; millennials;
generation ‘X’; baby boomers
(Hakoama and Hakoyama 2012). Less is known about
the experiences and attitudes of mobile phone incivility
in older individuals or among individuals outside of
America. To help address this gap in the incivility literature, this study will explore mobile phone incivility by
interpreting the experiences of three generational cohorts
(Millennials/Generation ‘Y; Generation ‘X’ and Baby
Boomers) within the Australian context.
2. Theoretical framework
Situated within a Social Interactionist Perspective, workplace incivility is an interactive process which involves
two or more parties and that ‘the instigator(s), the target(s), or the observer(s), as well as the social context
all contribute to and are affected by an uncivil encounter’
(Andersson and Pearson 1999, 457). In other words,
incivility is instigative and can lead to increasingly counterproductive retaliatory behaviours. Indeed, in a recent
study conducted by Loh and Loi (2018), a significant tit
for tat effect was found between targets of incivility and
perpetrators of incivility.
According to Andersson and Pearson (1999), incivility exists on a spectrum ranging from overt deviant
2
J. LOH ET AL.
behaviour such as bullying to covert deviant behaviour
such as rudeness. A distinctive feature to note here is
that incivility is subtle, passive, and indirect. The intent
to cause harm is often vague but this ambiguity makes
it extremely difficult to decipher the true intent of the
perpetrator (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). In
other words, it does not need to be the intention of
the perpetrator to deliberately cause pain or suffering
in targets (Andersson and Pearson 1999). Rather, the
behaviour can be assumed to be the result of perpetrator ignorance or the extreme sensitivity/misunderstanding on the part of the targets (Andersson and
Pearson 1999). Therefore, it is the ambiguous nature
of the intent which separates incivility from more violent or aggressive acts such as bullying or physical
assault.
This issue becomes more complex when you consider
that, with the advancement of technology, communication in modern societies has becoming increasingly
ambiguous. For instance, ‘communication that occurs
via Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs) such as computer e-mail or text messages generally lacks the social cues of face to face communication’
(Giumetti et al. 2012, 148). As such, this further contributes to the confusion relating to the ambiguity in intent
to harm. Giumetti and his colleagues define this as ‘rude/
discourteous behaviours occurring through Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs) such as e-mail
or text messages’ (2016, 148).
3. Advent of mobile phone technology and
incivility
Once considered a luxury item, 92% of Australians now
use a mobile phone to keep in touch with family and
friends (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015). Due to
the ubiquitous use of mobile technology amongst the
younger generation, mobile phone technology is identified as part of the self in that age group (Forgays,
Hyman, and Schreiber 2014).
However, with a perceived increase in incivility found
to be reaching pandemic proportion in all areas of
society such as the workplace (98%), universities (67%)
and the public arena (86%), researchers are seeking
answers as to what could be the cause of this increase
(Burke et al. 2014; Porath and Pearson 2013; Civility in
America 2011). Studies suggest that the use of mobile
phone technology may be a contributory factor (Bjorklund and Rehling 2010; Forma and Kaplowitz 2012;
Höflich 2006; Inbar et al. 2014). For example, Lenhart
et al. (2010) found that 60% of their study participants
considered text messaging during a lecture to be rude.
Similarly, a survey of 3616 students at a midwestern
US public university found that text messaging was
cited as one of the most frequently observed uncivil
behaviours (Bjorklund and Rehling 2010). Whilst mobile
phone technology informs people’s reliance on text messaging to converse with colleagues, friends, family and
lovers, one of the most highlighted issues experienced
with text messaging is that of ambiguity (Suller 2010).
According to Suller (2010), ambiguity in text messaging
may evolve from diminished visual and auditory cues of
facial expression, body language and voice dynamics that
convey emotion and meaning. Without visual and auditory cues, text messaging can induce overthinking,
unconscious needs and emotions in transference and as
a result, a message can be perceived as being rude
when it is perhaps not intended to be.
In addition to text messaging, Washington, Okoro,
and Cardon (2014) found that a large proportion of
their research participants (87%) considered answering
or making a call in a formal meeting to be extremely
rude, followed by checking texts/emails (76%) and
browsing the internet (75.7%). Höflich (2006) infers
that since the inception of mobile phone, this form of
digital technology has evolved to become an encumbrance on contemporary society that was not present
before. Indeed, Pinchot, Paullet, and Rota (2011) suggest
that mobile phone technology has caused a cultural shift
amongst users to an ‘always on’ world whereby when a
call or a text is made or sent to a mobile phone, an
immediate answer can be expected due to the perception
that a person will always have his or her mobile phone on
them. In addition, due to the pervasiveness of mobile
phones in both private and public spaces, exposure to
mobile phone technology has become unavoidable
(Monk, Fellas, and Ley 2004). For example, people are
now increasingly forced to listen to other peoples’ telephone conversations in cafes, on public transport, in
shops and on the street. Forma and Kaplowitz (2012)
found that when comparing face-to-face conversations
that could be overheard with cell phone conversations
conducted in public, cell phone conversations that
were overheard were perceived to be significantly ruder
than hearing face-to-face conversations.
According to Goldsmith (2013), results from an
online survey found that 78% of people reported incivility to be rising with two out of five people ‘blocking’
someone online over arguments that took place through
social media. Nineteen percent of people surveyed had
ceased contact with someone because of something
that had been said online and 88% believed that people
were more likely to be rude online than in face-to-face
interactions with 81% of participants reporting that disagreements online still remain unresolved (Goldsmith
2013).
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
3.1. Perceived incivility amongst different
generations
Generational cohort theory defines a generation as
belonging to a group whose date of birth spans a period
of 20 years and infers that each generation will share
rigid common values, beliefs and behaviours that will
have been influenced by events and trends experienced
during lifecycle development (Hoffnung 2013). Consequently, what may be perceived to be rude to one person
may not necessarily be seen to be rude by another (Bjorklund and Rehling 2010). As such, different attitudes,
values and beliefs held by different generations can significantly affect one’s contextual perceptions (Nicholas
2009). For example, Pinchot, Paullet, Rota and Morris
(2011) found that older participants were more likely
than younger participants to consider the use of mobile
phones in social settings (shopping, sporting events, dining out, class, church, driving and funerals) to be rude.
Rowland and Srisukho (2009) found that using a cell
phone or surfing the internet, whilst in class, was more
likely to be considered rude by older teaching staff
than by young students. Similarly, Pinchot, Paullet,
Rota and Morris (2011) found that 79% of those aged
between 30 and 39 years, 62% of those aged 40–49 and
83% of those in the 50–59 age brackets considered interrupting a face-to-face conversation by taking a phone
call to be extremely rude and disruptive. Only 47% of
those in the younger age group (20–29) felt that interrupting a face-to-face conversation by taking a phone
call was extremely rude. This suggests that Millennials
(i.e. those born between 1986 and 2006) may be more
accepting of uncivil behaviour on mobile phone technology compared to older generations (i.e. Baby Boomers or
Generation ‘X’), perhaps because of more exposure to
this type of behaviour.
For instance, researchers have found that Baby Boomers tend to be more uncomfortable with technology than
Generation ‘X’ and prefer face-to-face interactions
(Patota, Schwartz, and Schwartz 2007; Seipert and
Baghurst 2014). In contrast, Generation ‘X’, whilst recognised as being more ‘negative, cynical and skeptical’, are
more comfortable with technology than Baby Boomers
(Delcampo et al. 2011, 9; Seipert and Baghurst 2014).
Millennials are the generation considered most comfortable with technology and most likely to multitask online
(Nicholas 2009; Robinson and Stubberud 2012). Despite
this, recent statistics have revealed that the older generations are catching up on the use of mobile technology,
with an increase of 45% from 2013 to 2014 among Australians over the age of 55 years old (over 55 years;
ACMA 2015; North, Johnston, and Ophoff 2014). The
purpose of the study, therefore, is to understand how
3
the use of mobile technology impacts on perceptions of
those around us, how these perceptions may vary
between generations and possible implications in the
workplace.
In the current study, three generational cohort’s
mobile phone users and their perceptions of what constitute incivility will be explored, namely from the Baby
Boomers (born 1946–1966), Generation ‘X’ (born
1966–1986) and Millennials (sometimes referred to in
the literature as Generation ‘Y’; born 1986–2006) (ABS
2015; Delcampo et al. 2011). This is important because
there is limited comparative research of cell/mobile
phone incivility among these three cohorts of users in
Australia. In order to gain a deeper insight into how
each cohort experienced mobile technology and incivility, this research will employ an interpretative phenomenological approach to explore the following research
question,
Are there generational differences in how mobile phone
use is considered in the workplace and everyday life?
Specifically, the main questions we asked interviewees in
the interviews explored the following questions:
‘What is your experience with mobile phone technology
in both life in general and the workplace? Can you tell
me about that?’ Interviewees were then probed for
further information regarding their use and their experiences of others’ use both in the workplace and in their
everyday life as required.
4. Research design
4.1. Theoretical framework
The current study is based on the epistemology of social
constructionism approach (i.e. how individuals view the
world through his or her construction of it; Walker
2015). A phenomenological theoretical framework was
used to allow the researcher to explore the lived experience of the individual and how he or she experiences
the phenomenon of mobile phone technology and perceived incivility. Interpretative Phenomenology Analysis
(IPA) is underpinned by phenomenology, hermeneutics
and symbolic interactionism (Biggerstaff and Thompson
2008) which infers that unique meaning ascribed by the
participant to the phenomenon (in this case, mobile
phone incivility) is available only through interpretation.
In other words, we explore the lived experiences of individuals and how these lived experiences affect individuals’ interactions with the world (Smith, Flower, and
Larkin 2009). This approach is deemed more appropriate
for this research study compared to quantitative research
methodology (Bjorklund and Rehling 2010) because
4
J. LOH ET AL.
participants’ subjective experiences of what constitute
incivility can be strongly influenced by one’s values,
beliefs, norms and cultures. This is particularly salient
when you considered the very subjective and socially
constructed nature of incivility. In this study, the
researchers also adopted ‘Bracketing’ to reduce personal
biases. Bracketing is the conscious awareness whereby
the researcher attempts to separate his or her experiences
from those of the participants (LeVasseur 2003) and in
doing so, adds validity to the research study.
4.2. Participants
A purposive sample consisting of 24 adult (twelve males
and twelve females) mobile phone users from Western
Australia were recruited via snowball sampling for this
study. The sample was then sub-divided into three
quota groups of eight participants to ensure equal representation across three generational cohorts (Baby
Boomer Generation (born 1946–1965), Generation ‘X’
(born 1966–1985) and Millennials/Generation ‘Y’
(born 1986–1998)) so that no cohort was overly represented (Górny and Napierała 2016).
4.3. Materials
An interview package was prepared and given to each
participant. Each package consisted of a copy of the
cover letter outlining the purpose of the research and
contained important contact details should the participant feel the need to get in touch with the researcher,
supervisor or independent person following his or her
interview and a consent form. Materials also consisted
of an interview schedule that consisted of the main interview question, ‘What is your experience with mobile
phone technology in both life in general and the workplace? Can you tell me about that?’
Interviews were recorded using a digital tape recording device. The recordings were transcribed verbatim
and include speech nuances such as tone differentiation
and pauses (Biggerstaff and Thompson 2008). To
enhance confirmability, during the interview and when
listening to/transcribing the interview, a journal notebook and pen was made available to record experiences
of embodied awareness by the researcher and to avoid
any bias during data interpretation.
4.4. Procedure
Following ethics approval from the University’s Ethics
Committee, copies of the recruitment flyer promoting
the research were displayed on noticeboards at various
community, sport and social meeting centres. Interested
participants then contacted the main researcher and a
convenient time and a place for the interview was
arranged. To ensure standardisation across the generational cohorts, the introduction to the interviews followed a set format for each participant whereby the
participants were asked to confirm, for recording purposes, that he or she had read the information letter
and signed the consent form. Once consent has been
given, the researcher then asked the participant if he or
she had any questions on either the information letter
or consent form prior to commencement of the interview. To ensure privacy and avoid interruption, all interviews were carried out in a quiet room where the door
could be closed. The interviews generally lasted about
an hour or until there was no new information provided
by the participants.
Member checking was used to establish credibility of
the research (Birt et al. 2016). For example, a copy of the
verbatim transcription was sent to two participants who
represented each generational cohort in order to confirm
that he or she was confident that the transcription of the
interview was perceived as being an accurate account of
the conversation between the researcher and the individual participant. All representatives confirmed that the
transcriptions were an accurate account of the interview
and no change was required to be made.
4.5. Data analysis
The use of interpretative phenomenological analysis
(Harré, Smith, and Langenhove 1995) in this research
gave the participant a sense of being recognised as the
‘expert’ in the dual relationship between the researcher
and the participant and thus provided the participant
with a feeling of empowerment (Tinker and Armstrong
2008). Each interview was listened to prior to the recordings being transcribed. This is to ensure that the
researchers can become immediately ‘immersed’ in the
data (Braun and Clarke 2006, 87). Transcription
occurred immediately after the interview tape was
initially listened to.
Each individual transcript was read, re-read and analysed in detail until saturation was reached -that is, no
new information can be gathered from the transcriptand emergent themes were generated. These emergent
themes were then identified, coded and tabled before
moving on to the next participant (Smith 2004, 41).
Themes and sub-themes that answer the research question were isolated. Next, emerging common themes
and sub-themes from each of the three generational
cohorts were analysed. Once preliminary individual
analysis and secondary group analyses had been carried
out, only then was a cross-generational analyses of all
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
participants (Baby Boomers, Generation ‘X’ and Millennials/Generation ‘Y’) performed. To ensure interpretative rigour, verbatim quotations from participants
were included in the findings and research section of
the study to support and validate accurate interpretative
analysis (Finlay 2011). Finally, to protect participant
anonymity, any perceivable identifying information
was removed from the verbatim data transcripts.
5. Findings and interpretations
Table 1 displays the five main themes and two subthemes identified from the cross-generational data
analysis.
5.1. Intrusion of public space
Public space is defined as areas in society, usually occupied by people who are generally unfamiliar with each
other, for example, on the train, in the street or in a restaurant (Lofland 1989). Traditionally, civil inattention
allows individuals to move through public space paying
enough attention that they do not intentionally physically interfere with each other, but at the same time,
are not deemed to be actively listening to other people’s
private verbal conversations (Goffman 1973). Whilst historically, payphones/phone-boxes were permanently
located in areas of public space, the phone is now mobile
and the public and private world of making or receiving a
phone call has become blurred with people forced to
interact daily with the phenomenon of mobile phone
technology in a public space (Humphreys 2005; Strauß
and Nentwich 2013). Consequently, the theory of civil
inattention is becoming more difficult to uphold as a
social norm as the public space becomes increasing privatised (Katz and Aakhus 2002). For instance, when
mobile phone users talk loudly in a restricted space,
they are infringing upon other people’s public space;
this act of talking loudly on the mobile phone is perceived to violate the privacy of others and the crossing
of another individual’s personal boundary (Humphreys
2005). Perceived to be rude and disruptive, bystanders
in such situations tend to look to other bystanders for
Table 1. Themes and sub-themes of how Mobile Phone
Technology Informs Perceived Incivility
Themes
1. Intrusion of Public Space
2. Disruption of Face-to-Face Contact
3. Ambiguous Texting
4. Work Versus Social Setting
5. Self-Rationalisation
Sub-Themes
Being Ignored
Constant Mobile Engagement
5
support which may be in the form of rolling their eyes,
exchanging knowing glances or promoting distance
through moving seats (Humphreys 2005). This has
important implication for employees or customers occupying public sphere. The following excepts provide an
example of this:
If someone is in reception, on their mobile phone, and
they are talking loudly, I’ll go out there and say, ‘There’s
a sign there … put your phone down. If they continue to
do it, I’ll ask them to leave because they are not thinking
of the environment around them. – Generation X
(Male)
We see this at work a lot. People are sitting in the waiting room on their phone and the provider calls them
through and they are still talking on the phone. I
would move on to the next client and take the next person … . – Generation X (Female)
In this study, we found that many participants expressed
negative reaction to people who talk too loudly on their
mobile phones in public spaces. For example, excerpts
from a number of participants from Generation ‘X’, ‘Millennials- Gen Y’ and Baby Boomers indicated that when
individuals’ perceived their personal space to have been
violated, they react with anger, distant or even direct confrontation. One female Baby Boomer explained her frustration about the use of mobile phones in a public place:
I cannot stand being on a train and sitting next to someone who is on their goddamn phone and everybody has
got to hear their conversation. – Baby Boomer (Female)
This perception was commonly shared by Baby Boomers
– for example, the following male Baby Boomer
expressed a similar frustration:
How rude- answering a call in the middle of a school
assembly … they just talk like they are in their own living room with complete disregard to what is happening
around them.- Baby Boomer (Male)
Another female Baby Boomer explains her negative reaction as a result of the generation gap. In this quote, she
expresses how her generation may be perceived:
People are on the phone in movies and I’ve had to be the
real grumpy old lady who tells them to put away their
phones because they are sitting talking on their phone
in a movie house and I just think that it’s totally disrespectful to do that.- Baby Boomer (Female)
Interestingly, Generation X and Millennials also shared
the above perception as the following quotes indicated.
Yeah, I hate people who have their phones on speakerphone around other people like on the trains and overhearing other people’s conversations. I will try and shoot
them a dirty look to get them to turn their speaker
phone off. – Millennial (Female)
6
J. LOH ET AL.
I don’t mind if people are very loud or just watching
something but then if they’re being very, very loud
and they are stopping me from moving, then that
becomes a bit of a problem. –Millennial (Male)
The above responses from the three generational cohorts
interviewed in this research reflected the psychological
impact of ‘unintentional eavesdropping’ whereby observers are forced to listen to a one-sided conversation on a
mobile phone (Ling 2010). Consequently, they experienced perceived incivility due to the intrusion of mobile
phone technology into what psychologists term ‘the public space’ (Goffman 1973).
The second main theme identified was disruption of
face-to-face contact with two sub-themes.
5.2. Disruption of face-to-face contact
Face to face interaction is the primary driver of human
relationship building and development (Festinger,
Schachter, and Back 1950). However, in today’s technologically advanced society, we are increasingly relying on
the convenience of emails, text messages and social
media to help us communicate. Disruption of face-toface contact has been identified as an important theme
in the mobile phone incivility literature with important
management implications (Lim and Teo 2009; Washington, Okoro, and Cardon 2014).
Disruption of face to face contact is defined as being
when one person from a dyad-answers his or her mobile
phone and the inter-connectivity between the two people
is broken. This theme consists of two subthemes, namely
being ignored and technology (i.e. mobile phone) being a
constant presence. Many of the respondents reported
that it was rude when their face to face contact was disrupted or being ignored.
5.3. Being ignored
The importance of the face-to-face dyad is informed by
the ‘still face experiment’ (Schulte 2013, 1). The still
face experiment infers that infants become distressed
and agitated when the mother disengages from faceto-face contact. The infant uses his or her body and
emotions to try and re-establish contact with the
mother. The following quotations inform how the
three generational cohorts experienced perceived incivility informed by mobile phone technology through the
theme of disruption of face-to-face contact. Although
all three cohorts found being ignored to be ‘rude’, the
Baby Boomers seemed more surprised by such uncivil
phone behaviour, compared to the Millennials or
Generation X.
The one thing that really does annoy and surprise me
about mobile phones is how rude people are, like you
will be talking to them and their phone rings and they
will automatically pick it up and answer it … - Baby
Boomer (Female)
Your phone rings and you are talking and you pick up
the phone and they just walk away talking – wow,
that’s rude. - Baby Boomer (Male)
She will just stop talking to you because she is answering
a message or something … and that drives me insane Millennial (Female)
I hate it because you are talking or presenting and they
are there and all they are doing is looking at their phone.
You don’t know if they are just playing on Facebook or
playing candy crush or what they’re doing right, you are
sort of going- hold on, are you here or are you not here
right? - Generation X (Female)
We will be trying to have a conversation but he’s also
having a conversation on the mobile phone, you know
chatting not talking but you know typing or responding
or whatever so you feel like you’re sort of down the
pecking order a bit in the conversation … - Generation
X (Female)
If you are talking to someone and you think you have
the full attention of that person but you don’t because
they have just gone on to their phone and you have to
sit there and wait–I don’t like it. - Millennial (Female)
5.4. Constant mobile engagement
Research in the area of mobile phones and relationships
has found that the mere presence of mobile technology
interferes with the quality of human conversational
relationships. According to Plant (2000), mobile phones
provide a continual sense of connection to the wider
social world—a feeling that persists even if a mobile is
in ‘silent mode’. Thus, the presence of a mobile phone
may orient individuals to think of other people or events
outside their immediate social context (Srivastava 2005)
and divert their attention away from face to face conversation (Turkle 2011; Vorderer, Krömer, and Schneider
2016). Other researchers suggest that the mere presence
of mobile phone can impact one’s face to face relationship negatively by reducing the closeness, connectivity
and conversational quality between individuals especially
when individuals are constantly being interrupted by
phone call or phone messages (Przybylski and Weinstein
2013, 244). The following quotes depict this:
I don’t like it when you’re talking to somebody and
they’re forever looking down at their phone – I find it
extremely rude. - Gen X (Male)
It is just that every time it pings (message), it’s got to be
looked at … - Gen X (Female)
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
While phone users may believe they can ‘multi-task’, the
perceptions of those around them is that they are being
ignored and as a result feel disrespected.
It shouldn’t be the first priority but I find that people
tend to be so compelled to answer their phone or
check it all the time. - Baby Boomer (Female)
It’s disrespectful to answer the phone and to be looking
at your phone all the time when you’re with somebody
else and I think it just – I think – I do, I find it disrespectful. - Baby Boomer (Male)
By not prioritising the person in front of them, respondents believed that there was no point being together.
There’s no point being in public with friends if you are
just going to sit on your phone … if they are scrolling
through Facebook, it is just rude because you don’t go
out to be social and then sit on your phone scrolling
through Facebook. Millennial (Male)
She just obviously thought of something – sent it out
and posted about it and then sent a text message as
well to everyone in the family … This situation wouldn’t
have happened if we didn’t have mobile phone or social
media. - Millennial (Female)
5.5. Ambiguous text messaging
Whilst the phenomenon of mobile technology has been
found to have dramatically increased the quantity of
inter-relatedness between individuals in society, there
is less information regarding the impact of mobile technology on the quality of interpersonal communication
(van Deursen et al. 2015; Srivastava 2005). This is important when you consider that the huge amount of text
messages that are being sent daily in Australia across
all generations, together with the lack of verbal, physical
and emotional cues associated with face-to-face communication. Consequently, the meaning in text messages
may not always be clear (ACMA 2015; Srivastava 2005).
Ambiguous texting is an issue for all participants in this
study.
According to psychological theory, cognitive dissonance occurs when a decision maker perceives two or
more pieces of information (cognitions) to be ambiguous
(Perlovsky 2013). When such confusion or ambiguity
occurs (e.g. such as an ambiguous text), cognitive dissonance can result in heightening a person’s psychological
tension and mental conflict resulting in symptoms such
as anxiety (Rohde et al. 2016). In this current research,
respondents across all generation felt that short messaging system (SMS) use was limited, because tones were
hard to read into.
I think it’s very easy to misunderstand someone
especially through texting. You don’t understand how
7
they are speaking if they are sending you a message.
You might take something extremely rude but really,
it’s because they haven’t gone into depth in what they
are saying. You don’t really know how they are meaning
it. - Millennial (Male)
I think it’s very easy to misunderstand someone
especially through texting. - Millennial (Female)
There’s a lot of miscommunication through texting
because you could read it in a certain way without
knowing the person’s tone of voice or how they meant
it. - Baby Boomer (Female)
Words can be misinterpreted because you don’t have the
tone and you don’t have the facial expressions and you
don’t have the emotional things that go with it. - Baby
Boomer (Female)
You will send these text messages backwards and forwards, you would be both left thinking- well I don’t
really get what context that’s been sent in. - Generation
X (Male)
You don’t get the tone of voice with the text so sometimes I use dots and exclamation marks. It is just a
form of expression using the emoji. - Generation X
(Female)
Gobbini et al. (2013) suggest that being able to see someone’s face can facilitate clear meaning in social interaction and inform an observer of an individual’s
emotional and mental state and decreases the possibility
of perceived ambiguity.
5.6. Work versus social setting
Being in the world more often than not demands that we,
as human beings, share what scientists refer to as the
public space in a way that adheres to perceived social
norms (Gómez-Reus and Usandizaga 2008). Scheff
(1988) suggests that to conform to social norms and perform the expected behaviour associated with a particular
social norm can incite positive feelings of pride in a person. In our current study, a number of respondents,
mostly the Baby Boomers and Generation X reported
on the importance of the need to communicate differently in work versus social settings. Specifically, respondents noted the importance of being ‘professional’ when
emailing or texting in social versus work setting. For
example, participants (80%) agreed that they would
take more care and time when they text a work their
supervisors than when they text or email a friend or relative. This is consistent with findings that support the
need to adhere to social norms of respect for perceived
significant others in authoritative position, such as a
work supervisor (Joly, Stapel, and Lindenberg 2008;
Pagliaro, Ellemers, and Barreto 2011):
8
J. LOH ET AL.
One’s more formal … for work I have to make sure that
it’s all written nice and … proper words and that sort of
stuff. – Generation X (Female)
way that goes against one’s own behaviour choices.
This is reflected by many of our participants and illustrated in the following quotes:
I won’t use emoticons – I won’t use slang – I won’t use
the word ‘u’ instead of you … I’m more professional.
Baby Boomer (Female)
My sister at the table. Click clacking away on her phone.
I don’t like it. - Millennial (Male)
It’s my job and I guess my job pays for everything … so I
have to be careful.- Millennial (Female)
When people are together and they answer their phone
– I think it’s very rude. - Baby Boomer (Female)
I don’t think I would like my boss to text me and send
me a whole lot of ‘X’s’ at the end of it … that would
bother me. - Baby Boomer (Female).
You know, people are becoming so connected to their
phones and so used to their phones that they are actually
becoming outright rude and forgetting common courtesy. - Baby Boomer (Female)
In contrast, the same care and attention to detail in constructing an email or a text to a friend appears to be significantly diminished:
That’s rude to the person that sat in front of you looking
at your face. - Generation X (Female)
A friend would probably be the opposite, you know
shorter words, maybe emoji depending on who it is –
yeah there might be swearing and what not.- Millennial
(Female)
If I was emailing a friend, it would be more ‘chatty’, sort
of informal you know and if I didn’t have a comma or
you know, it wouldn’t really matter … yeah a lot more
relaxed tone to it.’ - Generation X (Female)
However, respondents felt justified in their phone
behaviour on the basis of ‘need’ and lining their ‘rude’
behaviours to situational contexts (Graham and Folkes
2014). The following excerpts illustrate some of the
reasons for their justifications:
It’s more like a communication – so if I was on my
phone somebody might be messaging me saying, oh,
look where are you at? - Millennial (Male)
You’re more relaxed when you are speaking to a friend.
You might have a joke or a swear word or something like
that. Baby Boomer (Female)
If it was my boss I would apologize, then I’d say
obviously I have to take this as it may be urgent. –
Baby Boomer (Male)
If it’s family, you know, if it’s my middle brother, he and
I are closest- it would be a joke or ‘get off your lazy arse
or have you been fishing, it could be any myriad of
things – the tone would be different. - Baby Boomer
(Male)
The above findings are consistent with the Attribution
Theory wherein many of our respondents tend to
judge incivility in others more harshly than in themselves (Fiske and Taylor 1991; Graham and Folkes
2014; Love and Perry 2004; Weiner 1986).
6. Discussion and conclusion
5.7. Self-justification
In our technologically advanced society, mobile phone
users now assume a dual role, both as a user and an
observer. Having dual role can disrupt the perception
one has about public space and their role within that
space. According to Attribution Theory (Weiner 1980,
1986), individuals with an internal attribution tend to
assign the cause of behaviour to some internal characteristic (e.g. personality, motives or beliefs) while individuals with an external attribute tend to assign the cause
of behaviours to some situation or event that is beyond
their control. For instance, in the context of incivility,
an individual with an internal attribute is more likely
to judge perceived incivility in others more harshly
than in himself or herself because he/she believes that
the perpetrator has a rude personality or rude motivation
(Fiske and Taylor 1991; Graham and Folkes 2014; Love
and Perry 2004; Weiner 1986). This implies that there
is a greater sense of judgment when others behave in a
Research suggests that incivility in western society is
extenuating into pandemic proportions (Porath and
Pearson 2013, 57). Studies highlight ringing of mobile
phones, text messaging and emails to be both significant
acts of incivility/rudeness in both public and private
(education and workplace) environments (Bjorklund
and Rehling 2010; Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,
2018; Höflich 2006; Washington, Okoro, and Cardon
2014). According to Porath and Pearson (2013), incivility research carried out in 2011 found that 50% of the
workforce reportedly experienced incivility on a weekly
basis.
There is limited knowledge about the Millennial
workforce, although some researchers have found that
Millennials have unique characteristics such as being
reliant on technology, able to multi-task with various
technological device and crave jobs that are fun; at the
same time, they can be demanding, impatient, and lack
job loyalty which may make them more susceptible to
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
incivility than Baby boomers and/or Generation ‘X’
(Rosa and Hastings 2016; Suh and Hargis 2016; Tews
et al. 2015). More research is needed in this area and
thus, thus, the purpose of this study was to explore the
everyday lived experiences associated with the phenomenon of mobile phone technology in contemporary
society. Explicitly, this research study aimed to understand the way that mobile phone technology informs
incivility across three generational cohorts (Baby Boomers, Generation ‘X’ and millennials). The following provides a summary of our findings.
1. Intrusion of public space
Our results indicated that a person’s private and public space has become blurred due to mobile phone technology. The private person is now required to perform a
once private act of making/receiving a phone call in the
public arena. Consequently, the findings from this study
is in line with the findings of Monk et al. (2004) where
participants reported bringing behaviours of the private
self into the public arena with negative consequences
(Goffman 1973; Strauß and Nentwich 2013).
2. Disruption of face to face contact (Being ignored
and Constant mobile engagement)
All three cohorts agreed and reported that they disliked interruption from mobile phones. These interruptions were deemed as ‘rude’ and yet were increasingly
occurring. This raises societal implications, but also
implications in a workplace, particularly as fast, mobile
responses are increasingly being expected in a business
context. For example, employees bringing and working
on a laptop during work meetings. Contrary to Lipscomb
et al. (2007)’s finding which has older participants being
more sensitive to mobile incivility than younger participants, the result from our study found that whilst 47% of
the younger generation agreed that disruption of face to
face was rude, this percentage was less than the older
participants (62% of the 30–39 age bracket, 79% of the
40–49 age bracket and 83% of the 50–59 age bracket).
In other words, all three cohorts of our participants
shared the perception that disruption to the face to
face contact is rude. We rationalise that this may be
because there are now more mobile phone users across
all generations and consequently, mobile incivility
affect is not limited to one generational cohort but all
three. Indeed, recent prevalence rates show that the
older generations (i.e. those over the age of 55) are also
catching up on the use of mobile technology (ACMA
2015; North, Johnston, and Ophoff 2014).
3. Ambiguous texting
All three cohorts of participants in our study reported
that ambiguous texting is an issue with many participants suggesting the need to use different texting tools
to get the ‘real’ meaning or ‘tone’ of their messages across
9
especially in the workplace. This raises implications for
business practices and management in terms of what
may be the expected norm for proper workplace email
messages or online communications.
4. Work versus social setting
In terms of work versus social setting, the overall
finding is that Baby Boomers and Generation X were
more cautious in how they communicate on their mobile
phones with respect to who they were sending the message to (e.g. such as their supervisor). This cautionary
behaviour was less prevalent among the Millennials, perhaps because this is the generation that has grown up
with technology and having being exposed to mobile
technology since birth, they are more accepting and
less concern with the need to maintain mobile phone etiquettes (Seipert and Baghurst 2014). Future work is recommended in this area.
5. Self-justification
Finally, the role of self-attribution characteristics may
provide an important explanatory mechanism to explain
why individuals are more critical about mobile phone
incivility from others as opposed to themselves (Weiner
1980, 1986). This may become an issue if there are different expectations between what is the norm for mobile
phone use in the workplace, especially if employers
and employees have different expectations about this. If
this is not handled properly, this may lead to workplace
issues such as harassment and/or workplace bullying.
6.1. Limitations and future directions
A limitation of this study was that all participants in the
study were from a Metro-Urban area only. A further
study could include country or rural areas where internet
access may be more limited than urban areas to determine if the same results can be obtained. A further limitation of the study was that the findings were based on
self-reports and must be applied carefully outside of
the study population. In terms of future direction, scholars interested in this area can explore how cultural issues
or cultural norms may influence incivility among mobile
phone users or whether there are any cultural differences
between Australia and another country in terms of
mobile phone incivility.
Despite these limitations, this study adds to the current existing theoretical understanding of mobile incivility among generational cohorts. Importantly, the
findings from this have critical practical implication for
manager working in organisations and governments.
For example, the disruption of face to face communications was deemed particularly rude in formal meeting
by all participants, organisations should consider how
they can more effectively handle this issue to reduce
10
J. LOH ET AL.
the disruption this can bring to their staff and customers.
It may be beneficial to introduce codes of practice for
employees and customers such as instructing staff not
to operate or use their mobile phones during formal
meetings and/or when serving a customer. Finally, government should also be cognisant of the intrusions of
the use of mobile phone on public transportation into
passengers’ private space. In order to eliminate perceived
disgruntlement in the public space experienced by intrusive mobile phone use, local government may need to
think about introducing interventions to reduce perceived disruptive behaviour for example ‘quiet’ coaches
on trains that prohibit mobile phone use and thus reduce
perceived incivility arising from the use of mobile phone
technology.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the contribution of Dr Laurene Chua-Garcia
in helping us proof-read our manuscript. There is no conflict
of interest arising from this research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Raechel Johns
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8648-4226
References
ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority).
2015. Australians get mobile. Accessed October 8 2016
http://www.acma.gov.au.
Andersson, L. M., and C. M. Pearson. 1999. “Tit for tat? The
Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace.” Academy
of Management Review 24 (3): 452–471. doi:10.2307/
259136.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2015. Talking about our generations: Where are Australia’s Baby Boomers, Generation X &
Y and iGeneration? (Cat.No. 3235.0). Canberra. http://www.
abs.gov.au.
Biggerstaff, D., and A. B. Thompson. 2008. “Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA): A Qualitative
Methodology of Choice in Healthcare Research.”
Qualitative Research in Psychology 5 (3): 214–224. doi:10.
1080/14780880802314304.
Birt, L., S. Scott, D. Cavers, C. Campbell, and F. Walter. 2016.
“Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or
Merely a nod to Validation?” Qualitative Health Research 26
(13): 1802–1811. doi:10.1177/1049732316654870.
Bjorklund, W. L., and D. L. Rehling. 2010. “Student
Perceptions of Classroom Incivility.” College Teaching 58
(1): 15–18.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in
Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–
101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Burke, L. A., K. Karl, J. Peluchette, and W. R. Evans. 2014.
“Student Incivility: A Domain Review.” Journal of
Management Education 38 (2): 160–191. doi:10.1177/
1052562913488112.
Carbone, S. February 2016. Cafes put a lid on customers ordering coffee while on their mobile phone. The Age. https://
www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/cafes-put-a-lid-oncustomers-ordering-coffee-while-on-their-mobile-phone20160204-gml89r.html.
Chotpitayasunondh, V., and K. M. Douglas. 2018. “The Effects
of “phubbing” on Social Interaction.” Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 48 (6): 304–316. doi:10.1111/jasp.12506.
Civility in America. 2011. Civility in America 2011. http://
www.webershandwick.com/uploads/news/files/Civility_in_
America_2011.pdf.
Civility in America. 2013. Civility in America 2013: Incivility
has reached crisis levels. Civility in America. http://www.
webershandwick.com/news/article/civility-in-america2013-incivility-has-reached-crisis-levels.
Craw, V. July 2013. Worker Refuses to Serve Customer using
their Mobile at Check-out. Daily Mail. http://www.news.
com.au/finance/work/worker-refuses-to-serve-customerusing-their-mobile-at-checkout/news-story/4d3744d39167
e2e55e5fb7980e191d44.
Delcampo, R. G., L. A. Haggerty, M. J. Haney, and L. A.
Knippel. 2011. Managing the Multi-Generational
Workforce: From the GI Generation to the Millennials.
Burlington, VT, Farnham, England: Gower.
Festinger, L., S. Schachter, and K. Back. 1950. Social Pressures
in Informal Groups. New York, NY: Harper.
Finlay, L. 2011. Phenomenology for Therapists: Researching the
Lived World. Adult Learning Australia. doi:10.1002/
9781119975144.
Fiske, S. T., and S. Taylor. 1991. Social Cognition (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Forgays, D. K., I. Hyman, and J. Schreiber. 2014.
“Texting Everywhere for Everything: Gender and age
Differences in Cell Phone Etiquette and use.” Computers in
Human Behavior 31: 314–321. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.053.
Forma, J., and S. A. Kaplowitz. 2012. “The Perceived Rudeness
of Public Cell Phone Behavior.” Behavior and Information
Technology 31 (10): 947–952. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2010.
520335.
Giumetti, G. W., and R. M. Kowalski. 2016. “Cyberbullying
Matters: Examining the Incremental Impact of
Cyberbullying on Outcomes Above and Beyond
Traditional Bullying in North America.” In Cyberbullying
Across the Globe: Gender, Family, and Mental Health, edited
by R. Navarro, S. Yubero, and E. Larranga, 117–130.
New York, NY: Springer.
Giumetti, G. W., E. S. McKibben, A. L. Hatfield, A. N.
Schroeder, and R. M. Kowalski. 2012. “Cyber Incivility @
Work: The new age of Interpersonal Deviance.”
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15 (3):
148–154. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0336.
Gobbini, M. I., J. D. Gors, Y. O. Halchenko, C. Rogers, J. S.
Guntupalli, H. Hughes, et al. 2013. “Prioritized Detection
of Personally Familiar Faces.” PLoS ONE 8 (6): e66620.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066620.
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Goffman, E. 1973. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
London, England: Penguin Books Ltd.
Goldsmith, B. April, 2013. Friendships cut short on social
media as people get ruder: Survey. Reuters. Retrieve from:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-socialmedia-behaviorsurvey/friendships-cut-short-on-social-media-as-peopleget-ruder-survey-idUSBRE9390TO20130410.
Gómez-Reus, T., and A. Usandizaga. 2008. Inside out: Women
Negotiating, Subverting, Appropriating Public and Private
Space. Kenilworth: Rodopi.
Górny, A., and J. Napierała. 2016. “Comparing the
Effectiveness of Respondent-Driven Sampling and Quota
Sampling in Migration Research.” International Journal of
Social Research Methodology 19 (6): 645–661. doi:10.1080/
13645579.2015.1077614.
Graham, S., and V. S. Folkes. 2014. Attribution Theory:
Applications to Achievement, Mental Health, and
Interpersonal Conflict. Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/
9781315807669.
Hakoama, M., and S. Hakoyama. 2012. “Young Adults’
Evaluations of Cell Phone Manners.” The American
Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences Journal 16:
140–154.
Hanrahan, M., and M. P. Leiter. 2014. “Workplace Mistreatment:
Recent Developments in Theory, Research, and
Interventions.” In Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide,
Volume III, Work and Wellbeing, edited by P. Y. Chen, and
C. L. Cooper, 263–294. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Harré, R., J. A. Smith, and L. V. Langenhove. 1995. Rethinking
Psychology. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.
Hoffnung, M. 2013. Lifespan Development: A Chronological
Approach (2nd ed.). Milton, Qld: John Wiley and Sons
Australia.
Höflich, J. R. 2006. “The Mobile Phone and the Dynamic
Between Private and Public Communication: Results of an
International Exploratory Study.” Knowledge, Technology
& Policy 19 (2): 58–68. doi:10.1007/s12130-006-1024-4.
Humphreys, L. 2005. “Social Topography in a Wireless era:
The Negotiation of Public and Private Space.” Journal of
Technical Writing and Communication 35 (4): 367–384.
doi:10.2190/AQV5-JMM4-2WLK-6B3F.
Inbar, O., G. Joost, F. Hemmert, T. Porat, and N. Tractinsky.
2014. “Tactful Calling: Investigating Asymmetric Social
Dilemmas in Mobile Communications.” Behavior &
Information Technology 33 (12): 1317–1332. doi:10.1080/
0144929X.2014.928743.
Joly, J. F., D. A. Stapel, and S. M. Lindenberg. 2008. “Silence
and Table Manners: When Environments Activate Norms
(Retracted Article. see vol. 38, pg. 1378, 2012).”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (8): 1047–
1056. doi:10.1177/0146167208318401.
Katz, J. E., and M. A. Aakhus. 2002. Perpetual Contact: Mobile
Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance.
Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press.
Leiter, M. P., S. L. Price, and H. K. Spence Laschinger. 2010.
“Generational Differences in Distress, Attitudes and
Incivility among Nurses.” Journal of Nursing Management
18 (8): 970–980. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01168.x.
Lenhart, A., K. Purcell, A. Smith, and K. Zickuhr. 2010. Social
media and mobile internet use among teens and young adults.
http://www.slideshare.net/prprof_mv/brasfield-karcher.
11
LeVasseur, J. J. 2003. “The Problem of Bracketing in
Phenomenology.” Qualitative Health Research 13 (3):
408–420.
Lim, V. K. H., and T. S. H. Teo. 2009. “Mind Your E-manners:
Impact of Cyber Incivility on Employees’ Work Attitude
and Behavior.” Information and Management 46 (1): 419–
425. doi:10.1016/j.im.2009.06.006.
Ling, R. S. 2010. New Tech, new Ties: How Mobile
Communication is Reshaping Social Cohesion. Cambridge:
Mass: MIT Press.
Lipscomb, T. J., J. W. Totten, R. A. Cook, and W. Lesch. 2007.
“Cellular Phone Etiquette among College Students.”
International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (1): 46–56.
Lofland, L. H. 1989. “Social Life in the Public Realm: A
Review.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 17 (4):
453–482. doi:10.1177/089124189017004004.
Loh, J. M. I., and N. Loi. 2018. “Tit for Tat: Burnout as a
Mediator between Workplace Incivility and Instigated
Workplace Incivility.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration 10 (1): 100–111. doi:10.1108/APJBA-112017-0132.
Love, S., and M. Perry. 2004, April. Dealing with Mobile
Conversations in Public Places: Some Implications for the
Design of Socially Intrusive Technologies. In CHI’04
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 1195–1198). ACM.
Monk, A., J. Carroll, S. Parker, and M. Blythe. 2004. “Why are
Mobile Phones Annoying?” Behavior & Information
Technology 23 (1): 33–41. doi:10.1080/0144929031000
1638496.
Monk, A., E. Fellas, and E. Ley. 2004. “Hearing Only one Side
of Normal and Mobile Phone Conversations.” Behavior &
Information Technology 23 (5): 301–305. doi:10.1080/
01449290410001712744.
Nicholas, A. J. 2009. “Generational Perceptions: Workers and
Consumers.” Journal of Business & Economics Research 7
(10): 47–52.
Norman, B., and D. Bennett. 2014. “Are Mobile Phone
Conversations Always so Annoying? The ‘Need-to-Listen’
Effect re-Visited.” Behavior & Information Technology 33
(12): 1294–1305. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2013.876098.
North, D., K. Johnston, and J. Ophoff. 2014. “The use of
Mobile Phones by South African University Students.”
Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 11
(1): 115–138.
Pagliaro, S., N. Ellemers, and M. Barreto. 2011. “Sharing Moral
Values: Anticipated Ingroup Respect as a Determinant of
Adherence to Morality-Based (but not CompetenceBased) Group Norms.” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 37 (8): 1117–1129. doi:10.1177/
0146167211406906.
Patota, N., D. Schwartz, and T. Schwartz. 2007. “Leveraging
Generational Differences for Productivity Gains.” Journal
of American Academy of Business 11 (2): 1–10.
Pearson, C. M., L. M. Andersson, & C. L. Porath. 2000.
“Assessing and Attacking Workplace Incivility.”
Organizational Dynamics 29 (2): 123–137. doi:10.1016/
S0090-2616(00)00019-X.
Perlovsky, L. 2013. “A Challenge to Human EvolutionCognitive Dissonance.” Frontiers in Psychology 4: 179–
181. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00179.
12
J. LOH ET AL.
Pinchot, J., K. Paullet, and D. Rota. 2011. “How Mobile
Technology is Changing our Culture.” Journal of
Information Systems Applied Research 4 (1): 39–48.
Plant, S. 2000. On the mobile. The effects of mobile telephones
on social and individual life. http://www.Motorola.com/
mot/documents/0,1028,333,00.pdf.
Porath, C. L., and C. Pearson. 2013. “The Price of Incivility.”
Harvard Business Review 91 (1–2): 115–121.
Przybylski, A. K., and N. Weinstein. 2013. “Can you Connect
with me now? How the Presence of Mobile Communication
Technology Influences Face-to-Face Conversation Quality.”
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30 (3): 237–246.
doi:10.1177/0265407512453827.
Reich, T. G., and M. S. Hershcovis. 2015. “Observing
Workplace Incivility and job Performance.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 100 (1): 203–215.
Robinson, S., and H. A. Stubberud. 2012. “Communication
Preferences among University Students.” Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal 16 (1): 105–113.
Rohde, P., E. Stice, H. Shaw, and J. M. Gau. 2016. “Pilot Trial of
a Dissonance-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Group Depression
Prevention with College Students.” Behavioral Research
Therapy 82 (7): 21–27. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.05.001.
Rosa, N. B., and S. O. Hastings. 2016. “Texting in Their Pockets:
Millennials and Rule Violations in the Hospitality Industry.”
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 29 (1): 33–
40. doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.06.002.
Rowland, M., and K. Srisukho. 2009. “Dental Students’ and
Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Incivility in the
Classroom.” Journal of Dental Education 73: 119–126.
Scheff, T. J. 1988. “Shame and Conformity: The DeferenceEmotion System.” American Sociological Review 53 (2):
395–406.
Schulte, B. 2013. Effects of Child Abuse can Last a Lifetime:
Watch the ‘Still Face’ Experiment to see why: Child Abuse
and Neglect can Damage a Child’s Health and Restructure
Their Brains, Negative Affects That, if Untreated, can Last
a Lifetime. Washington: WP Company LLC d/b/a The
Washington Post.
Seipert, K., and T. Baghurst. 2014. “Contrasting Work Values
of Baby Boomers and Generation X Rural Public School
Principals.” Public Administration Quarterly 38 (3): 347–
370.
Smith, J. A. 2004. “Reflecting on the Development of
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and its
Contribution to Qualitative Research in Psychology.”
Qualitative Research in Psychology 1 (1): 39–54.
Smith, J. A., P. Flower, and M. Larkin. 2009. Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research.
London: Sage.
Srivastava, L. 2005. “Mobile Phones and the Evolution of
Social Behavior.” Behavior & Information Technology 24
(2): 111–129.
Strauß, S., and M. Nentwich. 2013. “Social Network Sites,
Privacy and the Blurring Boundary Between Public and
Private Spaces.” Science and Public Policy 40 (6): 724–732.
doi:10.1093/scipol/sct072.
Suh, J. K., and J. Hargis. 2016. “An Interdisciplinary Approach
to Develop key Spacial Characteristics That Satisfy the
Millennial Generation in Learning and Work
Environment.” Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and
Learning Journal 8 (3): 1–19.
Suller, J. 2010. “Interpersonal Guidelines for Texting.”
International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies 7
(4): 358–361. doi:10.1002/aps.268.
Tews, M. J., J. Michel, S. Xu, and A. J. Drost. 2015. “Workplace
fun Matters … but What Else?” Employee Relations 37 (2):
248–267. doi:10.1108/ER-10-2013-0152.
Tinker, C., and N. Armstrong. 2008. “From the Outside
Looking in: How an Awareness of Difference can Benefit
the Qualitative Research Process.” The Qualitative Report
13 (1): 53–60.
Turkle, S. 2011. Alone Together: Why we Expect More from
Technology and Less From Each Other. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., C. L. Bolle, S. M. Hegner, and
P. A. M. Kommers. 2015. “Modeling Habitual and
Addictive Smartphone Behavior.” Computers in Human
Behavior 45 (1): 411–420. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039.
Vorderer, P., N. Krömer, and F. M. Schneider. 2016.
“Permanently
Online-Permanently
Connected:
Explorations Into University Students’ use of Social Media
and Mobile Smart Devices.” Computers in Human
Behavior 63 (1): 694–703. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.085.
Walker, C. A. 2015. “Social Constructionism and Qualitative
Research.” Journal of Theory Construction & Testing 19
(2): 37–39.
Washington, M. C., E. A. Okoro, and P. W. Cardon. 2014.
“Perceptions of Civility for Mobile Phone use in Formal
and Informal Meetings.” Business and Professional
Communication Quarterly 77 (1): 52–64. doi:10.1177/
1080569913501862.
Weiner, B. 1980. Human Motivation. Newyork: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Weiner, B. 1986. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and
Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Whyte, S. July, 2013. Ban mobile phones: Retailers say. The
Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/
technology/ban-mobile-phones-retailers-say-201307032pbzr.html.