Cellular Phones Or Hand Phones English Language Essay

Published:

This report specially studies the university students perception on mobile phones. A cultural comparison is done to determine if there are any differences in their perceptions on using mobile phones in public. The public sphere theory by Erving Goffman is used as the theoretical framework of this report to better understand the perception of different people from different cultural background co-existing in a society on how mobile phones are used, especially the etiquette of talking on the phone. A quota sampling of 150 participants were recruited from SEGi University, Kota Damansara to answer a survey originated from Scott Campbell study of perception on mobile phone use and the data was analyzed by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software.

Introduction

Background

Mobile phones, also known as cellular phones or hand phones, is a device that can make and receive calls over a radio transmitter anywhere in the world. Modern phones today, can support many application and extra services such as text messaging, MMS, photography, games, emails and surfing the internet. This was made possible by the evolution of the first generation (1G) phone to the fourth generation (4G). Mobile phones have surpassed the number of landline telephones and became the dominant technology for voice communications in many countries, including Malaysia (Balakrishnan & Huck, 2012).

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Professional

Essay Writers

Lady Using Tablet

Get your grade
or your money back

using our Essay Writing Service!

Essay Writing Service

According to the International Telecommunication Union (2012), mobile phones have quickly spread into everyone's lives with subscriptions reaching nearly six billion in the span of 10 years since 2001 to 2011 worldwide. They have now become increasingly dependent on mobile phones and its applications to a point they consider mobile phones as an extension of their physical self and would symbolically represent their identity.

Regardless with owning a mobile phone or not, we all have to get used to this vast growing technology since it is used practically everywhere. For example of public settings like sidewalks, taxis, grocery stores, buses, trains, restaurants, mosques, churches, movie theatres, malls and classrooms. The uncertainty surrounding normative behavior for mobile phone use in public started from the conflicting nature of private and public spaces. This practice of talking on the phone in public is a near-universal social concern and an opportunity for research on the acceptability of usage (Campbell, 2007). The study aims to resolve the issue on the perception of mobile phone use in public spaces by exploring the acceptability of mobile phone use in the selected public spaces. There is no denying that normative social behavior varies among cultures. This study examines that the acceptability of mobile phone use in public such as movie theatre, restaurants, bus, trains, grocery stores, classrooms and sidewalks should account for the role of culture in the perception and practices. Following on how dependent they are towards mobile phones, is how they use it. Once they engage themselves whilst talking on the phone, they enter their own bubble and talk as they please, which to others, if talked loudly and freely gave them the discomfort of eavesdropping. In Malaysia, majority of them are private beings. Malaysians don't like to brazenly speak what they are thinking, voicing their opinions and talk on their mobile phones loudly. In a nutshell, Malaysians are mostly introverts and not outspoken at all. Thus, most people hate the fact that others are just rude and talk loudly and it disrupts others trying to go on with their daily lives, thus, this research is conducted to see what is a social acceptability of mobile phone use in various kinds of public settings and compare if there are any difference or similarities among the diverse cultures here in Malaysia. In Malaysia, majority of hand phone users are content with just one mobile phone but there are users who hold two or even more than two mobile phones. As of 2011, according to the Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), over the span of eight years since 2004, the percentage of mobile phone users has doubled from 12.8% to 28.5% due to multiple subscriptions. The total number of mobile phone subscribers in Malaysia is approximately 34.5 million with the forcing rate for mobile phones is expected to exceed 100.0% in the first quarter of 2009 (MCMC, 2011).

Issue Statement

The study aims to understand more on the perception of mobile phone use in public spaces by exploring the acceptability of mobile phone use in the selected public spaces. There is no denying that normative social behavior varies among cultures. Therefore, this study examines the acceptability of mobile phone use in public such as movie theatre, restaurants, bus, trains, grocery stores, classrooms and sidewalks should account for the role of culture in the perception and practices. Following on how dependent they are towards mobile phones, is how they use it. Once they engage themselves whilst talking on the phone, they enter their own bubble and talk as they please, which to others, if talked loudly and freely gave them the discomfort of eavesdropping. In Malaysia, majority of them are private beings. Malaysians don't like to brazenly speak what they are thinking, voicing their opinions and talk on their mobile phones loudly. In a nutshell, Malaysians are mostly introverts and not outspoken at all. Thus, most people hate the fact that others are just rude and talk loudly and it disrupts others trying to go on with their daily lives, thus, this research is conducted to see what is a social acceptability of mobile phone use in various kinds of public settings and compare if there are any difference or similarities among the diverse cultures here in Malaysia.

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Comprehensive

Writing Services

Lady Using Tablet

Plagiarism-free
Always on Time

Marked to Standard

Order Now

Research Objective

To investigate whether cultural groupings differ in their perception of the use of talking on mobile phone in certain public setting.

To investigate whether a specific ethnic group differs in their own mobile phone use as compared to other ethnic groups.

To investigate if settings that involve collective attention will be considered significantly less acceptable for talking on a mobile phone than those with a more individualized level of focus.

Research Question

1. In what ways do members of the cultural groupings differ in their perceptions of the use of talking on mobile phone in certain public settings?

2. In what ways do members of a specific ethnic group differ in their own mobile phone use as compared to other ethnic groups?

3. In what ways does settings that involve collective attention will be considered significantly less acceptable for talking on a mobile phone than those with a more individualized level of focus.

Literature Review

Introduction

This chapter will focus on the definition of literacy on mobile phone use in public from the perception of different cultural background students'. First, the review will present an overview of mobile phones and their uses from the perspective of different literature studies.

Mobile Phones

Mobile phones have become increasingly popular in today's society and have surpassed the number landline phones. It is one of the fastest growing technologies in the world (Rebello, 2010). It would be difficult for people today to imagine life without a mobile phone. The origins of a mobile phone all started in mid-1800s, a Scottish mathematician by the name James Clerk Maxwell created a formula that produced electromagnetic waves that moves in the speed of light (Frenkiel, 2009). It took Maxwell about 20 years to test this equation and another 20 years to test the first "mobile application". Mobile phones are based on a two-way radio technology and it was popular back in 1930s and in the 1940s, however, the two-way radios made its debut in the early '20s (Vochin, 2009). People all over the world would own at least two mobile phones let alone one mobile phone. According to Osman et al. (2011), 70% of the world's population owns a mobile phone. Malaysia is also taking a back seat in the rise of this growing technology. The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (2010) reported that in 2009, 88.5% of Malaysian owns a mobile phone and majority of the population is the young generations around the ages of 20 to 24 years old. Telekom Malaysia introduced the first mobile network in 1985 (Osman et al., 2011). The first mobile phone was developed by Ericsson and was released to the would-be consumers in 1956. Even if it was fully automated, the mobile phone that was introduced in Malaysia was big and bulky making it difficult to carry them around because it was also considerably heavy, as Vochin (2009) reported, it weighed around 40kilos. Then in 1989, the second Malaysian telecommunication operator started and introduced the Automatic Radio Telecommunication 900 (ART900) using the British Extended Total Access Communications System (ETACS) and with this new technology, mobile phones started shrinking in size and it became easier to move about with them (Osman et al., 2011).

Mobile Phone Use

Mobile phone use is now ever-present with not how many people use it but where they use it. It is very convenient and it allows mobility at anytime, anywhere, thus, making something that is very private to the user, a public concern (Campbell & Kwak, 2011). They found that one of the public concerns about using mobile phones is how users challenge the normative behavior in public. Studies by Katz (2006), Ling (2004) and University of Michigan (2006) found that most people are annoyed by how others use mobile phones in public, especially to voice calls as it disrupts other people's routines (Campbell & Kwak, 2011).you should vary the source. The acceptance of mobile phone use among others is difficult in the public setting norms because it conflicts with those who talk during a telephone call (Campbell, 2008). However, Fortunati stated that some people love to eavesdrop and listen to the one-sided conversation, curious to know what the speaker is talking about and then, there are others who are just irritated by it, not just by the speaker disregarding their public surrounding, but along with the bystanders becoming an audience (as cited in Campbell, 2008, p). To a certain extent in which speaking on a mobile phone becomes a public nuisance usually depends on the situation and how the setting of the situation is (Campbell, 2008). Campbell (2004) stated that there are certain nonverbal behaviors could influence perception on social acceptability, such as making a quick call, turning away when answering a phone call or making the phone call brief.

Public Spaces

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

This Essay is

a Student's Work

Lady Using Tablet

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Examples of our work

One of the examples of a public space would be the classroom. According to Wei and Lung (1999), they stated that using a mobile phone in the classroom is most unacceptable (As cited in Campbell, 2002) it is from Campbell again. However, it seems that in other places such as in the bus, restaurants, stores and on the streets, they are more tolerant. The level of focus is important in asserting tolerancy in mobile phone use. Campbell (2008) Campbell again? states that participants places a "communal" focus to be very innapropriate to talk on the phone, such as in the classroom as mentioned above and movie theatre. But they placed a more "central" type focus when it comes to stores, restaurants as tolerant.

Theoretical Framework

The theory of the dramaturgical approach to social interaction will be the base for this study. Even though he passed away before the rise of the mobile phone technology, his theory would serve useful to have a clearer understanding of what is an acceptable mobile phone use in public settings. In his book, the presentation of self in everyday life, Goffman (1959) stated that during a social interaction, individuals present themselves as actors on a stage. This social stage contains both front and back areas, just like any theatre would. Campbell (2007) explained that the front stage represents the "physical and social surroundings" of the person and the back stage refers to secrets and information that people kept from sharing with others in efforts to achieve a good impression. According to Fortunati (2003), it is challenging for a mobile phone user to achieve these acts because it requires the user to handle both front stage interaction which is their surrounding and interaction on the phone. Normative front stage behavior depends on the level of expected involvement and it varies with the kind of focus to the social event (Goffman, 1959). Fully focused attention means that everyone who are collectively engaged in a specific gathering, for example in a movie theatre or classrooms. Partially focused attention means that some are focused and some are not focusing on something, for example in a restaurant, or sporting events. Multi focused attention means that everyone is focusing on their own activity while in the surrounding, for example in a bus or a restaurant. Culture plays an important role in the practice and behaviors in public. Goffman (1959) wrote about being mindful of the culture in some social interactions, "the idiom of subordinate involvements differs widely from one cultural group to another". However, there would be reasons to expect both differences and similarities in a cross-cultural research on mobile phone use in public settings.

Method

Study Design

This study design used the quantitative measures. Harwell (2007) stated that a quantitative method is an attempt to maximize objectivity, replicability and generalibity of findings and it is usually interested in predictions. This measure will provide a better understanding of how SEGi University students perceive others talking on a mobile phone in public settings. The students from SEGi University would represent the three main ethnic groups in Malaysia - Malay, Chinese, and Indian.

The instrument used for this study was developed by Scott W. Campbell from University of Michigan to study the cross-cultural comparison on the perception of mobile phone use in a public setting. The questionnaire was designed to identify views of mobile phone users in public, placing importance on talking on the phone and also to find out more information about their own mobile phone use and how frequently they use it. The questionnaire comprises of three sections. Section A is designed to gain information on background of the participant such as age, race, their monthly mobile phone expenditure and their mobile service provider. Section B focuses on the participation's perception of mobile phone use by others in public spaces. While section C is designed to provide information about their own mobile phone use in public spaces.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

The participants will only consist of students from SEGi University, Kota Damansara.

The students will only be from the Malay, Chinese and Indian ethnic group.

Students who owns either smartphones or normal mobile phones.

Exclusion Criteria

International students are not included in this study because it is only focusing on the major ethnic groups in Malaysia.

Participants who does not own a mobile phone.

Sample Size

In the study, 150 students from SEGi University participated in the survey. They will be selected from a quota sampling technique. Deakin University stated that the quota sampling technique is a method for selecting survey participants (as cited in Ipsos Mori, 2007). Latham (2007) explained that quota sampling is when a researcher selects an even number of sample to represent a certain group into subgroups. Thus, 50 participants will be selected from each ethnic group-Malay, Chinese and Indian. Eventhough gender will not be the main variable in this study, the quota sampling of female and male from the three ethnic groups will also be taken into account, this means that 25 participants will be from females and the other 25 participants will be from males. The survey was administered in the cafeteria and also in the library of SEGi University, Kota Damansara on Friday at 12pm. The survey was also given out during a typography class on Thursday from 2pm till 5pm.

Statistical Analysis

Statistics is a part of the quantitative approach to knowledge as Rossiter (2006) would define it. He explained the different uses of statistical analysis such as descriptive analysis and inferential analysis. Descriptive analysis is summarizing data in shorter form while inferential analysis understands processes and predicts data based from the understanding. In this study, the data were analyzed by using inferential statistics and descriptive statistics.

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program will be used in this study to analyze the data collected from the surveys that was distributed to the participants. The questionnaire is divided into two sections excluding the background information: section A - the items consist of a five-point likert scale and Section B - the items also consist of a five-point likert scale. The background information will be analyzed by using frequencies and mean functions. Since section A and section B is a five-point likert scale, they are categorize in the nominal scale in the SPSS, thus an analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used to assess the data gathered for section A and section B. ANOVA is used to analyze both section A and B because by using one-way ANOVA, it can compare and determine if there would be any significant differences between the means of three or more independent variables (statistics.laerd.com, 2012).

Results and Discussion

A total of 150 participants were recruited by using the quota sampling technique. The data was collected in order to investigate the perception of mobile phone use in selected public settings such as the theatre, restaurant, bus, store, classroom and sidewalk among individuals from three main cultural groupings such as Malay, Chinese and Indian.

Table 1

Age of Participants

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Median

Mode

Std. Deviation

Age

150

19

25

22.26

22

22

1.63202

As shown in table 1, the mean age of the participants is 22.26. The median age of the participants and the mode age of the participants are both 22. The age of the participants had a standard deviation of 1.63. The participants' age ranged from 19 to 25 years old.

50%

50%

Figure 1: Gender of Participants

Figure 1 above shows the equal percentage of both female and male. As mentioned above, 150 participants were recruited from the quota sampling method and as figure 1 show, 50% represents 75 participants to both respective genders. The reason behind the equal number of gender is to obtain equal response from both male and female.

50%

50%

50%

Figure 2: Ethnicity of Participants

Figure 2 shows the equal percentage of the participant's ethnicity that was recruited from SEGi University. By using the quota sampling technique, 50 participants from each ethnic group were recruited to fulfill the quota. From the 50 participants of the each ethnic group, the gender was divided equally among male and female, 25 participants respectively.

Figure 3: Origin of Participants

Figure 3 shows the percentage of participants' origin. 95.3% comes from Peninsular Malaysia, 4% originated from Sabah and 0.7% is from Sarawak. The percentage of the origins of the participants is not one of the main important factors in the study. As mentioned before, this section does not affect the study whatsoever and it is neither beneficial nor relevant, however this was included is because to see how the cultures they were brought up in shaping their thoughts and behavior and investigate how Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak differs in their though processes and behavior.

The study was conducted to investigate if members of the cultural groupings differ in their perceptions of the use of talking on mobile phones in certain public settings, to also investigate whether a specific ethnic group differs in their own mobile phone use as compared to other ethnic groups and to see if settings that involve collective attention will be considered significantly less acceptable for talking on a mobile phone than those with a more individualized level of focus.

To answer this these research question, assessments of the data collected from SEGi University students were investigated using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure to compare the different cultures perception of mobile phone use in public settings such as: classroom, movie theatre, business meeting, restaurant, bus, sidewalk, grocery stores and sports meets with the significance level of 0.05.

Table 2

Descriptive on their perception of mobile phone use in public settings.

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Movie Theatre

Malay

50

4.1800

.91896

.12996

3.9188

4.4412

1.00

5.00

Chinese

50

4.5400

.78792

.11143

4.3161

4.7639

2.00

5.00

Indian

50

4.1600

.97646

.13809

3.8825

4.4375

1.00

5.00

Total

150

4.2933

.90892

.07421

4.1467

4.4400

1.00

5.00

Store

Malay

50

2.8000

.92582

.13093

2.5369

3.0631

1.00

4.00

Chinese

50

2.7200

.94847

.13413

2.4504

2.9896

1.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.0000

1.01015

.14286

2.7129

3.2871

1.00

5.00

Total

150

2.8400

.96294

.07862

2.6846

2.9954

1.00

5.00

Business Meeting

Malay

50

2.4600

1.18166

.16711

2.1242

2.7958

1.00

5.00

Chinese

50

2.1400

1.16075

.16416

1.8101

2.4699

1.00

5.00

Indian

50

2.2200

.95383

.13489

1.9489

2.4911

1.00

4.00

Total

150

2.2733

1.10458

.09019

2.0951

2.4515

1.00

5.00

Bus

Malay

50

3.3800

.83029

.11742

3.1440

3.6160

1.00

5.00

Chinese

50

3.5800

.83520

.11811

3.3426

3.8174

1.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.3600

.96384

.13631

3.0861

3.6339

1.00

5.00

Total

150

3.4400

.87838

.07172

3.2983

3.5817

1.00

5.00

Sidewalk

Malay

50

2.8400

.86567

.12242

2.5940

3.0860

1.00

5.00

Chinese

50

2.6600

1.00224

.14174

2.3752

2.9448

1.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.0800

1.12195

.15867

2.7611

3.3989

1.00

5.00

Total

150

2.8600

1.01022

.08248

2.6970

3.0230

1.00

5.00

Classroom

Malay

50

3.9200

1.02698

.14524

3.6281

4.2119

1.00

5.00

Chinese

50

3.8800

.96129

.13595

3.6068

4.1532

2.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.7800

.95383

.13489

3.5089

4.0511

1.00

5.00

Total

150

3.8600

.97643

.07973

3.7025

4.0175

1.00

5.00

Sports Event

Malay

50

3.2000

.88063

.12454

2.9497

3.4503

1.00

5.00

Chinese

50

2.9800

.97917

.13848

2.7017

3.2583

1.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.1400

.90373

.12781

2.8832

3.3968

1.00

5.00

Total

150

3.1067

.92066

.07517

2.9581

3.2552

1.00

5.00

Restaurant (Alone)

Malay

50

3.5000

.88641

.12536

3.2481

3.7519

1.00

5.00

Chinese

50

3.9000

.73540

.10400

3.6910

4.1090

2.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.7400

.94351

.13343

3.4719

4.0081

1.00

5.00

Total

150

3.7133

.86960

.07100

3.5730

3.8536

1.00

5.00

Restaurant (Others)

Malay

50

2.9600

.92494

.13081

2.6971

3.2229

1.00

5.00

Chinese

50

2.8200

1.02400

.14482

2.5290

3.1110

1.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.3000

1.01519

.14357

3.0115

3.5885

1.00

5.00

Total

150

3.0267

1.00299

.08189

2.8648

3.1885

1.00

5.00

Table 2 shows the descriptive results of section A in the questionnaire to get information about their perception of mobile phone use in public settings by using the one-way ANOVA analysis. As mentioned above, an equal amount of ethnicity sample were recruited via quota sampling. Hence, all ethnics are of the equal amount. The mean for Malays about how they perceive when others answering a call in the movie theatre is 4.18. The standard deviation for Malays about how they perceive when others answering a call in the movie theatre is 0.92. The mean for the Chinese on how they perceive when others answering a call in the movie theatre is 4.54 and the standard deviation for the Chinese on how they perceive when others answering a call in the movie theatre is 0.79. Then the mean for Indians on how they perceive when others answers a call in the movie theatre is 4.16 and the standard deviation for Indians on how they perceive when others answers a call in the movie theatre is 0.98. This shows that majority of the individual from the three major ethnic groups agree that they are irritated when a mobile phone rings in a movie theatre.

The mean for Malays if they think it is rude to answer a call in a store is 2.80 and the standard deviation for Malays if they think it is rude to answer a call in a store is 0.93. The mean for the Chinese if they think it is rude to answer a call in a store is 2.72 and the standard deviation for the Chinese if they think it is rude to answer a call in a store is 0.95. The mean for Indians whether they think it is rude to answer a call in a store is 3.00 and the standard deviation for Indians whether they think it is rude to answer a call in a store is 1.01. This shows that majority of the individual from the three major ethnic groups agree that they do not think it is rude to talk on a mobile phone in a store, however the Indian ethnic group remains mutual.

The mean on the Malays' acceptability in answering a phone call during a business meeting is 2.46 and the standard deviation on the Malays' acceptability in answering a phone call during a business meeting is 1.18. The mean on the Chinese acceptability in answering a phone call during a business meeting is 2.14 and the standard deviation on the Chinese acceptability in answering a phone call during a business meeting is 1.16. The mean on the Indians' acceptability in answering a phone call during a business meeting is 2.22 and the standard deviation on the Indians' acceptability in answering a phone call during a business meeting is 0.95. This shows that majority of the individual from the three major ethnic groups agree that they find it extremely rude to accept a call during a business meeting.

The mean on the Malays' acceptability in answering a phone call in a bus is 3.38 and the standard deviation on the Malays' acceptability in answering a phone call in a bus is 0.83. The mean on the Chinese acceptability in answering a phone call in a bus is 3.58 and the standard deviation on the Chinese acceptability in answering a phone call in a bus is 0.84. The mean on the Indians' acceptability in answering a phone call in a bus is 3.36 and the standard deviation on the Indians' acceptability in answering a phone call in a bus is 0.96. This shows that majority of the individual from the three major ethnic groups remain on mutual grounds about their perception on others accepting a call while on a bus.

The mean of Malays on their perception of how distracting when a mobile phone ring during a class is 3.92 and the standard deviation for Malays on their perception of how distracting when a mobile phone ring during a class is 1.03. The mean of the Chinese on their perception of how distracting when a mobile phone ring during a class is 3.88 and the standard deviation for the Chinese on their perception of how distracting when a mobile phone ring during a class is 0.96. The mean of Indians on their perception of how distracting when a mobile phone ring during a class is 3.78 and the standard deviation for Indians on their perception of how distracting when a mobile phone ring during a class is 0.95. This shows that majority of the individual from the three major ethnic groups somehow agree that it is distracting when a mobile phone rings during a class.

The mean of Malays on their social acceptance when someone answers a call while attending a sporting event is 3.20 and the standard deviation for on their social acceptance when someone answers a call while attending a sporting event is 0.88. The mean of the Chinese on their social acceptance when someone answers a call while attending a sporting event is 2.98 and the standard deviation for the Chinese on their social acceptance when someone answers a call while attending a sporting event is 0.98. The mean of on their social acceptance when someone answers a call while attending a sporting event is 3.14 and the standard deviation for Indians on their social acceptance when someone answers a call while attending a sporting event is 0.90. This shows that majority of the individual from the three major ethnic groups remain mutual about people answering their calls during a sporting event.

The mean score for the Malays on their social acceptance when others are talking on the phone while in a restaurant alone is 3.50 and the standard deviation for the Malays on their social acceptance when others are talking on the phone while in a restaurant alone is 0.89. The mean score for the Chinese on their social acceptance when others are talking on the phone while in a restaurant alone is 3.90 and the standard deviation for the Chinese on their social acceptance when others are talking on the phone while in a restaurant alone is 0.74. The mean score for the Indians on their social acceptance when others are talking on the phone while in a restaurant alone is 3.74 and the standard deviation for the Indians on their social acceptance when others are talking on the phone while in a restaurant alone is 0.94. This shows that majority of the individual from the three major ethnic groups is mutual when others makes a call and talking on the phone when they are alone in a restaurant.

The mean score for the Malays on their social acceptance when others are talking on the phone while in a restaurant with others is 2.96 and the standard deviation for the Malays on their social acceptance when others are talking on the phone while in a restaurant with others is 0.92. The mean score for the Chinese on their social acceptance when others are talking on the phone while in a restaurant with others is 2.82 and the standard deviation for the Chinese on their social acceptance when others are talking on the phone while in a restaurant with others is 1.02. The mean score for the Indians on their social acceptance when others are talking on the phone while in a restaurant with others is 3.30 and the standard deviation for the Indians 1.02. This shows that both the Malays and Chinese slightly agree that it is not acceptable to talk on the phone in a restaurant when they are with other people. However, majority of the Indians are mutual.

Table 3

Descriptive on their own mobile phone use

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Store

Malay

50

3.7000

.70711

.10000

3.4990

3.9010

2.00

5.00

Chinese

50

3.6800

.91339

.12917

3.4204

3.9396

1.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.2800

.99057

.14009

2.9985

3.5615

1.00

5.00

Total

150

3.5533

.89395

.07299

3.4091

3.6976

1.00

5.00

Sidewalk (between classes)

Malay

50

3.5800

.78480

.11099

3.3570

3.8030

1.00

5.00

Chinese

50

4.0200

.79514

.11245

3.7940

4.2460

2.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.5600

1.07210

.15162

3.2553

3.8647

1.00

5.00

Total

150

3.7200

.91314

.07456

3.5727

3.8673

1.00

5.00

Classroom

Malay

50

4.1200

.98229

.13892

3.8408

4.3992

2.00

5.00

Chinese

50

4.1200

1.17178

.16571

3.7870

4.4530

2.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.7600

1.17038

.16552

3.4274

4.0926

2.00

5.00

Total

150

4.0000

1.11728

.09123

3.8197

4.1803

2.00

5.00

Movie Theatre

Malay

50

2.5000

1.07381

.15186

2.1948

2.8052

1.00

5.00

Chinese

50

2.8200

1.13731

.16084

2.4968

3.1432

1.00

5.00

Indian

50

2.8400

1.25129

.17696

2.4844

3.1956

1.00

5.00

Total

150

2.7200

1.15926

.09465

2.5330

2.9070

1.00

5.00

Restaurant (Others)

Malay

50

3.4000

.80812

.11429

3.1703

3.6297

2.00

5.00

Chinese

50

3.6000

.94761

.13401

3.3307

3.8693

2.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.4200

.97080

.13729

3.1441

3.6959

1.00

5.00

Total

150

3.4733

.91002

.07430

3.3265

3.6202

1.00

5.00

Sidewalk

Malay

50

3.5400

.97332

.13765

3.2634

3.8166

1.00

5.00

Chinese

50

3.7600

.98063

.13868

3.4813

4.0387

2.00

5.00

Indian

50

3.5800

1.01197

.14311

3.2924

3.8676

1.00

5.00

Total

150

3.6267

.98680

.08057

3.4675

3.7859

1.00

5.00

Table 3 shows the descriptive on their own mobile phone use. This is to see how each individual from different culture give information about their mobile phone use. The settings are classroom, movie theatre, in a restaurant with others, sidewalks - one would be walking towards another class and also stores. The mean score for Malays who have placed a call in a store is 3.70 and the standard deviation for Malays who have placed a call in a store is 0.71. The mean for Chinese who have placed a call in a store is 3.68 and the standard deviation for Chinese who have placed a call in a store is 0.91. The mean for Indians who have placed a call in a store is 3.28 and the standard deviation for Indians who have placed a call in a store is 1.00. This shows that majority of the individual from the three major ethnic groups are mutual on their own mobile phone use while in a store. This indicates that all three major ethnic groups are mutual. They would usually make a call while in a store or they will not.

The mean score for Malays that would make calls while walking to their next class is 3.58 and the standard deviation for Malays that would make calls while walking to their next class is 0.78. The mean score for Chinese that would make calls while walking to their next class is 4.02 and the standard deviation for Chinese that would make calls while walking to their next class is 0.80. The mean score for Indians that would make calls while walking to their next class is 3.56 and the standard deviation for Indians that would make calls while walking to their next class is 1.07. This shows that majority of the individual from the three major ethnic groups agree that they usually make calls while walking towards a class, the reason could be that they want to fill up a void, fill up their personal bubble or to show to others that they are occupied and would not be able to interact.

The mean for Malay individuals who silence or turn off their phones during classes is 4.12 and the standard deviation for Malay individuals who silence or turn off their phones during classes is 0.98. The mean score for Chinese individuals who silence or turn off their phones during classes is 4.12 and the standard deviation for Chinese individuals who silence or turn off their phones during classes is 1.17. The mean for Indians who silence or turn off their phones during classes is 3.76 and the standard deviation for Indians who silence or turn off their phones during classes is the same with the Chinese which is 1.17. This indicates that all three major ethnic groups agreed they would switch off or turn their phone on silent while in the classroom. The Malay and Chinese received the same mean score whilst the Indians are leaning slightly into the mutual axis.

During a movie in the cinema, the mean score for Malays who answers their call when it rings is 2.56 and the standard deviation for Malays who answers their call when it rings is 1.07. The mean for Chinese who answers their call when it rings is 2.82 and the standard deviation for Chinese who answers their call when it rings is 1.14. For Indians who answers their call when it rings, the mean score is 2.84 and the standard deviation for Indians who answers their call when it rings is 1.25. This indicates that majority of the three major ethnic groups would not answer their phone call while in the cinema.

The mean score for the Malays when they answer a call while in a restaurant with friends is 3.40 and the standard deviation for Malays when they answer a call while in a restaurant with friends is 0.81. The mean for the Chinese when they answer a call while in a restaurant with friends is 3.60 and the standard deviation for the Chinese when they answer a call while in a restaurant with friends is 0.95. The mean score for the Indians when they answer a call while in a restaurant with friends is 3.42 and the standard deviation for Indians when they answer a call while in a restaurant with friends is 0.97. This indicates that all three major ethnic groups are mutual about answering their mobile phones in a restaurant with friends. This means that they either would answer the call if it were urgent or ignore a call when it is not urgent.

Lastly, when on a sidewalk, the mean score for Malays who find themselves talking on the phone next to a stranger is 3.54 and the standard deviation for Malays talking on the phone next to a stranger on the sidewalk is 0.97. The mean score for the Chinese talking on the phone next to a stranger on the sidewalk is 3.76 and the standard deviation for the Chinese talking on the phone next to a stranger on the sidewalk is 0.98. The mean for Indians talking on the phone next to a stranger on the sidewalk is 3.58 and the standard deviation for Indians talking on the phone next to a stranger on the sidewalk is 1.01. This indicates that all three major ethnic groups are neutral about talking on the phone when standing beside a stranger on a public sidewalk. This would mean that some makes a call because they feel awkward beside the stranger and to appear aloof and comfortable, they make a call or it could mean that they want to send out a message to the stranger that they are unavailable to make contact to.

Table 4

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic

df1

df2

Sig.

Movie Theatre

.883

2

147

.416

Store

.015

2

147

.985

Business Meeting

1.551

2

147

.216

Bus

.625

2

147

.537

Sidewalk

1.606

2

147

.204

Classroom

.004

2

147

.996

Sports Event

.259

2

147

.773

Restaurant (Alone)

3.296

2

147

.040

Restaurant (Others)

1.302

2

147

.275

Store

1.754

2

147

.177

Sidewalk (between classes)

7.266

2

147

.001

Classroom

3.416

2

147

.035

Movie Theatre

.490

2

147

.614

Restaurant (Others)

.699

2

147

.499

Sidewalk

.147

2

147

.863

In table 4, it shows that talking on the phone while walking from a class to another class is highly significant among all the cultural groupings, thus disapproving the first research question which was to investigate if members of the cultural grouping differ in their perceptions of talking on mobile phone in certain public settings that is 0.001. However it supports the third research question which was investigating if settings that involve collective attention will be considered significantly less acceptable for talking on a mobile phone than those with a more individualized level of focus. This means that walking between classes does not require a high collective attention, it is leaning more towards the individualized level of focus. Talking on the phone while in a restaurant alone and silencing their mobile phone is also significant with 0.040 and 0.035 respectively.

Table 5

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Movie Theatre

Between Groups

4.573

2

2.287

2.836

.062

Within Groups

118.520

147

.806

Total

123.093

149

Store

Between Groups

2.080

2

1.040

1.123

.328

Within Groups

136.080

147

.926

Total

138.160

149

Business Meeting

Between Groups

2.773

2

1.387

1.139

.323

Within Groups

179.020

147

1.218

Total

181.793

149

Bus

Between Groups

1.480

2

.740

.959

.386

Within Groups

113.480

147

.772

Total

114.960

149

Sidewalk

Between Groups

4.440

2

2.220

2.211

.113

Within Groups

147.620

147

1.004

Total

152.060

149

Classroom

Between Groups

.520

2

.260

.270

.764

Within Groups

141.540

147

.963

Total

142.060

149

Sports Event

Between Groups

1.293

2

.647

.760

.469

Within Groups

125.000

147

.850

Total

126.293

149

Restaurant (Alone)

Between Groups

4.053

2

2.027

2.743

.068

Within Groups

108.620

147

.739

Total

112.673

149

Restaurant (Others)

Between Groups

6.093

2

3.047

3.114

.047

Within Groups

143.800

147

.978

Total

149.893

149

Store

Between Groups

5.613

2

2.807

3.636

.029

Within Groups

113.460

147

.772

Total

119.073

149

Sidewalk (between classes)

Between Groups

6.760

2

3.380

4.229

.016

Within Groups

117.480

147

.799

Total

124.240

149

Classroom

Between Groups

4.320

2

2.160

1.748

.178

Within Groups

181.680

147

1.236

Total

186.000

149

Movie Theatre

Between Groups

3.640

2

1.820

1.361

.260

Within Groups

196.600

147

1.337

Total

200.240

149

Restaurant (Others)

Between Groups

1.213

2

.607

.730

.484

Within Groups

122.180

147

.831

Total

123.393

149

Sidewalk

Between Groups

1.373

2

.687

.702

.497

Within Groups

143.720

147

.978

Total

145.093

149

In table 5, a one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the means of individuals from different ethnic background on their perception on mobile phone use. There was a significance of p<.05 level for their perception on others answering a phone call in a restaurant while with friends [F(2, 147) = 3.11, p = 0.047]. There also was a significance of p<.05 level on their perception of themselves, which was making a call in a store [F(2, 147) = 3.63, p = 0.029] and there was a significance of p<0.5 about these individuals would makes calls while walking in between classes [F(2,147) = 4.23, p = 0.016]. The movie theatre was slightly above the significance value with 0.062 also about the individual's acceptance in others making a phone call in a restaurant alone with 0.068 significance value.

Table 6

Post-Hoc test (Turkey HSD)

Dependent Variable

(I) Ethnicity

(J) Ethnicity

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Movie Theatre

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

-.36000

.17958

.115

-.7852

.0652

Indian

.02000

.17958

.993

-.4052

.4452

Chinese

Malay

.36000

.17958

.115

-.0652

.7852

Indian

.38000

.17958

.090

-.0452

.8052

Indian

Malay

-.02000

.17958

.993

-.4452

.4052

Chinese

-.38000

.17958

.090

-.8052

.0452

Store

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

.08000

.19243

.909

-.3756

.5356

Indian

-.20000

.19243

.553

-.6556

.2556

Chinese

Malay

-.08000

.19243

.909

-.5356

.3756

Indian

-.28000

.19243

.316

-.7356

.1756

Indian

Malay

.20000

.19243

.553

-.2556

.6556

Chinese

.28000

.19243

.316

-.1756

.7356

Business Meeting

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

.32000

.22071

.318

-.2026

.8426

Indian

.24000

.22071

.523

-.2826

.7626

Chinese

Malay

-.32000

.22071

.318

-.8426

.2026

Indian

-.08000

.22071

.930

-.6026

.4426

Indian

Malay

-.24000

.22071

.523

-.7626

.2826

Chinese

.08000

.22071

.930

-.4426

.6026

Bus

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

-.20000

.17572

.492

-.6161

.2161

Indian

.02000

.17572

.993

-.3961

.4361

Chinese

Malay

.20000

.17572

.492

-.2161

.6161

Indian

.22000

.17572

.425

-.1961

.6361

Indian

Malay

-.02000

.17572

.993

-.4361

.3961

Chinese

-.22000

.17572

.425

-.6361

.1961

Sidewalk

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

.18000

.20042

.642

-.2945

.6545

Indian

-.24000

.20042

.457

-.7145

.2345

Chinese

Malay

-.18000

.20042

.642

-.6545

.2945

Indian

-.42000

.20042

.094

-.8945

.0545

Indian

Malay

.24000

.20042

.457

-.2345

.7145

Chinese

.42000

.20042

.094

-.0545

.8945

Classroom

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

.04000

.19625

.977

-.4247

.5047

Indian

.14000

.19625

.756

-.3247

.6047

Chinese

Malay

-.04000

.19625

.977

-.5047

.4247

Indian

.10000

.19625

.867

-.3647

.5647

Indian

Malay

-.14000

.19625

.756

-.6047

.3247

Chinese

-.10000

.19625

.867

-.5647

.3647

Sports Event

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

.22000

.18443

.459

-.2167

.6567

Indian

.06000

.18443

.943

-.3767

.4967

Chinese

Malay

-.22000

.18443

.459

-.6567

.2167

Indian

-.16000

.18443

.662

-.5967

.2767

Indian

Malay

-.06000

.18443

.943

-.4967

.3767

Chinese

.16000

.18443

.662

-.2767

.5967

Restaurant (Alone)

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

-.40000

.17192

.055

-.8071

.0071

Indian

-.24000

.17192

.346

-.6471

.1671

Chinese

Malay

.40000

.17192

.055

-.0071

.8071

Indian

.16000

.17192

.622

-.2471

.5671

Indian

Malay

.24000

.17192

.346

-.1671

.6471

Chinese

-.16000

.17192

.622

-.5671

.2471

Restaurant (Others)

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

.14000

.19781

.759

-.3284

.6084

Indian

-.34000

.19781

.202

-.8084

.1284

Chinese

Malay

-.14000

.19781

.759

-.6084

.3284

Indian

-.48000*

.19781

.043

-.9484

-.0116

Indian

Malay

.34000

.19781

.202

-.1284

.8084

Chinese

.48000*

.19781

.043

.0116

.9484

Store

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

.02000

.17571

.993

-.3960

.4360

Indian

.42000*

.17571

.047

.0040

.8360

Chinese

Malay

-.02000

.17571

.993

-.4360

.3960

Indian

.40000

.17571

.062

-.0160

.8160

Indian

Malay

-.42000*

.17571

.047

-.8360

-.0040

Chinese

-.40000

.17571

.062

-.8160

.0160

Sidewalk (between classes)

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

-.44000*

.17879

.040

-.8633

-.0167

Indian

.02000

.17879

.993

-.4033

.4433

Chinese

Malay

.44000*

.17879

.040

.0167

.8633

Indian

.46000*

.17879

.030

.0367

.8833

Indian

Malay

-.02000

.17879

.993

-.4433

.4033

Chinese

-.46000*

.17879

.030

-.8833

-.0367

Classroom

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

.00000

.22234

1.000

-.5264

.5264

Indian

.36000

.22234

.241

-.1664

.8864

Chinese

Malay

.00000

.22234

1.000

-.5264

.5264

Indian

.36000

.22234

.241

-.1664

.8864

Indian

Malay

-.36000

.22234

.241

-.8864

.1664

Chinese

-.36000

.22234

.241

-.8864

.1664

Movie Theatre

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

-.32000

.23129

.352

-.8676

.2276

Indian

-.34000

.23129

.308

-.8876

.2076

Chinese

Malay

.32000

.23129

.352

-.2276

.8676

Indian

-.02000

.23129

.996

-.5676

.5276

Indian

Malay

.34000

.23129

.308

-.2076

.8876

Chinese

.02000

.23129

.996

-.5276

.5676

Restaurant (Others)

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

-.20000

.18234

.518

-.6317

.2317

Indian

-.02000

.18234

.993

-.4517

.4117

Chinese

Malay

.20000

.18234

.518

-.2317

.6317

Indian

.18000

.18234

.586

-.2517

.6117

Indian

Malay

.02000

.18234

.993

-.4117

.4517

Chinese

-.18000

.18234

.586

-.6117

.2517

Sidewalk

Tukey HSD

Malay

Chinese

-.22000

.19776

.508

-.6882

.2482

Indian

-.04000

.19776

.978

-.5082

.4282

Chinese

Malay

.22000

.19776

.508

-.2482

.6882

Indian

.18000

.19776

.635

-.2882

.6482

Indian

Malay

.04000

.19776

.978

-.4282

.5082

Chinese

-.18000

.19776

.635

-.6482

.2882

Table 6 shows the post-hoc comparison using the Turkey HSD test of the different cultural grouping perception on mobile phone use in public indicated that there is no significance in their views on others answering a call while watching a movie and also answering a call whilst in a store. The test also shows that there is no significance value on the individual's views about answering a phone call during a business meeting and also there is no significant value in answering a phone call in a bus. When talking on the phone on a public sidewalk, the significant value between the Chinese and the Indians is 0.094, p>0.05 this would mean that it less significant. Also there is no significance about their perception on talking on the phone while in class and during a sporting event. Their acceptance about individuals talking on a mobile phone in restaurant when that individual is alone shows a slightly less significant value between Malays and Chinese with 0.55, p>0.05. However, there is a significance value of 0.043, p<0.05 between Chinese and Indians on their acceptance about individuals talking on the mobile phone in a restaurant when that individual with friends. It shows that the Indian people does this more often than the Chinese. There is also a significance value of 0.047, P<0.05 between Malay and Chinese about always making a call while shopping in a store. It shows that the Malays do this more often than the Chinese people.

While walking to class, the Chinese makes calls more often than the Malays or the Indians with the significance value of 0.040, p<0.05 between the Chinese and Malays and significance value of 0.30, p<0.05 between the Chinese and Indians. In the classroom, however, there are no significant value among the three cultural grouping, majority of individuals from the three cultural groupings would silent or turn off their mobile phone while in class. This also goes for answering a call in the movie theatre, making a call in a restaurant while with others and also talking on the phone next to a stranger on a public sidewalk.

Conclusion and Recommendation

This study examined the perception of mobile phone use in public settings such as the movie theatre, restaurants, bus, grocery stores, classroom, business meeting and sidewalks among individuals from three different cultural groupings which are Malay, Chinese and Indian. 150 students were taken from SEGi University to partake in the survey by using the quota sampling technique. Taken from the theoretical principles of Erving Goffman dramaturgical approach for social interaction, the study investigates whether cultural groupings differ in their perception of the use of talking on mobile phone in certain public setting. It was also done to investigate whether a specific ethnic group differs in their own mobile phone use as compared to other ethnic groups and this study was done to investigate if settings that involve collective attention will be considered significantly less acceptable for talking on a mobile phone than those with a more individualized level of focus. This study would provide more insight on the Malaysian's different culture views on communicating on a mobile phone whilst in public and enlighten them what the normative behavior for talking on a mobile phone that is in the Malaysian society. Since kind of study was only done in the United States and little research was done in the Malaysian context, this paper would be highly useful to Malaysian students because they are the new generation that would elicit social normative behavior that is acceptable to all cultures.

The survey that aided in this research came from Scott W. Campbell's work on perception of mobile phone use in public settings: a cross cultural comparison. The results obtained from the research revealed that all three cultures agreed if they were in a fully focused social gathering like a business meeting and movie theatre, it is highly unacceptable to answer a call or even make a call with the acceptability mean 2.27 and 4.29 respectively. However, in the classroom setting, all three of the ethnic group is neutral with the mean 2.86. The results supported the third research question which was investigating if settings that involved fully collective attention would be considered less acceptable for talking on the phone as opposed to those with a more individualized level of focus. Following that statement, a multi-focused setting, such as the sidewalk, stores and in buses are more or less agreeable that they are not irritated or find it rude to be talking on the mobile phone with the mean score of 2.86, 2.84 and 3.44 respectively. Even in a restaurant alone or with friends, all three cultural groups are neutral with their mean score of 3.71 and 3.03 respectively. The fully focused settings received a high tolerance rating while the multi-focused settings received an average, almost neutral tolerance rating on a five point likert scale. Overall, the results shows a positive relation with the third research question and shows that in different cultures it does not differ in perception of mobile phone use in public settings. The results also indicated that there are no differences in the individual's views on their own mobile phone use regardless of their cultural groupings (see Appendix B).

Like all studies, this research paper has its fair share of limitations. The first limitation is the sample size. The samples were only students from SEGi University, Kota Damansara. The sample was insufficient in representing the cultural groupings in Malaysia as a whole so that it could make for a better understanding of cultural particularities on the normative behavior of mobile phone use in public. For future studies, it is recommended to broaden the amount of sample size and gather the samples outside of the University. The second recommen