International Journal of Communication 3 (2009), 108-124 1932-8036/20090108
Copyright © 2009 (Göran Bolin & Oscar Westlund). Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd). Available at http://ijoc.org.
Mobile Generations:
The Role of Mobile Technology in the Shaping
of Swedish Media Generations
GÖRAN BOLIN
Södertörn University
OSCAR WESTLUND
Göteborg University
It is often argued that young people are among the first to adopt new media
technologies, and that they are especially keen on taking on all new features
connected with mobile technology and the Internet. In spite of this oft-repeated
claim, one could suspect that since computers and mobile phones have become so
widespread among large portions of the populations in the industrialised world, it
might not be technology, per se, that distinguishes the young from the old, but
rather the actual ways in which it is used. One approach to discuss this is in terms
of media generations. It could be expected that generations that have grown up
with different mediated experiences during their formative years will relate to the
mobile technology in a variety of ways (cf. Mannheim, 1952 & Volkmer, 2006). In
this article, three such generations are analysed: the radio/print generation (born in
the 1930s), the TV generation (born in the 1950s), and the mobile technology
generation (born in the 1980s). Access and usage patterns are researched, and the
degree to which the three generations differ when it comes to their relations to
mobile technology is discussed, but also the unifying character of the mobile
telephony usage. Our methodological approach is quantitative, analysing results
from annually conducted postal surveys that are representative for the Swedish
population.
Keywords: Mobile phones, Generations, Media usage, Sweden.
Göran Bolin: goran.bolin@sh.se
Oscar Westlund: oscar.westlund@jmg.gu.se
Date submitted: 2008-11-03
International Journal of Communication 3 (2009) Mobile Generations: The Role of Mobile Technology 109
Introduction
In a global perspective, the Nordic states, including Sweden, are at times held as advanced when
it comes to access to mobile technologies. Laptops, MP3s, etc., are widely used and practically everyone
owns a mobile phone. Demographically, the only Swedish group where access is low is among older, loweducated
women (75+) (Bolin, 2008). Mobile devices such as small portable laptops and mobile phones
thus constitute an important personal communication tool in the everyday lives of ordinary people in
Sweden. Although penetration and access differ quite substantially, there are also common features that
imprint the everyday uses of the mobile telephony for most Swedish users. Although mobile phones are
available in increasingly more technically advanced and complicated forms, they are, to date, primarily
used for personal communication through voice calls and SMS (Ling, 2004; Bolin, 2007; Goggin & Hjorth,
2007). The use of multimedia functions on the other hand, is more limited (Wilson, 2006; Kivi, 2007,
Westlund, 2007, 2008). However, with the continuous development of more advanced features, other
communicative functions of the mobile technology are on the rise, or are at least expected to be.
Widespread access does not, however, necessarily mean similarity in use. There are,in fact, quite
substantial differences between social groups’ usage and attitudes. As an example, young Swedes use the
SMS function of the mobile technology more than the elderly (Bolin, 2007). It is also an often held claim
that young people are more inclined to explore and use new media technologies (Lorente, 2002; Ling,
2004). However, some studies related to mobile technology conclude that the user and adoption
behaviour among the youth have many differences, and that they should be viewed as a heterogeneous
group (Thulin & Wilhelmson, 2007; see also Pedersen & Ling, 2002 or Westlund, 2007 for research
overviews). When it comes to diffusion of new technologies, Rogers (2003) argues the perception that
young people always adopt innovations is misleading, and that the outcome of diffusion is specific to the
context in which diffusion takes place.
It is purported that the media technology and its dominant uses which an individual embraces
from one’s youth can be expected to be the media that one keeps a special relation with for the balance of
one’s life (whereas most people thereafter, as adults, develop a certain scepticism toward new media
forms). This is how media generations are supposed to develop, in which common experiences are
connected to specific media or media contents (Gumpert & Cathcart, 1985; cf. Forsman & Bolin, 1997).
The generation that grew up with the cinema at the birth of the film medium, will bring with it this special
experience of film as it was phenomenologically perceived at that moment, in that very technological,
cultural and social setting. This will bring persons with similar experiences together. In concert with this
argument, those who have grown up with the mobile phone will share similar experiences of this media
technology. This also makes the expression ‘new media’ relative, as what is new for one generation, is not
necessarily novel for another. Conversely, it also distances people from each other, or as Gumpert &
Cathcart posit, the different media experiences produces ‘media gaps which separate people’ (Gumpert &
Cathcart, 1985, p. 23).
110 Göran Bolin & Oscar Westlund International Journal of Communication 2(2009)
These arguments have been tested in an international study on news and public memory
involving nine nations. Ingrid Volkmer (2006a) and her colleagues studied how different national media
users in three specific generations related to, on the one hand, media technologies, and on the other, to
international media events or news stories such as the moon landing, the Second World War, the Vietnam
War, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Prague Spring, Watergate, Woodstock, etc. The
generations studied were born in three cohorts: the radio generation (1924-1929), the black-and-white TV
generation (1954-1959); and the Internet generation (1979-1984). It was concluded that these three
generations did relate to international media events differently. The oldest generation was formed by a
media environment dominated by radio (to a certain extent film, but this was not elaborated on as the
study focused on news) and print media (newspapers and books). A common denominator was that all
content was addressed to adults, and consequently their memories involved experiences of their parents’
reactions to major historical events, and to other life world circumstances. The second generation was
formed by television and popular culture media, and was considered the first ‘media generation,’ that is,
the first generation formed by and in relation to the media. Their memories were characterised by crossmedia
referencing (Volkmer, 2006b, p. 264). The youngest Internet generation was marked by the
increased international media environment that they were part of, and referred much more than the other
cohorts to international media in their accounts. However, whereas the oldest generation remembered
explicit stories from newspapers, typically their fathers’ reactions to reading something in the newspaper
or listening collectively on the radio, the youngest generation not only ‘very rarely mentioned print media,
but did not mention any news format at all’ (Rusch & Volkmer, 2006, p. 91).
A major inspiration for Volkmer and her associates was the theory of generations of Karl
Mannheim (1928/1952). As many early sociologists, Mannheim sought for the explanations of social
change in the continuous exchanges of generations (as did, for example, Ortega y Gasset 1923/1931). In
the theory on generational succession, Mannheim argued that not only age was of significance, but the
common generational experiences of people born at about the same time. In trying to lay bare a basic
structure of any single generation, Mannheim made a major distinction between generation as ‘location,’
and as ‘actuality.’ Making analogies with the class position of certain groups in society, Mannheim defined
class (and generation) as ‘the certain “location” (Lagerung) certain individuals hold in the economic and
power structure of a given society’ (Mannheim, 1928/1952, p. 289). The basis for the generational
location is naturally a year of birth: all people born in the same year, for example, have a ‘common
location in the historical dimension of the social process’ (Ibid., p. 290).
Since location is insufficient for defining a specific generation, Mannheim introduced the concept
of generation as actuality. This refers to those that are located in the same place in the historical process,
but that also are bound together through common experiences. This, however, does not mean that the
individuals of a biological generation react in the same way to the commonly shared experience of the
same historical problem. When faced with a specific phenomenon, individuals can ‘work up the material of
their common experiences in different specific ways,’ which will result in separate ‘generation units’
(Mannheim, 1928/1952, p. 304). These generation units can be seen as ways of relating to the same
phenomena, and as such make up ‘an identity of responses’ to the problems at hand (Ibid., p. 306).
International Journal of Communication 3 (2009) Mobile Generations: The Role of Mobile Technology 111
An important component in the formation of the generational experience is the phenomenon
Mannheim calls ‘fresh contact,’ that is, that moment at which an individual is confronted with a novelty of
some sorts (Mannheim, 1928/1952. p. 293ff). As young people are lacking in experience compared to
older people, fresh contacts will have a deeper impact on the young person than on the old, and
moreover, ‘[a]ll later experience then tend to receive their meaning from this original set, whether they
appear as that set’s verification and fulfilment or as its negation and antithesis’ (Ibid., p. 298).
Experience, then, appears in the form of a ‘dialectical articulation, which is potentially present whenever
we act, think or feel’ (Ibid.). Furthermore, the individual is most receptive in relation to phenomena they
are confronted with around the age of 17 years, give or take a few years, according to Mannheim, who,
just as Gumpert & Cathcart (1985) refer to research on the formation of language in an individual, of
which it is said that the spoken dialect seldom changes after the age of 25. One might therefore expect a
certain homology in, for example, the way that 16-22 year-olds relate to a certain media technology and
its dominant uses, and that they should bring with them these relations when they grow older.
This article asks if there are discernible patterns of mobile use connected to different generations,
and — if so — are these patterns consistent over time in a way that makes it possible to speak of specific
mobile generations? Or, as is arguably the case, can the differences between certain age groups be
ascribed life phase factors, so that they are expected to change with increased age? That is, are young
people active in relation to new media technologies because they are young (that is, the relation can be
explained by age), or do they bring with them these patterns when they grow up (the relation has
generational explanations)?
This article addresses these questions through a comparison of three different generations, and
their usage of specific mobile phone functionalities. A common denominator to these functionalities is that
they enable interpersonal communication; they are voice calls, SMS and MMS. Inspired by Volkmer,
respondents born in 1930s, 1950s and 1980s have been chosen from a set of national surveys from 2003-
2007.1
The choice of these generations can be motivated by their specific relations to dominant media that
was introduced and quickly became popular during their formative years. For those born in the early- and
mid- 1930s, the radio as a medium heavily influenced social life habits, perceptions about the nation, and
family life. For those born in the 1950s, television was the medium that further established some of the
patterns introduced by radio, but also introduced new ones. For the children born in the 1980s, the digital
media became natural components in their everyday media landscape.
1
More precisely, we have analysed respondents born 1931-1937, 1951-1957 and 1981-1987. The year of
birth for the data in this article has been slightly adjusted compared to the data in Volkmer’s study, due
to the character of the data at hand (that is, we do not have access to data earlier than 2003). The
empirical data origins from the annual SOM-survey 2003-2007, carried out at University of Gothenburg,
and, in connection to mobile use, in cooperation with Södertörn University. It is sent by post to 6,000
randomly chosen Swedes, with an average net response rate of about 65%.
112 Göran Bolin & Oscar Westlund International Journal of Communication 2(2009)
The Swedish Media Landscape
In order to be able to evaluate the differences that might or might not be found between the
three different generations that are analysed in this article, we need to understand the major
characteristics of the media landscape during the formative years of each generation. Sweden shares
many similarities with other north European countries, both pertaining to social composition and media
structure. Radio was introduced in 1925 and spread rapidly within the population. Within two decades,
more than two million households had acquired their own radio (Hadenius et al., 2008).
Television was introduced to the public in 1956, and the spread of this medium was even more
explosive. Within five years, 1.5 million households had bought a TV set. Within 20 years, television had
been firmly ‘domesticated’ (Haddon 2004) and was found in three million Swedish living rooms. The
diffusion on a household level has since further developed, with more TV sets acquired to the same
households, and television has become a personal medium (Carlsson & Facht, 2007, p. 263).
Digital media, most notably personal computers and mobile phones, were introduced in the
1980s and diffused more widely to the Swedish public during the 1990s. In 1994, about 20% of Swedish
households possessed a computer and the amount was similar for mobile phones. Thereafter followed a
rapid increase until the early 21st century, when the growth had reached about 70% for computers and
80% for mobile phones. Internet has also shown a rapid diffusion during this time period, and it has
become common that households with computers also have access to Internet (Hadenius & Weibull,
2005).
This development has been paralleled with strong urbanisation (Guteland et al., 1975/1981, p.
33), and increased mobility, in Sweden as in many other nations (Urry, 2007). Although time spent on
travel seems not to vary significantly, travelers are spending more time on their mobile phones as a result
of new communication technologies, which has given them more opportunities to make their calls (Urry,
2006, p. 364). In this process, the need to organise and coordinate people is seemingly increasing.
Researchers on mobile phones have concluded that most uses of the mobile phone fulfill three basic
functions: the micro-coordination of individuals, entertainment, and expressive purposes (e.g., Campbell
2007; Ishi, 2006; Pedroso, 2006; Wilska, 2006). If these are privileged user possibilities, the use of
mobile phones could be expected to vary according to lifestyle, age and the activities one can connect to
these. For example, micro-coordination of movement is more important for those on-the-move between
work or school and the home (illustrated by a substantially lower figure for business journeys among the
oldest generation in Table 1) (see also Westlund, 2008). The need for expressing oneself is, of course,
evenly distributed, but the means for expression should be expected to vary as well, as would means for
entertainment. It might, therefore, be of value to map the differences between generations when it comes
to activities that would arguably privilege micro-coordination, as in Table 1 below.
International Journal of Communication 3 (2009) Mobile Generations: The Role of Mobile Technology 113
Table 1: Life style related activities for the three generations over time 2003-2007.
Activities conducted at least once a week (%).
Visit a pub/restaurant 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
1980s 25 28 38 28 31
1950s 7 6 6 5 4
1930s 3 2 0 1 1
Engage in evening activities outside home
1980s 72 64 67 66 58
1950s 48 50 50 45 46
1930s 33 22 21 21 25
Socialise with friends
1980s 92 92 89 87 83
1950s 62 57 58 58 53
1930s 64 57 66 63 59
Socialise with neighbours
1980s 18 23 17 22 16
1950s 23 23 26 25 19
1930s 41 39 41 41 34
Make a business journey
1980s -- -- -- 13 8
1950s -- -- -- 18 20
1930s -- -- -- 2 2
Source: SOM surveys 2003-2007
Comment: The number of responses for each statement vary between 130 and 311 (1980s), 210 and 421
(1950s) 120 and 306 (1930s). No questions were asked about business journeys prior to 2006.
Some of the above activities are arguably of the kind that would privilege micro-coordination, and
a high degree of engagement in such activities can be expected to be connected to high levels of mobile
phone use. To engage in activities outside of the home is one such activity, as well as to visit pubs and
restaurants. At times, these activities probably include socialising with friends, but this is an activity you
can also engage in your own home. Nonetheless, your visiting friends may need to call to alert you that
they are running late, so this activity can also be said to privilege mobile phone use. All these activities
are also more frequently engaged in by the youngest generation. To socialise with neighbours, on the
other hand, is not obviously triggering a need for micro-coordination, so this is also an activity where the
older generations are more active.
Some of the activities predictably change over the studied period. Those who are born in the
1980s visit pubs and restaurants to a larger extent in 2007 than 2003. This is quite natural, since they, in
2003, were between 16 and 22 years old. In Sweden, you cannot buy alcohol at pubs or restaurants
before the age of 18 (and many, if not most, places have higher age restrictions for entry), and from that
114 Göran Bolin & Oscar Westlund International Journal of Communication 2(2009)
follows that with increased age, the possibilities for going to such venues increases. At the other end of
the age spectrum, the 1930s generation show a declining habit of visiting pubs and restaurants over the
years. The 1950s generation have also lowered their amount of visits, but it is fair to say that neither of
the older generations has been very keen on visiting restaurants and pubs over the period.
On the whole, the 1950s generation show a more consistent pattern of activities in relation to the
other two, which does not change much over the period. This is perfectly expected, since this generation
does not meet with any dramatic breaks and changes in their life phases over the period analysed. Such
changes are more obvious among the youngest and the oldest respondents. The youngest are at the
threshold between school and working life, home settlement, etc., whereas the oldest, who was between
the ages 66-72 in 2003, just has entered into retirement.
However, all this is more connected to phase of life, that is, with explanations connected to age
rather than generation. If we instead look at how patterns of use develop over time for our three groups,
we might see to what extent behaviour is consistent.
Voice Calls
For the vast majority of Swedish mobile phone owners, the phone’s is first and foremost an
interpersonal tool for oral communication. This is also so for the three generations at focus here, although
the intensity and frequency with which they call vary. Furthermore, not only the frequency of calling
differs quite substantially between the generations. There is also a general consistency over the years
concerning how different generations use the mobile phone for voice calls. Very few in the youngest
generation do not use the cell phone for voice calls, and although the amount of non-voice callers in the
1950s generation is somewhat higher, the differences are decreasing slowly over the years, as can be
seen from Table 2.
It is also interesting to note that few among the 1930s generation use their mobile phone for
voice calls on a daily basis. Rather, it is being used weekly or monthly, which reflects their needs for
mobile communication in relation to their lifestyle and social orientation. They might prefer to keep their
habits of deciding meetings with others beforehand, and not to change these arrangements in the last
minute by a mobile voice call. It might also be that they more seldom encounter situations where they
have a need for micro-coordination of different daily activities. However, even if the respondents in the
1930s generation use their mobile phone less for voice calls than do the other generations, their usage
does in fact increase over the time period.
The differences between the 1980s’ and 1950s generations are obvious if comparing those who
call on a regular basis, that is, those who call on a weekly basis or more — are what we might call ‘regular
callers,’ From that perspective, 93% among the 1980s generation make voice calls (in 2003), compared to
80% among the 1950s generation. When comparing even more frequent usage, for example, those who
call four times a day or more, the gap between the 1980s’ and 1950s generations further increases. These
differences have become greater over the years. At the same time, it needs to be acknowledged that
larger parts of all generations call more often.
International Journal of Communication 3 (2009) Mobile Generations: The Role of Mobile Technology 115
Table 2. Voice calls for three generations 2003-2007 (%).
1980-generation 1950-generation 1930-generation
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Never 2 1 1 1 0 8 6 5 5 2 29 18 16 18 6
At least once a
month 7 3 1 4 1 12 9 14 7 10 19 29 26 21 31
One or several
times a week 38 37 34 16 18 36 42 32 28 26 42 36 51 39 46
1-3 times a day 29 36 35 36 37 19 20 28 27 27 7 16 5 16 11
>4 times a day 26 23 29 43 44 26 22 21 33 36 3 1 2 6 6
Number of
responses 200 170 158 130 126 216 211 222 223 199 154 152 146 141 112
Source: SOM surveys 2003-2007
Voice calls may serve many functions, such as coordinating people, sending/receiving
information, chatting away some dead time on the bus, etc. All three generations increase their calling
over the period, although it is also clear that the youngest generation is increasing their calling more than
the other two generations. Furthermore, this increase is in frequent calling, that is, more and more
individuals within the same generation call daily and also several times a day. Also, the 1950s generation
has become increasingly active in calling, but not as much as the youngest generation. For the oldest
generation, on the contrary, the most significant change is that their calling pattern changed from owning
a mobile phone yet not using it at all, to calling occasionally a few times a month.
The differences between the three generations indicate that calling over the mobile phone is part
of everyday life routines among the two youngest generations, but not among the eldest. One explanation
for this could be that older generations do not need to micro-coordinate as much as do younger
generations. For want of a better term, we could call this ‘life cycle explanations.’ As we know, that much
voice calling is connected to working life (or at least paid for by employers), we can expect people who are
outside of working life, such as senior citizens, to call less often.
There are significant differences between men and women within the different generations.
Within each generation, men more frequently make voice calls than do women. The year 2006 marked a
point when there was an especially high general increase in voice calling. Figure 1 illustrates that much of
the increase was accounted for by men. Until 2005, calling patterns among men and women within the
1980-generation were actually not that distant from each other, a statistic that also obviously changed in
2006.
116 Göran Bolin & Oscar Westlund International Journal of Communication 2(2009)
Figure 1. Voice calls at least 4 times/ day among three generations 2003-2007 (mean),
divided by sex (%).
Men
Men
Men
Women
Women
Women
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1930s 1950s 1980s
Source: SOM surveys 2003-2007
If we look at the group that we might call ‘frequent callers,’ that is, those who speak over the
mobile phone at least four times a day, we can see that this group consists of more men than women, and
especially so among the 1950s generation. One reason for this is that in Sweden, three times as many
men as women have a mobile phone paid for by their employer, a pattern that has been consistent over
the entire period (Bolin, 2007). This also explains the increase of this group among the youngest
generation, as they are gradually becoming established within working life. This is also why the difference
between men and women is at its strongest among the 1950s’ generation, as this generation is firmly
established on the job market, whereas the youngest in the 1980s generation are still on their way into
the market.
In a comparison between generations, it also is clear that men within the 1950s generation
actually use voice calls more often than women from the 1980s generation. Being a frequent voice caller
was, in 2007, equally as common among young men as among young women (although men have during
previous years been more active). One might say that this is a gendered use pattern that is privileged by
conditions on the labour market, and as such gender seems to be a stronger factor when it comes to
shaping user habits than is the generational belonging. In fact, this is one of the strongest demarcation
lines when it comes to social differentiation.
International Journal of Communication 3 (2009) Mobile Generations: The Role of Mobile Technology 117
Messaging
During the 1990s, the communicative functions of the mobile phone were extended to short
messaging services (SMS), which made it possible for people to exchange short messages of text and
symbols. Apart from voice calls, the communication by SMS is asynchronous, meaning that it is
disembedded from time boundaries. It is commonly known as a youth phenomenon in Sweden — a
relatively cheap form of communication that enables people to express themselves in a less direct
manner. It seems as if it also fulfils the same basic three functions of the mobile phone, as do voice
calling: micro-coordination, expressive features, and entertainment (having something to do to kill time).
By 2003, SMS-messaging was already fully integrated into the everyday lives of the 1980s
generation. Texting has since further increased, and in 2007, this whole youth group can be considered
regular users, as is revealed by Table 3. In fact, almost 80% send text messages daily, and almost half of
the generation more than four times a day. This can be contrasted with the very low levels of messaging
made by the eldest generation, where only a tiny fraction can be considered frequent users. The changes
in this group concern a change from non-usage at the beginning of the period, to using it occasionally in
2007, just as with calling. In 2003, only about 20% used SMS at all, and the frequency among the users
was relatively low. And although frequency in use has increased somewhat, sending SMS messages
cannot be considered a regular routine in the life of the 1930s generation.
The 1950s generation, however, have used texting occasionally from the start, but there are now
more of them that enter into a frequent user stage. Although the frequency of messaging is far from as
intense as among the youngest generation, it is still used among a majority of the mobile phone owners.
Table 3. SMS use among three generations 2003-2007 (%).
1980-generation 1950-generation 1930-generation
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Never 3 3 3 2 1 28 27 21 23 10 81 73 66 72 61
At least once a
month 10 6 5 4 1 29 33 30 23 19 17 16 22 11 25
One or several
times a week 32 34 37 25 21 39 39 37 38 38 2 9 11 15 8
1-3 times a day 26 32 31 37 33 10 7 6 13 22 0 1 1 2 3
>4 times a day 30 25 24 32 46 4 3 5 4 12 0 1 0 0 3
Number of
responses 200 170 158 130 126 216 211 222 223 198 154 152 146 141 108
Source: SOM surveys 2003-2007
118 Göran Bolin & Oscar Westlund International Journal of Communication 2(2009)
Besides text messaging since 2002, Swedes can also use their mobile phone for exchanging MMS
or multimedia messages. In 2003, only one in 10 within the 1980s generation used this feature at all, and
the amount was even smaller among other generations. Over time, there has been an extraordinary
adoption of this communicative function among the youth. However, it has not become part of everyday
life communications. Rather, it is most commonly being used once a month. The number of users among
the 1950s generation has also increased, but very few use it more than once a month. Finally, there are
few changes among people from the 1930s generation; there are no surprises that they show no desire
for adding multimedia messages to the few messages they send.
Table 4. MMS for three generations 2003-2007 (%).
1980s generation 1950s generation 1930s generation
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Never 91 62 59 43 33 94 91 90 79 66 99 100 98 98 94
At least once a
month 4 21 27 31 52 3 6 8 17 25 1 0 2 1 6
One or several
times a week 6 14 10 20 13 1 2 1 3 8 0 0 0 1 0
1-3 times a day 1 1 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
>4 times a day 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number of
responses 200 170 158 130 126 216 211 222 223 195 154 152 146 141 107
Source: SOM surveys 2003-2007
The results have confirmed that the engagement with SMS is highly connected to the youngest
generation, and even more obviously so with MMS. The analysis of gender differences concerning the use
of SMS shows that women use messaging more than men, which is the opposite to the use of voice calls.
These differences were decreasing among the 1980s generation between 2003 and 2005, but has since
increased again. The results convey gendered communication patterns that are prevalent among different
generations, just as for voice calls. Voice call functions are used predominantly by men, and SMS by
women independent of generation.
International Journal of Communication 3 (2009) Mobile Generations: The Role of Mobile Technology 119
Figure 2. SMS at least 4 times/ day among three generations 2003-2007
(mean), divided by sex (%).
Men
Men
Men
Women
Women
Women
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1930s 1950s 1980s
Source: SOM surveys 2003-2007
As we can see from Figure 2 above, the gender patterns are reversed compared with what was
the case with voice calling. If we disregard the oldest generation, as very few in the group send text
messages at all, we can firstly see that the youngest generation is the most active when it comes to
texting, although there are also those among the 1950s generation that do send text messages. For both
these groups, however, we can see the women are more active text messengers than men.
It is very obvious that texting is not very common at all among the oldest generation, but those
who use the text function are women, which makes texting more common among females than males in
all generations.
Generational User Patterns
It has often been stated that youth is the most interesting category when it comes to uses of new
media. This article has confirmed the assumption that the 1980s generation more frequently than other
generations use their mobile phone for interpersonal communication be it through voice calls, texting or
the sending of MMS. To qualify this a bit, however, it needs to be distinguished three different overall
patterns of use.
If we look at voice calls, it is obvious that both the youngest and the middle generation call
substantially more than the oldest generation. And although the 1980s generation does so to a higher
extent than the 1950s generation, the difference is not that big. In order to differentiate we need to
break these figures down by sex, where we can see the distinct differences between generational units. As
this is not our focus here, we refrain from presenting this analysis.
120 Göran Bolin & Oscar Westlund International Journal of Communication 2(2009)
If we then look at texting, again the youngest generation is the most active, but this time, the
gap between the 1980s’ and the 1950s generation is larger. And for the oldest generation, it is even still a
greater gap.
Lastly, if we look at the exchanging of multimedia messages and moving images, this is only
engaged in by the youngest generation to any mentionable extent. We can sum this up in the more
generalised figure for voice calls, text, and multimedia messaging over three generations as in Figure 3
below.
Figure 3. Voice calls, SMS and MMS use for three generations of mobile
phone owners 2003-2007 (%).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Voice calls SMS MMS
1980s
1950s
1930s
Source: SOM surveys 2003-2007
Comment: The figures represent those who engage in the activity at all.
We come to an important conclusion when it comes to voice calling among mobile phone owners.
In 2007, there are no significant differences in the habits among the three generations analysed (although
at the start of the period, one/third of the oldest generation did not use the mobile phone that they
owned). The differences in interpersonal communication patterns are found in comparisons of how other
functions are used, namely SMS (text) and MMS (image). These differences between generations also
seem to persist over time. Although more mobile phone owners from the older generations have become
acquainted with technological possibilities such as SMS and MMS over the years, the younger generations
have been far more eager to adopt. In conclusion, the communicative patterns among the three
generations vary by the extent to which they use different functions. Table 5 illustrates that the oldest
generation only use one function, while younger generations tend to use more functions.
International Journal of Communication 3 (2009) Mobile Generations: The Role of Mobile Technology 121
Table 5. Generational communication patterns.
1980s 1950s 1930s
Voice x x x
Text x x
Image x
Our conclusion is that we indeed can speak about three separate generations, but how should
these be characterised? Should they be labelled according to the dominant medium in their formative
years in the way that Volkmer and her colleagues have done? Or should we find other characteristics, for
example other defining events that might have been influential during their formative years?
To us, it seems not very wise to argue for the label mobile technology generation, for the very
simple reason that we do not really know if ‘mobile’ will be an intelligible concept in the near future. That
we today speak of the ‘mobile,’ rather than the ‘mobile phone,’ as the device is so much more than a
mobile telephone, is a case in point. With new technological development of powerful mobile devices that
can be used for surfing the Web, accessing e-mails, chat services, news feeds and television and radio
streaming, we are facing a situation where it might be hard to distinguish a mobile (phone) from a laptop
computer. It might, therefore, be better to try to find a less time-bound label, for example, focusing on
the communicative forms and symbolic cues that are favoured by the mobile phone users.
It should be noted that the three different features that separate these generations in this
analysis are connected to three different communicative forms: sound, text, and image. And although
many older people are active in their mobile phone uses, the young ones take advantage of more options
that the mobile technology provides them with. Arguably, this could be connected to the fact that the
1980s generation have grown up with computers, and hence are used to manipulating digital texts and
images. This involves both synchronous and asynchronous communication (whereas the oldest generation
seem to prefer synchronous talk).
Conclusions
We have, in the above, analysed the role of the mobile technology in the shaping of media
generations in Sweden. We are of course aware that the temporal perspective of only five years is
insufficient to draw any general conclusions. However, we believe that the indications that we can find in
the data of consistent generational patterns point us in a certain direction. It is reasonable to conclude
that the youngest generation take advantage of a wider range of communicative cues in their
communication with distant others. And it will indeed be interesting to explore deeper the consequences of
this — for the ways in which these generations relate to the surrounding world, to other individuals, to
technology, etc. However, for such an aim, a more sensitive qualitative methodology needs to be adopted,
along with the continued quantitative analysis.
122 Göran Bolin & Oscar Westlund International Journal of Communication 2(2009)
References
Bolin, G. (2007). ‘Mobiltelefonen som interpersonellt medium och multimedialt sökverktyg’ (The mobile
phone as interpersonal medium and multimedia information tool), pp. 405-414 in S. Holmberg &
L. Weibull (eds): Det nya Sverige (The new Sweden), Göteborg: SOM-Institutet.
Bolin, G. (2008). ‘Mobila generationer i skilda världar’, pp. 435-444 in S. Holmberg & L. Weibull (Eds.):
Skilda världar, Göteborg: SOM-Institutet.
Campbell, S.W. (2007). A Cross-cultural Comparison of Perceptions and Uses of Mobile Phones. New
Media & Society, vol. 9(2): 343-363.
Carlsson, U., & Facht, U. (2007). MedieSverige 2007 (MediaSweden 2007), Göteborg: Nordicom.
Forsman, M., & Bolin, G. (1997). ‘Video’, pp. 331-342 in U. Carlsson & C. Bucht (Eds): MedieSverige 1997
(MediaSweden 1997), Göteborg: Nordicom.
Goggin, G., & Hjorth, L. (2007). Mobile media 2007, Sydney University.
Gumpert, G., & Cathcart, R. (1985). Media Grammars, Generations and Media Gaps. Critical Studies in
Mass Communication, vol 2(1): 23-35.
Guteland, G., Holmberg, I., Hägerstrand, T., Karlqvist, A., & Rundblad, B. (1975/1981). Ett folks biografi.
Befolkning och samhälle i Sverige från historia till framtid (The biography of a people.
Demographics and society in Sweden from historic times until the future), Stockholm:
LiberFörlag/Publica.
Haddon, L. (2004). Information and Communication Technologies in Everyday Life. A Concise Introduction
and Research Guide, Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Hadenius, S., Weibull, L., & Wadbring, I. (2008). Massmedier. Press, radio och tv i den digitala tidsåldern
(Mass media. Press, radio and TV in the digital age), Stockholm: Ekerlids förlag.
Ishi, K. (2006). Implications of Mobility. The Uses of Personal Communication Media in Everyday Life.
Journal of Communication, vol. 56(2): 346-365.
Kivi, A. (2007). Diffusion and Usage of Mobile Browsing in Finland 2005-2006, Paper presented at Mobile
Media, 4th
international CICT conference, DTU, Lyngby, Denmark.
Ling, R. (2004). The Mobile Connection. The Cell Phone’s Impact on Society, Amsterdam: Morgan
Kaufmann.
Lorente, S. (2002). Juventud y teléfonos móviles. Madrid: Instituto de la Juventud, no. 57.
International Journal of Communication 3 (2009) Mobile Generations: The Role of Mobile Technology 123
Mannheim, K. (1928/1952). The Problem of Generations. Karl Mannheim: Essays in the Sociology of
Knowledge, London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.
Ortega y Gasset, J. (1923/1931). The Modern Theme, London: The C.W. Daniel Company.
Pedersen, P.E., & Ling, R. (2002). Mobile end-user service adoption studies: A selective review.
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems. 14. http://ikt.hia.no/perep/publications.htm
Pedroso, S. (2004). Information Technology and Consumption Habits among Young People from Rio de
Janeiro. pp. 131-155 in T. Toivonen & T. Virtanen (eds). From Time to Place: Interpretations from
Sociology, Turku: Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration.
Rogers, M. E. (2003). The Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rusch, G., & Volkmer,I. (2006). Germany. pp. 69-93 in Ingrid Volkmer (ed.) News in Public Memory. An
International Study of Media Memories across Generations, New York: Peter Lang.
Thulin, E., & Vilhelmson, B. (2007). Mobiles Everywhere. Youth, the Mobile Phone, and Changes in
Everyday Practice. Young, vol. 1 5(3): 235-253.
Urry, J. (2006). Travelling Times. European Journal of Communication, vol. 21(3): 357-372.
Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities, Cambridge: Polity.
Volkmer, I. (ed.). (2006a). News in Public Memory. An International Study of Media Memories across
Generations, New York: Peter Lang.
Volkmer, I. (2006b). Globalization, Generational Enthelechies, and the Global Public Space. pp. 251-268 in
Ingrid Volkmer (ed.): News in Public Memory. An International Study of Media Memories across
Generations, New York: Peter Lang.
Westlund, O. (2007). Mobiltelefonanvändning — en forskningsöversikt (Mobile Phone Use – A Research
Overview), JMG report series number 47, Göteborg: University of Göteborg.
Westlund, O. (2008). ‘En mobilt uppkopplad nyhetsgeneration?’ (A mobile and connected news
generation?), pp. 445-456 in S. Holmberg & L. Weibull (eds): Skilda världar (Separated worlds),
Göteborg: SOM-Institute.
Wilska, T. (2003). Mobile Phone Use as Part of Young People’s Consumption Styles. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 26:3, pp. 441-463.
124 Göran Bolin & Oscar Westlund International Journal of Communication 2(2009)
Wilson, J. (2006). 3G to Web 2.0? — Can mobile telephony become an architecture of participation?
Convergence, vol. 12(2): 229-242.