Terhi-Anna Wilska

Mobile Phone Use as Part of Young

People’s Consumption Styles

ABSTRACT. The paper reports on an empirical study of the connection between

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

YOUNG PEOPLE AS CONSUMERS IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY

The consumption and lifestyles of young people have always been less
characterized by the “traditional” collection of material objects than
is the case for older age groups (e.g., Wilska, 2002a). Hedonism,
visibility, and open-mindedness have also been regarded as typical
of the consumption of young people. The consumption styles of young
people represent everything that theorists argue to be typical of today’s
“postmodern” lifestyles and consumption. Apart from everyday life
having become “aestheticized” (Featherstone, 1991), consumption is
regarded as much more than purchases of products and services.
Instead, consumption is to a greater degree seen as a means of self-
expression, individual identity-formation, creativity, or even art (e.g.,
du Gay, 1996; Gabriel & Lang, 1996; Giddens, 1991). Unpredictability
and the blurring of traditional styles are typical of both postmodern
consumption and new technology. Moreover, the portrait of a post-
modern consumer also includes eternal youthfulness or at least the
pursuit of it. More and more, the lifestyles and consumption patterns
of young people determine the consumption trends of the whole

Journal of Consumer Policy 26: 441–463, 2003.

 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
442 Terhi-Anna Wilska

population. Similarly, the time spent at work or studying is expected

to contain more and more play, entertainment, and adventures (du Gay,
1996; Langman, 1992; Mäenpää, 2003).
The digital media shows and the cyber-worlds of the new tech-
nology respond perfectly to the need for play and entertainment.
However, these media spectacles have been criticized for their alleged
adverse effects on young people, such as isolation and false con-
sciousness caused by the virtual world. Also the use of the mobile
phone has caused public worry. The combination of private telecom-
munication and the hanging around in public places has become a new,
appealing way of keeping up social networks for young people
(Gillard, Wale, & Bow, 1996, p. 149; Mäenpää, 2001, p. 122). This
has reduced the possibility for parents to control their communication.
Due to the youngsters’ personal mobile phones, parents do not
necessarily know the friends of their children any more. Also the
use of other ICT products is more “private” than before. Young people
often use their computers in their own rooms, in which they also watch
their own TVs and videos (Coogan & Kangas, 2001; Suoranta &
Lehtimäki, 2003; Wilska, 2002a).
However, there are also more optimistic views about the effects
of the information technology on children (e.g., Rushkoff, 1996;
Tapscott, 1998; Turkle, 1996). According to Tapscott (pp. 7–9), the
new “Net-Generation” matures earlier and is more knowledgeable than
any of the previous generations. The differences between genders in
the use of the new technology are often reported to decrease, since
women and girls spend as much time on ICT as men and boys do.
Furthermore, women use more Internet in their work (Nurmela, 2001;
Nurmela, Heinonen, Ollila, & Virtanen, 2000). However, there is a
lot of divergent evidence on this. According to several studies, the
traditional gender roles still persist and many more women/girls than
men/boys are afraid of ICT (e.g., Kangas, 2002; Oksman, 1999;
Suoninen, 2003; Turkle, 1988; Wilska, 2002a).
As a result of growing influence of the “Net-Generation,” the
impact of youth and young people has increased not only in the
manifestation of consumption styles but also as in the production of
them. According to some theories, when moving from childhood to
adulthood, most rites of passage are for sale in the marketplace. One
can even argue that the actual significance of youth as a stage in life
lies in the ability to act as an independent consumer on the market
(Griffin, 1997; Miles, 2000, p. 106). Today young people reach this
Mobile Phone Use of Young People 443

stage earlier than before, and the discovery of one’s “own style”
becomes important at a very early age. Thus, the pressures for keeping
up with the “legitimate” styles have never been as strong as they are
now. According to Klein (1999) and Quart (2003), the logos and
brands of products have become ever more important for young con-
sumers. However, Finland is still behind the United States and Western
Europe in terms of the development of consumerism and the consumer
society (Wilska, 1999, p. 194). As consumers, Finnish young people
clearly are different from their parents as consumers, but consumption
and brands do not yet fill their lives to the same extent as is the case
in countries with more established consumer cultures, such as Great
Britain or the United States.
According to the Finnish Youth Barometer, to be “trendy” was
the most important purchase criterion for only two per cent of young
respondents aged 18–30. The most important criteria were quality,
price, and sustainability. Moreover, 80 per cent of the respondents
thought that when choosing products, they were unaffected by the
opinions of their peers (Youth Barometer, 2001, publ. 2002). A recent
commercial study also indicates that young people do not have very
affectionate relationships to brands (Norrena, 2002). However, it is
obvious that Finnish young people have many different consump-
tion styles.

FINLAND: A PIONEER IN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGY

The empirical study to be reported here explores the connection

between young people’s mobile phone use and their consumption
styles. In Finland, mobile communication, as well as other informa-
tion and communication technologies (ICT), is undoubtedly a very
important part of the everyday life of young people. ICT has greatly
affected the lives of all Finnish people during the past decade.
According to Manuel Castells, Finland is the first “real” information
society in the world (Castells, 2000, p. 72). This argument may be
exaggerated, yet the shift from a country struggling with deep
economic depression in the early 1990s, to a country pioneering in
information and communication technology, has been very rapid
indeed.
Finland is probably not the leading country in the world for all
444 Terhi-Anna Wilska

diffusion of ICT products. In the European Union, Finland is in fifth

place as regards the number of Internet connections, and the whole
of EU is still behind the United States (Kuure, 2003, p. 16). However,
in terms of the diffusion of mobile phones, Finland is number one
in the world, and this particularly among young people. In 2002, about
92 per cent of Finnish households owned at least one mobile phone.
Most households had, in 2001, as many mobile phones as there
were members of household over the age of ten (Kuure, 2003,
p. 14; Statistics Finland, 2001). As to usage, according to the
Eurobarometers, 93 per cent of Finnish young people aged 15–24 used
a mobile phone regularly in 2001. In Sweden, the percentage was
90 but in most other EU countries it was around 80 (Kuure, 2003,
p. 19).
As in most other industrialized countries, young people in Finland
adopted the mobile phone earlier than the rest of the population.
Already in 1994, 30 per cent of young people aged 16–24 had a mobile
phone at their disposal. Within five years, the percentage tripled and
it was almost 90 in 1998 (Statistics Finland, 1994, 1998). Since then,
the number of mobile phone users has grown steadily and includes
ever younger age groups. In 2001, over a third of Finnish children
aged 7–10 had their own mobile phones and about 70 per cent of them
were allowed to use one regularly (Suoranta & Lehtimäki, 2003, pp.
33–34).
Although there is quite a lot of research on the different mobile
phone use cultures of young people and children (e.g., Coogan &
Kangas, 2002; Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2001; Oksman & Rautiainen,
2002) the connection between mobile phone use and other consump-
tion has not been studied empirically. One easily assumes that “all”
young people own a standard Nokia youth model, and that the con-
sumption (apart from certain fancy accessories) focuses mainly on
minimization of the costs, taking advantage of the operators’ special
offers, and on sending SMS messages and making “killer”-calls (one
lets the ring tone beep only once, and then hangs up). What is not
known is whether the use of mobile communication and related tech-
nology fits into some consumption styles better than into others.
Another question is whether mobile technology can create new
consumption cultures. One can also ask how “technological” the
mobile phone is perceived to be by its users. For instance, are there
notable differences between genders in the use of mobile technology?
Mobile Phone Use of Young People 445

These are the main issues on which this article aims to shed
light empirically, using survey data on Finnish young people aged
16–20.

THE EMPIRICAL STUDY: DATA AND METHODS

The data used in this study are derived from the survey “Consumer
Cultures of Young People in the Information Society” which was
carried out in Finnish schools in the spring of 2001 (Autio & Wilska,
2001). The target group of the survey was young people aged 16–20
in upper secondary schools, vocational schools, and other middle-level
educational institutes throughout Finland. Upper secondary schools
included both “ordinary” schools and those that were specialized in
science, technology, and environmental studies. Other educational
institutions in our sample included middle-level business schools,
schools of technology, schools of social services and vocational
schools. The schools were located in cities, small towns, and the coun-
tryside, in both wealthy and deprived areas. The questionnaires were
filled out during school lessons, under supervision. The final sample
size was 637. There were slightly more girls (55%) than boys (45%)
in the sample.
The main themes of the survey questionnaire given to the young
respondents were their consumption and general economic well-being,
their self-perceived consumption styles, use of the mobile phone,
attitudes towards technology and the information society, and attitudes
towards environmental and ethical issues in relation to consumer
choices. The respondents were also asked about the possession and
use of different goods and services, as well as about how they pre-
dicted their futures as consumers.
In this article, I first look into the general structure of the con-
sumption patterns of young people and their self-perceptions as
consumers. Then I scrutinize their use of the mobile phone and finally
focus on the connection between mobile phone use, perceived con-
sumption style, gender, and other possibly significant background
variables.
446 Terhi-Anna Wilska

THE CONSUMPTION STYLES OF YOUNG PEOPLE

Most young people in our sample regarded their economic position

as fairly good. However, more than a third of them thought that
although their families were well off, they themselves were short of
money. The socio-economic positions of the parents of the young
people were related to the young people’s perceptions of their
economic situation, which was to be expected. The offspring of upper
middle-class parents usually evaluated their economic situation more
positively than the children of lower middle-class or worker parents.
However, the upper middle-class youngsters did not necessarily have
more pocket money at their disposal than other young people.
Presumably, upper middle-class parents give money more generously
for specific purposes. Young people from self-employed families had
the most money at their disposal, but they also had larger earnings
from their own work.
The average pocket money received from parents and relatives
was approximately 50 per month. The amount was not quite enough
to finance leisure time spending, which actually required about 62
each month. The gross earnings from their own employment were
about 1700 per year. Most young people were able to put some
money aside. Saving for a specific purpose was reported by slightly
less than half of the respondents. Daily expenditures included clothes,
mobile communication, alcohol, travelling, sweets and soft drinks, and
hobbies and other leisure time activities, such as sports. For most,
parents contributed to leisure time expenditures. Items such as clothing
or beauty care were supported less often than leisure-time related items
such as use of the mobile phone.
In addition to a mobile phone, the young people owned a lot of
other technical devices. The families of the respondents typically
possessed more than one mobile phone, more than one television
set, more than one video tape recorder, and more than one computer.
Over half of the respondents had a TV of their own and over a third
of them had also a personal video tape recorder. One third of the
respondents used their own computers, and almost one fifth used
their own personal internet-connections. According to these results,
the above-mentioned “privatization” of the consumption of technology
seems to be a fact. If over half of the teenagers use their own tele-
vision sets, the nature of family leisure time and communication is
bound to change. The television set is no longer the object around
Mobile Phone Use of Young People 447

which the whole family automatically assembles in the evenings.

According to the study of Coogan and Kangas (2001), both teenagers
and their parents are often so busy that they do not even see each other
properly every evening. The connection is kept up virtually, so that
the mobile phone acts as a kind of “remote control.” According to
Coogan and Kangas, young people welcome the freedom of not being
subjected to direct physical control, and the parents get a clearer
conscience (p. 33).
However, not all young people are interested in spending money
on technology. Several studies show that even in Finland there are lots
of young people, particularly girls, who are not interested in tech-
nology or who are against it for some other reason (e.g., Oksman,
2000; Wilska, 2002a; Youth Barometer, 2000, publ. 2001). Not all
youngsters are even interested in consumption as a whole. Although
young people’s consumption is more impulsive, hedonistic, visible,
and expressive than the consumption of older age groups, recent
studies have found different consumption styles also among young
people. For instance, many Finnish young people have very negative
attitudes towards loan and debt (Koljonen, 2002). Some young people
consciously lead very frugal lives. On the other hand, some desire
luxury and are prone to self-indulgence, regardless of income (Wilska,
2002a, 2002b; Wilska & Eresmaa, 2002). Other current consump-
tion styles of young people include green consumerism, ethically
conscious consumerism, and voluntary simplicity (Autio & Wilska,
2003).
In this survey, respondents were asked to evaluate themselves as
consumers, on a five-point Likert scale, with respect to frugality, trend-
consciousness, impulsiveness, individualism, and environmental
consciousness. As can be seen in Table I, the majority of the respon-
dents placed themselves in the middle categories for most consumption
styles. The means of the values for self-perception on the 1–5 Likert
scale indicate that the respondents were likely to regard themselves
as prudent, thrifty, and environmentally conscious consumers slightly
more often than they were likely to regard themselves as squan-
derers, impulse shoppers, or free-riders. The means of individualism
and trend-consciousness also indicate that the respondents more often
regard themselves as trend-conscious and individualistic than as
laggards and mass consumers. To follow fashion and trends and yet
to regard oneself as an individualistically oriented consumer reflects
the (post-)modern consumer’s classical conflict: There are require-
448 Terhi-Anna Wilska

TABLE I
Self-Perceived Consumption Styles

Mean 1 2 3 4 5

Money slips through 3,18 10 22 22 33 13 I manage to

my fingers save something
Trend-conscious 2,83 05 31 44 05 05 “Laggard”
Impulse shopper 3,13 09 23 26 31 11 Prudent
consumer
Mass consumer 3,50 02 11 37 35 15 Individualist
Environmentally 2,72 04 37 43 13 03 “Free rider”
conscious

ments for individualism on the one hand and pressures of the peer
group on the other (see, e.g., Gronow, 1997). This applies in partic-
ular to young people who are right in the middle of the process of
constructing their consumer identities.
It is not surprising that so many of the respondents regarded them-
selves as slightly more frugal and environmentally conscious than
the average. In general, Finnish people tend to see themselves as
less materialistic than “the others.” In a “Finland 1999” lifestyle
survey, most consumers thought that they spent less than others on
almost everything (Wilska, 2002b, p. 199). This is what Lunt and
Livingstone call cognitive resistance: To consciously distance oneself
from the “heavy spenders” is a coping strategy in a rapidly changing
material culture (Lunt & Livingstone, 1992, pp. 155–156). Although
this kind of resistance is more typical of older consumers, even for
young people the “ideal” consumer is still someone who aims at saving
money and spends frugally (Autio & Wilska, 2003; Wilska, 2002b),
an ideal the old generation wilfully passes on to the new.
However, an interesting finding in the Finland 1999 survey was that
the use of ICT is generally regarded as “legitimate” consumption: It
is something people regard as useful and innovative. Thus, people
“dare” to admit that they spend more money on ICT than they believe
other people do (Wilska, 2002b, pp. 199–200). For instance, the atti-
tudes of parents towards purchasing mobile phones for their offspring
are generally positive, and phones are commonly bought for children
as young as seven years of age. One should note that for the youngest
children, the phone is usually intended as a “lifeline,” even if the
Mobile Phone Use of Young People 449

children themselves see it mainly as a fancy toy (e.g., Suoranta &

Lehtimäki, 2003). For teenagers, a mobile phone is regarded as an
everyday necessity.

YOUNG PEOPLE AS MOBILE PHONE USERS

With many young people, mobile connection is described as a

“lifeline” (Oksman & Rautiainen, 2001). A mobile phone is also a
symbol of belongingness to a group and as a part of one’s identity
(Coogan & Kangas, 2001; Jokinen & Kangas, 2000; Nurmela et al.,
2000). The identity is expressed both by “personalizing” the appliance
itself (through design, size, the colour of covers, ring tones, logos,
screensavers, and other accessories) and by the actual use (such as
timing and placing the phone calls and messages) (Jokinen & Kangas,
2000; Kopomaa, 2000).
A great majority (91%) of the young people in this survey had a
mobile phone at their disposal. However, not everybody owned the
phone they used. About two thirds of the respondents had already
had two or more mobile phones; ten per cent more than three dif-
ferent phones. The length of the period the respondents had used a
mobile phone was approximately two years and six months. The
average phone bill was reported to be about 27, probably an under-
estimate (see Nurmela et al., 2000, p. 17). The size of the phone
bills varied a lot between respondents, though.
As mentioned above, parents usually supported their children’s
use of a mobile phone. A mobile phone was the expenditure category
that parents funded the most (apart from necessities such as food,
housing, and transport). For the majority of the respondents, the
parents paid all (54%) or most (11%) of their mobile phone bills.
However, according to Coogan and Kangas, parents are usually not
just humble settlers of their youngsters’ bills. In many families there
are strict and clear rules for limiting mobile phone bills. Often there
are also specific “debt arrangement programmes,” should the limits
get exceeded (Coogan & Kangas, 2001).
Approximately 16 per cent of the respondents used the account
control service provided by the operators. This control means that after
the phone bill reaches a certain pre-determined level, one can’t make
calls or send text messages any more. In this survey, the use of account
control correlated significantly with some of the self-perceived con-
450 Terhi-Anna Wilska

sumption styles. Respondents who used the account control typically

regarded themselves as heavy spenders, whose money “slips through
their fingers.” Those who did not use the account control more fre-
quently thought that they were thrifty consumers than that they
were heavy spenders (Table II). This indicates both that young people
realize what kind of consumers they are, in this sense, and that
they strive to control their own behaviour. It also suggests that the
use of the mobile phone may be connected to general consumption
styles.
An average young phone user made or received from six to eight
phone calls per day and exchanged the same number of text messages.
Additional functions used most were the alarm, the calendar, and the
calculator (93%) and new logos and ringing tones (79%). Payable
text message services were popular (45%). In general, young people’s
use of the different functions of the mobile phone has become more
versatile, compared to some previous studies (e.g., Nurmela et al.,
2000, p. 16). However, new mobile phones include a vast number
of different functions, and nowadays companies rely heavily on those
new functions in their marketing. The importance of young people
as a target group is usually acknowledged. Nokia, for instance, first
tested new innovations such as the digital camera and MMS among
young customers (Mäenpää, 2003, p. 130).

MOBILE PHONE USE AND CONSUMPTION STYLES

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

TABLE II
Respondents’ Use of the Account Control and Self-Assessed Ability to Save Money
(Per cent)

Money slips I manage

through my to save
fingers something
1 2 3 4 5

Account control users 19 28 23 26 04

Non-users of account control 08 21 22 36 13

Pearson χ2 = 18.742; p < 0.001.

Mobile Phone Use of Young People 451

measured attitudes and everyday practices related to the mobile

phone. A Likert scale from 1 to 5 was used for measuring the attitudes
(1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). The data were then
subjected to a factor analysis. The goals of factor analysis are the sum-
marization of correlations among variables and the reduction of a large
set of variables into a smaller number of factors. Factor analysis
produces several linear combinations of observed variables, and each
linear combination is a factor. The set of factors are extracted from
the correlation matrix and rotated to increase interpretability. It is a
good statistical approach to use in the search for different dimen-
sions within data containing a lot of variables. It carries with it the
dangers of over-interpretation and over-simplification, especially if
used as the sole method, but despite its frailties, factor analysis is
commonly used in lifestyle and consumption style studies (see, e.g.,
Johansson & Miegel, 1992; Katz-Gerro & Shavit, 1998).
In this analysis, principal component extraction was used to
maximize the extracted variance and Varimax rotation to minimize the
complexity of factors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, pp. 610, 615). A
three-factor solution turned out to be the best choice. The three factors
explained about 43 per cent of the total variance (Table III).
In the first factor, attitudes that emphasized the operative use value
of the mobile phone got high loadings. Factor 1 is termed “Addictive
use.” For someone with a high score on the “Addictive use” factor,
talking on the phone and sending and receiving text messages are
important in themselves, even without a specific issue to talk about.
If the phone is not at hand, one feels very uncomfortable. The
“Addictive use” of the phone includes frequent checking for calls
and messages, talking over the phone even in public places, and having
difficulties in paying the phone bills.
Factor 2 is termed “Trendy use.” For someone with a high score
on the “Trendy use” factor, the mobile phone itself is an important
gadget. It has to be new and “posh,” use the latest technology, prefer-
ably be provided with an Internet connection. Moreover, the phone
has to fit into its user’s general image and clothing style. The operator
and the connection type are important: They have to be particularly
trendy.
On the third factor, “Thrifty use,” statements such as: “A basic
phone is good enough” and “Price is the most important issue when
choosing a phone” got high loadings. Advanced technology or new
functions are not important. For someone with a high score on the
452 Terhi-Anna Wilska

TABLE III
Factor Analysis of Mobile Phone Use Styles

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 h2

Addictive Trendy Thrifty
use use use

It’s important for me to receive a

lot of phone calls and text messages 00.694 00.566
I write a lot of text messages 00.679 00.469
I keep checking for possible phone
calls and text messages all the time 00.614 00.418
I often make mobile phone calls
without any particular purpose 00.557 00.320
I feel very uncomfortable, if, for
some reason, my mobile phone
is not with me 00.553 00.375
I often have difficulties in paying
my mobile phone bills 00.549 00.305
I often talk over my phone in public
places (such as buses, trains, cafes). 00.491 00.380
It’s important for me that there is an
Internet connection to my phone 00.719 00.518
It’s important for me that my
mobile phone uses the latest
technology and is “posh” 00.671 –0.409 00.629
It’s important for me that my
phone fits in with my clothing
style and general image 00.619 00.397
I’ll probably use the mobile phone
even more in the future 00.520 00.275
A three year old mobile phone
looks too old-fashioned for me 00.516 00.414
I often change logos and/or ringing tones 00.447 00.443 00.407
Some operators or types of connections
are more “trendy” than others 00.440 00.226
The cheapest phone model is good
enough for me 00.745 00.683
Price is the most important issue when
choosing a phone 00.788 00.623
A mobile phone is necessary only for
connecting people and organizing things 00.493 00.321
Eigenvalue 04.195 01.790 01.342
Explained (%) 24.678 10.531 07.893 43.102

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.835.

Bartlett Test of Sphericity = 1956.160, p < 0.001.
Mobile Phone Use of Young People 453

“Thrifty use” factor, the use of the phone is restricted to the neces-
sary minimum.
By examining the factor scores for each respondent, a crude
estimate of the relative size of the various user groups can be obtained.
In order to reduce the error variance, the factor scores to be investi-
gated here were formed by weighing and summing only the highly
loaded variables for the particular factor (with loadings higher than
0.35) and saved as standardized factor scores to make them compa-
rable for further analyses (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 626).
Then the number of respondents who had their highest factor scores
for that particular factor was counted. One can see in Table IV that
it was most common to have the highest estimated factor score on
the “Thrifty” factor (40% of the respondents). About one third had the
highest score on the “Trendy” factor and about one fourth on the
“Addictive” factor.
However, there could obviously be respondents who had high scores
on more than one factor. It was also likely that some respondents
had low scores on all factors. In order to find more distinctive groups
of respondents, new groups were formed by selecting only those who
had not only their highest score, but at least a value of +0.5 on that
particular factor, as well as a low (less than +0.5) or negative score
on the other factors. Table IV shows that when using this catego-
rization, the size of each group groups diminished by around 15
percentage units. The “Thrifty” group diminished the least, and still
came to include over one fourth of the respondents. The “Trendy” and,
in particular, the “Addictive” user groups shrank relatively more and
were thus more likely to overlap with other groups.
It is obvious that neither the addictive use of the phone nor tech-
nology enthusiasm were the most distinctive features of the mobile

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

Factors % of respondents % of respondents N of valid

with the highest with a high score cases on
score on this factor only on this factor each factor

1. “Addictive use” 26 09 566

2. “Trendy use” 31 15 572
3. “Thrifty use” 40 26 582
454 Terhi-Anna Wilska

use styles of young people. Moreover, many “Addictive” users

were likely to be “Trendy” or “Thrifty” as well. For most young
people, the relationship to the phone seems to be rather instrumental.
However, this may not necessarily be perceived as the ideal phone use
style. Lack of money may restrict the qualities and functions of the
mobile phone, even if one would like to use it more or to buy new
accessories.

Correlates of Styles of Use

An interesting question is whether mobile phone use styles are asso-
ciated with the self-perceived general consumption styles and with the
respondents’ socio-demographic background.
In order to examine this question, a multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was carried out. It is an extension of the analysis of
variance (ANOVA), to be used when there is more than one depen-
dent variable. ANOVA tests whether mean group differences on a
single dependent variable are likely to have occurred by chance.
MANOVA does the same for a combination of two or more depen-
dent variables (Pallant, 2001, p. 219; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001,
p. 322). The dependent variables have to be related in some way, or
there should be some conceptual reason for considering them together
(Pallant, 2001, p. 219). The variables must not be too highly corre-
lated, though. In fact, a better choice is a set of dependent variables
that are only moderately correlated or uncorrelated because they then
each measure a separate aspect of the influence of the independent
variables. On the other hand, if the dependent variables are totally
uncorrelated, the multivariate test is no more powerful than the
univariate and thus the advantage to MANOVA over separate
ANOVAs is small (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 357). The main
advantage of MANOVA over separate ANOVAs for uncorrelated
dependent variables is that the Type 1 error (rejecting the null hypoth-
esis when it is true) is better controlled. Factor scores are often
regarded as useful dependent variables for MANOVA, although they
are almost uncorrelated (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 626).
The standardized factor scores that had been created by using and
weighing in the variables with the highest loadings on each factor were
used as dependent variables.
The results of the multivariate test for the independent variables
(F-values of Wilks’ lambda) are presented in Table V which also
Mobile Phone Use of Young People 455

TABLE V
The Relationship Between Mobile Phone Use Styles, Gender, and Consumer Types
Shown by MANOVA

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Addictive Trendy Thrifty
use use use

B B B
Gender
(Wilks’ lambda F = 22.92***)
Girl 310 00.25 –0.37
Boy 237 00 (a) 00 (a)
0F 09.13** 21.25*** 02.83

Trend-consciousness
(Wilks’ lambda F = 6.58***)
1 Trend-conscious 029 01.06 01.45 –1.06
2 174 00.93 00.97 –0.78
3 241 00.72 00.63 –0.43
4 079 00.42 00.22 –0.19
5 “Laggard” 024 00 (a) 00 (a) 00 (a)
0F 08.45*** 17.94*** 10.26***

Impulsiveness
(Wilks’ lambda F = 3.65***)
1 Impulsive shopper 045 00.61 00.66 –0.80
2 130 00.27 00.19 –0.20
3 152 00.13 00.27 –0.31
4 162 –0.15 –0.02 –0.13
5 Prudent consumer 058 00 (a) 00 (a) 00 (a)
0F 07.01*** 05.03** 05.34***

Environmental consciousness
(Wilks’ lambda F = 1.94*)
1 Environmentally conscious 022 –0.34 00.56
2 202 –0.16 00.61
3 239 –0.02 00.44
4 070 00.10 00.35
5 “Free rider” 014 00 (a) 00 (a)
0F 01.71 02.55* 02.86*

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

100R2 15.6 21.9 15.0

*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

(a) The value is zero, because it is a reference category.
456 Terhi-Anna Wilska

provide univariate F-values for each factor (Corrected model) and

for each independent variable separately.
Among the various independent variables, neither the socio-
economic position of the parents nor the perceived economic situation
turned out to be statistically significant in the multivariate test. In
contrast, distinguishing respondents according to gender and to some
of the consumer typologies – trend-consciousness, impulsiveness,
and environmental consciousness – led to significant differences with
respect to the combination of dependent variables. Interactions
between the independent variables were tested, but were not statisti-
cally significant.
For each independent variable, one group is a control group. All
parameter estimates are expressed as a deviation from the mean value
of this control group (Norušis, 1990, p. 90; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001,
pp. 51, 326). In Table V, the parameter estimates (B) thus indicate how
much the means of the different levels of the independent variables
differ from the reference category (0). The p-value for F indicates
whether these differences are statistically significant. The R2 values
indicate the explanatory power of the independent variables for each
factor.
Table V shows that the “Addictive use” of the mobile phone, which
emphasizes the use value of the phone, is more typical of girls than
boys. Conversely, the “Trendy use,” in which the design and the
technical functions of the physical apparatus is important, is more
typical of boys. For the “Thrifty use” factor gender was not statisti-
cally significant, however. Impulsive and trend-conscious consumption
styles are related to both the “Addictive use” and the “Trendy use”
factors. The “Trendy use” factor is connected to the free-rider attitude,
whereas “Thrifty use” is clearly connected to an environmentally con-
scious consumption style. Being a “laggard” in the adoption of new
trends and fashions is also related to “Thrifty use,” and the same holds
true for a prudent consumption style. Thus, thrifty mobile phone use
has different consumption style covariates than the other mobile phone
uses.

Gender Differences
The results suggest that the use of the mobile phone is not an isolated
part of the lifestyles of young people, but is very clearly linked to
general consumption patterns and lifestyles (see also Oksman &
Mobile Phone Use of Young People 457

Rautiainen, 2001, pp. 24–25). What is particularly interesting is that

one can discern more or less stereotypically gendered mobile phone
use styles. Other analyses based on the same survey data support the
gender division (Autio & Wilska, 2003; Wilska, 2002a). According
to these analyses, the differences between boys and girls are even more
significant for ICT skills in general and for the attitudes towards the
information society than for actual mobile phone use. Low ICT skills
and negative attitudes towards the information society are associated
with both the female gender and an environmental-friendly con-
sumption style. For the males, trend-consciousness. indifference
towards environmental values, and technology enthusiasm are linked
to each other. The effect of gender is very strong (Wilska, 2002b,
pp. 165–168). Three fourths of the boys thought that advanced tech-
nology can solve environmental problems; the corresponding
percentage for the girls was 41. Conversely, over 50 per cent of
the girls thought that technical developments make environmental
problems worse, compared to only a fourth of the boys (Autio &
Wilska, 2003, pp. 11–12).
There are numerous other studies suggesting that there is much
more suspicion towards new technology among girls/women than
among boys/men (e.g., Oksman, 1999, p. 174). In the general popu-
lation, women’s computer skills are clearly less developed than those
of men. Women also use the computers in less creative ways, even
though in most work places women use computers more often than
men do (Nurmela et al., 2000, pp. 23–24). Thus, it looks as if the
traditional hierarchy of the two genders is lurking behind the osten-
tatious equality. Women and girls are “users only,” who, instructed
by men, use the equipment that has been installed by men. Although
a woman may use the computer fluently, she is not expected to
install it or to update the settings of the software (see also Gill & Grint,
1995).
Teenager boys and girls own mobile phones equally often, but the
meaning and the ways of using the phone vary between the genders.
One reason for the greater ICT skills among boys and men in terms
of the ICT products certainly lies in the “playful” nature of both the
digital technology and popular culture in general (Turkle, 1988, 1996).
For children, getting used to computers usually starts with computer
games, in which boys are usually much more interested than girls.
As small children, boys and girls use the computers and play games
almost to the same extent, but the interest of girls tends to fade away
458 Terhi-Anna Wilska

with age. One reason for this may be that the computers used by
girls are usually owned by their brothers, fathers, and boyfriends
(Kangas, 2002, p. 151). According to our survey data, 48 per cent
of the boys had a computer of their own, but only 18 per cent of the
girls. A personal internet connection was held by 28 per cent of the
boys but only 7 per cent of the girls. In another survey, Suoninen
(2003) found almost the same results (p. 57).
Among very young mobile phone users the differences are smaller.
According to Suoranta and Lehtimäki (2003), the use of the various
functions of the mobile phones (such as calling, sending messages,
composing ring tones, playing games, buying logos) is rather similar
for girls and boys aged 7–10 (pp. 34–35). We don’t know how per-
sistent this uniformity is, though. Whether the differences between
genders melt away, or whether girls turn into traditional “female” users
when they reach youth and adulthood, remains to be seen.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

This study examined the consumption styles of young people, the

use of the mobile phone and the connection between them. According
to the survey data, the respondents did not spend much of their own
on consumption, but their parents paid for quite a bit of the leisure
time expenses. The young people were also well equipped with tech-
nical devices. The socio-economic characteristics of their families
affected somewhat the respondents’ perception of their own economic
situation. However, socio-economic background variables had no
effect on the self-perceived consumption styles or on the use of the
mobile phone. Young people acknowledged the consumer types they
represented, and were, of their own free will, prepared to control
their consumption (particularly in terms of the mobile phone). Many
of them regarded themselves as thrifty consumers.
Although the mobile phone is usually regarded as an icon of the
lifestyles of young people, it is not an isolated expenditure category.
According to this study, their relationship to the mobile phone is
consistent with their general consumption styles. “Addictive” use of
the phone is connected to heavy spending, a “trendy” consumption
style, and the female gender. Technology enthusiasm and trend-con-
sciousness is linked to “hard” values, to a “trendy” consumption style,
and the male gender. A frugal mobile phone use, in turn, goes with
Mobile Phone Use of Young People 459

environmentalism and careful consumption in general. The respon-

dents likely to be “addictive” or “trendy” mobile users were clearly
fewer than the group of “thrifty” users. However, the “trendy” and
“addictive” user groups overlapped the other groups more often than
did the “thrifty” group.
The link between consumption styles and the use of ICT products
is obvious, but not tremendously surprising. For some time, there have
been visions about “the consumer of the future,” whose relation to
technology impacts on his/her whole way of life, including work and
consumption. Mika Pantzar categorizes the consumer types of the
digital era according to their relationships to the new technology.
The individual’s relationship to technology can be work-related,
playful, or artistic. Similarly, the consumers of the digital era can be
characterized as workers, hedonists, and artists (Pantzar, 2000, pp.
206–207). Similar images appear in portraits of the post-modern
consumer who is usually characterized as self-expressive, individu-
alist, hedonist, youthful, and creative.
The “traditional” gender division of the styles of mobile phone
use is interesting in the light of recent discussions about the blurring
of borders between genders with regard to ICT. Another interesting
finding is that trendy and impulsive consumption styles (that are
usually regarded as “women’s stuff ”) are connected to technology
enthusiasm, which is usually seen as a “typical male” thing. This
may also reflect young men’s changing relationship to consumption.
In Finland young men aged 18–24 spend slightly more money on
clothes than young women do (Statistics Finland, 2001). Moreover,
in most Anglo-Saxon and European countries there has been a strong
rise of markets for specifically male products, particularly for trendy
clothes, cosmetics, and style magazines with the simultaneous adver-
tising targeting men (Edwards, 2000, p. 135). Thus, it seems as the
new “cool” consumption styles include both “masculine” technology
and “feminine” trend-consciousness.
However, although those “cool” styles do exist among Finnish
young people, they are not very frequent (see also Wilska, 2002b).
It looks as if most young consumers are rather cautious or even
thrifty (or just short of money), and this is also reflected by their rather
instrumental relationship to mobile communication. One must also
bear in mind that mobile phones and other ICT equipments still con-
stitute only a part of the culture and lifestyles of young people,
however important this part may be. Although a whole generation is
460 Terhi-Anna Wilska

nowadays marked with the new N-sign, most of young people’s leisure
time consumption still consists of other things than the use of ICT
products. Despite the rapid growth of ICT-related consumption, for
young people clothes, private vehicles, fast food, alcohol, and leisure
travel are still at least as important ways of expressing lifestyles and
identities.

REFERENCES

Autio, M., & Wilska, T.-A. (2001). Consumer Cultures of Young People in the
Information Society survey. Statistical dataset. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research
Network & Helsinki University.
Autio, M. & Wilska, T.-A (2003). Vihertävät pojat ja vastuuttomat tytöt. Nuorten kulut-
tajien ympäristöasenteet (Green girls and irresponsible boys. Environmental
attitudes of young consumers). With English summary. Nuorisotutkimus, 21(2), pp.
3–18.
Castells, M. (2000). Information technology and global capitalism. In: W. Hutton &
A. Giddens (Eds.), On the edge. Living with global capitalism, pp. 52–74. London:
Jonathan Cape.
Coogan, K., & Kangas, S. (2001). Nuoret ja kommunikaatioakrobatia. 16–18 – vuo-
tiaiden kännykkä – ja internet-kulttuurit (Young people and communication
acrobatics. The mobile phone and Internet cultures of young people aged 16–18).
Helsinki: Elisa Tutkimuskeskus. Raportti 158.
du Gay, P. (1996). Consumption and identity at work. London: Sage.
Edwards, T. (2000). Contradictions of consumption. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer culture & postmodernism. London: Sage.
Gabriel, Y., & Lang, T. (1995). The unmanageable consumer. Contemporary con-
sumption and its fragmentations. London: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity.
Gill, R., & Grint, K. (1995). The gender-technology relation: Contemporary theory
and research. London: Taylor & Francis.
Gillard, P., Wale, K., & Bow, A. (1998). The friendly phone. In: S. Howard (Ed.),
Wired up. Young people and the electronic media, pp. 135–152. London: UCL
Press.
Griffin, C. (1997). Troubled teens: Managing disorders of transition and consump-
tion. Feminist Review, 55, 4–21.
Gronow, J. (1997). The sociology of taste. London: Routledge.
Johansson, T., & Miegel, F. (1992). Do the right thing – Lifestyle and identity in
contemporary youth culture. Malmö: Graphic Systems.
Jokinen, K., & Kangas, S. (2000). Nufix – nuoret ja kommunikaatioakrobatia (Nufix
– Young people and communication acrobatics). Helsinki: Edita.
Kangas, S. (2002). “Mitä sinunlaisesi tyttö tekee tällaisessa paikassa?” Tytöt ja
elektroniset pelit (“What is a girl like you doing in a place like this?” Girls and
electronic games). In: E. Huhtamo & S. Kangas (Eds.), Mariosofia. Elektronisten
pelien kulttuuri, pp. 131–152. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Kasesniemi, E.-L., & Rautiainen, P. (2001) Kännyssä piilevät sanomat (Hidden
messages on the phone). Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Mobile Phone Use of Young People 461

Katz-Gerro, T., & Shavit, Y. (1998). Stratification of leisure and taste: Classes and
Lifestyles in Israel. European Sociological Review, 14, 369–386.
Klein, N. (1999). No logo. Toronto: Knopf Canada.
Koljonen, V. (2002). Nuorten velkaantuminen ja maksuhäiriöt (Young peoples’ indebt-
edness and insolvency). In: Autio, M., Eresmaa, I., Heinonen, V., Koljonen, V.,
Paju, P., & Wilska, T.-A, Pakko riittää – Näkökulmia nuorten kulutukseen
ja maksuhäiriöihin, pp. 12–111. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Network.
Publication 24.
Kopomaa, T. (2000). Kännykkäyhteiskunnan synty (The emergence of the mobile phone
society). Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Kuure, T. (2003). Teknologisoituva nuoruus tilastoina (Technologizing youth in
statistics). With English summary. In: T. Kuure (Ed.) Nuorten elinolot – vuosikirja.
Teknologisoituva nuoruus, pp. 11–27. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Network,
Advisory Council for Youth Affairs (NUORA) and National Research and
Development Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES).
Langman, L. (1992). Neon cages: Shopping for subjectivity. In: R. Shields (Ed.),
Lifestyle shopping: The subject of consumption, pp. 40–82. London: Routledge.
Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1992). Mass consumption and personal identity. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Mäenpää, P. (2001). Mobile communication as a way of urban life. In: J. Gronow &
A. Warde (Eds.) Ordinary consumption, pp. 107–123. London: Routledge.
Mäenpää, P. (2003). Mitä nuoret edellä . . . (What young people first . . .). With English
summary. In: T. Kuure (Ed.) Nuorten elinolot – vuosikirja. Teknologisoituva
nuoruus, pp. 128–131. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Network, Advisory
Council for Youth Affairs (NUORA) and National Research and Development
Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES)
Miles, S. (2000). Youth lifestyles in a changing world. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Norrena, V. (2002). Nuorten tunnesuhde brandeihin (Young people’s affections to
brands). Helsinki: Valores Consulting.
Norušis, M. J.(1990). SPSS advanced statistics user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
Nurmela, J. (2001). Three years of the Information Society. A longitudinal survey of
the use made of modern information and communications technology in Finland.
Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Review 2001/4.
Nurmela, J., Heinonen, R., Ollila, P., & Virtanen, V. (2000). Matkapuhelin ja tietokone
suomalaisen arjessa (Mobile phone and computer in the everyday lives of Finnish
people). Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Katsauksia 2000/2.
Oksman, V. (1999). “Että ei niinku tykkää ollenkaan tietokoneista . . . on vähän
niinku outsider”. Tyttöjen tulkintoja tietotekniikasta (“You don’t like the computers
. . . you are an outsider.” Girls’ interpretations of the information technology).
In: P. Eriksson & M. Vehviläinen (Eds.) Tietoyhteiskunta seisakkeella. Teknologia,
strategia ja paikalliset tulkinnat, pp. 173–186. Jyväskylä: SoPhi.
Oksman, V., & Rautiainen, P. (2001) “Tää on mun elämänkapula”. Matkaviestintä
lasten ja nuorten arjessa (“This is my lifeline.” Mobile communication in the
everyday lives of young people and children). Hyvinvointikatsaus, No. 3, pp. 24–28.
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Pantzar, M. (2000). Tulevaisuuden koti. Arjen tarpeita keksimässä (The future home.
Inventing needs for everyday life). Helsinki: Otava.
Quart, A. (2003). Branded. The buying and selling of teenagers. Cambridge, MA:
Perseus Publishing.
Rushkoff, D. (1996). Playing the future: How kids’ culture can teach us to thrive in
an age of chaos. New York: HarperCollins.
462 Terhi-Anna Wilska

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

Helsinki: Statistics Finland.
Statistics Finland (1998). Household expenditure survey 1998. Statistical dataset.
Helsinki: Statistics Finland.
Statistics Finland (2001). Household expenditure survey 2001. Statistical dataset.
Helsinki: Statistics Finland.
Suoninen, A. (2003). Tietokone taipuu moneksi – mihin sitä käytetään (The computer
is versatile. How do young people use it?). In: T. Kuure (Ed.) Nuorten elinolot –
vuosikirja. Teknologisoituva nuoruus, pp. 56–73. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research
Network, Advisory Council for Youth Affairs (NUORA) and National Research
and Development Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES).
Suoranta, J., & Lehtimäki, H. (2003). Verkostososiaalisuus ja nuoret (Network socia-
bility and young people). In: T. Kuure (Ed.) Nuorten elinolot – vuosikirja.
Teknologisoituva nuoruus, pp. 30–38. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Network,
Advisory Council for Youth Affairs (NUORA) and National Research and
Development Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES).
Suosikki Nuorisotutkimus 2000 (2000). [Suosikki Youth Study 2000] B-Boys & FlyGirls.
The Hit Generation. Helsinki: Suomen Gallup-Media Oy.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital. The rise of the net generation. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Turkle, S. (1988). Computational reticence: Why women fear the intimate machine.
In: C. Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and women’s voices. Keeping in touch, pp.
41–61. London: Routledge.
Turkle, S. (1996). Life on the screen. Identity in the age of the Internet. New York:
Touchstone.
Wilska, T.-A. (1999). Survival with dignity? The consumption of young adults during
economic depression: A comparative study of Finland and Britain, 1990–1994.
Turku: Turku School of Economics and Business Administration. Publications Serie
A-3.
Wilska, T.-A. (2001): Nuorten toimeentulo ja kulutus (Disposable income and
consumption among young people). With English summary. In: T. Kuure
(Ed.), Nuorisotilastovuosikirja 2000. Aikuistumisen pullonkaulat, pp. 52–59.
Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Network, Advisory Council for Youth Affairs
(NUORA) and National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health
(STAKES).
Wilska, T.-A. (2002a): Laiteniilot ja perässähiihtäjät. Nuorten kulutustyylit ja teknolo-
giasuuntautuminen (Enthusiasts and laggards. Young people, consumption styles,
and attitudes towards technology). In: Autio, M., Eresmaa, I., Heinonen, V.,
Koljonen, V., Paju, P., Wilska, T-A, Pakko riittää – Näkökulmia nuorten kulu-
tukseen ja maksuhäiriöihin, pp. 144–175. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research
Network. Publication 24.
Wilska, T.-A (2002b): Me, a consumer? Consumption, identities and lifestyles in
today’s Finland. Acta Sociologica, 45, 195–210.
Wilska, T.-A., & Eresmaa, I. (2002): Nuorten toimeentulon subjektiivinen kokem-
inen – arjen realismia vai tulevaisuuden kuvitelmia? (The subjective well-being
of young people. Realism or dreams?) In: Autio, M., Eresmaa, I., Heinonen, V.,
Koljonen, V., Paju, P., Wilska, T-A, Pakko riittää – Näkökulmia nuorten kulu-
tukseen ja maksuhäiriöihin, pp. 176–203. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research
Network. Publication 24.
Mobile Phone Use of Young People 463

Youth Barometer 2000 (2001). Selvitys 15–29 – vuotiaiden suomalaisten nuorten asen-
teista (Report on the attitudes of Finnish young people aged 15–24). Helsinki:
Advisory Council for Youth Affairs (NUORA). Publication 20.
Youth Barometer 2001 (2002). Selvitys 15–29 – vuotiaiden suomalaisten nuorten asen-
teista (Report on the attitudes of Finnish young people aged 15–24). Helsinki:
Advisory Council for Youth Affairs (NUORA). Publication 21.

THE AUTHOR

Terhi-Anna Wilska is a Research Coordinator in the Finnish Youth Research Network,

Olympiastadion, Eteläkaarre, FIN-00250 Helsinki, Finland. Fax: +358-9-454 4837;
e-mail: twilska@alli.fi.