english paper

Running Head: Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 1

Personal Computing Device Obstacles and the Net Generation: The Economic, Physiological, Psychological, and Social Ramifications

Ima Essex Inquiry Based Research Essay

College Writing 2 Kent State University

June 14, 2016

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 2

Outline Hypothesis: We seek to clarify the common obstacles personal computing devices— including smart phones—and the Internet have on the economic, physiological, psychological, and social development during extended adolescence, ages 8-18, in order to keep perspective on (and begin to intelligently deal with) issues the Net Generation faces. I. Internet, Mobile Devices, & the Net Generation Background & History A. History of the Internet B. The Net Generation’s adoption of personal computing II. Personal Computing Adolescent Negatives A. Commercial exploitation B. Physical inactivity C. Escapism and violence D. Anti-social behavior III. Personal Computing Positives A. Resourceful and knowledgeable adolescent shoppers B. Physical preparation for future employment C. Healthy release of negative emotions D. Social networking expertise and support IV. Results & Discussion A. Anti-social dangers do not outweigh job skills B. Parents and sites must help; negatives are in the real world, not just online.

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 3

Personal Computing Device Obstacles and the Net Generation: The Economic, Physiological, Psychological, and Social Ramifications1

Introduction Computer technology influences our material lives and social relationships. Figure 2

in Appendix 1 shows that the Pew Internet Project found that 93% of US adolescents used

the Internet in 2010, 12% more than adults 30-49 and 23% more than adults 50-64 the

same year. Hence, computers and mobile devices, such as smart phones, are used by teens

to connect in more ways than adults do. One reason for this is that we can be in constant

connection with others, synchronously (through texts and calls) and asynchronously (email

and posts), at a relatively inexpensive cost. Their use increases exponentially, and new

media is constantly being added. It is impossible to fathom the ramifications use of this

technology brings, especially on the Net Generation, which has grown up connected.

Everything from education and commerce to politics to dating and correspondence is

touched by growth in this technology. Society is just beginning to come to terms with the

realization that it is approach a precipice. The Net Generation learns, shares, buys, plays,

and interacts in ways that are non-traditional and that threaten the norms of previous

generations. Hence, it becomes necessary to evaluate these new approaches to both learn

from and question that we might weigh future decisions that will have to be made, forgive

the hyperbole, about everything. We need to know if the Net Generation is on track or off,

and how society can best be shaped to facilitate their enrichment and growth. Below, we

will seek to clarify the common obstacles personal computing devices—including smart 1 Note: This paper does not follow all the directions of our paper. It does include all major parts.

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 4

phones—and the Internet have on the economic, physiological, psychological, and social

development during extended adolescence, ages 8-18, in order to keep perspective on (and

begin to intelligently deal with) issues the Net Generation faces.

Internet, Mobile Devices, & the Net Generation Background

The Internet was first conceived to facilitate communication. Computer Scientist

J.C.R. Licklider sketched out ideas for what he called an “Intergalactic Computer Network”

in 1962 (as cited in “Peer-to-Peer,” 2010, para. 3). His ideas were so far sighted that the

Internet as we know it utilizes nearly all of them (“Key Events,” 2007, para. 27). By the late

1950’s, air defense radar systems were first networked together by the US government’s

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). The US military wanted a similar way to

connect different parts of their operations across the country in the event of war, so the

Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO) was formed by the ARPA to figure out

how to achieve this (“Key Events,” 2007, para. 5). They hired Licklider to head the agency

(“Peer-to-Peer,” 2010, para. 14). A team was formed and the project was officially

underway in 1968; by October 29, 1969, a two-node link was established between research

institutes at UCLA and Stanford universities (“”Update,” 2006, para. 5). Later UCSB and the

University of Utah were added as nodes on the network. By November 21, 1969, a

permanent link was established (“Key Events,” 2007, para. 17-18). Sometimes termed

“universal networking,” Licklider’s goal was to allow for general communication between

users, especially researchers (“Peer-to-Peer,” 2010, para. 1). That is one reason why

university researchers widely promoted such a network. It had the potential to allow them

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 5

to quickly share information and work on projects together despite being long distances

apart (Kaitel, 2009, para. 22). ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990, but it had begun to

be phased out as early as 1983 as other networks were added to it to form what we now

call the Internet. Tim Berners-Lee, a British scientist, invented the World Wide Web

(WWW) in 1989, which opened the Internet up to non-technical users. Currently, it is

estimated that one-third of the world’s population—2.1 billion—have used the Internet

(Kaitel, 2009, para. 6). Hence, a lot of communication has been facilitated.

The role of the Internet as a communication tool has increased with the number of

its users, who started out using it for simple bulletin boards, chat rooms, and email to

communicate through, most of which transpired via a DOS prompt. Now, we can carry the

Internet around on our mobile phones and access it via gaming. Expanded adolescents are

high volume users of personal computing devices. In 2011, 51% of teens 12+ years old in

the US used Facebook, 70% used broadband Internet, and 84% used cell phones (Kaitel,

2009, para. 50). 83% of teens in the US use text messaging, 54% text daily, and 54% (aged

13-17) spend 30 or more hours “connected” to media devices per week (Joseph, 2010, para.

3). Teens, as a rule, send/receive an average of 5 times more text messages per day than

adults do (“Update,” 2006, para. 19-20). Expanded adolescents (those aged 8-18) average 1

hour and 29 minutes on a computer daily; kids 11-14 and 15-18 on average text 1 hour 13

minutes and 1 hour 51 minutes respectively (Joseph, 2012, para. 6). Adolescents of the Net

Generation, then, are out-pacing adults in cell phone use, and a more than healthy number

of them frequently use the Internet.

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 6

The Negatives of Personal Computing Devices

Commercial exploitation has been one obvious result of adolescent use of personal

commuting technology. A critical examination of the buddy and friends lists, especially of

children, illustrate the situation. The article “Peer-to-Peer and Society” (2010) reveals how

children on the Internet frequently include media personalities in their profiles and often

make allusions to the characters in contexts that have nothing to do with the movies, games,

or cartoons the characters appear in. A “significant” number of children treat purely

commercial characters—like real people as cited in “Peer-to-Peer,” 2010, para. 17-23).

Locus Group researcher John Pierce, during a 2009 interview, commented, “Characters like

Hello Kitty, the Little Mermaid, and other licensed commercial characters are exploiting our

children. “Child Economics and the Internet” tells us that these characters are placed on junk

food products, clothing, and television commercials to exploit children who are not yet of

an age to be sufficiently media literate” (as cited in Cater, 2008, para. 12). In other words,

these children are old enough to want to buy but too young to understand how they are

being manipulated. What we are seeing, then, is that younger and younger children are

susceptible to advertising using these media characters. When questioned, it is clear that

many of their commercial selections are made solely on the characters that the goods have

printed on them (Carter, 2008, para. 20). Ben Johanson, quoted in “Peer-to-Peer and

Society,” has tracked this commercial bias through a child’s early teens. Children assume

this habit early, and they take awhile to grow out of it (as cited in “Peer-to-Peer,” 2010,

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 7

para. 25). As we are currently in the throes of the first generation to be connected from

birth, long-term study data cannot be gathered yet. There is no way determine the extent of

the influence this style over substance commercialism will have on children as they grow

into adults. It is just too early to know.

Technology strikes at the physical development of children as well as at their

economics. Per day, adolescents text an average of an hour and a half, use the Internet for

at least one hour, and watch TV for 3.25 hours (“Update,” 2006, para. 7). Adolescents, then,

are spending a lot of time immobile. Add to this time an average of 8 hours of sleep and at

least 6 hours sitting in school, and that gives adolescents a total of 17 out of 24 hours per

day in a relatively stationary position. It is no wonder childhood obesity is at an all-time

high (Joseph, 2010, para. 5). Many online activities that technology allows children to

undertake can be exhausting. They require periods of intense concentration: chatting with

multiple friends (online or via phone) for extended periods, intricate Massive Multiplayer

Online Game (MMOG) activities (needing rapid hand-eye coordination and strategy), the

generation of and responding to emotionally rich Facebook posts, etc. can be a way to build

social relationship, but they, despite being sedentary activities, are drains upon one’s

strength and energy. Hence, after sitting stationary for hours on end, adolescents will be

tired, paradoxically, from not moving (Joseph, 2010, para. 11). Still, after resting, teens are

drawn back to the Internet because it is a sensory rush, an antidote to the white noise of

life. This has led psychologist Edna Means of the Streetman Trust to coin the term “I-Hash”

to represent the sensory rush then languidness syndrome the Internet produces in

adolescents (as cited in Joseph, 2012, para. 12). Though Means’s position is extreme,

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 8

between texting and gaming and surfing and posting, adolescents can easily lose

themselves in the technology and waste their time.

Many are worried about the psychological effects on adolescents of the Internet. Is

cyberspace pure fantasy/escapism or a network of soon-to-be violent offenders? How

many hours a day of violent gaming does it take to produce a teen with a criminal mind?

Think of the 2009 case in Tepid, New Mexico, in which a 12 year-old-boy and his friend,

much in the manner of Grand Theft Auto, stole a car and ran over a police office who

surprised and tried to apprehend them while they were stopped at a red light (McMahon,

2010, para. 4-5). Then, there was the 2010 case of a 14-year-old in San Francisco who, after

playing World of Warcraft, attempted to levitate off the roof of his apartment building in

imitation of his avatar from the game, only to fall 15 stories to his death (Kaitel, 2009, para.

11). Surely not every adolescent participates in violent gaming, but research shows that

those who do (about 54% percent of US teens online) game for 3-5 hours on average per

weekday (Rhinemann & Hendricks, 2005, para. 30). On the weekends, many of these teens

participate in marathon gaming sessions, some upwards of 10-12 hours per day (“Key

Events,” 2007, para. 14). Hence, this begs the question if it is possible to hack, stab, shoot,

and/or crash into thing, virtually alive or inanimate, without carrying an inclination for

those actions back into the real world (Joseph, 2010, para. 2)? Edith Means would answer

this with a resounding “No” (as cited in Joseph, 2012, para. 2-3). Her 2007 study found that

though playing video games has not been shown to indisputably cause real-world violence,

it has been found that over 89% of violent youth offenders regularly played violent video

games per day or consistently watched 6-10 violent videos per week (as cited in Joseph,

2010, para. 3). What is more, these teens exhibited video game withdrawal symptoms

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 9

during their first month of incarceration. Certainly this is not a problem that affects every

teen, but it certainly does influence those caught up in the video game culture, which is a

significant number of the Net Generation. 34% of teens aged 12-18 self-identify as regular

players of violent video games (as cited in Joseph, 2010, para. 7). In the survey, “regular”

was characterized as 4 or more times per week, spending at least 1.5 hours per session

engaged in violent gaming activity, such as fighting (whether physically or via the use of

magic spells against an opponent), crashing or breaking into or otherwise striking a cyber

opponent or an object above and beyond a combat situation. Violence was also defined as

stealing from a human, monster, alien, or animal (as cited in Joseph, 2010, para. 9). Most

games, as can be implied, contain at least one form of violence.

Finally, we have the social issues that technology brings into adolescent lives. This

paragraph will focus on the interpersonal relationship issues wherein it has been found

that excessive use of technology inhibits real-life, interpersonal relationships. Online

relationship skills, “Peer-to-Peer and Society” makes clear, are very different from those

skills needed in daily life. Cyberspace allows teens (and adults as well) to assume false

personas. These personas vary in type and consistency. Some are elitist, some are mean,

some are authoritarian, some are virtual snipers (targeting hapless others), and some are

criminal. Rarely, however, do these personas translate into real-life interactions because

the distance and anonymity of the Internet gives some teens license to act without

repercussion. One former e-bully speaking in the article “It’s Not Your Father’s Internet,”

spoke of his shenanigans. He said, “Back then when I was bored, I would go to sites like

Youtube and flame [post nasty comments to get others angry]. Most of the time, I didn’t

even know what I was commenting on. I would just pick something that looked stupid and

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 10

tell them it was stupid, usually commenting about their race or sex in the process” (Kaitel,

2009, para. 22). Joseph (2012) terms these flaming posts “e-graffiti” and hate speech with

one major difference (para. 14). Flamers on the Internet do it without direction and

sometimes without intention since they do not really know who they are intimidating,

other than an image on a video. Hate speech in the form of graffiti in real-life, Joseph tells us,

typically has an agenda because it is tied to “real” people. Internet hate speech often does

not have a real-life target beyond an image on the screen which usually does not change

once it is posted. Because teens are predominantly relating to others from a distance and

sometimes under a pseudonym, these teens are immature in their development of

interpersonal relationships. They typically have underdeveloped interpersonal skills (“Key

Events,” 2007, para. 5). Characteristically, they lack the compromise skills needed to

negotiate with strangers and skills to operate in a social hierarchy in which they most

follow directions from authority figures because, on the Internet, they can operate as lone

wolves (McMahon, 2010, para. 8). And when they do cooperate, it typically is in the act of

committing gaming violence in which they team up like a pack of dogs to kill a fantasy

opponent. Hence, technology impairs child social skills as well as their intellectual

discernment and physical and mental health. All these are scary propositions.

Some Benefits of Personal Computing Devices

The Internet is an economic hub, and like everyone else, adolescents have to learn

how to make prudent economic decisions when shopping there. As a marketplace, the

Internet offers much more than what any single brick and mortar store can. Because of this,

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 11

the Internet simplifies comparison-shopping and offers buyer reviews about products and

services available there. June Williams from Consumer Today has studied teen shopping

behavior on the Internet. It seems that not only do teens comparison shop, but they also

tend to do it more effectively than older users because, growing up around technology, they

are adept at navigating the system (as cited in Cater, 2008, para. 25). Where some older e-

shoppers do not always know (or trust) the shopping resources available to them, younger

users do (“Update,” 2006, para. 4). So though younger users may have a lower economic

literary, research has shown that they more then make up for that deficit by knowing how

to work the system while older users, for example, still are worried about inputting their

credit card information (Cater, 2008, para. 8). Adolescents literally surf circles around

older netizens.

Secondly, there is not doubt that adolescents have been living more and more

immobile lives; some argue, however, that kids are more than making up for the lack of

physical activity by the benefits that technology use brings them. Higher order skills like

the quick analysis and application of knowledge, the synthesis of facts, and certain

psychomotor skills (which often come from gaming) are important benefits the Internet

and mobile communication devices bring adolescents (Kaitel, 2009, para. 3). “Peer-to-Peer

and Society” also suggests that though youth is more sedentary than in past generations,

this sedentary lifestyle is functional, to some degree, because it psychologically prepares

adolescents to work in technology fields, many of which necessitate workers sitting at

desks for long periods at a time (Cater, 2008, para. 16-17). If we are being truthful and have

an eye toward the past, we can see that many jobs in the past have been sedentary or at

least stationary in nature, from production lines to office work. Human history has been full

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 12

of jobs requiring repetitive motion and minimal physical activity. Maybe the Net

Generation of youth will be better prepared to undertake sedentary jobs because they have

grown up with a sedentary life (“Update,” 2006, para. 34). If so, immobility is serving them

well.

Next, try as some might, no one can show a clear correlation between violent video

games/videos and the commission of violence in real life. In fact, violent games and videos

may actually be a benefit to society because they serve as a “relief valve of pentup

aggression” (Rhinemann & Hendricks, 2005, para. 7). In other words, they are a healthy

way to exercise that part of human nature. All the violence, then, takes place in a fantasy

(cyber) world, and youth get it out of their system. They do not have to repress their

instincts, creating the fear it will eventually express itself in real violence against other

human beings who can be hurt in ways cyber-opponents cannot (Rhinemann & Hendricks,

2005, para. 11). Humans, like any animal on the planet, is built with a fight or flight

mechanism (McMahon, 2010, para. 2). When pushed, we either stand our ground and fight

or run for safety. Video games allows kids to exercise those flight or fight demons without

hurting themselves or others in the process. “Peer-to-Peer and Society” (2010), for one,

thinks it is an effective way for adolescents to get the fight or flight choices under control

and for adolescent to learn their limits and values in a safe way (para. 44). That way, when

it comes time to fight or run in real life, adolescents will have experience via gaming to

make those choices based on knowledge of themselves, not just raw instinct.

Finally, adolescents use technology to communicate; it is illogical to suggest that

technology inhibits their socialization. That is the primary purpose adolescents have

adopted technology for (Joseph, 2010, para. 7). They text, call, instant message, and email

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 13

each other. (See Figure 1 in Appendix 1 for a breakdown of how teens communicated

during the 2007-2008 school year.) They work in groups to achieve tasks in MMOG’s. They

photograph and film their life and their thoughts and post them on youtube and similar

sites. They do all these things much more than adults, and adolescents are adopting them

more quickly than adults (“Update,” 2006, para. 5). Technology, then, is a bridge to

communication and socialization for teens, not a precipice. The negative technological

interactions that people point to are examples of bullying. Though 25% of eighth graders in

2004 reported getting bullied via email or instant message (See Figure 3 in Appendix 1),

bullying takes takes place online and off. Technology has not really made bullying worse, it

just opens up bullying to what might be called non-traditional bullies (McMahon, 2010,

para. 10). These non-traditional bullies do not need mobs to play to/back their aggression,

and they do not have to be physically strong. These new bullies just need to have a kind of

technological strength, to be technologically adept to understand the relationship dynamics

of the medium they exploit (McMahon, 2010, para. 15). But opposite of what many believe,

the nature of the Internet allows others to stand up for the victims of bullies (Kaitel, 2009,

para. 1). These champions can do so as anonymously as the bully on the attack (McMahon,

2010, para. 50). What this does is helps to encourage support of the victims in ways that

real-time bullying might not allow for because, in the real world, someone who stands up

against a bully risks physical reprisal, which cannot happen in cyberspace. In most cases

the worst that can occur is a vitriolic response post, which sites like Youtube, have

discovered ways to block if enough users “Vote Down” them (“Key Events,” 2007, para. 33).

Hence, technology, again, offsets as many issues as some would accuse it of creating and

adolescents continue to benefit from it despite false criticisms.

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 14

Results

Despite our original hypothesis that technology harms adolescents economically,

physiologically, psychologically, and socially, it seems that many of our suppositions were

only partially accurate. To be sure, there are potential issues when mixing technology and

adolescents. Kaitel (2009) tells us that adolescents, in general, have a low level of economic

literacy (para. 4). They are more impressionable and may make purchases on whims,

rather than reason. Contemporary technological devices allow teens to live sedentary lives.

Technology can also allow teens to be express anti-social behavior, such as bullying and

flaming. For every negative aspect, there are one or more positive aspects of technology.

Adolescents, being raised on the Internet, know how to shop there and build relationships

there (Joseph, 2012, para. 7). The Internet allows for teen expression. Though bullies are

ever-present, the distance and anonymity that allows bullies to function online can also

empower adolescents to express themselves. Instead of getting physically attacked as

might happen in real life, teens can post in relative safety and be free from physical harm

(Cater, 2008, para. 22). This does not address every bully-related issue, but it is a benefit of

the Internet. Maybe as important as all of the above, using technology and mobile devices

gives adolescents skills and facility that they can use in future careers.

Most of the drawbacks of technology are things that take place as much offline as on.

Commercialism, bullying, laziness, violence, and lack of socialization all would happen even

if cell phones and computers did not exist. The most technology does is give inroads for a

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 15

few extra bullies who, for whatever reason, can only torment others online, not off (Joseph,

2010, para. 5). It can be said then that much of the negative impact of technology can be

mitigated if parents and educators take the time to teach adolescents a few simple rules

about money (“Peer-to-Peer,” 2010, para. 21). Also, adolescents should be spending their

own money online, not their parents. That way, if the transaction or the product is bad,

they feel it directly. Finally, online sites can be programmed to help reduce bullying and

negative posts by tools like flagging, “like,” and “vote down” options which allow sincere

users of sites to support each other in the face of a bully’s attack (McMahon, 2010, para. 17).

Hence, victims can fight back.

Conclusion

In the end, we cannot be quick to defame technology. We just have to be smart in

using it and in helping our adolescents to use it. It is not possible to make a blanket

statement about technology. The best thing we can do, for the sake of our adolescents, is to

see technology as a complex system which has a lot to offer. Then, we must educate

ourselves about it so that, in turn, we can educate our kids. Kids are our future. As humans,

we cannot live without the Internet. If we want a better future, we need to educate our kids

to take full advantage of their future and learn how to avoid the pitfalls of it. Technology

can help or hurt our culture, so help our kids help themselves.

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 16

References2

Cater, P. J. (2008). The economics of teens on the Internet. New Journal, 8(4), 33-87. Retrieved

from http://www.sirs.researcher/teenneteconomics/webweb.html.

Joseph, M. (2010). Hang up and starting doing pushups. Mobile Journal, 25(5), 334. Retrieved

from http:www.ebscohost.com/mj/articles/445.html.

Joseph, M. (2012). Getting Smart on the Smart Phone. Our Children Today, 2(20), 12-22.

Retrieved from http://jameswright.com/smart time.htmlarticles/.

Kaitel, P. (2009). It’s not your father’s internet. Tech Digest, 40(3), 23-30. Retrieved from

http://techdigest.com/manual.html.

Key events in the history of the internet. (2007). Tech Digest, 35.2. Retrieved from

http://techdigest.com/historyinternet.html.

McMahon, S. (2010, June 6). Bullying: Who, Why, and Where? New York Times, pp. E7.

Peer-to-peer and society. (2010). Computers and Contemporary Thought, 4(29), 13.

Rhinemann, C. & Hendricks, M. (2005). The limited relevance of I-distraction. Journal of

Mobile Computing 3.2. Retrieved from http://www.someaddress.com/fullurl.html.

Update: teens online. (2006). Tech Digest 30, pp. 33, N8. Retrieved from Retrieved from

http://www.someaddress.com/fullurl.html.

2 This paper uses a different number of sources than is required for our paper.

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 17

Appendix

Charts & Tables About Extended Adolescence and the Internet

Figure 1: US Teen’s Daily Social Activities Average (2007-2008 School Year).

Source: Lenhart (2009). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/02/28/teens-social-

media-technology-2009/.

Figure 2: Pew's Percent of Teens by Age Who Use the Internet Daily.

Source: Kimball (2010). Retrieved from http://www.blognow.com/teensonnet/.

Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 18

Figure 3: Adolescents by Grade Level Receiving Negative Messages.

Source: i-SAFE Survey (2004). Retrieved from http://www.isafe.org/outreach/media/ media_cyber bullying.