AMTAPhase1 Final Report v6 11mar08-2

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/303168895
The impact of the mobile phone on work/life balance
Article · January 2007
CITATIONS READS
46 6,922
5 authors, including:
Michael Bittman Paul K. Jones

University of New England (Australia) Australian National University
104 PUBLICATIONS 5,649 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 815 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Lynne Johnstone Judith E. Brown
26 PUBLICATIONS 251 CITATIONS
UNSW Sydney
42 PUBLICATIONS 1,790 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Media Systems and Political Knowledge View project
Critical Theory and Demagogic Populism View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Bittman on 10 October 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Impact of the Mobile Phone on
Work/Life Balance
Phase 1 Final Report
Preliminary draft v.6 – 11 March 2008
RESEARCH TEAM
Professor Judy Wajcman, Australian National University
Professor Michael Bittman, University of New England
Dr Lynne Johnstone, Australian National University
Jude Brown, University of New England
Dr Paul Jones, University of New South Wales
Australian Research Council

Linkage Project
- TABLE OF CONTENTS -
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1

2. RESEARCH AIMS AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 5
3. RESEARCH METHODS .......................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Survey design and sample .................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Profile of the internet-connected households ...................................................................... 9
3.2.1 Representativeness of sample......................................................................................... 9
3.2.2 Number of workers and proportions by occupation ........................................................ 9
3.2.3 Technologies used ....................................................................................................... 10
4. MOBILE PHONES, USE AND SERVICES .......................................................................... 12
4.1 Individual mobile phone use within households................................................................ 12
4.2 Occupation and mobile phone use .................................................................................... 12
4.3 Personal income and mobile phone use ............................................................................ 13
4.4 Mobile phone use by age .................................................................................................. 14
4.5 Money matters ................................................................................................................. 14
4.5.1 Who pays? .................................................................................................................. 14
4.5.2 What does it cost?....................................................................................................... 14
4.6 Purchasing decisions ........................................................................................................ 15
4.6.1 Choice of mobile phone .............................................................................................. 15
4.6.2 Choice of network service provider .............................................................................. 16
4.7 Choice of communication technology............................................................................... 17
4.8 Awareness of mobile broadband ....................................................................................... 17
4.9 Separate mobile phones for home and work ..................................................................... 18
4.10 Time since adoption of mobile phone technology ............................................................. 18
5. ACTUAL USE BASED ON MOBILE PHONE LOG DATA ................................................ 18
5.1 Calls made - Who do they talk to? .................................................................................... 19
5.2 Text messages sent ........................................................................................................... 20
5.3 Frequency of calls ............................................................................................................ 21
5.4 Patterns in time of calls .................................................................................................... 22
6. REPORTED REASONS FOR MOBILE PHONE USE ........................................................ 23
6.1 Perceived reasons for mobile phone use ........................................................................... 23
6.2 Reasons for making calls and sending SMS messages on the mobile phone ...................... 23
6.3 Reasons for „turning off‟ your phone ................................................................................ 24
6.4 Current and expected access to internet services using the mobile phone .......................... 25
6.4.1 Internet services currently accessed by mobile phone .................................................. 25
6.4.2 Perceived future use of mobile phone to access internet services ................................. 25
7. MOBILE PHONE USE FOR WORK .................................................................................... 28
7.1 Regularity of mobile phone use for job ............................................................................. 28
7.2 Perceived use of mobile phone on workdays and non-workdays ....................................... 30
7.2.1 On a typical workday during normal work hours ......................................................... 30
7.2.2 On a typical workday outside normal work hours ........................................................ 31
7.2.3 On a typical non-workday ............................................................................................ 33
7.3 Perceived difficulty in doing job without a mobile phone ................................................. 34
7.4 „May be contacted‟ during holiday ................................................................................... 35
7.5 Impact on workload and productivity ............................................................................... 36
8. WORK-FAMILY ISSUES AND THE MOBILE PHONE .................................................... 36
8.1 Maintaining contact with extended family ........................................................................ 36
8.2 Using the mobile phone to facilitate family/household coordination ................................. 37
8.3 Effect of mobile phone on work and home/family/personal life balance ........................... 37
8.4 Mobile phones, parents and the security of their children ................................................. 38
8.5 Importance of mobile phone in routinely separated couple relationships ........................... 38
9. PERCEIVED COSTS AND BENEFITS OF MOBILE PHONE OWNERSHIP ...................... 39
9.1 Can I live without my mobile phone? ............................................................................... 39
9.2 Increased sense of personal security ................................................................................. 40
9.3 Effect on time pressure ..................................................................................................... 40
9.4 Effect on stress ................................................................................................................. 40
9.5 Effect on quality of leisure ............................................................................................... 40
9.6 The technology I could most live without – TV, internet or mobile phone ........................ 41
10. INTERNET, CONNECTEDNESS, USE AND SERVICES .............................................. 43
10.1 Individual‟s use of internet services accessed via a computer ........................................... 43
10.2 Time since adoption of internet technology ...................................................................... 46
10.3 Frequency of internet use ................................................................................................. 47
10.4 Amount of time spent using the internet for work or study ............................................... 48
10.4.1 Typical workday...................................................................................................... 48
10.4.2 Typical non-workday............................................................................................... 48
10.5 Amount of time spent using the internet for personal interests .......................................... 49
10.5.1 Typical workday...................................................................................................... 49
10.5.2 Typical non-workday............................................................................................... 51
10.6 Can I live without the internet? ......................................................................................... 52
11. WORK-FAMILY ISSUES AND THE INTERNET .......................................................... 54
11.1 Perceived effect of internet on work/life balance .............................................................. 54
11.2 Perceived effect of internet on time spent with family and friends .................................... 56
11.3 Perceived effect of internet on time spent on “other pastimes” .......................................... 57
12. QUALITY OF WORK LIFE ............................................................................................. 59
12.1 Preferred hours of work .................................................................................................... 59
12.2 Flexibility of work starting and finishing times................................................................. 60
12.3 Working “unsociable” hours............................................................................................. 60
12.4 Job security ...................................................................................................................... 61
12.5 Working quickly or to tight deadlines ............................................................................... 62
12.6 Never enough time? ......................................................................................................... 63
12.7 Change in the effort I put into my job compared to three years ago................................... 64
12.7.1 Overall.................................................................................................................... 65
12.7.2 How affected by mobile phone use .......................................................................... 65
12.7.3 How affected by e-mail............................................................................................ 66
12.7.4 How affected by all other internet use ..................................................................... 66
12.8 Work-related stress........................................................................................................... 67
12.8.1 Frequency of work-related stress ............................................................................ 67
12.8.2 Change in levels of work-related stress ................................................................... 67
13. LIFE ISSUES IN HOUSEHOLDS - GENERAL............................................................... 67
13.1 Feeling rushed or pressed for time .................................................................................... 67
13.2 Family success at managing work and family responsibilities ........................................... 69
13.3 Perceived effects of having both work and home/family responsibilities........................... 69
13.3.1 “Makes me a more rounded person”....................................................................... 69
13.3.2 “Gives my life more variety” .................................................................................. 69
13.3.3 “Makes me feel competent” .................................................................................... 69
13.4 Family support ................................................................................................................. 70
13.5 Social support .................................................................................................................. 72
14. WORK-TO-FAMILY SPILLOVER .................................................................................. 74
14.1 Effects of my job on home/family life .............................................................................. 74
14.2 Effects of my partner‟s job on home/family life ................................................................ 74
14.3 Effects of my parent‟s job on home/family life ................................................................. 75
14.4 Effects of the jobs of other adults in household on home/family life ................................. 75
14.5 Missing out on home/family activities because of work responsibilities ............................ 76
14.6 Perceived effect of work responsibilities on quality of home/family time ......................... 77
15. FAMILY-TO-WORK SPILLOVER .................................................................................. 77
15.1 Interference of my family life with my job ....................................................................... 77
15.2 Perceived effect of home/family responsibilities on my work opportunities ...................... 77
15.3 Perceived effect of home/family responsibilities on quality of time spent working ........... 78
- LIST OF TABLES -
Table 1: Comparison of survey sample with ABS population benchmarks ............................................ 9
Table 2: Occupation and handset ownership ....................................................................................... 13
Table 3: Income and handset ownership .............................................................................................. 13
Table 4: Reasons for choosing a communication modality .................................................................. 17
- LIST OF FIGURES –
Figure 1: Occupation by gender .......................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2: Technology use .................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Mobile phone costs per month (by gender) .......................................................................... 15
Figure 4: Factors influencing choice of handset .................................................................................. 16
Figure 5: Factors influencing choice of network service provider ........................................................ 16
Figure 6: Calls made by recipient ........................................................................................................ 19
Figure 7: Moderate to high volume “texting” by occupation on work and non-work days ................... 21
Figure 8: Frequency of calls made ...................................................................................................... 21
Figure 9: Frequency of calls by time of day ........................................................................................ 22
Figure 10: Respondents‟ use of phone functionality ............................................................................ 23
Figure 11: Proportion of people turning off their mobiles in each situation ......................................... 24
Figure 12: Currently accessed internet services ................................................................................... 26
Figure 13: Perceived future use of mobile phone to access internet services ........................................ 27
Figure 14: Frequency of mobile use for job (by gender) ...................................................................... 28
Figure 15: Frequency of mobile use for job (by occupation) ............................................................... 29
Figure 16: Frequency of mobile use for job (by age in years) .............................................................. 29
Figure 17: Job-related mobile calls during normal work hours (by occupation) ................................... 30
Figure 18: Job-related mobile calls outside normal work hours (by gender) ........................................ 32
Figure 19: Non-job-related mobile calls outside work hours on workday (by gender) ......................... 32
Figure 20: Non-job-related mobile calls on non-workday (by gender) ................................................. 33
Figure 21: Comparing average daily job-related mobile call patterns (by gender)................................ 34
Figure 22: Difficulty of doing job without a mobile phone .................................................................. 35
Figure 23: Teenagers staying out late with mobile (by gender) ............................................................ 38
Figure 24: Technology most prepared to give up (by gender) .............................................................. 41
Figure 25: Most prepared to give up TV, Internet and Mobile Phone (by age) ..................................... 42
Figure 26: Technology most prepared to give up (by occupation) ....................................................... 43
Figure 27: Internet services accessed via computer ............................................................................. 44
Figure 28: Years since first internet use (by occupation) ..................................................................... 46
Figure 29: Frequency of internet use (by occupation) .......................................................................... 47
Figure 30: Frequency of internet use (by age) ..................................................................................... 48
Figure 31: Average non-workday internet use for work and/or study (by gender) ................................ 49
Figure 32: Average workday internet use for personal interests (by age) ............................................. 50
Figure 33: Average workday internet use for personal interests (by occupation) ................................. 50
Figure 34: Average non-workday internet use for personal interests (by age) ...................................... 51
Figure 35: Average non-workday internet use for personal interests (by occupation) .......................... 52
Figure 36: How much I‟d miss the internet (by occupation) ................................................................ 53
Figure 37: How much I‟d miss my mobile compared to the internet .................................................... 54
Figure 38: How much the internet has affected work/life balance........................................................ 55
Figure 39: Internet has increased or not changed work/life balance (by occupation) ............................ 55
Figure 40: How much the internet has affected time spent with family/friends (by age) ...................... 56
Figure 41: How much the internet has affected time spent in other pastimes (by gender) .................... 57
Figure 42: How much internet has affected time spent in other pastimes (by occupation) .................... 58
Figure 43: How much internet has affected time spent in other pastimes (by age) ............................... 58
Figure 44: Frequency of individuals working unsociable hours ........................................................... 61
Figure 45: Individual sense of job insecurity (by age) ......................................................................... 62
Figure 46: Frequency of working to tight deadlines ............................................................................ 62
Figure 47: Working 75% or more of the time to tight deadlines (by occupation) ................................. 63
Figure 48: Comparing frequency of working to tight deadlines with time to get job done.................... 64
Figure 49: Effort put into job compared to 3 years ago ........................................................................ 65
Figure 50: Perceived change in work effort resulting from mobile phone ............................................ 65
Figure 51: Comparing perceived changes in work effort compared to 3 years ago ............................... 66
Figure 52: Reasons for feeling always or often rushed or pressed for time (by gender) ........................ 68
Figure 53: Comparing perceived effects of having both work and family responsibilities .................... 70
Figure 54: Satisfaction with quality of family interactions (by factor) ................................................. 71
Figure 55: Family satisfaction based on perceived impact of mobile phone on ability to balance work
and family life ................................................................................................................ 72
Figure 56: Missing out on home/family activities due to work responsibilities .................................... 76
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The AMTA/ARC study is an exciting collaboration to provide an evidence-based
understanding of the social impact of the mobile phone on work/life balance. It is the
first study that is specifically designed to provide nationally representative data on
how mobile phones have become integrated into the everyday lives of Australians.
This innovative project employs a purpose-designed questionnaire, a phone log and a
time-diary. Together, this unique combination produces direct information about how
people use their mobiles to manage and coordinate their lives.
This final report of Phase 1 of our research presents data collected March to
September 2007 from our sample of 2185 individuals, comprising 1905 individuals
from 1435 on-line households and 280 individuals in 280 off-line households.
Key Findings
 Mobile phone use varies with age but it is so universally diffused that use is
unaffected by income levels and occupation. Only 12% of 14 to 17 year olds do
not have a mobile. The lowest number of owners (74%) is found among those
aged over 60 years.
 The majority of users are subscribers and pre-paid use is concentrated among
those under 25 years.
 Convenience of the mobile phone is the reason most frequently given for
choosing to talk on a mobile rather than a landline. Cost is a major reason for
preferring to talk using a landline rather than a mobile.
 There is a very high awareness of 3G (86% of males and 73% of females).
However, 61% of respondents indicate that they do not access internet services
via their mobile phone . The lag in take-up is a topic for further research.
 Logs of actual calls made and SMS texts sent show that the predominant use of
the mobile is for contacting family and friends, with work-related reasons far
less important. Men make more calls for business purposes, while women use
the mobile for social connectivity.
 Typically people spend between $10 and $30 per month using their mobiles.
Occupationally, managers, trades people and production workers have the
highest mobile costs, while 25-29 year olds are the highest spending age group.
 One out of every four workers does not use a mobile phone in the course of
his/her work; 20% of workers do not use e-mail for their jobs, while 22% do not
use the internet.
 Male are almost twice as likely to use their mobiles during normal work hours
for job-related calls than are females, differences that can be largely accounted
Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 -1-

for by the gender distributions of high mobile use occupational groups in our
sample.
 Males are more likely than not to have job-related mobile calls outside of
normal work hours on workdays, while the reverse is true for females. However,
the volume of calls is typically low, with less than 10% overall having four or
more calls.
 Males and females have similar patterns of mobile usage for calls for that
maintain family and social connectivity, both during work hours and outside of
work hours.
 Calls cluster by time of day, according to purpose. Most work-related calls are
made in standard working hours. The rate of calls to family and friends is higher
than work-related calls during working hours and peaks at the end of school
hours and in the evening.
 Asynchronous communication practices, such as turning off your mobile to
avoid being disturbed, are common techniques. Ninety per cent of the
respondents „normally‟ switch off their phone in the cinema, two-thirds switch
off their phone at work meetings, and half turn off their phones in restaurants.
Women are more reluctant than men to take their mobile phone on holiday „to
talk to work colleagues‟.
 A third of workers say that it would be difficult to do their job properly without
their mobile. This is particularly the case for men.
 Four in ten employed respondents think that mobiles increase their workload, for
55% the effect is neutral, and a few (5%) think mobiles reduce their workload.
This is offset by productivity gains.
 Time pressure of work is „the norm‟, with 71% of workers working to tight
deadlines at least half the time and almost half of these workers also reported
that they never have enough time to get everything done in their job. Despite
these work pressures the majority of workers feel that neither the mobile phone,
the internet, nor e-mail has contributed much to changing the effort they put into
their jobs. Among those who feel that these technologies have contributed to an
increase in work effort, the internet and/or e-mail are more likely to be the
source of that increase than the mobile phone.
 Over two-thirds of the respondents report that the mobile phone is an important
medium for maintaining kinship ties, especially for women. It is very well suited
to maintaining intimate relationships at a geographical distance.
 Conveying information about „timing of the arrival at home‟ and „arranging to
meet with other family members‟ are the major uses of the mobile phone for
micro-coordination.

 More than half of the employed respondents believe that the mobile helps their
work-life balance. Very few report that the mobile phone has a negative impact
on it. More than half of mobile-owning workers who have high levels of
satisfaction with their family interactions regard the mobile as having increased
their ability to find work/life balance.
 The mobile phone is an indispensable part of the everyday life of Australians.
About nine in ten people report that their lives could not „proceed as normal‟ if
they were suddenly without their mobile phone.
 Carrying a mobile phone makes most people (75%) feel more secure.
 When asked about the impact of the mobile phone on their sense of time
pressure, 34% report that the mobile reduces time pressure, while 25% reported
that it didn‟t reduce their sense of time pressure.
 Most people (61%) find that the mobile phone does not affect their level of
stress. Of those who report that it has some impact, three out of four say that it
reduces their stress level.
 Contrary to fears about the intrusive character of the mobile phone on leisure,
few respondents (5%) report that the mobile reduces the quality of their leisure
time.
 Telephones, both mobile (90%) and landline (87%) are owned by more people
than any other information and communication technology.
 People aged 60 years or more are most likely to have a landline phone at home
(96%) and the least likely to have adopted wireless broadband (3%). The reverse
is true for people less than 25 years who are least likely to use a landline phone
at home (88%), and 25-29 year olds who have the highest adoption of wireless
broadband (20%).
 About 26% of people send four or more text messages on workdays, but it
increases to 35% among females and 33% among males on non-work days.
Young people aged 14-17 years are the highest volume “texters” with 39%
sending more than 12 messages per non-workday. This drops sharply to 14%
among 18-24 year olds, and declines progressively in older age groups.
 Overall, both males and females say that they would be more willing to give up
their mobile phone(s) than television or the internet. However, people aged
under 30 years will give up TV before their mobiles.
 E-mail is the most used non-work-related internet service accessed by computer.
 Two-thirds of people in internet-connected households engage in internet
banking, while around 50% access weather information, engage in shopping,
organizing travel, and access location services using an internet-connected
computer. Despite the accessibility of internet services from locations other than
home, and via wireless mobile, the number of people, overall, who access these

services is substantially lower than that of people in internet-connected
households.
 Among the 49% of workers who feel that the internet has changed their ability
to balance their work and home lives, more than four out of five feel it has
increased their ability to find work/life balance.
 Two-thirds of individuals, females more than males, believe that the internet has
not changed the amount of time they spend with family and friends.
 Similar proportions (14%) of people feel that the internet has increased their
time for both „other pastimes‟ and family and friends, but more feel that it has
decreased their time spent in „other pastimes‟ (34%) than feel it had eroded time
spent with family and friends (21%). This suggests that, in time-stretched lives
in which using the internet has quickly become „the norm‟, more people are
willing to forego other pastimes than time with family/friends.

2. RESEARCH AIMS AND BACKGROUND
No other device has been diffused as rapidly as the mobile phone, but its social impact
is unknown. This project aims to provide a sound empirical research base for
assessing the impact of the mobile phone on work/life balance. In particular, it
examines the ways in which the mobile phone affords perpetual social contact.
The project is based on collaboration between university-based researchers and the

peak organization of mobile phone service providers, the Australian Mobile
Telecommunication Association (AMTA), under the umbrella of the Australian
Research Council Linkage grant scheme. AMTA‟s mission is „to promote an
environmentally, socially and economically responsible and successful mobile
telecommunications industry in Australia‟. The collaboration follows a workshop held
in May 2004, jointly sponsored by AMTA and the Academy of the Social Sciences in
Australia.
The invention and diffusion of information and communication technologies are said
to be revolutionising work and family life. Wireless mobile devices increase the scope
for work and family flexibility by enabling the micro-coordination of time, tasks, and
schedules. This is particularly significant as people are now working at times and
places outside of the traditional workday and place. It is widely believed that
technologies like the mobile phone and e-mail are blurring boundaries between
personal life and the workplace. While for some commentators these developments
represent a threat to the quality of modern life, for others they represent new
opportunities for integrating the spheres of work and family.
To date, social research on the mobile phone and other contemporary mobile
communication technologies has been limited and has yet to be consolidated into a
body of evidence about its social impact. Worldwide there are now over 1.7 billion
mobile phones, even more than fixed line phones. The overseas research focus up to
now, however, has largely been on the internet and little research of any kind into
digital technologies has been done in Australia. This project will, for the first time in
Australia, empirically examine the social impact of mobile technologies at work and
at home. It will therefore fill a significant gap in the evidence base for the
development of industry and social policy. A more informed understanding of the
conditions that have been conducive to this highly successful industry depends upon

high quality research on how Australians benefit from owning mobile technologies.
The research findings have the potential to influence the type and range of wireless
services that will best serve Australians in the future.
The effects of technological innovation are often less than straightforward. If there
was ever a clear illustration of the inherent unpredictability of technological change, it
is the history of the fixed line telephone. The early phone, like the mobile, was
designed for business and professional purposes. The major use of the landline by
women as a tool for maintaining social ties was unanticipated, as was the heavy use of
mobiles by adolescents exchanging SMS text as well audio messages. In both cases, it
was consumers rather than designers who discovered what was to become the typical
pattern of use. Like other technologies, the mobile phone is flexible and contains
contradictory possibilities. The future impact of the mobile phone on how Australians
balance their work and home lives is thus unknown and ripe for empirical
investigation. The team of researchers brought together for this project combine
leading-edge expertise in the social aspects of information and communication
technologies, the study of time-use, and communications policy.
This report is based on data from our sample of 2185 individuals, made up of 1905
individuals from on-line households and 280 individuals from households that are not
internet connected, who completed the Phase 1 survey comprising a questionnaire, a
mobile phone log, and a „light time diary‟.
Phase 2 of the study began in late 2007 and, as new data become available, there will
be further communications of relevant findings.
After explaining the methods used in the survey and assessing its representativeness,
the report proceeds with a preliminary analysis of a number of relevant topics. We
believe that our project will provide, for the first time, hard data on mobile phone use
in the Australian context that will be of interest both to the industry and to those
studying the social impact of technological innovation. It begins with an examination
of the pattern of, and influences on ownership and service use, the choice of modality
of communication, awareness of 3G capabilities, and take-up of 3G services. The
report continues by presenting some preliminary analysis of the unique data on actual
phone use, retrieved from respondents‟ own handsets. We then present an analysis of

respondents‟ perceptions of their patterns of mobile phone use and preliminary data
on the importance of mobile phones in the workplace and for managing their personal
lives (including work/family balance). This is followed by our exploration of how
respondents feel about the relative balance of the social costs and benefits of mobile
phone technology. The report shifts focus to internet connectedness, internet services
used, and time spent using the internet on workdays and non-workdays for work/study
and other pastimes. In so doing we explore the social impact of the internet in the
domains of work/life balance and time spent with family and friends and in other
pastimes. The final four sections of the report present some background on the work
and private life experiences of our respondents, the emphasis being on family and
social support, work-to-family spillover, and home-to-work spillover. In so doing we
explore their views about the impact of mobile phone, e-mail and the internet on
various dimensions of their work and private lives.
3. RESEARCH METHODS
The research project has two phases:
Phase 1 – A sample survey of all Australian adults living in private dwellings.
Phase 2 – A study of the use of mobiles in work settings.
This report deals with the analysis of Phase 1 data.
3.1 Survey design and sample

Seventy-five per cent of the Phase 1 sample was recruited from the „Your Voice‟ on-
line panel maintained by ACNielsen. This panel is recruited using off-line methods
(gathering respondents from other face-to-face and telephone surveys conducted by
the ACNielsen). The characteristics of the panel match those of the total Australian
population which is on-line. At the time of determining our sample size the most up-
to-date ABS data indicated that in 2005-06, 60% of Australian households had home
internet access. The advent of broadband was expected to increase the proportion of
on-line households to closer to 75% but, after opting for a 75:25 on-line:off-line
household sample, the release of the 2006 Australian census data revealed that only
63% of Australian dwellings have access to the internet.
The on-line sample was collected from March to May 2007, and the off-line sample
was collected during June to September 2007. Both samples comprise all available

individuals in households aged 15 years and older. On-line panellists (and additional
household members) were invited via email to complete the survey on-line, while off-
line panelists (and additional household members) were recruited using a telephone
call to first establish that the panellist‟s household was not internet connected.
Households were compensated for their time with financial incentives.
Households completing the survey on-line were given a period of one week to
complete the survey. It is difficult to calculate conventional response rates for internet
surveys. Of the 3,469 households contacted by email, 19% of households started the
survey but failed to complete it while 51% completed the survey. This gave a total
sample of 1905 individuals from 1435 households.
Households completing the survey off-line were mailed hardcopies of the survey in
sufficient numbers for all available adults, and were asked to return the completed and
return the survey to ACNielsen within 4 weeks. A total of 280 individuals from off-
line households participated constituted 13% of our sample.
The survey consists of three components - a questionnaire, a phone log and a light
time diary. The questionnaire asked respondents about the following areas: ownership
and use of mobile phones; the perceived impact of mobile phone use on work and life
balance (including measures of the quality of life); perceived effects on work and
work/family spillover; effects on social support networks; and the phone‟s role in
coordination and control.
The mobile phone log asked respondents to give details about their ten most recent
phone calls and text messages, both those that they made and those they received.
Information was collected on whom the call/text message was to or from (for
example, spouse, work colleague, service provider), the gender of the caller, and the
date and time of the call.
The third component of the survey was a 24 hour light time diary, consisting of a grid
format with a list of 30 predetermined activities and a range of context indicators in
the rows, and time, divided into 15 minute intervals, in the columns. Activities were
grouped under the headings: personal care, eating, housework, work for paid job,
education, voluntary work, care for others, leisure and travel. Context indicators were
used to describe where the person was (home, main place of work, other indoors,
outdoors), who they were with (alone, spouse, other adult, child) and whether they

used a piece of technological equipment (landline, mobile phone, email, internet,
Blackberry). For each 15 minute interval, respondents could choose up to three
activities. The diary covered a 24 hour period beginning at 4am. Respondents chose
the day that the diary was to be completed.
3.2 Profile of the internet-connected households

3.2.1 Representativeness of sample
In this section the character of the sample is described and compared to the best
available population benchmarks. Table 1 shows that the sample under-represents
people aged 55 years or more and slightly over-represents people aged 35-54
years…[To be completed when ABS LFS data are updated]
Table 1: Comparison of survey sample with ABS population benchmarks
Sample ABS LFS April

Sample (%)
(weighted)% 2007 (%)
Sex [Jude to update]
Males 50.3 48.4 49.3
Females 49.7 51.6 50.7
Age
14-34 years 37.5 33.7 34.2
35-54 years 36.7 37.0 35.2
55 or more years 25.8 29.3 30.5
Employment status
Employed 63.6 61.1 62.0
Unemployed 4.2 4.3 2.9
Not in the labour force 32.2 34.7 35.1
Since April is the month in the middle of the data collection period and census data is
currently only available for 2001, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Labour
Force Survey (LFS) of April 2007 was chosen as the appropriate benchmark against
which to judge the representativeness of the sample. The method of sampling
reproduces the sex ratio of the Australian population in 2007 with a very slight bias
(1%) towards female, as shown in Table 1.
3.2.2 Number of workers and proportions by occupation

The occupational breakdown of employed respondents is as follows: Professionals
(n=394); Clerical (n=361); Managers (n=280); Associate Professionals (n= 123);

Trade (n=96); Labourers (n=86) and Production Workers (n=54). There are however,
significant differences in occupation by gender. As shown Figure 1, the clerical
occupations are heavily feminised, with more than twice as many women as men
working in this category of employment. Men make-up the majority of the workers in
trade and production occupations.
Figure 1: Occupation by gender
40
Males
Females
30
Per cent
20
10
0
Clerical Professional Manager Labourer Associate Trade Production
Professional
Occupation
3.2.3 Technologies used

All respondents were asked „Which of the following technologies do you personally
use?‟ The list contained seventeen technologies, and Figure 2 portrays the relative
market penetration of each in the sample of 2185 individuals. Telephones, both
landline (90%) and mobile (87%) are owned by more people than any other
technology. E-mail is used by 70% of people, while 67% of people own a desktop
computer and 31% have a laptop. About 26% have Pay TV and 62% have a digital
camera. We also found that two-thirds of individuals have free-to-air and/or pay TV,
and a further 3% use only their computers to watch TV programs.
People in non-internet connected households appear to be slower adopters of diverse

technologies, from computers to digital cameras and MP3 players to pay TV.
Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 - 10 -

Figure 2: Technology use
100
80
60
Per cent
40
20
0
Landline Email Desktop PC Broadband Laptop VOIP Dial up PDA
Technology

Regarding communication and computer technologies, analysis by gender reveals that
males appear to be earlier adopters than females of new technologies, evidenced by a
5% to 9% percent differential on VOIP, desktop, laptop, WebCam, MP3, PDA
ownership.
People aged 60 years or more are most likely to have a landline phone at home (96%)
and the least likely to have a mobile phone (72%), pay TV (20%), computers (desktop
43%; laptop 10%), or broadband (31%) or wireless (3%) internet. On the other hand,
people less than 25 years are less likely than most to use a landline phone at home
(88%), while 25-29 year olds have the highest adoption of wireless broadband (20%).
Moreover, the older the individual, the less likely he/she is to use e-mail, or have a
Web Cam or MP3 player, and the more likely he/she is to use a landline phone.
Analysis by households reveals that about 83% of internet-connected households have

broadband.
4. MOBILE PHONES, USE AND SERVICES
4.1 Individual mobile phone use within households

More than 85% of individuals have at least one mobile phone in regular use, 16%
have two phones, while few (1%) have more than two. two-thirds have used a mobile
phone for more than 5 years.
Nokia is the brand of choice for 30% of mobile phone users. Among the top five
brands, substantially more females than females use Nokia, LG and Ericsson, while
more males use Sony Ericsson, Motorola and „other brands‟.
The dominant brand, Nokia, becomes more popular with each increasing age group
(ranging from 41% among under 25s to 56% in people aged 55 years or more), while
the trend is reverse for Motorola, Samsung and Sony Ericsson.
4.2 Occupation and mobile phone use

Mobile phones were initially marketed as business tools for managers whose time is
very costly. When mobile phone use is analysed by occupation (see Table 2), the

highest level is found not among managers but among professionals, of whom 92%
have at least one mobile. Although more labourers and production workers than others
do not have a mobile phone, mobile use is, nevertheless, widely diffused among all
population groups, providing a first clue that the breathtaking diffusion of the mobile
is not chiefly based on its business uses.
Table 2: Occupation and handset use
None One Two Three Four +

Occupation
Manager 18.0 65.2 14.6 0.8 1.3
Professional 8.2 78.5 12.0 0.4 0.9
Associate
Professional 14.8 71.5 13.8 0.0 0.0
Trade 19.3 70.3 9.6 0.8 0.0
Clerical 12.3 74.8 12.0 0.5 0.4
Production 21.9 61.3 13.8 3.1 0.0
Labourer 25.3 59.1 15.7 0.0 0.0
4.3 Personal income and mobile phone use

Table 3 shows the association between income and numbers of handsets. Regardless
of position in the income distribution, most Australians have at least one mobile
phone in regular use. There are remarkable similarities across all incomes, the only
exception being that people located in the second quintile are less likely than others to
have only one mobile and more likely to have two.
Table 3: Income and numbers of handsets
None One Two Three Four + Total

Income quintiles
1st 14.6 71.4 13.1 0.0 0.9 100

nd
2 15.9 59.0 24.2 0.4 0.5 100
3rd 16.3 73.4 9.5 0.5 0.3 100
th
4 15.0 70.8 12.8 0.7 0.7 100
th
5 12.7 71.1 14.5 0.8 1.0 100

4.4 Mobile phone use by age
The lowest mobile phone use is found among those aged 60 years or more, followed
by the youngest group in our sample (14-17 years), and then followed by middle-aged
Australians (45-59 years). The highest levels of mobile phone use are found among
those aged 18-39 years.
4.5 Money matters

4.5.1 Who pays?
The majority of respondents under the age of 25 use „a pre-paid plan paid by me or
my parents‟ while the majority between 26 and 60 years meet the cost of using their
phone through „regular billing by my network paid by me or my parents‟. People 60
years and older are equally as likely to pay via a pre-paid plan or regular billing.
Around a third of managers and a quarter of associate professionals claim „my

employer pays my mobile phone bills‟, whereas for other occupations around 10% or
less benefit from employer support.
Females are more likely to use a pre-paid plan (45%) than males (36%), while males
are four times more likely than females to have their employers pay for their mobiles
usage.
4.5.2 What does it cost?

Respondents were asked „How much does your mobile phone cost to use in an
average month?‟. Response categories ranged from „under $10‟ to „over $100‟, with
five categories in between. The eighth response option was „Don‟t know‟.
We found that the median cost of using a mobile phone was in the range $20<$30 per
month, although the modal cost (i.e. the amount spent by the highest proportion of
people) was $10<$20. People aged 25-29 years are the highest spending mobile users,
with 38.6% spending $50 or more per month and the smallest proportion (2.7%)
spending less than $10 per month.
Occupationally, managers, trades people and production workers have the highest
mobile use costs, with around 35% - 40% with costs over $50 per month. Overall,

females spend less than males on mobile use. More males (36%) than females (26%)
spend $50 or more per month.
Figure 3: Mobile phone costs per month (by gender)
25
Male
20
Female
Per cent
15
10
0
Under $10 - $20 - $30 - $40 - $50 - $100+ Don't
$10 $19.99 $29.99 $39.99 $49.99 $99.99 know
Cost per month
4.6 Purchasing decisions

4.6.1 Choice of mobile phone
Respondents were asked to rate the importance of five factors as influences on their
choice of mobile phone handset. As shown in Figure 4, the cost of the handset was by
far the most important factor influencing choice (83%), while the image of the phone
(18%), for example, as portrayed in media advertising, was the least important.
Importantly, more than 40% of individuals regard all factors other than cost as not
important in their choice of handset [NOTE: Michael, please review your statement.]

Figure 4: Factors influencing choice of handset
100 Important
Neither
80 Unimportant
60
Per cent
40
20
0
Cost Style Upgrading Other Image
Reason
4.6.2 Choice of network service provider

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of five factors on their choice of
network service provider. By comparison with factors influencing their choice of
handset, there is no single dominant factor influencing their choice of service provider
(see Figure 5). The cost of the package and the network coverage and to a lesser
extent the reputation of the service provider influence the choice of service provider.
On the other hand, perhaps surprisingly, download speed was unimportant for a high
proportion of people (40%), more than all other unimportant factors combined.
Figure 5: Factors influencing choice of network service provider
100
Important
80 Neither
Unimportant
60
Per cent
40
20
0
Cost of Network Reputation Family Download
package Coverage
Reason

4.7 Choice of communication technology
The reasons for choosing different communication modalities are detailed in Table 4.
When considering the choice between landline and mobile communication, two
findings stand out. Convenience of the mobile phone is the reason most frequently
given for choosing to talk on a mobile rather than a landline. Cost is a major reason
for preferring to talk using a landline rather than a mobile. The major reasons for
sending text rather phoning someone were convenience, consideration for the other
person‟s situation, and cost; while the major considerations when deciding to use the
mobile to phone someone rather than sending a text are convenience and how
important or time critical the topic is.
Table 4: Reasons for choosing a communication modality
What most What most What most What most

affects your affects your affects your affects your
decision to use decision to use decision to use decision to use
your mobile to your mobile your mobile your landline
send a text phone to talk to rather than rather than a
message rather someone rather landline phone mobile phone to
than talk to than send a text to talk to talk to
someone? message? someone? someone?
Convenience 29.2 32.8 50.6 21.5

Consideration
for the other 21.1 4.8 2.1 1.4
person‟s
situation
Cost 18.7 7.0 12.7 53.6
How important
or time critical 5.3 31.0 8.0 2.4
the topic is
Time of day
2.6 3.0 3.7 6.1
What else I‟m
doing at the time 4.4 3.1 9.2 4.8
Other 4.3 13.1 3.9 4.0
None of these 14.3 5.2 9.9 6.3
Total 100 100 100 100
4.8 Awareness of mobile broadband

There is a very high awareness of mobile broadband (3G), with 86% of males and
73% of females saying that they are aware of the technology (independent of whether
or not people are internet connected at home). A topic for further investigation is why

the take-up of the new functionalities of the mobile phone has lagged so far behind the
availability of the technology. Obvious candidate factors for exploration are consumer
tastes, the age of handsets in use and pricing regimes, relative to other modes of
accessing similar services.
4.9 Separate mobile phones for home and work

The question „Do you have separate mobile phones for work and private use?‟ was
answered as either „yes‟ or „no‟. We found that about four out of ten have separate
mobiles for work and private use. Males are 60% more likely than females to have
separate mobiles for work and private use.
4.10 Time since adoption of mobile phone technology

Respondents were asked „How long ago did you first own a mobile phone?‟. The four
response categories were: less than 1 year; between 1 and 5 years; between 6 and 10
years; and more than 10 years. The majority of respondents first owned a mobile at
least six years ago, and 32% have owned a mobile phone for less than six years. A
large part of the latter shorter duration ownership can be accounted for by younger
people entering the mobile phone market.
The earliest adopters of the mobile were managers, (38% for 10 years or more, and
83% for six or more years) followed by trades people and professionals (29% for ten
or more years). However, more professionals (76%) than trades people (69%) have
used the mobile for at least six years.
5. ACTUAL USE BASED ON MOBILE PHONE LOG DATA

Respondents produced an accurate log of their incoming and outgoing
communications, using the information already stored in their handsets. These phone
logs permitted respondents to provide us with a precise and comprehensive record of
their telephonic activity. While some other research has utilized billing information,
this method fails to capture the substantial number of pre-paid customers for whom no
billing records exist, estimated to be around half of the mobile market in Australia. In

addition, our phone logs provide information about incoming and outgoing SMS
messages.
5.1 Calls made - Who do they talk to?

An analysis of calls made is shown in Figure 6. This analysis reveals that only 12% of
the 13,978 calls made were work-related. Conversely, the mobile phone is used
overwhelming for contacting family (49%) and friends (26%). The remainder of calls
are to service providers or to pick up messages from voicemail (less than 15%).
Among the 49% of calls comprising calls to family members, for both men and
women, the highest proportion is calls to one‟s spouse (18%). Women are
disproportionately likely to phone their children (13%), parents (11%) and extended
family (12%). On the other hand, in general, men are almost twice as likely to use the
mobile for work-related calls, and this holds true even when employment is taken into
account. Employed men devote 25% of their calls to work-related purposes, while for
employed women the percentage is 14%.
Figure 6: Calls made by recipient
60
Female
50 Male
40
Per cent
30
20
10
0
Family Friend Work Employer/Boss Service Voicemail
colleague provider
Call recipient

5.2 Text messages sent
Drawing again on the phone log data, family (47%) and friends (43%) are by far the
most common recipients of text messages. This finding is overwhelmingly true for
both males and females. Within families, texting between spouses (19%) constitutes
the highest volume of text messages, and those who are employed are more likely to
“text” their spouses.
Using questionnaire data we were able to compare the volume of texting on work and
non-work days by asking the following two questions:
 On a typical workday, how many text messages do you handle? [response
categories: none; 1-3; 4-7; 8-12; 13-17; and 18 or more.]
 On a typical non-workday, how many text messages do you handle? [response
categories: none; 1-3; 4-7; 8-12; 13-17; and 18 or more.]
About 26% of people send four or more text messages on workdays, but it increases
to 35% among females and 33% among males on non-work days.
People in labouring occupations are most likely to send four or more text messages
per day while trades people are the least likely. Figure 7 reveals that people in all
occupations are more likely to be moderate to high volume “texters” (i.e. to send four
or more “texts”) on non-workdays than on workdays, with labourers, trades people
and clerical workers demonstrating the greatest increase in volume of “texts” from
workdays to non-workdays. It also reveals that across all occupational groups the
volume of text messaging is around 8% higher, overall, on non-workdays (range: 50%
for labourers to 32% for trades people) than on workdays (range: 33% for labourers to
15% for trades people).

Figure 7: Moderate to high volume “texting” by occupation on work and non-work days
Workday
60
Non-workday
50
40
Per cent
30
20
10
0
Manager Professional Associate Trade Clerical Production Labourer
Professional
Occupation
Questionnaire data reveal that young people aged 14-17 years are the highest volume
“texters” with 39% sending more than 12 messages per non-workday. This drops
sharply to 14% among 18-24 year olds, then less than 6% and declining to 0% among
the progressively older age groups. The volume of “texting” is slightly lower across
all ages on workdays.
5.3 Frequency of calls

Somewhat unexpectedly, the typical user of the mobile phone makes relatively few
calls (see Figure 8). The highest proportion of respondents (45%) makes less than 1
call per day.
Figure 8: Frequency of calls made
50
40
Per cent
30
20
10
0
<1 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 to 8 9+
Number of calls per day

5.4 Patterns in time of calls
The phone log (Figure 9) reveals that work-related calls are mostly confined to
standard working hours, rising sharply after 7am with a small lunchtime dip. Work
calls fall steeply after 5pm, trailing away towards zero as midnight approaches. The
volume of calls to family exceeds work-related calls at any time of day. Family calls
are less frequent in the morning than in the afternoon, rising at the time school ends,
and having a pronounced peak before the evening meal. Throughout the evening,
family calls are at a much higher level than work-related calls. This pattern is
consistent with the use of the mobile phone for micro coordination of family affairs.
Contacting friends reaches a peak at mid-morning and remains sustained throughout
the afternoon and early evening. During the entire evening, communications with
friends are at a higher rate than work-related calls. The heavy use of the mobile in the
evening for contacting family and friends (and not job-related tasks) is consistent with
our view that the main purpose of the mobile phone is for social contact.
Figure 9: Frequency of calls by time of day
1200
Family
1000 Friends
Work colleagues
800
Frequency
600
400
200
0
12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10
midnight noon
Time of day

6. REPORTED REASONS FOR MOBILE PHONE USE
6.1 Perceived reasons for mobile phone use

Survey respondents who indicated they were regular users of the mobile phone were
asked about how they used their mobile phones (see Figure 10). The overwhelming
use was for talking (95%) and SMS texting (80%). Half of the respondents used the
Voicemail facility to recover messages. Other uses point towards the convergence of
media and telephony functions: around a third use the mobile to capture or send visual
images; a further quarter to play games; a similar proportion use their phone to enter
competitions or to vote on SMS polls; about the same number for accessing the
internet; and just under a quarter use their phone as an MP3 player or a radio.
Figure 10: Respondents‟ use of phone functionality
100
80
60
Per cent
40
20
0
Talking Texting Voicemail Visual Voting Music Internet Other
competition
Mobile phone use
6.2 Reasons for making calls and sending SMS messages on the mobile phone
Calls on the mobile phone are predominantly for social or leisure purposes (34%) or
for managing home and family (28%). Other interpersonal contacts account for 16%
of the reasons for making calls and only 22% of calls are related to work or study.
There are differences between men and women in the purposes for which calls are
made. Over a third of men (36%) use their mobile phone to make calls for work or
study activities, whereas only 10% of women use it for this purpose. Social uses of the

phone account for the remaining 90% of women‟s calls. If anything, text messages are
even more socially oriented and a smaller proportion of both men‟s (14%) and
women‟s (4%) texts are devoted to work or study.
6.3 Reasons for „turning off‟ your phone

Respondents were asked about the circumstances in which they would normally turn
their mobile phone off or switch it to silent. Results are presented in Figure 11. All but
a small minority of the respondents (91%) „normally‟ switch off their phone in the
cinema, two-thirds switch off their phone at work meetings, and half turn off their
phones in restaurants. Between a quarter and a third of respondents turn off their
phones in other work situations, and in order to concentrate. As might be expected
from the literature on mobile phone usage in leisure situations, a fifth of respondents
turn off their phone during leisure activities. Here again the contradictory nature of
the affordances of the mobile phone are apparent. On the one hand, mobile
communications facilitate the organisation and coordination of social and leisure
activities. On the other hand, unwanted or unexpected phone calls that demand
attention represent undesirable disruptions to the quality of leisure time.
Figure 11: Proportion of people turning off their mobiles in each situation
100
80
60
Per cent
40
20
0
Cinema/ Meetings Resturant Other Concentrate Other Leisure Meals Never
Theatre at work work home at home
Circumstance

6.4 Current and expected access to internet services using the mobile phone
6.4.1 Internet services currently accessed by mobile phone
As mentioned earlier, there is a very high awareness of 3G (86% of males and 73% of
females). But 66% of respondents indicate that they do not access any internet
services via their mobile phone. Those who use more of the functions of the newer
handset and the 3G network, use it for email, information services, banking and music
(see Figure 12). Use of the phone for visual images and games accounts for a lower
proportion of use, but it is difficult to tell from this data how many users access
multiple services.
6.4.2 Perceived future use of mobile phone to access internet services

When asked about their intentions if they had an internet capable phone, half of the
respondents say that they would not use any of these services, about a third indicate
an interest in using it for email, a fifth for weather information, an eighth for location
services, and a similar proportion for banking and sport, news and current affairs and
for downloading games, music or movies (see Figure 13). Less than one in ten
indicate an interest in consuming video, less than one in twenty-five might watch live
or on-demand television, and an even smaller proportion would visit chat rooms.

Figure 12: Currently accessed internet services
80
70
60
50
Per cent
40
30
20
10
0
None of Email Information Banking Down- Location/ Send/ Shopping Training/ Watching Chat room
these services loading services receive education TV
Video and learning
Internet Services Currently Used

Figure 13: Perceived future use of mobile phone to access internet services
70
60
50
40
Per cent
30
20
10
0
None of Information Banking Downloading Training/ Chat room
these services games, music education
or movies and learning
Perceived future use of mobile phone access to the internet

7. MOBILE PHONE USE FOR WORK
Up to this point, we have presented data based on our entire sample (n=2185). From
this juncture, we turn our attention to the smaller number of respondents who are
employed (n=1390).
7.1 Regularity of mobile phone use for job

Employed respondents were asked to rate „How regularly do you use your mobile
phone (or other mobile device) for your job?‟ on a five point scale from „never‟ to
„very often‟.
Fifty-two per cent of males compared to 23% of females reported that they use their
mobiles „often‟ or „very often‟ for their jobs.
Figure 14: Frequency of mobile use for job (by gender)
40
30
Per cent
Male
20
Female
10
0
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often
Frequency
Managers (32%) and tradespeople (31%) most frequently reported that they use their
mobiles „very often‟ for their jobs. The least likely are people of other occupations
(i.e. clerical, production and labouring) among whom 48% reported that they „never‟
or „rarely‟ used their mobile for their jobs. Mangers, however, are the most likely to
use their mobiles either „often‟ or „very often‟ for their work (54%) (see Figure 15).

Figure 15: Frequency of mobile use for job (by occupation)
40
30
Managers
Per cent
Professionals
20
Tradespeople
Other
10
0
Frequency
We found employed people aged less than 30 years are most likely „never‟ to use their
mobile for their jobs and the least likely to use them „very often‟. On the other hand,
people aged 30-39 years and 50 -59 years years are the most likely to use their
mobiles „often‟ or „very often‟ and people aged 60 years of more are the most likely
to use them „never‟ (43%) (see Figure 16).
Figure 16: Frequency of mobile use for job (by age in years)
40
14-17 yrs
30
18-29 yrs
Per cent
30-39 yrs
20
40-49 yrs
50-59 yrs
10
60+ yrs
0
Frequency

7.2 Perceived use of mobile phone on workdays and non-workdays
Employed respondents were asked six questions about their mobile phone calls in
relation to work and non-work on workdays and non-workdays, with response
categories: none; 1-3; 4-7; 8-12; 13-17; and 18 or more. Results are presented in the
following three sections.
7.2.1 On a typical workday during normal work hours

The first of two questions about mobile phone usage during normal work hours asked:
„On a typical workday, approximately how many calls on your mobile phone(s)
during your normal work hours are job-related?‟
Males are almost twice as likely to use their mobiles during normal work hours for
job-related calls than are females (72% for males compared to 40% for females).
Moreover, their call volume is higher, with 39% of males compared to 13% of
females having four or more work-related calls during normal work hours.
Analysis by occupations (see Figure 17) reveals that trades people and managers are
the most likely to use their mobiles for job-related calls during their normal work
hours, 40%-45% of whom will have 4 or more calls (compared to 29% of
professionals and 13% of other non-professionals).
Figure 17: Job-related mobile calls during normal work hours (by occupation)
60
Managers
50
Professionals
40 Tradespeople
Per cent
Other
30
20
10
0
None 1 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 12 13 to 17 18 or more
Number of calls

Non-job-related mobile calls were explored in the second question: „On a typical
workday, approximately how many calls on your mobile phone(s) during your
normal work hours are not job-related?‟
Males and females appear to have similar patterns of mobile usage for non-job-related
calls. For example, 86% of males and 80% of females have at least one non-job-
related call during work hours, and 24% males compared to 18% females use their
mobiles four or more times during work time for non-job-related calls.
Males are much more likely than females to have some job-related calls during their
work day. Even so, the likelihood of males having job-related calls is slightly less
than for non-job-related calls, in contrast to females who are twice as likely to have
calls that are unrelated to their jobs. We therefore conclude that, congruent with phone
log data, both males and females use their mobiles for social connectivity, even during
work time on workdays.
7.2.2 On a typical workday outside normal work hours

The first of two questions that explored the use of the mobile phone outside normal
work hours was: „On a typical workday, approximately how many calls on your
mobile phone(s) outside your normal work hours are job-related?‟
Figure 18 shows that males are more likely than not to have job-related mobile calls
outside of normal work hours on workdays, while the reverse is true for females.
However, we have observed that most people who use their mobiles for job-related
calls during work hours (72% of males compared to 40% of females) also use them
for work-related calls out-of hours (59% of males compared to 34% of females). The
volume of calls is typically low, with only 9.7% overall having four or more calls.

Figure 18: Job-related mobile calls outside normal work hours (by gender)
80
Male
60 Female
Per cent
40
20
0
None 1 to 3 4 to 7 8 or more
Number of calls
The second question asked: „On a typical workday, approximately how many calls on
your mobile phone(s) outside your normal work hours are not job-related?‟
Overall, about 90% of males and females used their mobiles to some extent for non-
work-related calls out of work hours on workdays. We found that the gender
differences in mobile usage during work hours (portrayed in Figure 18) were much
less evident for out-of-work-hours usage on workdays (see Figure 19), although males
remained more likely than females to have four or more calls.
Figure 19: Non-job-related mobile calls outside work hours on workday (by gender)
80
Male
60 Female
Per cent
40
20
0
Number of calls

7.2.3 On a typical non-workday
Lastly, we explored mobile phone use on non-workdays by asking: „On a typical non-
workday, approximately how many calls on your mobile phone(s) are job-related and
not job-related?‟.
Slightly less than half of males and about a quarter of females use their mobiles for
work-related calls on their non-workdays although, overall, 7% reported four or more
calls per day.
On the other hand, overall, more than 86% of individuals used their mobiles to some
extent for family or social connectivity on non-workdays. Comparing Figure 20
(following) with Figure 19 we see that the patterns are similar for non-work hours on
both workdays and on non-workday, except that, probably unsurprisingly, non-job-
related call volume is higher on non-workdays. Most likely due to greater available
hours on non-workdays, a higher proportion of people typically using their mobiles
for four or more non-job-related calls on non-workdays (36%) than during non-work
hours on workdays (30%).
Figure 20: Non-job-related mobile calls on non-workday (by gender)
60
Male
Female
40
Per cent
20 j
0
Number of calls
Figure 21A compares the declining moderate-to-high volume of job-related mobile

calls (i.e. more than 3 calls per day) for males and females during work time, out-of-
hours on workdays, and on non-workdays.

Figure 21: Comparing average daily job-related mobile call patterns (by gender)
A: More than 3 job-related mobile calls B: No job-related mobile calls
Male Female
Male Female
80 80
60 60
Per cent
Per cent
40 40
20 20
0 0
During work Out of hours, Non-workday During work Out of hours, Non-workday
time workday time workday
Time of call Time of call
By way of contrast Figure 21B compares the increasing probability of both females
and males having no job-related calls during work time, out-of-hours on workdays,
and on non-workdays. The difference between males and females is smaller on non-
workdays than workdays.
7.3 Perceived difficulty in doing job without a mobile phone

Employed respondents were asked „How hard would it be for you to do your job
without a mobile phone (or other mobile device)?‟ This question taps into the
necessity of using mobile communication in the workplace and the degree of
disruption that would be caused by the absence of this technology. Overall, over 60%
of the workers thought that it would be „very easy‟ or „moderately easy‟ to do their
job without a mobile phone (see Figure 22). Conversely, one third (31%) thought it
would be „difficult‟ or „moderately difficult‟ to work successfully without their
mobile. A mere 8% thought it would be „impossible‟ to do their job properly without
a mobile phone.
However, there is a dramatic difference in response by gender, with three-quarters of

women workers saying that it would „easy‟ to do their jobs without a mobile, while
the majority (52%) of men thought it would be „moderately difficult‟ to „impossible‟.

Figure 22: Difficulty of doing job without a mobile phone
Impossible
100
Difficult
Moderately difficult
80 Moderately easy
Very easy
60
Per cent
40
20
0
Male Female
Gender
The majority of clerical workers and labourers thought it would be „very easy‟ to
successfully complete their work without a mobile phone while, on balance,
approximately half of managers, professional workers and tradespersons thought it
would be difficult, or in extreme cases impossible, to do their job without a mobile
phone.
7.4 „May be contacted‟ during holiday

A key feature of the work/life boundary is the practice of taking holidays, away from
both the workplace and the drudgery of home. This spatial separation is the defining
feature of holidays and indeed leisure activities. The mobile phone, as noted earlier, is
uniquely designed to function independently of location. Consequently, the notion of
being „out of touch‟ while away on holiday no longer applies automatically. Mobile
phone users can now choose whether to stay connected or enforce the customary
break in communicative contact.
Employed respondents were asked: „Do you normally take your mobile phone on
holiday to talk to work colleagues?‟ Overall, the population of workers is evenly
divided between those who do take their phone and those who don‟t. However, when
this result is broken down by gender, it is apparent that men (42%) are much more

likely than women (25%) to use their mobile phone to talk to their work colleagues
while on holiday. It appears that employed women are more concerned than men to
prevent the encroachment of work into holiday time.
Managers are the most likely (50%) to take their phone on holiday to conduct
business, whereas only 24% of clerical workers do the same.
7.5 Impact on workload and productivity

Forty per cent of employed respondents see mobiles as increasing their workload, for
55% the effect is neutral, and for a few (5%) the mobile reduces their workload. Men
(47%) are substantially more likely as women (28%) to say that the mobile phone
increases their workload. This is offset by productivity gains with 41% indicating that
job-related mobile calls increase their productivity. The majority of women (68%)
consider that the mobile phone has a neutral effect on their productivity, while men
are more positively disposed, especially managers and professionals.
8. WORK-FAMILY ISSUES AND THE MOBILE PHONE
8.1 Maintaining contact with extended family

Respondents were asked „How important are the following in maintaining contact
with your extended family‟ and invited to rate various communication modalities on a
five point scale, ranging from „very important‟ to „very unimportant‟. The mode of
communication respondents consider most salient for maintaining contact with
extended family were, in order of importance, the landline (87%), face-to-face visits
(77%), the mobile phone (68%), followed by emails (53%), texting (48%), and then a
large gap to the traditional modality of letter writing (21%) and the newest
technologies of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) (12%). Although the mobile
phone is a much more recent innovation than the landline, it has already become a
crucial tool for maintaining intimate ties, since nearly two-thirds of our respondents
rate this function of mobiles as either „important‟ or „very important‟. This finding
about the different usage of the landline compared to mobile phones is consistent with
the pioneering French research, based on billing records, which found a pattern of
using the landline in the evening for longer conversations with relatives or friends and
using the mobile for shorter calls.

Regardless of the communication medium, women are more likely than men to
consider maintaining contact with family „very important‟. In our study we found that
90% of females consider that the landline is either „important‟ or „very important‟.
Interestingly, two-thirds of the women who regard the landline as a useful way of
maintaining contact chose the most extreme positive response category of „very
important‟. The same pattern holds for mobile phones and emails. This is consistent
with the literature on the gendering of the telephone that has demonstrated that
maintaining kinship relations is traditionally a task undertaken by women.
8.2 Using the mobile phone to facilitate family/household coordination

We asked respondents in multi-person households: „How significant are the following
reasons for using your mobile phone to facilitate family/household coordination?‟.
Specifically, respondents rated „planning meals‟; „arranging to meet with
family/household members‟; „arranging to deliver goods or children‟; „finding out
where children are‟ and „informing when to expect me home‟ on a five point scale
ranging from „very important‟ to „very unimportant‟. The greatest importance is
attached to information about the timing of the arrival at home (79%) and arranging to
meet with other family members (80%). Among parents, „arranging to deliver goods
or children‟ and „finding out where children are‟ is rated as important by 48% and
47% respectively. Mobile phones are rated as either „very important‟ or „important‟
for planning meals by just a third of the respondents.
8.3 Effect of mobile phone on work and home/family/personal life balance

Employed respondents were asked to rate „What impact has the use of your mobile
phone had on your ability to balance your work and home/family/personal life?‟ on a
five point scale, ranging from „increased a lot‟ to „decreased a lot‟. Very few
respondents report that the mobile phone has a negative impact on their work-life
balance (4%). A high proportion of respondents (45%) say that it has had no effect.
Notably, however, more than half of the respondents believe that the mobile helps
them to balance their family and working lives.

8.4 Mobile phones, parents and the security of their children
Much has been made of the fact that parents are using the mobile phone to monitor
their children‟s whereabouts. Increased security is proffered as a major reason for
buying a mobile for children. So the question arises, does the presence of a mobile
phone connection assuage parents‟ anxiety about their children staying out late. One
might presume that the sex of the child might make a big difference, but this is not the
case. Respondents were asked; „If you had a teenage son, would you allow him to stay
out later if he had a mobile phone?‟ and „If you had a teenage daughter, would you
allow her to stay out later if she had a mobile phone?‟. Perhaps surprisingly there is
little difference in responses according to whether the teenager is male or female.
Overall, around 30% would permit their child to stay out late if they had a phone but
about 10% more parents would say „no‟ to a teenage daughter staying out late with a
mobile than would say „no‟ to a teenage son (see Figure 23). It could be that parents
are more concerned with setting unambiguous boundaries for teenage behaviour and,
despite being somewhat more protective of teenage daughters than sons, this produces
limits to remote monitoring by mobile devices.
Figure 23: Teenagers staying out late with mobile (by gender)
60
50
40
Per cent
30 Yes
No
20
Unsure
10
0
Son Daughter Son Daughter
Father Mother
Parent-child relationship
8.5 Importance of mobile phone in routinely separated couple relationships

Instead of the transmission of specific information being the crucial element of
making a mobile phone call, in many cases the call itself is what is important.

Keeping in touch while physically apart is an expression of intimacy. Through the
mobile phone, people can be apart and yet very close. In order to gain some insight
into this possible use, we asked respondents: „If you and your partner are routinely
apart for more than a day at a time, how important is the mobile phone in maintaining
the quality of your relationship?‟ and invited them to respond on a five point scale
ranging from „very important‟ to „very unimportant‟. Approximately three-quarters of
both men and women consider the mobile phone to be either very important or
important in maintaining the quality of their relationship while geographically
separated.
9. PERCEIVED COSTS AND BENEFITS OF MOBILE PHONE OWNERSHIP
9.1 Can I live without my mobile phone?

Mobile phones have become so thoroughly indispensable that life may be
unimaginable without them. As a result, being deprived of these devices might be
perceived as so disruptive that everyday life cannot proceed as normal. In order to
measure the extent of people‟s dependence on the mobile phone, we asked
respondents: „How much would you miss your mobile phone if it disappeared today?‟.
Respondents were asked to choose between: „I wouldn‟t miss it at all because my
daily life could proceed as normal‟; „I would miss it sometimes‟; „I would miss it
often enough that my daily life could not proceed as normal‟; „I would miss it often‟;
„I would miss it an extreme amount‟.
Twelve per cent of the sample answered that they would be unaffected and their lives
„would proceed as normal‟ if they were suddenly without their mobile phone. By
contrast, 45% of the respondents indicate that their daily lives could not „proceed as
normal‟ if they were without their mobile. Of these, the overwhelming majority would
miss the mobile phone either „often‟ or „extreme amount‟. A similar question, asked
of 1061 American cell phone users, found that 65% said that they would find it „very
hard‟ or „somewhat hard‟ to give up their cell phone, while 21% answered that it
would be „not at all hard‟ (Pew Internet and American Life Project 2002). Although
this survey was conducted several years prior to ours, on this evidence, it would
appear that the mobile phone is more thoroughly integrated into the everyday lives of
Australians than it is for Americans.

9.2 Increased sense of personal security
Another indication of people‟s feelings about the mobile phone is the sense of security
they derive from carrying a mobile. Three-quarters of respondents said that carrying a
mobile phone makes them feel more secure. If security is a crucial element for
happiness, then having a mobile may make people happier.
9.3 Effect on time pressure

Over thirty years of experience has shown that asking respondents how often they are
„rushed or pressed for time‟ produces a reliable estimate of how time pressured people
feel. In the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistic Time Use Survey (1997),
45.7% of workers reported that they „always‟/„often‟ felt rushed or pressed for time.
Amongst our sample, the corresponding rate is 41%.
To explore the role of the mobile in relation to its effect on people‟s sense of time
pressure, we also asked respondents: „Does the mobile phone make you feel less time
pressured?‟. Nine per cent answered „Yes, a lot less‟; 25% answered „Yes, a little
less‟; 15% answered „No, not much less‟; 25% „No, not at all‟ and 26% were unsure.
9.4 Effect on stress

To investigate the impact of the mobile phone on stress, respondents were asked:
„Does the mobile phone make you feel more or less stressed?‟ For the majority (61%)
the mobile phone had made no change, while 21% said „somewhat less stressed‟.
Eight per cent responded that the mobile phone had made them „significantly less
stressed‟; and about the same proportion said „somewhat more stressed‟; and a mere
1% answered that the mobile phone made them „significantly more stressed‟.
9.5 Effect on quality of leisure

Finally, one might wonder how the mobile phone affects the quality of people‟s
leisure. The possibility of being interrupted is balanced against the uses of the mobile
phone for social connectedness. We asked respondents to rate the extent to which the
mobile phone has improved or reduced the quality of leisure time. Respondents could
choose between the categories of „greatly improved‟; „somewhat improved‟; „has had
no effect‟; „somewhat reduced‟ and „greatly reduced‟. For more than half of our

respondents (53%) the mobile „has no effect‟ on the quality of their leisure, for one
third (32%) the quality of leisure is „somewhat improved‟; 10% answer with a more
emphatic „greatly improved‟; and roughly 5% view as reducing the quality of their
leisure.
9.6 The technology I could most live without – TV, internet or mobile phone
We asked all household members the question „If you had to give up one of the
following – television, the internet, or the mobile phone – which would you be most
willing to give up?‟. Respondents had the option to select one of the three
technologies or „Don‟t know‟. The non-internet connected household members also
had the option to respond with „I do not have all three‟.
We found that people would be most willing to give up their mobile phone(s) before
TV and the internet, with relatively little overall difference between females and
males concerning each technology. About 15% of females and 9% of males couldn‟t
decide which of the three they‟d be most willing to give up.
Our findings reflect the results of a 2005 USA study although we found that
Australians (in 2007) were much more loyal to the internet than people in the USA in
2005.
Figure 24: Technology most prepared to give up (by gender)
50
Male
40
Female
Per cent
30
20
10
0
TV Internet Mobile phone Don't know
Technology
However, when we analysed the results for each technology across gender and age
group, we found that:

 18 to 34 year olds are more prepared to give up the TV than are people in
other age groups;
 females in the 30-34, 40-44 and 50-54 years age groups are much less
prepared to give up TV than are males in the same age groups;
 females aged 30 years and older are much more prepared to give up the
internet than are males in the same age groups. This is most marked in the 45-
49 age group in which females (26%) are twice as prepared to give up the
internet;
 with the exception of 14-17 year olds, the older the person, the less prepared
he/she is to give up the TV;
 People aged 55 years and over are much more prepared than others to give up
their mobile phones than to live without the internet;
 with the exception of 45-54 year olds, the older the person the more prepared
he/she is to give up the mobile phone.
Figure 25: Most prepared to give up TV, Internet and Mobile Phone (by age)
60
50
40 TV
Per cent
Internet
30
Mobile phone
20 s Don't know
10
0
14-17 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Age (years)

Analysis by occupation reveals that professionals are the most likely to give up TV
(41%) and the least willing to give up the internet (10%), followed closely by
managers and associate professionals, while all three are the more willing than other
occupational groups to give up their mobiles (40%-45%). Labourers, on the other
hand are more willing to live without the internet (24%) than all other categories,
followed closely by more than 20% of all other non-professional workers. Notably, it
appears that managers/professionals are much more prepared to give up their mobiles,
and much less prepared to give up the internet, than all other occupational groups. We
suggest that this high level of commitment to the internet will increasingly promote
increased commitment to the mobile as mobile internet matures during the next few
years.
Figure 26: Technology most prepared to give up (by occupation)
50
40
Per cent
30 TV
Internet
20 Mobile phone
Dont know
10
0
Professional
Occupation
10. INTERNET, CONNECTEDNESS, USE AND SERVICES
10.1 Individual‟s use of internet services accessed via a computer

The question, „Other than for your work, which of the following internet services do
you currently use a computer for?‟ had a dozen computer-based activities as possible
responses, along with „None of these‟ and „Not applicable‟. These activities were:
shopping; banking; send and receive e-mail; send and receive video; chat rooms
including dating agencies; sports, news or current affairs; training, education and

learning; travel information and bookings; weather information; location services
information and bookings; download games, music or movies; and watch live or pre-
recorded TV.
E-mail is the most used non-work-related internet service accessed by computer. It is

used by 89% of people in internet-connected households and 68% of all respondents.
Because our question explored what internet services are accessed via a computer,
regardless of where the computer is located or who owns it, Figure 27 displays
internet services accessed by all respondents.
Internet banking (51%) is the second most frequently computer-accessed internet

service, closely followed by weather information, sport, travel information, shopping
and location services (all around 40%). Using a computer the least accessed internet
services are watching TV (11%), chat rooms (13%), and video (20%).
Figure 27: Internet services accessed via computer
70
60
50
Per cent
40
30
20
10
0
Email Weather Travel Location Training, Chat
services etc
Internet services
The patterns are similar for males and females, although males are marginally more
likely than females to use all types of internet services. The greatest margin of
difference between males and females are sport (males 12% more likely), watching
videos (males 10% more likely), watching TV (males 7% more likely), and banking
(females 7% more likely).

Managers and professionals are more likely than people in other occupations to use
their computers for e-mail, banking, shopping, sport, travel, location services, and
training whereas trade and production workers are more likely than others to use their
computers to use chat rooms, download games etc, and send/receive video.
Some predictors of computer-based non-work-related internet usage by age are

evident:
 Younger people (aged less than 35 years) are most likely to use chat rooms, watch
TV, send or receive video and download games etc;
 Internet banking peaks with people aged 25-39 years (66%) then tapers off
gradually to people aged 65 years or more (22%);
 E-mail use varies according to age, with 14-17 year olds the highest users (80%),
and about 75% of 18-59 year olds and 43% of 60+ year olds accessing e-mail via
computer.
 40% of individuals access sports-related services via computer, slightly less

among the youngest and oldest age groups, and more by males (46%) than
females (34%);
 People aged 18-34 years are the most likely to access training services, peaking
with 25-29 year olds (45%);
 People aged 25-59 years are most likely to access internet-based travel services
via a computer (about 46%). However, in internet-connected households, people
aged 60 years or more are the most likely, particularly 60-64 year olds (70%).
This suggests that an important reason for older people having an internet-
connected computer is to access travel services;
 Under 18s and people aged 60 years or more are the least likely to access weather
information and use location services;
 About 50% of people aged 25-49 years engage in online shopping via a computer;
 About 6% of people access none of these internet services using a computer.

10.2 Time since adoption of internet technology
The phenomenon of early and later adopters of the internet was explored with the
question „How long ago did you first use the internet?‟. Response options were: less
than 1 year; between 1 and 5 years; between 6 and 10 years; more than 10 years; and
„Never‟.
The majority of people (65%) first used the internet 6 or more years ago. It is readily
apparent that managers and professionals were earlier adopters of the internet than
non-professionals, with 76%-87% of the former and 43%-69% of the latter first using
the internet six or more years ago.
Figure 28: Years since first internet use (by occupation)
Less than 6 years

6 or more years
100
80
Per cent
60
40
20
0
Manager Professional Assoc Prof Trade Clerical Production Labourer
Occupation
Employed people (74%) are the most likely to have used the internet for six years or
more, with students (68%) second to the employed. Around 57% of other categories –
people on „home duties‟, retirees, and the currently unemployed – reported that they
first used the internet at least six years ago.
Overall, 26% of people have used the internet for more then ten years. A higher
proportion of males (32%) than females (20%), and a higher proportion of people
currently aged 30-34 years (37%) than other ages (ranging from 10% for 14-17 year
olds to 33% for 45-49 year olds) have used the internet for more then ten years.

10.3 Frequency of internet use
Frequency of use of the internet was explored in the question „How often do you use
the internet?‟. The seven response categories in diminishing frequency of use were:
several times a day; daily; several times a week; weekly; monthly; less than once a
month; and never.
Forty-six per cent of people reported that they used the internet several times a day,
while 12% use it weekly or less. Managers (70%) and professionals (63%) are much
more likely to be very frequent internet users (i.e. several times a day) than other
occupations (around 30%), and also much more likely to use the internet at least daily
(see Figure 29).
Figure 29: Frequency of internet use (by occupation)
80
Managers
Professionals
60
Tradespeople
Per cent
Other
40
20
0
Several/day Daily Several/week Weekly Monthly <1/month
Frequency
About half of individuals aged 18-59 years use the internet several times a day, with
30-39 year olds the most likely frequent daily users (56%). On the other hand, those
aged under 18 years and 60 years or more are most likely to use the internet daily or
several times a week. Even so, 65% of people aged 60 years or more use the internet
at least daily (compared to about 78% of people aged less than 60 years) (see Figure
30).

Figure 30: Frequency of internet use (by age)
60
<60 years
50
60+ years
40
Per cent
30
20
10
0
Several/day Daily Several/week Weekly Monthly or less
Frequency of use
10.4 Amount of time spent using the internet for work or study
10.4.1 Typical workday
Employed respondents were asked „How much time do you spend on a typical
workday using the internet (including email) for work and/or study?‟. Response
options were: none of the time; less than 30 minutes; 30-59 minutes; 1 – 1 hour 59
minutes; 2-3 hours; and more than 3 hours.
Males spend slightly more time on the internet for work and/or study than females, a
difference that increases with each increment of time spent on the internet.
Three times as many managers/professionals than others (i.e. trade, clerical,

production workers and labourers) spend more than 3 hours per day on the internet for
work and/or study. Age analysis reveals that people aged 18-39 years are more likely
than others to spend more than 3 hours per day on the internet for work/study (21%)
while 30-34 year olds are the most likely to use the internet for these purposes (90%).
10.4.2 Typical non-workday

Employed respondents were also asked „How much time do you spend on a typical
non-workday using the internet (including email) for work and/or study?‟.
Response options were identical to those used in the preceding question: none of the

time; less than 30 minutes; 30-59 minutes; 1 – 1 hour 59 minutes; 2-3 hours; and more
than 3 hours.
Managers/professionals are about twice as likely as others to spend non-workday time

on the internet for work/study. Similarly, males (68%) are more likely than females
(50%) to use the internet on non-workdays for work/study, and for longer periods,
than females (see Figure 31).
Figure 31: Average non-workday internet use for work and/or study (by gender)
60
Male
50
Female
40
Per cent
30
20
10
0
None 1- 30mins 30-59 mins 1-1hr 59 2 - 3 hrs 3+hrs
mins
Duration
10.5 Amount of time spent using the internet for personal interests
10.5.1 Typical workday
Employed respondents were asked „How much time do you spend on a typical
workday using the internet (including email) for personal interests?‟. Response
options were: none of the time; less than 30 minutes; 30-59 minutes; 1 – 1 hour 59
minutes; 2-3 hours; and more than 3 hours.
The likelihood of using the internet for personal interests for more than an hour on
workdays declines with age, with 62% of 14-17 year olds using it for an hour or more
compared to 18% of people aged 60 years or more (see Figure 32). About one-third of
the balance of individuals uses the internet for an hour or more for personal interests
on work days.

Figure 32: Average workday internet use for personal interests (by age)
70
60
14 - 17 yrs
50
18 - 29 yrs
Per cent
40 30 - 39 yrs
30 40 - 49 yrs
50 - 59 yrs
20
60+ yrs
10
0
None <1 hour 1+ hours
Duration
Male and female workers have similar internet use for personal interests on workdays,
the only slight difference being that males are more likely than females to spend more
than 3 hours per day on the internet for these purposes.
While managers/professionals are heavier work/study internet users on workdays,

they are lighter users of the internet for personal interests than other occupations on
those days (see Figure 33).It is evident that using the internet for purposes other than
work has become normal behaviour for the majority of people, with a surprisingly
high proportion – over 35% - reporting that they typically use the internet for more
than an hour each workday for personal interests.
Figure 33: Average workday internet use for personal interests (by occupation)
80
60
Managers
Per cent
40 Professionals
Tradesperson
20 Others
0
Duration

10.5.2 Typical non-workday
Employed respondents were also asked „How much time do you spend on a typical
non-workday using the internet (including email) for personal interests?‟. Response
options were identical to those used in the preceding question: none of the time; less
than 30 minutes; 30-59 minutes; 1 – 1 hour 59 minutes; 2-3 hours; and more than 3
hours.
Employed people spend more time on the internet for personal interests on non-
workdays (median duration = 1<2 hours) than workdays (median duration = 30<60
minutes).
Thirty-one per cent of males and 24% of females typically spend at least 2 hours per
non-workday on the internet to pursue personal interests (compared to 20% for males
and 16% for females on workdays).
There is a clear age-related pattern of internet use for personal interests on non-
workdays (see Figure 34): the older the person, the less likely he/she is to spend more
than one hour on the internet and the more likely to spend up to one hour pursuing
personal interests on the internet, or no time at all.
Figure 34: Average non-workday internet use for personal interests (by age)
80
60 14 - 17 yrs
18 - 29 yrs
Per cent
30 - 39 yrs
40
40 - 49 yrs
50 - 59 yrs
20 60+ yrs
0
Duration
Occupationally, trades people are more likely than others not to use the internet and
less likely than others to spend more than one hour on it on non-workdays to pursue
personal interests (see Figure 35).

Figure 35: Average non-workday internet use for personal interests (by occupation)
60
40 Managers
Per cent
Professionals
Tradesperson
20
Others
0
Duration
10.6 Can I live without the internet?

All participants were asked „How much would you miss the internet if it disappeared
today?‟ The five response categories and response rates were:
 I wouldn‟t miss it at all because my daily life could proceed as normal (12%)
 I would miss it sometimes (28%)
 I would miss it often enough that my daily life could not proceed as normal (7%)
 I would miss it often (21%)
 I would miss it an extreme amount (33%).
We found that 60% of people, males and females alike, would miss the internet such
that their lives could not proceed as normal. More than half of these people reported
that they would miss it „an extreme amount‟ if it disappeared today. Constituting
those who would miss the internet an extreme amount are 40% of managers, 36% of
professionals, 23% of trades people, and 26% of other non-professional occupations
(see Figure 36).

Figure 36: How much I‟d miss the internet (by occupation)
50
Wouldn't miss it at all
40
Would miss it
sometimes
30
Per cent
Daily life could not

proceed as normal
20
Would miss it often
10 Would miss it an
extreme amount
0
Managers Professionals Tradespeople Other
Occupation
We found that students (69%) would miss the internet a moderate to extreme amount,
more than retirees (56%) and employed people (62%). With 94% of students in our
sample being aged less than 30 years, these results are mirrored in the following age-
based results, particularly in the lower and higher age groups.
Forty-six per cent of 14-17 year olds and a progressive decline to 27% of people aged
over 60 years reported that they would miss the internet „an extreme amount‟ if it
disappeared today, so we have concluded that the older the person is the less he/she is
likely to miss the internet. This is further borne out by evidence that more older
people responded with „I wouldn‟t miss it at all…‟ than all other ages (20% among
60+ years, 13% among 50-59 year olds declining to 6% among 14-17 year olds).
How much people would miss their mobiles compared to the internet is portrayed in
Figure 37. Similar proportions wouldn‟t miss either (12%). However, twice as many
people would miss the internet (33%) „an extreme amount‟ compared to missing their
mobiles, while about 16% more people would miss their mobiles „sometimes‟
compared to missing the internet.

Figure 37: How much I‟d miss my mobile compared to the internet
50
Mobile
40 Internet
Per cent
30
20
10
0
Not at all Sometimes Often enough Often Extreme amount
I would miss it...
11. WORK-FAMILY ISSUES AND THE INTERNET
11.1 Perceived effect of internet on work/life balance

Employed respondents were asked to rate „What impact has the use of the internet
(including email) had on your ability to balance your work and home/family life?‟ on
a five point scale, ranging from „increased a lot‟ to „decreased a lot‟.
The internet has had a positive, rather than negative, impact on workers‟ ability to
balance their work and home lives. Although 51% reported no change, the positive
effect is evident in the 41% reporting that the internet has increased their ability to
find work/life balance as opposed to 8% who felt that it had had the opposite effect
(see Figure 38). The mobile phone, however, is felt to have had a greater impact on
facilitating work/life balance than has the internet, with about 51% believing that the
mobile helps them to balance their family and working lives (as described in section
8.3).

Figure 38: How much the internet has affected work/life balance
60
40
Per cent
20
0
Increased a lot Increased No change Decreased Decreased a lot
somewhat somewhat
Impact of Internet on work/life balance
Analysis by occupation (Figure 39) reveals that professionals (45%) and managers
(47%) have felt the greatest positive impact of the internet on their work/life balance,
and are less likely than other occupational groups to perceive „no change‟. People in
production (70%) and labouring (66%) occupations are much more likely than others
to regard the internet as having made „no change‟ to their ability to balance their work
and home lives.
Figure 39: Internet has increased or not changed work/life balance (by occupation)
Increased No change
80
60
Per cent
40
20
0
Professional
Occupation

About 45% of workers aged 18-39 years report that the internet has increased their
ability to balance their work and home lives, compared to between 34% and 38% for
other ages.
11.2 Perceived effect of internet on time spent with family and friends
All respondents were asked to rate „To what extent has your use of the internet altered
the amount of time you spend face-to-face with family and friends?‟ on a five point
scale ranging from „significant increase‟ to „significant decrease‟.
Sixty-six per cent of people, females (70%) more than males (62%), believe that the
internet has not changed the amount of time they spend with family and friends.
However, more people (21%) felt that the internet had decreased their time with
family/friends than felt it had increased it (13%). Males (23%) are more likely than
females (18%) to feel that the internet has decreased the quality of time spent with
family and friends.
Analysis by age (see Figure 40) revealed that the older the person the more likely they
were to feel that the internet had not altered the time they spent with family and
friends. Younger people are more likely than others to feel that the internet has
decreased their time spent with family/friends.
Figure 40: How much the internet has affected time spent with family/friends (by age)
80
60 14 - 17 yrs
Per cent
18 - 29 yrs
40 30 - 39 yrs
40 - 49 yrs
20 50 - 59 yrs
60+ yrs
0
Increase No change Decrease
Effect on time spent with family/friends

11.3 Perceived effect of internet on time spent on “other pastimes”
All respondents were asked to rate „To what extent has your use of the internet altered
the amount of time you spend in other pastimes (such as TV viewing, reading, sport,
social outings)?‟ on a five point scale ranging from „significant increase‟ to
„significant decrease‟.
Fifty-two per cent of individuals, females (55%) more than males (49%) (see Figure
41), feel that the Internet has not changed their time spent in other pastimes, while
34% feel that the internet has decreased their time for other pastimes.
Figure 41: How much the internet has affected time spent in other pastimes (by gender)
Female
60
Male
50
40
Per cent
30
20
10
0
Change in time on other pastimes
Figure 42 reveals that non-professionals (58%) are much more likely than other
occupations (46%) to feel that the internet has made no change to the time they spend
in other pastimes, whilst people in other occupations, dominantly managers and
professionals (about 40%), are more likely to feel that the internet has decreased their
time for other pastimes.

Figure 42: How much internet has affected time spent in other pastimes (by occupation)
80
Manager
60 Professional
Assoc Professional
Per cent
40 Tradesperson
Clerical
20 Production
Labourer
0
Effect on time spent in other pastimes
People aged 18-29 years are the most likely (40%), followed by 50-59 year olds
(36%), to feel that the internet has decreased their time spent in other pastimes; the
least likely to feel this way are people aged 60 years or more (27% ) (see Figure 43).
Figure 43: How much internet has affected time spent in other pastimes (by age)
50
40
Per cent
30
20
10
0
14 - 17 18 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60+
Age (years)
Similar proportions (14%) of people felt that the internet had increased their time for
both „other pastimes‟ and family and friends, but more felt that it has decreased their
time spent in other pastimes (34%) than felt it had eroded time spent with family and
friends (21%). This leads us to the tentative conclusion that, in time-stretched lives in

which using the internet has quickly become „the norm‟, more people are willing to
forego other pastimes than time with family/friends.
12. QUALITY OF WORK LIFE
12.1 Preferred hours of work

Employed respondents were asked what their work preference would be if they „could
choose the number of hours you work each week (and taking into account how that
would affect your income) would you prefer to work.
The results were:

 fewer hours than I do now: 37%
 about the same hours as you do now: 55%
 more hours than you do now: 8%
We investigated a possible association between preferred number of hours of work

and workers‟ feelings about „being rushed or pressed for time‟ and found, possibly
unsurprisingly, that people who „always‟ or „often‟ felt rushed or pressed for time
were most likely to prefer to work fewer hours than they currently did. In fact, 50% of
people who would prefer to work fewer hours reported that they „always‟ or „often‟
feel rushed or pressed for time. By comparison, 35% of people who are either happy
to work the same hours or would like to work more hours, reported that they
always/often felt rushed for time.
We also investigated whether workers‟ sense of changes in the effort they had to put
into their jobs, with or without the intervention of a mobile phone, e-mail or the
internet, was reflected in their preferences concerning the number of hours they
worked. We found that the mobile phone was the least likely to be attributed with
increasing work effort. Moreover, we concluded that, for the 92% of workers who
preferred to work „about the same hours as I do now‟ or „fewer hours than I do now‟,
the increased effort they reported as having to put into their jobs over the past three
years cannot be attributed in only a small way to the three communication
technologies; rather, factors not investigated in our research have contributed
substantially to increased work effort.

12.2 Flexibility of work starting and finishing times
Employed respondents were asked „Which of the following statements best describes
how the starting and finishing times of your work are decided?‟:
 Starting and finishing times are decided by my employer and I cannot change
them on my own.
 I can decide the time I start and finish work, within certain limits.
 I am entirely free to decide when I start and finish work.
We found that almost half of the workers in our study have some degree of influence
on their starting and finishing times (47%), whilst a further 13% are entirely free to
decide when they start and finish work. Employers determine the starting and
finishing times for the remaining 41% of workers.
We also found that, to a small degree, the more people are able to influence their
starting and finishing times the less likely they are to want to work fewer hours than
they currently do, or the more likely they are to be happy to work the same number of
hours.
12.3 Working “unsociable” hours

All household members were asked „How often are adults in your household at work
after 8pm or overnight?‟ and/or „at weekends?‟. The five response options for each
question were: always; often; sometimes; hardly ever; and never.
We found that the majority of individuals lived in households that experience one or
more household members working „unsociable hours‟ with varying frequency. Thirty-
eight per cent of respondents reported that their households never had anyone working
after 8pm or overnight and 29% never had anyone who worked at weekends.
Weekend work is more common than „after hours‟, with 28% of people reporting that
household member(s) worked at weekends „often‟ or „always‟ compared to 19% who
worked „often‟ or „always‟ after 8pm or overnight (see Figure 44).

Figure 44: Frequency of individuals working unsociable hours
40
After 8pm or overnight
At weekends
30
Per cent
20
10
0
Always Often Sometimes Hardly ever Never
Frequency
We explored the possible impact of working unsociable hours on the number of hours
people preferred to work. We found that 40% of those who work either after 8pm or
overnight and/or at weekends would prefer to work fewer hours than they currently
do.
12.4 Job security

The phenomenon of job security was explored among workers who responded to the
question, „How secure do you feel in your current job?‟ with either „very secure‟; „not
very secure‟; „secure‟; or „very insecure‟.
We found that 24% of employed people felt either „very insecure‟ or „not very secure‟
in their current jobs, and that the likelihood of feeling insecure in one‟s job decreased
with increasing age (see Figure 45).

Figure 45: Individual sense of job insecurity (by age)
35
30
25
Per cent
20
15
10
5
0
17 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65+
Age (Years)
12.5 Working quickly or to tight deadlines

One dimension of working conditions was explored with the question, „How much of
the time in your job do you have to work quickly or to tight deadlines?‟. The five
response options were: all of the time; very often; fairly often; sometimes; and never.
Time pressure of work appears top be „the norm‟. We found that 71% of people
worked to tight deadlines half the time or more, and only 3% reported that they never
did (see Figure 46).
Figure 46: Frequency of working to tight deadlines
25
20
Per cent
15
10
0
All time Almost all ¾ of the Half the ¼ time Almost Never
time time time never
Frequency

We discovered that labourers (55%) were the most likely to report that they worked ¾
or more of the time to tight deadlines, followed by trades people and managers then
other occupations (see Figure 47). Much is reported in the literature about high
pressured work amongst managers, so our finding that labourers and trades people
were the most likely to report that they worked quickly or to tight deadlines ¾ or more
of the time is unexpected.
Figure 47: Working 75% or more of the time to tight deadlines (by occupation)
60
40
Per cent
20
0
Professional
Occupation
12.6 Never enough time?

Employed respondents were asked to rate their agreement/disagreement with the
statement, „I never have enough time to get everything done on my job‟ using a five
point scale: strongly agree; somewhat agree; neither agree nor disagree; somewhat
disagree; and disagree.
Almost half of working individuals either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with
the statement „I never have enough time to get everything done on my job‟, while
26% disagreed to some extent.
We have found that there is an association between never having enough time to get
everything done and the frequency of working to tight deadlines. For example, 41% of
individuals who reported that they „worked to tight deadlines all of the time‟ also

reported that they never had enough time to get everything done on their job. As the
frequency of working to tight deadlines diminished, the likelihood of never having
enough time also declined (Never, 6%). On the other hand, among those who mostly
had enough time to get everything done on their job, only 6% reported that they
always worked to tight deadlines, compared to 22% who never did. Figure 48 presents
an overview of the results in which the pairs of „agree‟ and „disagree‟ responses to the
„I never have enough time…‟ statement have been merged respectively into „mostly
not enough time‟ and „typically enough time‟.
Figure 48: Comparing frequency of working to tight deadlines with time to get job done
80
70
60
Tight deadlines all of the time
50
Per cent
Tight deadlines very often

40
Tight deadlines fairly often
30
Tight deadlines sometimes
20
Never tight deadlines
10
0
Mostly not enough time Neutral on enough time Typically enough time
Amount of time available to do work
12.7 Change in the effort I put into my job compared to three years ago
Respondents who were either working for the same employer or in the same type of
job as three years previously were asked to compare the effort they currently put into
their jobs compared to three years ago, both generally, and specifically as a
consequence of using each of three communication technologies – mobile phone, e-
mail, and the internet. The response options in each question were: a lot higher; a little
higher; stayed about the same; a little lower; a lot lower; and, for the technology-
specific questions, „not applicable – I do not use this technology in my job‟.

12.7.1 Overall
We found that less than 10% of workers feel that their jobs, overall, require less effort
than they did 3 years ago. On the other hand, 55% feel that their jobs require more
effort (see Figure 49).
Figure 49: Effort put into job compared to 3 years ago
40
30
Per cent
20
10
0
A lot higher A little higher About the same A little lower A lot lower
Change in work effort
12.7.2 How affected by mobile phone use

Twenty-five per cent of workers indicated that they do not use a mobile phone in the
course of their work. Of those who do, the majority (73%) felt that the mobile had not
changed the effort they have to put in their jobs, while 19% felt that it had resulted in
more effort (see Figure 50).
Figure 50: Perceived change in work effort resulting from mobile phone
80
60
Per cent
40
20
0
A lot higher A little higher About the same A little lower A lot lower
Change in work effort

12.7.3 How affected by e-mail
Twenty per cent of workers indicated that they do not use e-mail in the course of their
work. Of those who do, 36% felt that it had resulted in increased work effort, while a
smaller proportion, 14%, felt that it had had the opposite effect. Fifty-one per cent felt
that it had not altered the effort they needed to put into their jobs.
12.7.4 How affected by all other internet use

Twenty-two per cent of workers indicated that they do not use the internet in the
course of their work. Of those who do, 54% felt that it had not changed the effort they
have to put in their jobs, and otherwise more likely to feel that it had increased their
effort (21%) than decreased it (17%).
Figure 51 provides an illuminating comparison of changes in overall work effort and

effort resulting from using a mobile phone, e-mail, or the internet in the course of
one‟s work. First, we found that twice as many people felt that the overall change in
their work effort was „a lot higher‟ or „a little higher‟ than the change in effort
associated with any of the three technologies. Second, the majority of people felt that
the technologies had not altered (i.e. increased or decreased) their work effort, and the
mobile phone is the least likely (27%) of the three to have altered work effort.
Figure 51: Comparing perceived changes in work effort compared to 3 years ago
Higher About the same Lower

80
60
Per cent
40
20
0
Overall Mobile phone Email Internet
Changes in work effort

12.8 Work-related stress
12.8.1 Frequency of work-related stress
Two questions explored work-related stress. In the first, employed respondents were
asked to rate „How often do you find your work stressful?‟ on a five point scale
ranging from „always‟ to „never‟, with a sixth response option, „can‟t choose‟, also
provided.
Only 4% of people reported that they never found their work stressful, while the
majority (65%) reported that they found their work stressful „sometimes‟ or „‟hardly
ever‟. Thirty per cent reported that „always‟ or „often‟ found their work stressful and
1% couldn‟t choose.
12.8.2 Change in levels of work-related stress

The second work-related stress question was asked only of those people who were
either working for the same employer or in the same type of job as three years
previously. Responses to this question, „Compared to three years ago, to what extent,
if any, have you experienced a change in the level of stress involved in your job?‟
were rated on a five point scale from „significant increase‟ to „significant decrease‟.
Fifty-six per cent of people reported that they had experienced increased job-related
stress over the past three years, while few (11%) had experienced reduced stress. The
rest (33%) had experienced no change.
13. LIFE ISSUES IN HOUSEHOLDS - GENERAL
13.1 Feeling rushed or pressed for time

Employed people (n=1390) were asked, „How often do you feel rushed or pressed for
time?‟. Responses were rated on a five point scale from „always‟ to „never‟ (i.e.
always; often; sometimes; rarely; never).
Although females were slightly more likely than males to report that they were either
„always‟ or „often‟ rushed or pressed for time and, conversely, less likely to be
„rarely‟ pressed for time, the differences are insignificant.

Moreover, people who are in the workforce are no more or less rushed or pressed for
time than those who are not.
With the exception of those who responded „never‟ to the above question, respondents
were then asked, „What are all the reasons you feel rushed or pressed for time?‟.
People identified with one or more of six reasons as follows:
 Trying to balance work and family responsibilities (58%)
 Pressure of work/study (52%)
 Too much to do / too many demands placed on me (43%)
 Demands of family (39%)
 Take too much time/not good at managing time (22%)
 Other (5%)
The most common reason for feeling rushed for time is „trying to balance work and
family responsibilities‟, a reason reported roughly equally by both working males
(58%) and females (59%), as were „too many demands placed on me‟, „demands of
family‟, and time management difficulties. However, females (46%) are less likely
than males (57%) to report „pressure of work/study‟ as a reason for feeling rushed for
time (see Figure 52).
Among those who „always‟ or „often‟ felt rushed for time, the only notable gender
difference we observed is that males (70%) are more likely than females (59%) to cite
„pressure of work/study‟ as a reason for feeling rushed for time.
Figure 52: Reasons for feeling always or often rushed or pressed for time (by gender)
70
Male
60
Female
50
Per cent
40
30
20
10
0
Balance Work/study Family Not good time Too many Other
work/family demands manager demands
Reason

13.2 Family success at managing work and family responsibilities
Respondents who lived in a household that was neither a single-person household nor
a shared household of unrelated people that had at least one person in paid work were
asked to rate „How successful is your family at managing work and family
responsibilities?‟ using the response options: very successful; moderately successful;
neither successful nor unsuccessful; unsuccessful; and unsure.
We found that the majority of people (79%) in households of related people felt that
they were „very successful‟ or „moderately successful‟ at managing work and family
responsibilities. Few (2%) felt that they weren‟t.
13.3 Perceived effects of having both work and home/family responsibilities

13.3.1 “Makes me a more rounded person”
statement, „Having both work and home/family responsibilities makes me a more
rounded person‟ on a five point scale from „strongly disagree‟ to „strongly agree‟,
with centre point „neither agree nor disagree‟.
We found that more substantially people (62%) than not (8%) felt that having work
and family responsibilities made them more rounded people. The other 29% were
neutral in their responses.
13.3.2 “Gives my life more variety”

statement, „Having both work and home/family responsibilities gives my life more
variety‟, on a five point scale from „strongly disagree‟ to „strongly agree‟.
We found that 69% of people felt that having work and family responsibilities gave
their lives more variety. Few (7%) felt that it did not, while 23% neither agreed nor
disagreed with the statement.
13.3.3 “Makes me feel competent”

statement, „Having both work and home/family responsibilities makes me feel
competent‟ on a five point scale from „strongly disagree‟ to „strongly agree‟.

We found that 63% of people felt that having both work and family responsibilities
makes them feel competent. Few (7%) felt that it did not, while 29% neither agreed
nor disagreed with the statement.
Figure 53: Comparing perceived effects of having both work and family responsibilities
80
60
Per cent
Disagree
40 Neutral
Agree
20
0
Makes me a more Gives my life more Makes me feel
rounded person variety competent
Having work and family responsibilities . .
Figure 53 compares the strength of agreement and disagreement with the three
statements of effect of „having both work and family responsibilities‟, revealing that
the majority of those who work and have families agree that working makes them a
more rounded person, gives their lives more variety, and makes them feel more
competent.
13.4 Family support

Respondents were asked to rate their agreement/disagreement with the following five
„family support‟ statements using the scale: always; often; sometimes; hardly ever;
never; and can‟t choose:
a) „I can turn to my family for help when something is troubling me‟.
b) „I am satisfied with the way my family talks over things with me‟.
c) „I am satisfied that my family accepts and supports my wishes to take on new

activities or directions‟.
d) „I am satisfied with the way my family expresses affection and responds to my

emotions such as anger, sorrow or love.

e) „I am satisfied with the way my family and I share time together‟.
We found a moderately high degree of satisfaction with the quality of family

interactions in the five „family support‟ domains we measured. Around 60% of
workers with families feel very positive about the support they have from their
families (see Figure 54). Very few felt dissatisfied.
Figure 54: Satisfaction with quality of family interactions (by factor)
Always/Often Sometimes Hardly ever/Never
80
60
Per cent
40
20
0
Can turn to them Can talk things Feel supported Can express Can share
for help over in new affection quality time
directions
In my family I feel that I...
We wondered whether the level of satisfaction people have with the quality of their
family interactions might be mirrored in their perceptions of the effect the mobile
phone has had on their ability to balance their work and home/family/personal lives.
Our main observation is that 53% of workers owning a mobile phone who were
„always‟ or „often‟ satisfied with their family interactions felt that their mobile had
increased their ability to balance their work and personal lives.
Figure 55, on the other hand, reveals that the 33% of all workers are always/often
satisfied with their family interactions and feel that the mobile has contributed to their
increased ability to achieve work/family balance. A further 29%, whilst always/often
satisfied with their family interactions, feel that the mobile hasn‟t contributed to any
change in their ability to achieve work/life balance.

Figure 55: Family satisfaction based on perceived impact of mobile phone on ability to
balance work and family life
40
30 Always/Often family
satisfaction
Per cent
20 Sometimes family
satisfaction
10 Hardly ever/Never
family satisfaction
0
Increased ability balance No change in ability to Decreased ability
work/family balance work/family balance work/family
Change in work/family balance
Females who are satisfied with their family interactions are slightly more likely than
males to feel that their mobile has increased their ability to achieve work/family
balance.
13.5 Social support

Using a five point scale of „none of the time‟ to „all of the time‟, respondents were
asked to rate the availability to them of eight types of support from people outside
their families. The prefacing question was „Thinking of the people outside your
family, how often is each of the following kinds of support available to you if you
need it?‟
a) „Someone to share my most private worries and fears with‟.
b) „Someone I can turn to for practical support‟.
c) „Someone who shows me love and affection‟.
d) „Someone to do something enjoyable with‟.
e) „Someone who takes pride in my accomplishments‟.
f) „Someone to do things with to help me get my mind off things‟.

g) „Someone to turn to for suggestions about how to deal with a personal
problem‟.
h) „Someone to get together with for relaxation‟.
In all of the questions concerning social support, we found little variation in responses
to each question, and that over 90% of people experienced social support to some
degree, while 43% of people experienced high levels of social support (i.e. most of the
time or all of the time). It appears that people have similar levels of satisfaction with
the personal support they receive from their social networks and the quality of their
family interactions.
<Insert some comments about role of mobile phone in social support after Jude runs
the analysis>

14. WORK-TO-FAMILY SPILLOVER
The results reported in this section are yet to be analysed in relation to the role of the
mobile phone or other communication technologies on work-to-family spillover. The
results of the individual questions are presented here in the interest of providing a
comprehensive overview of the issues explored in Phase 1 of our research.
14.1 Effects of my job on home/family life

Employed respondents were asked to rate „How much do you feel that your
home/family life is interfered with by the demands of your job?‟ as one of the
following: a lot; quite a lot; as often as not; occasionally; not at all; can‟t choose; and
not applicable.
Fifty-nine per cent of workers felt that their home/family lives were interfered with
occasionally or never by the demands of their jobs. The remainder reported a
moderate to high degree of interference, with 29% reporting either „as often as not‟
and „quite a lot‟, and the remaining 6% reporting „a lot‟.
14.2 Effects of my partner‟s job on home/family life

All respondents were asked to rate „How much do you feel that your home/family life
is interfered with the demands of your partner‟s job?‟ on a four point scale from „a
lot‟ to „not at all‟, or respond with „can‟t choose‟ or „not applicable‟. They were
subsequently asked to respond to the question, „What do you think about how much
your partner works?‟, with either „work too much‟; „work about the right amount‟;
„work too little‟; or „not applicable‟.
Of the three-quarters of workers who responded to this question because they had a
partner (n=1067), 67% felt that their home/family lives were interfered with
occasionally or never by the demands of their partner‟s job. The remainder reported a
moderate to high degree of interference, with around 27% reporting either „as often as
not‟ and „quite a lot‟, and the remaining 5% reporting „a lot‟.

The majority of people with working partners felt that their partners worked about the
right amount (61%), while 31% felt that they worked too much. On the other hand
about 8% of partners were regarded as working too little.
14.3 Effects of my parent‟s job on home/family life

Using the same pattern of questioning as explained in section 14.2 above, respondents
were asked to rate „How much do you feel that your home/family life is interfered
with the demands of your parent‟s job?‟ on a four point scale from „a lot‟ to „not at
all‟, or respond with „can‟t choose‟ or „not applicable‟. Afterwards, they were asked
to respond to the question, „What do you think about how much your parents work?‟,
with either „work too much‟; „work about the right amount‟; „work too little‟; or „not
applicable‟.
Seventy per cent of respondents living at home with their parent(s) reported that they
had one or both parents working (n=328). Of these, the majority (78%) felt that their
home/family lives were interfered with only occasionally or never by the demands of
their parent‟s job. On the other hand, 14% reported a high to very high degree of
interference, while 8% felt that interference occurred „as often as not‟. A very small
number couldn‟t choose.
The majority of live-at-home children felt that their parents worked about the right
amount (63%), while 8% felt they worked too little. Notably, 30% felt that their
parents worked too much.
14.4 Effects of the jobs of other adults in household on home/family life

Again, using the same pattern of questioning as explained above, respondents were
asked to rate „How much do you feel that your home/family life is interfered with the
demands of the jobs of other adults in this household?‟, then respond to the question,
„What do you think about how much other adults in your household work?‟
Fifty-three per cent of individuals reported that there were employed adults in their
household, other than their parents. Of these, 77% felt that their home/family lives
were interfered with never or only occasionally by the demands of jobs of other adults
in their households, more than half of whom felt that there was no interference at all.

Eleven per cent felt that interference from other working adults in the household
occurred either „quite a lot‟, and „a lot‟.
The majority of people who had other working adults in their households felt that they
worked about the right amount (65%), while roughly similar number felt they worked
too little (16%). and too much (19%).
14.5 Missing out on home/family activities because of work responsibilities

statement, „Because of my work responsibilities I have missed out on home/family
activities that I would have liked to have taken part in‟ using a five point scale from
„strongly disagree‟ to „strongly agree‟.
Forty-four per cent of the 1362 workers who responded to this question expressed
agreement or strong agreement with the statement that work responsibilities have
caused them to miss out on home/family activities that they would have liked to have
taken part in. A smaller proportion, 33%, felt otherwise. The remaining 23% neither
agreed nor disagreed with the statement so it appears that work prevents more family
members than not from participating in desired home/family activities (see Figure 56).
Figure 56: Missing out on home/family activities due to work responsibilities
40
30
Per cent
20
10
0
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly agree
disagree agree/disagree
Work activities cause me to miss out on family activities

14.6 Perceived effect of work responsibilities on quality of home/family time
Employed respondents were then asked to rate their agreement/disagreement with the
statement, „Because of my work responsibilities my home/family time is less
enjoyable and more pressured‟ using the same five point scale from „strongly
disagree‟ to „strongly agree‟ as was used above.
More people (41%) than not (26%) felt that their work responsibilities had contributed
to making their home/family less enjoyable and more pressured. The remaining 32%
neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.
15. FAMILY-TO-WORK SPILLOVER

The results reported in this section are yet to be analysed in relation to the role of the
mobile phone or other communication technologies on family-to-work spillover. The
results of the individual questions are presented here in the interest of providing a
comprehensive overview of the issues explored in Phase 1 of our research.
15.1 Interference of my family life with my job

Employed respondents were asked to rate „How much do you think/feel that the
demands of your family life interfere with your job?‟ as one of the following: a lot;
quite a lot; as often as not; occasionally; not at all; can‟t choose; and not applicable.
A large majority (83%) of workers felt that the demands of their home, family, and/or
personal lives either never (41%) or occasionally (44%) interfered with their jobs. Of
the 16% who felt that these demands interfered with their jobs more than
occasionally, most responded with „as often as not‟ (9%) or „quite a lot‟ (6%).
15.2 Perceived effect of home/family responsibilities on my work opportunities

statement, „Because of my home/family responsibilities I have to turn down work or
opportunities that I would prefer to take on‟ using a five point scale from „strongly
disagree‟ to „strongly agree‟.

Only 16% of workers felt that home/family responsibilities prevented them from
taking on work or opportunities they‟d have preferred to take on, while 61% felt
otherwise. The remaining 23% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.
15.3 Perceived effect of home/family responsibilities on quality of time spent

working
statement, „Because of my home/family responsibilities the time I spend working is
less enjoyable and more pressured‟ using a five point scale from „strongly disagree‟ to
„strongly agree‟.
The results for this question virtually mirrored the previous one, with only 12% of
workers feeling that home/family responsibilities made their time spent at work less
enjoyable and more pressured, while 56% felt otherwise. A large proportion (31%),
however, was uncommitted one way or the other.

- DO NOT TYPE BELOW THIS LINE – THIS PAGE IS THE BACK COVER -
Enquiries to:
Professor Judy Wajcman
Research School of Social Sciences
Ph: +61 2 6125xxxx
Fax: +61 2 61253051
E-mail: judy.wajcman@anu.edu.au
Copies available: www.amta.org.au
View publication stats

AMTAPhase1 Final Report v6 11mar08-2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMTAPhase1 Final Report v6 11mar08-2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The impact of the mobile phone on work/life balance

Article · January 2007

Michael Bittman Paul K. Jones

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lynne Johnstone Judith E. Brown

Media Systems and Political Knowledge View project

Critical Theory and Demagogic Populism View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Phase 1 Final Report

Preliminary draft v.6 – 11 March 2008

Australian Research Council

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1

Figure 1: Occupation by gender .......................................................................................................... 10

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 -1-

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 -2-

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 -3-

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 -4-

The project is based on collaboration between university-based researchers and the

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 -5-

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 -6-

3.1 Survey design and sample

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 -7-

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 -8-

3.2 Profile of the internet-connected households

Table 1: Comparison of survey sample with ABS population benchmarks

Sample ABS LFS April

3.2.2 Number of workers and proportions by occupation

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 -9-

Figure 1: Occupation by gender

3.2.3 Technologies used

People in non-internet connected households appear to be slower adopters of diverse

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 - 10 -

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 - 11 -

Analysis by households reveals that about 83% of internet-connected households have

4. MOBILE PHONES, USE AND SERVICES

4.1 Individual mobile phone use within households

4.2 Occupation and mobile phone use

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 - 12 -

Table 2: Occupation and handset use

None One Two Three Four +

4.3 Personal income and mobile phone use

Table 3: Income and numbers of handsets

None One Two Three Four + Total

1st 14.6 71.4 13.1 0.0 0.9 100

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 - 13 -

4.5 Money matters

Around a third of managers and a quarter of associate professionals claim „my

4.5.2 What does it cost?

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 - 14 -

Figure 3: Mobile phone costs per month (by gender)

4.6 Purchasing decisions

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 - 15 -

4.6.2 Choice of network service provider

Figure 5: Factors influencing choice of network service provider

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 - 16 -

Table 4: Reasons for choosing a communication modality

What most What most What most What most

Convenience 29.2 32.8 50.6 21.5

4.8 Awareness of mobile broadband

Phase 1 Final Report draft 11-Mar-08 - 17 -

4.9 Separate mobile phones for home and work