........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

new media & society

Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi
Vol8(2):321–337 [DOI: 10.1177/1461444806061950]

ARTICLE

Mobile phones as fashion

statements: evidence from
student surveys in the US
and Japan
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

JAMES E. KATZ
SATOMI SUGIYAMA
Rutgers University, USA
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Abstract
Motivated by new theoretical perspectives that emphasize
communication technology as a symbolic tool and physical
extension of the human body and persona (Apparatgeist
theory and Machines That Become Us), this article explores
how fashion, as a symbolic form of communication, is
related to self-reports of mobile phone behaviors across
diverse cultures. A survey of college students in the United
States and Japan was conducted to demonstrate empirically
the relationship between fashion attentiveness and the
acquisition, use, and replacement of the mobile phone.
The results suggested that young people use the mobile
phone as a way of expressing their sense of self and
perceive others through a ‘fashion’ lens. Hence it may be
useful to investigate further how fashion considerations
could guide both the rapidly growing area of mobile
phone behavior, as well as human communication
behavior more generally.

Key words
fashion • Japan • mobile phone • technology • United
States

321

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

New Media & Society 8(2)

RATIONALE OF THE PROBLEM

Traditionally, scholarly analysis of the social aspects of communication
technology has emphasized how the technology can solve people’s problems
and needs. Models such as the ‘uses and gratifications’ model developed by
Katz et al. (1974) have become classics in the field of mass media. Even
after a half of a century, the theory continues to exert influence not only
over traditional media analyses but also over traditional and new
interpersonal mediated communication technologies. These include such
technologies as the landline telephone (Dimmick et al., 1994) and the
mobile phone (Leung and Wei, 2000). A large body of research has now
accumulated about how people perceive specific tangible benefits from their
technologies of communication (see Katz, 1999 for an overview).
However, the role that a given technology plays in communicative
activities is not only a matter of its function. As Katz and Aakhus (2002)
noted, people do not look to ‘intrusive technology’ as an answer for
problems or needs in their daily routine. The technological function of a
new tool is not necessarily the most important consideration when people
decide whether to adopt it. People do not always adopt a tool just because
it improves communication or eases a task. Added to this is the
consideration that, even when there is little change in the basic technology
and concept of a tool, people still seem to seek new devices that build on
that technology in a fresh way. This gap brings our attention to the question
of why people decide to adopt technology in their life. If it is not simply to
make daily life more convenient, why do they like to incorporate it into
their routine? This question suggests that it is important to explore other
communicative roles that technology plays in our life.
Domestication theory advanced by Roger Silverstone and Leslie Haddon
is relevant to considering our question since it draws attention to the
symbolic nature of goods (Haddon, 2003). This perspective is valuable in
understanding the degree to which this once bulky, expensive business tool
has become a personal technology, integrated into our bodies and fashion
sense, and thus domesticated. However, domestication alone seems to be
insufficient to account for the important and dynamic role that the
technology and its appearance plays in people’s lives. The mobile phone is
not disappearing from the public sphere. Rather it is intruding ever more, as
a device upon which social identity is created and expressed within people’s
domestic intellectual domain.
As a way of overcoming the limitation of the domestication perspective,
we propose to consider ‘fashion’ as a motive that guides how people use the
mobile phone (see Fortunati, 2002 for more discussion on fashion and
communication technologies). According to Katz and Aakhus (2002),
mobile communication technologies are both utilitarian and symbolic.
The symbolic aspect has been gaining attention as a movement toward

322

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Katz and Sugiyama: Mobile phones as fashion statements

‘understanding the body in relationship to machinery, symbolism, the arts,

and fashion’ (Katz, 2003: 16–17). This suggests that considering the
symbolic aspect of the mobile phone by focusing on the role of ‘fashion’ in
our everyday life could be one way of understanding how people use
mobile communication technology in social contexts.
Fashion is an area rich in communicative information about the self.
People use it not only to express their identity but to perceive and
understand others (e.g. Crane, 2000; Davis, 1985, 1992; Kaiser, 1997;
Rubinstein, 2001; Simmel, 1904, 1950; Steele, 1997). How the symbolic
interaction perspective is incorporated into the theoretical discussion of
fashion also suggests the potential relevance of fashion to the mobile phone.
Furthermore, Crane argues that fashion plays a central role in the
determination of the meanings of cultural goods:

[T]o understand contemporary societies, we need to pay more attention to

how meanings for cultural goods are produced, by whom, and in what
contexts; to how widely specific sets of meanings embodied in particular types
of cultural goods circulate; and to the nature of the public spaces in which
they diffuse. (Crane, 2000: 248)

These arguments lead us to think that fashion is an important form of

symbolic communication that could drive human behavior. Therefore, as an
aid to understanding the way in which people use the mobile phone, it is
meaningful to consider the relationship between fashion and the mobile
phone.

FASHION AND THE MOBILE PHONE

Davis (1985) discusses the ambivalent feelings that people experience about
fashion. According to him, such ambivalence includes ‘the subjective tension
of youth versus age, masculinity versus femininity, androgyny versus
singularity, inclusiveness versus exclusiveness, work versus play, domesticity
versus worldliness, revelation versus concealment, license versus restraint, and
conformity versus rebellion’ (1985: 24–5). These binary tensions are likely to
occur when people situate their ‘self ’ within certain social groups. Kaiser
(1997) notes that the identity ambivalence is especially evident in many
cultures today where society and fashion change rapidly. This, in turn,
suggests that ambivalence related to fashion stems from people’s emotional
need to keep abreast of fashion changes in order to maintain their
social identity. This ambivalence fosters people’s attentiveness toward
fashion changes.
It is within this fast-changing fashion environment in the modern world
that technologies have been adopted as accessories in our presentation of

323

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

New Media & Society 8(2)

self, and thus incorporated into a repertoire of the ‘personal front’

(Goffman, 1959). The way that people select the design and brand of
wristwatches is a good example; such a phenomenon seems to have
extended to the way that people select their mobile phones.
There is an increasing attention to fashion and technology as an
outgrowth of the growing interest in the sociology of the body. The topics
include the way in which technology is incorporated into clothing and
displayed upon the body (Fortunati, 2002). Fortunati considered the mobile
phone’s social implications in Italy, focusing on its aesthetic dimension. She
attributes its success to its ‘fashionableness’. Consequently, she argues, the
mobile phone has become a ‘necessary accessory’ (2002: 54). She also points
out that the mobile was associated with the upper classes in Italian society
until quite recently. Thus, according to Fortunati, ‘the mobile is an accessory
that enriches those who wear it, because it shows just how much they are
the object of communicative interest, and are thereby desired, on the part of
others’ (2002: 54). Fortunati’s argument suggests an interesting point that
mobile phone ownership and its use communicate ‘about’ the person. This
leads us to think of the mobile phone not only as a tool to ‘talk’ but also as
a means to communicate symbolically about oneself. The mobile phone
influences how people perceive others as well as whether people would
hope to form a personal relationship, and in turn it influences how people
decide to incorporate the mobile phone into their self images.
A similar phenomenon is reported in the case of Norway. Ling and Yttri
(2002) introduced ‘Hyper-coordination theory’, which concerns the
symbolic aspect of the mobile phone in addition to its functional and
instrumental aspects. According to Ling and Yttri, hyper-coordination adds
two dimensions to instrumental coordination: ‘the expressive use of the
mobile telephone’ and ‘in-group discussion and agreement about the proper
forms of self-presentation vis-à-vis the mobile telephone’ (2002: 140). The
expressive use of the mobile phone refers to emotional and social
communication, such as a chat with one’s friends. The proper forms of self-
presentation refer to ‘the type of mobile phone that is appropriate, the way
in which it is carried on the body and the places in which it is used’ (2002:
140). In their report of interviews with Norwegian teenagers, they make a
point of noting how teenagers see functionality as a secondary consideration
by quoting how a 17-year-old talked about a big unfashionable phone. Ling
and Yttri report that having the correct style and type of device is a vital
point in self-presentation for teenagers.
Fortunati also argues the importance of ‘how to use’ mobile phones to
look ‘appropriate’, and consequently, ‘fashionable’. She states that, on the
one hand, knowing how to use the mobile with ease gives users prestige; on
the other hand, using it indiscreetly or with anxiety of continual contact is

324

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Katz and Sugiyama: Mobile phones as fashion statements

considered vulgar (Fortunati, 2002). This suggests that mobile phone

ownership is not sufficient when considering the ‘fashionableness’ of the
mobile phone. The way that people use their phone is an important aspect
that influences others’ perception of ‘fashionableness’.

APPARATGEIST THEORY
With the emerging importance of the question of the social consequences of
personal communication technology, Katz and Aakhus (2002) created
‘Apparatgeist theory’, which attempts to explain a form of communication
mediated through personal technologies. ‘Apparatgeist’ suggests ‘the spirit of
the machine that influences both the designs of the technology as well as the
initial and subsequent significance accorded them by users, non-users and
anti-users’ (2002: 305). The theory intends to overcome the limitations of
functionalist and structuration theories by drawing attention to such issues as

the way that people use mobile technologies as tools in their daily life in terms
of tool-using behavior and the relationship among technology, body and social
role [and] the rhetoric and meaning-making that occur via social interaction
among users (and non-users). (2002: 315)

In other words, Apparatgeist theory argues that users, non-users and anti-
users of technology, as well as those who use it in different ways, assign
different meanings to it. Consequently, it poses the question of what kinds
of meanings are assigned to them, and by whom.
In considering this question, it is important to draw attention to the use
of communication tools in the context of group membership and social
identity (Katz, 2003). In discussing fashion and culture, Kaiser states that
people bring their own ways of perceiving others’ appearances, and culture
plays a role in forming their ‘lenses’ (1997: 550). Hence it is useful to
compare different cultures in exploring the symbolic meanings of personal
communication technology. Although research on the mobile phone and
fashion based on a specific cultural context is growing (e.g. Fortunati, 2002;
Green, 2003; Kasesniemi and Rautiainen, 2002; Ling and Yttri, 2002),
comparative studies among different cultures still seems to be scarce. In
particular, cultures which are traditionally considered ‘different’ according to
various social values and behaviors have not been well examined yet.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Given the growing importance of the mobile phone in relation to fashion as
well as the lack of sufficient comparative study in the issue, we
systematically explore the following research questions:

325

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

New Media & Society 8(2)

RQ1: How can we understand the role of fashion in mobile phone behavior?
RQ2: Is culture important in understanding mobile communication?

The first research question is often explored by means of ethnographic

research, but this has not been examined based on statistical data. Therefore
we developed a scale for ‘fashion attentiveness’, and explored the relationship
between fashion attentiveness and various behaviors related to the mobile
phone.
Regarding the second research question, we attempt to challenge the
typical argument that emphasizes cultural ‘differences’. Katz et al. (2003)
conducted a comparative study on the perceptions of the mobile phone in
Korea and the US. Based on the findings, accompanied with some data
from Namibia and Norway, they speculate that there appear to be noticeable
‘consistencies’ as well as differences across the cultures examined in terms of
the image of the mobile phone, including ‘style’ and ‘fashion’ considerations.
Our second research question serves as a follow-up of this hypothesis,
focusing specifically on the concept of ‘fashion’. For this purpose, the
comparison between the US and Japan is appropriate because traditionally
they are considered as different in various aspects, such as the individualism–
collectivism discussed by Hofstede (1980, 1991). Hall (1976) also
characterizes these two cultures as different using high-context versus low-
context dimensions. These suggest that the Americans and Japanese are quite
divergent in terms of the way that they express themselves, and this
divergence could be extended to the way in which they communicate
through fashion. However, these two cultures are similar in containing a
large number of early technology adopters. Thus the US and Japan provides
a worthwhile comparison for considering the role of fashion in mobile
phone behavior.
Young people were selected to be the focus of this study, given the nature
of our research topic. Numerous scholars pay special attention to the way in
which young people use mobile phones (e.g. Kasesniemi and Rautiainen,
2002; Ling and Yttri, 2002; Skog, 2002). Green argues that young people
negotiate the social and cultural values of the mobile phone ‘in relation to
identity, difference, independence, and interdependence’ (2003: 213). As a
result, she argues, they have established ‘patterns’ of meanings and use, but
at the same time there is also a significant ‘diversity’ among young people.
She points out that there are some young people who are not enthusiastic
about consumption of the mobile phone. This argument theoretically
supports the idea of exploring differences among young people, rather than
treating them as one group. In addition, focusing on young people (in this
study, college students) allows us to keep factors such as age group and
status constant when examining the proposed research questions.

326

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Katz and Sugiyama: Mobile phones as fashion statements

DATA
US data source
Given the apparently significant role of fashion in the symbolic aspects of
communication, we developed a scale to assess fashion attentiveness. A
survey questionnaire was administered in a communication class of a US
university in autumn 2001. Of the students, 305 filled out the questionnaire.
Following the approach recommended by Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991),
factor analysis was used to develop a scale. As a result, 10 items were
selected, including ‘I try to keep up with fashion changes’ and ‘I check out
fashion magazines’. The scale assesses how much people pay attention to
new fashion trends. A five-point Likert scale was used, with 5 = strongly
agree and 1 = strongly disagree. The fashion attentiveness scale yielded
alpha = .89 reliability.
Using this scale (with the addition of two more items that conceptually
fit it) and other questions regarding the mobile phone, a follow-up survey
was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 269 students in an introductory
communication course at a large state university in the northeastern US
filled out the questionnaire. Cases with more than two missing or
implausible values were omitted from the analysis to maximize accuracy. As
a result of this process, a total of 254 cases remained (161 female, 93 male).
Over 95 percent were 18–21 years old. As for ethnic or geographical
background, 23.6 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander, 15.4 percent were
black/African-American/Caribbean, 5.1 percent were Latino/Hispanic/Latin
American, 2.8 percent were Middle Eastern and 52.8 percent were white/
European-American.1 Factor analysis confirmed that the fashion
attentiveness scale was unidimensional. Reliability alpha score on the fashion
attentiveness scale was .90.
Questions to assess mobile phone behavior included: the timing of mobile
phone adoption (more than six years ago, four to five years ago, two to
three years ago, less than one year ago, no phone); frequency of mobile
phone use (heavily, regularly, occasionally, seldom, never); and frequency of
changing the mobile phone (more than three times, twice, once, never, no
phone). In addition, questions regarding the phone’s fashionable image were
asked. For the timing of mobile phone adoption, only a few people said
that they adopted it ‘more than six years ago’, so this category was
combined with ‘four to five years ago’ and labeled ‘more than four
years ago’.

Japanese data source

The survey was translated into Japanese by two bilinguals and administered
in a university located in Tokyo area. Of the Japanese participants, 251
students from a media studies course and research methods course at a
private university in the Tokyo area filled out the questionnaire in spring

327

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

New Media & Society 8(2)

2002. Consistent with the US dataset process, cases with more than two
missing or implausible values were deleted to obtain accuracy. As a result of
this process, a total of 236 cases remained (79 female, 156 male, one non-
specified). Again, over 95 percent were 18–21 years old, and more than 98
percent of the respondents were born in Japan. The reliability alpha score
for the fashion attentiveness of the Japanese sample was compatible with the
US sample, namely .89.

RESULTS
The data were analyzed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) Version 10. We acknowledge that our samples are not representative
of the general population of youth in the US or Japan. Our statistical
analyses are for descriptive purposes, as well as to form a foundation for
theorizing and further testing. The reported significance levels should not be
interpreted as parametric statistics, but rather as a description of potential
relationships among variables in this dataset.

Fashion attentiveness and mobile phone: related?

The mean scores of fashion attentiveness by mobile phone behavior are
presented in Table 1.
Both the US and Japanese data indicated a similar trend: the more
attentive people were to fashion, the earlier they reported having started
using a mobile phone (F = 5.06, p < .01 for the US sample; F = 7.88,
p < .01 for the Japanese sample).
Regarding fashion attentiveness and changing their mobile phones, the
data indicated that the more attentive they were to fashion, the more
frequently young people changed their mobile phones. Again, this held for
both the US and Japan. The differences were both significant (F = 3.96,
p < .01 for the US sample; F = 7.45, p < .01 for the Japanese sample).
The data also indicated that in both the US and the Japanese samples, heavy
mobile phone users tended to be more attentive to fashion. This trend has
been found repeatedly in the follow-up surveys in the US (autumn 2002,
spring 2003) with similar sample groups.
The samples were catagorized into four groups depending on their
adoption timing and frequency of use in order to explore further the
relationship among the variables. As Figure 1 shows, those in both cultures
who were in the early adoption/heavy use category seemed to be the most
fashion attentive.
Overall, these results suggest that fashion-attentive youths are keen to try
new mobile communication technology and are willing to adopt it, use it
often and are more likely to trade it in for newer models. Thus the data
suggest that fashion attentiveness seems to be an important factor in
predicting how youths use new mobile communication technology.

328

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Katz and Sugiyama: Mobile phones as fashion statements

• Table 1 Means of fashion attentiveness by mobile phone behaviors

US JAPAN
MEAN (SD) MEAN (SD)

Adoption +4 years ago 47.58 (10.78) 35.21 (9.56)

N = 40 N = 99
2–3 years ago 47.17 (7.93) 31.03 (8.92)
N = 115 N = 102
< 1 years ago 43.29 (9.13) 28.68 (11.70)
N = 62 N = 19
No phone 42.05 (9.96) 25.19 (7.16)
N = 37 N = 16
Use Heavily 50.37 (9.20) 34.97 (9.42)
N = 27 N = 87
Regularly 47.46 (7.56) 31.82 (9.23)
N = 89 N = 67
Occasionally 43.60 (8.04) 30.73 (9.90)
N = 50 N = 45
Seldom 44.04 (11.23) 26.45 (8.43)
N = 45 N = 22
Never 42.37 (9.72) 30.67 (11.01)
N = 43 N = 15
Change + 3 times 50.57 (7.65) 35.35 (9.39)
N = 14 N = 40
Twice 47.95 (7.86) 35.10 (8.92)
N = 38 N = 42
Once 46.60 (8.53) 32.99 (9.42)
N = 90 N = 93
Never 43.58 (9.80) 27.37 (9.62)
N = 77 N = 49
No phone 42.51 (10.09) 25.17 (6.34)
N = 35 N = 12

Is the mobile phone fashionable?

To understand how young people see the mobile phone in society, we used
the following two statements:

(1) Fashionable people use mobile phones more than other people.
(2) Some people get a mobile phone just because it is fashionable.

As Figures 2 and 3 reveal, heavier mobile phone users were less likely to
associate the mobile phone with fashionable people than non or less
frequent mobile phone users did for both cultures.

Is the style of the mobile phone important?

Although those who use a mobile phone frequently do not consider it as a
technology for the fashionable, they are in fact quite conscious of the style
characteristics of their own mobile phone. In addition, those who adopted

329

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

New Media & Society 8(2)

55
US Japan
50
Fashion attentiveness (mean)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Late adopt/ Late adopt/ Early adopt/ Early adopt/
light use heavy use light use heavy use

• Figure 1 Fashion attentiveness by adoption/use

3.0

2.9
US
2.8 Japan
Fashionable image

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.0
No MP Seldom Occasionally Regularly Heavily

N =254 for US, N=236 for Japan

• Figure 2 ‘Fashionable people use the mobile phone more than other people’ by mobile
phone use

330

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Katz and Sugiyama: Mobile phones as fashion statements

4.0

3.8 US
Japan
3.6
Fashionable image

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0
No phone Seldom Occasionally Regularly Heavily

N = 254 for US, N =236 for Japan

• Figure 3 ‘Some people get a mobile phone just because it is fashionable’ by mobile phone
use

mobile phones earlier were more likely to think that the style of the phone
would be an important factor in selecting their own phone (Figure 4). In
the same way, in both cultures, those who changed their mobile phone
more frequently seemed to be more conscious of the style of their mobile
phone.
Perceptions of the importance of style were compared further with
perceptions of the importance of battery life. Battery life is a relatively
straightforward functional aspect of the mobile phone. Yet for both the US
and Japanese respondents, heavy users valued style more than non-users or
light users (Figures 5 and 6). Moreover, Japanese heavy users even preferred
style over battery life. This latter point is particularly revealing since it flies
in the face of functional logic, which would suggest that heavy users would
put a premium on long battery life.

DISCUSSION
The results support the perspective that ‘fashion’ plays a significant role in
mobile phone adoption and usage behavior among the US and Japanese
youths. It seems that the degree of attentiveness to fashion is relevant to the
timing of adopting a mobile phone, frequency of use and frequency of
changing to a newer model. These findings support the existing research on
fashion and the mobile phone discussed earlier.

331

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

New Media & Society 8(2)

4.1

4.0

3.9
Importance of MP style

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3 US
3.2 Japan

3.1

3.0
No MP < 1 yr 2–3 yrs > 4 yrs

• Figure 4 Style importance of own mobile phone by adoption timing

4.5
Heavy
Non/occasional
4.0
Importance

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0
Battery Style

• Figure 5 Style versus battery life (US)

Meanings of the mobile phone: heavier vs lighter

(non-)users
The way in which American and Japanese youths view their ‘self ’ and
perceive ‘others’ via the mobile phone appears to be different depending on
their mobile phone-related behaviors. Heavier mobile phone users in our
study were fashion-attentive, and this extended to awareness of styles of

332

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Katz and Sugiyama: Mobile phones as fashion statements

4.5
Heavy
Non/occasional
4.0
Importance

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0
Battery Style

• Figure 6 Style versus battery life (Japan)

mobile communication technology. On the one hand, it is noteworthy that

this is characteristic of how they described their ‘self ’, but that they do not
think that mobile communication technology is for fashionable people. This
is characteristic of how they described ‘others’ in regard to the mobile
phone. The discrepancy between the way in which they described their self
and others in relation to fashion and the mobile phone may be worth
examining in light of what Fisher and Katz (2000) argue, that if you ask
people whether they get a phone for status, they are likely to say ‘no’, even
if it is true. If you ask them whether other people get phones for status,
they say ‘yes’. Since people tend not to be very comfortable about stating ‘I
am fashionable’, active users may well have said that the mobile phone is
not for the fashionable.
On the other hand, non-users and lighter users were comparatively less
fashion attentive. They also placed less value on the style aspect of their own
mobile phone. This result is consistent with what Robbins and Turner
(2002) mention, based on research in 1997 which was prepared for the
Cellular One Groups by Roper Starch Worldwide. According to the data,
only 24 percent of technology acceptors said that they did not care about
the style of a mobile phone so long as it works, while as many as 48
percent of technology rejecters agreed with this statement.
While non-users and lighter users of the mobile phone reported
themselves as less attentive to fashion and placing less value on the style of
their mobile phone, they associated the mobile phone with a fashionable
image more than heavier users – that is, they associated the mobile phone
with ‘fashionable others’. The same data that Robbins and Turner reviewed

333

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

New Media & Society 8(2)

show that only 10 percent of acceptors agreed with the statement: ‘I would
like people to admire the wireless phone I have’, while 28 percent of
rejecters agreed with the statement. Considering this report in conjunction
with our findings, non-users and lighter users might see others using a
mobile phone with some sort of admiration yet decide not to adopt it or
use it frequently. The reasons could be affordability or necessity, but our
results suggest that non-users and lighter users may think that the mobile
phone is a fashionable technology and does not fit in with their self-image.
Katz and Aakhus (2002) argue that people oscillate between explicit and
implicit reasons for their mobile phone use. Explicit reasons refer to form,
function and price, and implicit reasons refers to how others perceive them,
beliefs about its usefulness and appropriateness to one’s concept of ‘self ’
(2002: 309–10). The case of college students in the US and Japan that we
have examined seems to highlight this regard. As Katz and Aakhus argue:

Social actors must constantly perform a series of ever-changing and highly

complex social roles. They must also deal with other actors who themselves are
performing a series of ever-changing and highly complex social roles. This in
itself represents an uncertain and complex scenario in which communication
takes place. (2002: 314)

The way that people act and perceive others in public places within the
modern world, filled as they are with constantly changing personal
technologies, are part of a continuous and often tacit negotiation process.
Part of this struggle is to clarify many inherent ambivalences and layers of
meaning of the choreography of human communication.

Globalized meanings
As for the cultural meaning of the mobile phone, both the US and Japanese
youths showed many similarities. This suggests that young people from these
traditionally divergent cultures are quite convergent in using and perceiving
new communication technology as a fashion tool, and supports the findings
that Katz et al. (2003) reported as a result of comparison among US, Korea,
Namibia, and Norway. Given the current global environment, where similar
fashion trends catch on (Kaiser, 1997) and similar communication
technologies are available at about the same time, these findings make sense.
In fact, Meyrowitz (1997) states that the more people cross national
boundaries, the more similar social arenas that were once very different
become. Although cultural differences are expected, some near-universal
meanings of the mobile phone may be emerging in relation to fashion
among youths.
Although tangential to our original research question, one of the
unexpected results was that US students reported higher fashion
attentiveness than Japanese students in both gender groups. This was rather

334

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Katz and Sugiyama: Mobile phones as fashion statements

surprising, since traditionally the Japanese are known for valuing the
aesthetic aspects of objects. They are also known for their enthusiasm for
shopping for ‘branded goods’ in the postmodern era (Clammer, 1992). We
suspect that the difference might be attributable to the potential cultural
differences in responding to surveys (Iwao, 1993). However, further research
is needed in this area.
This research is preliminary, and merely scratches the surface of the issue.
The samples were limited to college students who happened to be enrolled
in the classes from which we drew our participants and who happened to
be present on the day on which the surveys were administered. Despite the
limitations, however, the results suggest important trends about how youths
use the mobile phone symbolically – more specifically as ‘fashion’ – to
express themselves and evaluate others. Indeed, despite many assertions in
popular and academic articles as to the importance of fashion in mobile
phone behavior, little research from a quantitative perspective has been done
to document the phenomenon. Further research with random samples and
from other cultures would be useful to understand the area better.

CONCLUSION
This study of the relationship between fashion and the mobile phone among
American and Japanese youths provides evidence that fashion is a highly
relevant influence on personal communication technology adoption, use and
replacement. Consequently, scholarly attention to fashion is neither frivolous
nor irrelevant. Moreover, as Apparatgeist theory argues, there are markedly
different perceptions of the technology in question driven, not by the
functionality of devices, but by the perceptions and social location of the
users and non-users. That is, mobile phone users and non-users seem to
assign different symbolic meanings to it. Moreover, the symbolic meanings
were largely consistent across both the US and Japanese cultures. How
people incorporate them into their self-image and rely on them as status
markers to perceive others, suggests that mobile communication technology
is becoming part of them symbolically as well as physically. In this sense, the
‘machines that become us’ perspective, which emphasizes the physical
manipulation of the devices around the body, and their incorporation into
the body (Katz, 2003), may foster further understanding of human
communication behavior and the place of technology in society.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Akira Nogami, Jenny Mandelbaum, and Mark Frank
for assisting with data collection, and the students who participated in the survey at
Nishogakusha University and Rutgers University. An earlier version of this article was
presented at ‘Front Stage/Back Stage – Mobile Communication and the Renegotiation
of the Social Sphere’, Grimstad, Norway, 23 June 2003.

335

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

New Media & Society 8(2)

Note
1 This total does not add up to 100% due to the elimination of cases with missing
data.

References
Clammer, J. (1992) ‘Aesthetics of the Self: Shopping and Social Being in Contemporary
Urban Japan’, in R. Shields (ed.) Lifestyle Shopping: the Subject of Consumption, pp.
195–215. New York: Routledge.
Crane, D. (2000) Fashion and Its Social Agendas: Class, Gender, and Identity in Clothing.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Davis, F. (1985) Clothing and Fashion as Communication’, in M.R. Solomon (ed.) The
Psychology of Fashion, pp. 15–27. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Davis, F. (1992) Fashion, Culture, and Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dimmick, J.W., J. Sikand and S.J. Patterson (1994) ‘The Gratifications of the Household
Telephone’, Communication Research 21(5): 641–61.
Fisher, R.J. and J.E. Katz (2000) ‘Social Desirability Bias of the Validity of Self-reported
Values’, Psychology and Marketing 17(2): 105–20.
Fortunati, L. (2002) ‘Italy: Stereotypes, True and False’, in J.E. Katz and M. Aakhus (eds)
Perpetual Contact, pp. 42–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor.
Green, N. (2003) ‘Outwardly Mobile: Young People and Mobile Technologies’, in J.E.
Katz (ed.) Machines That Become Us, pp. 201–17. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Haddon, L. (2003) ‘Domestication and Mobile Telephony’, in J.E. Katz (ed.) Machines
That Become Us, pp. 43–55. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Berkshire: McGraw-
Hill.
Iwao, S. (1993) The Japanese Woman: Traditional Image and Changing Reality. New York:
Free Press.
Kaiser, S. (1997) The Social Psychology of Clothing (2nd edn). New York: Macmillan.
Kasesniemi, E. and P. Rautiainen (2002) ‘Mobile Culture of Children and Teenagers in
Finland’, in J.E. Katz and M. Aakhus (eds) Perpetual Contact, pp. 170–92. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Katz, J.E. (1999) Connection. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Katz, J.E. (ed.) (2003) Machines That Become Us. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Katz, J.E. and M. Aakhus (eds) (2002) Perpetual Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Katz, E., J.G. Blumler and M. Gurevitch (1974) ‘Utilization of Mass Communication by
the Individual’, in J.G. Blumler and E. Katz (eds) The Uses of Mass Communications:
Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, pp. 20–30. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Katz, J.E., M. Aakhus, H.D. Kim and M. Turner (2003) ‘Cross-Cultural Comparison of
ICTs’, in L. Fortunati, J.E. Katz and R. Riccini (eds) Mediating the Human Body, pp.
75–86. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leung, L. and R. Wei (2000) ‘More than Just Talk on the Move: Uses and Gratification
of Cellular Phones’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77(2): 308–20.
Ling, R. and B. Yttri (2002) ‘Hyper-coordination Via Mobile Phones in Norway’, in J.E.
Katz and M. Aakhus (eds) Perpetual Contact, pp. 139–69. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

336

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Katz and Sugiyama: Mobile phones as fashion statements

Meyrowitz, J. (1997) ‘Shifting Worlds of Strangers: Medium Theory and Changes in

“them” Versus “Us”’, Sociological Inquiry 67(1): 59–71.
Pedhazur, E.J. and L.P. Schmelkin (1991) Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated
Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Robbins, K.A. and M.A. Turner (2002) ‘United States: Popular, Pragmatic and
Problematic’, in J.E. Katz and M. Aakhus (eds) Perpetual Contact, pp. 80–93.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubinstein, R.P. (2001) Dress Codes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Simmel, G. (1904) ‘Fashion’, The International Quarterly 10(1): 130–55.
Simmel, G. (1950) The Sociology of George Simmel (trans. W. Kurt). Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.
Skog, B. (2002) Mobiles and the Norwegian Teen: Identity, Gender and Class’, in J.E.
Katz and M. Aakhus (eds) Perpetual Contact, pp. 255–73. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Steele, V. (1997) Fifty Years of Fashion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

JAMES E. KATZ is a professor in the Department of Communication, Rutgers University. He

has published numerous articles and books on mobile communication, including his most
recent book, Machines That Become Us (Transaction, 2003), which he edited based on a
conference held at Rutgers University.
Address: Department of Communication, School of Communication, Information and Library
Studies, Rutgers University, 4 Huntington Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901–1071: USA. [email:
jimkatz@scils.rutgers.edu]

SATOMI SUGIYAMA is NEH Fellow at Colgate University and a PhD candidate at the
Department of Communication, Rutgers University. Her research interests includes questions
of fashion and self-representation in communication technology in various cultural contexts.

337

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016