Understanding Adolescents’ Perceptions and Aspirations Towards Their Relationship With Personal Technology: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding adolescents' relationship with technology is a pressing topic in this digital era. There seem to be both beneficial and detrimental implications that originate from use of technology by adolescents. Approximately 95% of adolescents have access to a smartphone, and several studies show a positive correlation between screen addiction and trends of anxiety and depression. At the same time, research shows that two-thirds of adolescents believe that technology is a necessity for connecting and making new friends. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this formative study was to understand adolescents' perception of their own and others' relationship with personal technology. METHODS: A survey was conducted with 619 adolescents ranging in age from 13 to 19 years. Adolescents were asked how they perceived the relationship with their personal technology, how they perceived others' (parents, siblings, or friends) relationship with personal technology, and how they wish to relate to their personal technology in the future. RESULTS: "Essential," "Distractive," and "Addictive" were the most commonly selected descriptors to describe both adolescents' own relationship with technology (essential: 106/619, 17.1%; distractive: 105/619, 17%; addictive: 88/619, 14.2% ) and others' relationship as well (essential: 96/619, 15.6%; distractive: 88/619, 14.3%; addictive: 90/619, 14.5%). Adolescents selected "Provides an escape" more to describe their own relationship with technology. Whereas, they selected "It's just a tool" and "Creates Barrier" more to describe others' relationship with technology. These trends are consistent across ages and genders. In addition, adolescents' aspirations for their relationship with their personal technology varied across ages: 13 to 15-year olds' top choice was "best friend", 16 to 17-year olds' top choice was "I don't believe in personal connection with mobile technology," and 18 to 19-year olds' top choice was "My personal assistant." CONCLUSIONS: Our 3-lens method allows us to examine how adolescents perceive their relationship with personal technology in comparison to others, as well as their future technological aspirations. Our findings suggest that adolescents see both communalities as well as differences in their own and others' relationships with technology. Their future aspirations for personal technology vary across age and gender. These preliminary findings will be examined further in our follow-up research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".