Who in the World Is Generation Z? The Rise of Mobile Natives and Their Socio-Technological Identity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article delves into the definition and characterization of sociocultural generations, with a particular focus on Generation Z, distinguishing it from previous cohorts. It posits that Generation Z, born after 1995, should be referred to as "mobile natives" due to their early and consistent interaction with mobile devices. The text contends that early technology adoption shapes the behavioral, social, and technological traits of this generation, setting it apart from Generation Y, or "digital natives," who encountered the internet later in life. In addition, the article examines the concept of "cellular childhood" and its implications for family dynamics and authority relationships. It also discusses "hyperconnectivity" as a defining feature of this generation, noting both its benefits and potential drawbacks. Looking ahead, the piece suggests that emerging generations, such as Generation Alpha, may increasingly be defined by their relationship with artificial intelligence, continuing the trend of "short technological generations." While the article serves as a concept paper without presenting new empirical data, it offers valuable insights by synthesizing existing knowledge and perspectives. However, it would benefit from a more current bibliography, particularly including authors who focus on children's technology consumption. Although the article's approach—a "conceptual synthesis of previous empirical findings"—allows for the development of an "original conceptual framework," its conclusions are necessarily built on the interpretation of existing studies. This reliance may limit the findings based on the quality, scope, and focus of the consulted literature. While this is not an inherent weakness of the article, it is a notable characteristic of its methodology, and when combined with the outdated bibliography, it could impact its overall contribution to the field.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers and the editorial team for their thoughtful and constructive comments. We have addressed each point carefully and believe that the revisions significantly improve the manuscript’s clarity, theoretical grounding, and academic contribution. Below is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ suggestions, including explanations of how we addressed them in the revised version.

 

Comment 1: Lack of recent studies, particularly on children’s smartphone use and its developmental/psychological impacts.

Response:
We added a new subsection at the end of section 3.3. This expanded literature review includes recent empirical studies published between 2021 and 2025. The new sources address various dimensions of early smartphone use, including:

• Psychological and emotional consequences (e.g., Lin & Zhou, 2025; Silmi & Lailiyah, 2024)
• Cognitive and academic effects (e.g., Qayyum et al., 2024)
• Social and emotional connection (e.g., Pangandaman et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022)
• Issues of self-regulation and self-efficacy (e.g., Favini et al., 2024)
• Positive outcomes, such as mitigation of internalizing symptoms (e.g., Neville et al., 2021)

These additions are marked in the manuscript.

Comment 2: The conceptual synthesis is strong but may limit the empirical contribution. Suggest clarifying this limitation.

Response:
We have added a paragraph acknowledging this methodological limitation at the end of the article. The paragraph reads:

"By proposing a generational classification rooted in the age of first exposure to mobile technologies, we offer a distinct alternative to prevailing models. Our approach seeks to refine the theoretical tools used in generational research and underscores the need for culturally contextualized and developmentally grounded analysis of youth in the digital age. While this study does not include new empirical data, it contributes a conceptual reframing through the synthesis of existing findings. Acknowledging the inherent limitations of this method, particularly its dependence on the quality and scope of available literature, we nonetheless suggest that this synthesis offers a novel interpretive lens for understanding and distinguishing technological generations."

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Given Prensky`s digital natives concept, this article has the potential to develop recurring interest for Gen Z`s technological identity. However, it would be advisable to do an update on the references provided. The authors argue that their work is distinct in generational classification rooted in the age of first exposure to mobile technologies. However, earlier studies that formulate similar arguments already exist:

For specific literature, pls. check: Erickson (2012) https://hbr.org/2012/04/the-mobile-re-generation

More recent work: Rosenberg et al (2025): https://www.informingscience.org/Publications/5494

Also for generational formation through the age of first exposure to mobile tech: https://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_13_No_5_October_2022/7.pdf

The Alpha generation is mentioned in the conclusion; however the alignment has not been made in terms of the use of mobile tech at an early age and the rise of Ai earlier in the article. Thus, a more extended elaboration on the technological identity of Gen Z would be recommended in order to introduce the prospects. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A grammar and spell-check is needed. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

We would like to thank the reviewers and the editorial team for their thoughtful and constructive comments. We have addressed each point carefully and believe that the revisions significantly improve the manuscript’s clarity, theoretical grounding, and academic contribution. Below is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ suggestions, including explanations of how we addressed them in the revised version.

 

Comment 1: Other scholars have mentioned Generation Z as mobile natives. Suggested three references.

Response:
We added what was suggested, especially Castaldi et al., 2022, that was particularly insightful and has been incorporated both in section 3.3 and in an earlier part of the article where we develop the core argument. Another source, the blog post by Erikson (2012), is also referenced in a revised passage that discusses previous uses of the “mobile native” label.

Comment 2: Lack of theoretical bridge between Generation Z and the discussion of Generation Alpha and AI.

Response:
We added a brief bridging sentence in the concluding section, noting the potential continuity and evolution of technological generations:

“Future research may explore how the socio-technological patterns of Generation Z lay the foundation for the algorithmic and AI-based environments into which Generation Alpha is now being socialized.”

Comment 3: Further elaboration on the technological identity of Generation Z.

Response:
We believe this comment overlaps with the first reviewer’s request and has been thoroughly addressed through the substantial expansion of section 3.3. The new material discusses how Generation Z relates to smartphones not only functionally, but emotionally and symbolically—as “extensions of the self”—with implications for identity, regulation, and social connection.

Additional Revisions

• We have integrated and formatted all newly added references according to the editorial guidelines.
• We have corrected the technical adjustment of in-text citations to match the required bracket style.