ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

This research experimentally investigated the social consequences of "phubbing"-the act of snubbing someone in a social setting by concentrating on one's mobile phone. Participants viewed a three-minute animation in which they imagined themselves as part of a dyadic conversation. Their communication partner either phubbed them extensively, partially, or not at all. Results revealed that increased phubbing significantly and negatively affected perceived communication quality and relationship satisfaction. These effects were mediated by reduced feelings of belongingness and both positive and negative affect. This research underlines the importance of phubbing as a modern social phenomenon to be further investigated.
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE EFFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
2
The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction
Varoth Chotpitayasunondh & Karen M. Douglas
University of Kent, United Kingdom
In Press – Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Email: vc216@kent.ac.uk; k.douglas@kent.ac.uk
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
3
Abstract
This research experimentally investigated the social consequences of “phubbing” – the act of
snubbing someone in a social setting by concentrating on one’s mobile phone. Participants
viewed a three-minute animation in which they imagined themselves as part of a dyadic
conversation. Their communication partner either phubbed them extensively, partially, or not at
all. Results revealed that increased phubbing significantly and negatively affected perceived
communication quality and relationship satisfaction. These effects were mediated by reduced
feelings of belongingness and both positive and negative affect. This research underlines the
importance of phubbing as a modern social phenomenon to be further investigated.
Keywords: Phubbing; Social exclusion; Social interaction
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
4
The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction
Smartphones have recently overtaken personal computers and laptops as the most
common device that people use to access the Internet (Buckle, 2016). They enable people to
communicate with anyone anywhere, facilitating social interactions with people who are very
close by, or at the other side of the world. However, despite their obvious advantages in bringing
people together, smartphones may sometimes pull people apart (Turkle, 2012). In particular,
people often ignore others with whom they are physically interacting in order to use their
smartphone instead. This phenomenon, called phubbing, seems to have become normative in
everyday communication (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016). One recent study reported that
90% of respondents used their smartphones during their most recent social activity, and also
perceived that 86% of the others involved in the social interaction did the same (Ranie &
Zickuhr, 2015). Another recent study showed that nearly half of adult respondents reported being
phubbed by their romantic partner (Roberts & David, 2016). Despite the apparent prevalence of
this phenomenon, research into its social consequences is limited. The current study aimed to
address this gap, focusing on the effects that phubbing has on the perceived quality of
communication and relationship satisfaction, and the mechanisms that drive these effects.
Background
The term phubbing is a portmanteau of the words “phone” and “snubbing”, and describes
the act of snubbing someone in a social setting by paying attention to one’s phone instead of
talking to the person directly in one’s company (Haigh, n.d.). This term was originally coined in
a campaign by the Macquarie Dictionary to represent a growing problem of smartphone misuse
in social situations (Pathak, 2013). In a social interaction, a “phubber” can be defined as a person
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
5
who starts phubbing his or her companion(s), and a “phubbee” can be defined as a person who is
a recipient of phubbing behavior.
Some recent research has investigated the antecedents of phubbing behavior. The most
important determinant appears to be smartphone addiction (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,
2016; Karadağ et al., 2015). More distal predictors such as Internet addiction, fear of missing
out, and self-control have been found to predict smartphone addiction, which in turn predicts
phubbing behavior. Also, Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2016) have demonstrated that
phubbing behavior itself predicts the extent to which people are phubbed, so that being a phubber
can result in a vicious, self-reinforcing cycle of phubbing that makes the behavior become
normative. Research on the effects of phubbing suggests that it may create negative, resentful
reactions such that people perceive their interaction to be of poorer quality (Ranie & Zickuhr,
2015), are less satisfied with their interactions (Abeele, Antheunis, & Schouten, 2016), trust their
interaction partner less (Cameron & Webster, 2011), feel less close to their interaction partner
when a phone is present (Misra, Cheng, Genevie, & Yuan, 2014), and experience jealousy
(Krasnova, Abramova, Notter & Baumann, 2016) and deflated mood (Roberts & David, 2016).
Therefore, researchers have learned valuable information about some of the factors that
may cause phubbing behavior, and what some of the effects of phubbing might be. However,
research on this topic is still in its infancy and there is much still to discover. In the current
research, we aim to complete another piece of the puzzle. Specifically, although we know that
phubbing has some negative social consequences, it is not clear exactly why this is the case. For
example, what drives the relationship between phubbing behavior and decreased relationship
satisfaction? Why is phubbing associated with poor perceived communication quality? To
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
6
answer these questions, the current reserch frames phubbing as a specific form of social
exclusion that threatens fundamental human needs and leads to deflated affect.
Social exclusion – or ostracism – is defined by Williams (2001) as “being invisible and
being excluded from the social interactions of those around you” (p. 2). This experience of being
a social outcast is critical to an individual’s wellbeing (Baumeister, 2005; Baumeister & Leary,
1995). Social exclusion usually leads to negative emotional disturbances such as aggression
(Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001), anxiety (Baumeister & Tice, 1990), depression
(Leary, 1990), and loneliness (Stillman, Baumeister, Lambert, Crescioni, DeWall, & Fincham,
2009). Moreover, social exclusion can lead to detrimental effects on four fundamental human
needs: the need to belong, the need for self-esteem, the need for meaningful existence, and the
need for control (Gerber & Wheeler, 2009; Williams, 2001; Zadro, Williams, & Richardson,
2004), which in turn lead to reactions such as immediate physiological arousal, making self-
affirmations in the short term, and self-imposed isolation in the long-term (Williams, 2001).”
First, social exclusion threatens an individual’s need to belong, demonstrating either
explicitly or symbolically to a person that they are not wanted or valued (Jamieson, Harkins, &
Williams, 2010). Second, social exclusion threatens the need to maintain high self-esteem since
in some situations it can act as a form of punishment, forcing the individual to wonder what they
did wrong (or what is wrong about them), or may lead to the feeling that they are not worthy of
attention (Ferris, Lian, Brown, & Morrison, 2015; Williams, 1997). Third, an individual’s need
for meaningful existence is threatened by social exclusion because it represents social “death”
and creates the feeling of invisibility (Case & Williams, 2004; Williams, 2007). Finally, social
exclusion can threaten the need for control as people attempt to work out the uncertain situation
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
7
(i.e., why are they being ignored?) but are unable to influence the situation, leading to feelings of
hopelessness and helplessness (Bandura, 2000).
Immediately after being socially excluded, rejected individuals respond with threats to
fundamental needs, physical and social pain, and negative affect (Williams, 2009a). We propose
that people will respond to the experience of phubbing in a similar way. Specifically, we argue
that phubbing can be considered as a specific form of ostracism or social exclusion that threatens
the four fundamental needs and also leads to negative emotional experiences. Phubbing has the
crucial element of social exclusion in that individuals are ignored by others – whilst they remain
in the physical presence of other people, they are nevertheless shut out of social interaction. Like
other forms of ostracism (see Williams, 1997), people may phub others either deliberately or
without necessarily knowing they are doing so (Ranie & Zickuhr, 2015). Moreover, features and
characteristics of phubbing, such as the withdrawal of eye contact, may further be interpreted (or
misinterpreted) as being given the “silent treatment”, or being socially rejected (Silk et al., 2012;
Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010). Averted gaze is a passive form of social exclusion
(Wirth et al., 2010), and a signal of disinterest (Richmond, McCroskey, & Hickson, 2008), and
individuals on the receiving end tend to experience lower satisfaction of the four fundamental
human needs compared to those who receive direct eye contact (Wirth et al., 2010). Phubbing
therefore displays many of the most common features of social exclusion and it is therefore
plausible to suggest that phubbing could have similar detrimental effects on the fulfillment of
social needs, and how people feel.
While mobile-phone-induced ostracism has negative effects on need-threats and moods
(Gonzales & Wu, 2016), thwarted needs and negative affect tend to have a corrosive effect on
relational outcomes at the same time. For example, targets who are deprived of the need for
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
8
control tend to terminate or change the pattern of the relationship between source and target
(Zadro, Arriaga, & Williams, 2008). Losing a sense of belongingness can also be a symbolic
message of losing a relationship or attachment to another individual or group. However, in some
cases, targets with threatened needs may attempt to regain them by strengthening their bonds and
relationships with others (Williams, 2001). Besides threatened needs, emotions aroused by being
phubbed may also play an integral role in the functioning of interpersonal relationships.
According to the theory of attachment (Bowlby, 1969, 1988), many emotions serve adaptive
functions in human survival. Positive affect brings people closer, which in turn helps individuals
to form, ensure, and maintain their relationships with others. In addition, positive emotions
induce a greater likelihood of successful social interactions (Waugh & Fredrickson, 2006). By
contrast, studies have revealed that negative affect does not lead to close relationships and
relationship satisfaction (Levenson & Gottman, 1983). Moreover, extreme negative emotions
(e.g. anger) can lead to deleterious effects such as poor relationship functioning and high
interpersonal conflict (Sanford & Rowatt, 2004).”
In addition to having a negative impact on fundamental needs and affect, we further
propose – following previous research – that phubbing will be associated with negative
perceived interaction quality and negative relationship satisfaction (e.g., Abeele et al., 2016;
Ranie & Zickuhr, 2015; Roberts and David, 2016). However, we more speficially propose to test
the hypothesis that phubbing indirectly influences perceived interaction quality and relationship
satisfaction, because it threatens people’s fundamental needs to belong, have control, have high
self-esteem, experience meaningful existence, and it also dampens their affect. In other words,
the effects of phubbing on relationship satisfaction and perceived interaction quality should be
mediated by threats to fundamental needs, and affect. We also consider some potential
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
9
moderators of these hypothesized effects. One of the possible moderators influencing the
relationships between phubbing, threats to fundamental needs, affect, and perceptions of
interaction outcomes is the extent to which people interpret phubbing behaviour as socially
normative (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016). If people view phubbing as normative, they
may not view it as a form of social rejection and they may not find phubbing distressing or
concerning. Further, people’s experiences of phubbing may be moderated by their sensitivity to
rejection (Kang & Chasteen, 2009). Phubbees who have lower sensitivity to rejection may cope
with phubbing better and maintain their affect and fundamental needs satisfaction more easily
than highly sensitive people. We therefore included these two potential moderating factors in the
current study.
The current research
Although phubbing has become a growing area of interest in recent years, research on the
social consequences of phubbing is limited. Moreover, there is no research to our knowledge that
investigates the mechanisms underlying the effects of phubbing, except for factors such as
jealousy within romantic relationships (Krasnova et al., 2016). In this study, we aimed to explore
these mechanisms in detail. Specifically, we investigated (a) the effects of being phubbed on
perceived interaction quality and relationship satisfaction, and (b) the extent to which phubbing
functions similarly to social exclusion and these effects are mediated by threats to fundamental
needs, and affect. We also explored whether these effects are moderated by the perceived
normativity of phubbing and rejection sensitivity.
Participants were asked to view a three-minute animation depicting a conversation
between two people. They were asked to imagine themselves as one of the people in the
animation. There were three conditions in which the participant’s conversation partner varied in
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
10
terms of their mobile phone use during the conversation: no phubbing, partial phubbing, and
extensive phubbing. After viewing the video, participants responded to each of the dependent
measures and potential mediating and moderating variables. We have developed a research
model to explicate the mechanisms underlying the effects of phubbing. The predicted model is
depicted conceptually in Figure 1. Specifically, we hypothesized that:
H1: Participants who were phubbed extensively would experience greater threat to
fundamental needs (belonging, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control), would
experience greater negative affect, and would experience less positive affect, than those who
were phubbed partially, or were not phubbed.
H2: Participants who were phubbed extensively would perceive their social interaction to
be lower quality and would experience lower relationship satisfaction, than those who were
phubbed partially, or not phubbed.
H3: Threat to fundamental needs and dampened mood would mediate the effect of
phubbing on relationship satisfaction and the perceived quality of communication.
H4: We tentatively hypothesized that the perceived social normativity of phubbing, and
individuals’ rejection sensitivity, would moderate the effect of phubbing on fundamental human
needs and affect.
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE.
Method
Participants
One hundred and fifty-three participants (19 men and 134 women) ranging in age from
18 to 36 years of age (M = 19.72, SD = 2.23) were undergraduate students at a British university
who participated for course credit. Twenty-five participants (16.34%) who failed to answer
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
11
attention check questions correctly were excluded (six from the control group, six from the
partial phubbing group, and 13 from the extensive phubbing group; see explanation in next
section).
1
In total, 128 participants (14 men and 114 women) ranging in age from 18 to 34 (M =
19.62, SD = 1.79) remained in the study (45 from the control group, 45 from the partial
phubbing group, and 38 from the extensive phubbing group). The demographics of the sample
are presented in Table 1.
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE.
Manipulation
The 3-dimensional (3D) animations used in this research were created by a professional
animator using Autodesk Maya software. The first step in building the animations was to design
characters to suit the research content, then create storyboards and discuss these with the authors
to determine the direction and nature of the animations. Lastly, these were developed into 3D
animations.
Participants watched a three-minute silent animation that depicted two people having
a conversation. Participants were asked to watch the animation carefully and imagine themselves
as the person closest to the screen (i.e., the person with their back turned to the screen).
Participants were instructed to imagine as vividly as they could that they were this person and
that they were engaged in this conversation with the other person. The characters of the
participant and conversation partner were designed to be neutral in gender and ethnicity, which
were thought to be possible confounding factors in this study. Voice was also removed from the
animation, so the effect of being phubbed could not be influenced by the content of the
conversation.
However, the characters moved their mouths when they were talking so that the
1
Including these participants in the analysis did not affect the pattern or significance of any of
the results.
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
12
conversation looked like both people were speaking in turn, as they would in a typical face-to-
face interaction. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three different animation
conditions: (1) the conversation partner did not phub at all, (2) they phubbed part of the time, and
(3) they phubbed most of the time. In the “no phubbing” condition (control condition), the
conversation partner, with smartphone in his/her left hand, comes and sits opposite to the
participant. The conversation partner immediately puts their smartphone on the table and does
not pick it up throughout the three-minute conversation. The first experimental animation created
the “partial phubbing” situation, in which participants are phubbed by their conversation partner
about half of the time. The first 30 seconds of the animation are similar to what can be seen in
the control condition video, but then the conversation partner picks their smartphone up from the
table and starts phubbing for 30 seconds. During this phubbing time, as shown in Figure 2, the
conversation partner looks down to the smartphone, completely averts eye gaze from the
participant, swipes the screen on the device, and keeps smiling and laughing about something
he/she has just read. The partial phubbing animation also repeats this sequence periodically in
the second and the third minute of the conversation. The final experimental animation represents
the “extensive phubbing” situation, in which the participant’s conversation partner comes and
sits, then immediately starts phubbing and continues this behavior throughout their conversation.
INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE.
Measures
Needs Satisfaction. The Need-Threat Measure (NTM), developed by Jamieson et al.
(2010) contains 20 items measuring the extent to which an individual feels the satisfaction/threat
to the four fundamental needs following ostracism (e.g., Williams, 2009b; e.g., “I felt I belonged
to the group” and “I felt powerful; 1 = not at all, 5 = extremely; α = .90, M = 2.87, SD = 1.20 for
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
13
belonging, α = .90, M = 2.70, SD = 1.02 for self-esteem, α = .91, M = 2.93, SD = 1.17 for
meaningful existence, and α = .77, M = 2.11, SD = .82 for control). Items for each domain were
reverse-coded as appropriate. Since the NTM was originally designed to measure needs
satisfaction in the cyberball game experiment we modified some items such as “I felt the other
players interacted with me a lot” to “I felt that the conversation partner interacted with me a lot”.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). This is a 20-item measure (Watson,
Clark, and Tellegen, 1988) asking participants to rate how well different feeling and emotions
(e.g., “Interested”, “Distressed”, “Excited”, and “Upset”) describe them on a 5-point scale (1 =
very slightly or not at all, 5 = extremely; α = .92, M = 18.77, SD = 8.03 for Positive Affect and α
= .83, M = 16.16, SD = 5.52 for Negative Affect).
Quality of Communication. The Iowa Communication Record (ICR), which assesses
the quality and impact of communications within specific conversational contexts (Schwarz,
2008), is a 10-item questionnaire asking participants to read 10 bi-polar descriptors (e.g.
“Attentive - Poor Listening”, “Formal - Informal”, “Smooth - Difficult”; Duck, Rutt, Hoy, &
Strejc, 1991) and rate the conversation on each via a seven-point scale. Two additional
descriptors (Schwarz, 2008) were used to add meaningful dimensions of communication quality
that are not included in the original version of the ICR (i.e., “Enjoyable – Not Enjoyable” and
“High Quality – Low Quality”; overall α = .82, M = 5.47, SD = 1.34). Reliability of the scale
which included the two additional items α = .88 for friends and α = .89 for intimate and family
relationship (Schwarz, 2008). In our path analysis, we reversed this score and labeled it as
communication quality.
Relationship Satisfaction. The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988)
was developed to measure general satisfaction with romantic relationships and consisted of seven
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
14
items, which were modified here to measure satisfaction with the animated conversation (e.g.,
“In general, how satisfied were you with the conversation?” Participants responded on a five-
point scale (1 = low satisfaction, 5 = high satisfaction; α = .94, M = 2.58, SD = 1.04).
Perceived Social Norms of Phubbing. The Perceived Social Norms of Phubbing Scale
(PSNP; Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016) contains three items measuring descriptive norms,
which are based on observations of others’ behavior such as “Do you think that phubbing
behavior is typical amongst people around you?”, and two items measuring injunctive norms,
which are related to the inference of others’ approval of phubbing such as “Do you think that
other people view phubbing behavior as appropriate?” using a five-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 =
very much; α = .44, M = 16.12, SD = 2.63). Both norms measurements were combined to a
general measure of perceived social norms of phubbing which was proposed as a moderator.
Rejection Sensitivity. The Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (A-RSQ), is a
modification of the original RSQ (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Participants rated the extent to
which 18 statements accurately describe them on a six-point scale (e.g., “How concerned or
anxious would you be over whether or not your family would want to help you?” and “I would
expect that they would agree to help me as much as they can”, 1 = very unconcerned/very
unlikely, 6 = very concerned/very likely), and coding allows for a score between 1 and 36; α =
.70, M = 9.15, SD = 2.55). Rejection sensitivity was also proposed as a moderator in this study.
Procedure
After giving their informed consent, participants were placed in individual cubicles, each
with a personal computer, and completed an online questionnaire designed via Qualtrics
software. The study was a three-group (phubbing: none/partial/extensive) between-participants
experimental design. The dependent measures were perceived communication quality and
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
15
relationship satisfaction. Fundamental needs threat (belonging, self-esteem, meaningful
existence, and control) and affect (negative and positive), were included in the model as potential
mediators and perceived social norms of phubbing and rejection sensitivity were included as
potential moderators (see Figure 1).
Participants first completed the Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire. They then
viewed the phubbing manipulation animation. Next, participants were asked to answer two
questions about what they saw in the video in order to serve as an attention check. Specifically,
we asked the participants to indicate the colour of the conversation partner’s shirt (the correct
answer was white), and the name of the object on the table (the correct answer was a bottle).
Next, participants were asked to complete the Iowa Communication Record, the Relationship
Assessment Scale, the Need-Threat Measure, the PANAS, and the Perceived Social Norms of
Phubbing Scale, respectively. Finally, participants completed some basic demographic data. At
the conclusion of the study, they were thanked and debriefed.
Results
Correlation Analyses
All statistical tests were performed using SPSS Statistics version 24.0. In order to test
interaction effects of the moderators, we created interaction products from centered A-RSQ and
centered PSNP variables. Spearman’s rank-order correlations were computed to assess the non-
parametric relationship between phubbing intensity and dependent variables, and Pearson
product-moment correlations were used to assess the relationship among other variables. All
correlations between the phubbing conditions and other variables, with the exception of both
proposed moderators and their interaction terms, were statistically significant in the expected
directions. Intensity of being phubbed in the dyadic conversation negatively correlated with RAS
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
16
(r = -.72, p < .001), positive affect (r = -.53, p < .001), and all NTM subscales (r = -.39 to -.74, p
< .001), whereas intensity of being phubbed positively correlated with ICR (r = .71, p < .001)
and negative affect (r = .44, p < .001), as shown in Table 2. Neither of the proposed moderators
correlated with the dependent measures or potential mediators (nor did the interactions between
the proposed moderators and the independent variable).
INSERT TABLE 2 HERE.
Effect of moderators
We then explored the potential moderating effects of rejection sensitivity and perceived
social norms of phubbing on the relationship between phubbing intensity and fundamental needs,
negative affect, and positive affect, as seen in Figure 1. We used Hayes and Preacher’s (2013)
PROCESS procedure for SPSS (model 9, 20,000 resamples, bias corrected). The result showed
no moderating effects of rejection sensitivity and perceived social norms of phubbing in our path
model. The results revealed no significant relationships between the phubbing intensity * A-RSQ
interaction term and fundamental needs; belonging (p = .96), self-esteem (p = .86), meaningful
existence (p = .72), and control (p = .32). No significant relationship was found between this
interaction term and both PANAS scores; negative (p = .52) and positive (p = .07). The results
also showed no significant relationships between the phubbing intensity * PSNP interaction term
and fundamental needs; belonging (p = .71), self-esteem (p = .27), meaningful existence (p =
.97), and control (p = .44). Moreover, no significant relationship was found between this
interaction term and both PANAS scores; negative (p = .96) and positive (p = .54). Due to this
and the low reliability of the PSNP, both moderators were therefore omitted from our path
model.
THE EFFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
17
Effect of phubbing on communication outcomes
A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine
the effects of being phubbed on the combined dependent variables. There were linear
relationships, as assessed by scatterplot, and no multicollinearity (r = -.85 - .87, p < .001).
Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) suggest that no correlation should be above r = +/-.90. There was
homogeneity of variance-covariances matrices, as assessed by Box's test of equality of
covariance matrices (p < .001). The difference between conditions on the combined dependent
variables was significant, F(16, 236) = 9.91, p < .001; Wilks' Λ = .36; partial η
2
= .40.
The mean difference between groups of participants on the dependent variables is
presented in Table 3. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs showed that ICR scores (F(2, 125) = 66.89,
p < .001; partial η
2
= .52) and RAS scores (F(2, 125) = 68.95, p < .001; partial η
2
= .53) were
significantly different across the different phubbing conditions, using a Bonferroni adjusted α
level of .025. These were both medium-sized effects.
INSERT TABLE 3 HERE.
We investigated further with post hoc tests to determine where exactly the differences lay
between conditions. The Tukey post hoc test was used to compare all possible combinations of
group differences when the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met, as assessed by
Levene's Test of Homogeneity of Variance (p > .05). The Games-Howell post hoc test was used
in this study when the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated. As predicted,
participants in the control group showed significantly higher RAS than participants who either
were phubbed part of the time or most of the time. Meanwhile, control group participants
showed significantly lower ICR mean scores than participants in either the partial phubbing or
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
18
extensive phubbing groups. Post hoc test results of the dependent variables are shown in Table 4.
The Cohen’s d values ranging between 1.09 – 2.69 represented large effects.
INSERT TABLE 4 HERE.
INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE.
INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE.
Effect of phubbing on fundamental needs as mediators
The mean difference between groups on the proposed mediators can be seen in Table 3.
Using a Bonferroni adjusted α level of .025, follow-up univariate ANOVAs showed that all
domains of need satisfaction following ostracism: belonging (F(2, 125) = 80.75, p < .001; partial
η
2
= .56), self-esteem (F(2, 125) = 41.17, p < .001; partial η
2
= .40), meaningful existence (F(2,
125) = 57.13, p < .001; partial η
2
= .48), and control (F(2, 125) = 14.26, p < .001; partial η
2
=
.19) were significantly different across the different phubbing conditions. The partial η
2
values
ranging between .19 – .56 revealed small to medium effects.
Further, we used post hoc tests to determine where the differences lay between
conditions. As predicted, participants in the no phubbing group showed significantly higher
overall needs satisfaction – and also in each separate domain – than participants who either were
phubbed part of the time or most of the time. Post hoc test results of the mediating variables are
shown in Table 5. Post hoc tests revealed a non-significant difference between the partial and
extensive phubbing groups in needs of control (p = .30). The other group differences showed
significant differences with medium and large effects (Cohen’s d ranging between .76 – 2.93).
INSERT TABLE 5 HERE.
INSERT FIGURE 5 HERE.
Effect of phubbing on positive and negative affect as mediators
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
19
The mean difference between groups on both mediators is presented in Table 3. Using a
Bonferroni adjusted α level of .025, follow-up univariate ANOVAs showed that both domains of
affect: negative (F(2, 125) = 10.52, p < .001; partial η
2
= .14), and positive (F(2, 125) = 20.00, p
< .001; partial η
2
= .24) were significantly different across the different phubbing conditions.
Both partial η
2
values revealed small effects.
Further, we used Games-Howell post hoc tests to determine where the differences lay
between conditions. As predicted, participants in the no phubbing group showed significantly
higher positive affect and lower negative affect than participants who either were phubbed part
of the time or most of the time. Post hoc test results of the mediating variables are shown in
Table 6. Post hoc tests revealed a non-significant difference only between the partial and
extensive phubbing groups in negative affect (p = .51). The other group differences showed
significant differences with medium and large effects (Cohen’s d ranging between .60 – 1.36).
INSERT TABLE 6 HERE.
INSERT FIGURE 6 HERE.
Path Analyses
We then tested the potential mediating effect of threats to fundamental needs on the
relationship between phubbing and both communication outcomes, without moderators which
were dropped at the previous stage. The new model proposed in this study assumed that a
significant correlation existed between phubbing intensity, threats to four fundamental human
needs (belonging, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control), affect (negative and positive),
communication quality (reversed ICR score), and relationship satisfaction. Analyses were
conducted using the AMOS version 24.0 program. Model fit was evaluated using the chi-square
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
20
test of model fit (χ
2
), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the
comparative fit index (CFI).
The model depicted in Figure 1 (minus the moderators), did not adequately fit the data,
χ
2
(128) = 25.89, p < .001, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .44. However, the model was re-specified by
modifying one path at a time on the basis of critical ratios and modification indices in order to
find the most parsimonious model. A perusal of the model critical ratios showed that the paths
between positive affect and communication quality (p = .82), between self-esteem and
relationship satisfaction (p = .60), between control and communication quality (p = .52), between
negative affect and relationship satisfaction (p = .48), between meaningful existence and
relationship satisfaction (p = .37), between meaningful existence and communication quality (p =
.35), between self-esteem and communication quality (p = .29), and between control and
relationship satisfaction (p = .13), should be dropped respectively. An examination of model
modification indices indicated adding a covariance path between communication quality and
relationship satisfaction. The results of structural path estimates of the proposed model and final
model are presented in Table 7. The modified model’s goodness-of-fit was satisfactory, χ
2
(128)
= 9.93, p = .27, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .04. The chi-square difference between the hypothesized
and final model was statistically significant (χ
2
= 15.96, p < .001). The result of the path
analysis with standardized regression coefficients and statistical significance is presented in
Figure 3.
INSERT TABLE 7 HERE.
INSERT FIGURE 7 HERE.
As seen in Table 7 and Figure 7, results from the path analysis provided support for H1,
which posited significant negative relationships between phubbing intensity and four
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
21
fundamental needs satisfaction; belonging (β = -.74, p < .001), self-esteem (β = -.62, p < .001),
meaningful existence (β = -.68, p < .001), and control (β = -.41, p < .001), and affect, both
negative (β = .37, p < .001) and positive (β = -.49, p < .001). H2, which predicted that
participants who were phubbed extensively would perceive their communication to be lower
quality (β = -.24, p < .001) and would experience lower relationship satisfaction (β = -.14, p =
.01), was supported. H3 was partially supported. All paths from self-esteem needs, meaningful
existence needs, and needs of control along with one path from negative affect and one from
positive affect, were dropped following model-trimming process. However, the results revealed
that depletion of needs of belongingness mediates the effect of phubbing on the perceived quality
of communication (β = .58, p < .001) and relationship satisfaction (β = .59, p < .001), increase of
negative affect mediates the effect of phubbing on the perceived quality of communication (β = -
.14, p = .01), and depletion of positive affect mediates the effect of phubbing on relationship
satisfaction (β = .29, p < .001). Furthermore, this integrated model accounts for 47% of the
variance in communication quality and for 18% of the variance in relationship satisfaction.
Discussion
The present research was conducted to further understand the effects of phubbing on
social interaction. As expected, our findings revealed that the experience of phubbing in a
controlled dyadic conversation had a negative impact on perceived communication quality and
relationship satisfaction. Theoretically, we proposed that these effects would occur because
phubbing lowers mood and threatens the four fundamental needs of belongingness, self-esteem,
meaningful existence, and control. We also found some support for this idea. Specifically, we
found that people who had been phubbed experienced greater threats to these needs, and one
case, threat mediated the effect of phubbing on communication outcomes. Specifically, the need
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
22
for belongingness mediated the effect of phubbing on perceived communication quality and
relationship satisfaction. However, the need for meaningful existence, self-esteem, and control
did not mediate any of these effects. Further, negative affect mediated the effect of phubbing on
perceived communication quality and positive affect mediated the effect of phubbing on
relationship satisfaction. In many cases therefore, phubbing may negatively affect important
social outcomes because it threatens the same needs and affect that are threatened when people
are socially excluded. Concerns about the negative influence of smartphone use during
conversations therefore appears to be warranted.
The current research makes an important contribution to the literature on ostracism. It
shows that threats to fundamental needs can occur as a result of an everyday communication
phenomenon that a significant majority of people report having experienced. Traditionally, the
effects of social exclusion have been studied in games such as the cyberball paradigm
(Hartgerink, van Beest, Wicherts, & Williams, 2015). However, as people become more and
more reliant on their smartphones, social exclusion has perhaps become a pervasive feature of
everyday social interaction. Unlike other more well-studied forms of social exclusion, phubbing
can take place anywhere and at any time as someone reaches for their phone and ignores their
conversation partner. People may therefore have their fundamental needs threatened more
regularly during the course of routine, everyday conversations, providing new avenues for
research on ostracism. This research represents an early attempt to understand the consequences
of phubbing. Therefore, it is important to consider its strengths, limitations, and some directions
for future research. First, the study has several strengths. In particular, it contributes a novel
method for studying social exclusion in dyadic conversations by using animations. We know
from previous experiments using the cyberball paradigm that socially excluded participants
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
23
experience negative impact on fundamental needs, affect, and various other constructs
(Hartgerink et al., 2015). In particular, individuals have an automatic mechanism detecting social
ostracism (Panksepp, 2003) and the ostracizers do not even need to be real humans for targets to
have reflexive responses (Zadro et al., 2004). The current method therefore offers an additional
controlled way of studying social exclusion. A further advantage is that the animations can also
be easily adapted to study the effects of varying degrees of phubbing, as well as features of the
communication protagonists and features of the communicative context. They are therefore
easily adaptable to different research purposes. However, the use of animations also comes with
some limitations. For example, whilst they ensure a rigorous level of experimental control, this
may come at the cost of external validity. The animations presented cartoon-like figures on a
screen (see Figure 2) and are therefore limited in the extent to which they offer the opportunity to
study real-life conversations between strangers, acquaintances and friends. It may also be
possible that participants became aware of the purpose of the study and responded in a socially
desirable manner. Although we feel that this is unlikely given the minimalness of the animation
and manipulation, and the privacy of participants’ responses, appropriate checks should be made
in future research.
The measures in our study present some other issues that need to be considered. First, the
proposed moderators (i.e., perceived social norms of phubbing and rejection sensitivity) had no
impact on any of the effects we observed. Perhaps this can be explained by the nature of people’s
instant responses to ostracism. Individuals have immediate indiscriminate reflexive reactions to
social exclusion, then cope and recover during a later reflective stage (Williams, 2009a).
Immediate responses to ostracism are robust and appear insensitive to moderation by individual
differences and situational factors (Williams, 2009b). A further consideration is that meaningful
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
24
existence predicted neither perceived communication quality or relationship satisfaction. Further,
need for control only predicted relationship satisfaction. We can only speculate about the reasons
for these non-significant effects. The relatively low reliability of the perceived social norms of
phubbing scale should also be addressed in future research.
A further limitation of our research is that the sample size was relatively small and not
very diverse. Future research should address this limitation. It is also possible that the mere
presence of smartphones in all animations can interfere with relationship outcomes (Misra et al.,
2014), which is something else that should be considered. Finally, the current study only varied
the extent to which participants were phubbed during the dyadic conversation, and not the
number of times participants were phubbed. The frequency of being phubbed may have an
impact on relationship outcomes.
There are also other potential avenues for future research that we would like to highlight
here. First, to understand people’s coping and longer term responses to phubbing behavior, we
need to examine in more detail the temporal need-threat model proposed by Williams (2009b).
This model suggested three stages of the ostracism effect: (1) a reflexive (or immediate) stage,
(2) a reflective (or coping) stage, and (3) a resignation (or long-term) stage (Williams, 2009a). In
this study, we limited ourselves to examining only the initial and immediate responses to being
phubbed (i.e., the reflexive stage). Future research should therefore investigate what happens in
the second and third phases of ostracism as a result of phubbing behaviour. For example, it is
interesting to note that the majority of our participants who failed the attention checks were in
the extensive phubbing condition, suggesting that people may ‘tune out’ after some time being
phubbed. Studying the reflective stage will enable researchers to more fully understand the
longer term effects of phubbing.
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
25
Future research should also examine additional mechamisms to explain the effects of
phubbing on relationship outcomes. We have focused on ostracism in the present study and our
findings do support the prediction that phubbing threatens at least one of the fundamental needs
and also dampens mood. However, another recent investigation proposed and found evidence to
support the idea that mobile phone use during face-to-face interactions influences impression
formation as a result of conversational norm violation (Abeele et al., 2016). This relates to the
construct of expectancy violation more generally. Individuals develop expectations about the
behavior of communicators, and as a result, they assign a positive or negative valence judgement
when they notice that their communication partner’s behavior deviates significantly from
expectancies (Burgoon, 1993; Burgoon & Hale, 1988). Miller-Ott & Kelly (2015) found that
participants expected undivided attention in some social contexts. Excessive mobile phone usage
in social interactions might therefore violate communicative expectations and lead to negative
relationship satisfaction (Kelly, Miller-Ott, & Duran, 2017). Furthermore, “technostress”—or
feelings of distress associated with mobile phone use—may be another mechanism underlying
phubbing behavior (Gonzales & Wu, 2016). Further research exploring the mechanisms
underlying phubbing effects is therefore needed.
Further research should also examine phubbing effects in different relationships contexts.
For example, research could explore the effects of phubbing by different individuals (e.g.,
friends/enemies) and groups (ingroups/outgroups). Gonsalkorale and Williams (2007) found that
being ostracized even by a despised outgroup lowers mood and has a negative impact on
fundamental needs. Future research could examine if similar effects occur for phubbing. For
example, is it worse to be phubbed by a friend than an enemy, or by someone from one’s ingroup
than by an outgroup member? Research such as this would allow scholars to further align
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
26
phubbing with the ostracism literature and investigate possible differences between phubbing
and other forms of social exclusion.
Future research should also consider more naturalistic communication settings to increase
external validity, actual behaviors of participants on the receiving end of phubbing (e.g.,
nonverbal responses, eye tracking responses), and the extent to which social exclusion in the
form of phubbing produces different outcomes to other types of social exclusion such as
cyberostracism. Finally, emerging findings on the effects of phubbing and the mechanisms that
drive these effects may inform interventions to address the negative effects of phubbing.
Conclusions
This research breaks new ground by demonstrating that phubbing violates fundamental
human needs and reduces affect. In turn, a sense of belonging, and both positive and negative
affect lead to negative communication outcomes. It extends upon research on the antecedents and
consequences of phubbing by further highlighting some of the potentially negative consequences
of mobile phone use for social interactions. We anticipate this to be a fruitful line of research as
scholars further investigate the effects of modern technologies on social life.
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
27
References
Abeele, M. M. V., Antheunis, M. L., & Schouten, A. P. (2016). The effect of mobile messaging
during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality. Computers in Human
Behavior, 62, 562-569. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.005
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Baumeister, R. F. (2005). Rejected and alone. Psychologist, 18, 732-735.
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Point-counterpoints: Anxiety and social
exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 165-195.
doi:10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.165
Berenson, K. R., Gyurak, A., Ayduk, Ö., Downey, G., Garner, M. J., Mogg, K., ... & Pine, D. S.
(2009). Rejection sensitivity and disruption of attention by social threat cues. Journal of
research in personality, 43(6), 1064-1072. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.07.007
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). Attachment, communication, and the therapeutic process. A secure base:
Parent-child attachment and healthy human development, 137-157.
Buckle, C. (2016, September 14). Mobiles seen as most important device. Retrieved from
http://www.globalwebindex.net/blog/mobiles-seen-as-most-important-device
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1-2), 30-48.
doi:10.1177/0261927X93121003
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
28
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and
application to immediacy behaviors. Communications Monographs, 55(1), 58-79.
doi:10.1080/03637758809376158
Cameron, A. F., & Webster, J. (2011). Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: Integrating
incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organization Science, 22(3), 754-771.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0540
Case, T. I., & Williams, K. D. (2004). Ostracism: A metaphor for death. In J. Greenberg, S. L.
Koole & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 336-
351). New York: Guilford Press.
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The
antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior,
63, 9-18. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.70.6.1327
Duck, S., Rutt, D. J., Hoy, M., & Strejc, H. H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations
in everyday relationships all communications are not created equal. Human Communication
Research, 18(2), 228-267. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00545.x
Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., & Morrison, R. (2015). Ostracism, self-esteem, and job
performance: When do we self-verify and when do we self-enhance?. Academy of
Management Journal, 58(1), 279-297. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0347
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
29
Gerber, J., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected a meta-analysis of experimental research on
rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 468-488. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
6924.2009.01158.x
Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won't let me play: Ostracism even by a
despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1176-1186.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.392
Gonzales, A. L., & Wu, Y. (2016). Public Cellphone Use Does Not Activate Negative Responses
in Others… Unless They Hate Cellphones. Journal of ComputerMediated
Communication, 21(5), 384-398. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12174
Haigh, A. (n.d.). Stop phubbing. Retrieved from http://stopphubbing.com.
Hartgerink, C. H., van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). The ordinal effects
of ostracism: A meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies. PloS one, 10(5), e0127002.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127002
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation
modeling to examine contingent causal processes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Second
Course, 2, 217-264.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 50(1), 93-98. doi:10.2307/352430
Jamieson, J. P., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Need threat can motivate performance
after ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 690-702.
doi:10.1177/0146167209358882
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
30
Kang, S. K., & Chasteen, A. L. (2009). The development and validation of the age-based
rejection sensitivity questionnaire. The Gerontologist, 49(3), 303-316.
doi:10.1093/geront/gnp035
Karadağ, E., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Şahin, B. M., ... & Babadağ, B.
(2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A structural
equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 60-74.
doi:10.1556/2006.4.2015.005
Kelly, L., Miller-Ott, A. E., & Duran, R. L. (2017). Sports Scores and Intimate Moments: An
Expectancy Violations Theory Approach to Partner Cell Phone Behaviors in Adult
Romantic Relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 1-23.
doi:10.1080/10570314.2017.1299206
Krasnova, H., Abramova, O., Notter, I., & Baumann, A. (2016). Why phubbing is toxic for your
relationship: Understanding the role of smartphone jealousy among "Generation Y" users.
Research Papers. 109. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/109
Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness,
depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 221-229.
doi:10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.221
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). Marital interaction: physiological linkage and
affective exchange. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(3), 587.
Miller-Ott, A., & Kelly, L. (2015). The presence of cell phones in romantic partner face-to-face
interactions: An expectancy violation theory approach. Southern Communication
Journal, 80(4), 253-270. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2015.1055371
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
31
Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J., & Yuan, M. (2014). The iPhone effect. The quality of in-
person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environment and Behavior,
48(2), 275-298. doi:10.1177/0013916514539755
Panksepp, J. (2003). Feeling the pain of social loss. Science, 302(5643), 237-239.
doi:10.1126/science.1091062
Pathak, S. (2013, October 7). McCann Melbourne made up a word to sell a print dictionary :
New campaign for Macquarie birthed ’phubbing’. Retrieved from
http://adage.com/article/news/mccann-melbourne-made-a-word-sell-a-dictionary/244595/.
Ranie, L., & Zickuhr, K. (2015). Americans’ views on mobile etiquette. Pew Research Center.
August, 2015. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/americans-views-on-
mobile-etiquette/.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Hickson III, M. L. (2008). Eye behavior. In Nonverbal
behavior in interpersonal relations (pp. 85-96). Boston, MA: Pearson. Education, Inc.
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell
phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers
in Human Behavior, 54, 134-141. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058
Sanford, K., & Rowatt, W. C. (2004). When is negative emotion positive for relationships? An
investigation of married couples and roommates. Personal Relationships, 11(3), 329-354.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00086.x
Schwarz, R. M. (2008). Cell phone communication versus face-to-face communication: The
effect of mode of communication on relationship satisfaction and the difference in quality of
communication (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University). Retrieved from OhioLINK.
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
32
Silk, J. S., Stroud, L. R., Siegle, G. J., Dahl, R. E., Lee, K. H., & Nelson, E. E. (2012). Peer
acceptance and rejection through the eyes of youth: pupillary, eyetracking and ecological
data from the Chatroom Interact task. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(1),
93-105. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr044
Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., Lambert, N. M., Crescioni, A. W., DeWall, C. N., & Fincham,
F. D. (2009). Alone and without purpose: Life loses meaning following social
exclusion. Journal of experimental social psychology, 45(4), 686-694.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.007
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6
th
ed.). Boston, MA:
Alyn & Bacon.
Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each
other. New York: Basic Books.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can't join them,
beat them: effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 81(6), 1058. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058
Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. M. (2009). The phone connection: A qualitative
exploration of how belongingness and social identification relate to mobile phone use
amongst Australian youth. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(3), 225-
240. doi:10.1002/casp.983
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(6), 1063. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
33
Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Nice to know you: Positive emotions, self–other
overlap, and complex understanding in the formation of a new relationship. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 1(2), 93-106. doi:10.1080/17439760500510569
Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Eds). Aversive interpersonal
behaviors (pp. 133-170). New York: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-9354-3_7
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford Press.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Psychology, 58(1), 425.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641
Williams, K. D. (2009a). Ostracism: A temporal need threat model. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 41, 275-314. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1
Williams, K. D. (2009b). Ostracism: Effects of being excluded and ignored. In M. P. Zanna
(Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 275-314). New York:
Academic Press. doi:10.4135/9781412958479.n384
Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Eye gaze as relational
evaluation: Averted eye gaze leads to feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 869-882. doi:10.1177/0146167210370032
Zadro, L., Arriaga, X. B., & Williams, K. D. (2008). Relational ostracism. Social relationships:
Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes, 305-320.
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a
computer lowers belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560-567. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
34
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
35
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
36
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
37
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
38
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
39
THE EFECTS OF PHUBBING ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
40
... Likewise, phubbing has been found to significantly reduce marital quality (Khodabakhsh & Ong, 2021). In an experimental study by Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2018), participants viewed a 3-min dyadic conversation and were asked to imagine themselves as one of the figures in the animation. Afterwards, they were assigned to one of three conditions in which they were: not phubbed at all, partially phubbed, or consistently phubbed. ...
... Negative emotions are often evoked when an individual feels socially excluded or ostracized in some manner (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018). Feelings of exclusion, along with perceived partner responsiveness and perceived intimacy, were found to be significant mediators of perceived phubbing and relationship satisfaction (Beukeboom & Pollmann, 2021). ...
... When individuals experience partner phubbing, they perceive lower partner responsiveness, lower intimacy, and greater feelings of exclusion (Beukeboom & Pollmann, 2021;McDaniel & Wesselmann, 2021;Vanden Abeele et al., 2019). These negative evaluations may then be attributed to the failings of the relationship itself, resulting in lower relationship satisfaction (e.g., Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018;McDaniel et al., 2018;Wang et al., 2017). Alternatively, the phubbee may perceive lower partner responsiveness and greater social exclusion as a sign of their own shortcomings. ...
Article
Full-text available
The term “phubbing” is a portmanteau of “phone” and “snubbing”, representing interruptions in face-to-face interactions due to smartphones acting as a distractor. Phubbing has previously been associated with several negative relational and personal outcomes (i.e., reduced relationship satisfaction, low mood, and increased interpersonal conflict). The present study explored the consequences of partner phubbing on phubbee's (i.e., the recipient's) daily reports of relationship satisfaction and personal well-being. To extend current phubbing literature, we assessed how phubbees responded to being phubbed (ignoring, resentment, curiosity, retaliation, conflict) and their motivations for engaging in any retaliatory behaviours. Participants (N = 75) completed a 10-day daily diary study, consisting of short baseline and daily measures (perceived partner phubbing, relationship satisfaction, depressed mood, anxious mood, self-esteem, anger/frustration, responses to phubbing, and, if applicable, motivations for retaliation). Results revealed phubbees reported lower relationship satisfaction and greater feelings of anger when daily perceived partner phubbing was high. Likewise, when perceived partner phubbing was high, phubbees reported greater curiosity, resentment, and retaliation. Revenge, need for support, and need for approval were all significant motivations for retaliation. Findings reinforced the emotional and behavioural impact of phubbing on the recipient.
... Specifically, phubbing behaviour is perceived as less prevalent and less acceptable in dyadic settings than in small group settings (Leuppert and Geber 2020). As dyadic interactions can be described as a 'fully focused' situation, the action of looking at a smartphone display will negatively influence a sense of emotional (Nakamura 2015), perceived communication quality and relationship satisfaction (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas 2018), well-being (Roberts and David 2016). In a similar vein, the presence of a smartphone -even it is not being used-undermines the perceived closeness, connection, conversation quality, and trust in one's partner (Przybylski and Weinstein 2012). ...
... Thus, using even the existence of a smartphone -whether intentionally or unintentionally-in a conversational interaction can be considered rude and socially inappropriate (Abeele, Antheunis, and Schouten 2016) unless the process is interactive (Lutz and Knop 2020). Such disruption during a professional and non-professional meeting may cause feelings of being ignored and excluded (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas 2018;David 2017, 2020;Yasin et al. 2020). Based on these discussions, the following is proposed: Hypothesis 1. Supervisor phubbing will be negatively associated with trust-in-supervisor. ...
... Phubbing is a relatively new phenomenon and has emerging popularity in recent years. Early research generally focused on phubbing behaviour within a social context such as couple relationships (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas 2018;Roberts and David 2016;Wang et al. 2017), co-parenting (McDaniel et al. 2018, and family interactions (Kadylak 2019;Kadylak et al. 2018). More recent studies have discussed the topic in a workplace context David 2017, 2020;Yasin et al. 2020) and revised the term as BPhubbing. ...
Article
Phubbing (phone-snubbing) -a word to describe an interruption of a conversation due to using and/or glancing at a smartphone while communicating in person- has become an important problem. This unpleasant behavior can occur in different contexts like romantic relationships, business life, family relations, and educational environments. Previous researches generally focused on the first three situations; however, there is currently a lack of studies addressing phubbing behavior in an educational context. Although there have been insistent calls to examine the effects of phubbing behaviors in educational environments, to our knowledge, this study is the first which specifically focuses on supervisor-supervisee communication and the impact of phubbing behavior on this relationship. In this study, the term 'supervisor-phubbing' (SPhubbing) has been coined in the literature and described as "the supervisor's act of ignoring supervisees by using their smartphone or by being distracted by their smartphone during an academic meeting." Our research model, which draws upon Social Exchange Theory and Leader-Member Exchange Theory, examines whether SPhubbing results in any change to supervision outcomes or has an impact on trust between a student and their supervisor. Our results clearly show that SPhubbing has a negative impact on a student's trust in their supervisor which is important because trust positively impacts student satisfaction and perceived supervisor contribution to learning. In addition, student satisfaction is positively related to perceived supervisor contribution to learning. Students expect to be given the attention during a conversation; unless they are inclined to trust their supervisors less which undermines their supervision outcomes.
... Linked to this increased use of mobile phones, a new maladaptive behaviour has emerged known as "phubbing". This describes when somebody ignores a person in a context of social interaction by paying attention to the mobile phone [20], which compromises the person's psychological well-being [21,22]. Specifically, phubbing can lead to psychological impairment or distress [23], depressive states [24], loneliness, hopelessness, insecurity and alexithymia, low self-concept, somatization, and hostility [25]. ...
... Our findings are in line with previous research, confirming the fact that IA interferes with the attention-related processes required to read or follow a class [44,45], hinders students' time organisation [47] and, consequently, academic performance [17]. This is an emotional investment that also has physical (e.g., lack of sleep) and psychological consequences [26] which ultimately compromises their quality of life [20]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Internet Addiction (IA) and phubbing are prevalent, disruptive behaviours among university students. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between IA and Phubbing with psychological variables (impulsiveness, self-esteem, and psychological distress), academic performance and self-perception of mathematical competence (SMC), as well as possible gender differences. Results showed (n = 715; Mean Age = 21.7) gender differences in lack of planning, emotional investment and somatisation and IA correlated positively with app addiction, mobile addiction, and psychopathology. A total of 26.3% of IA can be explained by a lack of self-control, time and performance management, mobile phone addiction, anxiety and psychological distress. Finally, 71% of students believe that the use of new technologies has worsened their SMC and this is correlated with impaired communication, obsession with mobile phones, IA (Total Phubbing Scale) and impulsiveness. Our results indicate the importance of taking into account psychological variables that affect the development of IA, phubbing, and SMC in the university population.
... Furthermore, the repetition of misinformation may boost its subsequent automatic activation and familiarity-based retrieval even under load, leading to a greater CIE and potentially a familiarity-backfire effect. From an applied perspective, understanding the impact of cognitive load is important because in today's media landscape, people are exposed to an abundance of (mis)information, often while other tasks compete for their cognitive resources (e.g., listening to the radio while driving or scrolling through social media while having a conversation; Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018). ...
Article
Corrected misinformation can continue to influence inferential reasoning. It has been suggested that such continued influence is partially driven by misinformation familiarity, and that corrections should therefore avoid repeating misinformation to avoid inadvertent strengthening of misconceptions. However, evidence for such familiarity-backfire effects is scarce. We tested whether familiarity backfire may occur if corrections are processed under cognitive load. Although misinformation repetition may boost familiarity, load may impede integration of the correction, reducing its effectiveness and therefore allowing a backfire effect to emerge. Participants listened to corrections that repeated misinformation while in a driving simulator. Misinformation familiarity was manipulated through the number of corrections. Load was manipulated through a math task administered selectively during correction encoding. Multiple corrections were more effective than a single correction; cognitive load reduced correction effectiveness, with a single correction entirely ineffective under load. This provides further evidence against familiarity-backfire effects and has implications for real-world debunking.
... Los teléfonos inteligentes favorecen la interacción social; sin embargo, pueden dar lugar a que las personas ignoren a los que se encuentran cerca físicamente, perjudicando la calidad de la comunicación (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012), ya que la atención sobre el teléfono durante una conversación, ya que puede llegar a obstaculizarla, al mostrar desinterés, descortesía y desvinculación (Karadağ, et al., 2016;Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2017;Vanden & Postma-Nilsenova, 2018), lo que puede generar rechazo por la falta de contacto visual con el interlocutor (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018). ...
... Esta conducta fomenta la aparición del denominado phubbing, definido como el desorden psicológico relacionado con el uso desadaptativo del móvil en el ámbito social y hace alusión al acto de ignorar a alguien en una situación social por estar usando el teléfono móvil (Barrios-Borjas et al., 2017). Además, existen evidencias de que el aumento de phubbing afecta significativa y negativamente a la calidad de la comunicación percibida y la satisfacción en las relaciones sociales (Chotpitayasunondh y Douglas, 2018). ...
... Kepuasan pernikahan berperan penting dalam keberlangsungan rumah tangga (Istiqomah & Mukhlis, 2015). Dampak yang dihasilkan dari tindakan phubbing adalah kehilangan kualitas dari sebuah interaksi, tidak puas dengan interaksi yang mereka lakukan, hilangnya kepercayaan saat berinteraksi, merasa hilangnya kedekatan yang dirasakan saat munculnya kehadiran smartphone, merasa cemburu, dan mengacaukan mood (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Phubbing behavior is the behavior of ignoring someone in a social environment by focusing more on the smartphone, and tends to ignore the conversation when interacting with people around him/her. In marriage, good communication is needed between husband and wife in order to achieve marriage satisfaction. The purpose of this research was to determine the relationship between phubbing behavior and marital satisfaction in married people. This research used a correlational quantitative method with a purposive sampling technique. The subjects of this study amounted to 100 people with the criteria: married men or women, in a bond/marital status (not divorced/living divorced), at least 2 years of marriage age, living at home with a partner (not a long-distance partner), individuals are in early adulthood and middle adulthood, have children and use smartphones in their daily lives. Data were collected with a scale of phubbing behavior and marital satisfaction. Data collection was carried out online using a google form application containing research instruments, which were distributed through social media forums. The alternative hypothesis proposed by the researcher was rejected and showed that there was no significant relationship between phubbing behavior and marital satisfaction in married people (r =-0.120 and p = 0.234).
Article
Full-text available
Bu çalışmanın amacı sosyotelizm davranışının çift ilişkilerindeki yansımasını alan yazın derlemesiyle ortaya koymaktır. Sosyotelizmin çift ilişkilerine yansıması ise “partner sosyotelizm” olarak isimlendirilmektedir. Partner sosyotelizm kavramı romantik ilişkilerde çiftlerin birlikteyken karşılıklı ilgi göstermeleri gerektiğinde bunun yerine cep telefonlarıyla ilgilenmeleri ve muhatabını görmezden gelmeleridir. Bu davranışsal problem romantik ilişkilerde gittikçe büyük bir sorun haline dönüşerek çift anlaşmazlıklarının önemli bir nedeni olarak belirmektedir. Bu davranışı sergileyen birey partneriyle birlikteyken sık sık cep telefonunu kontrol eder. Telefonları her zaman görebilecekleri bir yerdedir ya da telefonunu ellerinde tutarlar. Ayrıca çiftler arasında kıskançlık kaynaklı problemlere de neden olur. Bu konuda problem yaşayan çiftlerin ilişkilerinden sağladıkları doyum da zamanla azalabilmektedir. Ayrıca yaşanan gerginlikler bireylerin iyilik halini de negatif etkilemektedir. Ortaya çıkardığı olumsuz sonuçlar partner sosyotelizmin ciddi bir problem olarak ele alınması ve her bir bireyin kişisel sorumluluk alması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Telefon ve internet kullanımını hayatımızdan çıkaramasak da bu teknolojileri nasıl doğru kullanacağımızın bilincinde olmak gerekiyor. Ayrıca olumsuz etkilerinden dolayı telefon kullanım alışkanlıkları ve ortaya çıkardığı sosyal sorunlarla ilgili farkındalık oluşturulmalıdır. Aile dinamiklerini de etkileyen bu problemin çiftler tarafından görmezden gelinmemesi gereken bir problem olarak da algılanması gerekmektedir. Oluşan bu farkındalık çift ilişkilerinde yaşanabilecek olumsuzlukların önüne geçebileceği gibi bu yanlış kullanımın ortaya çıkarabileceği diğer riskleri de azaltabilecektir. Böylelikle hayatımızın bir parçası haline gelen ve kullanmanın zorunlu hale geldiği telefonlarımız sorun oluşturmayan bir boyuta taşınabilir.
Article
Full-text available
Smartphones allow people to connect with others from almost anywhere at any time. However, there is growing concern that smartphones may actually sometimes detract, rather than complement, social interactions. The term “phubbing” represents the act of snubbing someone in a social setting by concentrating on one’s phone instead of talking to the person directly. The current study was designed to examine some of the psychological antecedents and consequences of phubbing behavior. We examined the contributing roles of Internet addiction, fear of missing out, self-control, and smartphone addiction, and how the frequency of phubbing behavior and of being phubbed may both lead to the perception that phubbing is normative. The results revealed that Internet addiction, fear of missing out, and self-control predicted smartphone addiction, which in turn predicted the extent to which people phub. This path also predicted the extent to which people feel that phubbing is normative, both via (a) the extent to which people are phubbed themselves, and (b) independently. Further, gender moderated the relationship between the extent to which people are phubbed and their perception that phubbing is normative. The present findings suggest that phubbing is an important factor in modern communication that warrants further investigation.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Coined as “phubbing”, excessive use of smartphones in the romantic context has been shown to represent a barrier to meaningful communication, causing conflict, lowering relationship satisfaction, and undermining individual well-being. While these findings project a dire picture of the future of romance, the mechanisms behind the detrimental influence of partner phubbing on relationshiprelevant markers are still little understood. Considering prior evidence that partner phubbing leads to the loss of exclusive attention towards the other party, we argue that these are rather the feelings of jealousy partner phubbing is triggering that are responsible for the negative relational outcomes. Based on the analysis of qualitative and quantitative responses from “generation Y” users, we find that partner phubbing is associated with heightened feelings of jealousy, which is inversely related to couple’s relational cohesion. Moreover, jealousy plays a mediating role in the relationship between partner’s smartphone use and relational cohesion, acting as a mechanism behind this undesirable link. Challenging the frequently promoted euphoria with regard to permanent “connectedness”, our study contributes to a growing body of IS research that addresses dark sides of information technology use and provides corresponding implications for IS practitioners.
Article
Full-text available
Partner phubbing (Pphubbing) can be best understood as the extent to which an individual uses or is distracted by his/her cell phone while in the company of his/her relationship partner. The present study is the first to investigate the oft-occurring behavior of Pphubbing and its impact on relationship satisfaction and personal well-being. In Study 1, a nine-item scale was developed to measure Pphubbing. The scale was found to be highly reliable and valid. Study 2 assessed the study's proposed relationships among a sample of 145 adults. Results suggest that Pphubbing's impact on relationship satisfaction is mediated by conflict over cell phone use. One's attachment style was found to moderate the Pphubbing - cell phone conflict relationship. Those with anxious attachment styles reported higher levels of cell phone conflict than those with less anxious attachment styles. Importantly, Pphubbing was found to indirectly impact depression through relationship satisfaction and ultimately life satisfaction. Given the ever-increasing use of cell phones to communicate between romantic partners, the present research offers insight into the process by which such use may impact relationship satisfaction and personal well-being. Directions for future research are discussed.
Article
Social exclusion was manipulated by telling people that they would end up alone later in life or that other participants had rejected them. These manipulations caused participants to behave more aggressively. Excluded people issued a more negative job evaluation against someone who insulted them (Experiments 1 and 2). Excluded people also blasted a target with higher levels of aversive noise both when the target had insulted them (Experiment 4) and when the target was a neutral person and no interaction had occurred (Experiment 5). However, excluded people were not more aggressive toward someone who issued praise (Experiment 3). These responses were specific to social exclusion (as opposed to other misfortunes) and were not mediated by emotion.
Article
This study investigated how 225 adults perceived and responded to expectations of attentiveness and availability via cell phones when with romantic partners. Phone behaviors were generally expected, neutral, and typical but more negative when participants expected partner attention. Behaviors were more unexpected and negative if in public than at home. Phone sharing behaviors were perceived positively. Partner rewardingness was negatively correlated with valence and predicted cell phone satisfaction, as did valence, expectedness, and typicality of cell phone behavior. The most common response to partners’ cell phone usage was to say nothing.
Article
Ostracism dramatically reduces psychosocial well-being. Many studies have examined ostracism within digital environments, but to our knowledge no one has examined ostracism as manifested through public cellphone use. Experimental data revealed that public texting or reading on a cellphone was less ostracizing to copresent others than face-to-face ostracism but more ostracizing than face-to-face inclusion. Though cellphone use was somewhat ostracizing it did not prompt negative psychological effects, supporting the notion of cellphone taken-for-grantedness. Exceptions were found for those reporting phone technostress; these individuals were negatively affected by exposure to someone reading on a cellphone. Findings extend the ostracism paradigm to a new context and support research on the importance of attitudes and norms in shaping the effects of public cellphone use.
Article
This paper presents two experimental studies investigating the impact of mobile messaging during an offline conversation on relational outcomes. A first study examined the impact on impression formation. A 3 × 1 experiment revealed that phone users were perceived as significantly less polite and attentive, and that self-initiated messaging behavior led to more negative impression formation than messaging behavior in response to a notification. A second study examined the impact on perceived conversation quality and social attraction. A 2 × 2 experiment revealed that perceived conversation quality was negatively affected by co-present mobile messaging behavior, while social attraction was not. Whether persons were acquainted or not with the phone user did not moderate this relationship.
Article
Cell phones are essential in maintaining ties with romantic partners but they can also detract from quality time we spend with them. The purpose of this study was to examine expectations that romantic partners have of cell phone usage during time spent together and how they manage violations of expectations. Using Expectancy Violation Theory (EVT; Burgoon, 1978) as the analytical framework, in-depth, qualitative analysis of transcripts of focus groups with college students (N = 51) revealed that participants have expectations for undivided attention on formal dates and when spending intimate time together and divided attention when informally “hanging out” with one another. In addition, results identified ways that individuals respond to expectancy violations and manage their expectations with romantic partners.