Master Thesis

Do touchscreens make us lose touch?

The relationship between personality traits and phubbing
among emerging adults

Katharina Fritz

Student #: 11359439

University of Amsterdam

Graduate School of Communication

Entertainment Communication

Supervisor: Dr. Ine Beyens

2nd February, 2018

DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Abstract

This survey study among emerging adults (N = 454) examined (1) the relationship between

emerging adults’ tie strength preference and emerging adults’ phubbing behaviour and (2) the

mediating role of emerging adults’ empathic concern for phubbing consequences in the

relationship of emerging adults’ agreeableness and phubbing. Hierarchical regression results

indicated that an increased tie strength preference was associated with a decreased phubbing

behaviour. Results of the PROCESS model revealed that agreeableness’ impact on phubbing

was mediated by empathic concern for phubbing consequences. Importantly, increased

agreeableness was also directly associated with a decreased phubbing behaviour. The present

research results emphasize that phubbing is not a universal consequence of today’s

omnipresence of smartphones, but varies among individuals, more specifically, emerging

adults. Directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: phubbing, tie strength preference, empathic concern, agreeableness, face-to-face

social interaction

1
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Do touchscreens make us lose touch?

The relationship between personality traits and phubbing among emerging adults

“I fear the day technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a

generation of idiots.” Albert Einstein (1946)

Owned by 2.32 billion people worldwide (Statista, 2017) smartphones have the

biggest power to intervene with interpersonal relationships in today’s time. Smartphones were

designed to facilitate instant and intimate connections regardless of space and time, strengthen

family bonds and share information from one-to-many with a single click (Wei & Lo, 2006).

From being merely technological objects, they have shifted to be social objects (Srivastava,

2005). Even more, smartphones turned into an extension of ourselves. With 221 times

checking it a day (Tecmark, 2014) which makes some three-and-a-quarter hours a day, and all

in all a whole day per week, the logical question comes up: Is it maybe not our smartphone

but our life that has become a major distraction from our smartphone (Roberts & David,

2016)? It becomes obvious that there is a certain irony. What has been designed to connect us

with people across great distances, has led to an obsessive smartphone use that in turn,

disconnects us from the people in close proximity (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016).

When our eyes start wandering down to the smartphone display, our conversation partner

immediately knows that our mind does too and we are no longer fully present in the

conversation but probably engaging in a conversation with someone else online. Since 2012

the act of engaging with our phone while not being alone is officially baptized: phubbing.

As phubbing is such a recent phenomenon, only very little empirical research has been

conducted so far. On the one side, researchers have focused on determinants of phubbing

from perpetrators’ view such as various technological addictions, the fear of missing out

(FoMo) as well as being phubbed oneself (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016; Karadağ,

Tosuntaş, Erzen, Duru, Bostan, Şahin et al., 2015). On the other side, harmful consequences

2
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

for phubbing-victims such as experiencing a feeling of social exclusion or a lowered self-

esteem have been investigated (Roberts & David, 2016; David & Roberts, 2017; Przybylski &

Weinstein, 2013). Mostly, research on phubbing consequences has been conducted under the

lens of romantic relationships showing that phubbing causes conflict and therefore

significantly lowers relationship satisfaction and thus, life satisfaction in marriages longer

than seven years (Roberts & David, 2016; Wang, Xie, Wang, Wang, & Lei, 2017). The

remaining research has put its focus on the resulting conversation quality which is clearly

lowered through the disruption of the conversational flow due to the phub (Vanden Abeele,

Antheunis, & Schouten 2016; Misra, Cheng, Genevie, & Yuan, 2016). Yet, no one has ever

researched whether phubbing can be generalized over all individuals or whether there might

be certain personality traits that make some people less likely to phub than others. To fill this

gap, this research is among the first to investigate for potential phubbing-decreasing

personality traits from perpetrator’s side. Specifically, this study investigates the relationship

between emerging adults’ tie strength preference and emerging adults’ phubbing behavior as

well as the relationship of emerging adults’ level of agreeableness and phubbing mediated by

empathic concern for phubbing consequences. In the first section the meaning of phubbing

will be looked at more closely before a detailed theoretical framework is presented. The

framework firstly describes the determinants of phubbing and introduces the first hypothesis.

Secondly, the detrimental consequences of phubbing are explained. Afterwards, the

agreeableness expression per se is clarified and the second and third hypotheses are being

introduced. Thereafter, the research method is announced which comprises sample, procedure

and measures. This is followed by the core of this study, the analysis of the study results.

Afterwards, the main results are provided before a concise conclusion is drawn.

3
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Theoretical framework

Meaning of phubbing

‘Phubbing’ is a portmanteau1 of the words phone and snubbing (Chotpitayasunondh

& Douglas, 2016). The term recently evolved during a meeting of lexicographers, poets and

authors at the University of Sydney while they were working on coining a new word for a

nameless social phenomenon of the current decade as part of the selling-campaign for the

2012 edition of the Macquarie Dictionary. Phubbing is further defined as the act of attending

to a smartphone instead of communicating in a social setting of close proximity with two or

more people (Roberts & David, 2016). In this social setting the ‘phubber’ is the person who

starts snubbing by paying attention to his or her cell phone, whereas the ‘phubbee’ is the

conversational partner being disrespected and disregarded. The ‘phub’, as the act of phubbing

per se, can appear in various forms such as: interrupting the conversational flow by merely

glancing at the display facing-up cell-phone while being in a conversation, responding to a

call, texting an external person pro- or reactively, making a post on social media up to

escaping from interpersonal communication by simply staying busy with one’s phone and

intentionally ignoring the existence of the conversational partner (David & Roberts, 2017).

Generally, phubbing results from a problematic phone use and is thus categorized as an

addiction that combines many virtual addictions (smartphone, internet, gaming, social media)

(Karadağ et al., 2015; Seo, Kim, & David, 2015). Consequently, when this addiction remains

unsatisfied, general withdrawal symptoms ranging from irritability to emotional instability up

to restlessness are most likely to occur (West & Gossop, 1994).

1
a word blending the sounds and combining the meaning of two others (Simpson, Weiner, & Oxford University Press, 1989)

4
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Determinants of phubbing

The omnipresent nature of smartphones seems to have led to the rise of two

paradoxes. The first one is the freeing-enslaving paradox which wraps up the perks that come

with the portability and multi-functionality of today’s smartphones (David & Roberts, 2017).

One of those perks is the communication with others regardless of time and geographical

distance (Ling, 2004). This freedom combined with the smartphone-characteristic brief, to the

point conversational style allows us to keep up an expanded network of numerous shallow

and superficial relationships (Forgays, Hyman, & Schreiber, 2014). Known as horizontal

relationships those relationships only demand for very little time, dedication and effort per

every individual contact approach. As the focus on many multiple settings and the little

dedication for each individual one of them does not allow for a great depth of the

conversational content, these horizontal relationships are further categorized as weak ties.

According to Grannovetter’s (1973) Weak Tie Network Theory, weak ties are practically

useful as they offer the dissemination and gain of a broad range of interpersonal information,

connections and innovations. An individual can therefore highly benefit from a huge social

network in terms of for example a broad knowledge or job opportunities. However, regarding

the high number of people to contact in such a huge network, the little time required per every

individual eventually occupies much time altogether (Gergen, 2002).

In turn, the increased time effort for the breadth of weak ties endangers to take away

the time and energy for the depth of fewer vertical but strong, committed, long-term

relationships, known as strong ties (Gergen, 2002). Counter to weak ties, strong ties are

defined as highly intimate bonds that demand for sacrifice and effort but therefore serve as

dependable source of emotional and social support (Wang, Hoi, Ester, Bu, & Chen, 2017).

However, due to the assumed shift from vertical to horizontal relationships, it seems like

these fewer strong ties are at risk to be replaced by many weak ties (Gergen, 2002). Turkle

5
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

(2012) therefore states that the perks of smartphone use inevitably come along with its

downsides, namely, the second paradox defined as the present-absent paradox. It means that

although an individual is physically present in a conversational setting, the preoccupation

with the smartphone, to keep up the broad array of weak horizontal ties, leads to an actual

mental absence and a decrease in conversation quality and depth for strong ties (Misra et al.,

2016). This can be explained by the Limited Capacity Model (Lang, 2000) stating that human

beings possess only a limited amount of cognitive resources to process information.

Consequently, when one is being busy with the smartphone but simultaneously keeping up a

conversation- hence, is phubbing- the available resources for attention need to be divided

over both concurrent tasks (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). As a logic consequence, either

task is being performed poorer than if all resources were available at once (Salvucci &

Taatgen, 2008). This half-split attention further leads to an interruption of the conversational

flow as the phubber mis- or overhears part of the conversational content which makes the

phubbee have to repeat the information (Oulasvirta, Tamminen, Roto, & Kuorelathi, 2005). A

mutually satisfying and profound relationship, however, demands for an undistracted

connection and conversational flow between conversational partners to be able to reach some

level of conversational depth (Siegel, 2010; Leggett & Roussouw, 2014). Furthermore,

nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, gestures, eye contact and body postures play a

crucial role for creating intimacy during a face-to-face interaction and interpreting the

conversational partner’s content correctly (Burgoon & Hoobler, 1994). A certain gesture for

instance, can either accent or contradict what has just been said and therefore clearly change

its meaning. It is therefore important to be sensitive for such cues in order to create trust and

rapport with one’s conversation partner (Misra et al., 2016). The phub, however, makes the

phubber’s eyes stick to the phone instead of the conversation partner and therefore disrupts

6
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

the human bonding and intimacy required for the formation of a strong and highly qualitative

relationship (Misra et al., 2016).

Based on the above-mentioned arguments, it is to assume that this present-absent

paradox is a new social phenomenon that occurs solely due to the facilitated communication

opportunities that come with the invention of the smartphone. Besides merely discovering this

paradox, Turkle (2012) goes yet one step further and labels the consequence of this paradox

as a societal and global shift from strong to weak tie preference. As a result, this shift is

expected to affect all smartphone-possessing individuals equally and unexceptionally.

However, a recent study by Wang et al. (2017) raises doubts on the generalizability of

this potential shift of preference from strong to weak ties or in other words, from profound

towards increasingly superficial connections, across all individuals of today’s smartphone

generation. According to their study findings, tie strength preference is an innate personality

trait that is deeply rooted in a person’s brain (Wang et al., 2017). The inherent preference for

one or the other is determined by the amount of time, emotional intensity, intimacy and

reciprocal service that one is willing to invest in another person (Granovetter, 1973).

Meaning, whether an individual rather preoccupies with his or her phone in a face-to-face

setting to invest little time to keep up with many other external, superficial acquaintances or

whether one prefers an undistracted conversation to form fewer but intimate profound bonds

and therefore prevents to let the smartphone intervene these connections is merely to trace

back to one’s inherent tie strength preference and not to blame on today’s omnipresence of

the smartphone. To investigate whether individual tie strength preferences predict people’s

phubbing behaviour, the first hypothesis therefore supposes that:

H1: Emerging adults with a strong tie preference are less likely to phub than emerging adults

with a weak tie preference.

7
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Consequences of phubbing

In working life, the distraction of the conversational flow in meetings leads to an

inhibition of deep thought, critical analysis, concentration, imagination and ultimately, an

increase in error proneness (Greenfield, 2009; Jackson, 2008; Misra & Stokols, 2012a; Ophir,

Nass, & Wagner, 2009). In romantic relationships, phubbing causes immense conflict

potential (Roberts & David, 2016). When one romantic partner interacts with his or her phone

and thus, missing out on informational content in the conversation, the phubbee receives the

implicit message that what is on the phone must be prioritized to the interaction with the

partner (McDaniel & Coye, 2014). Besides the feeling to have only secondary priority behind

the partner’s phone, the phubbed partner is then also likely to perceive that meaningful

interaction time is now being displaced by the partner’s phone. The experience of this

emotional state can be explained by the Displacement Theory (Wang et al., 2017). It states

that the time the phubber spends on the smartphone displaces meaningful time that would

have otherwise been spent with the phubbed partner (Wang et al., 2017). Thus, conflict arises

and leads to a lower level of relationship satisfaction. Resulting from frequent conflicts, the

unsatisfying relationship negatively impacts a person’s overall life satisfaction. Ultimately, it

then also increases the susceptibility for depression inside the phubbed individual (Servies,

2012; Roberts & David, 2016). In particular, phubbed partners with a high attachment anxiety

were found to be most prone to start a conflict. They are particularly vulnerable and thus,

more likely to start a conflict, as they show a greater fear of abandonment in a relationship as

well as a stronger need for closeness (Mikulincer & Nachson, 1991, Roberts & David, 2016).

This perceived level of interpersonal closeness is already weakened when the

smartphone is merely being visually present in the conversation without being used

(Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). As smartphones provide a permanent sense of connection to

the outer world even when being in silent mode, a person’s attention and engagement in the

8
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

conversation is automatically reduced (Plant, 2000). A single vibration or lighting up of the

display makes one lose focus for an average time of fourty-six seconds to get fully back to the

conversation (Stohart, Mitchum, & Yehnert, 2015). In addition to that, regardless of whether

it is a phub per se or just a short eyes-glancing down to the phone, crucial nonverbal cues

such as eye-contact (Burgoon & Hoobler, 1994) or the perception of the interlocutor’s body

language (Argyle & Cook, 1976) are neglected by the phubber during the face-to-face

conversation. Negative consequences will be derived from this action as it states a violation

against general expectations of politeness. According to the Politeness Theory (Brown &

Levinson, 1987) two conversation partners strive to save face for a respectful interaction by

behaving politely. This is clearly disrespected through the phub. Even if an individual

pretends not to give attention to his or her phone when it lights up during the conversation,

the conversation partner is clearly aware that the interlocutor’s attention is yet switching to

the conversation on the phone (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). The phubbee is therefore less

open to any self-disclosure and trust as he or she perceives not to have the fully required

attention from his or her conversation partner (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). Most

particularly, a personally meaningful topic is less likely to be discussed, as a lower level of

perceived empathy and understanding from the phubber were reported by the phubbee

(Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013).

Another consequence is that due to the phub an innate fear in the phubee’s brain is

immediately addressed as he or she experiences a threat of social exclusion from the

interpersonal interaction with the phubber (Baumeister & Tice 1990; David & Roberts, 2017).

Social exclusion can generally be experienced in two different forms (Molden, Lucas,

Gardner, Dean, & Knowles, 2009). One way is through rejection, which is a more direct and

explicit form as the reasons for the rejection are mostly clearly stated (Lee & Shrum, 2012).

The other way, which includes phubbing, is ignorance to the presence of the excluded person.

9
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

This form is more subtle and implicit and thus, firstly leads to confusion and irritation in the

excluded individual’s brain. These emotions occur because the desire to belong and the desire

for profound social relationships are two of the most fundamental human needs (Baumeister

& Tice, 1990; Kuss & Griffiths, 2011). The phubbee thereupon threatens to have lost power

and control as well as the sense of being a person of value (Lee & Shrum, 2012). As a

consequence, the phubbee’s self-esteem drops down (Leary, 1990). Next, the phubbee is

therefore likely to turn into a phubber him- or herself. By making use of the own wide-

ranging network on social media, the phubbee aspires to balance out the lacking attention in

the real-life environment through an attempt to gain attention and approval for his or her

existence in the virtual environment (David & Roberts, 2017). This empirically proven chain

reaction shows that phubbing is contagious and that the lines between perpetrator and victim

are getting blurrier (Finkel & Kruger, 2012). The result is an infinite circular effect of

phubbing and being phubbed and ultimately, a serious loss of valuable human face-to-face

interactions in the long run (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016).

Agreeableness. The reason why people respond differently to same situations is

characterized by five broad domains that define human personality (Digman, 1990). Besides

openness, conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticsm; agreeableness is one of those

‘super traits’. Whereas all of the other four traits refer mainly to the self, such as being

inventive (openness), organized (conscientiousness), energetic (extraversion) or sensitive

(neuroticism), agreeableness is the only trait that characterizes one’s personality depending on

the interaction with others (Goldberg, 1993). Since phubbing deals with exactly these social

interactions or more precisely, the loss of valuable social interactions through phubbing,

agreeableness represents the most relevant trait of the Big Five to research in this context.

Agreeableness reflects an individual’s need for social harmony and one’s tendency to value

getting along with others (McCrae & John, 1992). People who score high on agreeableness

10
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

are generally perceived as considerate, empathic, altruistic, cooperative and trustworthy by

their environment (Digman, 1990). On the flipside, disagreeable people are mostly

unconcerned with other’s well-being and likely to place their own interest above getting along

with others. Therefore, they are considered as unfriendly, untrusting, uncooperative and

arrogant (Wilt & Revelle, 2015). Taking together the facets of this personality trait from

phubber perspective and the above-mentioned harmful emotional consequences for the

phubbee, it is to expect that not everybody phubs to the same extent. This study therefore

firstly supposes that:

H2: Emerging adults who score high in agreeableness, show a greater empathic concern for

the consequences of phubbing than emerging adults who score low in agreeableness.

Agreeable people aim to avoid conflict to secure social harmony and are assumed to

be more strongly concerned about the harmful consequences of their own phubbing-behaviour

on their interlocutor (McCrae & John, 1992). It is thereupon to suppose that those who are

more strongly concerned about the harmful consequences are also less willing to engage in

triggering such consequences and are thus, less likely to phub. Secondly, it is therefore to

assume that:

H3: Emerging adults who score high in agreeableness are less likely to phub than emerging

adults who score low in agreeableness, and this effect is mediated by empathic concern for

phubbing consequences.

Methods

Sample

The data was collected from a random sample consisting of international emerging

adults within the age range 18 to 27. The decision to pick specifically emerging adults was

made due to the fact that the current generation of 18- 27 aged people, called Generation Y or

11
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Millenials, finds itself in an ‘In-between-generation’ of digital natives2 and digital

immigrants3. In comparison to today’s generation of adolescents or adults, they have more or

less spent exactly one life-half before and one life-half after the rise of the smartphone and

social media. Therefore, they represent an extremely attractive research group for the link

between phone use and social relationships.

The respondents were recruited through the researcher’s private network and an e-mail

newsletter via the University of Amsterdam’s online system. In addition to that, respondents

were motivated to participate on the survey by help of a sponsored collaboration with paigh, a

brand which specifically targets emerging adults on social media. The company posted the

survey and raffled a sponsored prize from their product range among all participants who

commented the post with their individual survey code which they had gained at the end of the

survey. As a pre-condition, respondents were asked to only take the survey if they were in

possession of a smartphone. Six hundred and eighty-three people participated in the study. Of

these, those who self-reported an English proficiency level lower than intermediate (B1) were

excluded from the sample as it cannot be safeguarded that they fully understood the questions

in order to give reliable responses. Furthermore, participants’ data was not included if they

did not agree to the consent, were out of the determined age range or had more than 10%

missing data. The final sample comprised a total number of 454 participants with 222 (48.9%)

women, 231 men (50.9%) and one intersex (0.2%) who had an average age of 23.98 years

(SD = 2.04). People from 39 different countries participated in the final study with an Asian

2
a person born or brought up during the age of digital technology and so familiar with computers and the Internet from
an early age
3
a person born or brought up before the widespread use of digital technology
(Oxford Dictionnary, 2018)

12
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

population of 18.62%, 1.15% African participants, 31.26% Europeans, 46.21% participants

from North America, 2.53% Hispanics and 0.02% Pacific Islander.

Procedure

All aspects of this study were conducted online using Qualtrics survey software. At

the beginning of the study respondents were asked to confirm a consent emphasising that they

were informed about the nature of the study, participated voluntarily and anonymously. Then

demographic data about age, gender and nationality were collected as well as the respondents’

self-reported level of English. Next, the main study began which included a 7-item scale for

each of the four measured constructs. Prior to every scale, a short instruction for the

evaluations in the following abstract was provided. After completing the second scale, an

attention check was inserted to secure the participant pays sufficient attention to the survey.

Measures

The administered scales (see Appendix A) for tie strength preference, agreeableness

and phubbing were edited scales from previous research and were controlled and proven for

validity and reliability in their original research. The scale used for assessing empathic

concern for phubbing consequences was developed within the present research.

Tie Strength Preference. Tie strength preference was assessed using seven items

adapted from Wright and Miller’s (2010) weak-tie/strong-tie support network preference

measurement. Participants were asked to indicate their preferences for the amount of time,

emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocal service that they were willing to invest for a

social relationship on a 5-Likert scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly

agree” (5). Example items include “I prefer a small number of close friends over a big number

of social acquaintances,” and “I prefer a wide range of information over one profound

conversation.” Five items were negatively worded and two items were positively worded.

Prior to the computation of the variable, negatively worded items were reversely coded to

13
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

safeguard that higher levels of this measure indicate a stronger tie preference. The construct

reliability estimate for the tie strength preference scale (Cronbach’s a = .78) is highly

acceptable. Since the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) exceeded

.5 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value reached significance as well, the data set prove

validity, KMO =.8, p <.001. A principal component analysis with an orthogonal rotation

showed that the seven items loaded moderately to strongly on one component only and thus,

form a single uni-dimensional scale. The single component explained 60.55% of the variance

(Eigenvalue = 3.1). The score for tie strength preference was composed of the aggregated

values of all seven measured sub-scores.

Agreeableness. The agreeableness scale is an extract of the questions on

agreeableness of the Big Five Personality test that is based on empirical, data-driven research

by a set of several independent researchers (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993). Seven questions

measured an individual’s interest, time and concern for other people. Answer options ranged

from “Very inaccurate” (1), “Neutral” (3) to “Very accurate” (5). Example items include “I

am concerned about other people,” and “I take time out for others.” Five items were

positively worded and two were negatively worded. Prior to the computation of the variable,

negatively worded items were reversely scaled to safeguard that higher levels in this measure

correspond to higher levels of agreeableness. The construct reliability estimate (Cronbach’s a

=.79) is highly acceptable. Additionally, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling

Adequacy scored higher than .5 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant, KMO =.8, p

<.001. The data has therefore proven validity. A principal component analysis with varimax

rotation showed that the seven items form a single uni-dimensional scale: only one

component has an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 3.3). It explains 66.1% of the variance in

the indicator variable. All seven items were added to compose the agreeableness variable.

14
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Phubbing. The administered phubbing scale comprised an adapted combination of

Karadağ and colleagues’ (2015) phubbing scale and Roberts and David’s (2016) Pphubbing

(Partner phubbing) scale. Seven items measured an individual’s phubbing behaviour in a

conversation of close proximity which is marked by the location of the phone, the frequency

of looking at and engaging with the phone and an individual’s likelihood to escape from

interpersonal communication. Example items include “When my cell phone rings or beeps, I

immediately check it even if I am in the middle of the conversation,” and “I glance at my

phone when I am in a face-to-face-conversation.” Response categories ranged from “Never”

(1), “Rarely” (2), “Sometimes” (3), “Often” (4), to “All the Time” (5). Five items were

positively worded and indicated higher levels of phubbing, while two were negatively worded

and indicated lower levels of phubbing. To compute a one-directional variable for phubbing,

the two negatively worded items were reversely coded. The construct reliability estimate for

the phubbing scale proved to be good (Cronbach’s a= .82). Since the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) exceeded .5 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity

value reached significance as well, the data set has proven validity, KMO =.83, p < .001.

Additionally, a principal component analysis with an orthogonal rotation indicated that all

items loaded significantly and with exception of “I place my cell phone where me and my

conversation partner can see it when I am in a face-to-face conversation.” (.56), strongly on

one component. The single component explained 65.66% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 3.4)

and the scree plot showed a clear point of inflexion after this component. Next, the seven

scores for each measured item were summed to compute the phubbing variable.

Empathic Concern for Phubbing Consequences. Participants’ empathic concern for

phubbing consequences was assessed by asking them to indicate the extent to which (on a 5-

point scale ranging from “Does not describe my feelings” to “Strongly describes my

feelings”) they were concerned that their conversation partner experiences various negative

15
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

feelings when he or she engages with the smartphone during their conversation. Example

items include “I am concerned that my conversation partner perceives our relationship as less

satisfying when I engage with my phone during the conversation.” Two of the seven items

were negatively worded and therefore had to be reversely coded so that higher scores in this

measure indicate a higher empathic concern for phubbing consequences. The Kaiser-Meyer-

Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) exceeded .5 and the Bartlett’s Test of

Sphericity value reached significance as well, the data set has proven validity, KMO =.6, p

<.001. The construct reliability for the empathic concern for phubbing consequences scale

was poorly acceptable (Cronbach’s a =.52). In order to improve the scale reliability a

principal component analysis with varimax rotation was run. Results revealed a three-factor-

solution with factor one explaining 31.85% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 2.23), factor two

explaining an additional 23.83% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 1.67) and factor three

explaining an additional 18.75% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 1.31) (see factor loadings in

Appendix B). The reliabilities for factor one (Cronbach’s a =.33) and factor three

(Cronbach’s a =.48) were unacceptable, whereas the reliability for factor two (Cronbach’s a

=.83) was good. Therefore, the items of factor one and three were excluded to improve the

reliability of the scale. The variable for empathic concern for phubbing consequences was

computed by adding up the item-scores that created factor two.

Results

Data were analysed using SPSS Version 24.0 (IBM, 2014). Prior to analysis, data

were screened for missing values.

Descriptive Statistics

Frequencies and descriptive statistics were generated for each variable. The scales

measuring tie strength, agreeableness and phubbing measured seven items each with answer

options ranging from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) and therefore had consistent achievable

16
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

minimum (7) and maximum scores (35). The variable for measuring empathic concern for

phubbing consequences consisted of two items and had its minimum achievable score at 2

and its maximum at 10. With N = 449, tie strength preference had the highest number of

participants among all four measures who showed willingness to report personal information.

Only 1.8% of the participants reported a very weak tie strength preference, whereas 72.4%

tended to prefer strong ties. Another 25.8% found to have a high strong tie preference. The

relatively highest mean among all four measured constructs was reached for agreeableness (M

= 26.98, SD = 4.81). Only .2% self-reported absolute disagreeableness, whereas half of the

participants (49.5%) stated to be rather agreeable and 29.3% reported to be highly agreeable.

The distribution of scores for empathic concern for phubbing consequences showed that

33.6% were rather unconcerned, 37.2% stated to be rather concerned and 29.2% reported to

be highly concerned about the consequences of phubbing. Phubbing scores were distributed

around the centre point of the scale and had the lowest relative mean of all measured

constructs (M = 19.59, SD = 4.98) (see Table 1). Whereas 1.1% of the sample was found to

not phub at all, another 16.3% were found to phub (very) rarely. With 82.6% the large

majority, of the sample showed to phub occasionally till all the time (0.4%) during a face-to-

face conversation.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics.

Mean Standard Range N

Deviation
Tie strength preference 24.77 5.01 7 - 35 449
Agreeableness 26.98 4.81 7 - 35 448
Empathic concern for phubbing 7.0 2.57 2 - 10 442
consequences
Phubbing 19.59 4.98 7 - 35 448

The correlations between the variables were found to be low to moderate. Tie strength

17
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

preference, agreeableness and empathic concern for phubbing consequences were all

negatively correlated with phubbing. All correlations reached significance at the p < 0.001

level in a 2-tailed-test (see Table 2).

Table 2

Zero-order correlations.

1. 2. 3. 4.
1. Tie strength preference 1 .52*** .49*** -.46***
2. Agreeableness 1 .35*** -.32***
3. Empathic concern for 1 -.35***
phubbing consequences
4. Phubbing 1
Note. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Main Analysis

The first hypothesis of this paper assumed that tie strength preference would be a

significant predictor of phubbing. To test this hypothesis, a hierarchical regression was

calculated with the demographic variables of gender and age entered in the first step and the

aggregated score for tie strength preference as independent variables entered in the second

step, with the aggregated score for phubbing as dependent variable. The hierarchical

regression revealed that at the first step, age, b* = -.01, t = .12, p = 0.908, 95% CI [-0.21,

0.24], did not contribute significantly to the regression model, whereas gender, b* = -.11, t = -

2.26, p < 0.05, 95% CI [-1.98, -0.14], was found to be a significant predictor of phubbing.

The overall first model, however, was not significant, FChange (2, 445) = 2.64, p = 0.072, and

accounted for only 0.7% of the variation in phubbing. When introducing tie strength

preference to the model in the second step, the results indicated that the overall model was

significant, FChange(1, 444) = 115.47, p < .001, and explained an additional 20.3% of the

variation in phubbing. The standardized beta coefficients for age, b* = -.02, t = -.53, p = .595,

95% CI [-0.26, 0.15], and gender, b* = .03, t = .72, p = .471, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.18] did not

18
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

reach significance in the second model, while tie strength preference was found to be a highly

significant predictor of phubbing, b* = -.48, t = -10.75, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.55, -0.38]. With

a moderate strength (Adjusted R2= .21), the regression model can therefore be used to predict

phubbing on the basis of tie strength preference and thus, support H1. For each additional

point on the scale of tie strength preference, the average propensity to phub decreases by .47

units. For this effect, the other independent variables, age and gender, are assumed to be held

constant.

Next, the prediction in the conceptual model that agreeableness has a positive effect

on empathic concern for phubbing consequences and that empathic concern for phubbing

consequences mediates the relationship between agreeableness and phubbing was tested with

the PROCESS MODEL (Preacher & Hayes, 2008 PROCESS Model 4). Therefore,

agreeableness, empathic concern for phubbing consequences and phubbing were used in the

model. As predicted in H2, the results indicated that agreeableness, b* = .19, t = 7.84, p <

.001, 95% CI [0.14, 0.23], has a highly significant and positive effect on empathic concern for

phubbing consequences, F(1, 440) = 61.39, p < .001, R2 = .12. In addition, empathic concern

for phubbing consequences, b* = -.51, t = -5.66, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.68, -0.33], had a

significant and negative effect on phubbing, F(2, 439) = 45.65, p < .001, R2 = .17.

Specifically, since the indirect effect of agreeableness on phubbing through empathic concern

for phubbing consequences, b* = -0.1, t = -4,48, 95% CI [-0.14, -0.06], was highly significant

at the p < 0.001 level, the results show support for the assumed mediation in H3 (Preacher &

Hayes, 2008; Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). As the direct effect of agreeableness on phubbing

was also found to be significantly negative, b* = -.25, t = -5.23, p < 0.001, 95% CI [-0.34,

-0.16], the results point at partial mediation instead of a full mediation.

19
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Tie strength
preference
-.48***

Phubbing
.19*** Empathic concern -.51***
for phubbing
consequences
Agreeableness
-.25***

Fig. 1. Observed model for the relationships among tie-strength preference, agreeableness,
empathic concern for phubbing consequences and phubbing. Note. Coefficients are presented
in standardized form. Age and gender were added as control variables to tie strength
preference in the original model. For reasons of parsimony they are not shown in the observed
model.*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of emerging adults’ tie strength

preference and agreeableness on phubbing. The effect of agreeableness on phubbing was

investigated through a mediating role of empathic concern for phubbing consequences.

As expected, emerging adults who prefer fewer strong ties and therefore deep, profound

bonding, showed a lower propensity to phub than those who prefer a broad array of weak ties

in their social network (H1). In addition, as hypothesized in H2, a high score in agreeableness

indicated a high score in empathic concern for phubbing consequences. Lastly, the present

study also found support for H3 stating that the relationship between agreeableness and

phubbing is mediated by empathic concern for phubbing consequences.

An important contribution of the present study is that it states the first one in the little

existing history of phubbing research to find support for phubbing-diminishing personality

traits from perpetrator side. Other research papers either investigated which characteristic

determinants inside the perpetrator lead to an increase in phubbing (Chotpitayasunondh &

20
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Douglas, 2016; Karadağ, Tosuntaş, Erzen, Duru, Bostan, Şahin et al., 2015) or how the

consequences of phubbing affect the victim’s personality and well-being (Roberts & David,

2016; David & Roberts, 2017; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013).

Another contribution of the current study is that it increases the understanding of how

emerging adults’ evaluation of depth (versus breadth) in a social interaction is linked to their

smartphone preoccupation during a conversation. Consistent with the recent literature (Wang

et al., 2017), tie strength preference was found to vary among emerging adults and to be a

significant predictor for phubbing. The idea that tie strength preference was an innate and

hence, unswayable characteristic (Wang et al., 2017) was supported by the findings of this

study. This means that the findings also contradict Turkle’s (2012) assumption of a universal

present-absent paradox supposing that everyone was equally affected from a compulsive

smartphone-addiction and associated therewith, a half-split attention during conversations.

The reason why strong tie preferring people are less likely to phub than their weak tie

preferring counterpart might be partially attributed to some elements of the Use and

Gratifications Theory (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973). The theory holds that people as

active media consumers seek out specific types of media in order to satisfy their respective

needs and desires to achieve gratification (Chen, 2011). Transferring this theory to the current

study findings, the findings indicate that emerging adults with a weak tie preference turn to

their phones to engage with social media in which they find gratification in likes, comments

and the exchange of messages with many people on a largely superficial base. Receiving a

virtual ‘like’ on social media has namely been proven to send out the same amount of

dopamine in the brain as a hug or smile from an actual person (Bhanji & Delgado, 2014; Soat,

2015). On the other side, those with a strong tie preference seem to intentionally avoid any

kind of disruption during their social interaction. This explains why they generally use fewer

media and technological devices in order to find gratification in deep, profound bonding and

21
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

undisrupted conversations. Next, it is noteworthy to mention that the sample showed a

generally high preference for strong ties. This is however not surprising as the importance of

strong social ties is found to be at its all-time peak during emerging adulthood and therefore

states a common sociodemographic characteristic in this age group (Coyne, Padilla-Walker,

& Howard, 2013).

Additionally, the current research contributes to understanding the link between

emerging adults’ need for social harmony and the actual attentiveness that they are willing to

bring up during a face-to-face conversation when the own smartphone is within reach. The

results found support for the hypothesized mediation process by which agreeableness impacts

empathic concern for phubbing consequences and ultimately phubbing. Hence, those who

generally care about the feelings and well-being of their fellow humans, are also found to be

higher concerned when they are exposed to the emotional consequences that their smartphone

behaviour can have on their conversation partner. The findings for the effect of agreeableness

as one of the Big Five personality traits corresponds to the general definition of personality

from a psychological perspective. Personality is namely defined as “the coherent pattern of

affect, cognition, and desires (goals) as the lead to behaviour” (Wilt & Revelle, 2015, p. 479).

This confirms to both, previous literature and the current study observations in the sense that

those who aim at getting along with others and show interest in their fellow humans show a

different phubbing behaviour than their less agreeable counterpart (McCrae & John, 1992).

Importantly, the findings of the mediation analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) showed that

agreeableness impacted phubbing not only indirectly via empathic concern for phubbing

consequences but also directly. Meaning that on the one hand, a higher empathic concern can

be regarded as a pre-condition to preoccupy less with one’s phone in order to avoid harmful

emotional consequences for one’s conversation partner for those who are concerned about

others. On the other hand, being fully present and attentive for one’s conversation partner can

22
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

also be regarded as a matter of course for people who strive to make their conversation

partner feel at ease which explains the direct relationship to phubbing. This is also consistent

with the literature stating that agreeable people strive to maintain positive interpersonal

relationships and are sensitive to the needs of others (Goldberg, 1993; Jensen-Campell &

Graziano, 2001; Lebowitz, Rosenthal, & Ahn, 2016). On the flipside, disagreeable people are

assumed not to hold high importance on social harmony and hence, put their own interest and

well-being above other ones’ (Digman, 1990). The literature is therefore in line with the

findings of this study as less agreeable people were found to be less concerned about the

impact that such deliberate partial attentiveness might have on their conversation partner.

Interestingly, the phubbing subscale, showed the lowest relative mean of all four

measured constructs (M = 19.59). This implies that the sample regards itself as generally

higher agreeable, more concerned, preferring strong ties and low in phubbing. However, “to

phub less” means only “to phub relatively less” compared to the small percentage (0.4%) of

participants who self-reported to phub their conversation partner all the time, but yet more

than the 1.1% who reported to never phub. In other words, this tells us that the large majority

of participants still phubs to some extent. This observation shows that although agreeable and

strong tie preferring emerging adults were found to phub less than others, they are still not

completely excluded from experiencing a state of poly-consciousness that makes them

mentally focus on multiple simultaneous settings at any given time and place (Misra et al.,

2016).

Limitations and Future Research

Although the current study is among the first to investigate the impact of potential

phubbing-decreasing personality traits, its results must be tempered by certain limitations.

First, although the adequate sample size as well as the equal dispersion of male and female

participants from a broad cultural background contributed to a high ecological validity of the

23
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

study, a clear limitation of this study is its correlational nature. The simultaneous increase of

tie strength preference and the decrease in phubbing merely uncovers that there is a

relationship between those two variables, but does not explain why this relationship exists. To

establish the direction of causal flow in its entirety, experimental and longitudinal studies are

required.

Another limitation is that this study depended on participants’ self-reports. Since

phubbing has meanwhile established as a normal behaviour in today’s society

(Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016), it is likely that some people are not aware of their

obsessive phone use and the frequency with which they even unconsciously reach out to their

phone. Observing participants in a natural setting such as a field experiment in a restaurant for

instance, might therefore lead to a higher overall score in phubbing.

In addition, the self-developed scale to measure empathic concern for phubbing

consequences determines a third limitation of this study. The poor overall construct reliability

showed that it was not a suited scale to measure the variable. A possible explanation might be

that its items measured very heterogeneous concerns ranging from concerns that were related

to the actions of oneself to the depth of the conversation-topics up to the feelings of the

conversation partner. Future research could therefore reduce the complexity and focus on

concerns that regard solely the feelings of the conversation partner.

Moreover, the current study does not offer any insights about the motives that make

weak tie preferring people reach out for their phone more often than strong tie preferring

people. Whether weak tie preferring people engage with their phone to talk to other people

online or whether they check the news during the conversation cannot be concluded on the

basis of the given data. In retro perspective, it seems therefore reasonable that having included

a question in the survey that asks the participants for the motives to use their phone during a

conversation could have revealed additional valuable data for this study. Even more relevant

24
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

and rich data for future research could be gained by revealing participants’ motives (not) to

phub through the collection of qualitative data. Focus groups and in particular in-depth

interviews offer a greater level of depth and intimacy than survey or experiments (Turner III,

2010).

To further deepen the research of possible phubbing-reducing factors, future research

would benefit from investigating whether the contagious effect of phubbing

(Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016) is also valid in the opposite direction. If people were

found to reach out for their smartphone within the following ten seconds after their

conversation partner did so to show a signalling response to unsatisfactory behaviour (Finkel

& Kruger, 2012), are they then in turn also more likely not to reach out for their phone to

show a signalling response to satisfactory behaviour? To research if this sort of reversed

phubbing karma is likely to work in favour of someone it could be observed in a natural

experimental setting whether people who phub less, are also less likely to be phubbed in

return and vice versa.

Conclusion

The facilitated communication possibilities that came with the invention of the

smartphone have led to the rise of a social paradox: In the online world, we want to socialize

and permanently stay in touch with everyone at any given time; in the offline world, however,

human face-to-face-interaction is under attack as it is this preoccupation with our phones that

can diminish or even take away the required attention for valuable interaction with the people

in the here and now. As intimated in the title of this paper, this study investigated whether all

individuals between 18 and 27 are likewise affected from this assumed social paradox or

whether certain personality traits such as tie strength preference and agreeableness contribute

beneficially to make one individual less likely to engage with the phone during a conversation

of close proximity than another. The results presented herein found that tie strength

25
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

preference and agreeableness had a negative impact on phubbing. Additionally, support for a

partial mediation was provided in that agreeableness’ effect on phubbing was not solely

directly but also indirectly significant via empathic concern for phubbing consequences.

Consequently, the findings of this study indicate that touchscreens at least do not make those

emerging adults lose touch who score high on strong tie preference and agreeableness.

In summary, this study contributes to understanding the link between the extent to

which emerging adults value depth and concern in their interaction with others and their

propensity to phub. Despite nowadays’ unlimited connection possibilities the current

generation of emerging adults seems to have realized that the ties they find inside their phones

may be the ones that preoccupy, the ones they find when they look up from their screens,

however, are the ones that bind.

Appendix

Appendix A. Scales

A.1. Tie Strength Preference Scale.

1. I prefer a small number of close friends over a big number of social acquaintances.
2. I prefer a wide range of useful information over one profound, emotional
conversation. (R)
3. I prefer to spend little time with many different people of a broader network over
spending much time with fewer people of a closer network.
4. I like to help my close family and friends when they have problems. (reverse-coded)
5. I like to get help by discussing my problems with people who do not know me very
well because I feel less obligated to help them in return. (R)
6. I perceive an objective advice from a person who doesn’t know me very well as more
useful than a subjective advice from a person who knows me very well. (R)
7. I prefer a broader but weaker network of people over a smaller but closer network of
people. (R)

Response categories ranged from “Strongly disagree” (1), “Disagree” (2), “Neutral”
(3), “Agree“ (4) to “Strongly agree” (5).

A.2. Agreeableness Scale.

1. I am interested in people.
2. I take time out for others.
3. I feel others' emotions.
4. I am concerned about others.

26
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

5. I make people feel at ease.
6. I feel little concern for others. (R)
7. I am indifferent to the feelings of others. (R)

Response categories ranged from “Very inaccurate” (1), “Moderately inaccurate” (2),
“Neutral” (3), “Moderately accurate“ (4) to “Very accurate” (5).

A.3. Phubbing Scale.

1. I place my cell phone where me and my conversation can see it when I have a
conversation.
2. I glance at my phone when I am in a face-to-face conversation.
3. When my cell phone rings or beeps, I immediately check it even if I am in the middle
of the conversation.
4. My phone is out of my and my conversation partner’s visual field when I am in a face-
to-face conversation. (R)
5. If there is a lull in the conversation, I check my phone.
6. I do not use my phone when I am in a conversation. (R)
7. If I feel insecure in a conversation, I avoid eye-contact by looking at my phone.

Response categories ranged from “Never” (1), “Rarely” (2), “Sometimes” (3), “Often”
(4) to “All the Time” (5).

A.4. Empathic Concern for Phubbing Consequences Scale.

1. I am concerned that my conversation partner perceives our relationship as less

satisfying when I engage with my phone during the conversation.
2. I am concerned that my conversation partner feels excluded when I engage with my
phone during the conversation.
3. I am concerned that my conversation partner is less likely to discuss a meaningful,
personal topic with me when I engage with my phone during the conversation.
4. I am concerned that I cannot give my conversation partner the fully required attention
when I engage with my phone during the conversation.
5. I am concerned that my conversation partner’s self-esteem is lowered when I engage
with my phone during the conversation.
6. I am unconcerned that my conversation partner feels excluded when I engage with my
phone during the conversation. (R)
7. I am unconcerned that my conversation partner perceives not to have the fully
required attention when I engage with my phone while being physically present in the
conversation. (R)

Response categories ranged from “Does not describe my feelings” (1), “Slightly
describes my feelings” (2), “Moderately describes my feelings” (3), “Mostly describes
my feelings” (4) to “Clearly describes my feelings” (5).

27
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Appendix B

Component matrix.
Table 3
Factor loadings for exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation of empathic concern for
phubbing consequences.

Component
1 2 3
I am concerned that my .89 .09 .01
conversation partner
perceives our relationship as
less satisfying when I engage
with my phone during the
conversation.

I am .86 .13 .02

concerned that my
conversation partner feels
excluded when I engage with
my phone during the
conversation.
I am concerned that my .00 -.03 .81
conversation partner is less
likely to discuss a
meaningful, personal topic
with me when I engage with
my phone during the
conversation.

I am concerned that I cannot -.01 .00 .81

give my conversation partner
the fully required attention
when I engage with my
phone during the
conversation.

I am concerned that my .79 -.10 -.04

conversation partner’s self-
esteem is lowered when I
engage with my phone
during the conversation.

I am unconcerned that my .02 .92 .01

conversation partner feels
excluded when I engage with
my phone during the
conversation. (R)

28
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

I am unconcerned that my .06 .91 -.04
conversation partner
perceives not to have the
fully required attention when
I engage with my phone
while being physically
present in the
conversation. (R)

Note. Varimax with Kaiser Normalization in Principal Component Analysis.

References

Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. (1990). Anxiety and Social Exclusion, Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 165-95.
Bhanji, J. P., & Delgado, M. R. (2014). The social brain and reward: social information
processing in the human striatum. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science,
5(1), 61-73.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hoobler, G. B. (1994). In Nonverbal signals. Handbook of interpersonal
communication, 2(2), 229- 285.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Chen, G. M. (2011). Tweet This: A Uses and Gratifications Perspective on How Active Twitter
Use Gratifies a Need to Connect with Others, Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2),
755–62.
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.
Coyne, S., Padilla-Walker, L.M., & Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a digital world: A decade
review of media use, effects, and gratifications in emerging adulthood. Emerging
Adulthood, 1, 125-317.
David, M. E., & Roberts, J. A. (2017). Phubbed and Alone: Phone Snubbing, Social Exclusion,
and Attachment to Social Media. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research,
2(2), 155-163.
Digman, J.M., (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factormodel. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417- 440.
Finkel, J., & Kruger, D. J. (2012). Is Cell Phone Use Socially Contagious?. Human Ethology
Bulletin, 27(1-2), 15-17.
Forgays, D. K., Hyman, I., & Schreiber, J. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything: gender
and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human Behavior,
31, 314- 321.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un- observable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39- 50.
Gergen, K. J. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. E. Katz, & M. Aakhus (Eds.),
Perpetual Contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance, 227- 241.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

29
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist,
48, 26-34.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 78(6),
1360-1380.
Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Technology and informal education: What is taught, what is learned.
Science, 323(5910), 69-71.
IBM Corp. Released. (2014). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 24.0. Armonk, NY:
IBM Corp.
Jackson, M. (2008). Distracted: The erosion of attention and the coming dark age. Amherst,
NY: Prometheus Books.

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of
interpersonal conflict. Journal of personality, 69(2), 323-362.
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.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and Gratifications Research, Public
Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–23.
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. (2011). Online Social Networking and Addiction: A Review of
the Psychological Literature, International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 8(9), 3528–52.
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of
communication, 50(1), 46-70.
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),
221–29.

Lebowitz, M. S., Rosenthal, J. E., & Ahn, W. K. (2016). Effects of biological versus
psychosocial explanations on stigmatization of children with ADHD. Journal of
attention disorders, 20(3), 240-250.
Lee, J., & Shrum, L. J. (2012). Conspicuous Consumption versus Charitable Behavior in
Response to Social Exclusion: A Differential Needs Explanation, Journal of
Consumer Research, 39(3), 530– 44.
Leggett, C., & Rossouw, P. J. (2014). The impact of technology use on couple relationships:
a neuropsychology perspective. International Journal of Neuro- psychotherapy, 2(1),
44-57.
Ling, R. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone's impact on society. San Francisco,
CA: Elsevier Science.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of personality, 60(2), 175-215.
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. T. (2014). Technoference: The Interference of Technology in
Couple Relationships and Implications for Women’s Personal and Relational Well-
Being. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85–98.
Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self- disclosure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 321- 331.
Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J., & Yuan, M. (2016). The iPhone effect: the quality of in-
person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environment and
Behavior, 48(2), 275-298.
Misra, S., & Stokols, D. (2012a). Psychological and health outcomes of perceived
information overload. Environment and Behavior, 44, 737-759.

Molden, D. C., Lucas, G.M., Gardner, W. L., Dean, K., & Knowles, M. L. (2009).
Motivations for Prevention or Promotion Following Social Exclusion: Being

30
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Rejected versus Being Ignored. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2),
415–431.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 15583-15587.
Oulasvirta, A., Tamminen, S., Roto, V., & Kuorelathi, J. (2005). Interaction in 4-second
bursts: the fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI. In Proceedings
of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems, (pp. 919- 928).
New York, NY: ACM.
Oxford Dictionnary (2018). Digital immigrants & Digital natives. Retrieved from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/digital_generation, 6th January, 2018.
Plant, S. (2000). On the mobile. The effects of mobile telephones on social and individual life.
Retrieved from http://www.Motorola.com/mot/documents/0,1028,333,00.pdf, 6th of
January, 2018.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879- 891.
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2013). Can you connect with me now? How the presence
of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 237-246.
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.
Salvucci, D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: an integrated theory of
concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115, 101- 130.
Seo, M., Kim, J. H., & David, P. (2015). Always connected or always distracted? ADHD
symptoms and social assurance explain problematic use of mobile phone and
multicommunicating. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 667- 681.
Servies, A. D. (2012). Cell phones and couple communication: The impact of mobile device
distractions during a dyadic interaction. Honors Thesis. University of Arkansas.
Siegel, D. J. (2010). The mindful therapist: A clinician's guide to mindsight and neural
integration. New York, NY: Norton.
Simpson, J. A., Weiner, E. S. C., & Oxford University Press. (1989). The Oxford English
Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Soat, M. (2015). Social Media Triggers a Dopamine High. Marketing News, 49(11), 20–21.
Srivastava, L. (2005). Mobile phones and the evolution of social behaviour. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 24(2), 111-129.
Statista (2017) Retrieved from, https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-
smartphone-users-worldwide, 12th December, 2017.
Stothart, C., Mitchum, A., & Yehnert, C. (2015). The attentional cost of receiving a cell
phone notification. Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and
performance, 41(4), 893.
Tecmark (2014) Retrieved from http://www.tecmark.co.uk/smartphone-usage-data-uk-2014/,
13th December, 2017.
Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each
other. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Turner III, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice
investigators. The qualitative report, 15(3), 754.
Vanden 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.

31
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

Wang, X., Hoi, S. C., Ester, M., Bu, J., & Chen, C. (2017). Learning personalized preference
of strong and weak ties for social recommendation. In Proceedings of the 26th
International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1601-1610). International World
Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
Wang, X., Xie, X., Wang, Y., Wang, P., & Lei, L. (2017). Partner phubbing and depression
among married Chinese adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship
length. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 12-17.
Wei, R., & Lo, V.-H. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and
social connectedness. New Media & Society, 8, 53-72.
West, R., & Gossop, M. (1994). Overview: a comparison of withdrawal symptoms from
different drug classes. Addiction, 89(11), 1483-1489.
Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2015). Affect, behaviour, cognition and desire in the Big Five: An
analysis of item content and structure. European journal of personality, 29(4), 478-
497.
Wright, K. B., & Miller, C. H. (2010). A measure of weak-tie/strong-tie support network
preference. Communication Monographs, 77(4), 500-517.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197- 206.

32
DO TOUCHSCREENS MAKE US LOSE TOUCH?

33