Computers in Human Behavior 124 (2021) 106932

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Partner phubbing: Why using your phone during interactions with your
partner can be detrimental for your relationship
Camiel J. Beukeboom a, *, Monique Pollmann b
a
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands
b
Tilburg University, the Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Previous research showed that phone use during co-present interactions with one’s partner (partner phubbing) is
Phubbing negatively related to relationship satisfaction. In two cross-sectional surveys (N = 507 and N = 386) we
Mobile phone confirmed this finding and also extended it by focusing on the mediating role of feelings of exclusion, perceived
Relationship satisfaction
partner responsiveness, perceived intimacy, conflict about phone use, and feelings of jealousy. Results of both
Exclusion
Partner responsiveness
studies demonstrate that the link between partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction was mediated by
Intimacy feelings of exclusion, less perceived partner responsiveness, and less intimacy. We observed no significant
mediation effects of conflict over phone use and jealousy when the three significant mediators were taken into
account. In contrast to previous work, this suggests that conflict and jealousy are not the primary mechanism
through which pphubbing results in reduced relationship satisfaction. Moreover, we demonstrated that shared
phone use moderates the adverse effects of pphubbing. This means that by involving and informing a partner
about one’s phone activities, it is possible to reduce feelings of exclusion, maintain more responsiveness and
intimacy in the conversation, and consequently reduce detrimental relationship effects.

Mobile phones have become ubiquitous in our daily lives, and
consequently they also influence the dynamics of intimate relationships.
On the one hand mobile phones can have positive effects as they allow
partners to stay in touch, and show interest when he or she is not around
(Murray & Cambell, 2015; Pollmann, Norman, & Crockett, 2021). On
the other hand, when a mobile phone is used in the presence of one’s
partner, it can distract from the present conversation and be a source of
annoyance and conflict (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015; Dwyer et al., 2018;
Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013).
The use of a mobile phone during a conversation is called phubbing
(Ugur & Koc, 2015). The term phubbing (a portmanteau of ‘phone’ and
‘snubbing’) refers to the act of focusing on one’s mobile phone during a
conversation instead of paying attention to a conversation partner (Ugur
& Koc, 2015). If this act occurs within relationships, it is called partner-
phubbing (pphubbing; Roberts & David, 2016).
Several studies have demonstrated that partner-phubbing is nega­
tively related to relationship satisfaction (David & Roberts, 2021; Hal­
pern & Katz, 2017; Krasnova, Abramova, Notter, & Baumann, 2016;
McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; McDaniel & Drouin, 2019; McDaniel, Galo­
van, & Drouin, 2020; Roberts & David, 2016; Wang, Xie, Wang, Wang, &
Lei, 2017). Evidence for the underlying mechanisms of this link,
however, is rather limited. Relying on existing experimental studies on
phubbing among strangers in laboratory settings (e.g., Przybylski &
Weinstein, 2013) and studies using video vignettes (e.g., Chotpitaya­
sunondh & Douglas, 2018), we propose and test a number of potential
mediators that could explain the negative effects of partner-phubbing in
intimate relationships.
Moreover, not much research has focused on factors that could
reduce the partner-phubbing relationship satisfaction link. It is impor­
tant to learn more about such factors, as these could provide a potential
remedy against the detrimental effects of (nearly inevitable) phone use
in relationships. One factor relates to the way one uses the phone in co-
present interactions. We expect that when a partner involves and in­
forms the other about their phone use activities this could reduce its
negative effects.
We conducted two well-powered cross-sectional surveys among in­
dividuals in a relationship, in order to test the mediating and moderating
role of several variables in the hypothesized link between partner-
phubbing and relationship satisfaction.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: c.j.beukeboom@vu.nl (C.J. Beukeboom).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106932
Received 30 March 2021; Received in revised form 22 June 2021; Accepted 23 June 2021
Available online 30 June 2021
0747-5632/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
C.J. Beukeboom and M. Pollmann
1. Phubbing in relationships
In partner-phubbing one can distinguish a phubber and a phubbee.
The phubber is the person who, during a co-present social interaction,
focuses all or part of their attention on their cell phone. The phubbee is
the person who is snubbed by their mobile using partner (Chotpitaya­
sunondh & Douglas, 2016). Although it is likely that in relationships
phubbing behavior often occurs by both partners, in the present
research, we focus on the side of the phubbee and their experienced
relationship satisfaction.
Various scholars have noted the negative effects that partner-
phubbing can have on conversation quality and relationship satisfac­
tion (Vanden Abeele, 2020; Vanden Abeele et al., 2016; Vanden Abeele
et al., 2019). Using a cell phone during co-present interactions creates a
situation in which one is physically, but not mentally present. Such
face-to-face interactions in which one is ‘absent present’ (Gergen, 2002)
or ‘alone together’ (cf. Turkle, 2011) is argued to reduce the experienced
quality of conversations, which in turn undermines relationship satis­
faction (McDaniel & Coyne, 2014).
Although quite some research has been conducted on phubbing
(Vanden Abeele, 2020 for a recent overview), the number of studies that
focused on phubbing in intimate relationships is limited. The survey
studies that have been published, however, show quite consistent evi­
dence that partner-phubbing is negatively associated with relationship
satisfaction (David & Roberts, 2021; Halpern & Katz, 2017; Krasnova
et al., 2016; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; McDaniel & Drouin, 2019;
McDaniel et al., 2020; Roberts & David, 2016; Wang et al., 2017).
Although some studies have shown that the effect does not always
replicate; i.e., Cizmeci (2017) reports a small positive correlation be­
tween pphubbing and relationship satisfaction, and Servies (2012) re­
ports that the correlation exists only in men but not in women, we still
hypothesize that:
H1. The more partner-phubbing people perceive, the less satisfied they
are with their relationship.
1.1. Explanatory factors for a partner-phubbing satisfaction link
Of the above-mentioned studies, only a few have tested potential
mediators to explain the link between pphubbing and relationship
satisfaction. Conflict over phone use is the one variable that has, in
several studies, been demonstrated to significantly mediate this link
(Halpern & Katz, 2017; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; McDaniel & Drouin,
2019; McDaniel et al., 2020; Roberts & David, 2016). The idea is that the
negative relationship effects of partner-phubbing are caused by conflicts
partners have about phone use. In the present contribution, we focus on
additional potential mediators that can explain a relationship between
partner-phubbing and relationship satisfaction, and a moderator that
gives insight in ways to mitigate detrimental effects.
Relationship satisfaction is best described as the degree to which the
partner satisfies the other’s wants and needs (Peleg, 2008). For rela­
tionship satisfaction, the quality of communication between partners is
very important, and appears to matter more than the time partners
spend together (Guldner & Swensen, 1995). Based on other work, we
expect that partner-phubbing trumps relationship satisfaction because it
affects feelings of exclusion, perceived partner responsiveness,
perceived intimacy, conflict about phone use, and feelings of jealousy.
(a) Feelings of exclusion. The first potential mediator, feelings of
exclusion, has previously been related to phubbing (Chotpitayasunondh
& Douglas, 2018; Gonzales & Wu, 2016; Hales, Dvir, Wesselmann,
Kruger, & Finkenauer, 2018; McDaniel & Wesselmann, 2021). Social
exclusion, or ostracism, is defined as the perception of “being invisible
and being excluded from the social interactions of those around you”
(Williams, 2001, p. 2). Being phubbed by others has the crucial element
of social exclusion in that one is ignored, and shut out of a social
interaction, whilst remaining in the physical presence the other. In an
2
Computers in Human Behavior 124 (2021) 106932
experiment by Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2018) participants
were exposed to a virtual conversation partner in a muted 3-min 3D
animation, who either phubbed them extensively, partially, or not at all.
Results showed that phubbing had negative effects on respondents’ four
fundamental human needs associated with social exclusion: belonging,
self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control (Williams, 2001). Similar
effects were observed by Gonzales and Wu (2016) and McDaniel &
Wesselmann, 2021 in interactions with confederates, by Hales et al.
(2018) using an autobiographical recall method, and David & Roberts,
2017 using a prime method.
Research has shown that people show immediate negative responses
to signs of social exclusion, like a withdrawal of eye contact by one’s
conversation partner (Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010).
However, when experiencing ostracism, people attempt to make attri­
butions about why one is being ostracized, and these attributions are
important for its effects (McDaniel & Wesselmann, 2021; Williams,
2009). Reduced eye contact that is caused by phone gazing (as opposed
to newspaper gazing), can therefore have an additional detrimental ef­
fect, because a phone represents the “virtual other” (VanDen Abeele &
Postma-Nilsenova, 2018). Phubbees may attribute a phubbers phone
gazing as an attempt to seek contact with others, and consequently as a
sign of disinterest in the copresent conversation, and that they are not
‘worthy’ of the phubber’s full attention (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,
2018; VanDen Abeele & Postma-Nilsenova, 2018). However, when the
phubber or the situation provides clear attributional information for
phone use during an interaction this may reduce feelings of exclusion
and further negative effects (McDaniel & Wesselmann, 2021).
Although the above studies did not focus on intimate relationships,
we expect that the extent in which people experience feelings of
exclusion when being phubbed by their partner explains a potential
lower relationship satisfaction.
(b) Partner responsiveness. A second potential explanatory variable for
the link between partner-phubbing and relationship satisfaction is
partner responsiveness. Perceiving one’s partner as responsive is
strongly related to good relationship functioning (Reis, Clark, & Holmes,
2004). To build and maintain an intimate relationship, partner respon­
siveness in interactions plays a crucial role (Reis & Shaver, 1988). A
responsive partner is a partner who responds supportively and
empathically to the other, and makes them feel understood, validated,
and cared for. In an interaction that means that when one discloses
personally revealing feelings or information to the partner, the partner
should listen proactively and react with responses that show under­
standing (Bavelas, Coates & Johnson, 2002). When conversation part­
ners are distracted and interrupted by their phone use, however, this
hinders in expressing those responsive behaviors that contribute to the
development of affiliation and intimacy.
Laboratory studies focusing on interactions between strangers show
that even the mere presence of a phone can have negative effects on
closeness, perceived partner empathy, and conversation quality (Przy­
bylski & Weinstein, 2013). Similar effects were observed in conversa­
tions among acquaintances in a naturalistic setting (pairs of visitors in a
coffeeshop; Misra, Cheng, Genevie, & Yuan, 2016). If either participant
spontaneously placed a cell phone on the table or held it in their hand
during a 10-min conversation, the quality of the conversation and
experienced empathetic concern was afterwards rated to be less ful­
filling compared with conversations held in the absence of cell phones.
These effects were more pronounced for participants who reported
having a closer relationship, compared with those who were less
familiar with each other.
Based on findings that partner responsiveness is likely hampered by
phubbing during interactions, and it is regarded as an important pre­
dictor of relationship satisfaction (Lemay, Clark, & Feeney, 2007), we
hypothesize that partner responsiveness plays a mediating role between
partner-phubbing and relationship satisfaction.
(c) Perceived intimacy. The third potential mediator is closely related
to partner responsiveness. Intimacy is usually described as the result of a
C.J. Beukeboom and M. Pollmann
dynamic, transactional, interactive process in which self-disclosure and
partner responsiveness are key components. Intimacy thus develops in
interactions in which one individual discloses personal information,
thoughts, and feelings to a partner; receives a response from the partner,
and interprets that response as understanding, validating, and caring
(Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988).
A two-wave survey by Halpern and Katz (2017) found evidence for
the mediating effect of intimacy between partner-phubbing and rela­
tionship quality. Their measures of both partner-phubbing and intimacy
were, however, unconventional. That is, pphubbing was measured with
one item, and the items for intimacy were in themselves related to
phubbing behaviors (e.g., ‘Text or chat one another despite being in the
same location’; ‘Feel social media and texting are negatively impacting
intimacy in your relationship’). In the present studies, we use the Social
Intimacy Scale (Miller & Lefcourt, 1982) to measure experienced rela­
tionship intimacy independently, and test its mediating effect.
(d) Conflict about phone use. As noted above, conflict over phone use
has previously been demonstrated to mediate between partner-
phubbing and relationship satisfaction. McDaniel and Coyne (2016)
McDaniel and Drouin (2019) and McDaniel et al. (2020) measured
conflicts over a broad range of technology (including TV, computer) and
showed that disagreements among partners about such ‘technoference’
was related to worse relationship quality. Roberts and David (2016), and
Halpern and Katz (2017) focused specifically on conflict related to
phone phubbing and, each using a different conflict scale, showed evi­
dence for mediation.
(e) Feelings of jealousy. A final potential mediator, which we will
focus on only in Study 2, is jealousy. Partner-phubbing may not only
make the partner feel excluded or ignored, they may also feel threatened
(Krasnova et al., 2016), particularly when they attribute their partner’s
phubbing as an attempt to seek contact with a “virtual other”, as dis­
cussed above (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; VanDen Abeele &
Postma-Nilsenova, 2018). A sense that one loses exclusive attention of
one’s romantic partner, who instead directs attention towards others (e.
g., on social media) has been suggested to be a primary driver of
romantic jealousy (David & Roberts, 2021; Krasnova et al., 2016; Mill­
er-Ott & Kelly, 2015). Research also demonstrated that a partner’s social
media activities can induce jealousy (Muise, Christofides, & Dermarais,
2009), particularly among low (vs high) self-esteem individuals (Utz &
Beukeboom, 2011). Given that jealousy can, in turn, be expected to be
negatively associated with relational satisfaction (Elphinston & Noller,
2011), we expect that it can partly explain the negative relationship
effects of partner-phubbing.
There are some previous studies that tried to find evidence of this
mediating effect of jealousy. Krasnova et al. (2016) showed mediation of
jealousy in the relationship between partner-phubbing and relational
cohesion. However, their measure of relational cohesion is rather un­
conventional and different from relationship satisfaction, and they also
relied on a very broad definition of jealousy (including sadness, worry,
anger as well as feelings of being excluded and offended), that shows
overlap with feelings of exclusion. Recent MTurk studies by David and
Roberts (2021) used more established measures and, using different
methods, demonstrate that partner-phubbing has an indirect effect on
relationship satisfaction via romantic jealously, but only among
anxiously attached individuals.
Based on the above we hypothesize:
H2. The hypothesized link between partner-phubbing and relationship
satisfaction (H1) is mediated by: (a) higher feelings of exclusion, (b)
lower perceived partner responsiveness, (c) lower perceived intimacy,
(d) more conflict about phone use (e) higher feelings of jealousy.
1.2. A potential moderator of the partner-phubbing relationship
satisfaction link
Finally, we focus on a factor that could reduce the partner-phubbing
3
Computers in Human Behavior 124 (2021) 106932
relationship satisfaction link; shared phone use. With shared phone use
we measured the extent in which one is informed by one’s partner about,
and involved in, their phone use when they start to use it in their
presence.1 We expect that when a phubbing partner shares what he or
she is doing when using the phone (i.e., by explaining and/or showing
his or her phone activities) this could mitigate its negative effects. A first
reason for this expectation follows from the idea that phubbees use this
information in their attribution processes as discussed above. An
experiment by McDaniel and Wesselmann (2021) showed that feelings
of exclusion were significantly weaker when a phubber (a confederate in
an actual interaction) provided an important reason (mother in hospital)
as compared to a trivial reason (making plans with friends). This sug­
gests that phubbees use such information and it can weaken negative
effects. In contrast, when a phubber does not share any information or
explanation for their phone use at all, there likely is more attributional
ambiguity in a phubbee (McDaniel & Wesselmann, 2021). In such sit­
uations, the phubbee does not know if they are being excluded for
something they did (e.g., “I’m boring”), for an external reason (e.g.,
distracted by a valid emergency) or because the phubber is seeking
contact with a “virtual other”. This leaves more room for feelings of
exclusion, potential jealousy that results from (mis)attributions (i.e.,
he/she is contacting others), and, arguably, potential conflicts.
A second reason for the moderating role of shared phone use is that
when one is informed and involved by the other in one’s phone activities
the phubber takes an effort to maintain the current interaction, and
thereby shows that the current interaction partner is still worthy of
attention. In fact, the phone acquires a function and, rather than hin­
dering responsiveness, it becomes part of the interaction. This likely has
positive effects on perceived partner responsiveness, perceived in­
timacy, and affiliation. In line with this reasoning, recent research by
Cummings and Reimer (2020) provided support for a cellphone rele­
vance hypothesis. Two vignette studies in which participants imagined
conversations, suggested that integrated cellphone use in the conver­
sation (i.e., to look up relevant information; to enrich the conversation)
as opposed to incidental use (i.e, referring to an unrelated topic after
looking at the phone) yielded higher reports of anticipated interaction
involvement (i.e., immediacy and other-orientation) and conversational
satisfaction.
In the present studies we will focus on phubbing in actual relation­
ships and include a measure for the extent to which one’s partner tends
to share information about, and involve the other in, his or her phone
use. We hypothesize:
H3. The hypothesized negative relationship between partner-
phubbing and relationship satisfaction (H1) is reduced to the extent
that there is more shared phone use.
H4. This reduction is due to reduced negative effects on feelings of
exclusion, intimacy, responsiveness, conflict, and jealousy. In other
words, shared phone use will moderate the mediation effects.
2. Study 1
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
For this cross-sectional survey we recruited voluntary participants
with a minimum age of 18 years and a relationship of at least 4 months.
They were recruited on online forums and social media, and through
flyers spread on school campuses and door to door. Participants could
win one of two gift vouchers of €25 in a lottery. After excluding
1
Note that our variable “shared phone use” should be distinguished from the
variable “shared technology use” during leisure time, as measured by McDaniel
et al. (2020), which includes watching movies and TV together, playing games,
video chatting with friends together with the partner.
C.J. Beukeboom and M. Pollmann
participants who did not fulfill criteria or did not complete the ques­
tionnaire, the final sample consisted of N = 507. With this sample size
we have a power of .80 to detect a small effect (f2 = 0.03) in our most
elaborate analysis with five predictors (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buch­
ner, 2007). The majority of the sample was female (n = 397, 78.3%),
versus male (n = 110, 21.7%). The mean age of participants was M =
31.9 (SD = 13.16, range 18–79).
The average relationship length was M = 108.9 months (9 years), SD
= 119.1 months, with a wide range of 4–420 months (0.3–35 years)).
Relationship types were living apart n = 190 (37.5%), living together n
= 194 (38.3%), married n = 123 (24.3%) of which Mmarriage length =
15.89 years, SDmarriage length = 12.4). A small number of participants (n
= 25, 4.9%) was in a same-sex relationship (n = 8 both male, n = 17 both
female).
2.1.2. Procedure
Participants were informed that the questionnaire focused on
communication within their romantic relationship. They first were
asked about demographics and specifics of their relationship. Next, they
answered questions about the following variables in this order: Partner-
phubbing, shared phone use, conflict over phone use, perceived in­
timacy, perceived partner responsiveness, feelings of exclusion, rela­
tionship satisfaction.
2.1.3. Measures
Partner-phubbing. To measure the extent in which the partner is
perceived to phub we used the Dutch translation by Boury (2016) of the
9 item Partner Phubbing Scale (Roberts & David, 2016), with the
addition of one item. Participants rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5
= always) the extent to which a number of behaviors occur, when they,
in general, think about moments with their partner. Example items are
“My partner glances at his/her cell phone when talking to me.” “If there
is a lull in our conversation, my partner will check his or her cell phone.”
(Cronbach’s α = 0.88).
Relationship satisfaction. To measure participants’ relationship satis­
faction, we used the 6-item Quality of Marriage Index (Norton, 1983).
Example items are “We have a good relationship”; “My relationship with
my partner makes me happy” which were rated on 7-point (1 = not at all
true, 7 = completely true; Cronbach’s α = 0.93).
Feelings of exclusion. To measure feelings of exclusion we used the 20-
item scale developed by Jamieson, Harkins, and Williams (2010) pre­
viously used and slightly adapted to the situation by Chotpitayasunondh
and Douglas (2018). Participants rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5
= always) how often they felt 20 feelings, during an average face-to-face
conversation with their partner. Examples are “I feel excluded.“, “I feel
that I do not exist.” (Cronbach’s α = 0.93). The scale consists of four
subscales measuring the four needs related to exclusion: belonging,
self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control (Williams, 2001).
Perceived intimacy. To measure participants’ perceived intimacy with
their partner we adapted the Miller Social Intimacy Scale (Miller &
Lefcourt, 1982). Participants rated 15 statements on a 9-point scale (1 =
not correct; 9 = completely correct). Examples are “When we have lei­
sure time, we often choose to spend this time together.”; “I often feel
closeness between my partner and me.” (Cronbach’s α = 0.94).
Perceived partner responsiveness. Here we used a 17-item perceived
Partner Responsiveness Scale (Reis et al., 2017), previously used in
Dutch for instance by Pollmann, Finkenauer, and Begeer (2010). Par­
ticipants rated the extent to which their partner understands them,
validates them and gives them the feeling to be cared for. Statements like
“My partner understands me”; “My partner sees my real self” and “My
partner seems interested in what I am thinking and feeling” were
answered on a 9-point scale (1 = not correct; 9 = completely correct;
Cronbach’s α = 0.96).
Conflict over phone use. To measure the extent in which participants
had conflict with their partner about their phone use we used a 6-item
scale previously developed and used by Boury (2016). Participants
4
Computers in Human Behavior 124 (2021) 106932
rated statements on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = always). Example
items include “I have already explicitly told my partner that his or her
mobile use irritates me”; “My partner and I argue about his or her mobile
use”. (Cronbach’s α = 0.92).
Shared phone use. To measure whether their partner involved par­
ticipants in their phone use we developed a scale based upon Leggett and
Rossouw (2014). Participants rated three statements on a 5-point scale
(1 = never, 5 = always). Example items “When we’re talking and my
partner picks up his or her cell phone, he or she lets me watch.“; “If my
partner picks up his or her mobile while we are talking, he or she in­
volves me in his or her mobile use.” (Cronbach’s α = .79).
The complete method, syntax and data, and supplement material can
be found on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/ea6mg/
2.2. Results
Because previous phubbing research reported gender and age dif­
ferences we first looked at potential correlations with these variables.
Table 1 shows that we do not find many differences for gender, although
female participants reported to perceive somewhat higher shared phone
use in their partner (Mfemale = 3.26; SD = 0.84 versus Mmale = 2.99, SD =
0.91, t (505) = 2.85, p = .005) as well as higher perceived partner
responsiveness (Mfemale = 7.31; SD = 1.32 versus Mmale = 6.98; SD =
1.57), t (505) = 2.23, p = .026). Participant age did show a number of
(weak) correlations; participants with older age report lower percep­
tions of partner phubbing as well as lower shared phone use by the
partner. Relationship satisfaction, intimacy and responsiveness de­
creases with age, while feelings of exclusion increase with age. To test
whether these variations played a role we ran the models reported below
with gender and age as control variables (see supplement material); this
showed that all reported effects remained virtually the same when
controlling for age and gender.
We also noticed quite high correlations between some predictors. To
check for multicollinearity we first ran a regression analysis with all
predictors included. The multicollinearity statistics can be found in
Table 2. As expected based on the correlations, perceived partner
responsiveness and intimacy show relatively higher VIF values, but the
values are still acceptable (Menard, 1995).
2.2.1. Hypotheses testing
Our first hypothesis was that people who perceive more phubbing by
their partner are less satisfied with their relationship. This simple rela­
tionship was tested with a correlation analysis with bootstrapped con­
fidence intervals. Confirming our first hypothesis, partner-phubbing was
negatively related to relationship satisfaction, r = − .29, p < .001, BCa
95% CI [-0.40; − 0.20]. In Table 1, we present this correlation among all
zero order correlations between our main variables. It also shows that
exclusion, partner responsiveness, intimacy and conflict about phone
use are possible mediators, as they are all related to both the predictor
variable partner-phubbing as well as to the outcome variable relation­
ship satisfaction.
To test hypothesis 2, that the link between partner-phubbing and
relationship satisfaction is explained by our mediators we conducted a
mediation model with PROCESS (Hayes, 2018) 2. In this model partner-
phubbing was the predictor, exclusion, partner responsiveness, in­
timacy, and conflict about phone use were mediators, and relationship
satisfaction was the outcome variable (Model 4 in Process v3.5). The
overall model was significant, R2 = 0.69, F(5, 501) = 105.98, p < .001.
The coefficients of the links between the variables can be found in Fig. 1,
in the text, we focus on the indirect effects. Confirming our hypothesis,
there was a significant total indirect effect, b = − 0.39 [-0.52; − 0.26].
More specifically, the indirect effects of exclusion (b = − 0.10 [-0.17;
2
In all of the PROCESS models we use the Huber-White correction method
for a heteroscedasticity consistent inference.
C.J. Beukeboom and M. Pollmann Computers in Human Behavior 124 (2021) 106932

Table 1
Pearson correlations among key variables for Study 1 (N = 507) above the diagonal, and Study 2 (N = 386) below the diagonal.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6. 7 8 9 10 11
a a a a a a c
1 Pphubbing .33 -.35 -.33 .57 -.29 -.18 -.10 .01
2 Exclusion .44a .75a -.75a .37a -.72a -.43a .19a .03
3 Intimacy -.32a -.51 a
.88a -.38a .79a .43a -.19a -.08
4 Responsiveness -.31a -.59a .79a -.32a .79a .43a -.19a -.10c
5 Conflict .61a .48a -.39a -.38a -.32a -.24a -.06 .05
6 Relationship satisfaction -.26a -.56a .60a .64a -.32a .38a -.12b -.03
7 Shared ph. use -.27a -.43a .43a .48a -.42a .39a -.29a -.13b
8 Own phubbing .47a .19a -.03 -.06 .13c -.06 -.02
9 Jealousy .11c .25a -.23a -.29a .17a -.23a -.30a .07
10 Age .07 .15b -.15b -.12b .08 -.06 -.14b -.09 -.18b .07
11 Gender .06 -.06 .03 .00 -.03 .09 -.03 -.00 -.03 .14b

Note: superscript a means p < .001, b means p < .01, c means p < .05 (2-tailed); Gender 0 = female, 1 = male.

with prior research, we also ran separate mediation models for all pro­
Table 2
posed mediators. These indirect effects can be found in Table 2. Here, we
Multicollinearity statistics of all variables involved in the analyses, and the in­
can see that conflict over phone use does have a significant indirect
dividual indirect effects of feelings of exclusion, perceived intimacy, perceived
partner responsiveness, conflict over phone use (Study 1 and 2), and feelings of effect when considered separately.
jealousy (only Study 2) between pphubbing and relationship satisfaction. Our third hypothesis was that the link between partner-phubbing
and relationship satisfaction would be moderated by shared phone
Study 1 Tolerance VIF Indirect effect CI
use. Specifically, we expected that particularly when one is not included
Pphubbing .655 1.53 in the partner’s phone use that phubbing has a negative effect on rela­
Exclusion .383 2.61 0.297 0.403–− 0.191
tionship satisfaction, but that this negative effect is weakened when one
− −
Intimacy .207 4.83 − 0.354 − 0.467–− 0.244
Responsiveness .205 4.88 − 0.354 − 0.467–− 0.244 is involved in the partner’s phone use. First, we tested this hypothesis
Conflict .622 1.61 − 0.162 − 0.260–− 0.072 with a PROCESS moderation model in which partner-phubbing was the
Shared use .779 1.28 predictor, shared phone use was the moderator, and relationship satis­
Study 2
faction was the outcome variable (Model 1 in Process v3.5). The overall
Pphubbing .608 1.64
Exclusion .553 1.81 − 0.186 − 0.242–− 0.132
model was significant, R2 = 0.23, F(3, 503) = 29.33, p < .001. There was
Intimacy .361 2.77 − 0.142 − 0.213–− 0.081 a significant interaction effect between partner-phubbing and shared
Responsiveness .317 3.16 − 0.147 − 0.213–− 0.093 phone use on relationship satisfaction, b = 0.22, t(503) = 3.39, p = .001,
Conflict .540 1.85 − 0.120 − 0.192–− 0.055 [0.09; 0.35]. The pattern was in line with our hypothesis. At low levels
Jealousy .850 1.18 0.017 0.037–− 0.001
of shared phone use there is a significant negative effect, b = − 0.42, t
− −
Shared use .656 1.52
(503) = 5.20, p < .001, [-0.58; − 0.26], but at high levels of shared
Note. Tolerance values below 0.10 and VIF values higher than 10 are commonly phone use there is not, b = − 0.05, t(503) = 0.77, p = .44, [-0.19; 0.08].
seen as indications of multicollinearity problems (e.g., Menard, 1995). Finally, for hypothesis 4, we tested whether shared phone use
moderated the above reported mediation effects (Model 7 in Process
v3.5). In this analysis separate models are tested in which shared phone
use is added as a moderator of the link between partner-phubbing and
respectively feelings of exclusion, perceived responsiveness, perceived
intimacy, and conflict over phone use. We found that shared phone use is
a significant moderator of the link between partner-phubbing and feel­
ings of exclusion, b = − 0.13, t(503) = 3.22, p = .001, [-0.21; − 0.05],
perceived partner responsiveness, b = 0.30, t(503) = 3.00, p = .003,
[0.10; 0.45], and perceived intimacy, b = 0.28, t(503) = 3.05, p = .002,
[0.10; 0.45], but not conflict over phone use, b = − 0.07, t(503) = 1.32,
p = .18, [-0.17; 0.03]. The three significant interaction effects all showed
the same pattern (see Fig. 3). At high levels of shared phone use, more
partner-phubbing is linked to a lesser extent to feelings of exclusion,
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the proposed hypotheses with results from Study perceived partner responsiveness, and perceived intimacy, than at low
1. Hypothesis 1 is depicted in blue, Hypothesis 2 is depicted in red, Hypothesis levels of shared phone use.
3 is depicted in green, Hypothesis 4 is depicted in orange. Solid lines represent a
significant effect, dashed lines represent a non-significant effect. The numbers
are the coefficients from the mediation model. 2.3. Discussion

− 0.04]), partner responsiveness (b = − 0.13 [-0.23; − 0.06]), and in­
timacy (b = − 0.15 [-0.24; − 0.08]) were significant, the indirect effect of
conflict over phone use (b = 0.0002 [-0.07; 0.07]) was not. This means
that more partner-phubbing is linked to more feelings of exclusion, less
perceived partner responsiveness, and less perceived intimacy by one’s
partner, which in turn is linked to lower relationship satisfaction. With
the mediators in the model the direct effect between partner-phubbing
and relationship satisfaction is small and not significant (b = .01, t
(501) = 0.11, p = .91, [-0.09; 0.10]) indicating that the mediators
explain a large portion of the effect.
In order to be able to compare the individual effects of the mediators
Study 1 confirmed most hypotheses. In line with previous work
(Halpern & Katz, 2017; Krasnova et al., 2016; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016;
McDaniel & Drouin, 2019; Roberts & David, 2016; Wang et al., 2017)
our results provide convincing evidence for the negative relationship
between partner-phubbing and relationship satisfaction (H1). Second,
we observed that this effect was explained by three significant media­
tors; more feelings of exclusion, less perceived partner responsiveness,
and less perceived intimacy (H2abc). In contrast to H2d, we did not find
evidence for mediation of conflict over phone use.
Second, we tested a factor that we expected could reduce the partner-
phubbing relationship satisfaction link, namely the extent in which

5
C.J. Beukeboom and M. Pollmann
phone use is being shared and one is involved in the phone use activities
of one’s partner. In line with H3 we observed that shared phone use was
a significant moderator; at the higher levels of shared phone use the
negative relationship between partner-phubbing and relationship
satisfaction disappears. Moreover, in line with H4 we observed that
shared phone use moderates the above three significant mediation ef­
fect, but again this was not the case for conflict over phone use. The
more one is involved in one’s partner’s phone use, the less one experi­
ences feelings of exclusion, and the less one experiences reduced partner
responsiveness and intimacy, which in turn reduces negative effects on
relationship satisfaction. This suggests that involving and informing the
partner about one’s phone activities during interactions could provide a
potential remedy against the detrimental effects of (nearly inevitable)
phone use in relationships.
3. Study 2
In order to test the robustness of these findings, we conducted a
second study to both replicate and extend the results of Study 1. In Study
2 we used the same independent and mediator variables, but added
feelings of jealousy as an additional mediator (David & Roberts, 2021;
Krasnova et al., 2016). We measured the dependent variable, relation­
ship satisfaction, using a different scale (i.e., the Relationship Assess­
ment Scale, Hendrick, 1988). By using a different measure of
relationship satisfaction, we can test whether the effects generalize
across measures. Moreover, we extended the moderator variable shared
phone use and added participants’ own phubbing behavior as a potential
control variable as it relates to the phone use norm in the relationship.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
For this cross-sectional survey we recruited voluntary participants
with a minimum age of 18 years and a relationship of at least 3 months.
They were recruited mainly via social media using snowball sampling.
Participants could win one of two gift vouchers of €25,- in a lottery. After
excluding participants who did not fulfill criteria or did not complete the
questionnaire, the final sample consisted of N = 386. With this sample
size we have a power of .80 to detect a small to medium effect (f2 = 0.04)
and in our most elaborate analysis with six predictors (Faul et al., 2007).
The majority of the sample was female (n = 275, 71.2%), versus male (n
= 111, 28.8%). The mean age of participants was M = 27.9 (SD = 11.17,
range 18–72).
The average relationship length was M = 82.1 months (7 years), SD
= 106.7 months, with a wide range of 3–564 months (0.3–47 years).
Relationship types were living apart n = 189 (49.0%), living together n
= 145 (37.6%), married n = 52 (13.5%). A small number of participants
(n = 10, 3.6%) was in a same-sex relationship (n = 7 both male, n = 3
both female). In this study, we also asked how much time participants
and their partner spend on their mobile phone. This was answered on an
11-point scale ranging from 1 – less than 15 min per day to 11 – more
than 8 h per day. The median response for both the participant and the
partner was 5, which corresponds to 2–3 h per day.
3.1.2. Procedure
Participants were informed that the questionnaire focused on phone
use within romantic relationship. They first were asked about de­
mographics and specifics of their relationship. Next, they answered
questions about the following variables in this order: relationship
satisfaction, phone use time (partner and own), partner-phubbing, own
pphubbing, shared phone use, conflict over phone use, feelings of
exclusion, perceived partner responsiveness, perceived intimacy, feel­
ings of jealousy.
3.1.3. Measures
We used the same scales as in Study 1 to measure Partner-phubbing
6
Computers in Human Behavior 124 (2021) 106932
(M = 2.73, SD = 0.66, Cronbach’s α = 0.84), Conflict over Phone use (M
= 1.86, SD = 0.79, Cronbach’s α = 0.91), Feelings of exclusion (M = 1.77,
SD = 0.47, Cronbach’s α = 0.92), Perceived partner responsiveness (M =
7.65, SD = 1.11, Cronbach’s α = 0.95), and Perceived intimacy (M = 7.49,
SD = 0.91, Cronbach’s α = 0.84).
Relationship satisfaction. In study 2 we used the 7-item Relationship
Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988) to measure participants’ rela­
tionship satisfaction. Example items are “How satisfied are you in gen­
eral with your relationship?“; “How much do you love your partner?”
which were rated on different 5-point scales (e.g., 1 = unsatisfied, 5 =
very satisfied; 1 = a little, 5 = a lot; M = 4.46, SD = 0.52, Cronbach’s α
= 83).
Shared phone use. In Study 2 we used a different, newly developed
scale to measure whether their partner involved participants in their
phone use. It referred to slightly more concrete behaviors than the scale
used in Study 1. It included four statements following “When my partner
uses the mobile phone in my presence … then I know what he or she is
doing; … then I get to watch; … then my partner shares with me what he
or she sees; … then I am involved in his or her telephone use. Items were
rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = always; M = 3.67, SD = 0.59,
Cronbach’s α = 0.74).
Feelings of jealousy. We added a measure of feelings of jealousy as a
potential mediator. Just as David and Roberts (2021) we used a scale
based on the cognitive jealousy subscale of the Multidimensional Jeal­
ousy Scale by Pfeiffer & Wong (1989), which was adapted to relate it to a
phubbing situation. Participants rated 6 statement following “When my
partner is busy with his or her phone …” Example statements are “… I
suspect that my partner is intimate with someone behind my back”, “…
then I feel jealous”. We did not include Item 5 in the analysis because it
had too much overlap with exclusion (”.. then I feel rejected”). Items
were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = always; M = 1.55, SD =
0.70, Cronbach’s α = 0.87).
Own Pphubbing. We also measured to what extend the participant
him/herself showed partner-phubbing, to be able to include this as a
control variable. We used the 9-item partner-phubbing scale, but
adapted the items such that they referred to the respondent. Example
items are “I glance at my cell phone when talking to my partner”, “If
there is a lull in our conversation, I will check my cell phone.” Items
were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = always; M = 2.57, SD =
0.58, Cronbach’s α = 0.80).
See the OSF for the complete methodology, syntax and data, and
additional exploratory analyses: https://osf.io/ea6mg/
3.2. Results
Again, we first looked at potential correlations with age and gender.
Table 1 shows that in Study 2 we do not find any differences for gender
on the key variables. In contrast to study 1, age was not related with
perceptions of partner phubbing nor with relationship satisfaction, but
did again show a weak negative correlation with shared phone use by
the partner, and again intimacy and responsiveness decreases somewhat
with age, while feelings of exclusion increase. We again ran the models
reported below with gender and age as control variables (see supple­
ment material), showing that all reported effects remained virtually the
same when controlling for age and gender.
Correlations among the predictors and relationship satisfaction are
comparable to Study 1 (see Table 2); again the tolerance and VIF values
are acceptable and do not show indications of serious multicolinearity
(Menard, 1995).
3.2.1. Hypotheses testing
We again tested hypothesis 1 (people who perceive more phubbing
by their partner are less satisfied with their relationship) with a corre­
lation analysis with bootstrapped confidence intervals. Even though we
use a different scale to measure relationship satisfaction, our first hy­
pothesis was again supported: partner-phubbing was negatively related
C.J. Beukeboom and M. Pollmann
to relationship satisfaction, r = − 26, p < .001, BCa 95% CI [-0.37;
− 0.13]. This correlation as well as all other zero order correlations can
again be found in Table 1. Exclusion, intimacy, partner responsiveness,
and conflict over phone use are again possible mediators, as they are all
related to both the predictor variable partner-phubbing as well as to the
outcome variable relationship satisfaction. This also holds for the new
possible mediator; feelings of jealousy.
The extent to which the participant admitted to phubbing behavior
towards the partner (i.e., own pphubbing) was related to how much they
perceive phubbing by the partner. It was, however, not related to rela­
tionship satisfaction and only weakly related to our mediators. We
therefore present our analyses without this control variable here and
provide the analyses with control variable in the supplement material.
To test the second hypothesis, we conducted a similar mediation
model as in Study 1, with partner-phubbing as predictor, exclusion,
partner responsiveness, intimacy, conflict about phone use, and jealousy
as mediators, and relationship satisfaction as outcome variable. The
model was significant, R2 = 0.47, F(6, 378) = 27.50, p < .001. The co­
efficients of the links between the variables can be found in Fig. 2. In this
analysis, we find the same total indirect effect as in Study 1 (b = − 0.22,
95%CI [-0.31; − 0.13], so the mediators together explain the link be­
tween partner-phubbing and relationship satisfaction. The indirect ef­
fects of exclusion (b = − .09, 95%CI [-0.15; − 0.02]), perceived partner
responsiveness (b = − 0.07, 95%CI [-0.13; − 0.03]), and perceived in­
timacy (b = − 0.06, 95%CI [-0.11; − 0.02]) were significant; the indirect
effects of conflict over phone use (b = 0.004, 95%CI [-0.05; 0.06]) and
jealousy (b = − 0.002, 95%CI [-0.01; 0.01]) were not. This means that
we again find, in line with H2abc, that more partner-phubbing is linked
to more feelings of exclusion between partners, less perceived partner
responsiveness, and less perceived intimacy, which in turn is linked to
lower relationship satisfaction. Inconsistent with H2de we observe no
mediation of conflict over phone use and feelings of jealousy when all
mediators are included in the model. With the mediators in the model
the direct effect between partner-phubbing and relationship satisfaction
is small and not significant (b = 0.02, t(378) = 0.39, p = .69, [-0.06;
0.10]) indicating that the mediators again explain a large portion of the
effect.
Again, we also tested the individual indirect effects of all mediators
by running separate mediation models. As can be seen in Table 2, con­
flict over phone use and jealousy have significant indirect effects when
considered separately.
To test the third hypothesis, that the link between partner-phubbing
and relationship satisfaction is moderated by shared phone use, we
again first ran a PROCESS moderation model in which partner-phubbing
was the predictor, shared phone use was the moderator, and relationship
satisfaction was the outcome variable. The overall model was signifi­
cant, R2 = 0.16, F(3, 382) = 18.89, p < .001. Partner-phubbing had a
negative link with relationship satisfaction, b = − 0.15, t(382) = 3.22, p
Fig. 2. Conceptual model of the proposed hypotheses with results from Study
2. Hypothesis 1 is depicted in blue, Hypothesis 2 is depicted in red, Hypothesis
3 is depicted in green, Hypothesis 4 is depicted in orange. Solid lines represent a
significant effect, dashed lines represent a non-significant effect. The numbers
are the coefficients from the mediation model.
7
Computers in Human Behavior 124 (2021) 106932
= .001, 95% CI [-0.24; − 0.06] and shared phone use had a positive link
with relationship satisfaction, b = 0.27, t(382) = 4.95, p < .001, 95% CI
[0.16; 0.37]. In contrast to H3 and Study 1, there was no interaction
effect between partner-phubbing and shared phone use on relationship
satisfaction, b = 0.06, t(382) = 0.75, p = .46, [-0.11; 0.23]. This in­
dicates that in Study 2 shared phone use does not directly buffer the
effect of partner-phubbing on relationship satisfaction. However, it can
still be the case that shared phone use buffers against changes in the
mediators (H4). We therefore also tested for moderated mediation
effects.
To test hypothesis 4, that shared phone use moderated the above
reported mediation effects, we again ran moderated mediation models
for each mediator in which shared phone use is entered as a moderator
of the link between partner-phubbing and respectively feelings of
exclusion, perceived partner responsiveness, perceived intimacy, con­
flict over phone use and jealousy. We find that shared phone use is a
significant moderator in the link between partner-phubbing and feelings
of exclusion, b = − 0.13, t(381) = 2.49, p = .01, [-0.24; − 0.03],
perceived partner responsiveness, b = 0.41, t(381) = 2.58, p = .01,
[0.10; 0.73], perceived intimacy, b = 0.29, t(381) = 2.03, p = .04, [0.09;
0.58], and conflict over phone use, b = − 0.19, t(381) = 2.41, p = .02,
[-0.34; − 0.04], but not for the link between partner-phubbing and
jealousy b = 0.07, t(381) = 0.85, p = .40, [-0.09; 0.23]. The significant
interaction effects all showed the same pattern, as displayed in Fig. 4. At
high levels of shared phone use, more partner-phubbing is linked to a
lesser extent to feelings of exclusion, perceived partner responsiveness,
perceived intimacy, and conflict over phone use than at low levels of
shared phone use. This again indicates that involving the partner in
one’s phone use acts as a buffer against detrimental relationship effects.
We ran also ran all models reported above with participants’ own
phubbing behavior as control variable. The outcomes of these analyses
can be found in the online appendix. The pattern of results did not
change when own phubbing was included, so the effects are robust
against the addition of this control variable.
Finally, we explored the idea that a higher discrepancy between
partners in partner-phubbing behavior would increase negative effects
of partner-phubbing. That is, particularly when one’s partner shows
high levels of partner-phubbing, while the respondent shows low levels
of partner-phubbing, we expected that negative relationship effects are
higher. When partners show more similar phubbing behavior during
interactions, we expected less negative effects, because there apparently
is a shared norm about phone use during interactions. To test this, we
ran a moderation analysis in which the respondents’ own partner-
phubbing moderates the effect of the partner’s phubbing on relation­
ship satisfaction. The predicted interaction effect was not significant, b
= .04, t(382) = 0.49, p = .63, CI [-0.13, 0.21]. So, there is no indication
that the effect of being phubbed by one’s partner is dependent on how
much partner-phubbing one engages in oneself.
4. General discussion
In two cross-sectional surveys we aimed to find further evidence of
detrimental effects of partner-phubbing in intimate relationships. Con­
firming H1 and in line with previous studies (Halpern & Katz, 2017;
Krasnova et al., 2016; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; McDaniel & Drouin,
2019; McDaniel et al., 2020; Roberts & David, 2016; Wang et al., 2017)
we observed that the extent in which a partner uses their phone during
co-present interactions is negatively related to relationship satisfaction.
The fact that we used different scales to measure relationship satisfac­
tion in the two studies, but the findings are very consistent speaks for
their robustness, and shows that they generalize across measures. It
should be noted that we cannot draw conclusions about the causal di­
rection of the effect as this is based on correlation data;
partner-phubbing could cause reduced relationship satisfaction, but the
opposite effect is equally possible. We think it could best be seen as a
reciprocal relationship, whereby partner-phubbing results in reduced
C.J. Beukeboom and M. Pollmann
Fig. 3. Visualization of the moderating effect of shared phone use on the link between partner phubbing and exclusion, perceived partner responsiveness, and
perceived intimacy from Study 1.
relationship satisfaction, which in turn could induce more pphubbing
during interactions. As such, pphubbing could play an adverse role in a
downward spiral of communication quality and relationship
satisfaction.
4.1. Explanatory factors for the link between partner-phubbing and
relationship satisfaction
A second main goal of our studies was to find potential mediators
that could explain the underlying mechanism of this link, as a better
understanding of these processes may inform interventions to address
the detrimental effects of phubbing. Only a few previous studies focused
on explanatory variables in actual relationships, and these focused
merely on the mediating role of conflict about phone use (Halpern &
Katz, 2017; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; McDaniel & Drouin, 2019;
McDaniel et al., 2020; Roberts & David, 2016) or jealousy (David &
Roberts, 2021; Krasnova et al., 2016). We took a broader and integrative
approach by measuring five potential mediators, with three additional
variables that were derived from laboratory or vignette studies on
phubbing (feelings of exclusion, e.g., Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,
2018; Gonzales & Wu, 2016), and from the relationship literature
(perceived partner responsiveness, and intimacy; Laurenceau et al.,
8
Computers in Human Behavior 124 (2021) 106932
1998).
Using mediation models with all five mediators included, we
observed in both studies that the link between partner-phubbing and
relationship satisfaction was fully mediated by feelings of exclusion
between partners, less perceived partner responsiveness and less
perceived intimacy, in line with H2abc. Interestingly, in contrast to
H2de and previous studies, we observed no significant mediation effects
of conflict over phone use (Halpern & Katz, 2017; McDaniel & Coyne,
2016; McDaniel & Drouin, 2019; McDaniel et al., 2020; Roberts &
David, 2016) or jealousy (David & Roberts, 2021; Krasnova et al., 2016)
when the other three mediators were included in the model. The
zero-order correlations (Table 1) did show that pphubbing was posi­
tively related to both conflict over phone use and jealousy, which were
also both negatively related to relationship satisfaction. Moreover, the
separate mediation models (Table 2) showed that conflict over phone
use and jealousy have significant indirect effects if considered individ­
ually. This is in line with previous work. Yet, our integrative mediation
findings show that when feelings of exclusion, perceived partner
responsiveness, and perceived intimacy are taken into account, the ef­
fects of conflict and jealousy disappear. Thus our data suggests that
conflict and jealousy in itself are not the primary mechanism through
which pphubbing results in reduced relationship satisfaction.
C.J. Beukeboom and M. Pollmann
Fig. 4. Visualization of the moderating effect of shared phone use on the link between partner phubbing and exclusion, perceived partner responsiveness, perceived
intimacy, and conflict over phone use from Study 2.
Instead, detrimental relationship effects of partner-phubbing appear
to be mainly explained by the extent to which one feels excluded or
ignored by one’s partner during social interactions, and the extent to
which pphubbing results in reduced partner responsiveness and feelings
of intimacy during interactions. These findings are in line with research
showing negative effects of phone use during interactions on conver­
sation quality and perceived partner empathy (Gonzales & Wu, 2016;
Misra et al., 2016; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). The present studies
demonstrate that these findings extent to intimate relationships in which
one can frequently, in consecutive interactions, experience
partner-phubbing.
It should be noted that recent longitudinal daily survey studies
(McDaniel & Drouin, 2019; McDaniel et al., 2020) did show mediation
effects of conflict between the broader concept of technoference and
relationship quality. Our findings do not contradict the adverse role that
conflict (about phone or technology use) may have in relationships. Yet,
our (albeit crossectional, between-person) data suggests that even when
couples do not have any conflicts about partner-phubbing, nor experi­
ence jealousy, their relationship satisfaction may be negatively affected
as a result of feelings of exclusion, and reduced partner responsiveness
and intimacy in interactions in which their partner shows phubbing
behavior. After all, not everyone will confront their partner and engage
in conflict about phone use, yet one may still experience its negative
consequences. Future work might be able to study the combined role of
the various mediators we measured in a longitudinal design.
With respect to social exclusion, Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas
(2018) observed that, of the four needs that are affected by social
exclusion (Williams, 2001), only the sense of belonging mediated the
effect of phubbing on perceived communication quality and relationship
satisfaction with an animated conversation partner. Self-esteem,
meaningful existence, and control did not. In additional analyses in
9
Computers in Human Behavior 124 (2021) 106932
which we included these subscales (see online Appendix B) we were not
able to replicate this finding. In these analyses none of the subscales
emerged as the sole or main explaining factor. Based on this, we
conclude that, when testing for the effect of exclusion in intimate re­
lationships it is better to include all aspects of exclusion.
4.2. Shared phone use as a moderator of the partner-phubbing satisfaction
link
Our third main goal was to study the moderating role of shared
phone use, as we expected this could provide a potential remedy against
the detrimental effects of nowadays nearly inevitable phone use in re­
lationships. In line with H3 we observed a significant interaction be­
tween pphubbing and shared phone use on relationship satisfaction in
Study 1, but not in Study 2. However, in both studies moderated
mediation tests showed that shared phone use moderates the effects of
pphubbing on the three significant mediators discussed above. This
shows that the more one is informed and involved by one’s partner in
their phone use (i.e., by showing and explaining their phone activities),
the less one feels excluded, and the less one experiences reduced partner
responsiveness and intimacy. This in turn mitigates the negative effects
on relationship satisfaction.
Shared phone use was, only in Study 2 also observed to reduce
conflicts over phone use, but shared phone use did not reduce feelings of
jealousy (only measured in Study 2). Still, the zero order correlations
(Table 1) show that shared phone use is highly related to all mediators in
both studies, and show strong negative correlations with conflict and
jealousy, which suggests that shared phone use is related to both conflict
and feelings of jealousy. Previous work suggests that jealousy mainly
plays a role among individuals with low self-esteem (Utz & Beukeboom,
2015) and with an anxious attachment style (David & Roberts, 2021). It
C.J. Beukeboom and M. Pollmann
could be that merely among these individuals pphubbing has detri­
mental effects via jealousy. It also seems likely that among those who
experience higher levels of jealousy, shared phone use can reduce such
feelings. That is, feelings of jealousy usually emerge when one experi­
ences a loss of exclusive attention and one (erroneously) attributes a
partner’s phubbing as attempts to seek contact with others (David &
Roberts, 2021; Krasnova et al., 2016; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). A
partner can probably take away such erroneous attributions by sharing
what one is doing with their phone instead.
In sum, our findings suggest that partners can prevent detrimental
effects for their relationships by refraining from the use of one’s mobile
phone during co-present interaction. However, if one must use a phone,
detrimental effects can be reduced by keeping the partner involved and
informed about what one is doing with it. If this is done well a phone
actually has a function and becomes part of the interaction (e.g., look up
relevant information, enrich the conversation; Cummings & Reimer,
2020), rather than being a hindrance to responsiveness and conversation
quality.
4.3. Strength and limitations
As all studies, our studies have their design-specific strength and
limitations. One strength is that our sample size gave us good power to
detect medium to small effects. The majority of our participants were
female, but we observed no remarkable correlations for gender as well as
age, and including these variables as covariate did not influence our
main results. A second strength is that we took a broad focus on re­
lationships. That is, we measured relationship satisfaction, and the
various communication behaviors in the relationship, as more or less
stable trait-like perceptions of the current relationship, thus going
beyond single interactions. Moreover, we did not focus on one possible
mediator, but painted a more complete picture by including several
different mediators. That way, we could test for unique effects and
determine which relationship process is most affected by partner
phubbing. We think this brings an important contribution to the litera­
ture, as such a broad approach (including multiple mediators) has not
been done before.
A first limitation is that we only included one of the partners,
whereas an intimate relationship is a dyadic process and including both
partners can yield unique insights. A second limitation is that we only
measured these processes at one time point. Future longitudinal studies
could include several measurements, and both partners, to gain under­
standing on how these processes develop over time. In the above
mentioned study by McDaniel et al. (2020), for example, both partners
of 145 couples completed daily surveys measuring technology use and
relationship satisfaction in ten consecutive days. This design allowed for
analyses of both between and within person variations in a multilevel
model, and showed that daily fluctuations in respondents’ own- and
their partner’s technology use during leisure was predictive of variations
in relationship satisfaction (McDaniel et al., 2020). A similar set-up
could be used to study the effects of variations in the variables we
included over an extended period of time.
Finally, our method focused generically on partner phubbing, and
did not specify situations in which this occurs. However, effects of phone
use likely depend on context, as different levels of partner attentiveness
are expected across different contexts (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015).
Following Expectancy Violations theory (Burgoon, 1993), it has been
argued that particularly in situations where one expects exclusive and
undivided attention (e.g., a romantic date or with serious conversation
topics), phubbing is considered disrespectful and a hurtful violation of
these expectations (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015, 2017; Vanden Abeele,
2020). It is likely that particularly when pphubbing frequently occurs in
such situations, it has most detrimental relationship effects. If a partner
is sensitive to these situational expectations, however, by refraining
from smartphone use when undivided attention is expected, and limits
phone use to ‘informal’ contexts (e.g., “just hanging out”; Miller-Ott &
10
Computers in Human Behavior 124 (2021) 106932
Kelly, 2015), then negative effects on relationship satisfaction are likely
limited.
5. Conclusion
To conclude, for many people it is nowadays hard to withstand the
temptation of social media and other attention seeking apps on one’s
smart phone (Du, Kerkhof, & van Koningsbruggen, 2019). A fear of
missing out (Rozgonjuk, Sindermann, Elhai, & Montag, 2020), an
expectation of constant availability from friends (Miller-Ott & Kelly,
2017), or even the mere presence of a phone (Misra et al., 2016; Przy­
bylski & Weinstein, 2013) can draw attention away from an interaction
one is having with a co-present partner. The present studies highlight
that the use of one’s phone in the presence of a partner (pphubbing), has
an, often unintentional, detrimental relationship effect, as a partner feels
excluded and it harms the experienced responsiveness and intimacy in
the interactions one is in. To prevent such detrimental effects it is
important to become more aware of the consequences of phone use.
Particularly in contexts in which a co-present partner expects your un­
divided attention, it is advisable to put your phone away. If one must use
a phone in co-present interactions, our results provide an easy remedy;
shared phone use. By involving and informing a partner about one’s
phone activities, and by making one’s phone use relevant and functional
in the interaction, it is possible to reduce feelings of exclusion and
maintain more responsiveness and intimacy in the conversation.
Credit author statement
Beukeboom: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Valida­
tion, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing -
Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision, Project
administration, Pollmann: Validation, Formal analysis, Resources, Data
Curation, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review &
Editing.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our students Aaron Springer, Djoy Boer,
Roxana Joordens, Jasmijn Kruijt, Felicia Ramgrab and Jeanne Wiersma
for their help in setting up the studies and collecting the data.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary analyses to this article can be found online at htt
ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106932 and data, syntax and com­
plete methodology are available on the Open Science Framework: htt
ps://osf.io/ea6mg/.
References
Boury, K. (2016). Euhm hallo, Ik zit recht voor je, die gsm is echt niet zo belangrijk: Een
kwantitatieve studie naar het verband tussen Partner Phubbing en relatietevredenheid
(Masterthesis University Gent). Retrieved from https://lib.ugent.be/nl/catalog/
rug01:002275408.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). The effects of “phubbing” on social
interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(6), 304–316. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jasp.12506
Cizmeci Ümit, E. (2017). Disconnected, though satisfied: Pphubbing behavior and
relationship satisfaction. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication,
7. https://doi.org/10.7456/10702100/018
Cummings, R., & Reimer, T. (2020). Cellphone relevance in face-to-face interactions: The
effects of cellphone use on conversational satisfaction: Mobile Media & Communication.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157920958437
David, M., & Roberts, J. A. (2017). Phubbed and alone: Phone snubbing, social exclusion,
and attachment to social media. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2,
155–163. https://doi.org/10.1086/690940
David, M. E., & Roberts, J. A. (2021). Investigating the impact of partner phubbing on
romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction: The moderating role of attachment
C.J. Beukeboom and M. Pollmann
anxiety. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. , Article 026540752199645.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521996454
Du, J., Kerkhof, P., & van Koningsbruggen, G. M. (2019). Predictors of social media self-
control failure: Immediate gratifications, habitual checking, ubiquity, and
notifications. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(7), 477–485.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0730
Dwyer, R. J., Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. W. (2018). Smartphone use undermines enjoyment
of face-to-face social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78,
233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.007
Elphinston, R., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the
implications for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 631–635. https://doi.org/10.1089/
cyber.2010.0318
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Gergen, K. J. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. E. Katz, & M. Aakhus (Eds.),
Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp.
227–241). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511489471.018.
Gonzales, A. L., & Wu, Y. (2016). Public cellphone use does not activate negative
responses in Others…Unless they hate cellphones. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 21(5), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12174
Guldner, G. T., & Swensen, C. H. (1995). Time spent together and relationship quality:
Long-distance relationships as a test case. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
12(2), 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407595122010
Hales, A. H., Dvir, M., Wesselmann, E. D., Kruger, D. J., & Finkenauer, C. (2018). Cell
phone-induced ostracism threatens fundamental needs. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 158(4), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1439877
Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2017). Texting’s consequences for romantic relationships: A
cross-lagged analysis highlights its risks. Computers in Human Behavior, 9.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 50, 93–98.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209358882
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 [Conference session]. June 12–15. In Twenty fourth European conference on
information systems (ECIS), istanbul, Turkey.
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L., & Pietromonaco, P. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal
process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner
responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1238–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1238
Leggett, C., & Rossouw, P. J. (2014). The impact of technology use on couple
relationships: A neuropsychological perspective. International Journal of
Neuropsychotherapy, 2, 44–99. https://doi.org/10.127441/ijnpt.2014.0044-0099
Lemay, E. P., Jr., Clark, M. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2007). Projection of responsiveness to
needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 834–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.92.5.834
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “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. https://doi.org/10.1037/
ppm0000065
McDaniel, B. T., & Drouin, M. (2019). Daily technology interruptions and emotional and
relational well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 1–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.027
McDaniel, B. T., Galovan, A. M., & Drouin, M. (2020). Daily technoference, technology
use during couple leisure time, and relationship quality. Media Psychology. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2020.1783561
McDaniel, B. T., & Wesselmann, E. (2021). “You phubbed me for that?” Reason given for
phubbing and perceptions of interactional quality and exclusion. Human Behavior
and Emerging Technologies, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.255
Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis: Sage university series on quantitative
applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2015.1055371
Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2017). A politeness theory analysis of cell-phone usage in
the presence of friends. Communication Studies, 68(2), 190–207. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10510974.2017.1299024
11
Computers in Human Behavior 124 (2021) 106932
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514539755
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Dermarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever
wanted: Does facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12, 441–444. https://doi: 10.1089=cpb.2008.0263.
Pollmann, M. M. H., Finkenauer, C., & Begeer, S. (2010). Mediators of the link between
autistic traits and relationship satisfaction in a non-clinical sample. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 40(4), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-
0888-z
Pollmann, M. M., Norman, T. J., & Crockett, E. E. (2021). A daily-diary study on the
effects of face-to-face communication, texting, and their interplay on understanding
and relationship satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 3, 100088.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100088
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. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0265407512453827
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an
organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek, &
A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Reis, H. T., Crasta, D., Rogge, R. D., Maniaci, M. R., & Carmichael, C. L. (2017). Perceived
partner responsiveness scale (PPRS). The sourcebook of listening research (pp.
516–521). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119102991.ch57
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck,
D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal
relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). John Wiley & Sons.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2015.07.058
Rozgonjuk, D., Sindermann, C., Elhai, J. D., & Montag, C. (2020). Fear of missing out
(FoMO) and social media’s impact on daily-life and productivity at work: Do
WhatsApp, facebook, instagram, and snapchat use disorders mediate that
association? Addictive Behaviors, 110, 106487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addbeh.2020.106487
Servies, A. (2012). Cell phones and couple communication: The impact of mobile device
distractions during a dyadic interaction. USA: Psychological Science Undergraduate
Honors Theses, University of Arkansas. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/psycuht/1.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from
ourselves. New York: Basic Books.
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P. (2020). The social consequences of phubbing: A framework and
a research agenda. In R. Ling, L. Fortunati, G. Goggin, S. S. Lim, & Y. Li (Eds.), The
oxford handbook of mobile communication and society (pp. 157–174). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190864385.013.11.
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2016.04.005
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., Hendrickson, A. T., Pollmann, M. M. H., & Ling, R. (2019).
Phubbing behavior in conversations and its relation to perceived conversation
intimacy and distraction: An exploratory observation study. Computers in Human
Behavior, 100, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.004
VanDen Abeele, M. M. P., & Postma-Nilsenova, M. (2018). More than just gaze: An
experimental vignette study examining how phone-gazing and newspaper-gazing
and phubbing-while-speaking and phubbing-while-listening compare in their effect
on affiliation. Communication Research Reports, 35(4), 303–313. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08824096.2018.1492911
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2017.01.014
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: Effects of being excluded and ignored. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 275–314). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Wirth, J., Sacco, D., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. (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. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0146167210370032