Received: 24 February 2019 Revised: 6 March 2019 Accepted: 8 March 2019

DOI: 10.1002/hbe2.137

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

USES OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

Phubbing: Perceptions, reasons behind, predictors, and impacts

Yeslam Al-Saggaf | Sarah B. O'Donnell

School of Computing and Mathematics,

Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South There is empirical evidence that people phub more frequently those who are closely
Wales, Australia
related to them than those less close to them and that phubbing is not only transforming
Correspondence the norms of human communication but also this behavior has detrimental impacts on
Yeslam Al-Saggaf, School of Computing and
people. This review of the literature was undertaken to understand the impacts of
Mathematics, Charles Sturt University, Albury,
NSW, Australia. phubbing on people, how people perceive phubbing, what are the reasons behind peo-
Email: yalsaggaf@csu.edu.au
ple’s phubbing and what predicts this behavior. The review of the literature has revealed
Funding information that phubbing heightened feelings of jealousy between romantic partners, weakened
Charles Sturt University
the bond between them, lowered their relationship satisfaction and increased their rates
of depression. Phubbing was perceived as rude, offensive, and a violation of social
norms. It undermined perceptions of empathetic concern, closeness, interpersonal trust,
and conversation quality. The review of literature has also revealed that technological
addictions, such as, smartphone addiction, SMS addiction and social media addiction,
boredom, fear of missing out, and lack of self-control all predicted phubbing behavior
but that reciprocity, the tendency to engage in more than one task at the same time
(multitasking) and fulfillment of an immediate need or gratification may explain why
people engage with their smartphone during face-to-face conversation with others.

KEYWORDS
human behavior, smartphone addiction, smartphone usage

1 | I N T RO D UC T I O N search was conducted in 2018 using phubbing as the keyword-search.

People now use their smartphones to do many tasks that were once
confined to their desks, including searching for flights while exercising,
watching a TED Talk from bed, and tweeting commentary on a foot-
ball match to fans while waiting for an Uber ride. This has increased
the dependency on smartphones to levels never seen before (Al-
Saggaf & MacCulloch, 2018) resulting in people engaging with their
smartphones even while having a face-to-face conversation with
others; a behavior commonly known in the literature as phubbing
(Coehoorn, 2014). The person engaging with a smartphone instead of
paying attention to another person or persons during a social interac-
tion is called a “phubber,” while the person(s) who is/are being
phubbed, that is, phone snubbed, during the social interaction is called
the “phubbee(s)” (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016).
This article reviews the literature related to phubbing. The litera-
ture reviewed for this article was searched using Google Scholar. The
As phubbing is a young area and Google Scholar can now access most
journals and conference proceedings, it was judged that the effect of
any search bias would be limited (Bachmann et al., 2011). The litera-
ture search returned 724 publications during the period between
2014 and 2018 with Coehoorn's (2014) master thesis being one of
the first publications on this topic. When “all in title” search feature
was used, only 62 publications were returned in which phubbing
appeared in the title of the article/paper. The review proceeded as
follows: First, the papers were read so the researchers could familiar-
ize themselves with the topic. Second, themes that transpired from
the review of publications were developed. Third, publications that
addressed these themes were assigned to these themes. Fourth, these
themes were organized into broader categories to facilitate the syn-
thesis of the existing literature.
The literature indicates that phubbing behavior has become a nor-
malized part of everyday interactions (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,

132 © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hbe2 Hum Behav & Emerg Tech. 2019;1:132–140.
AL-SAGGAF AND O'DONNELL
2016). In a study by Ranie and Zickuhr (2015), 90% of the participants
reported using their smartphones within their most recent social
activity. The limited but growing body of research into this emerging
phenomenon has focused mainly on two aspects of this behavior. The
first aspect is the impact of phubbing on people, especially on roman-
tic partners. Some of the impacts discussed in the literature include
heightened feelings of jealousy (Krasnova, Abramova, Notter, &
Baumann, 2016), lack of intimacy with partners (Halpern & Katz,
2017), lower relationship satisfaction (Vanden Abeele & Postma-
Nilsenova, 2018), and depressive symptoms (McDaniel & Coyne,
2016). Frequent phubbing of people in relationships has also been
associated with higher levels of depression (X. Wang, Xie, Wang,
Wang, & Lei, 2017). The second aspect is the predictors of phubbing
with the literature highlighting a number of predictors, including inter-
net addiction, lack of self-control, fear of missing out
(Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016; Davey et al., 2017; Franchina,
Vanden Abeele, van Rooij, Lo Coco, & De Marez, 2018), technological
addictions, such as, smartphone addiction, SMS addiction and social
 et al., 2015), neuroti-
media addiction, (Davey et al., 2017; Karadag
cism, social anxiety, and trait anxiety (Guazzini, Duradoni, Capelli, &
Meringolo, 2019).
Researchers interested in phubbing have also looked at how peo-
ple perceive the behavior of phubbing others, and what are the rea-
sons behind people's phubbing. When phubbed, individuals reported
reduced trust in the phubber (Roberts & David, 2017), a reduction in
perceptions of communication quality (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,
2018), reduced relationship satisfaction (Chotpitayasunondh & Doug-
las, 2018; X. Wang et al., 2017), and a feeling of being devalued by
the phubber (Vanden Abeele & Postma-Nilsenova, 2018). Individuals
who described phubbing as annoying and disrespectful reported
engaging in phubbing behavior themselves (Aagaard, 2019). With
regards to the reasons behind people's phubbing, the literature
highlighted a number of reasons, including reciprocity
(Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016) and the tendency to engage in
more than one task at the same time (Vorderer, Hefner, Reinecke, &
Klimmt, 2018).
This article synthesized the review of the literature according to
the following questions: (a) how people who experienced being
phubbed perceive those who phub them and how they perceive their
experience of being phubbed? (b) What are the reasons behind peo-
ple's phubbing? (c) What are the predictors of phubbing? (d) What is
the impact of phubbing on people? Relevant theoretical frameworks
that could underpin assumptions about phubbing behavior will be dis-
cussed as these questions are addressed throughout the article. Ave-
nues for future research will be discussed in the future research
directions section at the end of this article.
2 | PERCEPTIONS
During face-to-face conversations, individuals generally expect their
conversational partners to meet them with attentiveness and psycho-
logical availability (Burgoon & Hale, 1987). Smartphone use during
133
such conversations may signal inattentiveness and psychological dis-
tance; thereby disrupting the communication quality (Miller-Ott &
Kelly, 2015; Vanden Abeele, Antheunis, & Schouten, 2016; Vanden
Abeele & Postma-Nilsenova, 2018), reducing the sense of emotional
connection (Nakamura, 2015), and undermining perceptions of empa-
thetic concern, closeness, interpersonal trust, and the quality of con-
versation (Misra, Cheng, Genevie, & Yuan, 2014; Przybylski &
Weinstein, 2013). Few studies have been conducted to understand
individuals' perceptions toward phubbers (Kadylak et al., 2018; Miller-
Ott & Kelly, 2015, 2017). College-aged participants revealed that
smartphone usage during social interactions was rude as it violated
common courtesy; and while they said it was more acceptable in
group or informal settings, they found phubbing to be especially inap-
propriate during one-on-one interactions (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015,
2017). Older adult participants (the mean age was 71 years) found
phubbing to be offensive, breached social etiquette, and described
fewer situations where phubbing was acceptable (Kadylak et al.,
2018). Older adults appeared to be generally less lenient toward
phubbing behavior in comparison with younger adults as evidenced
by 50% of younger adults believing it was acceptable to use a
smartphone in a restaurant compared to only 26% of older adults who
held the same view (Ranie & Zickuhr, 2015).
Two theories have been used to shed light on how phubbing is
perceived: the politeness theory and expectancy violation theory
(Burgoon & Hale, 1987). According to politeness theory, phubbing
during face-to-face conversations challenges social norms of polite-
ness, which exist to protect the emotions of conversational partners
(Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2017). The act of phubbing can cause loss of face
because it violates norms of politeness (Tedeschi & Harris Bond,
2001). That is why the participants in Miller-Ott and Kelly's (2017)
study considered phubbing as offensive, and a violation of common
courtesy. Miller-Ott and Kelly (2017) explained that phubbing threat-
ened the face of the phubbees because it suggests they are boring,
not to be taken seriously, or not important enough to maintain the
phubber's attention. In line with this theory, the participants in Miller-
Ott and Kelly's (2017) study reported a number of strategies to avoid
losing face when being phubbed, such as using their own smartphone
at the same time. While Miller-Ott and Kelly's (2017) study findings
are limited because of heavy reliance on a small sample of female col-
lege students, similar concerns have been expressed by older adults
(Kadylak et al., 2018) who reported feeling ignored and unimportant
when family members phubbed them. As gender plays an important
role in the use of technology (Karada
g et al., 2015), future studies may
benefit from recruiting a larger sample of participants while ensuring
that males are adequately represented in the sample to address any
issues of generalizability of the findings.
According to expectancy violation theory, we expect certain
behaviors from people with whom we communicate, depending on
their characteristics (such as age and gender), their relationship with
us, and the context within which the communication takes place
(Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). These expectations are not necessarily
based on norms, and in more established relationships individuals may
134
develop specific expectations based on prior knowledge of the indi-
vidual (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). Within expectancy violation theory,
positive and negative values are attached to violations of expecta-
tions, determined by the behavior, and the extent to which it deviated
from expectations (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). It is argued that
phubbing behavior is not directly associated with a positive or nega-
tive value, but is instead ambiguous (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015).
Because of this, the degree to which the communicator is judged as
rewarding may play a major role in the value attached to phubbing
behavior (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). For example, being phubbed by
an individual with larger reward-value, such as an employer with high
status, may be perceived less negatively than being phubbed by some-
one with a lower reward-value.
In Miller-Ott and Kelly's (2015) study, participants revealed that
they had different expectations of their romantic partners during for-
mal dates compared to when they informally “hung-out” with each
other. Phubbing negatively violated their expectations during formal
dates, but was less of a violation in casual contexts. Similarly, being
phubbed by friends during one-on-one interactions was described as
a more negative expectancy violation than in informal settings (Miller-
Ott & Kelly, 2017). It is also clear that the negative connotations asso-
ciated with phubbing may vary with age. In Kadylak et al.’s (2018)
study, older adult participants reported that being phubbed by family
members during face-to-face interactions was offensive, signaled inat-
tention, and hindered communication quality. In contrast, college-
aged participants (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015, 2017), highlighted a num-
ber of situations where phubbing was acceptable.
3 | R E A S O N S BE H I N D
A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center has revealed that
89% of the survey participants phubbed during their last social activity
(Ranie & Zickuhr, 2015). A recent study has revealed that people phub
those who are closely related to them more frequently than those less
close to them (Al-Saggaf & MacCulloch, 2018). In a study conducted
by Roberts and David (2016), almost half of the participants reported
being phubbed by their partner. One of the reasons behind this wide-
spread phenomenon could be reciprocity. Phubbing a person may
encourage the same behavior to be reciprocated by that person
(Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016). In Miller-Ott and Kelly's
(2017) study, the participants brought up the issue of reciprocity,
explaining that if they were phubbed, they would then engage in
phubbing themselves, as part of a strategy to save face. People's
heavy reliance on smartphones, as evidenced by participants in one
study reporting spending almost 9 hr a day on their smartphones
(Roberts, Yaya, & Manolic, 2014), and the reciprocation of phubbing,
as a strategy to deal with being phubbed, may cause phubbing to
become a social norm. This is not unusual considering rapid advance-
ments in technology have been found to be a catalyst for the emer-
gence of new social norms, such as the acceptability of phubbing
(Vorderer et al., 2018).
AL-SAGGAF AND O'DONNELL
However, there could be other forces which may also drive
phubbing behavior. Compensatory internet use theory (Kardefelt-
Winther, 2014) stipulates that people attempt to reduce negative
emotions by engaging with technology (Elhai & Contractor, 2018). In
this way, individuals' excessive use of the smartphone may be an indi-
cation that they are experiencing negative emotions, such as boredom
or loneliness. Their engagement with their smartphones is used to reg-
ulate these emotions (Elhai & Contractor, 2018). This may explain the
existence of a relationship between negative emotional states, such as
loneliness, boredom, fear of missing out, and problematic smartphone
lu, Kavurmaci, & Karaman, 2016;
use (Bolkan & Griffin, 2017; Dayapog
Elhai, Levine, Dvorak, & Hall, 2016; Elhai, Vasquez, Lustgarten,
Levine, & Hall, 2017; Wegmann, Ostendorf, & Brand, 2018), which is
strongly associated with phubbing (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,
2016). With regards to the frequency of smartphone use, no relation-
ship has been found between the frequency of smartphone use and
either boredom proneness (Elhai et al., 2017) or fear of missing out
(Elhai et al., 2016) and loneliness has been found to be associated with
a decrease in the frequency of smartphone use (Jin & Park, 2010).
These findings suggest that boredom, loneliness, and fear of missing
out are more associated with phubbing and problematic smartphone
use, than with the frequency of smartphone use in general. These
findings highlight the need to study phubbing as a behavior rather
than just measuring smartphone use frequency and attitudes toward
smartphones.
The prevalence of multitasking could be another reason for
phubbing (Vorderer et al., 2018). It has been hypothesized by Miller-
Ott and Kelly (2017) that the presence of smartphones may encour-
age multitasking, that is, engaging with the smartphone while having a
face-to-face conversation at the same time (phubbing them). The
advent of smartphones seems to have propelled occurrences of multi-
tasking, including in situations such as shopping, educational settings,
and social interactions (Kenyon, 2008). But this phenomenon is not
recent with Kenyon (2008) finding, more than 10 years ago now, that
81% of her participants reported that they engage with more than
one activity at the same time when communicating with friends and
family. It makes sense that an individual's tendency to engage in more
than one task at the same time may cause that individual to engage in
phubbing others. Multitasking has been found to have adverse
effects. Multitasking is associated with impaired task performance
(Z. Wang & Tchernev, 2012) and overall negative social indicators
(Pea et al., 2012).
Uses and gratifications theory may also provide clues regarding
the reasons for phubbing. The uses and gratification theory has in the
past offered insights into the main reasons why individuals use social
media and the smartphone (Al-Saggaf, 2013; Ifinedo, 2016; Ruggiero,
2009). This theory can be extended to the context of using the
smartphone in social settings as individuals may engage in phubbing
as opposed to other alternative behaviors, such as engaging in face-
to-face conversations, because phubbing may fulfill an immediate
need or gratification for the individual. Commonly cited personal grati-
fications sought from social media use include enhanced social
AL-SAGGAF AND O'DONNELL
interaction, escapism, entertainment, and maintaining interpersonal
interconnectivity (Al-Saggaf, 2013; Ifinedo, 2016). In past research,
smartphone use has been found to be associated with sociability and
relaxation (Leung & Wei, 2000), including the relief of boredom, as
shown in individual scale items, such as “to relieve boredom,” and “to
pass time” (Leung & Wei, 2000). This may mean that the relaxation
derived from smartphone use is closely related to entertainment and
relieving boredom. Therefore, it is possible that specific factors such
as relieving boredom, sociability, and interpersonal interconnectivity
may, through the lens of the uses and gratification framework, explain
phubbing behavior. Past research has also indicated that the reason
individuals used social media and their smartphones was to satisfy the
needs of entertainment and interpersonal interconnectivity but with
the ultimate aim to reduce negative emotions such as boredom, loneli-
ness, or fear of missing out. Thus, individuals may engage in phubbing
when they are experiencing boredom, fear of missing out, or loneli-
ness, to avoid these unwanted states. These factors will be further
discussed below.
4 | P R E D I CT O R S
A number of factors have been found to predict people's use of their
smartphones while having a face-to-face conversation with others.
 et al. (2015) found that smartphone addiction, SMS addiction,
Karadag
social media addiction, internet addiction, and to some extent game
addiction, all predicted phubbing behavior. Additionally, a study by
Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2016) found that internet addiction,
fear of missing out, and lack of self-control predicted smartphone
addiction, which in turn predicted the extent to which people phub.
Al-Saggaf, MacCulloch, and Wiener (2018) have found that boredom
proneness predicted phubbing but the effect size of this predictor
was relatively small. Oduor et al.’s (2016) qualitative study also hinted
at a relationship between phubbing and boredom.
Broader personality traits may also predispose individuals to
phubbing. Openness has been found to be a negative determinant of
phubbing behavior, such that individuals high in openness are less
likely to phub (T'ng, Ho, & Low, 2018). This may reflect these individ-
uals' curiosity, as face-to-face interactions may more adequately sat-
isfy their stimulation needs compared to the restricted social
interactions via smartphones (T'ng et al., 2018). Negative emotionality
has been found to be a positive determinant of phubbing behavior,
such that individuals who are high in negative emotionality are more
likely to phub (T'ng et al., 2018). T'ng et al. (2018) suggested that this
occurs because individuals who are high in negative emotionality
engage in phubbing behavior to alleviate negative emotions. Individ-
uals high in emotional instability may also be more vulnerable to nega-
tive feedback from face-to-face interactions, which may lure them to
the insulated, more controlled, social interactions provided by
smartphone use (T'ng et al., 2018). Neuroticism was also studied and
was found to be related to phubbing via problematic Instagram use
(Balta, Emirtekin, Kircaburun, & Griffiths, 2018). Participants high in
neuroticism engaged in problematic Instagram use and this
135
problematic Instagram use in turn led to higher levels of phubbing
(Balta et al., 2018).
Conscientiousness has been found to be negatively related to
Instagram addiction, such that highly conscientious participants were
less likely to demonstrate Instagram addiction (Kircaburun & Griffiths,
2018); perhaps because highly conscientious individuals exercise more
self-discipline in their behavior, therefore decreasing their phone use.
There was also a negative relationship between agreeableness and
Instagram addiction (Kircaburun & Griffiths, 2018), perhaps because
individuals high in agreeableness are likely to be more conscious
about how their phone use impacts the individuals around them,
thereby decreasing their phone use. Agreeableness and conscientious-
ness have been found to be negatively correlated with overall internet
addiction (Zhou, Li, Li, Wang, & Zhao, 2017). As addictions to
smartphones, internet and social media have been found to be the
main predictors of phubbing behavior (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,
2016; T'ng et al., 2018), it was expected that agreeableness and con-
scientiousness would also predict phubbing. However, no relationship
has been found between phubbing and conscientiousness or agree-
ableness (T'ng et al., 2018).
Phubbing may also be related to broader personality constella-
tions, such as narcissism. Narcissistic traits are correlated with low
agreeableness (Miller et al., 2010; Miller, Gaughan, Maples, & Price,
2011), which has been found to be correlated with smartphone-
related addictions, including Instagram (Kircaburun & Griffiths, 2018)
and internet addictions (Zhou et al., 2017). Considering smartphone
and internet addictions are main predictors of phubbing
(Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016; T'ng et al., 2018), it is expected
that narcissistic traits would be associated with technological addic-
tions, and problematic smartphone use. In line with this, past research
has found a relationship between narcissism and excessive Facebook
use (Błachnio & Przepiórka, 2018) and another between narcissism
and smartphone addiction (Pearson & Hussain, 2015). Individuals who
possessed narcissistic traits demonstrated higher levels of problematic
social media and smartphone use. However, despite the apparent role
of narcissism in the use of technology, research is still absent con-
cerning the role of narcissism in phubbing.
5 | IMPACTS
A number of studies have focused on the impact of phubbing on peo-
ple (see, e.g., Halpern & Katz, 2017; Krasnova et al., 2016; McDaniel &
Coyne, 2016; Roberts & David, 2016; X. Wang et al., 2017). Phubbing
has been found to have detrimental effects on relationships (David &
Roberts, 2017). A recent study has revealed that people phub more
frequently those who are closely related to them than those less close
to them (Al-Saggaf & MacCulloch, 2018). However, past research has
focused mainly on the impact of phubbing on partners (Roberts &
David, 2016; X. Wang et al., 2017), with the impact of phubbing on
other close relatives, such as children, parents and siblings, receiving
less attention.
136
Phubbed partners reported heightened feelings of jealousy
(Krasnova et al., 2016) and lack of intimacy with their partners
(Halpern & Katz, 2017). Phubbing partners have been found to lower
relationship satisfaction (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). Cho-
tpitayasunondh and Douglas (2018) have also found that phubbing
decreases relationship satisfaction. The inverse relationship between
partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction was not only reported
by American participants (Roberts & David, 2016) but also by Chinese
participants (X. Wang et al., 2017). Phubbing partners have been
found to lead to depressive symptoms (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016).
X. Wang et al. (2017) has also found that partner phubbing is posi-
tively associated with depression. Overall, phubbing has been found
to have a negative impact on relationship quality (Halpern & Katz,
2017; Roberts & David, 2016; X. Wang et al., 2017) as it often
resulted in smartphone-related conflicts (Halpern & Katz, 2017; Rob-
erts & David, 2016).
In the workplace, phubbing has been found to have a negative
impact on employee engagement and supervisory trust (Roberts &
David, 2017). Phubbing undermined supervisory trust which in turn
lowered employee engagement via the psychological conditions of
meaningfulness and availability (Roberts & David, 2017). Similarly, col-
leagues who phub are perceived as uncivil, and are less trusted
(Cameron & Webster, 2011). Overall, being phubbed is negatively cor-
related with life satisfaction and mood (David & Roberts, 2017; Rob-
erts & David, 2016; X. Wang et al., 2017). Phubbing is also perceived
negatively because it often results in lowered interpersonal evalua-
tions (Misra et al., 2014; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013; Vanden
Abeele et al., 2016).
Phubbing has also been found to have a negative impact on con-
versation quality (Vanden Abeele et al., 2016), feelings of connected-
ness, empathetic concern (Misra et al., 2014), and emotional
connection (Nakamura, 2015). Phubbing negatively impacted the con-
versation between the phubber and the phubbee. When phubbing
occurs during a conversation, the phubbee reported feeling less con-
nected and judged the quality of the conversation as poor
(Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). In a series of experiments conducted
by Vanden Abeele et al. (2016), when a newly introduced conversa-
tion partner engaged in phubbing behaviors, they were rated as less
polite and attentive, and participants rated the overall quality of the
conversation as poor compared to participants in conversations where
phubbing did not occur. In fact, the mere presence of a smartphone
during a conversation has been found to diminish perceived closeness,
connection, and trust in one's partner (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013).
Displacement theory (X. Wang et al., 2017) may explain how
phubbing impacts the relationship. According to this theory, time
spent on smartphones displaces meaningful interactions between the
relationship partners, which affects the relationship quality, ultimately
lowering the relationship satisfaction. In Miller-Ott and Kelly's (2015)
study, the college student participants expected undivided attention
when on formal dates with their partners but the smartphone
prevented their partners from giving them undivided attention.
Longer-term impacts of phubbing on relationships have also been
studied albeit to a lesser extent. Phubbing one's intimate partner over
AL-SAGGAF AND O'DONNELL
time correlated with weakening the bond between couples (Roberts &
David, 2016) and reducing the relationship satisfaction, which in turn
increased the rates of depression (X. Wang et al., 2017). While an
association between phubbing and long-term relationship quality has
been established, this association is only correlative (Halpern & Katz,
2017; Roberts & David, 2016; X. Wang et al., 2017). That is, the asso-
ciation between phubbing and long-term relationship quality is not
causative. It is possible that a poorer quality relationship is instead
causing the increase in phubbing between romantic partners, or that
an external factor, such as depression, is driving the increase in both
the phubbing and the relationship dissatisfaction, which X. Wang
et al. (2017) have found.
6 | F U T U R E RE S E A R C H D I R E C T I O N S
The review of the literature has revealed that while the intimate part-
ners' and friends' perceptions of those who phub them have been
described in Miller-Ott and Kelly's (2015, 2017) studies, little is known
regarding how the “phubbed” perceive those who phub them, how do
they experience being phubbed and how phubbers perceive the
behavior of phubbing others. There is also no study that has investi-
gated, from a sociological perspective, the reasons behind people's
phubbing and while a number of psychological predictors have been
investigated, such as internet addiction, fear of missing out, and lack
of self-control (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016), the roles of
state loneliness, narcissism, and state boredom in phubbing have not
been looked into yet. Moreover, much of the research on the impact
of phubbing has focused on romantic partners (Roberts & David,
2016) and a few on employees in the workplace (Roberts & David,
2017). Till now, little is known in terms of the impact of phubbing on
family members, such as parents, children, and siblings. Also, few stud-
ies in the literature about phubbing have adopted theoretical frame-
works that could aid with interpreting the findings highlighting an
apparent need for theorizing about this phenomenon. Further
research is needed to address these gaps in the literature. We propose
the use of qualitative interviews, preferably as part of a phenomeno-
logical study. A qualitative study will offer rich descriptions of the per-
ceptions of both the ‘phubbed’ and the ‘phubber’ as well as the
reasons behind people's phubbing. Moreover, employing qualitative
interviews to understand why people phub, may uncover new predic-
tors of phubbing behavior.
Similarly, phubbing habits have been researched mainly through
surveys (Ranie & Zickuhr, 2015; Ugur & Koc, 2015) and focus group
discussions (Kadylak et al., 2018). We believe semi-structured inter-
views offer another alternative for understanding the habits of
phubbing behavior. In a similar vein, while the impacts of phubbing on
conversational and relationship quality have been extensively studied
using mainly survey and experimental designs (Chotpitayasunondh &
Douglas, 2018; Misra et al., 2014; Nakamura, 2015; Przybylski &
Weinstein, 2013; Roberts & David, 2016; Vanden Abeele et al., 2016;
X. Wang et al., 2017), the research regarding overt attitudes toward
phubbing, especially using qualitative research methods, is limited.
AL-SAGGAF AND O'DONNELL
We believe unobtrusive observation has the potential of discovering
overt attitudes toward phubbing.
The relationship between phubbing and negative emotional states,
such as internet addiction, fear of missing out, and lack of self-control
(Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016) has been extensively studied,
predominately through the use of surveys. Future research may bene-
fit from adopting controlled experiments that take into account the
effect of variables that have not been examined before, such as state
boredom, state loneliness, and narcissism.
The research on the connection between phubbing and relation-
ship quality has mainly employed surveys and generated correlative
associations (Halpern & Katz, 2017; Roberts & David, 2016; X. Wang
et al., 2017). Experimental design studies, which are scarce in this
field, are needed to establish a causative relationship between
phubbing and relationship quality. Vanden Abeele et al. (2016), one of
the few who conducted experiments, found that phubbing decreased
conversation quality. A number of studies on phubbing have been
conducted to investigate the immediate impact of phubbing on social
interactions (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; Vanden Abeele
et al., 2016; Vanden Abeele & Postma-Nilsenova, 2018). Longitudinal
studies that should examine phubbing behavior over a longer period
of time, are necessary to investigate the impact of phubbing on rela-
tionship quality in the long term.
The same can be said about the research into the relationship
between multitasking and long-term wellbeing. That is, the current
research on the long-term impacts of multitasking has mainly generated
correlative associations. Experimental design studies are needed to estab-
lish a causative relationship between media multitasking and long-term
wellbeing. Further, while it makes sense that an individual's tendency to
engage in more than one task at the same time may cause that individual
to engage in phubbing others, this relationship is yet to be examined.
7 | C O NC L U D I N G R E M A R K S
The advent of smartphones and their impact on social interactions have
caught the interest of many researchers. This is not surprising, consider-
ing the substantial amount of time people spend on their smartphones,
with research suggesting individuals spend as many as 9 hr a day on
their smartphone (Roberts et al., 2014). A specific area of interest within
this field is phubbing, which occurs when individuals engage with their
smartphone during face-to-face interactions instead of paying attention
to their conversation partners. In some cases, individuals phub to avoid
 et al., 2015).
the interpersonal interaction (Karadag
It is evident that phubbing behavior is an increasingly normalized
occurrence in social interactions, which has both immediate and long-
term negative implications, such as poorer conversation quality and
weaker interpersonal connections (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,
2018; Nakamura, 2015; Vanden Abeele et al., 2016), alongside
reduced relationship satisfaction and depression (Halpern & Katz,
2017; Roberts & David, 2016; X. Wang et al., 2017). The prevalence
of phubbing behavior and its negative impacts makes it necessary to
continue to research what drives such behavior. This may reveal
137
effective strategies through which phubbing, and its negative implica-
tions, can be addressed.
As the research on phubbing evolves, areas in need of further
research become apparent. In investigating attitudes toward those
who phub, researchers have used surveys (Roberts & David, 2017),
experiments (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; Vanden Abeele
et al., 2016), and qualitative methods (Kadylak et al., 2018; Miller-
Ott & Kelly, 2015, 2017). This broad expanse of research has led to a
better understanding of how individuals perceive phubbers. However,
other areas of research into phubbing, such how phubbers perceive
the phubbing of others and what are their reasons for phubbing, did
not enjoy the same attention.
Research into phubbing has mainly generated correlative associa-
tions. For example, a correlation between phubbing and poorer long-
term relationship quality has been found (Halpern & Katz, 2017; Rob-
erts & David, 2016; X. Wang et al., 2017), yet a causality could not be
established. Similarly, a correlation between long-term impacts of mul-
titasking and wellbeing has been established (Pea et al., 2012), but
again this was just a correlation. Experimental research is vital in this
domain to verify the direction of these relationships. For example,
studying phubbing behavior over a longer period of time may be nec-
essary to establish a causal relationship between phubbing and long-
term relationship quality.
Utilization of qualitative methods, such as interviews, is also neces-
sary to uncover predictors, which have not been previously investigated,
and achieve a better understanding of the impacts of phubbing. In a sim-
ilar vein, while a number of studies have examined the impact of
phubbing on conversational and relationship quality
(Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; Misra et al., 2014; Nakamura,
2015; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013; Roberts & David, 2016; Vanden
Abeele et al., 2016; X. Wang et al., 2017), research into overt attitudes
toward phubbing is limited but needed, to gain insights into how this
phenomenon manifests itself in real life.
Finally, age and gender have been found to play a significant role
in phubbing behavior (Al-Saggaf & MacCulloch, 2018; Kadylak et al.,
 et al., 2015; Ranie & Zickuhr, 2015). But more women
2018; Karadag
have been recruited than men (see, e.g., Chotpitayasunondh & Doug-
las, 2018; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2017; Ugur & Koc, 2015; Vanden Abeele
et al., 2016). This may influence the generalizability of the research
findings from these studies to the overall population. For example, if
female participants tended to phub more (Kadylak et al., 2018; Ranie &
Zickuhr, 2015), this may lead to an overestimation of the occurrence
of phubbing behavior.
AC KNOW LEDG EME NT S
The financial support was provided by Charles Sturt University.
CONFLIC T OF INT ER E ST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that may be
perceived as prejudicing the neutrality of the research reported.
138
ORCID
Yeslam Al-Saggaf https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7299-5578
RE FE R ENC E S
Aagaard, J. (2019). Digital akrasia: A qualitative study of phubbing.AI &
Society, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00876-0
Al-Saggaf, Y. (2013, November 8–10). Arabs motives for using new media: A
uses and gratifications perspective. Proceedings of the Fourth Asian
Conference on Media & Mass Communication (MediAsia2013), Osaka,
Japan, 71–81.
Al-Saggaf, Y., & MacCulloch, R. (2018, December 13–16). Phubbing: How
Frequent? Who is Phubbed? In Which Situation? And Using Which Apps?
Proceedings of the Thirty Ninth International Conference on Informa-
tion Systems (ICIS), San Francisco, 1–9. AISNET.
Al-Saggaf, Y., MacCulloch, R., & Wiener, K. (2018). Trait boredom is a pre-
dictor of phubbing frequency.Journal of Technology in Behavioral Sci-
ence, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-018-0080-4
Bachmann, A., Becker, A., Buerckner, D., Hilker, M., Kock, F., Lehmann, M.,
… Funk, B. (2011). Online peer-to-peer lending-a literature review.
Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 16(2), 1.
Balta, S., Emirtekin, E., Kircaburun, K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Neuroti-
cism, trait fear of missing out, and phubbing: The mediating role of
state fear of missing out and problematic Instagram use.International
Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11469-018-9959-8
Błachnio, A., & Przepiórka, A. (2018). Facebook intrusion, fear of missing
out, narcissism, and life satisfaction: A cross-sectional study.Psychiatry
Research, 259, 514–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.
11.012
Bolkan, S., & Griffin, D. J. (2017). Students' use of cell phones in class for
off-task behaviors: The indirect impact of instructors' teaching behav-
iors through boredom and students' attitudes.Communication Educa-
tion, 66(3), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.
1241888
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fun-
damental themes of relational communication.Communication Mono-
graphs, 54(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758709390214
Cameron, A.-F., & Webster, J. (2011). Relational outcomes of multi-
communicating: Integrating incivility and social exchange perspectives.
Organization Science, 22(3), 754–771. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.
1100.0540
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
Coehoorn, M. (2014). Phubbing? An absurd design interventionfor redefining
smart-phone usage. Unpublished Master Thesis. TU Delft.
Davey, S., Davey, A., Raghav, S. K., Singh, J. V., Singh, N., Blanchio, A., &
Przepiorkaa, A. (2017). Predictors and consequences of “Phubbing”
among adolescents and youth in India: An impact evaluation study
Sanjeev.Journal of Family and Community Medicine, 24(1), 102–105.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM
David, M. E., & Roberts, J. A. (2017). Phubbed and alone: Phone snubbing,
social exclusion, and attachment to social media.Journal of the Associa-
tion for Consumer Research, 2(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1086/
690940
Dayapoglu, N., Kavurmaci, M., & Karaman, S. (2016). The relationship
between the problematic Mobile phone use and life satisfaction, lone-
liness, and academic performance in nursing students.International
AL-SAGGAF AND O'DONNELL
Journal of Caring Sciences, 9(2), 2–647. Retrieved from www.inter-
nationaljournalofcaringsciences.org.
Elhai, J. D., & Contractor, A. A. (2018). Examining latent classes of
smartphone users: Relations with psychopathology and problematic
smartphone use.Computers in Human Behavior, 82, 159–166. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.010
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing
out, need for touch, anxiety and depression are related to problematic
smartphone use.Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 509–516. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.079
Elhai, J. D., Vasquez, J. K., Lustgarten, S. D., Levine, J. C., & Hall, B. J.
(2017). Proneness to boredom mediates relationships between prob-
lematic smartphone use with depression and anxiety severity.Social
Science Computer Review, 36, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0894439317741087
Franchina, V., Vanden Abeele, M., van Rooij, A. J., Lo Coco, G., & De
Marez, L. (2018). Fear of missing out as a predictor of problematic
social media use and phubbing behavior among Flemish adolescents.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15
(10), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102319
Guazzini, A., Duradoni, M., Capelli, A., & Meringolo, P. (2019). An explor-
ative model to assess individuals' phubbing risk.Future Internet, 11(21),
1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11010021
Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2017). Texting's consequences for romantic rela-
tionships: A crossed-lagged analysis highlights its risks.Computers in
Human Behavior, 71, 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.
01.051
Ifinedo, P. (2016). Applying uses and gratifications theory and social influ-
ence processes to understand students' pervasive adoption of social
networking sites: Perspectives from the Americas.International Journal
of Information Management, 36(2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.007
Jin, B., & Park, N. (2010). In-person contact begets calling and texting:
Interpersonal motives for cell phone use, face-to-face interaction, and
loneliness.Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(6),
611–618. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0314
Kadylak, T., Makki, T. W., Francis, J., Cotten, S. R., Rikard, R. V., & Sah, Y. J.
(2018). Disrupted copresence: Older adults' views on mobile phone
use during face-to-face interactions.Mobile Media & Communication, 6
(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157918758129
Karadag , E., Tosuntaş , Ş. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Şahin, B. M., …
Babadag , B. (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of
many virtual addictions: A structural equation model.Journal of Behav-
ioral Addictions, 4(2), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.
2015.005
Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and methodological critique of
internet addiction research: Towards a model of compensatory inter-
net use.Computers in Human Behavior, 31(1), 351–354. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059
Kenyon, S. (2008). Internet use and time use: The importance of multitask-
ing.Time & Society, 17(3), 283–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0961463X08093426
Kircaburun, K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Instagram addiction and the big
five of personality: The mediating role of self-liking.Journal of Behav-
ioral Addictions, 7(1), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.
2018.15
Krasnova, H., Abramova, O., Notter, I., & Baumann, A. (2016). Why
phubbing is toxic for yourrelationship: Understanding the role of
smartphone jealousy among “generationY” users. In ECIS 2016 Proceeding
(p. 109). Association for Information System, (April).
Leung, L., & Wei, R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: Uses and
gratifications of the cellular phone.Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 77, 308–320.
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference
of technology in couple relationships and implications for women's
AL-SAGGAF AND O'DONNELL
personal and relational well-being.Psychology of Popular Media Culture,
5(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000065
Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K.
(2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psy-
chopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder.
Journal of Personality, 78(5), 1529–1564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-6494.2010.00660.x
Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., Maples, J., & Price, J. (2011). A comparison of
agreeableness scores from the big five inventory and the neo PI-R:
Consequences for the study of narcissism and psychopathy.Assess-
ment, 18(3), 335–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111411671
Miller-Ott, A. E., & 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
Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J., & Yuan, M. (2014). The iPhone effect: The
quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile
devices.Environment and Behavior, 48(2), 275–298.
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.
Nakamura, T. (2015). The action of looking at a mobile phone display as
nonverbal behavior/communication: A theoretical perspective.Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 43, 68–75.
Oduor, E., Neustaedter, C., Odom, W., Tang, A., Moallem, N., Tory, M., &
Irani, P. (2016). The frustrations and benefits of mobile device usage in
thehome whenco-present with family members. Proceedings of the
2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems DIS, 16,
1315–1327. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901809
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., …
Zhou, M. (2012). Media use, face-to-face communication, media multi-
tasking, and social well-being among 8- to 12-year-old girls.Develop-
mental Psychology, 48(2), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0027030
Pearson, C., & Hussain, Z. (2015). Smartphone use, addiction, narcissism,
and personality.International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and
Learning, 5(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcbpl.2015010102
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 Rela-
tionships, 30(3), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407512453827
Ranie, L., & Zickuhr, K. (2015). Americans' views on mobile etiquette.
Washington, DC: Pew Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/americans-views-on-mobile-etiquette/.
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distrac-
tion from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfac-
tion among romantic partners.Computers in Human Behavior, 54,
134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2017). Put down your phone and listen to
me: How boss phubbing undermines the psychological conditions nec-
essary for employee engagement.Computers in Human Behavior, 75,
206–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.021
Roberts, J. A., Yaya, L., & Manolic, C. (2014). The invisible addiction: Cell-
phone activities and addiction among male and female college stu-
dents.Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(4), 254–265. https://doi.org/
10.1556/JBA.3.2014.015
Ruggiero, T. E. (2009). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century.
Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327825MCS0301_02
Tedeschi, J. T., & Harris Bond, M. (2001). Aversive behavior and aggression
in cultural perspective. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive
139
behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 257–293). Washington, DC:
American Psychology Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15298868.2010.517029
T'ng, S. T., Ho, K. H., & Low, S. K. (2018). Are you “phubbing” me? The
determinants of phubbing behavior and assessment of measurement
invariance across sex differences.International and Multidisciplinary
Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 159. https://doi.org/10.17583/rimcis.
2018.3318
Ugur, N. G., & Koc, T. (2015). Time for digital detox: Misuse of mobile
technology and phubbing.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
195, 1022–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.491
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., Antheunis, M. L., & Schouten, A. P. (2016). The
effect of mobile messaging during a conversation on impression for-
mation 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., & 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
Vorderer, P., Hefner, D., Reinecke, L., & Klimmt, C. (2018). Permanently
online, permanently connected: Living and communicating in a POPC
world (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wang, X., Xie, X., Wang, Y., Wang, P., & Lei, L. (2017). Partner phubbing
and depression among married Chinese adults: The roles of relation-
ship satisfaction and relationship length.Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 110, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.014
Wang, Z., & Tchernev, J. (2012). The “myth” of media multitasking: Recip-
rocal dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifica-
tions.Journal of Communication, 62, 493–513.
Wegmann, E., Ostendorf, S., & Brand, M. (2018). Is it beneficial to use
Internet-communication for escaping from boredom? Boredom prone-
ness interacts with cue-induced craving and avoidance expectancies in
explaining symptoms of Internet-communication disorder.PLoS One,
13(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195742
Zhou, Y., Li, D., Li, X., Wang, Y., & Zhao, L. (2017). Big five personality and
adolescent internet addiction: The mediating role of coping style.
Addictive Behaviors, 64, 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.
2016.08.009
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Yeslam Al-Saggaf is an Associate Professor in
Information Technology in the School of
Computing and Mathematics. He has been an
academic at Charles Sturt University since
2003 and has been successful in the presti-
gious Australian Research Council (ARC)
grants three times so far including in one as
the Lead Chief Investigator. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering
degree (with honours) from Malaysia and a Master of Information
Technology and a PhD from Charles Sturt University, Australia.
His research interests lie in the areas of social media and ethics in
computing. He has published more than 80 papers in those areas.
His current research project focusses on the predictors of
phubbing behaviour. For more information about his work please
visit this page: https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=
lkK68nCKH7cC&hl.
140
Sarah O'Donnell is a research assistant
employed by Charles Sturt University, and
lives in Sydney, Australia. Sarah is presently
involved in researching the role of
smartphones in social behaviour, with a spe-
cial interest in phubbing. Specifically, she is
currently investigating the factors that drive
people to use their phone during face-to-face conversations. Prior
to this, Sarah completed her studies in a Bachelor of Psychology
(Honours) with Charles Sturt University in Wagga Wagga;
AL-SAGGAF AND O'DONNELL
graduating with first class honours and the 2018 APS Prize in Psy-
chology. Sarah's honours project focussed on the impacts of child-
hood environment on adult cognition.
How to cite this article: Al-Saggaf Y, O'Donnell SB.
Phubbing: Perceptions, reasons behind, predictors, and
impacts. Hum Behav & Emerg Tech. 2019;1:132–140. https://
doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.137