Previous research has shown that phubbing (phone snubbing) negatively impacts the quality of social interaction and undermines connectedness between interaction partners. Furthermore, studies indicate that feelings of connection to others are vital to fostering empathy, which in turn is an important facet of prosociality. The current investigation explores whether this effect extends to one’s inclination to act in a pro-social manner, as well as the mediating roles of empathy and self-control. Two studies, one correlational (Study 1, N = 220) and one experimental (Study 2, N = 362) show that phubbing negatively predicts empathy, which in turn negatively impacts prosociality. Self-control was a significant mediator in the correlational design, but not in the experimental design, suggesting that repeated occurrences of phubbing, but not momentary ones, are negatively associated with self-control. The findings expand upon existing literature by providing information regarding the effects of phubbing on the person engaging in phubbing, rather than the recipient, as well as provide insights into the underlying mechanism.
AkatM.ArslanC.HamartaE. (2022). Dark triad personality and phubbing: The mediator role of FoMO. Psychological Reports, 126(4), 1803–1821. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941221109119
3.
AljasirS. (2022). Present but absent in the digital age: Testing a conceptual model of phubbing and relationship satisfaction among married couples. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1402751
4.
Al-SaggafY.O’DonnellS. B. (2019). Phubbing: Perceptions, reasons behind, predictors, and impacts. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.137
5.
ArmitageC. J.ConnerM. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour : A meta-Analytic review. The British Psychological Society, 40(Pt 4), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
6.
BaiQ.LeiL.HsuehF. H.YuX.HuH.WangX.WangP. (2020). Parent-adolescent congruence in phubbing and adolescents’ depressive symptoms: A moderated polynomial regression with response surface analyses. Journal of Affective Disorders, 275(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.156
7.
BarghJ. A.ChenM.BurrowsL. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.2.230
8.
BarkerM. E.CrowfootG.KingJ. (2022). Empathy development and volunteering for undergraduate healthcare students: A scoping review. Nurse Education Today, 116(2), Article 105441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105441
BatsonC. D.EarlyS.SalvaraniG. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297237008
11.
BatsonC. D.EklundJ. H.ChermokV. L.HoytJ. L.OrtizB. G. (2007). An additional antecedent of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.65
12.
BatsonC. D.PowellA. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In WeinerI. B. (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 463–484). Wiley & Sons, Inc.
13.
BatsonC. D.ThompsonE. R.ChenH. (2002). Moral hypocrisy: Addressing some alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.330
BaumsteigerR.SiegelJ. T. (2019). Measuring prosociality: The development of a prosocial behavioral intentions scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1411918
16.
BlackhartG. C.BaumeisterR. F.TwengeJ. M. (2006). Rejection's impact on self-defeating, prosocial, antisocial, and self-regulatory behaviors. In VohsK. D.FinkelE. J. (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 237–253). The Guilford Press.
ButterworthJ. W.FinleyA. J.BaldwinC. L.KelleyN. J. (2022). Self-control mediates age-related differences in psychological distress. Personality and Individual Differences, 184(1), Article 111137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111137
19.
BüttnerC. M.GlosterA. T.GreifenederR. (2022). Your phone ruins our lunch: Attitudes, norms, and valuing the interaction predict phone use and phubbing in dyadic social interactions. Mobile Media & Communication, 10(3), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579211059914
20.
CameronA. F.WebsterJ. (2011). Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: Integrating incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organization Science, 22(3), 754–771. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0540
21.
CarlsonR. W.AdkinsC.CrockettM. J.ClarkM. S. (2022). Psychological selfishness. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(5), 1359–1380. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211045692
ChenS.Lee-ChaiA. Y.BarghJ. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.S0.2.173
25.
Chernyak‐HaiL.HalabiS. (2018). Future time perspective and interpersonal empathy: Implications for preferring autonomy‐versus dependency‐oriented helping. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(4), 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12260
26.
ChotpitayasunondhV.DouglasK. 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
27.
ChotpitayasunondhV.DouglasK. 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
28.
CikaraM.BruneauE. G.SaxeR. R. (2011). Us and them: Intergroup failures of empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411408713
29.
ConnerM.NormanP. (2022). Understanding the intention-behavior gap: The role of intention strength. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(August), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923464
CourtrightJ. A.CaplanS. E. (2020). A meta-analysis of mobile phone use and presence. Human Communication & Technology, 1(2), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.17161/hct.v1i2.13412
32.
CramptonS. M.WagnerJ. A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.79.1.67
33.
DangJ.BarkerP.BaumertA.BentvelzenM.BerkmanE.BuchholzN.BucznyJ.ChenZ.De CristofaroV.de VriesL.DewitteS.GiacomantonioM.GongR.HomanM.ImhoffR.IsmailI.JiaL.KubiakT.LangeF.ZinkernagelA. (2021). A Multilab replication of the ego depletion effect. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619887702
34.
de RidderD. T. D.Lensvelt-MuldersG.FinkenauerC.StokF. M.BaumeisterR. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311418749
35.
DeWallC. N.BaumeisterR. F.gailliotM. T.ManerJ. K. (2008). Depletion makes the heart grow less helpful: Helping as a function of self-regulatory energy and genetic relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1653–1662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208323981
36.
DotyD. H.GlickW. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 374–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819814002
37.
DovidioJ. F.PiliavinJ. A.SchroederD. A.PennerL. A. (2017). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
38.
EisenbergN. (2010). Empathy-related responding: Links with self-regulation, moral judgment, and moral behavior. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 129–148). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12061-007
39.
EkmanP. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. Times books.
40.
EkmanP. (2014). Approaches to emotion. Psychology Press.
41.
ErzenE.OdaciH.Yeniçeriİ. (2021). Phubbing: Which personality traits are Prone to phubbing?Social Science Computer Review, 39(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319847415
42.
FinkelJ.KrugerD. J. (2012). Is cell phone use socially contagious?Human Ethology Bulletin, 27(1-2), 15–17. https://doi.org/10.22330/001c.89854
43.
FiskeS. T.DépretE. (1996). Control, interdependence and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. European Review of Social Psychology, 7(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000094
44.
FortunatiL. (2002). The mobile phone: Towards new categories and social relations1. Information, Communication & Society, 5(4), 513–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180208538803
45.
FrackowiakM.HilpertP.RussellP. S. (2024). Impact of partner phubbing on negative emotions: A daily diary study of mitigating factors. Current Psychology, 43(2), 1835–1854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04401-x
46.
FrazierM. L.TupperC. (2018). Supervisor prosocial motivation, employee thriving, and helping behavior: A trickle-down model of psychological safety. Group and Organization Management, 43(4), 561–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116653911
47.
FrieseM.LoschelderD. D.GieselerK.FrankenbachJ.InzlichtM. (2019). Is ego depletion real? An analysis of arguments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318762183
48.
GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.MageeJ. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453
49.
GrazianoW. G.HabashiM. M.SheeseB. E.TobinR. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person x situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583
50.
HaddenB. W.SmithC. V.KneeC. R. (2014). The way I make you feel: How relatedness and compassionate goals promote partner’s relationship satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.858272
HalaliE.Bereby-MeyerY.MeiranN. (2014). Between self-interest and reciprocity: The social bright side of self-control failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 745–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033824
53.
HalesA. H.DvirM.WesselmannE. D.KrugerD. J.FinkenauerC. (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
54.
HalpernD.KatzJ. E. (2017). Texting’s consequences for romantic relationships: A cross-lagged analysis highlights its risks. Computers in Human Behavior, 71(1), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.051
55.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
56.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis (Second). Guilford Press.
57.
HitchamL.JacksonH.Je JamesR. (2023). The relationship between smartphone use and smartphone addiction: An examination of logged and self-reported behavior in a pre-registered, two-wave sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 146(2), Article 107822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107822
58.
JavakhishviliM.VazsonyiA. T. (2022). Empathy, self-control, callous-unemotionality, and delinquency: Unique and shared developmental antecedents. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 53(2), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-021-01137-2
59.
KaradaǧE.TosuntaşŞ. B.ErzenE.DuruP.BostanN.ŞahinB. M.ÇulhaI.BabadaǧB. (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A structural equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.005
60.
KulkarniS. P.HudsonT.RamamoorthyN.MarchevA.Georgieva-KondakovaP.GorskovV. (2010). Dimensions of individualism-collectivism: A comparative study of five cultures. Current Issues of Business and Law, 5, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.5200/1822-9530.2010.03
61.
LatifaR.MumtazE. F.SubchiI. (2019). Psychological explanation of phubbing behavior: Smartphone addiction, emphaty and self control. In 2019 7th international conference on cyber and IT service management, CITSM 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/CITSM47753.2019.8965376
62.
LeeM.MurphyK.AndrewsG. (2019). Using media while interacting face-to-face is associated with psychosocial well-being and personality traits. Psychological Reports, 122(3), 944–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118770357
63.
Lotz-SchmittK.SiemB.StürmerS. (2017). Empathy as a motivator of dyadic helping across group boundaries: The dis-inhibiting effect of the recipient’s perceived benevolence. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 20(2), 233–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215612218
ManerJ. K.DeWallC. N.BaumeisterR. F.SchallerM. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42
66.
McDougallW. (1908). The principal instincts and the primary emotions of man. In An introduction to social psychology (pp. 45–89). Methuen & Co.
Miller-OttA. E.KellyL. (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
69.
Miller-OttA. E.KellyL. (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
70.
MisraS.ChengL.GenevieJ.YuanM. (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
71.
MuravenM. (2010). Building self-control strength: Practicing self-control leads to improved self-control performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 465–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.011
72.
NakamuraT. (2015). The action of looking at a mobile phone display as nonverbal behavior/communication: A theoretical perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmr.2015.07.012
73.
NazirT.PişkinM. (2016). Phubbing: A technological invasion which connected the world but disconnected humans. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(4), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.25215/0403
74.
NewmanD.LewandowskyS.MayoR. (2022). Believing in nothing and believing in everything: The underlying cognitive paradox of anti-COVID-19 vaccine attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 189(8), Article 111522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111522
75.
NiuG.YaoL.WuL.TianY.XuL.SunX. (2020). Parental phubbing and adolescent problematic mobile phone use: The role of parent-child relationship and self-control. Children and Youth Services Review, 116(July), Article 105247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105247
76.
NuñezT. R.RadtkeT.EimlerS. C. (2020). A third-person perspective on phubbing: Observing smartphone-induced social exclusion generates negative affect, stress, and derogatory attitudes. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 14(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2020-3-3
77.
OlsonJ. A.SandraD. A.ColucciÉ. S.Al BikaiiA.ChmoulevitchD.NahasJ.RazA.VeissièreS. P. (2022). Smartphone addiction is increasing across the world: A meta-analysis of 24 countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 129(1), Article 107138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107138
78.
OrganD. W.PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage.
79.
Parmaksizİ. (2021). Relationships between phubbing and the five factor personality traits. Kastamonu Education Journal, 29(4), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.795620
80.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
81.
PorterC. O. L. H.OutlawR.GaleJ. P.ChoT. S. (2019). The use of online panel data in management research: A review and recommendations. Journal of Management, 45(1), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318811569
82.
PowellP. A.RobertsJ. (2017). Situational determinants of cognitive, affective, and compassionate empathy in naturalistic digital interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.024
83.
PrzybylskiA. K.WeinsteinN. (2012). 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
RobertsJ. A.DavidM. 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(1), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058
86.
RobertsJ. A.DavidM. E. (2020). Boss phubbing, trust, job satisfaction and employee performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 155(4), Article 109702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109702
87.
RossM. Q.CampbellS. W. (2021). Thinking and feeling through mobile media and communication: A review of cognitive and affective implications. Review of Communication Research, 9(4), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.031
88.
RothbaumF.WeiszJ. R.SnyderS. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.5
89.
Sanz de Acedo LizarragaM. L.UgarteM. D.Cardelle-ElawarM.IriarteM. D.Sanz de Acedo BaquedanoM. T. (2003). Enhancement of self-regulation, assertiveness, and empathy. Learning and Instruction, 13(4), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00026-9
90.
Schmidt-BaradT.UzielL. (2020). When (state and trait) powers collide: Effects of power-incongruence and self-control on prosocial behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 162(2), Article 110009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110009
91.
SpectorP. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research. Truth or urban legend?Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284955
92.
SunJ.SampJ. A. (2021). ‘Phubbing is happening to you’: Examining predictors and effects of phubbing behaviour in friendships. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(12), 2691–2704. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1943711
93.
TangneyJ. P.BaumeisterR. F.BooneA. L. (2004). High self control predicts good adjustment, less pathokogy, better grades. and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
TwengeJ. M.BaumeisterR. F.DeWallC. N.CiaroccoN. J.BartelsJ. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56
96.
UzielL.HefetzU. (2014). The selfish side of self-control. European Journal of Personality, 28(5), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1972
97.
UzielL.SeemannM.Schmidt-BaradT. (2019). From being alone to being the only one: Neuroticism is associated with an egocentric shift in an alone context. Journal of Personality, 88(2), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12494
98.
Vanden AbeeleM. M. P. (2020). The social consequences of phubbing: A framework and a research agenda. In LingR.GogginG.FortunatiL.LimS. S.LiY. (Eds.), Handbook of mobile communication, culture, and information (pp. 157–174). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190864385.013.11
99.
Vanden AbeeleM. M. P.HendricksonA.PollmannM. M.LingR. (2019). Phubbing behavior in conversations and its relation to perceived conversation intimacy and distraction: An exploratory observation study. Computers in Human Behavior, 100(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.004
100.
Vanden AbeeleM. M. P.Postma-NilsenovaM. (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
101.
VohsK. D.SchmeichelB. J.LohmannS.GronauQ. F.FinleyA. J.AinsworthS. E.AlquistJ. L.BakerM. D.BriziA.BunyiA.ButschekG. J.CampbellC.CapaldiJ.CauC.ChambersH.ChatzisarantisN. L. D.ChristensenW. J.ClayS. L.CurtisJ.AlbarracínD. (2021). A Multisite preregistered paradigmatic test of the ego-depletion effect. Psychological Science, 32(10), 1566–1581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797621989733
102.
WatsonS. J.MilfontT. L. (2017). A short-term longitudinal examination of the associations between self-control, delay of gratification and temporal considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 106(2), 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2016.10.023
103.
XuH.BègueL.BushmanB. J. (2012). Too fatigued to care: Ego depletion, guilt, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1183–1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.007
104.
YuehH. P.LuM. H.LinW. (2016). Employees’ acceptance of mobile technology in a workplace: An empirical study using SEM and fsQCA. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2318–2324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.048
105.
ZeinabadiH.SalehiK. (2011). Role of procedural justice, trust, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of teachers: Proposing a modified social exchange model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29(1), 1472–1481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.387
106.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
