Excessive use of mobile devices is changing interpersonal relationships. In particular, smartphones have an impact on all aspects of individuals’ lives, and romantic relationships are also affected. Therefore, it is imperative to examine these effects in the context of romantic relationships. This study examined the effect of partner phubbing on relationship satisfaction and the mediating role of trust and romantic relationship quality among individuals in romantic relationships. Data were collected from 361 Turkish adults (269 women, 92 men; 18–50 years old). Results showed that partner phubbing directly and negatively predicted trust and romantic relationship quality. According to structural equation modeling, trust and romantic relationship quality fully mediated the relationship between partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction. In other words, when individuals are exposed to partner phubbing, their trust in each other may decrease, and decreased trust may decrease perceived romantic relationship quality. A decrease in romantic relationship quality negatively affects relationship satisfaction. Results are discussed in light of existing knowledge about partner phubbing, trust, romantic relationship quality, and relationship satisfaction.
AagaardJ. (2019). Digital akrasia: A qualitative study of phubbing. AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, 35(1), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00876-0
2.
AbakayA. (2015). Romantic relationship satisfaction as predicted by perceived family of origin experiences and education. Unpublished master thesis. Syracuse University.
3.
AdalıoğluG. (2020). The role of differentiation of self in the relationship between percieved parenting styles and jealousy, dyadic trust and respect towards partner. [Unpublished master thesis]. Üsküdar University.
AfdalA.AlizamarA.IfdilI.ArdiZ.SukmawatiI.ZikraZ.IlyasA.FikriM.SyahputraY.HariyaniH. (2019). An analysis of phubbing behaviour: Preliminary research from counseling perspective. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 295, 270–273. https://doi.org/10.2991/icetep-18.2019.65
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
8.
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
9.
AmatoP. R.BoothA.JohnsonD. R.RogersS. J. (2007). Alone together, how marriage in America is changing. Harvard University Press.
10.
AndersonT. L.Emmers-SommerT. M. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 57(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970600666834
11.
ArikewuyoA. O.EluwoleK. K.ÖzadB. (2020). Influence of lack of trust on romantic relationship problems: The mediating role of partner cell phone snooping. Psychological Reports, 124(1), 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119899902
12.
ArpacıoğluS.DönmezB.AyıkB.KaradereM. E. (2022). Romantik ilişkilerde kıskançlığın benlik saygısı, empati becerisi, güven, ilişki kalitesi ve çeşitli faktörler üzerinden incelenmesi [Examination of jealousy in romantic relationships based on self-esteem, empathy skills, trust, relationship quality and various factors]. Journal of Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research, 11(2), 116–124. https://10.5455/JCBPR.114837
13.
ArshadA.ImranH. (2022). Partner phubbing, romantic jealousy and marital satisfaction among married individuals. Applied Psychology Review, 1(2), 01–06. https://doi.org/10.32350/apr.12.01
BackM. D.KrauseS.HirschmullerS.StopferJ. M.EgloffB.SchmukleS. C. (2009). Unraveling the three faces of self-esteem: A new information-processing sociometer perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 933–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.002
16.
BegümS.DenizM. E. (2018). Cinsiyetin romantik ilişki doyumu üzerindeki etkisi: Bir meta-analiz çalışması. [Gender differences in romantic relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis study]. Elementary Education Online, 17(2), 1077–1095. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.419356
17.
BlanchardV. L.HawkinsA. J.BaldwinS. A.ve FawcettE. B. (2009). Investigating the effects of marriage and relationship education on couples' communication skills: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 23(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015211
18.
BröningS.WartbergL. (2022). Attached to your smartphone? A dyadic perspective on perceived partner phubbing and attachment in long-term couple relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 126, Article, 106996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106996
19.
BurgoonJ. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1-2), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x93121003
20.
CameronA. F.WebsterJ. (2011). Relational outcomes of multicummunicating: Integrating incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organization Science, 22(3), 754–771. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0540
21.
CampbellL.SimpsonJ. A.BoldryJ. G.RubinH. (2010). Trust, variability in relationship evaluations, and relationship processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019714
22.
CarnelleyK. B.VowelsL. M.StantonS. C.MillingsA.HartC. M. (2023). Perceived partner phubbing predicts lower relationship quality but partners’ enacted phubbing does not. Computers in Human Behavior, 147, Article 107860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107860
23.
CepukieneV. (2019). Does relationship satisfaction always mean satisfaction? Development of the couple relationship satisfaction scale. Journal of Relationships Research, 10(14), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2019.12
24.
ÇetinkayaE.KemerG.BulganG.TezerE. (2008). The validity and reliability studies of dyadic trust scale. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 3(29), 65–77. https://pdrdergisi.org/index.php/pdr/article/view/250/179
25.
ChanM.LiX. (2020). Smartphones and psychological well-being in China: Examining direct and indirect relationships through social support and relationship satisfaction. Telematics and Informatics, 54, Article 101469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101469
26.
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
CurunF. (2001). The effects of sexism and sex role orientation on romantic relationship satisfaction. [Unpublished master thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
29.
DavidM.RobertsJ. (2017). Phubbed and alone: Phone snubbing, social exclusion, and attachment to social media. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1086/690940
30.
DavidM. E.RobertsJ. A. (2021). Investigating the impact of partner phubbing on romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction: The moderating role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(12), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521996454
31.
DemircioğluZ. I.Göncü KöseA. (2021). Effects of attachment styles, dark triad, rejection sensitivity, and relationship satisfaction on social media addiction: A mediated model. Current Psychology, 40(1), 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9956-x
32.
DinçsoyB. (2021). Sosyal medya bağımlılığının romantik ilişkilerdeki güven duygusu ve ilişki doyumu açısından incelenmesi [The Examination of Social Media Addiction with Respect to ‘Trust’ and ‘Satisfaction’ in Romantic Relationships]. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Istanbul Kent University.
33.
Emmers-SommerT. (2004). The effect of communication quality and quantity indicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(3), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504042839
34.
FarooqiR.ShahidR.ShahidN. (2021). Impact of phubbing on relationship closeness and jealousy in working women. Pakistan Journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 12(2), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.62663/pjpprp.v12i2.43
35.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007
36.
GeorgeD.MalleryP. (2021). IBM SPSS statistics 27 step by step: A simple guide and reference (17th ed.). Taylor & Francis Ltd.
37.
GlasserW. (1965). Reality threapy a new approach to psychiatry. Harper & Row, Publisher.
38.
GoktasM.SendoganB.Yuksel GenD. (2022). Romantik ilşki yaşayan bireylerin vakit geçirme tercihlerinin yordayicisi olarak sosyal ilgi, algilanan ilişki doyumu, eğlencelilik ve çatişma çözüm stilleri [Social interest, perceived relationship satisfaction, fun and conflict resolution styles as predictors of spending time preferences of partners in a romantic relationships]. Aile Psikolojik Danışmanlığı Dergisi, 5(1), 29–48.
39.
GüleçS. (2020). Satisfaction model in romantic relations: Basic psychological needs, mindfulness, relationship quality, attribution styles. [Unpublished dissertation]. Çukurova University.
40.
HaackK. R.FalckeA. D. (2014). Love and marital quality in romantic relationships mediated and non-mediated by internet. Paideia, 24(57), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-43272457201413
41.
HalpernD.KatzJ. E. (2017). Texting’s consequences for romantic relationships: A cross-lagged analysis highlights its risks. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.051
HendrickS. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430
44.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989x.3.4.424
45.
HudsonN. W.LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2020). The highs and lows of love: Romantic relationship quality moderates whether spending time with one’s partner predicts gains or losses in well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(4), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219867960
46.
IvanovaA.GorbaniukO.BłachnioA.PrzepiórkaA.MrakaN.PolishchukV.GorbaniukJ. (2020). Mobile phone addiction, phubbing, and depression among men and women: A moderated mediation analysis. Psychiatric Quarterly, 91(2), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-020-09723-8
47.
KaradağE.TosuntaşŞ. B.ErzenE.DuruP.BostanN.ŞahinB. M.Çulhaİ.BabadağB. (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
48.
KaramanH. B.ArslanC. (2024). The mediating role of social media addiction and phubbing in basic psychological needs in relationships and relationship satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1291638. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1291638
KhodabakhshS.Le OngY. (2021). The impact of partner phubbing on marital quality among married couples in Malaysia: Moderating effect of gender and age. Aloma: Revista de Psicologia, Ciències de l’Educació i de l’Esport, 39(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.51698/aloma.2021.39.1.9-16
51.
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
52.
KrasnovaH.AbramovaO.NotterI.BaumannA. (2016). Why phubbing is toxic for your relationship: Understanding the role of smartphone jealousy among “generation y” users. Research Papers, 109, 1–20. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/109.
53.
LabordeN. D.vanDommelen-GonzalezE.MinnisA. M. (2014). Trust–that’s a big one: Intimate partnership values among urban Latino youth. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 16(9), 1009–1022. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13691058.2014.921837
54.
LarzelereR. E.HustonT. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42(3), 595–604. https://doi.org/10.2307/351903
55.
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
56.
MındızH. S. A. (2022). Evaluating the quality of romantic relationships and sexual satisfaction according to the attachment theory. [Unpublished master thesis]. İstanbul Kent University.
57.
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
58.
MyersJ. E.WitmerJ. M.SweeneyT. J. (2004). Manual for the wellness evaluation of lifestyle. Mind Garden, Incorporated.
PrzybylskiA. K.WeinsteinN. (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
61.
ReisH. T.ClarkM. S.HolmesJ. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In MashekD. J.AronA. P. (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
62.
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, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058
63.
RobertsJ. A.DavidM. E. (2017). Put down your phone and listen to me: How boss phubbing undermines the psychological conditions necessary for employee engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.021
64.
RobertsJ. A.DavidM. E. (2024). Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among high and low reward romantic partners: An expectancy violations theory perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40(18), 5493–5502. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2238341
65.
RobertsJ. A.DavidM. E.MyrickJ. G. (2015). The impact of technology on romantic relationships: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 520–527.
66.
RusbultC. E.MartzJ. M.AgnewC. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
67.
SağkalA. S.ÖzdemirY. (2018). Turkish adaptation of perceived romantic relationship quality scale (PRRQS): Validity and reliability study. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 46, 22–40. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.329888
68.
SchokkenbroekJ. M.HardynsW.PonnetK. (2022). Phubbed and curious: The relation between partner phubbing and electronic partner surveillance. Computers in Human Behavior, 137, Article 107425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107425
69.
StrykerS. (1987). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786893
70.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
71.
ThomasT. T.CarnelleyK. B.HartC. M. (2022). Phubbing in romantic relationships and retaliation: A daily diary study. Computers in Human Behavior, 137, Article 107398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107398
72.
TopalK.GüngörR.ÇobanH.ŞahintürkS.KırmızıkayaE.ŞendilT. G. (2021). Study of relationships between partner phubbing, attachment and perceived romantic relationship quality in university students. Ulakbilge-Journal of Social Science, 58, 462–475. https://doi.org/10.7816/ulakbilge-09-58-09
73.
TunçE. (2015). Üniversite öğrencilerinin romantik ilişkilerinde yaşadıkları istismar ile ilişki doyumu, affetme ve kıskançlık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. [Examining the relationships between relationship satisfaction, forgiveness, jealousy and university students' perceived abuse in romantic relationships]. Unpublished master’s thesis. Abant Izzet Baysal University.
74.
UrsuA.TurliucM. N. (2022). The relationship between anger experience and relationship satisfaction: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Psychreg Journal of Psychology, 6(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7411717
75.
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 (s. 158–174). Oxford University Press.
76.
Vanden AbeeleM. M. P.AntheunisM. L.SchoutenA. 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
77.
Van LangeP. A. M.RusbultC. E. (2012). Interdependence theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 251–272). Sage.
78.
WangX.XieX.WangY.WangP.LeiL. (2017). Partner phubbing and depression among married Chinese adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship length. Personality and Individual Differences, 100(110), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.014
79.
WangX.ZhaoF.LeiL. (2021). Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction: Self-esteem and marital status as moderators. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3365–3375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00275-0
80.
WangX.ZhaoK. (2023). Partner phubbing and marital satisfaction: The mediating roles of marital interaction and marital conflict. Social Science Computer Review, 41(4), 1126–1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211072231
WongA.SohalA. (2002). An examination of the relationship between trust, commitment and relationship quality. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550210415248
83.
WubboldingR. E. (2015). Gerçeklik terapisi (Çev. ÖksüzE. E.). Okyanus Yayınları.
84.
YamF. C. (2023). The relationship between partner phubbing and life satisfaction: The mediating role of relationship satisfaction and perceived romantic relationship quality. Psychological Reports, 126(1), 303–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941221144611
85.
YikebaliM. (2018) Sembolik etkileşimcilik ve çağdaş sosyal teori: Topluma yeni bakışlar [Symbolic interactionism and contemporary social theory: New perspectives on society] (Doctoral Dissertation). Istanbul University. Retrieved from YOK Thesis Center database (Thesis No: 524781).
86.
YılmazB.GündüzB. (2021). Beliren yetişkinlik döneminde romantik ilişki doyumunun yordayıcısı olarak benlik ayrımlaşması, otantiklik ve depresyon [The differentiation of self, authenticity and depression as predictors of relationship satisfaction in emerging adulthood]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 58, 334–361. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.885306
87.
ZhanS.ShresthaS.ZhongN. (2022). Romantic relationship satisfaction and phubbing: The role of loneliness and empathy. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 967339. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.967339
