The widespread diffusion of smartphones has opened new challenges regarding the psychological consequences of their usage on social relationships. The term phubbing (a combination of phone and snubbing) indicates the act of ignoring someone in a social context by paying attention to the smartphone. The few existing studies show that phubbing is widespread, mutually reinforced, and socially accepted, with possible negative consequences for social and individual well-being. Phubbing can occur in every social context, including romantic relationships, workplaces, and family. However, to date, minimal attention has been given to the possible impact that phubbing carried out by parents can have on their children. To start filling this gap, in this paper, we introduced a new scale that measures the perception of being subject to parental phubbing and showed the prevalence of perceived phubbing on a stratified sample of 3,289 adolescents. Firstly, the dimensionality, validity, and invariance of the construct were proven. Moreover, our results showed a positive relationship between children’s perceived levels of parental phubbing and their feelings of social disconnection with parents, thus suggesting that the more children felt that one or both of their parents were phubbing them, the less the children felt connected with their parents.
AbeeleM. M. P. VAntheunisM. 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
2.
Al-SaggafY.MacCullochR. (2018). Phubbing: How frequent? Who is phubbed? In which situation? And using which apps? In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), San Francisco, CA, December 13–16, 2018https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2018/behavior/Presentations/25
3.
AsparouhovT. (2006). General multi-level modeling with sampling weights. Communica tions in Statistics—Theory and Methods, 35(3), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920500476598
4.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The Need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/0033-2909
5.
BaumrindD. (1991). The Influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004
6.
BentlerP. M.BonnetD. C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
7.
BernsteinM. J. (2016). Research in social psychology: Consequences of short- and long-term social exclusion. In RivaP.EckJ. (Eds.), Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact (pp. 51–72). Springer.
8.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
9.
ByrneB. M. (1988). The self description questionnaire III: Testing for equivalent factorial validity across ability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(2), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164488482012
10.
CaughlinJ. P.MalisR. S. (2004). Demand/withdraw communication between parents and adolescents: Connections with self-esteem and substance use. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(1), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504039843
11.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
12.
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
13.
ChotpitayasunondhV.DouglasK. M. (2018). The Effects of “phubbing” on social interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48, 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12506
14.
CialdiniR. B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Morrow.
15.
DavidovM.GrusecJ. E. (2006). Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to distress and warmth to child outcomes. Child Development, 77(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00855.x
16.
de Jong GierveldJ.Van TilburgT. G.DykstraP. A. (2006). Loneliness and social isolation. In PerlmanD.VangelistiA. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. Cambridge University Press.
GentileD. A.CoyneS. M.BricoloF. (2013). Pathological technology addictions: What is scientifically known and what remains to be learned. In DillK. E. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of media psychology (pp. 382–402). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398809.013.0022
19.
GuiM.BüchiM. (2019). From use to overuse: Digital inequality in the age of communication abundance. Social Science Computer Review. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319851163
20.
GuiM.GerosaT.GaravagliaA.PettiL.FasoliM. (2019). Digital well-being—Schools. validation of a digital media education programme in high schools. https://www.benesseredigitale.eu/materiali
21.
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
22.
JoreskogK. G.GoldbergerA. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(351), 631–639. https://doi.org/10.2307/2285946
23.
KaradağE.TosuntaşS. B.ErzenE.DuruP.BostanN.ŞahinB. M.ÇulhaI.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
24.
Kardefelt-WintherD.HeerenA.SchimmentiA.van RooijA.MaurageP.CarrasM.EdmanJ.BlaszczynskiA.KhazaalY.BillieuxJ. (2017). How can we conceptualize behavioural addiction without pathologizing common behaviours?Addiction, 112(10), 1709–1715. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13763
25.
KimE. S.KwokO.-M.YoonM. (2012). Testing factorial invariance in multilevel data: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal2, 19(2), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.659623
KwonM.KimD.-J.ChoH.YangS. (2013). The smartphone addiction scale: Development and validation of a short version for adolescents. PloS One, 8(12), e83558. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083558
30.
LearyM. R. (2001). Toward a conceptualization of interpersonal rejection. In LearyM. R. (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 3–20). Oxford University Press.
31.
LearyM. R. (2020). The need to belong, the sociometer, and the pursuit of relational value: Unfinished business. Self and Identity. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2020.1779120
32.
LeeY.-K.ChangC.-T.LinY.ChengZ.-H. (2014). The Dark side of smartphone usage: Psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.047
33.
LinY. H.ChiangC. L.LinP. H.ChangL. R.KoC. H.LeeY. H.LinS. H. (2016). Proposed diagnostic criteria for smartphone addiction. PLoS One, 11(11), e0163010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163010
34.
LivingstoneS.MascheroniG.DreierM.ChaudronS.LagaeK. (2015). How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: The role of income, education and parental style. EU Kids Online, LSE. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/63378/
35.
Macquarie. (2013). Phubbing. In Macquarie dictionary (6th ed.). MacQuarie Library.
36.
McDanielB. T.CoyneS. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000065
37.
McDanielB. T.RadeskyJ. S. (2018). Technoference: Parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Development, 89(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12822
MuthénM.MuthénB. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Author.
40.
NikkenP.OpreeS. J. (2018). Guiding young children’s digital media use: SES-differences in mediation concerns and competence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(6), 1844–1857. https://doi.org/0.1007/s10826-018-1018-3
PancaniL.PretiE.RivaP. (2020). The Psychology of smartphone: The development of the Smartphone Impact Scale (SIS). Assessment, 27(6), 1176–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119831788
43.
PinquartM. (2016). Associations of parenting styles and dimensions with academic achievement in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9338-y
44.
PinquartM. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873–932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295
45.
PutnickD. L.BornsteinM. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
46.
RivaP.EckJ. (2016). Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact. Springer.
47.
RivaP.MontaliL.WirthJ. H.CurioniS.WilliamsK. D. (2017). Chronic social exclusion and evidence for the resignation stage: An empirical investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(4), 541–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516644348
48.
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
49.
RobertsJ. A.WilliamsB. H.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
50.
StockdaleL. A.CoyneS. M.Padilla-WalkerL. M. (2018). Parent and child technoference and socioemotional behavioral outcomes: A nationally representative study of 10- to 20-year-old adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.034
51.
Van DijkJ. A. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. SAGE.
52.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
53.
WangJ.WangX. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. John Wiley & Sons.
54.
WangX.CieX.WangY.WangP.LeiL. (2017). Partner phubbing and depression among married Chinese adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship length. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.014
55.
WaytzA.GrayK. (2018). Does online technology make us more or less sociable? A preliminary review and call for research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746509
WidamanK. F.ReiseS. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: applications in the substance use domain. In BryantK. J.WindleM. E.WestS. G. (Eds.), The science of prevention: methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281–324). American Psychological Association.
WilliamsK. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 275–314). Elsevier Academic Press.
60.
WuJ.-Y.KwokO.-M. (2012). Using SEM to analyze complex survey data: A comparison between design-based single-level and model-based multilevel approaches. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(1), 16–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.634703
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.
