Does phone presence during romantic couple conversations influence the accuracy and bias of emotion perceptions? This two-part study examined whether phone presence – experimentally-manipulated in the lab (Part 1: N = 383) and assessed naturalistically in daily diaries (Part 2: N = 342) – relates to emotion perceptions, and, in turn, relationship quality. In Part 1, participants randomly assigned to have their phone present (vs. absent) with their romantic partner exhibited more positive emotion perceptions, indirectly contributing to greater relationship quality. In Part 2, on days when participants reported having their phone present with their romantic partner, they exhibited greater assumed similarity, indirectly contributing to greater relationship quality. Overall, phone presence when with a romantic partner may be beneficial, as it could contribute to more biased partner impressions and, in turn, greater relationship quality.
ArgyleM.HendersonM. (1985). The anatomy of relationships. Heinemann.
2.
AronA.AronE. N. (1996). Self and self-expansion in relationships. In Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 325–344). New York and London: Psychology Press.
BeukeboomC. J.PollmannM. (2021). Partner phubbing: Why using your phone during interactions with your partner can be detrimental for your relationship. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, Article 106932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106932
5.
BiesanzJ. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(5), 853–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.519262
6.
BiesanzJ. C. (2021). The social accuracy model. In LetzringT. D.SpainJ. S. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of accurate personality judgment (online edn). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190912529.013.5
7.
BoothM. A.CoyneS. M.YorgasonJ. B.DewJ. P. (2021). Domestic bliss, or technological diss? Problematic media use, partner responsiveness, and relationship outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(12), 3610–3632. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211031000
8.
BorkenauP.ZaltauskasK. (2009). Effects of self-enhancement on agreement on personality profiles. European Journal of Personality, 23(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.707
9.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933
10.
DwyerR.KushlevK.DunnE. (2018). Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to face social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/jesp/2017.10.007
11.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
12.
FletcherG. J.KerrP. S. (2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 627–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019792
13.
FuhrmanR. W.FlannaganD.MatamorosM. (2009). Behavior expectations in cross‐sex friendships, same‐sex friendships, and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 16(4), 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01240.x
GilbertD. T.PelhamB. W.KrullD. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 733–740. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.733
16.
GottmanJ. M.DriverJ. L. (2005). Dysfunctional marital conflict and everyday marital interaction. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 43(3–4), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v43n03_04
17.
HallJ. A.BaymN. K.MiltnerK. M. (2014). Put down that phone and talk to me: Understanding the roles of mobile phone norm adherence and similarity in relationships. Mobile Media & Communication, 2(2), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157913517684
18.
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
19.
HarariG. M.MüllerS. R.StachlC.WangR.WangW.BühnerM.RentfrowP. J.CampbellA. T.GoslingS. D.GoslingS. D. (2020). Sensing sociability: Individual differences in young adults’ conversation, calling, texting, and app use behaviors in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(1), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000245
HuelsnitzC. O.NeelR.HumanL. J. (2020). Accuracy in perceptions of fundamental social motives: Comparisons to perceptions of big five traits and associations with friendship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219838546
22.
HunterJ. F. (2017). Is your smartphone a digital security blanket? The influence of phone use and availability on psychological and physiological responses to social exclusion. University of California.
23.
IckesW.StinsonL.BissonnetteV.GarciaS. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 730–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.730
24.
IckesW. J. (Ed.). (1997). Empathic accuracy. Guilford Press.
25.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Guilford Press.
26.
KennyD. A.AcitelliL. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.439
27.
KennyD. A.WestT. V. (2010). Similarity and agreement in self-and other perception: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 14(2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309353414
28.
KilpatrickS. D.BissonnetteV. L.RusbultC. E. (2002). Empathic accuracy and accommodative behavior among newly married couples. Personal Relationships, 9(4), 369–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.09402
29.
KushlevK.DunnE. W. (2019). Smartphones distract parents from cultivating feelings of connection when spending time with their children. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(6), 1619–1639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518769387
30.
KushlevK.HunterJ. F.ProulxJ.PressmanS. D.DunnE. (2019). Smartphones reduce smiles between strangers. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.023
31.
KushlevK.LeitaoM. R. (2020). The effects of smartphones on well-being: Theoretical integration and research agenda. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.05.001
32.
LackenbauerS. D.CampbellL.RubinH.FletcherG. J.TroisterT. (2010). The unique and combined benefits of accuracy and positive bias in relationships. Personal Relationships, 17(3), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01282.x
33.
LuoS.SniderA. G. (2009). Accuracy and biases in newlyweds’ perceptions of each other: Not mutually exclusive but mutually beneficial. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1332–1339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02449.x
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.
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
38.
MorryM. M. (2005). Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of similarity ratings: A test of the attraction-similarity hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(4), 561–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505054524
39.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.BellaviaG.GriffinD. W.DoldermanD. (2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.4.563
40.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.GriffinD. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1155–1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1155
41.
OrehekE.HumanL. J. (2017). Self-expression on social media: Do tweets present accurate and positive portraits of impulsivity, self-esteem, and attachment style?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216675332
PlantS. (2000). On the mobile: The effects of mobile telephones on social and individual life. Report Commissioned by Motorola.
44.
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
45.
R Development Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/
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
48.
RogersK. H.WoodD.FurrR. M. (2018). Assessment of similarity and self-other agreement in dyadic relationships: A guide to best practices. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517712615
49.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
50.
RusbultC. E.Van LangeP. A.WildschutT.YovetichN. A.VeretteJ. (2000). Perceived superiority in close relationships: Why it exists and persists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 521–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.521
51.
SenedH.LavidorM.LazarusG.Bar-KalifaE.RafaeliE.IckesW. (2017). Empathic accuracy and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 31(6), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000320
SwannW. B.Jr.De La RondeC.HixonJ. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 857–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.857
55.
ThomasG.FletcherG. J. O.LangeC. (1997). On-line empathic accuracy in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 839–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.839
56.
ThorntonB.FairesA.RobbinsM.RollinsE. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone may be distracting. Social Psychology, 45(6), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000216
57.
TisseraH.HeymanJ. L.HumanL. J. (2022). Do people know how their romantic partner views their emotions? Evidence for emotion meta-accuray and links with momentary romantic relationship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(3), 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211068225
58.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
59.
WestT. V.KennyD. A. (2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118(2), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022936
60.
WoodD.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to personality traits and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 861–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.861
61.
YooS. H.NoyesS. E. (2016). Recognition of facial expressions of negative emotions in romantic relationships. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-015-0219-3
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.
