I’m Sorry I Phubbed You:
A Study on the Influence of Mobile Phone-Induced Ostracism and Type of Relation on one’s Fundamental Needs, Feelings of Social Exclusion and Type of Attributions.
Willemijn Bom 10186824 Master’s Thesis
Graduate school of Communication
Research Master’s Programme Communication Science Dr. S. E. Baumgartner
Abstract
The present study investigated if different levels of phubbing – the act of snubbing someone in a social setting with your mobile phone – would influence one’s feelings of social exclusion and how much their fundamental needs were threatened using the Temporal Need-Threat model. Moreover it looked at the influence of type of relations that phubbed you on type of attributions to explain this behavior, and if these two would moderate the effect between phubbing and social exclusion, and phubbing on fundamental needs. An online experiment among 243 adults in the age of 18 to 89 was conducted. Results showed that there was a significant relationship between level of phubbing and social exclusion, and also on fundamental needs, but these relations were not moderated by type of relation and type of attribution. This means that if someone was phubbed more, they would feel more socially excluded and felt more threatened to their fundamental needs. Type of relation did have a significant effect on which type of attribution was chosen to explain phubbing behavior, meaning that if a distant relationship phubbed you, you would attribute internal- and relational attributions to this behavior, and no external attributions. This study verified and gave new insights in the Temporal Need-Threat model.
Keywords: phubbing, temporal need-threat model, friendship, acquaintance, attributions
Imagine the following situation, which has become common nowadays in social settings: You are having a conversation with someone (e.g., colleague) and during this conversation you keep seeing them use their mobile phone, for example by continuingly sending messages from it. This situation is an example where someone has been phone-snubbed, or phubbed for short. According to Haigh (n.d.), phubbing is the act of snubbing someone in a social setting by paying attention to one’s phone instead of talking to a person directly in one’s company. One way in which phubbing can be phrased, and which depicts the relevance this subject has on our current society, is by Turkle: “In the new etiquette, turning away from those in front of you to answer a mobile phone or respond to a text has become close to the norm. When someone holds a phone, it can be hard to know if you have that person’s attention” (2012, p. 161).
Thus far, studies on phubbing have had ambiguous results in the interpersonal domain. Some studies say that when people are phubbed it can result in individuals feeling socially excluded in their in-person interactions (David & Roberts, 2017). This feeling of social exclusion might come forth from the innate desire of humans to be part of social groups (Baumeister & Tice, 1990; Mead, Baumeister, Stillman, Rawn & Vohs, 2011; Lee & Shrum, 2012). Due to this desire, phubbed individuals will search elsewhere for a sense of belonging (Han, Min, & Lee, 2015). David and Roberts (2017) also saw that people were trying to satisfy that desire, because people who felt socially excluded would turn to their own mobile phones for social media connection. So even if one would mistake someone’s actions as trying to exclude them, in turn, they would then phub the other person, because they are trying to satisfy their desire to be part of a social group.
Although phubbing research has gained a lot of attention in recent years, there are still areas that can be explored more. One of these areas is the influence of the type of relationship in phubbing studies. The studies that did look into relationship, however, looked into romantic
relationships (e.g., Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018), family members (Oduor et al., 2016), and strangers (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). The first study focused on whether phubbing would affect relationship satisfaction, and found out that it did, although mediated by someone’s need to belong. Other types of relationships have not yet been researched in the field of phubbing.
Someone’s need to belong is one of the fundamental needs that can be threatened, when someone feels ostracized or excluded. The fundamental needs (e.g., need for belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence) came from the temporal need-threat model, proposed by Williams (2009). In this model he proposes that there are three stages: 1) reflexive stage; 2) reflective stage; 3) resignation stage. Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2018) used this model as well for their research, but they only looked at the reflexive stage. Other studies have also mainly looked at the reflexive stage, to see if phubbing would affect the fundamental needs. However, to see how people appraise and attribute motives and meaning to the behavior that they have experienced, which is done in the reflective stage, has not been done yet in the phubbing research field. It is therefore necessary to focus on the reflective stage, as it is not yet clear how people appraise this phubbing behavior, and if they appraise it differently with different types of people (e.g., family or a stranger). Therefore the following questions were formulated:
RQ1: Does the amount of phubbing have an effect on feelings of social exclusion and fundamental needs?
RQ2: Does the type of relation have an effect on which type of attribution is used for the behavior?
RQ3: How does type of relationship influence the relationship between phubbing and social exclusion, the fundamental needs?
RQ4: How does type of attribution influence the relationship between phubbing and social exclusion, the fundamental needs?
Figure 1. Expectations of the relations of phubbing on social exclusion and the fundamental needs, potentially moderated by type of attribution and type of relation.
Figure 2. Expectation of the relation between type of relation and type of attribution.
Theoretical background Phubbing, a form of ostracism
Although smartphones appear to bring people closer together, it may be that they are also one of the things currently driving people apart (Turkle, 2012). Phubbing behavior became socially prominent as early as 2007. Even before 2007, it was shown that mobile phones were
often used in inappropriate environments (Bianchi & Philips, 2005). Ten years later, this still seems to occur, as shown by Rainie and Zickuhr (2015), who reported that 90% of their respondents used smartphones in their most recent social activity. Interestingly, phubbing behavior does not seem to be one-sided, because they also found that 86% of the other individuals involved in the social activity were also perceived to have used a smartphone.
As smartphones have an ever-present and always-on nature, they have the potential to interrupt face-to-face interactions (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005; Middleton, 2007). This smartphone interference has harmful consequences across a variety of communication contexts, such as face-to-face conversations (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016) and work-related management activities (Roberts, 2015). For example, in studies on phubbing in romantic relationships, smartphone interference in face-to-face conversations lead to a decrease in relationship satisfaction, personal feelings of well-being, and conflict between partners (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; Roberts & David, 2016). These negative consequences are not surprising, as a smartphone can disconnect a person from their conversational partner, leading the other to feel left out as their counterpart appears more absorbed by their phone (Krasnova, Abramova, Notter, & Baumann, 2016). This feeling is often described as social exclusion, can be very painful, and is likely a daily occurrence (Wan, Xu, & Ding, 2013). Social exclusion – or ostracism – is defined by Williams (2001) as “being invisible and being excluded from social interactions of those around you” (p.2).
Evolutionary development ensured that people have a tendency to quickly detect ostracism or exclusion (Williams, 2009). Failing to detect ostracism was a critical threat to one’s survival and reproductive fitness and was a costlier error to make than over-detecting ostracism in situations where it was not occurring (Hales, Dvir, Wesselmann, Kruger, & Finkenauer, 2018). As a result, humans tend to over-respond to potential cases of ostracism (MacDonald & Leary, 2005; Shilling & Brown, 2016; Wesselmann, Nairne & Williams,
2012). Due to this innate ability for ostracism detection, it is believed that even small actions of phubbing (e.g. interrupted eye-contact) should be detected, and that the individual would experience the associated emotional pain in the reflexive stage, leading them to feel disconnected. Glancing at a phone is enough to break eye contact and make someone feel excluded. However, as a person is perceived to be more preoccupied with their phone when, for example, they are texting someone as compared to glancing at one’s phone, the eye contact will be broken for a longer period of time creating higher feelings of social exclusion.
To better understand phubbing, David and Roberts (2017) described a high level of this behavior as interrupting a conversation to attend to one’s smartphone, and consequently ignoring the conversational partner in the social interaction. Even this high level of phubbing is considered to be an implicit, indirect snub rather than a full rejection (David & Roberts, 2017). Continuing this line of thinking leads to the conclusion that low level of phubbing then entails attending to a smartphone in a social interaction, but not obviously enough for it to interrupt the conversation (e.g., glancing at your phone). Studies thus far have mainly looked at the effect of phubbing on relationships, however they do not specify the extent of the actual phubbing behavior (i.e., active or passive). Therefore, the first hypothesis addresses this gap:
H1: Social exclusion will be higher with people who encounter a high level of phubbing than for people who experience a low level of phubbing.
Temporal need threat model
In this study, the way phubbing affects feelings of social exclusion will be looked at by using the temporal need threat model (TNT model, see figure 3; Williams, 2009). The TNT model was created by Williams (2009) to describe and predict processes and responses at three stages of reactions to ostracism. These three stages are sequential to each other. When an
individual detects ostracism, they first enter the reflexive stage. They feel that their needs are not satisfied, and therefore feel pain and threat to their four fundamental psychological needs: the need to belong, the need for self-esteem, the need for meaningful existence, and the need for control (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Gerber & Wheeler, 2009; Williams, 2001; Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004). In the next stage, the reflective stage, the individual begins recovery as they make attributions for the ostracism and seek to fortify their threatened needs (e.g., Zadro, Boland, & Richardson, 2006). Lastly, if the individual fails to fortify their threatened needs, they enter the resignation stage and experience alienation, depression, helplessness and unworthiness (Riva, Montali, Wirth, Curioni, & Williams, 2017).
Figure 3. Need threat model, by Williams (2009).
When people are socially excluded it can threaten their fundamental needs. As mentioned, one of the threatened needs is the need to belong. This need is threatened when someone lets them, either explicitly or symbolically, feel as if they are not wanted or valued (Jamieson, Harkins, & Williams, 2010). It has been previously demonstrated that this fundamental need
can significantly mediate the effect of phubbing on perceived communication quality and relationship satisfaction (p < .001; Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018). A second need, the need for self-esteem, is usually threatened when the exclusion acts as a form of punishment (e.g., exclusion through the “silent treatment”). The individual then wonders what they could have done wrong, or may even feel not worthy of attention (Ferris, Lian, Brown, & Morrison, 2015). Another consequence of being ignored is that one’s need for meaningful existence is threatened. Feeling excluded from a social interaction can make someone feel invisible, which leads them to question the meaningfulness of their existence (Case & Williams, 2004; Lee & Shrum, 2012; Williams, 2007). Lastly, the need for control may be threatened, because one is unable to influence the situation in which they are being excluded, leading to feelings of helplessness (Bandura, 2000).
Previous studies have found support for the negative consequences of cellphone use on fundamental needs in face-to-face conversations, such as a decrease in the satisfaction of these needs (Hales et al., 2018). In addition, a meta-analysis by Hartgerink, van Beest, Wicherts and Williams (2015), showed that fundamental needs were threatened as a result of even a brief episode of ostracism. However, in these cases cellphone use was not specified as being either high or low level of phubbing. Therefore, we consider the following hypotheses:
H2: Fundamental needs will be satisfied less (i.e., more threatened) with people who encounter a high level of phubbing than for people who experience a low level of phubbing
Type of relation
An important aspect of being phubbed might be who is actually phubbing you. The type of relation might be able to explain potential effects of phubbing on social exclusion and a threat to the fundamental needs. Multiple studies have looked at the effect phubbing may have on
different types of relationships, for example a close relation, such as romantic relationships (e.g., Krasnova et al., 2016; Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018) and family members (Oduor et al., 2016). Even types of relationships that are more distant from yourself, such as strangers on the internet (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000) or members of a despised outgroup (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007), have shown that if you are ignored by these groups, it will still threaten your fundamental needs. However, it becomes clear that friendships have not yet been studied extensively in this area.
Friendships have been found to satisfy feelings of worth, social integration needs (i.e., companionship) and intimacy (Barry, Madsen, Nelson, Carroll, & Badger, 2009). Individuals will consequently develop expectations about how friends should behave, as a consequence of forming and maintaining these close friendships (Wiseman, 1986). Hall (2011) found that best friends are expected to be supportive, loyal, and committed, to share and self-disclose to one another, and to include each other in shared activities. He even says that the expectation of inclusion and interaction is one of the most important expectations in close friendships. It is then interesting to see that even though these expectations are in place, people still show signs of phubbing (i.e., excluding) their friends (Belo Angeluci & Huang, 2015). Besides phubbing their friends, they also found that people tend to phub their acquaintances and strangers in any situation, whereas with friends not everyone intended to phub them.
In the small amount of studies that have looked at different types of relations and phubbing behavior, contradicting results have been found. For example some concluded that phubbing someone had less negative relational outcomes when they had a close relationship with the conversational partner (Misra, Cheng, Genevie, & Yan, 2016). But others said that it did not matter how distant or close the relation between the phubbee and the phubber was (Abeele, Antheunis, & Schouten, 2016). However, Abeele et al., (2016) noted that their study might have had a too-artificial setting for a difference to be found between different types of
relations. There are reasons why phubbing may be less harmful when done by someone close to you than someone more distant. In a conversation between friends, who someone usually has known for a long time, generally favorable impressions would already have been formed in the past. Phubbing behavior would then have less impact on the process of impression formation, because the formed impression is already quite stable (Misra et al., 2016). Consequently this would mean that if you are a distant relation of someone, the phubbing behavior would have a bigger impact on the process of impression formation. Another reason follows from the expectancy violations theory (Burgoon, 1993), which explains that if you have known someone for a longer period of time, certain expectations will have formed. In this case, expectations regarding someone’s behavior during a conversation would have formed, and these may include when and how you expect your friend to use a phone when you are together (Höflich, Kircher, Linke, & Schlote, 2010). Following with this expectancy violations theory (Burgoon, 1993), it is likely that friends tend to be less vulnerable to damage that might result from expectancy violations. Hence, when the behavior does violate the expectations of the phubbee, it can be more damaging when the phubbing is done by a distant relation (i.e., an acquaintance) than a close relation (i.e., a friend). This leads to the following hypotheses:
H3: Social exclusion will be higher with people who encounter a high level of phubbing than for people who experience a low level of phubbing, and this effect will be stronger when they were phubbed by a distant relation than a close relation.
H4: The fundamental needs will be less satisfied (i.e., more threatened) with people who encounter a high level of phubbing than for people who experience a low level of phubbing,
and this effect will be higher when they are phubbed by a distant relation than a close relation.
Types of attributions
Next to the effects of phubbing on fundamental needs, this study further focusses on the reflective stage, where individuals make attributions to the reasons why people would exclude them. The phubbed individual is in a position where they are able to assess, appraise, and attribute the meaning and importance of the phubbing phenomenon. Another part of the reflective stage includes the attempt to reestablish the threatened needs by changes in thinking and behaving (Williams, 2009). However, for this particular study, the focal point of the model will be the type of attribution that people assign to the phubbed experience.
Attribution theory assumes that people want to figure out why certain actions are performed, and one may attribute one or multiple causes to that behavior. Heider (1958) distinguished between two types of attributions, internal and external. Internal attributions are ascribed when the behavior is believed to be carried out due to something from within a person, such as attitude or personality. External attributions are ascribed when it is believed that the individual behaves a certain way due to a situation that he or she is in. Both types of attributions are mainly focused on the individual level of analysis and identify attribution to either the self, or someone or something outside the self, thereby ignoring any possible relational aspects of the performance (Eberly, Holley, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2011). Eberly et al. (2011) proposed a third type of attribution – relational attributions, which are “those explanations made by a focal individual that locate the cause of an event within the relationship the individual has with another person.” In this case, one does not only blame herself or the other person involved, but rather the communication between them.
When a person enters the reflective stage of the TNT model after they experience being phubbed, they will wish to explain why the other person would direct their attention to a phone.
Just as people try to reestablish their fundamental needs in this stage, attributions are used to try and improve the ability to predict future events and establish a certain control over the environment (Kelley, 1971; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Weiner (1985) suggested that individuals will form attributions in response to certain triggering events, which usually take the form of negative, surprising, or unexpected outcomes. In the case of phubbing, people want to ascribe attributions to the phubbing behavior, in order to make sense of the situation and to ensure that they can better handle themselves in the future, in the event that phubbing happens again. The type of attribution might also be important to the feelings of exclusion and threat to the fundamental needs that phubbing elicits. For example, if the reason for phubbing is an external reason (e.g., an important person could call) it might make the phubbee feel not as bad about himself, because it isn’t his fault that he is phubbed. Earlier studies have, in fact, found that when victims of social ostracism attributed this outcome to their own personal shortcomings, it actually increased the aversive impact (Dittes & Kelley, 1956; Nezlek, Kowalski, Leary, Blevins, & Holgate, 1997; Pepitone & Wilpizeski, 1960). This relates to relational attributions, and would mean that relational attributions would have a stronger impact on the relationship between phubbing and social exclusion, and phubbing and the threat to fundamental needs, than external and internal attributions. Relational attributions do not only acknowledge the shortcomings of the phubber, but also of the phubbee (e.g., it was both of our fault that the conversation wasn’t flowing).
Attribution theory has been used in research of both psychology and organizational sciences (Martinko, Harvey, & Dasborough, 2011). A meta-analysis on attribution theory in organizational sciences (Harvey, Madison, Martinko, Crook, & Crook, 2014) found that
people often use external attributes to blame problematic outcomes on something, and use internal attributes to take credit for favorable outcomes (Huff & Schwenk, 1990; Zuckerman, 1979). In this meta-analysis, relational attribution was not taken into account, as it hadn’t been tested. However, Ahmad (2017) found that when activities related to corporate social responsibility were attributed to internal or relational dimensions, it would prompt positive dispositions. This is in line with the Harvey et al. (2014) findings about internal attributes usually being used for favorable outcomes.
However, when these findings are adopted to phubbing and TNT research, it would seem that if a person is being phubbed, an arguably problematic outcome, they would want to ascribe external attributes to the behavior of their counterpart. Most research using attribution theory has looked at how one attributes their own behavior. But, when the TNT model is used, it is important that the phubbed person attributes the behavior of the phubber. Knowing which type of attribution is ascribed to phubbing behavior most can be valuable for dealing with ostracism. If someone can use the right type of attribution to reinforce their fundamental needs, before they end up in the resignation phase of the TNT model, it can prevent them from becoming depressed. For example when you are being phubbed and you ascribe this to the phubber’s situation (i.e., external attribution), it would have a less aversive impact than if you would partially blame yourself as well (i.e., relational attribution; Dittes & Kelley, 1956; Nezlek, Kowalski, Leary, Blevins, & Holgate, 1997; Pepitone & Wilpizeski, 1960). To test which type of attribute has the most effect on phubbing, the following hypotheses were formulated:
H5: Social exclusion will be higher with people who encounter a high level of phubbing than for people who experience a low level of phubbing, and this effect will be strongest when they
give an external attribution, moderate if they give a relational attribution and lowest if they give an internal attribution.
H6: The fundamental needs will be satisfied less (i.e., more threatened) with people who encounter a high level of phubbing than for people who experience a low level of phubbing, and this effect will be strongest when they give an external attribution, moderate if they give a relational attribution and lowest if they give an internal attribution.
According to the expectancy violations theory (Burgoon & Hale, 1987; Burgoon, 1993), when the behavior of your conversational partner is not in line with the expectations you had, this elicits arousal. In the case of phubbing, the arousal will be addressed by ascribing attributes to the phubber (instead of themselves, the phubbee) that can explain the violation. Multiple studies have found that using a phone during a conversation can be seen as a negative violation of interactional norms (i.e., expectations; Cameron and Webster, 2011; Inbar, Joost, Hemmert, Porat, & Tractinsky, 2014; Moser, Schoenebeck, & Reinecke, 2016; Nakamura, 2015; Rainie and Zickuhr, 2015). In line with earlier reasoning, this would mean that when someone is phubbed, this behavior would get assigned an attribution that explains it from the phubber’s personality (i.e., internal or relational attribution) quicker with a distant relation than with a close relation. And in reverse it would mean that when someone close, from who you know more about their life, phubs you, it might become easier to assign an external attribution to their behavior. This would lead to the following hypotheses:
H7: External attributions will be given more often when people are phubbed by a close relation than a distant relation.
H8: Internal and relational attributions will be given more often when people are phubbed by a distant relation than a close relation.
Method
Participants
Three hundred twenty three participants took part in this survey. However, eleven participants were removed, because they read the scenarios in under six seconds, indicating that they likely did not fully read the scenario. Another sixty-nine participants were removed because they did not finish the entire survey. Two hundred forty three participants (67 men and 176 women) ranging in age from 18 to 89 years old (M = 27.66; SD = 12.65) were used in the research, and were recruited through the online research facility LAB of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences of the University of Amsterdam, and Facebook.
Manipulation
Scenarios. Scenarios used in the current study were all hypothetical scenarios (see Appendix A), however all were plausible (i.e., participants are likely to have experienced this in their own life). Carroll (1978) suggested that participants who are made to imagine the occurrence of a certain social event through the use of elaborate scenarios come to believe more strongly that this event could take place. The scenarios each reflected a combination of the type of relationship (close vs. distant relationship) and a level of phubbing (high phubbing vs. low phubbing). The participant was able to read twice who they were talking to, and there were two points in the scenarios in which the character in the scenario was phubbed. The scenarios
were pilot tested by three undergraduate students from communication science to ensure clarity. In the questionnaire the scenarios were separated by gender. This means that if someone said that they were male, they would read a scenario in which they find a male friend (e.g., he grabs his phone). This worked the same if someone said they were female (e.g., she grabs her phone). This was done due to the idea that people might act different around the opposite sex than around someone of their own gender, and that this might influence how they would react to being phubbed by someone from the other sex.
Conditions. Level of phubbing. In the first two scenarios, the participants only experience low phubbing. The person with whom they are having a conversation grabs his phone to check on something after which he puts the phone back. This act repeats itself later in the scenario one more time. In the other two scenarios, the participants experience high phubbing. Here, the other person grabs their phone to text someone and only after a while puts the phone back. The second act of phubbing is the conversational partner grabbing their phone to scroll through Facebook. As David and Roberts (2017) mentioned, being phubbed is more likely an experience of being ignored. The active form of phubbing involves interrupting a conversation to attend to one’s smartphone, which in this case is texting someone and scrolling through Facebook.
Type of relationship. In the first two scenarios, the participant is talking to one of their
best friends (i.e. close relationship), while in the other two scenarios, they are talking to an acquaintance (i.e. distant relationship). In all scenarios, the participant is told that they are having a conversation with this person about something that happened last week.
Procedure
Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Review Board of the Amsterdam School of Communication Research. Participants had to give their consent before they started the
experiment. After giving their consent, they were randomly assigned to one of the four scenarios. When they finished reading the story, the participants were asked to fill out the questions about social exclusion, their fundamental needs, their demographics, their rejection sensitivity score, and their own phubbing behavior. After finishing the last questions, participants were thanked for their participation, after which they could close the questionnaire website.
Measurements
All measurements can be found in appendix B.
Need threat. The Need-Threat Measure, developed by Jamieson et al., (2010) contains 15 items measuring the extent to which someone feels the threat to the three fundamental needs following ostracism (e.g., Williams, 2009). All questions were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). The scale consists of three subscales (each with 5 items): need for belonging ( =.63, M = 2.33, SD = .62), need for self-esteem ( = .69, M = 2.40, SD = .59), need for meaningful existence ( = .71, M = 2.58, SD = .68). Subscales were created by averaging the items, with a lower score indicating less satisfaction to the needs, and therefore higher threat to needs.
Social exclusion. Feelings of social exclusion while reading the scenario were assessed by asking the participants to indicate the extent to which they experience feelings of being ignored, left out, and rejected (Williams, Cheung & Choi, 2000). This scale was measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much; = .82, M = 3.44, SD = .89). This scale was created by averaging the items, with a higher score indicating more feelings of social exclusion.
Attribution. In the field of phubbing there was not yet an attribution scale available for use. Therefore, a new scale was created. Due to time constraints, it was not possible to do
a pilot study to test this scale. Inspiration for this new scale came from the examples in the explanation between internal, external and relational attributions by Eberly et al. (2011). Internal attribution was therefore comprised of 4 items reported on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = extremely unlikely, 5 = extremely likely) that explained 41.48% of the variance with factor loadings from .274 to .802. The item “scared of missing out” was not strong enough in this scale, and was therefore not taken into further account. This consequently meant that internal attribution, comprised of 3 items, explained 54.26% of the variance, with factor loadings from .583 to .810 ( = .563, M = 3.36, SD = .76) Internal attribution asked questions such as “He/she is a bad listener.” The other two attributions were also comprised of 3 items each, reported using the same 5-point Likert scale. External attribution explained 61.49% of the variance with factor loadings from .718 to .868, ( = .683, M = 3.15, SD = .83). External attribution asked questions such as “He/she is expecting an important call.” Relational attribution explained 56.85% of the variance with factor loadings from .740 to .772 ( = .620, M = 2.82, SD = .84). Relational attribution asked questions such as “We did not have an interesting topic to talk about.”
Covariates. Apart from gender and age, two other control variables were measured: the adult rejection score (ARS; Downey & Feldman, 1996) and the participants’ own phubbing behavior measured with a phubbing scale (Karadag et al., 2015). Inspection of three of these control variables (i.e., age, ARS & phubbing scale) showed that they were not significantly related to any of the dependent variables. Gender related significantly to need for belonging (p < .05), need for self-esteem (p < .05), and social exclusion (p < .05), and was included in the analyses as a control variable for these variables.
Manipulation check. As a manipulation check, participants had to answer the question “what did the person do on his/her phone?” for phubbing, on which they could answer “nothing,” “checked his phone briefly,” “texted someone,” “scrolled on his phone,”
made a phone call” or “other.” The second manipulation check asked “what was the relationship you had with the person you were talking to at the party?” for type of relation, on which someone could answer “no relation with the person,” “acquaintance,” “friend,” “romantic relationship,” “family,” “don’t remember,” or “other.”
Results
Manipulation check
To check whether the stimuli in the scenarios were perceived as intended, it was analyzed if the participants noticed the manipulations. Cross-tabulation showed that the participants who were assigned to the high phubbing condition also indicated that they noticed the higher phone use (i.e., texting and scrolling through phone; n = 111), as opposed to the group that was assigned to the low phubbing condition, who indicated that they noticed the lower phone use (i.e., glancing at phone; n = 108; 2 = 158.19, p < .001).
Cross tabulation also showed that the participants who were assigned to the distant relationship condition, also indicated that they noticed they were talking to an acquaintance (n = 113), as opposed to the participants who were assigned to the close relationship condition, who indicated that they noticed they were talking to a friend (n = 113, 2 = 197.81, p < .001). Therefore, it can be concluded that the manipulations used in the study were perceived by participants as intended by the researcher.
Effect of phubbing on social exclusion and fundamental needs
The first hypothesis, stating that feelings of social exclusion would be higher when someone experienced a high level of phubbing than a low level of phubbing, was analyzed with a one-way ANOVA. This effect was statistically significant at the .05 significance level. The main effect for social exclusion yielded an F ratio of F (1, 240) = 11.55, p < .01, indicating that
more phubbing would lead someone to feel more socially excluded (M = 3.63, SD = .81) than would less phubbing (M = 3.26, SD = .93). Hypothesis 1 was therefore supported.
The second hypothesis, stating that the fundamental needs would be satisfied less, and therefore threatened more, if they experienced a high level of phubbing than a low level of phubbing, was analyzed using a one-way between subjects ANOVA for need for belonging and need for self-esteem, and an independent-samples t-test for meaningful existence. All main effects were statistically significant at the .05 significance level. The main effect for need for belonging produced an F ratio of F (1, 240) = 15.76, p < .01, meaning more phubbing would satisfy one’s need for belonging less (i.e., threaten more; M = 2.18, SD = .54) than when one was phubbed less (M = 2.47, SD = .65). The main effect for need for self-esteem yielded an F ratio of F (1, 240) = 5.16, p < .05, showing that more phubbing would satisfy one’s need for self-esteem less (i.e., threaten more; M = 2.32, SD = .54) than when there was not as much phubbed (M = 2.48, SD = .62). Lastly, the main effect for the need for meaningful existence showed that there was a significant difference in low phubbing (M = 2.69, SD = .71) and high phubbing (M = 2.46, SD = .63); t (241, 240.42) = 2.65, p < .01, indicating that if one is phubbed more, their need for meaningful existence is satisfied less (i.e., more threatened). This means that Hypothesis 2 was supported for all fundamental needs. Conducting a MANOVA was also attempted in order to check these main effects, however, no significant effects were found with this test. This means that there is a possibility for Type I error in these analyses.
Effect of type of relation on type of attribution
The seventh and eighth hypotheses were both analyzed with a MANOVA. Hypothesis 7, stating that external attributes would be give more often when people were phubbed by a close relation than a distant relation, showed no significant effect (p = .981). However,
hypothesis 8, which stated that internal attributes would be given more often when people were phubbed by a distant relation than when they were phubbed by a close relation, did show a statistically significant effect at the .05 significance level. The main effect for internal attribution produced an F ratio of F (1, 241) = 27.06, p < .01, meaning that people would give internal attributions more often if they had a distant relation with the phubber (M = 3.60, SD = .66) than when they had a close relation with the phubber (M = 3.12, SD = .79). The main effect for relational attributions produced an F ratio of F (1, 241) = 16.85, p < .01, meaning that people would give relational attributions more often if they had a distant relation with the phubber (M = 3.03, SD = .81) than when the phubber was someone who they had a close relation with (M = 2.60, SD = .81). So type of relation did have an effect for internal and relational attributions (Hypothesis 8), but did not for external attributions (Hypothesis 7). Therefore, Hypothesis 7 was rejected and Hypothesis 8 was supported.
Moderating effect of type of relation
Hypotheses five and six stated that the main effect of phubbing on social exclusion and the fundamental needs would be stronger when they were phubbed by a distant relation (i.e., an acquaintance) than a close relation (i.e., best friend). Both hypotheses were tested using a MANOVA, and showed no significant effect of type of relation on social exclusion (p = .392), need for belonging (p = .434), need for self-esteem (p = .333), and need for meaningful existence (p = .130). This means that type of relation did not have an effect on the relation between level of phubbing and social exclusion (Hypothesis 5) and the fundamental needs (Hypothesis 6). Hypotheses 5 and 6 were therefore both rejected.
Hypotheses five and six stated that the main effect of phubbing on social exclusion and the fundamental needs would be strongest if someone assigned external attributes to this behavior, moderate if they would give relational attributions and lowest if they assigned internal attributions. These hypotheses were tested using a MANOVA, and showed no significant effect for interaction of external, internal, or relational attribution (see table 1) on the main effect. This means that the different types of attributions did not have a moderating effect on the relation between level of phubbing and social exclusion (Hypothesis 5) and fundamental needs (Hypothesis 6). Hypotheses 5 and 6 were therefore both rejected.
Measure df F p 2
Social exclusion Phubbing * Internal Attribution 8 .84 .570 .037 Phubbing * External Attribution 10 .47 .911 .026 Phubbing * Relational Attribution 9 1.23 .282 .060
Error 174
Need for belonging
Phubbing * Internal Attribution 8 .67 .730 .029 Phubbing * External Attribution 10 .99 .452 .054 Phubbing * Relational Attribution 9 .34 .959 .017
Error 174
Need for self-esteem
Phubbing * Internal Attribution 8 1.43 .189 .062 Phubbing * External Attribution 10 .91 .524 .050 Phubbing * Relational Attribution 9 .61 .792 .030
Error 174
Need for meaningful existence
Phubbing * Internal Attribution 8 1.06 .397 .046 Phubbing * External Attribution 10 .64 .780 .035 Phubbing * Relational Attribution 9 .66 .746 .033
Error 174 Table 1. Characteristics of type of attribution as a moderator.
Discussion Summary of findings
The present study tried to verify the reflective stage of the TNT model (Williams, 2009) and see if people do give different attributes to motives for phubbing behavior, and if these attributions helped with how threatened the fundamental needs would be. On top of that, the relation between phubbing and social exclusion, and phubbing and fundamental needs, was expanded with a new variable, type of relationship. Overall, high level of phubbing increased how socially excluded someone felt, and decreased how satisfied they were with their fundamental needs. These findings are consistent with recent research that has provided evidence that phubbing behavior leads to a decrease in fundamental needs satisfaction (Hales, et al., 2018; Smith & Williams, 2004) and increased feelings of social exclusion (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018). These effects were not moderated by type of attribution or type of relation. However, type of relation did have an effect on which type of attribution would be used to explain phubbing behavior. If a distant relation phubbed you, it was found that you would more often choose an internal or relational attribution to explain this behavior. External attribution was not found to be influenced by type of relation. The finding that a distant relation has internal and relational attributions assigned faster than a close relation is consistent with research on expectancy violations theory (Burgoon, 1993), which supposes that phubbing behavior might belong to the already established expectation of your friends’ behavior. However, when someone distant from you phubs you, this expectation has not yet been formed, resulting in the fact that this behavior is perceived faster as a violation (Höflich et al., 2010).
The current study makes an important contribution to literature on ostracism. It shows that feelings of social exclusion and threats to fundamental needs can occur as a result of an everyday phenomenon in society – phubbing. Even when using a different method than the frequently used experimental game settings, such as the cyberball paradigm (Hartgerink et al., 2015), an effect was still found, verifying the reflexive stage of the TNT model where fundamental needs are threatened by ostracism (Williams, 2009). Additionally, a contribution was made to the TNT model, by finding an initial effect between type of relation and type of attributions. Finding that being excluded by a distant relation brings forth internal and relational attributions more often as explanations for phubbing behavior, it becomes clear that people are trying to explain the behavior in the reflective stage of the TNT model. Although type of attribution did not seem to interact with the main effect between level of phubbing and social exclusion and fundamental needs, the effect between type of relation and type of attributions provides new avenues for studies on ostracism, especially using the TNT model.
A practical implication of this study is that mobile phone use during interpersonal contact will always lead to feelings of social exclusion and a threat to fundamental needs. Therefore, the most obvious option would be to advise people to refrain from taking out their mobile phones while, for example, having a conversation with someone. Especially when this person is someone they do not know well, as the phubbee will likely assign this unfavorable behavior to the phubber’s personality. This coincides with the findings of Misra et al. (2016), which say that if an impression has not yet been formed, it is more vulnerable to certain negative impacts, such as phubbing behavior.
Limitations
The present study attempted to create a new scale to measure different attributes that could be given to the motives of phubbing. This scale contained measures for internal, external and
relational attributions, but all three were found to have poor reliability with Cronbach’s alpha lower than .70. One reason these scales did not prove reliable is because the scenario was not elaborate enough to give participants the information needed to fill in all of the items. The items included statements such as “he/she is not a social person” or “he/she is expecting an important call,” however this information could not be acquired from the given scenarios. This could have impacted external attribution being found insignificant, as the participants did not know necessary details about the phubber’s life. Eberly, Holley, Johnson and Mitchel (2017) also attempted to create a measure for scenarios used in their study on the examination of relational attributions, their items were more neutral of tone, such as “the event was because of something outside of you.” Therefore, future research might be advised to use the attribution scale made by Eberly et al. (2017).
Future research opportunities
This study differed from previous studies by the use of scenarios. Hartgerink et al. (2015) found that the exclusion from the cyberball gaming experiments could induce a negative impact on participants’ feelings of social exclusion and fundamental needs. However, criticisms of these experiments remain that the artificial conditions would produce unrealistic data (Bardsley, 2005). However, in the current study a hypothetical method (i.e., the scenario-based experiment) was used, which provided a high degree of internal validity (Kim & Jang, 2014). The main effects were still found, even with scenario use. For future studies, it would be wise to continue using scenarios, because it allows for high controllability by the experimenter to test certain predictions from theories or models, while holding all other factors constant (Calder, Philips, & Tybout, 1981). Carroll (1978) suggested that if participants were made to imagine the occurrence of a social event through the use of elaborate scenarios, they came to believe more strongly that this event could take place. For
future research, this would mean that scenarios need to be more elaborate to give the participants the opportunity to assign the behavior to different types of attributions. Present findings might be relevant for future research to expand the investigation of the reflective stage of the TNT model.
References
Abeele, M. M. V., Antheunis, M. L., & Schouten, A. P. (2016). The effect of mobile messaging during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 562-569. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.005
Ahmad, I. (2017). Understanding internal, external and relational attributions in reaction to corporate social responsibility. Business & Economic Review, 9(4), 49-64.
doi:10.22547/BER/9.4.3
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current directions in psychological science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bardsley, N. (2005). Experimental economics and the artificiality of alteration. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 239-251. doi:10.1080/13501780500086115
Barry, C. M., Madsen, S. D., Nelson, L. J., Carroll, J. S., & Badger, S. (2009). Friendship and romantic relationship qualities in emerging adulthood: Differential associations with identity development and achieved adulthood criteria. Journal of Adult Development, 16(4), 209. doi:10.1007/s10804-009-9067-x
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. (1990). Point-Counterpoints: Anxiety and Social Exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 165-195.
doi:10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.165
Belo Angeluci, A. C., & Huang, G. (2015). Rethinking media displacement: the tensions between mobile media and face-to-face interaction. Revista FAMECOS: mídia, cultura e tecnologia, 22(4). doi:10.15448/1980-3729.2015.4.21005
Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 39-51. doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1-2), 30-48.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communications Monographs, 54(1), 19-41.
Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of consumer research, 8(2), 197-207.
Cameron, A. F., & Webster, J. (2011). Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: Integrating incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organization Science, 22(3), 754-771. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0540
Carroll, J. S. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of experimental social psychology, 14(1), 88-96. doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90062-8
Case, T. I., & Williams, K. D. (2004). Ostracism: A metaphor for death. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 336-351). New York: Guilford Press.
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. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018
David, M. E., & Roberts, J. A. (2017). Phubbed and alone: Phone snubbing, social exclusion, and attachment to social media. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 155-163. doi:10.1086/690940
Dittes, J. E., & Kelley, H. H. (1956). Effects of different conditions of acceptance upon conformity to group norms. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53(1), 100.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(6), 1327.
Eberly, M. B., Holley, E. C., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Beyond internal and external: A dyadic theory of relational attributions. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 731-753. doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0371
Eberly, M. B., Holley, E. C., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2017). It’s not me, it’s not you, it’s us! An empirical examination of relational attributions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 711. doi:10.1037/apl0000187
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290-292.
doi:10.1126/science.1089134
Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., & Morrison, R. (2015). Ostracism, self-esteem, and job performance: When do we self-verify and when do we self-enhance? Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 279-297. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0347
Gerber, J., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected a meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 468-488.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01158.x
Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won't let me play: Ostracism even by a
despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1176-1186. doi:10.1002/ejsp.392
Haigh, A. (n.d.). Stop phubbing. Retrieved from http://stopphubbing.com.
Hales, A. H., Dvir, M., Wesselmann, E. D., Kruger, D. J., & Finkenauer, C. (2018). Cell phone-
induced ostracism threatens fundamental needs. The Journal of social psychology, 158(4), 460-473. doi:10.1080/00224545.2018.1439877
Social and Personal Relationships, 28(6), 723-747. doi:10.1177/0265407510386192
Han, S., Min, J., & Lee, H. (2015). Antecedents of social presence and gratification of social connection needs in SNS: a study of Twitter users and their mobile and non-mobile usage. International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 459-471. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.004
Hartgerink, C. H., van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). The ordinal effects
of ostracism: A meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies. PloS one, 10(5), e0127002. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127002
Harvey, P., Madison, K., Martinko, M., Crook, T.R., & Crook, T.A. (2014). Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: The road traveled and the path ahead. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 128–146. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0175
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Höflich, J. R., Kircher, G. F., Linke, C., & Schlote, I. (2010). Mobile media and the change of everyday life. Frankfurt am Mein, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH.
Huff, A., & Schwenk, C. (1990). Bias and sensemaking in good times and bad. In A. S. Huff (Ed.), Mapping strategic thought (pp. 85–108). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Inbar, O., Joost, G., Hemmert, F., Porat, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2014). Tactful calling:
investigating asymmetric social dilemmas in mobile communications. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(12), 1317-1332. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2014.928743 Jamieson, J. P., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Need threat can motivate
performance after ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 690-702. doi:10.1177/0146167209358882
Information Systems Management, 22(4), 7–23.
doi:10.1201/1078.10580530/45520.22.4.20050901/90026.2
Karadag, E., Tosuntas, S. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Sahin, B. M., ... & Babadag, B. (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A structural equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 60-74.
doi:10.1556/2006.4.2015.005
Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attributions in social interaction. New York: General Learning Press. Kim, J. H., & Jang, S. S. (2014). A scenario-based experiment and a field study: A comparative
examination for service failure and recovery. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41, 125-132. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.05.004
Krasnova, H., Abramova, O., Notter, I., & Baumann, A. (2016). Why Phubbing is Toxic for your Relationship: Understanding the Role of Smartphone Jealousy among" Generation y" Users. Research Papers. 109. http://aise1.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/109 Lee, J., & Shrum, L. J. (2012). Conspicuous consumption versus charitable behavior in response
to social exclusion: A differential needs explanation. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 530-544. doi:10.1086/664039
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2011). Attribution theory in the
organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 144–149. doi:10.1002/job.690
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. 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, 85–98. doi:10.1037/ppm0000065
Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., Rawn, C. D., & Vohs, K. D. (2010). Social exclusion causes people to spend and consume strategically in the service of affiliation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 902-919. doi:10.1086/656667
Middleton, C. A. (2007). Illusions of balance and control in an always-on environment: A case
study of BlackBerry users. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 21(2), 165–178. doi:10.1080/10304310701268695
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. doi:10.1177/0013916514539755
Moser, C., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Reinecke, K. (2016, May). Technology at the table: Attitudes about mobile phone use at mealtimes. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1881-1892). ACM. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858357
Nakamura, T. (2015). The action of looking at a mobile phone display as nonverbal
behavior/communication: A theoretical perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 68-75. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.042
moderators of reactions to interpersonal rejection: Depression and trait self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(12), 1235-1244.
Pepitone, A., & Wilpizeski, C. (1960). Some consequences of experimental rejection. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(3), 359.
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 Relationships, 30(3), 237-246.
doi:10.1177/0265407512453827
Oduor, E., Neustaedter, C., Odom, W., Tang, A., Moallem, N., Tory, M., & Irani, P. (2016, June). The frustrations and benefits of mobile device usage in the home when co-present with family members. Paper co-presented at the in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM. doi:10.1145/2901790.2901809 Rainie, L., & Zickuhr, K. (2015). Americans’ views on mobile etiquette. Pew Research
Center, 26.
Riva, P., Montali, L., Wirth, J. H., Curioni, S., & Williams, K. D. (2017). Chronic social exclusion and evidence for the resignation stage: An empirical investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 541–564. doi:10.1177/0265407516644348 Roberts, J. A. (2015). Did you get phubbed by your boss? Retrieved from:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/06/opinions/roberts-boss-phubbing/
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. 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. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058 Shilling, A. A., & Brown, C. M. (2016). Goal-driven resource redistribution: An adaptive
response to social exclusion. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 10, 149–167. doi:10.1037/ebs0000062
Smith, A., & Williams, K. D. (2004). R U There? Ostracism by Cell Phone Text Messages. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, And Practice, 8(4), 291-301.
doi:10.1037/1089-2699.8.4.291
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
Wan, E. W., Xu, J., & Ding, Y. (2013). To be or not to be unique? The effect of social exclusion on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1109-1122. doi:10.1086/674197
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.
Wesselmann, E. D., Nairne, J. S., & Williams, K. D. (2012). An evolutionary social
psychological approach to studying the effects of ostracism. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6, 309–328. doi:10.1037/h0099249
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford Press. Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Psychology, 58(1), 425.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need‐threat model. Advances in experimental social psychology, 41, 275-314.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over
the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748
Wiseman JP (1986) Friendship: Bonds and binds in a voluntary relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 3(2): 191–211.
Zadro, L., Boland, C., & Richardson, R. (2006). How long does it last? The persistence of the effects of ostracism in the socially anxious. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 42, 692–697. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.007
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer lowers belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560-567. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or the motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245–287.
Appendix A: Scenarios Close relationship x low phubbing
Imagine it’s a nice Saturday evening. You are at a birthday party of one of your close friends and the atmosphere is great! Everyone is having an amazing time. At one point you come across one of your best friends. You start talking to him/her. When (s)he asks what you have been doing, you start telling him/her enthusiastically about something that happened last week. While you are talking, (s)he grabs his/her smartphone to check on something after which (s)he puts his/her smartphone away. You continue talking with your best friend about last week. While you are still talking, (s)he grabs his/her smartphone, checks it briefly again, and continues talking with you.
Distant relationship x low phubbing
Imagine it’s a nice Saturday evening. You are at a birthday party of one of your close friends and the atmosphere is great! Everyone is having an amazing time. At one point you come across an acquaintance that you do not know very well, but you have met him/her before at parties. You start talking to him/her. When (s)he asks what you have been doing, you start telling him/her enthusiastically about something that happened last week. While you are talking, (s)he grabs his/her smartphone to check on something after which (s)he puts his/her smartphone away. You continue talking with your acquaintance about last week. While you are still talking, (s)he grabs his/her smartphone, checks it briefly again, and continues talking with you.
Close relationship x high phubbing
Imagine it’s a nice Saturday evening. You are at a birthday party of one of your close friends and the atmosphere is great! Everyone is having an amazing time. At one point you come
across one of your best friends. You start talking to him/her. When (s)he asks what you have been doing, you start telling him/her enthusiastically about something that happened last week. While you are talking, (s)he grabs his/her smartphone to text someone after which (s)he puts his/her smartphone away. You continue talking with your best friend about last week. While you are still talking, (s)he grabs his/her smartphone again and starts scrolling through Facebook.
Distant relationship x high phubbing
Imagine it’s a nice Saturday evening. You are at a birthday party of one of your close friends and the atmosphere is great! Everyone is having an amazing time. At one point you come across an acquaintance that you do not know very well, but you have met him/her before at parties. You start talking to him/her. When (s)he asks what you have been doing, you start telling him/her enthusiastically about something that happened last week. While you are talking, (s)he grabs his/her smartphone to text someone after which (s)he puts his/her smartphone away. You continue talking with your acquaintance about last week. While you are still talking, (s)he grabs his/her smartphone again and starts scrolling through Facebook.
Appendix B: Measurements Manipulation checks
Type of Relation. 1. In the scenario you just read, what was the relationship you had with the person you were talking to at the party? [Choose one answer]
a. No relation with the person b. Acquaintance
c. Friend
e. Family
f. Don’t remember g. Other …
Phubbing. 2. What did the person do on his/her phone? [Possible to choose multiple answers].
a. Nothing
b. Checked his phone briefly c. Texted someone
d. Scrolled on his phone e. Made a phone call f. Other …
Need threat scale
For the following questions, I would like to ask you to think back to the scenario you just read. For each question, please choose a box on the scale from “not at all” to “extremely” that best represents how you would feel during a situation as described in the scenario.
Need for belonging 1. I would feel “disconnected” from the other person (R). 2. I would feel rejected (R).
3. I would feel like an outsider (R).
4. I would feel like I had a connection with the other person. 5. I would feel the other person interacted with me a lot. Self-esteem 6. I would feel good about myself.
7. My self-esteem would be high. 8. I would feel liked.
9. I would feel insecure (R). 10. I would feel satisfied.
Meaningful existence 11. I would feel invisible (R). 12. I would feel meaningless (R).
13. I would feel nonexistent (R). 14. I would feel important. 15. I would feel useful.
Social exclusion scale
For the questions below, please choose the option on the scale that best represents how you would feel during a situation as described in the scenario. [1 = not at all, 5 = extremely]
1. I would feel rejected. 2. I would feel left out. 3. I would feel ignored.
Attribution scale
Someone can have different motivations for using their smartphone while still being in a conversation with you. How likely is it that the person you were talking to in the scenario was using their phone for the following reasons? Please choose the option on the scale from “extremely unlikely” to “extremely likely” which best represents the likelihood that this could be a reason for the person you were talking to, to use his/her phone.
This person was using his/her phone because … Internal attribute 1 (S)he is not a social person.
