Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Jun 4;51(3):e70027. doi: 10.1111/jmft.70027

How Does Being Phubbed Affect Commitment? Exploring the Roles of Emotional Loneliness and Relationship Satisfaction

Ayse Aslanturk 1,✉, Coskun Arslan 2
PMCID: PMC12135132  PMID: 40464288

ABSTRACT

Partner phubbing can be considered a current relational problem, particularly affecting romantic relationships. Further research is needed to fully understand the consequences of this behavior, which has been studied with many variables in the context of romantic relationships. In this study, the mediating effects of emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction on how pphubbing affects relationship commitment were examined in 320 heterosexual participants. Hayes' PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 6) was used to examine the multiple mediation model in the relationship between the variables. The study's results support the hypothesis that partner phubbing significantly reduces the phubee's (the partner being phubbed) commitment to the relationship through emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction. To promote stronger relationship commitment, interventions that reduce emotional loneliness and increase relationship satisfaction may be helpful and it is also essential that we consider the risk of pphubbing.

Keywords: emotional loneliness, interdependence theory, partner phubbing, relationship commitment, relationship satisfaction

1. Introduction

Smartphones have become an integral part of our daily lives, with both positive and negative outcomes (Aoki and Downes 2003; Horwood and Anglim 2019; Przybylski and Weinstein 2013). These outcomes include positive effects, such as shortening physical distances in our social relationships, as well as negative effects, such as increasing emotional distance by causing interruptions in face‐to‐face interactions. The literature has coined the term “phubbing” to describe the phenomenon of interrupting face‐to‐face relationships. As Arenz and Schnauber‐Stockmann (2023) have highlighted, the etymological origins of the term “phubbing” extend beyond its current usage to encompass the use of mobile phones in face‐to‐face interactions. The term also suggests that at least one person in the interaction feels ignored or snubbed. In this context, phubbing has become a phenomenon that profoundly affects interpersonal interaction in modern relationships.

Phubbing is the act of disconnecting from a person by focusing one's attention on digital or mobile devices, while ignoring the person with whom they are communicating (McDaniel and Coyne 2016; Ugur and Koc 2015). As with many other types of relationships, phubbing significantly affects romantic partnerships as well (Al‐Saggaf and O'Donnell 2019; Wang et al. 2017). Communication with a partner can be disrupted by partner phubbing (pphubbing), a relatively new concept that warrants further investigation to better understand its causes and consequences. However, it is possible to state that recent studies have provided a framework for understanding pphubbing. Findings indicate that pphubbing significantly reduces relationship satisfaction (Roberts and David 2016; Wang and Zhao 2023; Vanden Abeele et al. 2016), quality (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas 2018; Halpern and Katz 2017; McDaniel et al. 2020), harmony (Krasnova et al. 2016) and intimacy (Misra et al. 2014; Vanden Abeele and Postma‐Nilsenova 2018) while increasing the risk of depression (Roberts and David 2016; Wang et al. 2017), anxiety (Schokkenbroek et al. 2022), jealousy (David and Roberts 2021), curiosity, anger, and frustration (Thomas et al. 2022).

Although several of the variables mentioned above have been explored in previous studies to understand how pphubbing influences couple dynamics, no research to date has specifically examined the relationship between pphubbing and relationship commitment. However, commitment is crucial for the maintenance of relationships. It is the determining factor in answering the question of whether to continue the relationship is an evaluation of the relationship (Holmes 2000). Therefore, this study was designed to examine the effect of pphubbing behavior on relationship commitment. In addition, it aims to contribute to the growing body of literature by investigating the mediating roles of emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction in the link between these two variables.

1.1. Partner Phubbing and Relationship Commitment

Relationship commitment refers to a tendency to remain in a relationship and to be emotionally attached to one's partner (Rusbult 1980, 1983). The investment model provides a valuable framework for explaining relationship commitment, and is grounded in Thibaut and Kelley's (1959) interdependence theory and social exchange theory. The fundamental concept of these theories is that mutual influence between partners in a romantic relationship is inevitable, and these interactions yield both positive and negative outcomes. These outcomes are commonly referred to as rewards and costs in the relationship. Rewards refer to the satisfaction of partners' needs, pleasing behaviors, pleasure, and happiness in the relationship. Costs, on the other hand, reflect conflicts, disappointments (Impett et al. 2018), effort and sacrifice made for the relationship (Rusbult and Buunk 1993). The balance between these rewards and costs shapes the present and future of the relationship. However, the balance between rewards and costs is not the only criterion in evaluating a relationship.

Rusbult (1980) extended this model by introducing investments as an essential factor in relationship maintenance. Investments are defined as resources that would be lost or would depreciate in value if the relationship were to end. These resources can be internal, such as time, effort, and emotions, or external, such as children born from the relationship, social connections, or material resources (Tran et al. 2019). It can be assumed that if one partner invests through actions such as self‐disclosure, sharing, or spending time together, and these investments are not reciprocated or are disrupted by the other partner (e.g., through pphubbing), the individual's commitment to the relationship may decrease.

While studies on pphubbing have been examined so far, no study on relationship commitment has been found. For this reason, it was thought that investigating the relationship between relationship commitment and pphubbing, which is a comprehensive concept and basically decisive in terms of the decision to maintain or terminate the relationship (Thibaut and Kelley 1959), would make an important contribution to the literature. Indeed, previous researchers have pointed out the need to investigate the relationship between these two variables (Wang et al. 2021).

A decline in relationship commitment may signal early warning signs for the relationship, and timely intervention at this stage could play a key role in preserving it. In this respect, our study aims not only to contribute to the literature on understanding pphubbing, but also to offer new insights for professionals working in couples therapy. Incorporating factors that diminish relationship commitment into the therapeutic process may enhance the effectiveness of treatment outcomes. Based on this rationale, the first hypothesis of our study is as follows:

Pphubbing negatively predicts relationship commitment.

1.2. Relationship Satisfaction and Emotional Loneliness as Mediator Variables

According to the Investment Model (Rusbult 1983), higher rewards and lower costs, combined with lower expectations from one's partner, contribute to relatively higher levels of satisfaction. Interdependence Theory (Thibaut and Kelley 1959) suggests that relationship satisfaction plays an important role in shaping relationship commitment. While satisfaction is influenced by the perceived rewards and costs within the relationship, commitment is a broader construct that encompasses not only satisfaction but also the investment dimension and the perceived quality of alternatives (Rusbult 1983). Satisfaction has been established as a factor contributing to increased commitment in a relationship (Machia et al. 2024). The link between these two variables is inevitable but according to this model, relationship satisfaction is one of the components of commitment. Therefore, we position satisfaction as a mediator rather than an outcome, as it directly affects the likelihood that an individual will remain committed to the relationship. In this view, commitment may be regarded as a potential outcome variable. Indeed, Etcheverry et al. (2013) demonstrated that satisfaction mediates the relationship between attachment and commitment. Hendrick et al. (1988) found that individuals who were less satisfied with their relationships were more inclined to terminate them. Furthermore, it was determined that satisfaction was a significant factor in the decision to remain in a relationship due to its impact on the relationship dynamics (Hendrick 2004). In particular, Rusbult (1980) conceptualized commitment as a cognitive outcome of satisfaction. Accordingly, in examining the factors that affect relationship commitment, it is essential to consider how these factors influence satisfaction.

As mentioned before, intrinsic investments, one of the factors affecting commitment, include factors such as time spent in the relationship, emotional commitment, self‐disclosure, and so on (Rusbult 1980). Within this framework, relationship satisfaction may serve as a mediator between pphubbing—a behavior that disrupts investments like shared time—and commitment. Despite numerous studies on the relationship between pphubbing and relationship satisfaction, no consensus has been reached in most of these studies. For instance, although some studies suggest that pphubbing has a negative impact on relationship satisfaction (Beukeboom and Pollmann 2021; Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas 2018; Roberts and David 2016, 2022; Thomas et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2017), other studies have found no significant relationship between these two variables (Ci̇zmeci̇ 2017; Frackowiak et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2021). Furthermore, no research has been found that examines the effect of the link between these two variables on the level of relationship commitment. The following hypothesis was proposed to clarify this potential mediating effect:

Relationship satisfaction mediates the relationship between pphubbing and relationship commitment.

Loneliness is a subjective experience that varies depending on individual and contextual factors. Weiss categorized loneliness into two types: emotional and social loneliness. Emotional loneliness refers to the absence or inadequacy of a close emotional bond, while social loneliness refers to the absence of a social bond and can be distinguished by feelings of exclusion (Weiss 1973). Indeed, Dahlberg and McKee (2014) emphasized that considering social and emotional loneliness separately will be more effective in understanding the nature of loneliness. Feelings of emotional loneliness may have a significant impact on individuals, particularly in the context of romantic relationships. This is because romantic relationships are often characterized by a high degree of emotional closeness when compared to other close relationships (Büyükşahin et al. 2005). Moreover, the termination of a close relationship or a decline in relational satisfaction can often trigger feelings of loneliness (Perlman and Peplau 1982). Within the framework of mutual interdependence between romantic partners, one partner's emotional loneliness may significantly affect the overall relational dynamic, potentially leading to negative relational outcomes.

Emotional loneliness is defined as the experience of lacking emotional support, intimacy, and meaningful interactions within a romantic relationship (Weiss 1973). From the lens of Interdependence Theory, the presence of emotional loneliness reflects a reduction in interdependence between partners and signals a negative shift in the reward‐to‐cost ratio of the relationship. Furthermore, Interdependence Theory posits that the perceived rewards and costs within a relationship influence satisfaction levels (Thibaut and Kelley 1959). According to Anderson and Sabatelli (2003), behaviors such as positive verbal communication, spending quality time together, and demonstrating emotional sensitivity are perceived as rewards that directly enhance relationship satisfaction. From this perspective, phubbing—a behavior in which one prioritizes mobile phone use over their partner—may foster feelings of emotional loneliness and emerge as a key contributor to relationship dissatisfaction.

In fact, emotional loneliness is basically related to the absence of satisfying relationships (Weiss 1973), so it may be theoretically assumed that emotional loneliness is directly related to relationship satisfaction. Several studies have suggested that loneliness may mediate the relationship between phubbing and relationship satisfaction (Al‐Saggaf 2023; Zhan et al. 2022). Phubbing has been directly related to loneliness (Maftei and Măirean 2023), and individuals exposed to partner phubbing have been shown to feel socially excluded and in greater need of attention from others (David and Roberts 2017). Texting, which can be considered as a phubbing behavior, has also been found to reduce the intimacy between couples by triggering conflict between couples (Halpern and Katz 2017). A growing body of research has demonstrated that pphubbing negatively affects relationship satisfaction and marital satisfaction (Kılıçarslan and Parmaksız 2023; Togar et al. 2023; Wang and Zhao 2023; Yam 2023; Zhang et al. 2023). Together, these findings indicate that pphubbing, emotional loneliness, and relationship satisfaction are interrelated concepts. As such, increased emotional loneliness resulting from pphubbing may lead individuals to perceive their relationships as less satisfying, ultimately reducing their commitment to the relationship.

Emotional loneliness mediates the relationship between pphubbing and relationship commitment.

Emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction play a serial mediating role between pphubbing and relationship commitment.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 320 participants from Turkey took part in the study, consisting of 242 women (75.6%) and 78 men (24.4%) who were in romantic relationships. The age range of the participants was 18–55 years old, with a mean age of 25.63 (SD = 7.41). Three percent of the participants had completed primary school, 9.7% were high school graduates, 71.6% were university graduates, 14.7% held a master's degree and 3.8% held a PhD. Of the participants, 76 (23.8%) were married and 244 (76.2%) were single. The length of the participants' current romantic relationships ranged from 1 month to 30 years, with a mean length of 38.23 months (SD = 58.75).

2.2. Procedure

We used Google Forms to design a questionnaire that included questions about pphubbing, emotional loneliness, relationship satisfaction, and relationship commitment, along with a demographic information form. This form was delivered to the participants via e‐mail, WhatsApp and social media (Twitter and LinkedIn), and they anonymously filled in online questionnaires. The survey form was made available between June and August 2023. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study and completed the informed consent form before answering the questionnaire. The survey took approximately 15 min to complete and participants were informed that they could stop participating at any stage during the survey.

2.3. Measures

The Partner Phubbing Scale: The scale developed by Roberts and David (2016) evaluates the level of exposure to phubbing behavior during face‐to‐face communication among individuals in romantic relationships. In other words, the scale assesses the perception of being phubbed by one's partner. The scale, which contains nine items (e.g., “My partner glances at his/her cell phone when talking to me.”) and has a 5‐point Likert scale, was adapted into Turkish by Ci̇zmeci̇ (2017). The scale's internal consistency coefficient was found to be 0.80, which is consistent with the findings of Ci̇zmeci̇ (2017) (Cronbach's α = 0.80). The scale's internal consistency coefficient is sufficient.

The Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale (Selsa‐S): Akgül (2020) adapted the scale developed by DiTommaso and Spinner (1993, 1997) into Turkish. The scale is scored on a 7‐point Likert scale and consists of 15 items. The scale includes emotional loneliness (e.g., “I have a partner with whom I share my most intimate thoughts and feelings.”) and social loneliness (e.g., “I don't have any friends who understand me, but I wish I did.”) dimensions, and the sum of the scores of these two subscales reveals the general loneliness level. For the purpose of this study, only the emotional loneliness scores were analyzed. Akgül (2020) found the internal consistency coefficient of the scale to be 0.83, which was also considered sufficient in the present study (Cronbach's α = 0.84).

Relationship Stability Scale (RSS): The scale used in this study was originally developed by Rusbult et al. (1998) and adapted into Turkish by Büyükşahin et al. (2005). The scale comprises four subscales: relationship satisfaction, investment size, quality of alternatives, and commitment. Cronbach's α internal consistency coefficient for both the commitment subscale (e.g., “I want our relationship to continue for a very long time.”) (Cronbach's α = 0.90) and the relationship satisfaction subscale (e.g., “Our relationship is satisfying for me.”) was found to be sufficient (Cronbach's α = 0.95).

2.4. Data Analysis

This study was analyzed using SPSS (version 28) and SPSS‐Macro PROCESS (version 4.2). Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05 and confidence intervals (CIs) were set at 95%. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. Preliminary analyzes revealed that the variables were not normally distributed, with high values of skewness and kurtosis. Spearman correlation is less affected by outliers and skewed distributions (Corder and Foreman 2014), as it is a rank‐based method. Therefore, nonparametric Spearman rank correlations were performed. The study examined a multiple mediation model of emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction in the link between pphubbing and relationship commitment using Hayes' PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 6). PROCESS does not require normality in the study variables as it uses a nonparametric bootstrapping resampling technique (Preacher and Hayes 2008). In the present study, 5000 random samples were taken from the data by bootstrapping method. The 95% bootstrap CI, which is independent of zero, reveals that there is a significant effect. Gender, relationship status, and relationship length were included as control variables in the model.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive and Bivariate Analyses

The means, standard deviations, and Spearman rank correlations of the study variables are presented in Table 1. Pphubbing was positively correlated with emotional loneliness and negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction and commitment. Additionally, emotional loneliness was found to be negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction and commitment. Furthermore, a positive correlation was observed between relationship satisfaction and commitment.

Table 1.

Spearman rank correlation coefficients between study variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Pphubbing 1.67 0.66 —
2. Emotional loneliness 2.56 1.13 0.245** —
3. Relationship satisfaction 7.47 1.76 −0.310** −0.580** —
4. Commitment 7.97 1.44 −0.176** −0.442** 0.568** —
5. Sex N/A N/A 0.017 0.055 0.000 −0.029
6. Relationship status N/A N/A −0.200** 0.166** 0.059 −0.100
7. Relationship length 38.23 58.75 0.076 −0.190** 0.040 0.127*
Open in a new tab
*

p ≤ 0.05,

**

p ≤ 0.001.

3.2. The Mediating Roles of Emotional Loneliness and Relationship Satisfaction

First, the mediating role of relationship satisfaction between pphubbing and commitment was tested using Hayes' PROCESS (Model 4). Pphubbing was a negative predictor of relationship satisfaction (b = −0.736, p < 0.001) and relationship satisfaction was a positive predictor of relationship commitment (b = 0.511, p < 0.001), after controlling for gender, relationship status and relationship length. The direct effect of pphubbing on commitment was statistically insignificant (b = −0.155, p = 0.12). The indirect effect was −0.376, 95% CI (−0.611, −0.183) (H2). Therefore, relationship satisfaction played a full mediating role in the relationship between pphubbing and commitment.

Similarly, the mediating role of emotional loneliness between pphubbing and commitment was tested using Hayes' PROCESS (Model 4). Pphubbing was a positive predictor of emotional loneliness (b = 0.518, p < 0.001) and emotional loneliness was a negative predictor of relationship commitment (b = −0.562, p < 0.001), after controlling for gender, relationship status and relationship length. The direct effect of pphubbing on commitment was statistically significant (b = −0.240, p < 0.05). The indirect effect was −0.291, 95% CI (−0.435, −0.161) (H3). Therefore, emotional loneliness played a partial mediating role in the relationship between pphubbing and commitment.

3.3. Testing Serial Mediation Model

The results of the serial mediation analysis using Hayes' PROCESS (Model 6) are presented in Table 2 and Figure 1. The regression analysis for hypothesis 1 showed that pphubbing had a direct effect on commitment (b = −0.212, p < 0.001) and accounted for 5% of the variance in commitment. However, when mediator variables were included in the analysis, this effect became insignificant (b = −0.128, p = 0.21). Thus, it can be concluded that there is a full mediating effect between pphubbing and commitment.

Table 2.

Multiple mediation model with pphubbing as predictor, emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction as mediators, and relationship commitment as outcome.

Confidence interval (95%)
b β SEb p LL UL
Total effect
Pphubbing → Commitment −0.531** −0.242 0.122 0.00 −0.771 −0.290
Indirect effects
Pphubbing → Emotional loneliness → Commitment −0.057 −0.026 0.044 −0.149 0.022
Pphubbing → Relationship satisfaction → Commitment −0.111 −0.051 0.084 −0.294 0.035
Pphubbing → Emotional loneliness → Relationship satisfaction → Commitment −0.234 −0.107 0.056 −0.351 −0.130
Direct effects
Pphubbing → Emotional loneliness 0.518** 0.301 0.093 0.00 0.334 0.702
Emotional loneliness → Relationship satisfaction −0.963** −0.620 0.071 0.00 −1.103 −0.823
Emotional loneliness → Commitment −0.111 −0.087 0.073 0.13 −0.254 −0.033
Pphubbing → Relationship satisfaction −0.238 −0.090 0.124 0.06 −0.481 0.006
Relationship satisfaction → Commitment 0.469** 0.572 0.046 0.00 0.378 0.559
Pphubbing → Commitment −0.128 −0.059 0.101 0.21 −0.327 0.071
Open in a new tab

Note: R 2 full mediated model = 43%.

**

p ≤ 0.001. R 2 full mediated model = 43%.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The serial mediation model. **p ≤ 0.001; dashed lines indicate nonsignificant effects.

As previously reported, both emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction individually mediated the relationship between pphubbing and commitment. When a significant path between emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction (b = −0.963, p < 0.001) was included in the model, it was revealed that the relationship between pphubbing and commitment was fully mediated by emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction (b = −0.234, 95% CI [−0.351, −0.130]) (H4). The total effect of pphubbing on commitment was statistically significant (b = −0.531, p < 0.001) and accounted for 43% of the variance in commitment, after controlling for gender, relationship status and relationship length.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

4.1. Discussion

The objective of our study was to investigate whether exposure to phubbing behavior within romantic relationships affects commitment. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the impact of pphubbing on relationship commitment within a theoretical model. Our findings demonstrate that pphubbing negatively predicts commitment and that this relationship is mediated by emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction.

Pphubbing positively predicted emotional loneliness and, as hypothesized, emotional loneliness mediated the relationship between pphubbing and relationship commitment. In other words, individuals who are exposed to high levels of pphubbing tend to feel emotionally lonelier in their romantic relationships, which ultimately weakens their commitment. This finding is consistent with existing research that phubbing may be associated with loneliness (Frackowiak et al. 2023; Maftei and Măirean 2023). In addition, phubbing may reduce the commitment of the person who is phubbed (Przybylski and Weinstein 2013). These findings support the hypothesis that unmet needs in a close relationship due to pphubbing behavior may lead to an increase in feelings of emotional loneliness, which may reduce an individual's commitment to the relationship.

Pphubbing was found to be a negative predictor of relationship satisfaction. Our hypothesis was supported by the finding that relationship satisfaction mediated the relationship between pphubbing and relationship commitment. According to this result, the satisfaction of individuals in a relationship may decrease when they are exposed to high levels of pphubbing. This decrease in satisfaction may significantly reduce their commitment to the relationship. While some studies in the literature have found insignificant effects between pphubbing and relationship satisfaction (e.g. Ci̇zmeci̇ 2017; Frackowiak et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2021), the results of this study are consistent with those of studies indicating that greater exposure to pphubbing is associated with lower relationship satisfaction (Beukeboom and Pollmann 2021; Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas 2018; Roberts and David 2016, 2022, 2023; Thomas et al. 2022; Togar et al. 2023; Wang et al. 2017). Recent studies suggest that pphubbing negatively affects not only romantic relationship satisfaction but also marital satisfaction (Kılıçarslan and Parmaksız 2023; Wang and Zhao 2023; Zhang et al. 2023).

Beyond individual mediating effects, the study also investigated a serial mediation model in which phubbing influences commitment via emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction. The results show that pphubbing has an indirect effect on relationship commitment through emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction. This finding confirms our research hypothesis. More specifically, individuals who are exposed to pphubbing are more likely to experience higher levels of emotional loneliness, which may reduce the individual's relationship satisfaction and ultimately lead to a decrease in relationship commitment. To the best of our knowledge, a theoretical model that considers all of these variables together has not been presented before. This finding fills a gap identified in the literature (e.g., Wang et al. 2021). Importantly, emotional loneliness emerged as a key variable in understanding the indirect effects of phubbing. However, its influence may vary depending on the relationship type and stage. In dating relationships, where investment levels are typically lower, emotional loneliness may more easily lead to relationship dissolution (Rusbult 1983). In contrast, in marital relationships, emotional loneliness may persist despite dissatisfaction due to greater relational investments and external constraints (Stanley et al. 2006). These insights underscore the importance of examining how the mediating roles of emotional factors vary across different relational contexts.

Furthermore, it has been found that emotional loneliness has a significant negative effect on relationship satisfaction. Weiss (1973, 1982) stated that emotional loneliness is basically related to the absence of satisfying relationships. As a matter of fact, the findings of our study, which show that individuals who feel emotionally lonely express lower levels of satisfaction in their relationships, are not unexpected. This finding actually reveals that the emotional needs of the person in the relationship are not being met. Considering the strong relationship between relationship satisfaction and meeting emotional needs (Leung and Law 2019; Vanhee et al. 2016), this finding is supported by the results of the literature.

Phubbing is known to significantly and negatively affect perceived communication quality and relationship satisfaction (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas 2018). When considered together with the results of our study, it can be inferred that phubbing negatively affects the communication between partners and thus increases the emotional loneliness of the partner exposed to phubbing, which in turn reduces relationship satisfaction. Although there is no similar study in the context of romantic relationships, there is a quite recent study showing that individuals who report being phubbed by friends tend to report higher loneliness and lower friendship satisfaction (Al‐Saggaf 2023). In this study, no distinction was made between emotional and social loneliness, but it seems that loneliness may be a concept closely related to phubbing and relationship satisfaction. There are other studies showing that phubbing and loneliness may be related (e.g., Maftei and Măirean 2023; Tecdelioğlu 2021).

Pphubbing causes the person exposed to this behavior to feel excluded (David and Roberts 2017) and negatively affects perceived closeness. These effects also mediate the relationship between phubbing and relationship satisfaction (Beukeboum and Pollman 2021). These findings are consistent with the mediating effect model of emotional loneliness on the relationship between relationship satisfaction and pphubbing. In addition, the strong relationships between relationship satisfaction and relationship commitment in our study provides evidence that low relationship satisfaction may reduce relationship commitment. The results of our study also support the existing literature (Givertz et al. 2009; Leonhardt et al. 2022; Nascimento and Little 2022).

Previous research has examined a variety of predictors contributing to commitment in romantic relationships. Givertz and Segrin (2005) investigated the roles of relationship satisfaction, conflict responses, and relational bonds in predicting commitment and found that these variables accounted for 42% of the variance in women's commitment and 43% in men's. Similarly, Vannier and O'Sullivan (2017), using the investment model framework, explored the mediating roles of satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment in the association between unmet romantic expectations and commitment. Their model explained 56% of the variance in relationship commitment. Tran et al. (2019) conducted a meta‐analysis of 202 independent samples, including data from 50,427 participants, and reported that satisfaction, investment size, and quality of alternatives together explained 54% of the variance in commitment. Among these predictors, satisfaction emerged as the strongest predictor, followed by investment and quality of alternatives. Furthermore, Etcheverry et al. (2013) found that a model incorporating avoidance, satisfaction, alternatives, and investments explained 89% of the variance in commitment, highlighting the substantial predictive power of these relational factors. Compared to these findings, the model in our current study—in which pphubbing behavior predicts relationship commitment through emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction—accounts for 43% of the variance. This level of explanatory power is comparable to several robust models reported in the literature. These findings suggest that pphubbing may have a substantial impact on relationship dynamics and plays an indirect but significant role in shaping relationship commitment.

In addition to the results detailed above, the present study contributes to the interdependence theory of interdependence by demonstrating how pphubbing weakens commitment mechanisms within the relationship. Interdependence has the potential to be undermined not only by significant rewards or costs provided by the partner, as is often suggested in the literature, but also by micro‐level daily interactions such as phubbing. Consequently, perceived investment in the relationship may also be related to momentary attention and emotional availability. Weiss's model of loneliness, which is another theoretical model discussed throughout the study, is typically explained in situations involving the physical absence of the partner or the termination of a relationship. However, this study demonstrates that emotional loneliness may also arise in scenarios where the partner is physically present but emotionally unreachable. This distinction emphasizes that perceived connection, not mere copresence, is key to relational well‐being. In sum, the current study highlights the importance of emotional and cognitive presence in fostering relationship satisfaction and commitment, and identifies phubbing as a salient modern disruptor in these processes.

4.2. Limitations and Future Directions

This study is the first to examine the mediating effects between pphubbing and relationship commitment. However, the study has several limitations. First, the data were collected through self‐report measures, relying entirely on participants' subjective evaluations. As such, perceived pphubbing may reflect the phubbee's personal interpretations rather than the objective experience of being phubbed. The study's cross‐sectional nature restricts the examination of relationship commitment progression. Therefore, future research could investigate the impact of pphubbing on relationship commitment using a longitudinal design. The sample of this study consists of heterosexual individuals, and the results may not be generalizable to individuals with different sexual orientations. It is important to consider that a larger sample size may have resulted in larger effect sizes. In our study, the relationship length of the participants showed high variability (SD = 58.75). This indicates that the sample is large and covers a wide range of relationship lengths, which may enhance generalizability. Although this variable was assigned as a control variable, it is possible that it may have influenced the model's results for some individuals. Future studies could employ different models that include this variable as a moderator. The study examined the phubbee's perceptions of the relationship. The other side of the coin, concerning how the partner who engages in phubbing perceives the relationship, is beyond the limits of this study. Therefore, if future studies with the dyadic model yield inferences about both partners, the results may be discussed more broadly.

In practical terms, mindfulness‐based interventions in couple therapy may help raise awareness about the relational impact of phone use during face‐to‐face interactions. The facilitation of constructive dialogue concerning these adverse effects has the potential to empower couples to communicate effectively and to collaborate in the development of strategies to mitigate these detrimental effects. Examples of such strategies include the implementation of screen‐time limits, designated periods of technology‐free time, and the designation of technology‐free zones within the home or other environments. Such practices may help meet emotional needs and support the cultivation of healthier digital habits, thereby facilitating the establishment of stronger, more connected relationships.

4.3. Conclusion

Our research aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence commitment in romantic relationships. In sum, this study takes an important step in examining the mediation effect in the relationship between pphubbing and relationship commitment. This study is the first study to suggest that pphubbing has an indirect effect on relationship commitment through emotional loneliness and relationship satisfaction. The findings highlight the importance of addressing perceptions of phubbing in couple therapy. Interventions focused on reducing emotional loneliness and enhancing relationship satisfaction may play a crucial role in promoting stronger and more committed romantic relationships.

Ethics Statement

All procedures in the current study complied with the ethics committee and with the Belmont Report‐1979.

Acknowledgments

We thank all members of the study group for their support.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available upon request from the first author.

References

  1. Akgül, H. 2020. “Yetişkinler için Sosyal ve Duygusal Yalnızlık Ölçeği'nin (SELSA‐S) Türk Kültürüne Uyarlaması: Geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Adapting Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale (SELSA‐S) to Turkish Culture: Relevance and Reliability].” Yalova Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 10, no. 21: 54–69. [Google Scholar]
  2. Al‐Saggaf, Y. 2023. “Does the Experience of Being Phubbed by Friends Affect Psychological Well‐Being? The Mediating Roles of Loneliness, Relationship Satisfaction, and Self‐Esteem.” Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2023, no. 1: 9920310. 10.1155/2023/9920310. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Al‐Saggaf, Y. , and O'Donnell S. B.. 2019. “Phubbing: Perceptions, Reasons Behind, Predictors, and Impacts.” Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 1, no. 2: 132–140. 10.1002/hbe2.137. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, S. A. , and Sabatelli R. M.. 2003. Family Interaction: A Multigenerational Development Perspective. Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aoki, K. , and Downes E. J.. 2003. “An Analysis of Young People's Use of and Attitudes Toward Cell Phones.” Telematics and Informatics 20, no. 4: 349–364. 10.1016/S0736-5853(03)00018-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Arenz, A. , and Schnauber‐Stockmann A.. 2023. “Who ʻPhubsʼ? A Systematic Meta‐Analytic Review of Phubbing Predictors.” Mobile Media & Communication 12, no. 3: 637–661. 10.1177/20501579231215678. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Beukeboom, C. J. , and Pollmann M.. 2021. “Partner Phubbing: Why Using Your Phone During Interactions With Your Partner Can Be Detrimental for Your Relationship.” Computers in Human Behavior 124: 106932. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106932. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Büyükşahin, A. , Hasta D., and Hovardaoğlu S.. 2005. “İlişki İstikrarı Ölçeği (İİÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Relationship Stability Scale (RSS): A Study of Validity and Reliability].” Türk Psikoloji Yazıları 8, no. 16: 25–35. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chotpitayasunondh, V. , and Douglas K. M.. 2018. “The Effects of ʻPhubbingʼ on Social Interaction.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 48, no. 6: 304–316. 10.1111/jasp.12506. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cizmeci, E. 2017. “Disconnected, Though Satisfied: Pphubbing Behavior and Relationship Satisfaction.” Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication 7, no. 2: 364–375. 10.7456/10702100/018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Corder, G. W. , and Foreman D. I.. 2014. Nonparametric Statistics: A Step‐by‐Step Approach. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dahlberg, L. , and McKee K. J.. 2014. “Correlates of Social and Emotional Loneliness in Older People: Evidence From an English Community Study.” Aging & Mental Health 18, no. 4: 504–514. 10.1080/13607863.2013.856863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. David, M. E. , and Roberts J. A.. 2017. “Phubbed and Alone: Phone Snubbing, Social Exclusion, and Attachment to Social Media.” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 2, no. 2: 155–163. [Google Scholar]
  14. David, M. E. , and Roberts J. 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, no. 12: 3590–3609. 10.1177/0265407521996454. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. DiTommaso, E. , and Spinner B.. 1993. “The Development and Initial Validation of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA).” Personality and Individual Differences 14, no. 1: 127–134. 10.1016/0191-8869(93)90182-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. DiTommaso, E. , and Spinner B.. 1997. “Social and Emotional Loneliness: A Re‐Examination of Weiss’ Typology of Loneliness.” Personality and Individual Differences 22, no. 3: 417–427. 10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00204-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Etcheverry, P. E. , Le B., Wu T. F., and Wei M.. 2013. “Attachment and the Investment Model: Predictors of Relationship Commitment, Maintenance, and Persistence.” Personal Relationships 20, no. 3: 546–567. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01423.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Frackowiak, M. , Hilpert P., and Russell P. S.. 2022. “Partner's Perception of Phubbing Is More Relevant Than the Behavior Itself: A Daily Diary Study.” Computers in Human Behavior 134: 107323. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107323. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Frackowiak, M. , Hilpert P., and Russell P. S.. 2023. “Impact of Partner Phubbing on Negative Emotions: A Daily Diary Study of Mitigating Factors.” Current Psychology 43: 1835–1854. 10.1007/s12144-023-04401-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Givertz, M. , and Segrin C.. 2005. “Explaining Personal and Constraint Commitment in Close Relationships: The Role of Satisfaction, Conflict Responses, and Relational Bond.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22, no. 6: 757–775. 10.1177/0265407505058674. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Givertz, M. , Segrin C., and Hanzal A.. 2009. “The Association Between Satisfaction and Commitment Differs Across Marital Couple Types.” Communication Research 36, no. 4: 561–584. 10.1177/0093650209333035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Halpern, D. , and Katz J. E.. 2017. “Texting's Consequences for Romantic Relationships: A Cross‐Lagged Analysis Highlights Its Risks.” Computers in Human Behavior 71: 386–394. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hendrick, S. S. 2004. “Close Relationships Research: A Resource for Couple and Family Therapists.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 30, no. 1: 13–27. 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2004.tb01219.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hendrick, S. S. , Hendrick C., and Adler N. L.. 1988. “Romantic Relationships: Love, Satisfaction, and Staying Together.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, no. 6: 980–988. 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.980. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Holmes, J. G. 2000. “Social Relationships: The Nature and Function of Relational Schemas.” European Journal of Social Psychology 30, no. 4: 447–495. [Google Scholar]
  26. Horwood, S. , and Anglim J.. 2019. “Problematic Smartphone Usage and Subjective and Psychological Well‐Being.” Computers in Human Behavior 97: 44–50. 10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Impett, E. A. , Beals K. P., and Peplau L. A.. 2018. “Testing the Investment Model of Relationship Commitment and Stability in a Longitudinal Study of Married Couples.” In Love, Romance, Sexual Interaction, edited by Pallone N. J., 163–181. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  28. Krasnova, H. , Abramova O., Notter I., and A. Baumann. 2016. “Why Phubbing Is Toxic for Your Relationship: Understanding the Role of Smartphone Jealousy Among ʻGeneration Yʻ Users.” Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 1–21. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/109.
  29. Kılıçarslan, S. , and Parmaksız İ.. 2023. “The Mediator Role of Effective Communication Skills on the Relationship Between Phubbing Tendencies and Marriage Satisfaction in Married Individuals.” Computers in Human Behavior 147: 107863. 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107863. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Leonhardt, N. D. , Rosen N. O., Dawson S. J., Kim J. J., Johnson M. D., and Impett E. A.. 2022. “Relationship Satisfaction and Commitment in the Transition to Parenthood: A Couple‐Centered Approach.” Journal of Marriage and Family 84, no. 1: 80–100. 10.1111/jomf.12785. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Leung, A. N. M. , and Law W.. 2019. “Do Extrinsic Goals Affect Romantic Relationships? The Role of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction.” Motivation and Emotion 43: 857–873. 10.1007/s11031-019-09804-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Machia, L. V. , Tan K., and Agnew C. R.. 2024. “Relationship Commitment Regulation: Influencing a Partner's Commitment to Achieve One's Commitment Goals.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 18, no. 7: e12986. 10.1111/spc3.12986. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Maftei, A. , and Măirean C.. 2023. “Put Your Phone Down! Perceived Phubbing, Life Satisfaction, and Psychological Distress: The Mediating Role of Loneliness.” BMC Psychology 11, no. 1: 332. 10.1186/s40359-023-01359-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. McDaniel, B. T. , and Coyne S. M.. 2016. “Technoferenceʼ: The Interference of Technology in Couple Relationships and Implications for Women's Personal and Relational Well‐Being.” Psychology of Popular Media Culture 5, no. 1: 85–98. 10.1037/ppm0000065. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. McDaniel, B. T. , Galovan A. M., and Drouin M.. 2020. “Daily Technoference, Technology Use During Couple Leisure Time, and Relationship Quality.” Media Psychology 24, no. 5: 637–665. 10.1080/15213269.2020.1783561. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Misra, S. , Cheng L., Genevie J., and Yuan M.. 2014. “The iPhone Effect: The Quality of In‐Person Social Interactions in the Presence of Mobile Devices.” Environment and Behavior 48, no. 2: 275–298. 10.1177/0013916514539755. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Nascimento, B. , and Little A.. 2022. “Relationship Satisfaction Mediates the Association Between Perceived Partner Mate Retention Strategies and Relationship Commitment.” Current Psychology 41, no. 8: 5374–5382. 10.1007/s12144-020-01045-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Perlman, D. , and Peplau L. A.. 1982. “Theoretical Approaches to Loneliness.” In Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, edited by Peplau L. A. and Perlman D., 123–134. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  39. Preacher, K. J. , and Hayes A. F.. 2008. “Contemporary Approaches to Assessing Mediation in Communication Research.” In The Sage Sourcebook of Advanced Data Analysis Methods for Communication Research, edited by Hayes A. F., Slater M. D., and Snyder L. B., 13–54. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  40. Przybylski, A. K. , and 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, no. 3: 237–246. 10.1177/0265407512453827. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Roberts, J. A. , and 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. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Roberts, J. A. , and David M. E.. 2022. “Partner Phubbing and Relationship Satisfaction Through the Lens of Social Allergy Theory.” Personality and Individual Differences 195: 111676. 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111676. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Roberts, J. A. , and David M. E.. 2023. “Partner Phubbing and Relationship Satisfaction Among High and Low Reward Romantic Partners: An Expectancy Violations Theory Perspective.” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 40, no. 18: 5493–5502. 10.1080/10447318.2023.2238341. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rusbult, C. E. 1980. “Commitment and Satisfaction in Romantic Associations: A Test of the Investment Model.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16, no. 2: 172–186. 10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Rusbult, C. E. 1983. “A Longitudinal Test of the Investment Model: The Development (and Deterioration) of Satisfaction and Commitment in Heterosexual Involvements.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, no. 1: 101–117. 10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rusbult, C. E. , and Buunk B. P.. 1993. “Commitment Processes in Close Relationships: An Interdependence Analysis.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 10, no. 2: 175–204. 10.1177/026540759301000202. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Rusbult, C. E. , Martz J. M., and Agnew C. R.. 1998. “The Investment Model Scale: Measuring Commitment Level, Satisfaction Level, Quality of Alternatives, and Investment Size.” Personal Relationships 5, no. 4: 357–387. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Schokkenbroek, J. M. , Hardyns W., and Ponnet K.. 2022. “Phubbed and Curious: The Relation Between Partner Phubbing and Electronic Partner Surveillance.” Computers in Human Behavior 137: 107425. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107425. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Stanley, S. M. , Rhoades G. K., and Markman H. J.. 2006. “Sliding Versus Deciding: Inertia and the Premarital Cohabitation Effect.” Family Relations 55, no. 4: 499–509. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Tecdelioğlu, E. G. 2021. Yakın ilişkilerde gelişmelerikaçırma korkusu ve duygusal yalnızlık arasındaki ilişkiyi açıklamada partnersosyotelizminin aracı rolü [The Mediator Role of Partner Phubbing Inunderstanding the Relationship Between Fear of Missing Out and Emotionalloneliness in Intimate Relationships] (Unpublished master's thesis). HasanKalyoncu University.
  51. Thibaut, J. W. , and Kelley H. H.. 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups. John Wiley & Sons. 10.4324/9781315135007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Thomas, T. T. , Carnelley K. B., and Hart C. M.. 2022. “Phubbing in Romantic Relationships and Retaliation: A Daily Diary Study.” Computers in Human Behavior 137: 107398. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107398. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Togar, E. M. , Vanden Abeele M. M. P., van Wijk C. H., Yasin R. M., and Antheunis M. L.. 2023. “An Actor‐Partner Model of Partner Phubbing, Mobile Phone Conflict, and Relationship Satisfaction Between Romantic Partners in Liberia.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 40, no. 10: 3147–3170. 10.1177/02654075231169701. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Tran, P. , Judge M., and Kashima Y.. 2019. “Commitment in Relationships: An Updated Meta‐Analysis of the Investment Model.” Personal Relationships 26, no. 1: 158–180. 10.1111/pere.12268. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Ugur, N. G. , and Koc T.. 2015. “Time for Digital Detox: Misuse of Mobile Technology and Phubbing.” Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences 195: 1022–1031. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.491. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Vanden Abeele, M. M. P. , Antheunis M. L., and 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. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Vanhee, G. , Lemmens G. M. D., and Verhofstadt L. L.. 2016. “Relationship Satisfaction: High Need Satisfaction or Low Need Frustration?” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 44, no. 6: 923–930. 10.2224/sbp.2016.44.6.923. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Vanden Abeele, M. M. P. , and Postma‐Nilsenova M.. 2018. “More Than Just Gaze: An Experimental Vignette Study Examining How Phone‐Gazingand Newspaper‐Gazing and Phubbing‐While‐Speaking and Phubbing‐While‐Listening Compare in Their Effect on Affiliation.” Communication Research Reports 35, no. 4: 303–313. 10.1080/08824096.2018.1492911. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Vannier, S. A. , and O'Sullivan L. F.. 2017. “Great Expectations: Examining Unmet Romantic Expectations and Dating Relationship Outcomes Using an Investment Model Framework.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35, no. 8: 1045–1066. 10.1177/0265407517703492. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wang, X. , Xie X., Wang Y., Wang P., and Lei L.. 2017. “Partner Phubbing and Depression Among Married Chinese Adults: The Roles of Relationship Satisfaction and Relationship Length.” Personality and Individual Differences 110: 12–17. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Wang, X. , Zhao F., and Lei L.. 2021. “Partner Phubbing and Relationship Satisfaction: Self‐Esteem and Marital Status as Moderators.” Current Psychology 40: 3365–3375. 10.1007/s12144-019-00275-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang, X. , and Zhao K.. 2023. “Partner Phubbing and Marital Satisfaction: The Mediating Roles of Marital Interaction and Marital Conflict.” Social Science Computer Review 41, no. 4: 1126–1139. 10.1177/08944393211072231. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Weiss, R. S. 1973. Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation. MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  64. Weiss, R. S. 1982. “Issues in the Study of Loneliness.” In Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current the Theory, Research, and Therapy, edited by Peplau L. A. and Perlman D., 71–80. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  65. Yam, F. C. 2023. “The Relationship Between Partner Phubbing and Life Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Relationship Satisfaction and Perceived Romantic Relationship Quality.” Psychological Reports 126, no. 1: 303–331. 10.1177/00332941221144611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Zhan, S. , Shrestha S., and Zhong N.. 2022. “Romantic Relationship Satisfaction and Phubbing: The Role of Loneliness and Empathy.” Frontiers in Psychology 13: 967339. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.967339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Zhang, R. , Guo X., Zhao Z., Zhang H., and Feng L.. 2023. “Spouse's Self‐Control and Their Marital Satisfaction: The Actor and Partner Effect of Spousal Phubbing.” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 51, no. 5: 1–9. 10.2224/sbp.12302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available upon request from the first author.

Articles from Journal of Marital and Family Therapy are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES