Phubbing and phubber behavior: A new perspective in clinical psychological assessment

Carmela Mento; Maria Catena Silvestri; Clara Lombardo; Amelia Rizzo; Fabrizio Turiaco; Maria Rosaria Anna Muscatello; Fabio Presaghi; Carmela Mento; Maria Catena Silvestri; Clara Lombardo; Amelia Rizzo; Fabrizio Turiaco; Maria Rosaria Anna Muscatello; Fabio Presaghi

doi:10.3934/publichealth.2025037

AIMS Public Health

2025, Volume 12, Issue 3: 716-734. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2025037

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Phubbing and phubber behavior: A new perspective in clinical psychological assessment

1.
Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
2.
University of Messina, Messina, Italy
3.
Department of “Scienze della Salute”, University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy
4.
Department of Psychology, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy

Received: 01 April 2025 Revised: 19 May 2025 Accepted: 24 June 2025 Published: 15 July 2025

Background
The term “Phubbing” has been defined as a behavior in which a person snubs another in a social setting by focusing on their phone instead of having a conversation. Phubbing is a common phenomenon and reduces the quality of social interactions in people, particularly those in adolescence.
Objective
We aimed to validate in Italian, the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP), and Generic Scale of Being Phubbed (GSPB), in order to measure the experiences of phubbing, and being phubbed, through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Methods
We investigated whether the factor structure of GSP and GSBP may be replicated for the Italian sample, through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For the assessment, we used the Generic Scale of Being Phubbed, the Generic Scale of Phubbing, the Internet Addiction Test, and Brief COPE.
Results
We found that four important factors of phubbing are nomophobia, interpersonal conflict, self-isolation, and acknowledgement of problems, and phubbing behavior is predictive of social disconnectedness.
Conclusion
The GSP and GSBP instruments can be useful in the clinical setting to identify specific psychological dimensions associated with phubbing, such as nomophobia and social isolation.
- phubbing behavior,
- phubber behavior,
- psychological assessment,
- nomophobia,
- internet addiction,
- mental health
Citation: Carmela Mento, Maria Catena Silvestri, Clara Lombardo, Amelia Rizzo, Fabrizio Turiaco, Maria Rosaria Anna Muscatello, Fabio Presaghi. Phubbing and phubber behavior: A new perspective in clinical psychological assessment[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2025, 12(3): 716-734. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2025037

Related Papers:

Abstract

Background

The term “Phubbing” has been defined as a behavior in which a person snubs another in a social setting by focusing on their phone instead of having a conversation. Phubbing is a common phenomenon and reduces the quality of social interactions in people, particularly those in adolescence.

Objective

We aimed to validate in Italian, the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP), and Generic Scale of Being Phubbed (GSPB), in order to measure the experiences of phubbing, and being phubbed, through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Methods

We investigated whether the factor structure of GSP and GSBP may be replicated for the Italian sample, through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For the assessment, we used the Generic Scale of Being Phubbed, the Generic Scale of Phubbing, the Internet Addiction Test, and Brief COPE.

Results

We found that four important factors of phubbing are nomophobia, interpersonal conflict, self-isolation, and acknowledgement of problems, and phubbing behavior is predictive of social disconnectedness.

Conclusion

The GSP and GSBP instruments can be useful in the clinical setting to identify specific psychological dimensions associated with phubbing, such as nomophobia and social isolation.

Authors' contributions

Carmela Mento: conceptualization, writing – original draft, and writing – review & editing. Maria Catena Silvestri: software and validation. Clara Lombardo: investigation and resources. Amelia Rizzo: investigation and resources. Fabrizio Turiaco: software and validation. Maria Rosaria Anna Muscatello: visualization, supervision, and writing – review. Fabio Presaghi: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing – review & editing.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Nazir T, Pişkin M (2016) Phubbing: technological invasion which connected the world but disconnected humans. Int J Indian Psychol 3: 39-46. https://doi.org/10.25215/0304.195
[2]	Karadağ E, Tosuntaş ŞB, Erzen E, et al. (2015) Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A structural equation model. J Behav Addict 4: 60-74. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.005
[3]	Ugur NG, Koc T (2015) Time for digital detox: Misuse of mobile technology and phubbing. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 195: 1022-1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.491
[4]	Chotpitayasunondh V, Douglas KM (2016) How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Comput Hum Behav 63: 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018
[5]	Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity. Games Econ Behav 54: 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001
[6]	Miller DT, Prentice DA (1996) The construction of social norms and standards. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles . The Guilford Press 799-829.
[7]	Dwyer RJ, Kushlev K, Dunn EW (2018) Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions. J Exp Soc Psychol 78: 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.007
[8]	Misra S, Cheng L, Genevie J, et al. (2014) The iPhone effect the quality of in person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environ Behav 48: 275-298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514539755
[9]	Przybylski AK, Weinstein N (2013) Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. J Soc Pers Relat 30: 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512453827
[10]	Roberts JA, David ME (2016) My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Comput Hum Behav 54: 134-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058
[11]	Abeele MMV, Antheunis ML, Schouten AP (2016) The effect of mobile messaging during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality. Comput Hum Behav 62: 562-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.005
[12]	Cameron AF, Webster J (2011) Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: Integrating incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organ Sci 22: 754-771. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0540
[13]	Çizmeci E (2017) Disconnected, though satisfied: Phubbing behavior and relationship satisfaction. Turk Online J Des Art Commun 7: 364-375. https://doi.org/10.7456/10702100/018
[14]	Ergün N, Göksu İ, Sakız H (2020) Effects of phubbing: Relationships with psychodemographic variables. Psychol Rep 123: 1578-1613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119889581
[15]	Diotaiuti P, Mancone S, Corrado S, et al. (2022) Internet addiction in young adults: The role of impulsivity and codependency. Front Psychiatry 13: 893861. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.893861
[16]	Lo Coco GL, Salerno L, Franchina V, et al. (2020) Examining bi-directionality between Fear of Missing Out and problematic smartphone use. A two-wave panel study among adolescents. Addict Behav 106: 106360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106360
[17]	Davey S, Davey A, Raghav SK, et al. (2018) Predictors and consequences of “Phubbing” among adolescents and youth in India: An impact evaluation study. J Fam Community Med 25: 35. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_71_17
[18]	Ang CS, Teo KM, Ong YL, et al. (2019) Investigation of a preliminary mixed method of phubbing and social connectedness in adolescents. Addict Health 11: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.22122/ahj.v11i1.539
[19]	Chotpitayasunondh V, Douglas KM (2018) Measuring phone snubbing behavior: Development and validation of the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP) and the Generic Scale of Being Phubbed (GSBP). Comput Hum Behav 88: 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.020
[20]	Jiang Y, Lin L, Hu R (2023) Parental phubbing and academic burnout in adolescents: The role of social anxiety and self-control. Front Psychol 14: 1157209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1157209
[21]	Li Y (2023) Validation and short-form development of the generic scale of being phubbed and phubbing and relationship between being phubbed and phubbing in Chinese adolescents. Curr Psychol 42: 21424-21434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03222-8
[22]	Ruiz MJ, Herruzo C, Alcañiz-Colomer J (2024) Psychometric properties of the Spanish adaptation of the General Phubbing Scale. Rev Latinoam Psicol 56: 7164-7177. https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.2024.v56.7
[23]	Kaya A, Şata M, Türk N, et al. (2024) Reliability and validity of short-form generic scale of being phubbed and phubbing among Turkish adolescents and young adults. J Technol Behav Sci 2024: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-024-00428-4
[24]	Bitar Z, Akel M, Salameh P, et al. (2023) Phubbing among Lebanese young adults: Scale validation and association with mental health (depression, anxiety, and stress). Curr Psychol 42: 19709-19720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03104-z
[25]	Ríos Ariza JM, Matas-Terrón A, del Rumiche Chávarry RP, et al. (2021) Scale for measuring phubbing in Peruvian university students: Adaptation, validation and results of its application. J New Approaches Educ Res 10: 175-189. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2021.7.606
[26]	Pawlikowski M, Altstötter-Gleich C, Brand M (2013) Validation and psychometric properties of a short version of Young's Internet Addiction Test. Comput Hum Behav 29: 1212-1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.014
[27]	Fioravanti G, Casale S (2015) Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Italian Internet Addiction Test. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 18: 120-128. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0493
[28]	Carver CS (1997) You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: consider the brief COPE. Int J Behav Med 4: 92-100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6
[29]	Brown TA (2015) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications 88-122.
[30]	McDonald RP (1999) Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers 77-103. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601087
[31]	R Core Team.R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2023) .
[32]	Roseel Y (2012) Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J Stat Softw 48: 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
[33]	Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res 18: 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
[34]	Yildirim C, Correia AP (2015) Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire. Comput Hum Behav 49: 130-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059
[35]	Diotaiuti P, Girelli L, Mancone S, et al. (2022) Impulsivity and depressive brooding in internet addiction: A study with a sample of Italian adolescents during COVID-19 lockdown. Front Psychiatry 13: 941313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.941313
[36]	Bayer JB, Campbell SW, Ling R (2016) Connection cues: Activating the norms and habits of social connectedness. Commun. Theory 26: 128-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12090
[37]	Przybylski AK, e Weinstein N (2013) Puoi contattarmi ora? Come la presenza della tecnologia di comunicazione mobile influenza la qualità della conversazione faccia a faccia. J Soc Pers Relat 30: 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512453827
[38]	Cao X, Chen J (2025) The association between emotional intelligence and prosocial behaviors in children and adolescents: A Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Youth Adolescence 54: 607-624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-02062-y
[39]	Martí-Vilar M, Trejos-Gil CA, Betancur-Arias JD (2022) Emotional intelligence as a predictor of prosocial behaviors in Spanish and Colombian older adults based on path models. Healthcare 10: 284. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10020284

publichealth-12-03-037-s001.pdf

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2025 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)