“PHUBBING IS HAPPENING TO YOU”

EXAMINING PREDICTORS AND EFFECTS OF PHUBBING BEHAVIOR IN FRIENDSHIPS

by

JUHYUNG SUN

(Under the Direction of Jennifer Samp)

ABSTRACT

This thesis explores phubbing (snubbing someone in the middle of a face-to-face conversation by

using smartphones instead of paying attention) in friendships. Specifically, it examines which

individual factors (personality and psychological factors) drive friend phubbing and if friend

phubbing leads to lower levels of friendship satisfaction. Also, this thesis investigates the

mediating role of friend phubbing between proposed predictors and friendship satisfaction.

Participants (n = 472) showed that depression and social anxiety were positively related to friend

phubbing while agreeableness and neuroticism were negatively related to friend phubbing.

Higher levels of friend phubbing resulted in decreased friendship satisfaction. The results

showed that friend phubbing mediates the relationships between each of the proposed predictors

(i.e., depression, social anxiety, agreeableness, and neuroticism) and friendship satisfaction. This

thesis is the first to examine the dynamics of phubbing in friendships from a communication

perspective.

INDEX WORDS: Smartphone, Phubbing, Depression, Social anxiety, Agreeableness,

Neuroticism, Friendship satisfaction
 “PHUBBING IS HAPPENING TO YOU”

EXAMINING PREDICTORS AND EFFECTS OF PHUBBING BEHAVIOR IN FRIENDSHIPS

by

JUHYUNG SUN

B.A., Seoul Women’s University, Republic of Korea, 2015

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF ARTS

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2019
 © 2019

Juhyung Sun

All Rights Reserved

 “PHUBBING IS HAPPENING TO YOU”

EXAMINING PREDICTORS AND EFFECTS OF PHUBBING BEHAVIOR IN FRIENDSHIPS

by

JUHYUNG SUN

Major Professor: Jennifer Samp

Committee: Analisa Arroyo

Jiaying Liu

Electronic Version:

Suzanne Barbour
Dean of the Graduate School
The University of Georgia
May 2019
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my advisor,

Professor Jennifer Samp, for all the support, encouragement, and advice she has provided

throughout past two years of my graduate studies. Her friendly guidance and constructive

feedback have been invaluable throughout all stages of this thesis. This thesis could not have

been accomplished without her. I am also thankful for her consistent support in pursuing a

doctoral degree. It was a great honor to work and study under her direction.

My thanks also go to the members of my thesis committee, Professor Analisa Arroyo, and

Professor Jiaying Liu, for agreeing to serve as my thesis committee and providing many

insightful comments that contributed greatly to improve this thesis and widen my research from

various perspectives.

I will always be thankful to my former graduate school advisor, Professor Namkee Park

at Yonsei University in South Korea. He has always been supportive of me and helped me in

pursuing a further degree in the United States.

I also thank my best friends, Sangah Park, Sunji Park, and Chaeju Oh, for their moral

support and friendship that I needed. Despite the long distance between us, they always stand by

me, cheer me on, and celebrate each accomplishment. I find myself lucky to have friends like

them in my life.

Last but not least, I must express very profound gratitude to my parents (Kyusoo Sun and

Sunghee Park) and brother (Jihoon Sun). My parents have sacrificed their lives for my brother

and myself and provided unconditional love and unfailing support. Thank them for their love,

iv
prayers, and caring for educating and preparing me for my future. I am so blessed to have them

as my parents. Also, I express my thanks to my brother for his continuous encouragement and

support throughout my life in general. I love them so much, and I would not have accomplished

many years of study without them.

Finally, my thanks go to all people who have supported me to complete this long journey

directly and indirectly.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

Overview ..................................................................................................................4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................7

Problematic Smartphone Use ...................................................................................7

Possible Predictors of Friend Phubbing .................................................................10

Why Friendship? – Politeness Theory ...................................................................16

Social Displacement Hypothesis............................................................................18

Consequences of Friend Phubbing.........................................................................20

The Mediating Role of Friend Phubbing ...............................................................21

The Present Study ..................................................................................................21

3 METHOD ....................................................................................................................24

Participants and Procedure .....................................................................................24

Measures ................................................................................................................26

Data Analysis .........................................................................................................30

4 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................31

vi
 Descriptive Statistics..............................................................................................31

Testing for the Hypothesized Model......................................................................33

Results of the Hypotheses ......................................................................................36

5 DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................40

Predictors of Friend Phubbing ...............................................................................41

Consequences of Friend Phubbing.........................................................................44

The Mediating Role of Friend Phubbing ...............................................................45

Limitation and Future Research .............................................................................48

Conclusion .............................................................................................................50

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................52

APPENDICES

A THESIS MEASUREMENT QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................65

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Demographic Information of the Participants (n = 472) .................................................31

Table 2: Mean, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alphas, and Zero-order Pearson Correlations

among the Study Variables (n = 472) ................................................................................35

Table 3: Summary of Hypotheses Testing Results ........................................................................39

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: The Hypothesized Model for the Study .........................................................................23

Figure 2: The Results of Structural Equations Model with the Hypothesized Model .................38

ix
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

With the advent of communication technologies, smartphones have become pervasive in

our daily life. A recent report showed that over two billion people around the world own a

smartphone (Pew Research Center, 2018a) and about half of smartphone owners (54%) found

that they “couldn’t live without” their smartphones (Pew Research Center, 2015a). Moreover, a

reliance on smartphones continues to increase as more features become available, especially

among young adults aged between 18 and 29 (Pew Research Center, 2018b). The possible reason

for this increase is that smartphones provide opportunities for continual connection with others

(Chayko, 2008; Turkle 2011). Moreover, people initiate and maintain their social relationships

with their smartphones by making calls, sending text messages, and interacting on social

networks (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006; Ling & Yttri, 2002). As a result, this advanced

communication technology has changed how people spent their time, interact, and manage their

social relationships. However, despite the obvious advantages, the use of smartphones in social

settings might also lead to an unprecedented negative phenomenon: phubbing.

As many people have spent more time and relied heavily on their smartphones, more and

more people are showing problematic behavior in using their smartphones, resulting in negative

consequences concerning smartphone use (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005). In particular, phubbing

which includes four aspects – (a) nomophobia (NP): reflects fear of mobile phone detachment;

(b) interpersonal conflict (IC): concerns perceived conflicts caused by using smartphones during

face-to-face interactions; (c) self-isolation (SI): indicates the use of smartphones to escape from

1
social interactions and isolate themselves from others; and (d) problem acknowledgment (PA):

reflects the perception degree of negative aspects of phubbing behavior (Chotpitayasunondh &

Douglas (2018a) – is a newly emerging phenomenon.

The term is derived from two words: phone and snubbing. The word phone indicates

mobile phones which access to the Internet and support a variety of functions similar to a

computer and a multitude of other devices. The word snubbing stands for ignoring or neglecting,

which in turn results in insulting interlocutors by not paying any attention to them. Taken

together, phubbing refers to the act of snubbing someone in the middle of a face-to-face

conversation by glancing at or using their smartphones instead of paying attention to a person

directly in the interaction (Karadağ et al., 2015).

Specifically, phubbing may be any of the following behaviors of using a smartphone:

staring at a phone in the middle of a conversation, checking a phone in pauses of conversation

and keeping a phone close by during face-to-face conversation with someone. With regard to the

term phubbing, there are two related referents: phubber and phubbee. A phubber is a person who

phubs. On the contrary, a phubbee indicates a person who is being phubbed.

Recently, we can easily observe phubbing behavior in almost any social setting. Indeed,

Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2016) reported that a majority (70%) of people phub others at

least once per day and more than 78 percent of people are phubbed at least once per day. Despite

the pervasiveness of phubbing in our daily life, people have overlooked the negative impact of

this behavior. People still phub others in their social interactions although they have considered it

as a disrespectful behavior to others by making them feel excluded and unimportant (Karadağ et

al., 2015). Indeed, a majority of Americans (95%) think that it is inappropriate to use their

smartphones in real-life social interactions such as during meetings and meal times. However,

2
89% of smartphone owners still use their smartphones during their most recent times with others

(Pew Research Center, 2015b). Of course, people can use their smartphones specifically to avoid

others around them. Nonetheless, this report suggests that individuals do not realize the

frequency with which they phub others around them and more importantly, many individuals are

unaware of how they show such behavior and that phubbing can have a negative impact to

themselves and their relationships with others.

Phubbing behavior does not happen just in a specific type of interpersonal relationships.

People are phubbing casual acquaintances as well as significant others. However, people are

more likely to phub significant others such as a romantic partner, a close friend(s), and other

family members than those who are less close such as a work supervisor, strangers, and

acquaintances. Indeed, a recent study by Al-Saggaf and MacCulloch (2018) found that

smartphone users phub their friends more frequently than they phub strangers.

Although phubbing appears most frequently in friendships, research so far has been

conducted under the lens of marriage and other romantic relationships (e.g., Krasnova,

Abramova, Notter, & Baumann, 2016; Roberts & David, 2016; Wang, Xie, Wang, Wang, & Lie,

2017). No one has examined why people phub more frequently in friendship or whether there

might be certain personality traits and psychological factors that make people phub their

friend(s). Therefore, the present study investigates phubbing behavior in a specific close

relationship – friendship – to fully capture the phubbing behavior and its impact in different

types of interpersonal relationships. The main reason that this study focuses on this type of

relationship is that friendships are also significant relationships which influence our overall

health and well-being (e.g., Chopik, 2017; Demir, Özen, Doğan, Bilyk, & Tyrell, 2011), and

3
phubbing occurs most frequently in friendships compared to other types of close relationships

(Al-Saggaf & MacCulloch, 2018).

An expanding body of research has considered the related determinants and

consequences of phubbing behavior. For instance, some studies identified possible predictors

which lead to phubbing behavior. Among them, smartphone addiction, which refers to the loss of

control over one’s smartphone use or excessive and compulsive smartphone use, appears as the

most significant predictor that increases phubbing (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016;

Karadağ et al., 2015). As for consequences of phubbing behavior, other studies found that it

increases conflicts created by such behavior (Roberts & David, 2016), and threatens trust

(Roberts & David, 2017), conversation quality (Abeele, Antheunis, & Schouten, 2016),

relationship satisfaction (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018b; Roberts & David, 2016; Wang

et al., 2017), impression formation (Abeele et al., 2016), and engagement (Roberts & David,

2017).

Despite the growing body of literature, there are few studies examining the relationships

of personality traits and psychological factors related to phubbing behavior. Additionally, no

empirical study has demonstrated phubbing behavior as a mediator. In other words, both possible

predictors and consequence of phubbing behavior have yet to be empirically investigated in a

study. Therefore, the present study seeks to expand the findings by exploring the relationships

between individual factors (i.e., personality traits and psychological factors) and phubbing

behavior in friendship, which in turn influence friendship satisfaction.

Overview

The purpose of this study is to investigate: (a) the direct relationship between individual

factors (i.e., personality traits and risk psychological factors) and friend phubbing, (b) the direct

4
relationship between friend phubbing and friendship satisfaction, and (c) the mediating role of

friend phubbing in the association between proposed predictors (i.e., personality traits and risk

psychological factors) and friendship satisfaction. By addressing the aforementioned

relationships, I expect that the results of the present study will provide a mechanism underlying

the phubbing behavior, which will eventually contribute to deepening the understanding of such

behavior.

This thesis is organized into five chapters beginning with an introduction in Chapter 1. In

Chapter 2, a framework of problematic smartphone use proposed by Billieux, Maurage, Lopez-

Fernandez, Kuss, and Griffiths (2015) is examined to inform my model of friend phubbing. This

model describes the possible predictors of friend phubbing and then explores specific predictors

by introducing the hypotheses related to the relationship between each possible predictors and

friend phubbing. Second, I use the politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) to support why

the present study focuses on friendships instead of different types of relationships. Afterward, the

displacement theory proposed by Kraunt, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay, and

Scherlis (1998) is reviewed to examine the consequences of friend phubbing. In addition, I

present a brief literature review on phubbing behavior to demonstrate whether such behavior can

play a role as a mediator.

Chapter 3 describes the research methodology implemented to investigate the research

hypotheses. It provides demographic information on participants and procedure for the data

gathering process. Then, it is described with a review of the instruments used in this study. This

chapter is then concluded by describing data analysis approach.

Chapter 4 reports the empirical results of this study. It begins with descriptive statistics

followed by correlation test to investigate the relationships among proposed variables of the

5
present study. It then continues with structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypotheses

and the proposed conceptual model of this study.

Lastly, Chapter 5 provides a review of the findings of the study. The findings of the

present study then are interpreted and discussed based on the literature review. Prior to

concluding the study, the chapter addresses the implications and limitations for future research.

6
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides a review of the literature underlying this thesis. Different theories

are presented to explain the relationships among possible predictors, consequences of phubbing

behavior in friendships and further find a mediating role of phubbing behavior in friendships.

First, a framework of problematic smartphone use by Billieux and colleagues (2015) is

introduced. Then, literature with regard to possible predictors is presented. This is followed by a

review of politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and social displacement hypothesis

(Kraut et al., 1998) along with consequences of friend phubbing. Based on the literature review,

the mediating role of friend phubbing is discussed. Finally, the hypotheses and overview of the

present study are presented.

Problematic Smartphone Use

To explore possible predictors of phubbing behavior, I adopt the view of “problematic

mobile phone (or smartphone) use” proposed by Billieux and colleagues (2015). Phubbing

behavior can be considered as problematic smartphone use. Indeed, Blachnio and Przepiorka

(2018) argued that phubbing is an umbrella term which covers three pathways of problematic

smartphone use (i.e., excessive reassurance seeking, impulsivity, and extraversion) in that both

share many similar symptoms leading to potential negative consequences. Chotpitayasunondh

and Douglas (2016) also stated that phubbing is one of the problematic behaviors that have

negative impacts on those who phub and who are phubbed. Other studies further argued that

7
phubbing is closely related to problematic smartphone use in that both are regarded as

inappropriate and disrespectful behavior in social interactions (Karadağ et al., 2015).

Billieux and colleagues (2015) proposed three pathways which lead to the problematic

smartphone use including (a) excessive reassurance seeking, (b) impulsivity, and (c)

extraversion. Since people use their smartphones in different ways depending on their various

motivations, each of these pathways within the model is closely related to individual

characteristics such as psychological and personality traits.

The first pathway, called the excessive reassurance seeking, describes individuals whose

problematic smartphone use is driven by low self-esteem, emotional instability, insecure

attachment, higher levels of neuroticism, depression, social anxiety, as well as general anxiety to

obtain reassurance from others in affective relationships (e.g., romantic partners, family

members, and friends). Consequently, these individuals have a tendency to show an addictive

pattern of smartphone use.

The second pathway, called the impulsive pathway, describes individuals who are

susceptible to show problematic smartphone use because they have poor impulse control and

inability to regulate emotions. Specifically, impulsive smartphone exhibits characteristics of

emotion-laden impulsivity, lack of premeditation/planning, low self-control, aggressive and

psychopathic traits, antisocial personality, and ADHD symptoms. These impulsivity traits are

closely related to three different patterns of use, namely addictive, antisocial, and/or risky

patterns of smartphone use.

Finally, the third pathway, called the extraversion pathway, describes individuals whose

problematic smartphone use is driven by high extraversion to keep communicating with others

and to develop new relationships. These individuals are likely to have high levels of sensation

8
seeking, sensitivity and dependence to rewards. As a result, the extraversion pathway can lead to

either antisocial or risky patterns of smartphone use. To conclude, Billieux and colleagues (2015)

highlighted that one or more described factors and/or pathways can be applied in predicting

problematic smartphone use.

Empirically, numerous studies have demonstrated the existence of each of these

pathways in understanding problematic smartphone use. For example, several studies supported

the first pathway of problematic smartphone use. They found that individuals who display

problematic smartphone use are likely to express more depressive symptoms (Elhai, Dvorak,

Levine, & Hall, 2017a; Ha, Chin, Park, Ryu, & Yu, 2008; Kim, Seo, & David, 2015; Smetaniuk,

2014), emotional instability (Smetaniuk, 2014), neuroticism (Butt & Phillips, 2008; Ehrenberg,

Juckes, White, & Walsh, 2008; Takao, 2014), higher levels of anxiety (Elhai, Levine, Dvorak, &

Hall, 2017b; Ha et al., 2008; Lee, Chang, Lin, & Cheng, 2014) and lower self-esteem (Bianchi &

Phillips, 2005; Ehrenberg et al., 2008; Ha et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2014). With regard to the

second pathway which is the impulsive pathway, some studies demonstrated that problematic

smartphone use is closely associated with impulsiveness, (Khang, Kim, & Kim, 2013),

aggressiveness (Lee et al., 2018) and ADHD symptoms (Kim, 2018; Seo, Kim, & David, 2015;

Zheng et al., 2014). Other studies showed that problematic smartphone use is related to high

extraversion (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005; Butt & Phillips, 2008; Ehrenberg et al., 2008; Smetaniuk,

2014; Takao, 2014), supporting the third pathway of problematic smartphone use.

Given the theoretical framework suggesting different individual characteristics and

previous studies which found that personality constructs and psychological factors cause

phubbing (Balta, Emirekin, Kicaburun, & Griffiths, 2018), it is theoretically plausible to regard

phubbing behavior as problematic smartphone use. Accordingly, this study examines the

9
associations of these individual characteristics including personality traits and psychological

predictors and phubbing behavior. In the following, hypotheses regarding the influences of each

personality and psychological traits are developed by focusing on friendships because the

relationship is significant for most individuals (Chopik, 2017) and they are more likely to phub

when they are with their friends than when they are with other people (Al-Saggaf & MacCulloch,

2018).

Possible Predictors of Friend Phubbing

The influence of depression

Depression refers to a mood disorder that causes feelings of sadness, loss of interest or

pleasure, emptiness, worthlessness, and low self-worth (Sue, Sue, Sue, & Sue, 2015). Increased

depression results from lower levels of positive reinforcement (Lewinsohn, 1974) and leads to

negative impacts on an individual’s daily life and social interactions (Beck & Alford, 2009).

Many studies have demonstrated that problematic smartphone use is closely related to

depression. Indeed, individuals who have depressive symptoms are more likely to exhibit

problematic smartphone use due to a lack of self-regulation (e.g., Park, 2005; Thomée,

Härenstam, & Hagberg, 2011). Relatedly, Kim and colleagues (2015) found that those who score

high on depression tend to spend more time on communication activities through their

smartphone than those who score low on depression because they expect smartphone would

relieve their negative feelings. These researchers suggested that these people feel less risky to be

rejected by others when they communicate with others via their smartphones.

With regard to phubbing behavior, some studies have demonstrated the relationship

between depression and phubbing behavior. For example, Roberts and David (2016) investigated

10
the relationships among phubbing, relationship satisfaction and depression in marriage and found

that phubbing results in individuals experiencing a greater feeling of depression among romantic

partners. Similarly, Roberts and David (2017) demonstrated that phubbing is associated with

higher levels of depression. In another study regarding the impact of technology interference

(known as technoference) such as receiving calls, text messages, or checking notifications in

romantic relationships, McDaniel and Coyne (2016) found that smartphone use frequently

interrupts interactions such as couple activities, conversations, and meal times with their

partners. They also demonstrated that frequent technological interruptions such as using

smartphones in social interactions (also known as phubbing) are significantly related to higher

levels of depressive symptoms via relationship conflict over smartphone use.

Although there is no empirical evidence whether depression directly predicts phubbing

behavior, given the relationship between depression and problematic smartphone use (Billieux et

al., 2015) and the empirical previous studies discussed above, it is theoretically possible to

assume that depression is associated with higher levels of phubbing in friendships in that

depressed individuals tend to heavily rely on their smartphones in their social interactions.

Therefore, I hypothesize that:

H1a: Depression is positively associated with friend phubbing.

The influence of social anxiety

Social anxiety is the presence of intense fear or anxiety of being negatively evaluated or

rejected in real or imagined social interactions with others, which is accompanied by feelings of

inadequacy, inferiority, self-consciousness, and embarrassment (Schlenker & Leary, 1982).

Specifically, Schlenker and Leary (1982) argued that individuals tend to experience feelings of

11
social anxiety: (a) when “people have inadequate or inappropriate social skills” (i.e., skills deficit

approach; pp. 642), (b) when “people evaluate themselves more negatively” (i.e., cognitive self-

evaluation model; pp. 643), and (c) when “neutral stimuli become paired with aversive social

consequences” (i.e., classical conditioning model; pp. 643).

In social settings, individuals with higher traits of social anxiety are reluctant to spend

time talking with others, manage superficial and broader topics than the specific, convey shorter

stories and end conversations quickly (Depaulo, Epstein, & LeMay, 1990). Often, these

individuals prefer mediated communication or online social interactions to face-to-face

interactions because they believe their self-presentational efficacy is greater in computer-

mediated communication than traditional interactions (i.e., face-to-face interactions) (Caplan,

2007).

Several studies have shown that those who are socially anxious tend to experience an

increased level of problematic smartphone use. For example, Demirci, Akgönül, and Akpinar

(2015) investigated the relationship between problematic smartphone use and social anxiety and

found anxiety as a key determinant of problematic smartphone use. Relatedly, Enez Darcin, and

colleagues (2016) revealed that anxious individuals tend to have a greater risk of smartphone

addiction because they not only rely on mobile communication (e.g., texting) to avoid actual

social interactions, but also exhibit better performances in mediated communication

environments.

Although there is no empirical research examining whether social anxiety directly

predicts phubbing behavior, it is plausible to assume that social anxiety is related to higher levels

of phubbing behavior given the significant relationship between social anxiety and problematic

12
smartphone use (Billieux et al., 2015) and the previous studies aforementioned. Thus, I

hypothesize that:

H1b: Social anxiety is positively associated with friend phubbing.

The influence of personality traits

Why do people behave differently in the same situation? Personality traits have been

widely used to answer this question because personality is considered as a stable feature that

shows individual differences (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Among various personality constructs, I

adopt the Big-Five personality traits which consist of extraversion, conscientiousness,

agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience in the present study. The reason to adopt

the Big-Five is that it provides a better understanding of technology-related behaviors (McElroy,

Hendrickson, Townsend, & Demarie, 2007).

Although there are many studies investigated the relationship between the Big-Five

personality traits and problematic use of smartphones, the outcomes of the previous studies are

inconsistent. Contrary to Billieux and colleagues’ (2015) argument that neuroticism is

significantly related to problematic smartphone use, an empirical study by Bianchi and Phillips

(2005) showed that the relationship between problematic use of smartphone and neuroticism is

not significant. The discrepancy in the results across studies could be due to the complex nature

of personality traits. In addition, there are scant studies examined personality traits as potential

predictors of phubbing behavior. To identify consistencies and inconsistencies of the reported

findings and further clarify relationships of personality traits and phubbing behavior, this study

explores key personality traits. Among different personality traits of the Big-Five, therefore, I

propose that two of personality traits influence friend phubbing: agreeableness and neuroticism.

13
 First, agreeableness refers to an individual’s tendency to harmonize or get along with

others in social interactions (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Agreeable individuals are described as

being kind, sympathetic, well-mannered, considerate, cooperative, and trusting (McCrae & John,

1992). Unlike the rest of the other four Big-Five personality traits which are highly related to

“self”, agreeableness places more emphasis on relationships with “others” based on equality and

honesty (Phillips, Butt, & Blasczynski, 2006). In this regard, agreeableness can represent the

most relevant trait in examining phubbing since such behavior occurs in the presence of others.

Considering individuals with higher traits of agreeableness avoid harmful consequences (e.g.,

conflicts) to maintain social harmony with others (McCrae & John, 1992), it is reasonable to

expect that agreeable people will focus more on their interlocutor instead of using their

smartphones in social interactions.

Indeed, several studies have empirically demonstrated that agreeableness is significantly

associated with problematic smartphone use. For example, Andreassen, Griffiths, Gjertsen,

Krossbakken, Kvam, and Pallesen (2013) revealed that disagreeable individuals (i.e., low levels

of agreeableness) are more likely to exhibit problematic smartphone use than those with higher

scores on agreeableness. With regard to phubbing behavior, there is a study examining the

relationship between agreeableness and phubbing behavior. For instance, a recent study by Fritz

(2018) predicted that agreeableness can play a significant role in predicting phubbing behavior

by proposing a new conceptual model of phubbing. This study demonstrated that increased

agreeableness is directly associated with decreased phubbing behavior. Considering the previous

studies, therefore, I hypothesize that:

H1c: Agreeableness is negatively associated with friend phubbing.

14
 Second, neuroticism is a tendency to experience emotional instability and maladjustment

to social environments, which is accompanied by feelings of moodiness, nervousness,

impulsiveness and worrying (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Neurotic individuals are emotional and

react sensitively to various stimuli interpreting common situations as unpleasant and threatening

(Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). While nonneurotic individuals locate themselves in traditional

communications such as face-to-face interactions, neurotic individuals are prone to place greater

importance on mediated communication such as the Internet and mobile phones when they

consider “real me” (Amichai-Hamburger, Wainapel, & Fox, 2002).

A number of research studies have examined that neuroticism is an important personality

factor related to problematic smartphone use. For example, Ehrenberg and colleagues (2008)

found a significant relationship between neuroticism and problematic smartphone use tendencies

among young adults and reported that individuals with higher traits of neuroticism tend to spend

more time sending and receiving text messages. More recently, Roberts and colleagues (2015)

revealed that those who score higher on neuroticism reported greater levels of smartphone

addiction. These findings argued that neurotic individuals tend to show heavy smartphone

dependency which eventually leads to a higher likelihood of problematic smartphone use since

they use their smartphones as a means of dealing with their stress and recovering their negative

feelings.

Considering the prediction of problematic smartphone use proposed by Billieux and

colleagues (2015) and the majority of empirical previous studies, I assume that neuroticism also

leads to higher phubbing. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H1d: Neuroticism is positively associated with friend phubbing.

15
Why friendship? – Politeness theory

Friendship is conceptualized as a “voluntary interdependence between two persons over

time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve

varying types and degree of companionship, intimacy, affection, and mutual assistance (Hays,

1988, pp.395).” That is, friendship is an affective relationship which is based on a stronger

mutual tie between people. Relationships, especially friendships, play a critical role in

individuals’ lives in that the relationship influences our health, happiness, social and emotional

support (Demir & Weitekamp, 2007).

Then, why I consider friendships in the present study? As mentioned earlier, most of the

studies related to phubbing behavior have focused on romantic relationships (e.g., Krasnova et

al., 2016; Roberts & David, 2016; Wang et al., 2017) in that romantic partners have higher

expectations as expectancy violation theory suggested (Burgoon, 1978), particularly in terms of

attentiveness to each other when they are spending time together (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015).

Also, romantic partners tend to provide security and enduring emotional supports (Florian,

Mikulincer, & Bucholtz, 1995). However, friendships play a central role too in that friends also

serve emotional supports and friendships have a far greater impact on our overall health,

happiness, and personal well-being than different types of relationships (Chopik, 2017; Demir et

al., 2011). Above all, phubbing occurs more frequently in friendships than other relationships

(Al-Saggaf & MacCulloch, 2018). Given the significance of friendships and the pervasiveness of

phubbing behavior in friendships, it is necessary to understand how people use their smartphones

in the presence of their friends.

Why does phubbing frequently occur in friendships? This question can be addressed

through the lens of politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987). As Goffman (1967) introduced,

16
politeness is particularly related to the central role of face in the interactions. He conceptualized

that an individual, who is a social actor, shows linguistic, behavioral, and gestural performances

to provide (also protect) his/her positive self-image. Relatedly, Brown and Levinson (1987)

proposed that individuals have two different faces: (a) positive face - a desire for approval and

connection with others, and (b) negative face - a desire for freedom and independence from

imposition by others. These researchers further argued that there are three factors related to

politeness: (a) the relative power, (b) the degree of imposition, and (c) the social distance

between the speaker and the listener. In other word, people are likely to be polite (e.g., using

more polite strategies such as using more polite languages) when they are with individuals who

have a greater power than those who have equality or lower power, when requesting to do a big

favor than a small favor, and when talking with unknown people than familiar individuals.

Consistent with the three aspects of politeness theory approach, the notion of friendship

is based on a belief in balanced power (equality or fairness) and high social distance (familiarity)

(Austin, 1980; Lim & Bowers, 1991). It suggests that individuals tend to be less polite which in

turn leads to being less concerned about their self-images when they are with their friends. With

regard to two different faces, Miller-Ott and Kelly (2017) demonstrated that the use of

smartphones in the presence of friends violates positive faces conveying possible messages such

as that a person who uses a smartphone is bored and that he does not the relationship seriously.

As such, when interactions occur in familiar or comfortable environments, individuals

often feel that they do not have to present (or protect) their public self-images and do not worry

about being perceived as impolite (Brown & Levinson, 1987). That is, not being attentive during

face-to-face interaction does not influence in losing their faces in friendships. Indeed, based on

17
the politeness theory, Harrison, Bealing, and Salley (2015) suggested that people feel free to use

their smartphones in the presence of their friend.

Despite the pervasiveness of phubbing behavior in friendship, friend phubbing and its

association with friendship satisfaction are surprisingly sparse. Therefore, the present study

examines friend phubbing and its impact on friendship satisfaction based on the politeness

theory.

Social Displacement Hypothesis

I adopt the view of the displacement hypothesis to explain the detrimental effect of friend

phubbing on friendship satisfaction. As originally posited, the social displacement hypothesis

postulates that time spent on media such as smartphones would displace (or reduce) important

activities with significant others since time is a limited resource (i.e., a zero-sum relationship)

(Kraut et al., 1998). That is, when individuals spend more time on communication technologies,

they spend less time on meaningful interactions with their close others (e.g., a romantic partner,

family members, and close friends). Consequently, this argument asserts that despite increased

communication opportunities via smartphones supported by social augmentation hypothesis,

which posited that mediated communication allows people to expand their social networks

permitting them to connect to others more frequently (Walther, 1996), the displacement has a

negative impact on social interactions with their close others such as reducing social involvement

and psychological well-being (Kraut et al., 1998; Nie, 2001; Valkenburg &Peter, 2007).

Empirically, several studies have supported the social displacement hypothesis. For

example, Nie, Hillygus, and Erbring (2002) conducted a survey on the social impact of Internet

use and found that excessive Internet use causes a negative impact on face-to-face interactions by

18
reducing time spent with family members and friends. More recently, Ahn and Shin (2013) found

that recent communication technologies such as mobile devices displace face-to-face

communications which eventually leads to feelings of disconnection, thereby damaging

perceived quality and quantity of social relationships. These findings suggested that problematic

technology use becomes intrusive in face-to-face interactions impairing relationship satisfaction

and personal well-being.

Even the mere presence of a smartphone distracts and has negative consequences for

social interactions. Indeed, Thornton, Faires, Robbins, and Rollins (2014) demonstrated that the

presence of a smartphone serves as a distractor and then result in attentional and performance

deficits, which ultimately leads to detrimental effects on social interactions with others. With

regard to phubbing behavior, Halpern and Katz (2017) suggested a theoretical model in which

constant media use such as frequency of text messaging is positively related to partner phubbing

(Pphubbing) with increased conflicts and lack of intimacy, which ultimately reduces perceived

relationship quality. Similarly, Roberts and David (2016) examined partner phubbing

(Pphubbing) based on the displacement hypothesis and found that partner phubbing negatively

impacts relationship satisfaction and an individual’s overall life satisfaction.

As the social displacement hypothesis (Kraut et al., 1998) and the empirical results

showed, it is possible to argue that the displacement hypothesis can be applied to explain

phubbing behavior in friendships. Accordingly, I assume that phubbing behavior will lead to

having a detrimental effect on social interactions, especially with friends. In the following, a

hypothesis related to the consequences of friend phubbing is developed based on the

displacement hypothesis.

19
Consequences of Friend Phubbing

Friendship satisfaction

Friendship satisfaction varies according to the degree to which a person perceives that

his/her friends fulfill various needs and desires (McAdams, 1988). Friendship satisfaction is an

important determinant of an individual’s overall life satisfaction and social integration (Demir &

Weitekamp, 2007). Friendship satisfaction has been considered as a strong indicator of

relationship maintenance and the likelihood of relational closeness within social relationships

because it reflects various characteristics – similarity in communication values, intimacy,

commitment, and relational certainty (e.g., Guerrero, Anderson & Afifi, 2011; Rusbult & Buunk,

1993).

Contrary to relational satisfaction in romantic relationships, empirical research

specifically examining a relationship between friendship satisfaction and problematic

smartphone use including phubbing remains deficient. Only one study by Bae (2015), which

focused on problematic smartphone use among Korean adolescents, found that high levels of

problematic smartphone use lead to lower friendship satisfaction.

With regard to phubbing behavior, Miller-Ott and Kelly (2017) discussed the dilemma of

smartphone use in the presence of friends and offered some important implications for phubbing

behavior whether it threatens their face or not. However, this study did not investigate the impact

of phubbing behavior on friendship satisfaction. Therefore, the present study suggests that the

heightened engagement of phubbing behavior in friendship may diminish friendship satisfaction.

I hypothesize that:

H2: Friend phubbing is negatively associated with friendship satisfaction.

20
The Mediating Role of Friend Phubbing

Despite the growing attention of phubbing behavior, most existing studies have focused

either on the antecedents or on the effects of phubbing behavior. In other words, very little is

known about the mediating role of phubbing behavior which examines both possible predictors

and consequences of phubbing behavior. As the theoretical assumptions and the empirical studies

argued above, it is reasonable to expect that friend phubbing will mediate the relationships

between proposed predictors and consequence. Therefore, the present study proposes a complex

model in which risk psychological factors (i.e., depression and social anxiety), personality traits

(i.e., agreeableness and neuroticism), friend phubbing and friendship satisfaction will be

significantly associated and in particularly friend phubbing will mediate those proposed

relationships. Accordingly, I hypothesize that:

H3a: Friend phubbing mediates the relationship between depression and friendship

satisfaction.

H3b: Friend phubbing mediates the relationship between social anxiety and friendship

satisfaction.

H3c: Friend phubbing mediates the relationship between agreeableness and friendship

satisfaction.

H3d: Friend phubbing mediates the relationship between neuroticism and friendship

satisfaction.

The Present Study

This study tests a complex model in which individual characteristics such as

psychological factors (i.e., depression and social anxiety) and personality traits (i.e.,

21
agreeableness and neuroticism) are independent variables, phubbing behavior in friendship

(friend phubbing) is a mediator variable, and friendship satisfaction is the dependent variable. It

was hypothesized that depression, social anxiety, and neuroticism will be positively associated

with friend phubbing, whereas agreeableness will be negatively associated with friend phubbing.

With regard to the indirect effect of friend phubbing among all the variables of this study, it was

hypothesized that friend phubbing will mediate the relationships between (1) depression and

friendship satisfaction; (2) social anxiety and friendship satisfaction; (3) agreeableness and

friendship satisfaction; and (4) neuroticism and friendship satisfaction (see Figure 1).

22
Figure 1. The hypothesized model for the study

Notes. Fphubbing: Friend phubbing, NP: Nomophobia, IC: Interpersonal Conflict, SI: Self-

isolation, and PA: Problem Acknowledgment.

23
 CHAPTER 3

METHOD

This chapter explains the methodology used to test the hypotheses and the hypothesized

model provided in the second chapter. It begins by presenting demographic information of the

participants whose participants were and how they were sampled. The procedure that was

followed to complete an online survey is also included. Additionally, the instrument that was

used for this study is described. Lastly, I discuss the method used to analyze the data for the

preparation for statistical analyses.

Participants and procedure

First, all materials related to the present study were approved by university IRB. Then,

participants were recruited from a research pool, accessible to undergraduate students enrolled in

classes in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Georgia in the United

States. Students enrolled in COMM1100, COMM1500 or other upper levels of COMM courses

participated in the survey on a voluntary basis. An email invitation was sent to these students

with a consent form which included the purpose of the study, procedures, risks/discomforts,

benefits, confidentiality, compensation and contact information of the researcher and a link to the

survey questionnaire hosted on the Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com), which is an online

data collection website.

The online survey consisted of four sections (Appendix A). First, demographic

information (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, and current relationship status) was presented to define

24
the sample. Second, participants were asked to report time spent on smartphone use in a typical

day and which functions/applications (e.g., messaging, SNS, calling, and etc.) they mostly used

to understand duration and usage patterns of smartphone use. The next section included

measurements examining friend phubbing, personality traits (i.e., agreeableness and

neuroticism), psychological factors (i.e., depression and social anxiety) and friendship

satisfaction. Because the present study mainly focused on friendship, participants were asked to

think about their current friendships that meet up together or have contact within two weeks.

Lastly, participants were asked to indicate their full name, course name, and their instructor’s

name to receive course credit.

As a result, a total of 519 students participated in the survey. Among 519 participants,

472 were valid (n = 472) for further statistical analysis because 3 did not complete the survey, 4

did not have their own smartphone and the rest (40 participants) were regarded as influential

outliers which observed farthest from the centroid (create heteroscedasticity) indicating less

than .05 on p-value (Hoyle, 1995).

Of the 472 participants, 299 were female (63.3%), 171 were male (36.2%), and 2 did not

prefer to answer. The average age of the participants was 19.85 ranged between 18 and 28 years

(SD = 2.04). A majority of participants were Caucasian/White (n = 349, 73.9%); 73 (15.5%)

were Asian; 20 (4.2%) were Black/African American; 19 (4.0%) were Hispanic/Latino; 9 (1.9%)

were Biracial or Multiracial; and 2 participants reported other ethnicities. Current relationship

status was measured with three categories. More than half of the participants (n = 283) were

single; 159 (33.7%) were in a relationship; and 30 (6.4%) reported that it is complicated.

25
Measures

Smartphone use. Participants were asked to indicate duration and usage patterns of

smartphone use by the following two questions (Haug et al., 2015): “What is your duration of

smartphone use in a typical day?” by choosing one of five options: (1) less than 10 minutes; (2)

11 – 60 minutes; (3) 1 – 2 hours; (4) 3 – 4 hours; and (5) more than 5 hours and “What

functions/application do you use most frequently on your smartphone in a typical day?” by

choosing three options among 11 options (1) text messaging; (2) social networking; (3) calling;

(4) gaming; (5) searching; (6) taking pictures/videos; (7) watching movies; (8) reading

news/checking weather; (9) listening to music; (10) using maps; and (11) other.

Friend Phubbing. Before measuring phubbing behavior, participants were asked to

answer the following question: “Do you know what the term phubbing means?” with “Yes” or

“No” to assess familiarity with the term phubbing. Then, friend phubbing of the participants was

assessed by using a modified version of the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP) which was

recently developed by Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2018a). Friend phubbing was measured

with four factors (i.e., nomophobia, interpersonal conflict, self-isolation, and problem

acknowledgment) as Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2018a) proposed by assessing

participants’ intention or willingness to phub their friends during an interaction. Since the present

study focused on phubbing behavior in friendships, the referent was replaced from others to my

friend(s) who meet up together or contact them within two weeks. The modified GSP comprises

15 items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always) with four factors:

Nomophobia (NP) (e.g., “I worry that I will miss something important if I do not check my

phone), Interpersonal Conflict (IC) (e.g., “I have conflicts with my friend(s) because I am using

my phone), Self-isolation (SI) (e.g., “I would rather pay attention to my phone than talk to my

26
friend(s)”), and Problem Acknowledgement (PA) (e.g., “I pay attention to my phone for longer

than I intend to do so).

In order to test how well this modified scale measure friend phubbing representing the

number of constructs required in the data and to assess the measurement validity, confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA) was used. As a result of CFA, it was observed that Item 3 (i.e., “I place my

phone where I can see it”, see Appendix A) was unacceptable because of unsatisfied standardized

regression weights (<.30) and squared multiple correlations (<.10) (Schumacker& Lomax,

2004). Consequently, this item was removed from the analyses and the result showed that the

scale was valid for assessing four factors among the participants to measure phubbing behavior

in friendships displayed a good fit: χ2 (71, N = 472) = 195.41, p <.001, χ2/df = 2.75, CFI = .93,

NFI = .92, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .06. The reliabilities of the subscales – Nomophobia (M =

3.63, SD = 1.23, Cronbach’s α = .77), Interpersonal Conflict (M = 1.62, SD = .76, Cronbach’s α

= .83), Self-isolation (M = 1.63, SD = .80, Cronbach’s α = .78), and Problem Acknowledgement

(M = 3.63, SD = 1.27, Cronbach’s α = .72) – were also high.

Depression. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D scale)

developed by Radloff (1977) was designed to measure levels of depression. The CES-D scale

includes 20 items (e.g., During the past week “I felt depressed” and “I had trouble keeping my

mind on what I was doing”) on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Rarely or none of the time

- less than 1 day) to 4 (Most or all of the time -5-7 days). To test the validity of this scale,

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. The result showed that Item 7 (i.e., “I felt

that everything I did was an effort”, see Appendix A) should be removed because it did not meet

the criteria of the acceptance obtained lower standardized regression weights (<.30) and squared

multiple correlations (<.10) (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). This item was removed from the

27
further analysis and then revealed that the scale was valid to measure participants’ depression

levels resulted in a satisfactory fit: χ2 (141, N = 472) = 330.99, p <.001, χ2/df = 2.35, CFI = .94,

NFI = .90, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .05. Then, to compute the variable for depression, reverse

items (i.e., item 4, 8, 12, and 16) were recoded so that individuals with scores tend to have

greater feelings of depression (M = 1.69, SD = .45, Cronbach’s α =.89).

Social Anxiety. The Interaction Anxiousness Scale (IAS) developed by Leary (1983) was

used to measure trait levels of social anxiety. The IAS includes 15 items (e.g., “I often feel

nervous even in casual get-togethers” and “In general, I’m a shy person”) on a 7-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 (Not at all characteristic of me) and 7 (Extremely characteristic of me). To

assess validity of this scale, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted and showed that

it was valid to assess the levels of social anxiety resulting in a satisfactory fit: χ2 (84, N = 472) =

273.36, p <.001, χ2/df = 3.25, CFI = .93, NFI = .90, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .07. Four items (i.e.,

item 3, 6, 10, and 15) were recoded and computed so that individuals with higher scores tend to

have higher traits of anxiousness in social interactions (M = 2.73, SD = .63, Cronbach’s α = .84).

Personality Traits – Agreeableness and Neuroticism. The subscales of the Big Five Trait

Taxonomy developed by John and Srivastava (1999) were designed to measure the

Agreeableness and the Neuroticism of the participants. The Big Five Trait Taxonomy-

agreeableness and neuroticism consist of 9 items (e.g., I see myself as someone who “is helpful

and unselfish with others” and “has a forgiving nature”) and 8 items (e.g., I see myself as

someone who “can be tense” and “gets nervous easily”) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Prior to the computation of each personality trait,

reverse items (agreeableness – item 1, 3, 6, and 8; neuroticism – item 2, 5, and 7) were recoded,

respectively. To check the measurement, I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). It

28
showed that each subscale was valid to measure participants’ agreeableness and neuroticism,

respectively displayed a satisfactory fit: χ2 (24, N = 472) = 91.35, p <.001, χ2/df = 3.81, CFI

= .93, NFI = .91, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .07 for Agreeableness; and χ2 (19, N = 472) = 73.89, p

<.001, χ2/df = 3.89, CFI = .95, NFI = .94, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .07 for Neuroticism. The

reliabilities of the subscales – Agreeableness (M = 3.95, SD = .60, Cronbach’s α = .79) and

Neuroticism (M = 2.80, SD = .77, Cronbach’s α = .83) were also high.

Friendship Satisfaction. Friendship satisfaction was assessed using a revised version of

the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) (Hendrick, 1988). Referents were replaced from

partner to friend(s) and from relationship to friendship to investigate the participants’ satisfaction

in their current friendship. The modified RAS consists of 7 items (e.g., “How well does your

friend(s) meet your needs?” and “In general, how satisfied are you with your current

friendship?”) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Poorly/Unsatisfied) to 5 (Extremely

well/Extremely satisfied). Negatively worded items (i.e., item 4 and 7) were recoded and

computed so that higher scores indicate high satisfaction in their current friendships.

To test how well the modified scale measures friendship satisfaction and to check the

measurement validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied. The results of the

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that Item 7 (i.e., “How many problems are there in

your friendships?”) had unacceptable standardized regression weights (<.30) and squared

multiple correlations (<.10) (Schumacker& Lomax, 2004). Consequently, this item was removed

from the analyses and the result showed that the scale was valid for assessing the friendship

satisfaction of the participants resulted in satisfactory fit: χ2 (9, N = 472) = 43.34, p <.001, χ2/df =

4.82, CFI = .98, NFI = .97, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .06. The reliability of this scale was also

high (M = 4.07, SD = .66, Cronbach’s α = .87).

29
Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25.0 and AMOS version 25.0 software for

Windows. In order to identify the relationships among proposed predictors (i.e., depression,

social anxiety, agreeableness, and neuroticism), friend phubbing and friendship satisfaction,

structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed. Before using structural equation models,

frequency, descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were analyzed

with SPSS. Then, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to check the validity of

each scale and examine the hypothesized model fit with the AMOS.

In terms of sample size, Kline (2005) recommended that the minimum sample size

should be greater than 200 for path analysis or structural equation modeling (SEM). As Preacher

and Hayes (2004) suggested, a bootstrapping procedure with 1000 bootstrap samples and a 95%

bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) was conducted to test the mediating effect of friend

phubbing on the relationship between independent and dependent variables.

Employing maximum likelihood estimation, the following criteria were used to examine

the overall measurement fit in the CFA and structural equation models (SEM) (Bentler &

Bonnet, 1980; Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Kline, 2005): (1) the chi-square (χ2) statistic

(non-significant, χ2/df < .05); (2) the comparative fit index (CFI, > .90); (3) the normed-fit index

(NFI, > .90); (4) the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR, < .08); (5) the root mean

square error of approximation (RMSEA, < .08).

30
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter describes the empirical results of this study. It begins with descriptive

statistics followed by correlation test to investigate the relationships among all variables of the

present study. It then continues with structural equation models to test the hypotheses and the

proposed conceptual model of this study.

Descriptive statistics

In terms of smartphone use, more than half of the participants (n = 250, 53.0%) indicated

that they spent ‘3 – 4 hours’ using their smartphones in a day; 133 (28.2%) spent ‘1 – 2 hours’;

80 (16.9%) spent ‘more than 5 hours’; 9 (1.9%) spent ‘11 – 60 minutes’ and no one reported ‘less

than 10 minutes’ per day (M = 3.85, SD = .71). In addition, relevant to smartphone

functions/applications (or apps), participants indicated that social networking, text messaging

and listening to music as the most frequently used smartphone function/applications.

With regard to knowledge about the phubbing term, interestingly, most of the participants

(94.7%) indicated that they do not know about the term phubbing (n = 447), while 25 (5.3%)

reported that they know what the phubbing term means (see Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic information of the participants (n = 472)

Frequency Percent (%)

Total n = 472 100%
Age M = 19.85 SD = 2.04

31
Gender

Female 299 63.3

Male 171 36.2

Prefer not to answer 2 0.4

Ethnics

White or Caucasian 349 73.9

Asian 73 15.5

Black or African American 20 4.2

Hispanic or Latino 19 4.0

Biracial or Multiracial 9 1.9

Other 2 0.4

Relationship status

Single 283 60.0

In a relationship 159 33.7

It’s complicated 30 6.4

Smartphone ownership

Yes 472 100.0

No 0 0.0

Duration of smartphone use in a typical day

Less than 10 minutes 0 0.0

11-60 minutes 9 1.9

1- 2 hours 133 28.2

3 - 4 hours 250 53.0

32
 More than 5 hours 80 16.9

The smartphone applications/functions used most frequently

Social networking 411 87.1

Text messaging 380 80.5

Listening to music 257 54.4

Searching 97 20.6

Calling 75 15.9

Watching movies 42 8.9

Gaming 32 6.8

News/Weather 12 2.5

Camera (Taking pictures/videos) 9 1.9

Other (Streaming; YouTube, Twitch, E-book) 9 1.9

Using a map 4 0.8

Know about the term phubbing

No 447 94.7

Yes 25 5.3

Testing for the Hypothesized Model

First, correlation analyses were run to examine the relationships among all variables of

this study. In addition, multicollinearity within a set of independent variables was tested through

variance inflation factor analysis (VIF). The result showed that the study variables were

significantly correlated (Table 2). The outcomes of the VIF showed that collinearity statistics

obtained VIF values of 1.543 (depression), 1.390 (social anxiety), 1.189 (agreeableness), and

33
1.923 (neuroticism), indicating that the VIF values are obtained ranged from 1 to 10 (i.e., VIF <

10 is acceptable) (Hair, Black, Banbin, & Anderson, 2010). It was concluded that there are no

multicollinearity symptoms between independent variables.

34
Table 2. Mean, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and Zero-order Pearson Correlations among the Study Variables (n = 472)

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Friend phubbing -

2. Depression .29** -

3. Social anxiety .31** .37** -

4. Agreeableness -.22** -.31** -.15** -

5. Neuroticism .25** .58** .52** -.38** -

6. Friendship satisfaction -.23** -.46** -.21** .39** -.27** -

Mean (SD) 2.48 1.69 2.73 3.95 2.80 4.07

(0.69) (0.45) (0.63) (0.60) (0.77) (0.66)

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.83 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.83 0.87

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001

35
 To test the hypothesized model as depicted in Figure 1 and relationships among the

study variables, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted with 5 observed variables

(i.e., depression, social anxiety, agreeableness, neuroticism, and friendship satisfaction) and 1

latent variable (i.e., friend phubbing). To be specific, each of the individual factors (i.e.,

personality traits and psychological factors) was regressed onto friend phubbing, and friend

phubbing was regressed onto friendship satisfaction. Overall, the hypothesized model resulted in

a good model fit: χ2 (19, N = 472) = 87.26, p <.001, χ2/df = 4.59, CFI = .93, NFI = .92, SRMR

= .05, RMSEA = .08.

Results of the Hypotheses

To be parsimonious, only the significant individual standardized path estimates and R2

estimates (squared multiple correlations) for the endogenous variable were shown in Figure 2. As

this study predicted (Figure 1), three of the formal hypotheses related to the predictors of friend

phubbing were fully supported: (a) H1a was supported; the path from depression to friend

phubbing was significant and positive (.32, p < .001), (b) H1b was supported; the path from social

anxiety to friend phubbing was significant and positive (.24, p < .001), (c) H1c was supported; the

path from agreeableness to friend phubbing was significant and negative (-.27, p < .001), and (d)

H1d was not supported; the path from neuroticism to friend phubbing was significant but not

positive (-.18, p < .05). Among the four predictors of friend phubbing, the results showed that the

strongest determinant of friend phubbing is depression, followed by agreeableness, and social

anxiety.

36
 In regard to the direct relationship between friend phubbing and friendship satisfaction

(H2), it was supported; the path from friend phubbing to friendship satisfaction was significant

and negative (-.13, p < .05).

As predicted in this study, friend phubbing played a role as a mediator between proposed

independent and dependent variables. Specifically, H3a was supported; the path from depression

to friendship satisfaction through friend phubbing (indirect effect of friend phubbing) was

significant (-.04, 95% CI [-.10, -.01]) were significant and negative. H3b was supported; the path

from social anxiety to friendship satisfaction through friend phubbing was significant (-.03, 95%

CI [-.07, -.01]). H3c was supported; the path from agreeableness to friendship satisfaction through

friend phubbing (indirect effect of friend phubbing) was significant (.03, 95% CI [.01, .08]). H3d

was supported; the path from neuroticism to friendship satisfaction through friend phubbing was

significant (.02, 95% CI [.00, .07]).

To summarize, the results of this study are as follows: (a) depression was directly and

indirectly associated with friendship satisfaction via friend phubbing; (b) social anxiety was

indirectly associated with friendship satisfaction via friend phubbing; (c) agreeableness was

directly and indirectly associated with friendship satisfaction via friend phubbing, and (d)

neuroticism was indirectly associated with friendship satisfaction via friend phubbing.

In regard to R2, a total of 24.7% variance in friend phubbing and 29.2% of the variance in

friendship satisfaction were explained by all proposed variables.

37
Figure 2. The results of structural equations modeling with the hypothesized model.

Notes. Fphubbing: Friend phubbing, NP: Nomophobia, IC: Interpersonal Conflict, SI: Self-
isolation, and PA: Problem Acknowledgement.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

38
Table 3. Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results

Path Hypotheses Estimate Results

Predictors of Friend Phubbing

H1a Depression → Friend phubbing Positive .32*** Supported

H1b Social anxiety → Friend phubbing Positive .24*** Supported

H1c Agreeableness → Friend phubbing Negative -.27*** Supported

H1d Neuroticism → Friend phubbing Positive -.18* Not supported

Consequence of Friend Phubbing

H2 Friend phubbing → Friendship satisfaction Negative -.13* Supported

The Mediating Role of Friend Phubbing Indirect effect

H3a Depression → Friendship satisfaction Mediated .-.04* Supported

H3b Social anxiety → Friendship satisfaction Mediated -.03* Supported

H3c Agreeableness → Friendship satisfaction Mediated .03* Supported

H3d Neuroticism → Friendship satisfaction Mediated .02* Supported

Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

39
 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

This chapter interprets and discusses the results presented in the previous chapter

(Chapter 4). The implications of this study are then presented. Finally, limitations and

suggestions for future research are addressed followed by the conclusion.

Although the use of smartphones has permeated into a wide number of areas of our life

and that phubbing frequently occurs in friendships, previous research primarily has examined

phubbing in the context of romantic relationships so far. The primary purpose of this

investigation was to uncover the mechanisms underlying phubbing behavior and its relationship

with other proposed variables in friendships. Specifically, this study presented an integrated

model that explains such associations by finding the significant (a) effects of depression, social

anxiety, agreeableness on friend phubbing, (b) effect of friend phubbing on friendship

satisfaction, and (c) mediating role of friend phubbing in the associations between each of

proposed predictors (i.e., depression, social anxiety, agreeableness, and neuroticism) and

friendship satisfaction.

To support the arguments and test the hypotheses, this study presented three theoretical

approaches: problematic smartphone use model (Billieux et al., 2015), politeness theory (Brown

& Levinson, 1987) and social displacement hypothesis (Kraut et al., 1998). Consequently, I

found that four individual characteristics such as depression, social anxiety, agreeableness, and

neuroticism are significantly linked with friend phubbing, and this ultimately leads to having a

detrimental impact on friendship satisfaction. Further, the results revealed that friend phubbing

40
mediates such relationships (between each individual characteristic and friendship satisfaction).

The results of structural equation models (SEM) in this study showed that all the hypotheses

except H1d were empirically supported and found that the hypothesized model of this study

displays goodness-of-fit. The results of the present study are discussed in greater detail below

with three main conclusions: (a) predictors of friend phubbing, (b) consequences of friend

phubbing, and (c) the mediating role of friend phubbing.

Predictors of Friend Phubbing

An important contribution is that this study supports that phubbing behavior can be

regarded as problematic smartphone use consistent with prior literature (e.g., Blachnio &

Przepiorka, 2018; Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016). That is, the findings of this study

provide evidence that the key predictors of problematic smartphone use advanced by the

theoretical model by Billieux and colleagues (2015) also predict friend phubbing.

First, H1a suggested that those with high levels of depression would have increased

friend phubbing. The hypothesis was supported by showing a significant positive correlation

between depression and friend phubbing. This is congruent with the problematic smartphone use

approach (Billieux et al., 2015) as well as the previous studies (e.g., Kim et al., 2015; Park,

2005) that have argued that depressed individuals tend to have higher levels of problematic

smartphone use. Kim and colleagues (2015) empirically demonstrated that individuals with

higher traits of depression tend to show a heavy reliance on smartphone-mediated

communication than face-to-face communication by suggesting that these people regard

smartphones as a mean of alleviating their depression symptoms. Additionally, this result is in

line with the recent study by Roberts and David (2016) who demonstrated that phubbing in

41
romantic relationships is significantly related to higher levels of depression. However, it is

important to note that previous studies related to phubbing and depression (e.g., Elhai et al.,

2017b; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; Robert & David, 2016; Roberts & David, 2017) were

examined in romantic relationships and the causal direction of the relationship was unclear.

Unlike the prior studies, the present study extends existing research by examining whether

depression can directly predict friend phubbing. In addition, the findings of the present study

confirmed that depression was found to be the most predominant predictor of friend phubbing

(see Figure 2).

Second, H1b advanced that social anxiety is positively associated with friend phubbing.

This hypothesis was supported by showing a significant positive association. That is, anxious

individuals are more likely to use their smartphones in the presence of their friends. This is

consistent with the problematic smartphone use (Billieux et al., 2015) and the previous studies

(e.g., Demirci et al., 2015; Elhai et al., 2017b) that have demonstrated social anxiety as a

significant predictor of problematic smartphone use. For instance, Demirci and colleagues (2015)

found that anxious college students tend to spend more time using their smartphones resulting in

higher levels of problematic smartphone use. In addition, Elhai and colleagues (2017b) showed

the positive relationship between social anxiety and problematic smartphone use suggesting that

smartphone activities are less likely to provoke anxiety than face-to-face interactions for anxious

individuals.

Similar to the outcomes of the depression (H1a), the result of social anxiety (H1b) also

contributes to support the argument that it is reasonable to apply the previous research which has

demonstrated the relationship between social anxiety and problematic smartphone use to friend

phubbing.

42
 Third, H1c suggested that agreeableness is negatively associated with friend phubbing.

The hypothesis was supported by showing a significant negative correlation between

agreeableness and friend phubbing. In other words, disagreeable individuals are more likely to

show a higher propensity to phub in the presence of their friends. This finding is supported by

the previous studies (e.g., Andreassen et al., 2013; Fritz, 2018) that have shown the negative

relationship between agreeableness and a variety of problematic smartphone use including

smartphone addiction and phubbing. For example, Andreassen and colleagues (2013) revealed

that agreeableness is negatively related to smartphone addiction due to a motivation to maintain

positive interpersonal relationships and to avoid negative consequences with others (e.g.,

interpersonal conflicts) caused by behavior addictions. The result was also supported by Fritz’s

(2018) findings which demonstrated that increased agreeableness is directly related to decreased

phubbing behavior.

In line with these studies, the result about the influence of agreeableness on friend

phubbing suggests that disagreeable individuals may not care what others feel and think in using

their smartphones in the presence of others. Consequently, individuals who score low on

agreeableness (disagreeable individuals) may feel free to use their smartphones whenever they

want even in inappropriate places. On the other hand, individuals with higher traits of

agreeableness (agreeable individuals) may hold a high emphasis on social harmony striving to

maintain interpersonal relationships and to have a strong motive to avoid interpersonal conflicts

caused by using their smartphones. Thereby, agreeable people may be less likely to engage with

phubbing behavior in friendships. These results further contribute to advance existing theoretical

model of problematic smartphone use (Billiexu et al., 2015) by adding a new variable (i.e.,

disagreeableness) that offers another valid factor on the framework.

43
 Finally, H1d suggested that neuroticism is positively associated with friend phubbing.

However, the findings of this study showed the opposite result. The hypothesis was not

supported, indicating a significant but not positive correlation between neuroticism and friend

phubbing. Despite the significant association between neuroticism and friend phubbing, it was

negatively related. In other words, neurotic individuals are less likely to use their smartphones in

the presence of their friends. Contrary to previous studies that have demonstrated that neurotic

individuals tend to show problematic smartphone use (Billieux et al., 2015; Tang, Chen, Yang,

Chung, & Lee, 2016), the results may seem to be unexpected, but there is a possible explanation.

The difference in results may be due to how neurotic individuals regard a smartphone as an

appealing device (e.g., Devaraj, Easley, & Crant, 2008; Bianchi & Phillips, 2005). For instance,

Devaraj and colleagues (2008) argued neurotic individuals have negative beliefs on technological

devices because the device itself is threatening and stressful. Another study (Bianchi & Phillips,

2005) also revealed that those who are neurotic believe that mobile phones have irritating

features (e.g., ring tones). As these studies argued, individuals with higher traits of neuroticism

are possibly less engaged in friend phubbing. The result of H1d, further, suggests another coping

strategy for neurotic individuals in using smartphones. Future research is needed to examine the

association between neuroticism and friend phubbing to explain why neurotic people are less

engaged in phubbing behavior during their interactions with their friends.

Consequences of Friend Phubbing

A second important contribution is that the present study provides a model of the process

by which friend phubbing impacts friendship satisfaction. H2 suggested that friend phubbing is

negatively associated with friendship satisfaction. As expected, this hypothesis was supported by

44
showing a significant negative correlation between friend phubbing and friend satisfaction (see

Figure 2). In other words, the level of friend phubbing is associated with the level of friendship

satisfaction. This finding is in line with the politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) in that

people feel free to behave in using their smartphones regardless of their public self-images when

they are in comfortable surroundings and the social displacement hypothesis (Kraut et al., 1998)

which states that time spent using smartphones displaces significant conversations with friends.

In addition, the same results were obtained in previous studies (e.g., Bae, 2015; Przybylski &

Weinstein, 2012). For example, Przybylski and Weinstein (2012) designed two different

experiments (e.g., present condition and absence condition of a mobile phone) and demonstrated

that the mere presence of a mobile phone has negative impacts on relational quality and

perceived closeness. More recently, Bae (2015) found that problematic smartphone use has a

detrimental impact on friendship satisfaction.

The finding of friend phubbing on friendship satisfaction suggests that smartphone-

related behavior in the presence of friends may distract their casual or meaningful conversations,

resulting in lower levels of friendship satisfaction. Although this study demonstrated that friend

phubbing decreased friendship satisfaction, future research further needs to confirm this result

reported here to offer some insight into how friend phubbing influences friendship satisfaction.

The Mediating Role of Friend Phubbing

Another contribution of this study concerns the mediating role of friend phubbing

between each individual characteristics and friendship satisfaction. First, H3a suggested that

friend phubbing mediates the relationship between depression and friendship satisfaction. The

hypothesis was supported by showing a significant mediator of friend phubbing between

45
depression and friendship satisfaction. The result of H3a revealed that depression increases friend

phubbing, which in turn is negatively related to friendship satisfaction. This result, along with

the results from H1a and H2 discussed above, is consistent with those of previous studies. For

example, Fincham, Beach, Harold, and Osborne (1997) found that individuals who have higher

levels of depression tend to less satisfy their marital relationships although the causal direction of

the association is unclear. Also, Cramer (2004) showed that there is a direct relationship between

depression and relationship satisfaction in romantic relationships. Therefore, the result of H3a

suggests the impact of depression on friend phubbing.

H3b suggested that phubbing mediates the relationship between social anxiety and

friendship satisfaction. The hypothesis was supported by showing that social anxiety is indirectly

associated with friendship satisfaction through friend phubbing. This result revealed an indirect

effect only of friend phubbing. That is, social anxiety was positively related to friend phubbing

and in turn, friend phubbing was negatively related to friend satisfaction while the direct effect

from social anxiety and friendship satisfaction was not significant.

It is somewhat surprising that social anxiety did not play a significant role in decreasing

friendship satisfaction. Nevertheless, this result of H3b can be explained by the fact that the

relationship between social anxiety and friendship satisfaction still remains to be elucidated

(Rodebaugh, Lim, Shumaker, Levinson, & Thompson, 2015). Also, as La Greca and Lopez

(1998) found, the association between social anxiety and friendship satisfaction can vary

depending on gender and age. These studies suggest that inconsistent findings of the association

make the current result difficult to interpret. Therefore, more research is needed to enhance our

understanding of such relationship whether friend phubbing play a role in the association

between social anxiety and friendship satisfaction.

46
 As another mediation result, H3c suggested that friend phubbing mediates the

relationship between agreeableness and friendship satisfaction. This hypothesis was supported by

showing a significant mediator of friend phubbing between agreeableness and friendship

satisfaction. The result revealed that agreeableness decreases friend phubbing, which in turn is

positively related to friendship satisfaction. This result, along with the results from H1c and H2

discussed above, is in line with prior studies. For example, White, Hendrick, and Hendrick

(2004) demonstrated that agreeableness is positively related to and predictive of relationship

satisfaction. More recently, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, Bhullar, and Rooke (2010) found

that agreeable individuals are more likely to satisfy their marital relationships. Thus, the result of

H3c suggests the impact of agreeableness on friend phubbing.

Finally, H3d suggested that friend phubbing mediates the relationship between

neuroticism and friendship satisfaction. The hypothesis was supported by showing that

neuroticism is indirectly associated with friendship satisfaction through friend phubbing. In other

words, neuroticism was negatively related to friend phubbing and in turn, friend phubbing was

negatively related to friend satisfaction while the direct effect from neuroticism and friend

satisfaction was not significant. Theoretically, neuroticism is significantly (and negatively)

associated with relationship satisfaction assuming that neurotic individuals report being less

satisfied in their relationships (e.g., White et al., 2004). However, similar to social anxiety, the

effect of neuroticism on relationship satisfaction has been unclear and inconsistent (e.g., Wilson,

Harris, & Vazire, 2015).

The differences in results for the relationship between neuroticism and relationship

satisfaction may be due to the duration of a relationship (e.g., how long such a relationship has

been maintained). For example, Karney and Bradbury (1997) found that neuroticism is

47
significantly related to relationship satisfaction only at the beginning of a relationship and no

effects are observed in time. It suggests that neuroticism may not play a significant role in

predicting friendship satisfaction because the relationship is based on a long-standing

relationship taking time to develop and maintain. Since this study asked participants to think

about their existing friendships not initiating friendships, it is possible that neuroticism was not

significantly associated with friendship satisfaction. Additionally, the differences in results may

be explained that neurotic individuals only care about themselves whereas agreeable individuals

emphasize the others which is closely related to perceived relationship satisfaction

(Hirschmüller, Egloff, Schmukle, Nestler, & Back, 2015).

Considering phubbing occurs in the presence of the “others”, it is possible that neurotic

people who care only about the “self” was not significantly related to decreased friendship

satisfaction. Moreover, friendships may be less influenced by high neuroticism in that these

individuals tend to express their neuroticism to their romantic partners more often than to their

friends (Slatcher & Vazire, 2009). Therefore, further studies are required to examine the

association between neuroticism and friendship satisfaction to enhance our understanding of

whether an individual’s characteristics such as neuroticism can support a causal conclusion that

neuroticism results in decreased friendship satisfaction.

Limitations and Future Research

To my knowledge, this study is the first report to examine the dynamics of phubbing

behavior in friendships from a communication perspective. Yet, there are several limitations that

should be acknowledged. First of all, this study was a cross-sectional survey which is limited to

draw conclusions about causality. Although this study built on the theoretical frameworks and

48
earlier studies, it is hard to generalize the current findings and the causal relationships because of

its correlational nature. Therefore, future research should adopt a longitudinal design considering

either a shorter or longer length of time to reflect all patterns of an individual’s characteristics,

friend phubbing, and friendship satisfaction because different findings may be found for data

collected over different time intervals.

Second, a sample was limited to college students at one university. I believe that the data

is appropriate for the smartphone-related study because college students are a major group of

smartphone users. In addition, young adults are more likely to spend more time using their

smartphones than older generations. However, phubbing can be seen in different age groups. In

the future, therefore, it is necessary to collect data from a wide range of ages.

Third, the data were collected from only one country which does not represent all other

cultural and social factors. The generalizability of the findings was limited. Therefore, future

studies should target a more representative sample to generalize the findings of this study. In

addition, these results did not consider demographic differences to the hypothesized model. The

relationships of this study may be different (e.g., less significant) depending on the participants’

age, gender, and background. Therefore, it is necessary to examine demographic differences in

phubbing behavior in friendships. It would bring new insights into phubbing behavior.

Fourth, this study is based on the self-report data, which may not accurately reflect

participants’ phubbing behavior. Considering such behavior can occur unconsciously and people

can unaware that such behavior will have negative impacts on themselves and others, self-

reported information regarding phubbing behavior may be different from actual phubbing

behavior as well as other variables in the present study. Thus, future studies could use an

objective measure of the participants’ phubbing behavior such as experimental studies in natural

49
settings. It may help to reflect actual levels of phubbing behavior and overcome the

disadvantages of self-reported data, thereby providing a more comprehensive picture of the

nature of phubbing behavior.

In this study, 25% of the friend phubbing and 29% of the friendship satisfaction were

explained by the proposed variables. In this regard, future studies should consider unexplained

variables or possible different factors such as other psychological, personality traits and cultural

variables. In addition, the interpretation of the findings was limited because there was a lack of

research related to phubbing, and the proposed variables, especially independent variables, were

not mutually exclusive.

Lastly, the present study confined its context to phubbers’ perspective to understanding

which individual characteristics lead to friend phubbing by examining the relationships between

each individual difference and friend phubbing. Since such behavior also has a negative impact

to co-present person who is a victim of phubbing behavior, it is worth considering both actor

(phubber) and actor-partner (phubbee) effect of phubbing to gain further insights into phubbing

behavior.

Despite these limitations, these findings of the present study may have some important

implications in that it obtained a comprehensive picture of phubbing behavior in friendships.

Conclusion

This study identified that specific characteristics of an individual such as personality

traits and psychological factors are significant predictors of friend phubbing. Specifically, people

who have higher traits of depression or social anxiety were more likely to phub their friends

50
while individuals who have lower traits of agreeableness and neuroticism were more likely to use

their smartphones in the presence of their friends.

The findings of this study also showed that friend phubbing has a detrimental impact on

friendship satisfaction. More interestingly, the mediation analysis revealed that friend phubbing

appears to mediate the proposed relationships between each possible predictor of friend

phubbing and friendships satisfaction: (a) friend phubbing mediated the relationship between

depression and friendship satisfaction; (b) friend phubbing mediated the relationship between

social anxiety and friendship satisfaction; (c) friend phubbing mediated the relationship between

agreeableness and friendship satisfaction; and (d) friend phubbing mediated the relationship

between neuroticism and friendship satisfaction.

51
 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.

Ahn, D., & Shin, D. H. (2013). Is the social use of media for seeking connectedness or for

avoiding social isolation? Mechanisms underlying media use and subjective well-

being. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2453-2462.

Al-Saggaf, Y., & MacCulloch, R. (2018). Phubbing: How Frequent? Who is Phubbed? In Which

Situation? And Using Which Apps? In Paper presented at the Thirty ninth International

Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), December 13-16, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). "On the Internet no one knows I'm an

introvert": Extroversion, neuroticism, and Internet interaction. Cyberpsychology &

Behavior, 5(2), 125-128.

Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997). The evolution of psychology: Fifty years of the American

psychologist. Psychological testing (7th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Andreassen, C. S., Griffiths, M. D., Gjertsen, S. R., Krossbakken, E., Kvam, S., & Pallesen, S.

(2013). The relationships between behavioral addictions and the five-factor model of

personality. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(2), 90-99.

Austin, W. (1980). Friendship and fairness: Effects of type of relationship and task performance

on choice of distribution rules. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 402-

408.

52
Bae, S. M. (2015). The relationships between perceived parenting style, learning motivation,

friendship satisfaction, and the addictive use of smartphones with elementary school

students of South Korea: Using multivariate latent growth modeling. School Psychology

International, 36(5), 513-531.

Balta, S., Emirtekin, E., Kircaburun, K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Neuroticism, Trait Fear of

Missing Out, and Phubbing: The Mediating Role of State Fear of Missing Out and

Problematic Instagram Use. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1-12.

Beck, A. T., & Alford, B. A. (2009). Depression: Causes and treatment. University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of

covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.

Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone

use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 39-51.

Billieux, J., Maurage, P., Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Can

disordered mobile phone use be considered a behavioral addiction? An update on current

evidence and a comprehensive model for future research. Current Addiction

Reports, 2(2), 156-162.

Blachnio, A., & Przepiorka, A. (2018). Be aware! If you start using Facebook problematically

you will feel lonely: Phubbing, loneliness, self-esteem, and Facebook intrusion. A cross-

sectional study. Social Science Computer Review, 1-9.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge

England: Cambridge University Press.

Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an

53
 initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142.

Butt, S., & Phillips, J. G. (2008). Personality and self-reported mobile phone use. Computers in

Human Behavior, 24(2), 346-360.

Caplan, S. E. (2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic Internet

use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 234-242.

Chayko, M. (2008). Portable communities: The social dynamics of line and mobile

connectedness. New York, NY: State University of New York.

Chopik, W. J. (2017). Associations among relational values, support, health, and well‐being

across the adult lifespan. Personal Relationships, 24(2), 408-422.

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.

Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018a). Measuring Phone Snubbing Behavior:

Development and Validation of the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP) and the Generic

Scale of Being Phubbed (GSBP). Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 5-17.

Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018b). The effects of “phubbing” on social

interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(6), 304-316.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO

Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cramer, D. (2004). Satisfaction with a romantic relationship, depression, support and

conflict. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 77(4), 449-

461.

54
Demir, M., Özen, A., Doğan, A., Bilyk, N. A., & Tyrell, F. A. (2011). I matter to my friend,

therefore, I am happy: Friendship, mattering, and happiness. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 12(6), 983–1005.

Demir, M., & Weitekamp, L. A. (2007). I am so happy cause today I found my friend: Friendship

and personality as predictors of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(2), 181-211.

Demirci, K., Akgönül, M., & Akpinar, A. (2015). Relationship of smartphone use severity with

sleep quality, depression, and anxiety in university students. Journal of Behavioral

Addictions, 4(2), 85-92.

DePaulo, B. M., Epstein, J. A., & LeMay, C. S. (1990). Responses of the socially anxious to the

prospect of interpersonal evaluation. Journal of Personality, 58(4), 623-640.

Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Crant, J. M. (2008). Research note—how does personality matter?

Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems

Research, 19(1), 93-105.

Ehrenberg, A., Juckes, S., White, K. M., & Walsh, S. P. (2008). Personality and self-esteem as

predictors of young people's technology use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 739-

741.

Elhai, J. D., Dvorak, R. D., Levine, J. C., & Hall, B. J. (2017a). Problematic smartphone use: A

conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression

psychopathology. Journal of Affective Disorders, 207, 251-259.

Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2017b). Non-social features of

smartphone use are most related to depression, anxiety and problematic smartphone

use. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 75-82.

55
Enez Darcin, A., Kose, S., Noyan, C. O., Nurmedov, S., Yılmaz, O., & Dilbaz, N. (2016).

Smartphone addiction and its relationship with social anxiety and loneliness. Behavior

& Information Technology, 35(7), 520-525.

Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., Harold, G. T., & Osborne, L. N. (1997). Marital satisfaction and

depression: Different causal relationships for men and women?. Psychological

Science, 8(5), 351-356.

Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Bucholtz, I. (1995). Effects of adult attachment style on the

perception and search for social support. The Journal of Psychology, 129(6), 665-676.

Fritz, K. (2018). Do touchscreens make us lose touch? The relationship between personality

traits and phubbing among emerging adults (Master’s thesis). Retrived from

http://scriptiesonline.uba.uva.nl/document/656594

Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The

role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet

dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152-177.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York:

Doubleday.

Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2011). Communicating closeness: affection,

immediacy, and Social Support. Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships,

125-150.

Ha, J. H., Chin, B., Park, D. H., Ryu, S. H., & Yu, J. (2008). Characteristics of excessive cellular

phone use in Korean adolescents. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 783-784.

Hair, J. F., Black, W., Banbin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.).

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

56
Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2017). Texting's consequences for romantic relationships: A cross-

lagged analysis highlights its risks. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 386-394.

Harrison, M. A., Bealing, C. E., & Salley, J. M. (2015). 2 TXT or not 2 TXT: College students’

reports of when text messaging is social breach. The Social Science Journal, 52(2), 188-

194.

Haug, S., Castro, R. P., Kwon, M., Filler, A., Kowatsch, T., & Schaub, M. P. (2015). Smartphone

use and smartphone addiction among young people in Switzerland. Journal of

Behavioral Addictions, 4(4), 299-307.

Hays, R. B. (1988). Friendship. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory,

Research and Interventions (pp. 391-408). New York: Wiley.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 50(1), 93-98.

Hirschmüller, S., Egloff, B., Schmukle, S. C., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Accurate

judgments of neuroticism at zero acquaintance: A question of relevance. Journal of

Personality, 83(2), 221-228.

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for

determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and

theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality:

Theory and Research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

Karadağ, E., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Şahin, B. M., ... & Babadağ, B.

57
 (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A

structural equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 60-74.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of

marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1075-1092.

Khang, H., Kim, J. K., & Kim, Y. (2013). Self-traits and motivations as antecedents of digital

media flow and addiction: The Internet, mobile phones, and video games. Computers in

Human Behavior, 29(6), 2416-2424.

Kim, J. H., Seo, M., & David, P. (2015). Alleviating depression only to become problematic

mobile phone users: Can face-to-face communication be the antidote? Computers in

Human Behavior, 51, 440-447.

Kim, J. H. (2018). Psychological issues and problematic use of smartphone: ADHD's moderating

role in the associations among loneliness, need for social assurance, need for immediate

connection, and problematic use of smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior, 80,

390-398.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY:

The Guilford Press.

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. In Paper presented at the Twenty fourth European Conference on Information

Systems (ECIS), İstanbul, Turkey.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998).

Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological

well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017–1031.

58
La Greca, A. M., & Lopez, N. (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer

relations and friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(2), 83-94.

Leary, M. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 47, 66-75.

Lee, J., Sung, M. J., Song, S. H., Lee, Y. M., Lee, J. J., Cho, S. M., ... & Shin, Y. M. (2018).

Psychological factors associated with smartphone addiction in South Korean

adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(3), 288-302.

Lee, Y. K., Chang, C. T., Lin, Y., & Cheng, Z. H. (2014). The dark side of smartphone usage:

Psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress. Computers in Human

Behavior, 31, 373-383.

Lewinsohn, P. M. (1974). A behavioral approach to depression. In R. J. Friedman & M.

M. Katz (Eds.), The Psychology of Depression: Contemporary Theory and Research (pp.

157–185). Washington, DC: Winston-Wiley.

Lim, T. S., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human

communication research, 17(3), 415-450.

Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2002). 10 Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. Perpetual

contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 139-169).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The

five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124-127.

McAdams, D. P. (1988). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological inquiries into

identity. New York: Guilford Press.

59
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across

instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its

applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.

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(1), 85-98.

McElroy, J. C., Hendrickson, A. R., Townsend, A. M., & DeMarie, S. M. (2007). Dispositional

factors in internet use: personality versus cognitive style. MIS quarterly, 809-820.

Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2015). The presence of cell phones in romantic partner face-to-

face interactions: An expectancy violation theory approach. Southern Communication

Journal, 80(4), 253–270

Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2017). A Politeness theory analysis of cell-phone usage in the

presence of friends. Communication Studies, 68(2), 190-207.

Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting

findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 420-435.

Nie, N. H., Hillygus, D. S., & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet use, interpersonal relations, and

sociability: A time diary study. In B. Wellman and C. Haythornthwaite. (Eds.) The

Internet in Everyday Life (pp. 215-243). Oxford: Blackwell.

Park, W. K. (2005). Mobile phone addiction. In R. Ling & P. E. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile

communications: Re-negotiation of the Social Sphere (pp. 253–272). London, England:

Springer.

60
Pew Research Center. (2015a). U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015. Retrieved on January 16, 2019

from: http:// www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/

Pew Research Center. (2015b). Americans’ views on mobile etiquette. Retrieved on January 16,

2019 from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/americans-views-on-mobile-

etiquette/.

Pew Research Center. (2018a). Number of smartphone users worldwide from 2014 to 2020 (in

billions). Retrieved on January 16, 2019 from:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/.

Pew Research Center. (2018b). Mobile Fact Sheet. Retrieved on January 16, 2019 from:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/14/about-a-quarter-of-americans-report-

going-online-almost-constantly/

Phillips, J. G., Butt, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2006). Personality and self-reported use of mobile

phones for games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 753-758.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects

in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,

36(4), 717-731.

Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2012). 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.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general

population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385-401.

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

61
 partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134-141.

Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2017). Put down your phone and listen to me: How boss

phubbing undermines the psychological conditions necessary for employee

engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 206-217.

Roberts, J. A., Pullig, C., & Manolis, C. (2015). I need my smartphone: A hierarchical model of

personality and cell-phone addiction. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 13-19.

Rodebaugh, T. L., Lim, M. H., Shumaker, E. A., Levinson, C. A., & Thompson, T. (2015). Social

anxiety and friendship quality over time. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 44(6), 502-511.

Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An

interdependence analysis, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175-204.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A

conceptualization model. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 641-669.

Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Seo, M., Kim, J. H., & David, P. (2015). Always connected or always distracted? ADHD

symptoms and social assurance explain problematic use of mobile phone and

multicommunicating. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(6), 667-681.

Slatcher, R. B., & Vazire, S. (2009). Effects of global and contextualized personality on

relationship satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 624-633.

Smetaniuk, P. (2014). A preliminary investigation into the prevalence and prediction of

problematic cell phone use. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(1), 41-53.

Sue, D., Sue, D. W., Sue, S., & Sue, D. M. (2015). Understanding abnormal behavior (11th ed.).

Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

62
Takao, M. (2014). Problematic mobile phone use and big-five personality domains. Indian

Journal of Community Medicine, 39(2), 111-113.

Tang, J. H., Chen, M. C., Yang, C. Y., Chung, T. Y., & Lee, Y. A. (2016). Personality traits,

interpersonal relationships, online social support, and Facebook addiction. Telematics

and Informatics, 33(1), 102-108.

Thomée, S., Härenstam, A., & Hagberg, M. (2011). Mobile phone use and stress, sleep

disturbances, and symptoms of depression among young adults-a prospective cohort

study. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 66-76.

Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone

may be distracting. Social Psychology, 45(6), 479-488.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each

other. New York: Basic Books.

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing

the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 12(4), 1169-1182.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and

hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.

Wang, X., Xie, X., Wang, Y., Wang, P., & 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.

White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and

relationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1519-1530.

Wilson, R. E., Harris, K., & Vazire, S. (2015). Personality and friendship satisfaction in daily

63
 life: Do everyday social interactions account for individual differences in friendship

satisfaction?. European Journal of Personality, 29(2), 173-186.

Zheng, F., Gao, P., He, M., Li, M., Wang, C., Zeng, Q., ... & Zhang, L. (2014). Association

between mobile phone use and inattention in 7102 Chinese adolescents: a population-

based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 1022-1028.

64
 APPENDIX A

THESIS MEASUREMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

PART 1. DEMOGRAPHICS
1. What is your gender?
(1) Female
(2) Male
(3) Transgender
(4) Other (please specify) _____
(5) Prefer not to answer

2. What is your ethnic background? (ethnic origin)

(1) White or Caucasian
(2) Hispanic or Latino
(3) Black or African American
(4) Native American or American Indian
(5) Asian
(6) Biracial or Multiracial
(7) Other (please specify) _____

3. How old are you? _____

4. I am …
(1) an undergraduate student
(2) a graduate student
(3) not in school

5. Relationship Status

65
 (1) Single
(2) In a relationship
(3) It’s complicated

6. Do you have your own smartphone?

(1) No
(2) Yes

66
PART 2. DURATION AND PATTERNS OF SMARTPHONE USE

1. Duration of smartphone use in a typical day.

(1) less than 10 minutes

(2) 11-60 minutes
(3) 1- 2 hours
(4) 3 - 4 hours
(5) more than 5 hours

2. What functions/applications on your smartphone do you use most frequently in a typical day?
(Choose three options that you use most frequently)

(1) Text messaging (e.g., iMessage, WhatsApp, Kakao Talk, etc.)

(2) Social networking (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
(3) Calling
(4) Gaming
(5) Searching (e.g., Google, Naver, etc.)
(6) Camera (e.g., taking pictures/videos)
(7) News/Weather
(8) Listening to music (e.g., iTunes, Spotify, Melon, etc.)
(9) Watching movies (e.g., Netflix)
(10) Using map (e.g., Google map)
(11) Others ______

67
PART 3. THE TERM PHUBBING

1. Do you know what the term phubbing means?

(1) No
(2) Yes

68
PART 4. PHUBBING BEHAVIOR – Revised Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP)

Please read each item carefully and indicate how often each of the statements below is
descriptive of you.
Please think about their current friendships: meet up together or contact them within two weeks

1 = Never
2 = Rarely
3 = Occasionally
4 = Sometimes
5 = Frequently
6 = Usually
7 = Always

_____ 1. I feel anxious if my phone is not nearby.

_____ 2. I cannot stand leaving my phone alone.
_____ 3. I place my phone where I can see it.
_____ 4. I worry that I will miss something important if I do not check my phone.
_____ 5. I have conflicts with my friend(s) because I am using my phone.
_____ 6. My friend(s) tells me that I interact with my phone too much.
_____ 7. I get irritated if my friend(s) asks me to get off my phone and talk to them.
_____ 8. I use my phone even though I know it irritates my friend(s).
_____ 9. I would rather pay attention to my phone than talk to my friend(s).
_____ 10. I feel content when I am paying attention to my phone instead of my friend(s).
_____ 11. I feel good when I stop focusing on my friend(s) and pay attention to my phone
instead.
_____ 12. I get rid of stress by ignoring my friend(s) and paying attention to my phone instead.
_____ 13. I pay attention to my phone for longer than I intend to do so.
_____ 14. I know that I must miss opportunities to talk to my friend(s) because I am using my
phone.
_____ 15. I find myself thinking “just a few more minutes” when I am using my phone

69
PART 5. DEPRESSION – Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)

Below is a list of the ways you might have felt or behaved. Please indicate how often you have
felt this way during the past week.

1 = Rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day)

2 = Some or a little of the time (1-2 days)
3 = Occasionally or a moderate amount of the time (3-4 days)
4 = Most or all of the time (5-7 days)

_____ 1. I was bothered by thing that usually don’t bother me.

_____ 2. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor.
_____ 3. I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family or friends.
_____ 4. I felt that I was just as good as other people. (R)
_____ 5. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing.
_____ 6. I felt depressed.
_____ 7. I felt that everything I did was an effort.
_____ 8. I felt hopeful about the future. (R)
_____ 9. I thought my life had been a failure.
_____ 10. I felt fearful.
_____ 11. My sleep was restless.
_____ 12. I was happy. (R)
_____ 13. I talked less than usual
_____ 14. I felt lonely.
_____ 15. People were unfriendly
_____ 16. I enjoyed life. (R)
_____ 17. I had crying spells.
_____ 18. I felt sad.
_____ 19. I felt that people disliked me.
_____ 20. I could not get “going.”

70
PART 6. SOCIAL ANXIETY - The Interaction Anxiousness Scale (IAS)

Please read each item carefully and indicate how often each of the statements below is
descriptive of you.

1 = Not at all characteristic of me

2 = Slightly characteristic of me
3 = Moderately characteristic of me
4 = Very characteristic of me
5 = Extremely characteristic of me

_____ 1. I often feel nervous even in casual get-togethers.

_____ 2. I usually feel comfortable when I’m in a group of people I don’t know.
_____ 3. I am usually at ease when speaking to a member of the other sex. (R)
_____ 4. I get nervous when I must talk to a teacher or a boss.
_____ 5. Parties often make me feel anxious and uncomfortable.
_____ 6. I am probably less shy in social interactions than most people. (R)
_____ 7. I sometimes feel tense when talking to people of my own sex if I don’t know them very
well.
_____ 8. I would be nervous if I was being interviewed for a job.
_____ 9. I wish I had more confidence in social situations.
_____ 10. I seldom feel anxious in social situations. (R)
_____ 11. In general, I am a shy person.
_____ 12. I often feel nervous when talking to an attractive member of the opposite sex.
_____ 13. I often feel nervous when calling someone I don’t know very well on the phone.
_____ 14. I get nervous when I speak to someone in a position of authority.
_____ 15. I usually feel relaxed around other people, even people who are quite different from
me. (R)

71
PART 7. AGREEABLENESS – SUBSCALE OF THE BIG FIVE TRAIT TAXONOMY

Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. Please read each item
carefully and indicate how often each of the statements below is descriptive of you.

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Somewhat disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Somewhat agree
5 = Strongly agree

I see Myself as Someone Who…

_____ 1. Tends to find fault with others. (R)

_____ 2. Is helpful and unselfish with others.
_____ 3. Starts quarrels with others. (R)
_____ 4. Has a forgiving nature.
_____ 5. Is generally trusting.
_____ 6. Can be cold and aloof. (R)
_____ 7. Is considerate and kind to almost everyone.
_____ 8. Is sometimes rude to others. (R)
_____ 9. Likes to cooperate with others.

72
PART 8. NEUROTICISM – SUBSCALE OF THE BIG FIVE TRAIT TAXONOMY

Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. Please read each item
carefully and indicate how often each of the statements below is descriptive of you.

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Somewhat disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Somewhat agree
5 = Strongly agree

I see Myself as Someone Who…

_____ 1. Is depressed, blue.

_____ 2. Is relaxed, handles stress well. (R)
_____ 3. Can be tense.
_____ 4. Worries a lot.
_____ 5. Is emotionally stable, not easily upset. (R)
_____ 6. Can be moody.
_____ 7. Remains calm in tense situations. (R)
_____ 8. Gets nervous easily.

73
PART 9. RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION – Revised Relationship Assessment Scale
(RAS)

Please read each item carefully and decide to what extent it is characteristic of your feelings and
behavior.
Please think about their current friendships: meet up together or contact them within two weeks

1 = Poorly/Unsatisfied
2 = Not that well/Not very satisfied
3 = About average
4 = Well/Satisfied
5 = Extremely well/Extremely satisfied

_____ 1. How well does your friend(s) meet your needs?

_____ 2. In general, how satisfied are you with your friendships?
_____ 3. How good are your friendships compared to most?
_____ 4. How often do you wish you hadn’t gotten into the friendships? (R)
_____ 5. To what extent have your friendships met your original expectations?
_____ 6. How much do you love/like your friend(s)?
_____7. How many problems are there in your friendships? (R)

74
PART 10. RESEARCH POOL & EXTRA CREDIT PARTICIPANTS

Please provide the following information in order to get CREDIT for participation (only for
UGA students)

Your Name (First and Last name) __________

The course for which you want course research credit by completing this survey:
Course Number (e.g., COMM 1500) __________

Name of Professor or Instructor (First and Last name) __________

75