Pakistan Journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice Vol. 12, No. 2, 2021
Impact of Phubbing on Relationship Closeness and Jealousy in Working Women
*Rabia Farooqi
University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Rabail Shahid
University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Nimra Shahid
University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Technology advancement has bridged the communication gap with distant others while causing
disruption among those physically present, i.e., “technoference or phubbing”, which leads to
jealousy, or the feeling of being ignored, and distant relationship. The current study examined
the role of phubbing on relationship closeness and jealousy among married working women
through a Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP; Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018),
Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989), and Unidimensional
Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS; Dibble et al., 2012). The co-relational research design was
employed. The sample consisted of N = 200 participants, age range 25-35 (M = 21.09, SD =
1.94), determined through G* power, and gathered via a convenient sampling strategy. Findings
revealed phubbing and its subdomains have a significant relationship with relationship closeness
and jealousy, however, dimensions vary. Linear regression demonstrated that being phubber is a
significant positive predictor of relationship closeness and negative predictor of jealousy.
Keywords: phubbing, phubber, relationship closeness, jealousy, and working women.
Effective communication is an essential component of a successful intimate relationship
(Cizmeci, 2017; Eğeci & Gençöz, 2006). According to Kansky (2018), three components
influence satisfaction in a romantic relationship which are, affinity, devotedness, and fidelity
towards the partner. Cepukiene (2019) highlighted factors associated with contentment in
intimate relationships. They included behavior in conflicting situations, psychological and sexual
intimacy, trustworthiness, and fulfilling partner’s needs, sharing similar interests and pursuits
with mutual goals. In the past few years, there has been a rapid usage of smartphones in day-to-
day personal life. They have become a vital component of our daily lives, irrespective of age,
across the globe (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas 2018). This current technology profusion leads
to technological interruptions in couples’ interaction which is termed as technoference
(McDaniel & Coyne, 2016) or phubbing, a blend of “phone” and “ignorance” towards a romantic
partner (Roberts & David, 2016). Lately, several researchers have focused on the effects of
technoference or phubbing among couples and found it as a common phenomenon within an
intimate relationship. The higher extent of phubbing is linked with jealousy, relational discord,
and a lower rate of relationship cohesion, gratification, and intimacy (Amichai-Hamburger &
Etgar, 2016; Halpern & Katz, 2017; Krasnova et al., 2016; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; McDaniel
et al., 2018; Roberts & David, 2016; Wang et al., 2017). Henceforth, excessive usage of
technology disrupts positive interaction among couples and propels negative feelings and
conflict, which further negatively impacts the relationship (Gottman & Levenson, 2002). Still,
the findings in literature are inconclusive such as Cizmeci (2017) found that phubbing does not
________________________________
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ms.Rabia Farooqi, University of Central Punjab,
Lahore, Pakistan. Email: rabia.farooqi@ucp.edu.pk
PHUBBING, RELATIONSHIP CLOSENESS AND JEALOUSY 83
negatively influence relationship satisfaction in couples. Similar findings were observed in other
studies as well (Hall et al. 2014; Halpern & Katz, 2017; Roberts & David, 2016; Wang et al.,
2017). The differences observed were due to different moderators which directly affect the result
of phubbing and in turn, this positively influences relationship closeness or has no impact on
relationship satisfaction.
Previous studies have reported that marital relationship, self-esteem, and gender also play
the role of moderator in some cases (Hall et al., 2014; Halpern & Katz 2017; Roberts & David
2016; Wang et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2021). Wang and his colleagues (2017) also observed in
their study that the length of relationship moderates partner phubbing impact on relationship
satisfaction. The current study did not control moderator variables however, the researcher tried
to study the impact of some of the variables on study variables. For this purpose, the length of a
marriage is included in demographic variables and only married women were the targeted
population.
Phubbing and being phubbed are two different phenomena and they impact our
perception differently. An important aspect of phubbing is when a person is being phubbed, they
denounce it as both annoying and disrespectful in an intimate relationship, however, they rarely
admit to being engaged in phubbing significant others. In simpler words, they usually act in
concordance with their moral standards. In one such study participants criticized phubbing yet
they engaged in phubbing their partners and family members and admitted that they
unintentionally engage in phubbing behavior and drift into technology usage (Aagaard, 2020). In
another study, Rainie and Zickuhr (2015) found that 85 % of participants focused that phubbing
hurts conversation in relationships however, at the same time 89 % of participants also admit that
they were engaged in personal phubbing behavior (being phubber) during their time with others.
Individuals were unable to realize their dependency on mobile phones, and in turn, their behavior
becomes normalized and they are unable to identify social cues indicating the impact on their
intimate relationships. Subsequently, inept in identifying how their relationship may suffer due to
personal phubbing (David & Robert, 2017). Considering existing literature, the current study
intended to explore the perception of a person involved in phubbing their partner, and how they
perceive their act of phubbing impacts relationship closeness and whether it leads to jealousy or
not.
Rapid usage of any behavior, such as excessive mobile usage, makes it a normative and
acceptable behavior in any society (Sunstein, 1996). Norms can be driven by any personal or
observable behavior (Miller & Prentice, 1996). In current technology advancement, it is possible
to imply that the constant observable behavior of being phubbed and being a phubber (personally
engaging in phubbing behavior) makes phubbing a normative societal behavior. As human
beings, individuals desire to have social relationships which is a fundamental and universal need
(Lee & Shrum 2012). When one of the partners is involved in constant phubbing behavior, the
other partner ultimately feels the absence of their counterpart which hampers basic needs, such
as control and affiliation (Roberts & David, 2016). Krasnova et al. (2016)’s study also
demonstrated that phubbing behavior spurs jealousy, desertion, and is a perceived threat due to
trivial interactions among partners which are essential for having a satisfactory romantic
relationship.
According to the socio-technological model, human interaction with technology is a
complex phenomenon, and when there are no agreed rules in the context of appropriate
technology usage, it distances family relationships and affects communication and emotional
bonding among partners (Lanigan, 2009). Displacement theory explains the detrimental effects
84 FAROOQI ET AL.
of excessive indulgence in media on partner dyadic satisfaction (Valkenburg & Peter 2007).
Kraut et al. (1998) argued that by utilization of the internet, individuals are trying to substitute
inadequate social relationships for better relationships. Considering this perspective, phubbing
negatively affects the quality of a relationship and thus leads to negative emotions such as
jealousy, envy, and anger, etc. (Roberts & David 2016; Wang et al., 2017).
Symbolic interactionism postulates that people interactively use different symbols to
cultivate a sense for themselves which are based on different metaphors and associated meanings
which in turn are handled and adapted through (Halpern & Katz 2017; Stryker 1999). Similarly,
people associate meanings to these technology-based communications as they would to other
means of interaction. According to the attribution theory, lack of attention and irresponsibility
towards the partner spur differences among couples and triggers negative responses such as
jealousy, anger, etc. Although, individuals are mostly aware of being envious or jealous towards
others, occasionally the allied reason for this feeling of envy is buried deep in the unconscious,
and camouflaged by rationalizations which is the case in phubbing (Bauerle et al., 2002).
The interdependences theory postulates that relational affiliation can be categorized by
the interdependence of partner on one another, in which each partner depend on needs and
closeness among relationship (Murray & Holmes, 2011). Perceived relationship quality includes
relationship commitment, investment, and dependency which determines partner
interdependency level. Hence, positive and negative relationships are simultaneously shared and
communicated among couples. Thus, a married couple is more often affected by the relationship
problem with phubbing (Totenhagen et al., 2016). Existing research found that phubbing
behavior among married couples are represented by a lack of closeness to one another, and this
leads to jealousy and poor mental well-being (McNulty & Karney, 2002; Rodriguez et al., 2013).
Considering existing literature, the current study intends to explore the impact of phubbing on
relationship closeness and triggering different negative emotions in our collectivist society.
Contemporary research demonstrates that when couples use a smartphone in the presence
of their companion while ignoring the need for the connectedness of their partner, it creates
relationship differences (Al-Saggaf et al., 2018). Another research illustrated that men were more
likely to indulge in their smartphones in the presence of wives which affects relationship
closeness leading to low relational satisfaction (Wang et al., 2017). Considering contemporary
literature, the current study intends to explore how phubbing affects relationship closeness
among working married women. Research also demonstrates that phubbing negatively impacts
conversation quality in close relationships (Abeele et al., 2016) which is another objective of the
study at hand. Men are more likely to indulge in smartphones while ignoring their wives which
negatively affects women triggering negative emotions such as jealousy, envy, etc. (Chen et al.,
2017). Due to this, they are more likely to engage in phubbing behavior themselves and this, in
turn, works as a vicious cycle impacting their relationship and causing negative emotions such as
envy and jealousy which is the focus of the current study.
Previous researches have shown that phubbing causes a lack of attention towards the
partner and spurs fear of losing an intimate relationship (Schmitt et al., 1994). Furthermore, fear
of losing a partner was more likely in women than men, leading to jealousy experienced by
women (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Phubbing causes jealousy in wives which leads to doubts
(Chiffriller & Hennessy, 2006). Jealousy in itself is a strong reaction that is harmful to a healthy
relationship. Existing literature linked phubbing with low relational satisfaction and evoking
jealousy (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; Roberts & David, 2016). Considering existing literature,
one of the objectives of the current study was to assess whether phubbing is a predictor of
PHUBBING, RELATIONSHIP CLOSENESS AND JEALOUSY 85
jealousy in an intimate relationship. In an individualistic culture, couples are more inclined to
their partner and it is acceptable behavior. But in a collectivist culture, there is no openness to
demonstrate closeness in the presence of others in Asian society (Taywade & Khubalkar, 2019).
This further intensifies the impact of phubbing on married couples. However, Islamic ideology
influences differently in cultures. Cizmeci (2017) found no negative relationship between partner
phubbing and relationship satisfaction in the Turkish sample as Islamic ideology imposes
continuation of relationship in all circumstances. So, the present study intends to explore the
cultural differences and the relation between phubbing and relationship closeness, and the effect
of phubbing has on jealousy in working women living in the collectivistic Islamic culture of
Pakistan.
Objectives of the Study
To examine the relationship between phubbing, relationship closeness, and jealousy
among married working women.
To explore the predictive role of phubbing on jealousy and relationship closeness in
working women.
Hypotheses of the Study
There is likely to be a relationship between phubbing, relationship closeness, and
jealousy in married working women.
Phubbing is likely to be a significant predictor of jealousy and relationship closeness
among married women.
Method
Research Design
The co-relational research design was employed in the current study.
Sample
The sample size was determined through G Power leading to N = 200 participants with
the age range of 25-35 years (M = 21.09, SD = 1.94). The data were collected from married
working women from private and public universities through a convenient sampling strategy. As
per the inclusion criterion, only those women were included in the study who have at least spent
one year with their spouse. Whereas those diagnosed with any physical and psychological
illnesses were excluded from the study. The details of demographics can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1
Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Sample
Characteristics
n
%
M
SD
Age
21.09
1.94
Family system
Joint family system
98
49
Nuclear family system
102
51
Institute
Government
71
35.5
Private
129
64.5
86 FAROOQI ET AL.
Instruments
The Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP; Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018)
The Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP) developed by Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas
(2018) consists of 15 items used to evaluate phubbing behaviour. It is a seven point Likert scale,
ranging from “never” to “always”. It consists of four sub-scales: Nomophobia (fear of
detachment from one’s mobile phone), Interpersonal Conflict (perceived conflict between
oneself and others), Self-isolation (using phone to escape from social activities), and Problem
Acknowledgment (acknowledging that person have a phubbing problem). Chronbach's alpha
reliability estimate of GSP in the present study was observed to be α = 0.93 and for sub-scales, it
ranged from .85 to .93.
Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989)
The Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS) developed by Pfeiffer and Wong (1989)
measures three components of jealousy on a seven point rating scale. On cognitive and
behavioral scale rating ranged from “never” to “all the times” whereas on the emotional subscale
rating extended from “very pleased” to very upset”. The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate of
the scale was .78 with subscales observed to be above .80 in the present study.
The Unidimensional Closeness Relationship Scale (URCS; Dibble et al., 2012)
The Unidimensional Closeness Relationship Scale (URCS) is a self-report measure
focused on assessing closeness in any social or personal relationship. This scale is also a seven
point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” with an alpha reliability
estimate of .94 in the current study.
Procedure
In consideration of the ethical requirements of the study, the research proposal was
reviewed by the Institutional Research Board. Permission was sought by the authors of the scales
along with consent taken from different institutes for the data collection purposes. The pilot
study was conducted on 20 participants to ascertain whether the scales were comprehensible or
needed to be translated into a native language. As the target population was educated working
women, they were easily able to understand the scales. Based on the pilot study, scales were not
translated into their native language.
Ethical Considerations
The data was individually collected after briefing about the research purpose and taking
written consent from the participants. They were also briefed that they could withdraw at any
stage without detrimental consequences and data would only be used for research purposes while
ensuring anonymity. Moreover, it was ensured that they are not harmed physically or
psychologically during the research process.
Results
The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics in different steps. First
of all, descriptive statistics were computed to obtain a preliminary profile of study variables, and
reliability was established through Cronbach’s alpha reliability. In the second step, Pearson
product-moment correlation was analysed to assess the relationship between phubbing,
PHUBBING, RELATIONSHIP CLOSENESS AND JEALOUSY 87
relationship closeness, jealousy, and demographic variables. In the last step, linear regression
was computed to predict the effect of phubbing on relationship closeness and jealousy.
Table 2
Descriptive of the Generic Scale of Phubbing, Unidimensional Closeness Relationship, and
Multidimensional Jealousy Scale
Scale
M
Range
Cronbach’s α
GSP
53.42
28 96
.93
NP
16.87
5 28
.85
IC
14.60
4 28
.93
SI
13.00
4 26
.85
PA
8.94
3 19
.89
URC
70.46
21 84
.94
MJS
69.16
44 120
.78
Cognitive
11.56
8 35
.84
Emotional
38.66
13 56
.89
Behavioral
18.94
8 45
.83
Note. GSP=Generic Scale of Phubbing; NP=Nomophobia; IC=Interpersonal Conflict; SI=Self-isolation; PA=
Problem acknowledgment; URC=Unidimensional Relationship Closeness; MJS=Multidimensional Jealousy
Scale.
Table 2 demonstrated that all study variables have a satisfactory reliability coefficient
which is above the minimum range of .60 (van Griethuijsen, et. al., 2014).
Table 3
Inter-Correlation among Phubbing and sub-domains, Relationship Closeness, Jealousy and sub-
domains, and Demographic Variables
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. GSP
-
.75
**
.93
**
-.10
.76
**
.14
*
-.18
**
-.05
-.20
**
-.04
-.05
.09
2. NP
-
-
.66
**
-.22
**
.31
**
.32
**
-.27
**
.02
-.37
**
-.03
-.06
-.02
3. IC
-
-
-
-.13
.62
**