In a world dominated by smartphones, we’ve all encountered that awkward moment when someone pays more attention to their phone than to the conversation. This behavior, known as “phubbing,” has become increasingly prevalent and socially accepted. But have you ever wondered what drives people to engage in this behavior? A new study published in Computers in Human Behavior sheds light on the factors behind phubbing and the surprising gender differences associated with it.
It has become commonplace to see people engrossed in their screens while ignoring the people around them—a behavior commonly referred to as “phubbing” (short for phone snubbing). But what drives this behavior, and why are we so drawn to our digital devices? These questions have piqued the interest of researchers like Dicle Berfin Köse, an assistant professor at BI Norwegian Business School.
“I got interested in this topic through my personal experiences in social settings,” Köse told PsyPost. “I would often see colleagues, friends focus on their smartphones – particularly their social media, see my boss get hooked on mobile phone looking for some information in the middle of a chat. I would find it odd that instead of trying to make the best of their company, they spare their attention to online world. In my view, phubbing is also disrespectful to social companions who spare their time for the phubber.”
Understanding phubbing is crucial in today’s digital age, where smartphones are an integral part of our lives. Köse was particularly interested in uncovering the reasons behind phubbing behavior and the impact of the content we engage with on our devices. Are certain types of content more likely to lead to phubbing? And do men and women exhibit different phubbing behaviors?
To get to the bottom of these questions, Köse conducted a study involving 220 participants who were avid Facebook users. Facebook was chosen as the platform of focus due to its widespread use and diverse content offerings. The research participants were selected because they reported Facebook as their most frequently used social media service on their mobile devices.
In the study, Köse used a cross-sectional survey to collect data from the participants. The survey included questions adapted from previous research, covering various aspects related to smartphone usage and phubbing behavior. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with statements about the content they consumed on Facebook and their smartphone usage habits.
The results of Köse’s study shed light on some unexpected factors influencing phubbing behavior. One of the key findings was the role of the type of content people consumed on Facebook.
Köse discovered that both utilitarian and hedonic content had a significant impact on the habitual use of Facebook, defined as the automatic and natural use of the platform. Utilitarian content, which includes informative and practical posts, was found to have a substantial positive effect on habitual Facebook use. This suggests that when users perceive Facebook as a useful tool for obtaining information or achieving specific goals, they are more likely to engage with the platform regularly.
On the other hand, hedonic content, characterized by enjoyable and entertaining posts, also had a strong positive effect on habitual Facebook use. People were drawn to Facebook when they found its content pleasurable and fun, leading them to return to the platform repeatedly.
Köse’s research also highlighted the significant influence of habitual use on phubbing behavior. Habitual Facebook use was found to have a substantial positive effect on phubbing. This means that individuals who habitually use Facebook are more likely to engage in phubbing behavior, even when it may irritate those around them.
Interestingly, the study revealed gender differences in phubbing behavior. For females, habitual Facebook use had a significant positive effect on phubbing, suggesting that women who frequently use the platform are more likely to engage in phubbing behavior. In contrast, for males, habitual Facebook use had a significant negative effect on phubbing, indicating that their phubbing behavior was less affected by habitual use.
One of the most intriguing findings was the mediating role of habitual use. For both males and females, habitual use acted as a mediator between content consumption and phubbing behavior, but its effect differed between genders.
For males, habitual use suppressed the effects of content consumption on phubbing. This suggests that males are more likely to engage in phubbing when they consciously consume content, particularly utilitarian content that serves a specific purpose.
In contrast, for females, habitual use complemented the effects of utilitarian content while competing with the effects of hedonic content. This means that for women, habitual consumption of utilitarian content increased phubbing behavior, while habitual hedonic content consumption reduced it.
“I was expecting that hedonic content would affect phubbing in a more prominent manner than utilitarian content,” Köse said. “The results were the opposite: Utilitarian content has a more dominant effect on phubbing than hedonic content.”
She advised people to be “more attentive to their social media content consumption among social companions.”
“Overall, the consumption of useful/informative content on social media should be done by informing social companions beforehand, otherwise consuming them in alone time,” Köse explained. “Females should also be careful with their fun content consumption (e.g., cat videos), because hedonic content can induce phubbing when they are consumed habitually.”
While Köse’s research provides valuable insights into the factors driving phubbing behavior, it’s important to acknowledge some limitations. The study focused exclusively on Facebook users and may not fully capture the dynamics on other social media platforms. Additionally, the majority of participants were female, which could have influenced the results.
Future research in this area should consider a more diverse sample of participants and explore the effects of different types of content and notifications on phubbing. Further investigation into how specific features, like “do not disturb,” impact phubbing behavior could also yield valuable insights.
“Technology’s role in terms of their features should be investigated more with regards to phubbing,” Köse said.
The study, “Can cat videos harm your relationships? Hedonic and utilitarian content as technological antecedents of phubbing“, was published online on September 25, 2023.
