Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29436935›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of social psychology2018

Cell phone-induced ostracism threatens fundamental needs.

Andrew H Hales, Maayan Dvir, Eric D Wesselmann, Daniel J Kruger, Catrin Finkenauer

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of social psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Openness to Being Gossiped About: Understanding Gossip from the Target's Perspective.Self and identity : the journal of the International Society for Self and Identity · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Validation of the Perceived Phubbing Scale to the Argentine Context.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Developing and Testing a Scale Designed to Measure Perceived Phubbing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andrew H Halesa University of Virginia.
Maayan Dvirb Purdue University , West Lafayette , USA.
Eric D Wesselmannc Illinois State University.
Daniel J Krugerd University of Michigan.
Catrin Finkenauere Utrecht University.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell phones are useful tools with both practical and social benefits. However, using them in the context of face-to-face conversations may be problematic. We consider this behavior a form of ostracism and test its effects on the satisfaction of basic psychological needs for belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. In Study 1 participants who recalled a time in which a friend was checking a cell phone during a serious conversation reported feeling more ostracized (ignored and excluded), greater pain, and threat to basic needs than participants recalling a conversation without a cell phone interruption or a control event. Study 2 replicated and extended this effect: Cell phone-induced ostracism's effects were partially mediated by decreased feelings of relational evaluation, and threatened basic needs both in serious and casual conversation contexts. Findings from both studies also indicated that cell phone-induced ostracism hurts women more so than men.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneEmotionsInterpersonal RelationsPsychological DistanceSocial IsolationAdultFemaleHumansMaleSex FactorsFace-to-face communicationostracismphubbingrelational evaluationsmartphones

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.