ArticleBMC psychology2025
Observing phubbing behaviors during casual and serious conversations: consequences for conversation quality, connectedness, and appropriateness.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phubbing and Loneliness in the Digital Age: A Daily Diary Study on the Mediating Role of Fear of Missing Out.Journal of adolescence · 2026Article
- Phubbing behaviors and psychological well-being: correlates and sociodemographic profiles in university students from Mexico, Colombia, and Peru.BMC psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study investigated observers' perspectives of smartphone use during social interactions in serious and casual conversational contexts, suggesting gender differences. The results of the between-subjects 2 × 2 experimental study show that female observers perceive lower conversation quality when observing phubbing than male observers, aligning with the need-threat model's assertion of female susceptibility to social exclusion. Moreover, observing phubbing diminishes perceived appropriateness of the interaction. Interestingly, no disparity was found in casual versus serious topics of the conversations. Societal implications are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.