Skip to main content
Log in

Being phubbed in the workplace: A new scale and implications for daily work engagement

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Phubbing is defined as the act of snubbing someone in a social setting by looking at the phone instead of paying attention. This paper aims to introduce and validate a new measure tapping frequency of being phubbed in the workplace (Study 1) and to present empirical evidence on whether being phubbed daily is detrimental for the day-to-day work engagement of employees (Study 2). Drawing on data from 793 participants, along with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and correlation analysis, we yielded validity and reliability support for the four-item Being Phubbed in the Workplace Scale (BPWS). In Study 2, a five-day daily diary with 112 participants (total N = 424), we validated the BPWS also on the day level. Despite the nonsignificant effect of being phubbed daily on day-to-day work engagement, we could find support for a boundary condition, that is, being phubbed will lead to a decrease only if a clan culture is present in an organization. Therefore, we concluded that the BPWS is a valid instrument to measure being phubbed in the work context, especially for process-oriented research, and that its detrimental effects are limited to organizational cultural boundaries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aagaard, J. (2020). Digital akrasia: A qualitative study of phubbing. AI & Society, 35, 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00876-0.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramova, Olga; Baumann, Annika; Krasnova, Hanna; and Lessmann, Stefan, (2017). To phub or not to phub: Understanding off-task smartphone usage and its consequences in the academic environment. In Proceedings of the 25th European conference on information systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, June 5–10, 2017 (pp. 1984–1999). ISBN 978–989–20-7655-3 research papers.

  • Akgün, A. E., Erdil, O., Keskin, H., & Muceldilli, B. (2016). The relationship among gratitude, hope, connections, and innovativeness. The Service Industries Journal, 36(3–4), 102–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.

  • Babcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. J. (2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 313–326.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B. (2014). Daily fluctuations in work engagement. European Psychologist, 19, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B. (2015). Towards a multilevel approach of employee well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 839–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., Du, D., & Derks, D. (2019). Major life events in family life, work engagement, and performance: A test of the work-home resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(3), 238.

  • Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2007). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). Erlbaum.

  • Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (2000). Affective job events-emotions matrix: A classification of job related events and emotions experienced in the workplace. In Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory and practice (pp. 36–48). Quorum Books.

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beal, D. J. (2015). ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annual Reviews Organizational Psychology Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 383–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357–1367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosseau-Liard, P. E., Savalei, V., & Li, L. (2012). An investigation of the sample performance of two nonnormality corrections for RMSEA. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(6), 904–930.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 358–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & Hubbard, A. E. (2005). Crosscultural and intercultural applications of expectancy violations theory and interaction adaptation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 149–171). SAGE.

  • Burgoon, J. K., & Le Poire, B. A. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research, 20(1), 67–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2010). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Cameron, A. F., & Webster, J. (2011). Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: Integrating incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organization Science, 22(3), 754–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. (2014). Competing values leadership. Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Carlsmith, J. M., & Aronson, E. (1963). Some hedonic consequences of the confirmation and disconfirmation of expectances. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(2), 151–156.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli, A. (2009). Chapter 3 positive work relationships, vitality, and job performance. In Emotions in groups, organizations and cultures (pp. 45–71). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high‐quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 26(1), 81–98.

  • Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 942–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(6), 304–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018b). The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(6), 304–316.

  • Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derks, D., van Duin, D., Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2015). Smartphone use and work–home interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 155–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimotakis, N., Scott, B. A., & Koopman, J. (2011). An experience sampling investigation of workplace interactions, affective states, and employee well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 572–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., & Aquino, K. (2012). A social context model of envy and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 643–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E. (2003). Energize your workplace: How to create and sustain high-quality connections at work (Vol. 50). Wiley.

  • Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. (2003). The power of high-quality connections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 263–278). Berrett-Koehler.

  • Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (2007). Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Erlbaum.

  • Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 365–376.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, C., Lam, C. F., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2011). It’s the little things that matter: An examination of knowledge workers’ energy management. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2011.63886528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geser, H. (2004). Towards a sociological theory of the mobile phone. E-Merging Media: Communication and the Media Economy of the Future, 235–260. Retrieved from http://mediamatica.pbworks.com/f/sociological+theory+mobile.pdf.

  • Goodman, E. A., Zammuto, R. F., & Gifford, B. D. (2001). The competing values framework: Understanding the impact of organizational culture on the quality of work life. Organizational Development Journal, 19, 58–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2009). Agreeableness. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 46–61). Guilford Press.

  • Haigh, A. (2015). Stop phubbing. Retrieved from http://stopphubbing.com July 1, 2018.

  • Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Angelo, K. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Positive social interactions and the human body at work: Linking organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 137–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermida, R. (2015). The problem of allowing correlated errors in structural equation modeling: Concerns and considerations. Computational Methods in Social Sciences, 3(1), 5–17 Retrieved from http://cmss.univnt.ro/wp-content/uploads/vol/split/vol_III_issue_1/CMSS_vol_III_issue_1_art.001.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildreth, L. (2013). Residual analysis for structural equation modeling. Ph.D. dissertation. Statistics Department, Iowa State University.

  • Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4), 321–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, W. A. (2007). Meaningful connections: Positive relationships and attachments at work. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 189–206). Erlbaum.

  • Karadağ, E., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Şahin, B. M., Çulha, İ., & Babadağ, B. (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A structural equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 60–74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Karadağ, E., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Şahin, B. M., et al. (2016). The virtual world’s current addiction: Phubbing. Addicta: Turkish Journal on Addictions, 3(2), 252–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koçak, Ö. F. (2017). How employees thrıve at work? Importance of relatıonshıp qualıty, person-job fıt and recovery experıences after work hours, Doctoral Thesis. Marmara Universities, Social Sciences Institute, Istanbul.

  • Koçak, Ö. E., & Agun, H. (2019). Explaining employee voice behavior through intragroup relationship quality and the role of thriving at work. Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.31679/adamakademi.471734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Research Papers. 109. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/109.

  • Krog, A. (2014). The relationship between organizational culture and work engagement: A multilevel investigation (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Oslo.

  • Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3(2), 186–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

  • Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1–62.

  • Le Blanc, P. M., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). How can I shape my job to suit me better? Job crafting for sustainable employees and organizations. In N. Chmiel, F. Fraccaroli, & M. Sverke (Eds.), An introduction to work and organizational psychology: An international perspective (3rd ed., pp. 48–63). doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119168058.ch3.

  • Lee, A. P., Teng, H. Y., & Chen, C. Y. (2015). Workplace relationship quality and employee job outcomes in hotel firms. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 14(4), 398–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiter, M. P., Price, S. L., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2010). Generational differences in distress, attitudes and incivility among nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 970–980.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Matsunaga, M. (2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(4), 260–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Milam, A. C., Spitzmueller, C., & Penney, L. M. (2009). Investigating individual differences among targets of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(1), 58–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Miller, M. (2005). Get a life! Fortune, 152(11), 109–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Choice and ego-depletion: The moderating role of autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8), 1024–1036.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Nakamura, T. (2015). The action of looking at a mobile phone display as nonverbal behavior/communication: A theoretical perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 68–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth, M., & Volmer, J. (2017). Daily within-person effects of job autonomy and work engagement on innovative behaviour: The cross-level moderating role of creative self-efficacy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4), 601–612.

  • Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., & Raita, E. (2011). Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0412-2.

  • Pathak, S. (2013). McCann Melbourne made up a word to sell a print dictionary: New campaign for Macquarie birthed’ phubbing’. Retrieved from http://adage.com/article/news/mccann-melbourne-made-aword-sell-a-dictionary/244595/.

  • Pavot, W., Diener, E. D., & Fujita, F. (1990). Extraversion and happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(12), 1299–1306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120–1141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitichat, T. (2013). Smartphones in the workplace: Changing organizational behavior, transforming the future. LUX: A Journal of Transdisciplinary Writing and Research from Claremont Graduate University, 3(1), 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2013). 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.

  • Ranie, L., & Zickuhr, K. (2015). Americans’ views on mobile etiquette. Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/americans-views-on-mobile-etiquette/.

  • Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 190–222). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  • 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 partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2020). Boss phubbing, trust, job satisfaction and employee performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 3–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). New York: Psychology Press.

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & De Witte, H. (2019). An ultra-short measure for work engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., & Oyserman, D. (2001). Asking questions about behavior: Cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 127– 60.

  • Shen, W., & Dhanani, L. (2018). Measuring and defining discrimination. In A. J. Colella & E. B. King (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of workplace discrimination (pp. 297–314). Oxford University Press.

  • Shepherd, H. R. (2017). The structure of perception: How networks shape ideas of norms. Sociological Forum, 32(1), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: The concept of state work engagement. In A. B. Bakker (Ed.) & M. P. Leiter, Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (p. 25–38). Psychology Press.

  • Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. R. (2008). Development and validation of an international English big-five mini-markers. Personality and İndividual Differences, 45(6), 542–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinsley, H. E., & Kass, R. A. (1979). The latent structure of the need satisfying properties of leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 11(4), 278–291.

  • Turgut, T. (2011). Çalişmaya Tutkunluk: İş Yükü, Esnek Çalişma Saatleri, Yönetici Desteği ve İş-Aile Çatişmasi İle İlişkileri. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25(3–4), 155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.

  • Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., Hendrickson, A. T., Pollmann, M. M. H., & Ling, R. (2019). Phubbing behavior in conversations and its relation to perceived conversation intimacy and distraction: An exploratory observation study. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.004.

  • Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Lens, W., & Andriessen, M. (2009). Self-determination theory: About the quality of work motivation. Gedrag & Organisatie, 22(4), 316–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Quaquebeke, N., & Felps, W. (2018). Respectful inquiry: A motivational account of leading through asking questions and listening. Academy of Management Review, 43(1), 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, D., Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2016). Smartphone use in everyday life and travel. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 52–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.

  • Weiss, H. M., & Beal, D. J. (2005). Reflections on affective events theory. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), The effect of affect in organizational settings (pp. 1–21). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Eye gaze as relational evaluation: Averted eye gaze leads to feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 869–882.

  • Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., & Ilies, R. (2012). Everyday working life: Explaining within-person fluctuations in employee well-being. Human Relations, 65(9), 1051–1069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasin, R. M., Bashir, S., Abeele, M. V., & Bartels, J. (2020). Supervisor phubbing phenomenon in organizations: Determinants and impacts. International Journal of Business Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420907120.

  • Zeelenberg, M., Van Dijk, W. W., Manstead, A. S., & van de Pligt, J. (2000). On bad decisions and disconfirmed expectancies: The psychology of regret and disappointment. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 521–541.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to professor Arnold B. Bakker and Danyang Du for their help and encouragement in preparation of this paper.

Availability of Data and Material

Data can be downloaded from the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/w9bxk/?view_only=a5316afadab34ed7bee7f11775825b0f

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ömer Erdem Koçak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koçak, Ö.E. Being phubbed in the workplace: A new scale and implications for daily work engagement. Curr Psychol 40, 6212–6226 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01635-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01635-5

Keywords

Navigation