Predictors and effects of phubbing behaviour in friendships [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

Predictors and effects of phubbing behaviour in friendships [pdf]

tandfonline.com

When I was an IT manager, I never answered my phone if I was talking to someone, and especially if they were one of my team (unless it was the incident response desk which would mean they were escalating a critical problem).

I had constant looks of surprise that I would let calls go to voicemail, even if it was my boss. The feedback I would often get later (via 360 reviews, or even just during casual conversation) was that it was a huge positive tick in their opinion of me as a manager (and person). They felt they were being listened to and that I was paying attention to them.

I remember reading an etiquette guide once where 'proximity' (temporal and spatial) should be the deciding factor in prioritizing your attention. Someone standing in front of you is closer than a phone call or an email - that should always be #1 (and phone > chat > email). It's generally what I try to follow.

Hmm, nicely worded and intended. I’ll give that a specific try. I can think of a few conversations I’ve cut short because I got a more important call that ended up just being something I would have got the gist of from a voicemail.

I remember once as a junior developer meeting up with the head of technology to rely a project update to him. During the meeting his (desk) phone started to ring. He looked down at it and pressed the mute button for the ringer. While commenting that they don't get to jump the queue just because they're phoning him.

At the time I found it reassuring that I had his undivided attention.

"... Aren't you going to get that?"

"Right now, I am talking to you."

From TFA, in case you were also confused: “Phubbing is the act of snubbing someone during face-to-face interactions by using smartphones instead of paying attention to them.”

What's the relationship with depression and such (psych)? Does one phub more when psych is present, or does phubbing cause psych, and in which person?

> Although studies have examined phubbing in many different relationships, little is known about friend phubbing (Fphubbing).

I understand that “language grows”, and that it often does so chaotically and in a non-organised way, and all that stuff, but as a non-native English speaker, I often find myself wondering if English—and in particular modern English—is just trolling us at this point.

The language? No. Starving academics of the humanities, desperately trying to come up with "catchy" concepts? Absolutely.

Languages evolve and dictionaries document rather than prescribing.

This doesn't mean that you are not allowed to have an opinion as to whether a particular linguistic development is a good thing.

The authors of the study just made up these words.

I've never heard of "phubbing" before either, but according to Wikipedia the origins of the word trace back to 2012:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phubbing

Coined by an advertising agency.

Not trolling, English has perhaps always been a bit more dynamic, having its roots in what arguably started out as a creole language [0]. Linguists disagree with each other on that point, but English does have its roots in a bunch of different languages. This contributes to a general lack of consistency across the language, and in the absence of more concrete rules it may end up being a little more flexible when it comes to certain things, more accepting of coining new words rather than turning to existing words.

See also "The Great Vowel Shift" as another example contributing to the roots of English in more dynamic change [1]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_creole_hypoth...

[1]

English was/is not a creole. That's a misreading of things. Rather it was creolised. The linked Wikipedia article mentions this, but it could be more explicit. Old English didn't die out and get replaced by a weirdly similar yet simpler language, but evolved into Middle English over time.

Creoles are descended from pidgins that later become full languages, i.e., they become more complex. Creolised languages, on the other hand, are languages that simplify radically due to contact with other language groups. Now, the _outcome_ might be similar, but the difference in terminology is useful to distinguish the direction of change.

It doesn't take long for this kind of thing to happen, and we have prominent written evidence of this in the form of Afrikaans, which began as a creolised form of Dutch, which was already one of the more straightforward West Germanic languages.

To say something is creolized but not a creole is a bit of a contradiction given that creolization is the process by which something becomes a creole. Unless you mean that it underwent a change that has some characteristics of creole, but did not fully make the leap? That would make more sense, and pretty much in line with the "it is not a full creole" dominant opinion in the field. The minority opinion is that the others are splitting hairs about where the line is for a sufficient amount of simplification over a given time period.

You are basically correct. this word is nonsense and NOBODY uses it.

The author is using a funny sounding made up word to attract interest to their research.

Not true. I've known this phenomenon by its name for well over a year. Not sure the origin. Yes, it's nonsense. But plenty of people use here in the Bay Area. This wasn't made up just for this article.

Also, the word is nonsense just the practice. Pay attention to what and who is in front of you. Eyes up, please.

This is a portmanteau nobody needs and few people want. I've not heard the term before and hope it doesn't catch on. It is cumbersome.

I think academic english in particular is guilty of this. I think there are two pressures: first is common, and that is wanting/needing specialized language to communicate better about a specific field, second is particular in that it can make some one feel better about their paper if they coin new words or phrases. I'm unsure if this actually translates into better publication rates but I've definitely seen papers sort of reach so they can introduce a new term.

Is TFA 'the fucking article'?

Yes. Alternatively: "The Featured Article"

Of course not, that would be rude. It’s “the fine article”.

It's like the F in RTFM. Fantastic.

Fine was the original alternative.

The Fabulous Article

The friendly article.

And what would snubbing be?

All I came across are some industrial terms, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snubbing

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/snub is the definition that fits this usage.

I'm curious why this is needed. I feel like "phubbing" is just snubbing, unless there is some phoney aspect that is relevant to the context. Otherwise how is it different from book snubbing (boubbing)?

This phenomenon has precedents. When I was in college, many (many!) years before cellphones, and before personal computers, I went to see my undergraduate advisor. Oh no, a long line of students outside his office! Looks like over an hour wait. So I had a brilliant idea: I trotted back to the dorm and called him on the phone. He picked up on the first ring, and I got to ask him what I needed to while everyone else waited.

He was one of the smartest people I’ve ever met, but in the thrall of some psychological effect that I guess is part of our current smartphone pathology.

Not too proud about it, but I’ve done this at Home Depot or other places while in the store and can’t find an employee and am in a hurry.

Maybe the employee who is sent to the shelves to answer the caller’s question while a customer is standing around with a strikingly similar question was goofing off, or they were busy doing something else, IDK, but sometimes you need to just get things done.

Before he retired, the head of my major's department would make you wait until he finished a game of Minefield before addressing you. I didn't believe it until I experienced it myself.

He needed to retire long before I signed up, but that's neither here nor there.

There are stories. I'm glad that now that that's all they are.

Lifehack: Don't hang with people who'd rather be on their phone than to engage with you.

Came here to post something similar, "I don't experience this problem..." and realized this is due to my age (approaching 40yo) and having the good fortune of curated great group of friends who enjoy each other more than doomscrolling.

You're gonna have a major problem trying to make friends as you get older then unless they're aware of this too.

My youngest (sophomore in college) has gone through some hellish personal issues over the past 4-5 years and checks the first two boxes in the title. This behavior has gotten pretty bad recently and I’m really struggling trying to get across how this behavior is perceived by others. I have some of the same traits in that when i was younger i would just leave during gatherings until people started calling me out in it.

This puts a different spin on it that might help me find new ways to help her see it objectively.

I don't see the problem with leaving when you're ready if that's before the party's over.

Not "overstaying your welcome" goes both ways. It is legit to feel "I'm done here", say the thank-yous, and go.

I don't understand. I'm open to understanding the other side of the coin.

By 'younger' I'm talking in my 20's and early 30's, and the gatherings in question were at my house. :)

Fortunately my wife had the social capacity for both of us (and then some) and patience with my quirks.

If you trust your guests - or have trustworthy friends over - there's nothing wrong with playing a video game or going to sleep before the party is over. I did that on a few parties which I hosted in university and I don't think anyone had strong feelings about it. I mean they still have each other to party so one guy less isn't much of an issue.

I remember sitting at a restaurant some time pre-covid, and noticed this young couple a few tables over obviously on some sort of date. But their phones were constantly lighting up and buzzing, and every time it happened, they'd interrupt whatever they were talking about and go into zombie mode playing with their phones. Then after some scrolling and texting, go back to their conversation. Hard to tell if they even made it through to the end of a single conversation. I guess I'm an old fart but I couldn't imagine a night out like this, but it seemed like no big deal to them so ...?

It's possible they they just met up to hang out too even if it's a real early on simple date. A lot of dating anyway is filled with low effort interactions and people flaking on a whim so wasting time trying to actually "try" early on isn't worth it. It only changes when you both don't mind hanging out with eachother.

this headline/title (above) uses psychological terms of art in confusing way.

Depression is a condition that is characterized by repeated periods of dysphoria, feeling unhappy. So I'd suggest the headline refer to dysphoria.

Anxiety is a feeling, but social anxiety starts to cross over to referring to a condition, but this one gets a pass.

Neuroticism is a scale for the propensity toward unhappy feelings for all of us. People high in neuroticism would include people with depression and anxiety disorders who would be more likely to feel dysphoria and anxiety when confronted by phone use by friends who seem to be ignoring them.

(I didn't plow through the whole article yet, but it doesn't use these terms at the top. I was put off reading by the word phub... can't even say it. I like being with friends who don't care if I use my phone, and I allow them to. You can just say "hey, listen to me right now" if you want, there is no snubbing involved, or if there is, call it out.)

I find that I'm better able to focus on conversations if I have some other stimulus to keep some part of my mind occupied. When I try to appear to give someone my "full attention" I struggle to comprehend and get overwhelmed by what I understand to be my adhd brain going off on 50 tangents at a time. It 100% looks rude but after setting expectations with my friends and family they seem to either understand or at least tolerate it.

#34 in my list of "shit I wish I knew when I was your age" - a document I gave to my kids:

When you talk to someone, give them your full attention - if you HAVE to look at your phone apologize profusely, explain why you have to and keep it super short. When you are done, help them remember what they were saying when you interrupted.

I often have an urge to pull out my phone to look up some info that is pertinent to the conversation, especially if I can’t quite remember something.

I eventually learned to just let it go unless it was of immediate importance, but the constant impulse to use my phone as a reference device persists.

I find in many circumstances looking it up ruins the conversation. If you quickly need a fact sure, but it you're discussing something more as an intellectual exercise, either in memory or reasoning, which in my experience is way more often, its ruined when someone pulls up wikipedia and reads out the "answer".

That's just your cohort. We might discuss the answer, but we tend to look it up and then talks about that result.

Which is fine with me: I'd rather not have someone's skillfully crafted BS in my head if it isn't connected to actual truth if I can help it.

Oh, I love doing that. I think the trick to doing it pleasantly is being able to do it quickly, and being in the habit of fact-checking yourself. It can provoke a conversation about the actual state of affairs, or the difference in understanding that you had, or new questions even.

It's OK not to know something in the moment.

Leave it at the tip of your mind and roll.

I sometimes use this to effect. If a conversation goes down a dead-end, it's easy to take the twenty seconds then to look up that thing you wanted to tie into the conversation, and now you can rope the conversation back to that point and explore a different path.

I'm at this point right now where I take notes about things I want to loop back on when I'm having casual conversations over the phone. But since my note-taking device is my phone, I don't do much note-taking in person because using a phone like that appears disrespectful. Not sure how to break that limitation.

Phubbing means ignoring those around you to look at your phone. (Had to look it up)

Im formally changing the definition of phubbing right here to the act of writing low quality research with click bait titles designed to maximize the chance that articles get written about it in magazines

I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up: Those people might just be shy.

When I was younger, some of my friends had problems keeping eye contact (both with guys and especially with women) and instead they were naturally inclined to look down or scan our surroundings. That was before everyone started carrying phones around, so maybe that "shyness" behavior has just shifted from looking down to looking down on your phone.

Next time a friend phubs you, just AirDrop them this PDF.

I am shy and use my phone to escape interactions with others. I hope I am not viewed as "snubbing" someone, or a room.

I mean....I'm sorry, but if I'm trying to spend time with you and you're on your phone to "escape interacting with me"....yes, that's almost the definition of snubbing me, and yes, I'm definitely viewing it that way.

the crowd around you will hold all possible interpretation of your behavior depending on their own bias

you'll be an entitled douche, a snub, a weirdo, a shy, a geek, but maybe a 'independant mind', a mysterious person, someone who doesnt brag, etc

who know what someone is when you run into it for a minute

You can go ahead and bury that hope. Unless you want to live in denial, you are definitely snubbing if you are using your phone to escape interactions with others.

I think it depends on whether you are avoiding interactions with friends or with strangers.

At that point why not just leave the room?

Presumably there's at least 1 person there that you want to interact with, otherwise why are you there?

Are you otherwise engaged with these people? Or, is it a bit more detached, like you happen to be on the same bus or cafeteria? If you are by yourself and have something to signal that you aren't available for casual conversation (a book, headphones, your phone, etc) I don't think that counts. I think people are firing off at you is because the context is a situation where some one rightfully would expect your attention, like talking to a friend or any other sort of scheduled activity.

People complaining about the neologism in the title are free to coin or nominate their own term for the phenomenon of being snubbed by someone nominally engaged in conversation but giving more of their attention to their phone.

Half the problem is it's not really snubbing. It's paying attention to something else, not showing disdain for the person.

> Half the problem is it's not really snubbing

If you were in the middle of a face to face saying something to someone, and then they suddenly turned around and started talking to someone else, is that not a snub? What's worse with the phone, the other person isn't even there.

"I am not going up to that person to talk, that's needy and like not cool at all...but I can't stay here staring into the void either...what am I gonna do? Oh yes I am gonna look at my phone and pretend that my attention is captured by something/someone else, that would put pressure on him/her to come talk to me instead"

Which is sad.

Said "as an introvert".

If you look idle it can be inferred you have no friends as well. Looking at your phone indicates friends or people you interact with even though you can use a phone for a million other things. I grew up when texting was fairly normalized (like around the time when you could rollover minutes/texts).

Sadly the toothpaste is out of the tube on this one and my biggest fear is a phone number will basically be like your social security number as more companies are dumb enough to tie it to an sms 2FA. I predict in the next 100 years it'll happen. And when that comes it'll just be solidified.

Exciting to see that click bait has made its way into the research realm.

Nobody would be the least bit interested in this paper if it didnt have a funny sounding made up word with no known definition in the title.

Eh, the word has been part of the dictionary for a few years now (almost a decade!): https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/phubb...

I think it makes sense to use the correct terminology when writing a research paper.

These dictionaries have become urban dictionary competitors collecting definitions for exactly these kind of obscure funny sounding words in a bid to stay relevant.

Im a native English speaker who reads extensively on related topics and ive never once heard this word used until now.

TIL the word phubbing!

P.S. It's missing the [pdf] tag.

It's interesting how much better the experience is reading a PDF online than an article on a "modern" website.

The PDF loads quickly - nearly instantaneously. Nevertheless it also has a loading bar which accurately reflects loading progress. It is ready to be viewed immediately after loading. Once loaded, the layout is fixed - it doesn't shift and jump around as content continues to load for seconds after the first content is displayed. Scrolling is immediate, fast and responsive.

It has no advertisements, no banners, no interstitials and no cookie warnings. Usually very little extraneous content of any kind.

So I've never understood the desire for a "PDF Warning". If anything, we should have a tag on links to (for example) The Verge that somehow communicates "this page has 100 kB of content and 16 MB of Javascript ads, trackers, cookie warning popups, and other garbage. It will take 15 seconds to load and will reflow the layout 6 times while doing so. Once loaded, it will try to autoplay a useless video that takes 5 minutes to provide 15 seconds of explanation. Autoplay will start by showing you an unskippable 30-second toilet paper ad. If you try to stop the autoplaying ad because you don't want to watch the useless autoplaying video, your tap will open the toilet paper company's website instead."

If anything, HN should prefer PDFs and tag links to such sites with a warning.

I have nothing against PDFs when I am at my desk but I dislike them on my tablet as I have to manually delete them from the Download folder. For autoplaying toilet paper ad, I believe you that they exists inabundance but I don't see them as I use uBlock Origin in Firefox for Android...

Amen to everything you said. Far too many submissions to HN turn out to be these kinds of abusive sites. PDF FTW!

Doesn't read very well on a phone - but would be great as a simple html page...

> So I've never understood the desire for a "PDF Warning".

What you're describing is the influence of scripting, and, to some extent, custom stylesheets. Some of us take the Web to the stone age by disabling either, for the purpose of calm reading - I think Reader Mode is also that.

Yes, the content being reflowed by the creator is worse than fixed content, but fixed content is worse than content reflowed exclusively by the reader.

Considering that, I really have no desire to read PDFs which need to be panned and zoomed every which way in order to read them comfortably.

This researcher just made it up. You could make up your own words if you wanted

[pdf] added above. Thanks!

Wow you’re saying socially anxious people avoid social interactions by looking at their phone? That is groundbreaking stuff, give this guy a raise

"Don't be snarky."

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com