Phubbing Is Rarely Malice. It Still Can Hurt.

TL;DR

Before you orderOffer from Amazon

Get gifts for the two of you delivered free with Prime

• Fast, free delivery on millions of items
• Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
• Member-only deals all year

Start your free Prime trial →Free trial for eligible customers · Cancel anytime

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

A Gottman Institute report describes how phone use during conversations can make a partner feel ignored, even when the behavior is not meant as a slight. A Baylor University survey cited in the report found that 46% of 453 adults said their partner phubbed them, and 23% said it had caused conflict. The report recommends taking complaints seriously and agreeing on phone-free times together.

A report from The Gottman Institute says habitual phone use during conversations can leave romantic partners feeling ignored, even when the person looking at the screen does not intend to snub them. The report cites a Baylor University survey of 453 adults in which 46% said their partner phubbed them and 23% said the behavior had caused conflict.

Phubbing is a portmanteau of “phone” and “snubbing”: looking at a phone instead of paying attention to someone present. The report describes ordinary examples, such as keeping a phone in hand, checking it while a partner is speaking, or looking at it during a pause in conversation. These actions may be brief, but repeated interruptions can leave the other person feeling that they do not have their partner’s attention.

The Baylor findings, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, are cited by the report as evidence that the behavior is common and can be a source of relationship tension. They are survey responses, not proof that phone use causes conflict in every relationship. The report also says The Gottman Institute has not specifically studied phubbing, while drawing on John Gottman’s broader writing about technology and couples.

Gottman’s relationship framework describes small attempts to connect as “bids” for attention, affection, humor or support. A partner can turn toward a bid by responding, turn away by ignoring it, or turn against it by responding with irritation. A comment about a school call or a practical question can be a bid, the report says. A phone distraction can interrupt the response, whether or not the person holding the phone notices.

How Phone Distraction Affects Connection

The issue is not simply whether someone checks a phone. It is whether repeated interruptions affect a couple’s sense of being heard and available to each other. When one partner raises the concern, dismissing it because the distraction was unintentional may deepen the disagreement. The report advises treating the complaint as meaningful even if the partners disagree about how often the behavior happens.

Gottman’s writing connects attention to everyday attempts at connection, rather than limiting relationship health to major conversations or conflicts. The report cites a six-year study of newlyweds in which couples who remained married turned toward each other’s bids 86% of the time, compared with 33% among couples who divorced. Those figures describe findings in that study; they do not establish that phone use alone determined whether a couple stayed married.

For readers, the practical point is that phone habits can become a shared relationship issue rather than a private preference. Talking about when phones are put away—such as at meals, on a date or during a serious conversation—can make expectations clearer and reduce the chance that one partner experiences a routine check as rejection.

The Relationship Bids Behind Phubbing

The term phubbing dates to May 2012, when Australia’s Macquarie Dictionary and an advertising agency combined “phone” and “snubbing,” according to Merriam-Webster’s history as cited in the report. The word gives a name to a familiar social experience: attention shifting from the person nearby to a screen.

The Gottman Institute places that experience within its existing work on relationship bids and technology distractions. Gottman has written that devices can make it easier to turn away from a partner, and that some people may reach for a device to avoid a difficult conversation. He also cautions that inattention is often habitual rather than deliberate, describing partners as ignoring needs “out of mindlessness, not malice.” The report presents this as a general observation, not a finding that explains every couple’s behavior.

Its suggested response starts with listening to the complaint and agreeing on etiquette that suits both partners. Examples include avoiding texts and email during meals, date nights or conversations when one person needs to talk. The report also points readers to a ten-item electronic-distractions quiz, scored from 0 to 30, as a prompt for discussion; it is presented as a self-check, not a clinical diagnosis.

““out of mindlessness, not malice.””

— John Gottman, as quoted in The Gottman Institute report

What the Survey Cannot Establish

The report does not provide the Baylor survey’s field dates, sampling method or further demographic details, so readers cannot judge from the cited figures alone how closely the 453 respondents represent adults more broadly. The figures record what respondents said about their relationships; they do not establish that phubbing caused the reported conflicts.

It is also unclear how often phone use has to interrupt a conversation before it becomes a serious issue for a particular couple. The Gottman Institute says it has not conducted research specifically on phubbing. The broader relationship studies and advice cited in the report concern connection and technology, and should not be treated as direct evidence that a particular phone habit will predict a couple’s outcome.

Agreeing on Phone-Free Moments

The report recommends that partners begin by discussing the complaint without dismissing it, then agree on practical rules for phone use. Couples might decide together whether devices stay away during meals, date nights or conversations that need attention. The aim is to set expectations both people can follow, rather than assume they share the same idea of acceptable phone use.

For couples using the report’s quiz, its suggested score ranges are prompts for action: 0–10 indicates the issue is not serious according to the quiz; 11–20 suggests a conversation about when and where devices are used; and 21–30 leads the report to suggest agreeing on a daily screen-time limit for a week and talking again. These are the report’s recommendations, not validated clinical thresholds. The source does not describe a formal follow-up study or a later milestone; it leaves the next step to the couple’s conversation.

Key Questions

What does phubbing mean?

Phubbing means snubbing someone in a social setting by looking at a phone instead of paying attention to them. It can include checking a screen while someone is speaking or staying absorbed in a device during a shared moment.

How common did the cited survey find it to be?

In a Baylor University survey of 453 adults, 46% said their partner phubbed them, and 23% said it had caused conflict. The report does not provide enough survey-method details to treat these figures as estimates for every population.

Does phubbing always mean a partner intends to be rude?

No. The report says inattention can be habitual rather than deliberate, quoting John Gottman’s description of it as happening “out of mindlessness, not malice.” That does not mean the other partner cannot feel hurt by it.

What can couples do about phone distraction?

The report recommends taking the concern seriously and agreeing on phone etiquette that works for both people. Examples include putting phones away during meals, date nights or conversations when one partner needs to talk.

Source: rss