Cell phone-induced ostracism threatens fundamental needs

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.

KEYWORDS:

• Face-to-face communication
• ostracism
• phubbing
• relational evaluation
• smartphones

View correction statement:

Correction

Data availability statement

The data described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/ujcb8/

Open Scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open science badges for Open Materials through Open Practices Disclosure. The materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/ujcb8/

Notes

1. We conducted an exploratory/posthoc coding of the responses to probe possible of relationship to the conversation partner (inter-rater reliability = .99; Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007), and whether the topic of the conversation involved a hardship or challenge (reliability = .77). Relationships were categorized as either with a friend (44.7%), romantic partner (5.3%) or not specified/other (50%). Within the cellphone-induced ostracism condition, relationship type was not significantly related to basic needs satisfaction F(2, 51) = 1.21, p = .307, η_p² = .05. Conversation topics were categorized as either relating to a personal hardship/challenge (32.4%) other, such as gossip/social information (41.2%), or not specified (26.5%). Within the cellphone-induced ostracism condition, this factor was not significantly related to basic needs satisfaction F < 1.

2. We also measured whether participants used their phone or another device during the event. This did not moderate the effect of condition on need satisfaction, or perceptions of ostracism, largest F(2, 144) = 1.39, p = .253, η_p² = .02. It did moderate pain ratings, F(2, 144) = 3.23, p = .043, η_p² = .04, with people who used a device reporting less pain in the inclusion condition, t(144) = −2.00, p = .047, d = −.60, but not the control condition, t(144) = .05, p = .958, d = .02, or cell phone-induced ostracism condition, t(144) = 1.56, p = .121, d = .45.

3. Our preregistration did not specify that participants would be excluded for non-valid writing response. Including these participants does not meaningfully change the results.

4. As in Study 1 we coded responses for type relationship (reliability = .92) and conversation topic (reliability = .78). Relationships were categorized as either with a friend (59.4%), romantic partner (3.3%) or not specified/other (37.3%). This factor moderated the effect of cellphone-induced ostracism, F(2, 259) = 4.37, p = .014, η_p² = .03, such that the effect was greater for those who specified that the partner was their friend, F(1, 259) = 239.10, p < .001, η_p² = .48, than those who either did not specify or were talking to a relation other than friend, F(1, 259) = 73.09, p < .001, η_p² = .22, and smallest for those who specified a romantic partner, F(1, 259) = 7.21, p = .008, η_p² = .03. Conversation topics were categorized as either relating to a personal hardship/challenge (18.5%) other, such as gossip/social information (38.7%), or not specified (42.8%). Those in the serious conditions were more likely to discuss a hardship/challenge (25.8%) than those in the casual conditions (12.2%), χ² = 10.27, p = .006. Overall, those who discussed a hardship/challenge reported lower basic needs, F(1, 268) = 7.06, p = .001, η_p² = .05.

5. As in Study 1, we also measured whether participants used a device during the event. This did not moderate the effect of cell phone-induced ostracism on relational evaluation, needs, or pain, largest F(1, 263) = 2.53, p = .113, η_p² = .01. It did moderate feelings of ostracism, F(1, 263) = 6.64, p = .010, η_p² = .03, with those who used their phone feeling less ostracized in the cell phone-induced ostracism condition, t(263) = 1.98, p = .049, d = −.35, but not significantly in the control condition, t(263) = −1.71, p = .090, d = −.51.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Illinois State University Pre-Tenure Faculty Initiative Grant [Awarded to Eric Wesselmann].