Objective:
To examine whether self-esteem and romantic loneliness help explain the association between perceived partner phubbing and psychological well-being in young adults in romantic relationships.
Approach:
- Design and participants: Cross-sectional study of 1,627 heterosexual, unmarried adults aged 18–35 in romantic relationships, recruited through convenience sampling.
- Measures and analysis: Participants completed self-report measures of perceived partner phubbing, self-esteem, romantic loneliness, and psychological well-being. Structural equation modeling and bootstrapping tested independent and sequential mediation.
Key Findings:
- Greater perceived partner phubbing was associated with lower self-esteem, greater romantic loneliness, and lower psychological well-being.
- Self-esteem was positively associated with well-being and inversely associated with romantic loneliness; greater romantic loneliness was associated with lower well-being.
- With a direct pathway included, the association between phubbing and well-being was not statistically significant. The investigators selected a fully mediated model involving self-esteem and romantic loneliness.
Interpretation:
The authors described the serial mediation model as a theoretically grounded, process-oriented explanation, not a causal pathway. The cross-sectional findings do not establish that phubbing causes changes in self-esteem, loneliness, or well-being.
Limitations:
- Cross-sectional design prevents conclusions about causality or temporal ordering.
- Self-reported measures may be affected by social desirability bias.
- Individual rather than dyadic data did not allow analysis of reciprocal partner processes.
- Convenience sampling and the young, heterosexual, unmarried sample limit generalizability.
- The romantic loneliness subscale had relatively modest internal consistency.
Conclusion:
The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
Sources:
This content is an AI-generated, fully rewritten summary based on a published scholarly article. It does not reproduce the original text and is not a substitute for the original publication. Readers are encouraged to consult the source for full context, data, and methodology.
