Mother Phubbing and Adolescent Loneliness: A Mediation Model of Mother–Adolescent Communication and Perceived Mother Acceptance

Abstract

Phubbing is a new form of neglect, and recent studies have examined the effects of parental phubbing on adolescent psychological development. The aim of this study was to explore whether there would be a significant correlation between mother phubbing (Mphubbing) and loneliness and whether mother–adolescent communication (MAC) and perceived mother acceptance (PMA) would sequentially mediate the relation between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness. Our study included 3,293 senior high school students from China who completed measurements regarding demographic variables, Mphubbing, MAC, PMA, and loneliness. The sequential mediation model of MAC and PMA in the relationship between Mphubbing and loneliness was analyzed to verify all possible paths in this study. Taking the demographic variables as covariables, the results indicated that (1) Mphubbing was positively correlated with loneliness in adolescents and (2) MAC and PMA mediated the relationship between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness sequentially. Our study highlights the potential mediating mechanisms between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness, which has important implications for the theoretical and practical of adolescent loneliness in the age of mobiles.

Keywords

mother phubbing mother–adolescent communication perceived mother acceptance loneliness adolescents

In today’s world, the rise of the Internet has greatly facilitated people’s life. People are increasingly connected through the Internet, but loneliness seems to be more common. Loneliness in adolescence is widespread that 21%–70% of adolescents feel lonely at least sometimes (Qualter et al., 2015) and 3%–22% of adolescents experienced long-term loneliness (Van Dulmen & Goossens, 2013). Loneliness reflects the discrepancy between individuals’ expected and perceived social relationships (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010; Peplau & Perlman, 1982). This discrepancy subsequently leads to a painful and distressing experience of social isolation (Weiss, 1973). Meanwhile, loneliness is subjective, and it emphasizes not only that people need the presence of significant others but also that significant others can be trusted (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008). The rise of mobile devices allows people to keep in touch with more people at the same time. However, even surrounded by a large number of contacts, people may also feel lonely (Qualter et al., 2015).

Loneliness is associated with a range of negative physical, mental, and psychosocial outcomes, such as depression (VanderWeele et al., 2011), social anxiety (Kearns et al., 2015), poor peer relationships (Chen et al., 2006), and increased health care utilization (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010). Therefore, it is urgent to explore the causes of loneliness and prevent the occurrence and deterioration of it. Some predictors of loneliness have been identified, such as social alienation, isolation, separation, low self-worth, and certain personality traits (Qualter et al., 2013; Vanhalst et al., 2013). Loneliness, meanwhile, is most prevalent during adolescence (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010; Qualter et al., 2015). It is well known that parents are key to the healthy development and social functioning of adolescents (Sawyer et al., 2000). When we considered the family factors, prior research shows that low responsive parents would contribute to loneliness in adolescents (Wiseman et al., 2006). Phubbing is a form of social exclusion, and mother phubbing (Mphubbing) has been quite common in the family (Roberts & David, 2016). Previous studies have shown that exclusion can lead to negative psychological results such as loneliness (Leary, 1990). Therefore, the relation between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness needs to be studied, and the potential mediating mechanisms remain to be investigated. In order to better understand the occurrence of adolescent loneliness, a large sample of Chinese adolescents was applied to study the effects of Mphubbing on adolescent loneliness and to explore whether mother–adolescent communication (MAC) and perceived mother acceptance (PMA) would mediate the association between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness.

Mphubbing and Adolescent Loneliness

Phubbing is a portmanteau of the words “phone” and “snubbing,” which refers to social interruptions caused by the use of a mobile phone (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016; Roberts & David, 2016). It can be regarded as a specific form of ostracism and social exclusion (David & Roberts, 2017; Roberts & David, 2016), and people will experience the feeling of being neglected and ignored when being phubbed (Stockdale et al., 2018). Neglected children are associated with a wide range of negative physical, behavioral, and psychological outcomes, such as impaired brain development, depression, withdrawal symptoms, eating disorders, and suicide attempts (Dubowitz, 2011; Hildyard & Wolfe, 2002; Jose & Cherayi, 2020; Prasanna et al., 2018).

Phubbing has many predictors such as self-confidence, passivity, somatization, satisfaction with life, time spending on mobiles, individuals’ emotional and functional attachment to the platform, online social interaction ties, and so on (Ergün et al., 2020). It can destroy people’s empathy, intimacy, interpersonal trust, and the quality of conversation; thus, it is considered to be rude, offensive, and contrary to social rules (Al-Saggaf & O’Donnell, 2019). In recent years, several studies have focused on the negative impacts of phubbing on interpersonal relationships and individuals’ well-being (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; Halpern & Katz, 2017; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013; Wang et al., 2017; Xie et al., 2020). On the one hand, phubbing can threaten face-to-face conversation quality (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013), reduce perceived quality of romantic relationships (Halpern & Katz, 2017; Mcdaniel & Coyne, 2016a, 2016b; Roberts & David, 2016), and impair the impression formation and the interaction quality in social situations (Vanden Abeele et al., 2016). On the other hand, phubbing can affect individuals’ depression (Wang et al., 2017; Xie et al., 2020) and threaten their fundamental psychological needs (especially the sense of belonging; Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; Hales et al., 2018; Roberts & David, 2016).

Mphubbing indicates that a mother interacting with her children while paying attention to her mobile phones. In the family context, there are many negative effects of parental phubbing, such as decreased co-parenting quality (Mcdaniel et al., 2018), impaired parent–child interaction quality (Mcdaniel & Coyne, 2016b; Mcdaniel & Radesky, 2017; Radesky et al., 2014), and lowered parenting responsiveness (Mcdaniel & Coyne, 2016b; Mcdaniel et al., 2018). From the perspective of children, it can reduce children’s learning efficiency (Reed et al., 2017), increase children’s internalizing problems, and lead to problematic behaviors (Mcdaniel & Radesky, 2017).

Loneliness is “an individual’s subjective experience of expectations and actual defects in social relations,” and it can be caused by individuals perceiving themselves to have a higher level of exclusion than expected in important groups and relationships (Russell et al., 1984). According to social exclusion theory (Baumeister & Tice, 1988), human beings have a basic motivation to avoid being excluded from important social groups because being a part of a social group increases the likelihood that an individual will survive. On the contrary, being excluded may lead to negative emotional states, such as anxiety, depression, and loneliness (Leary, 1990). Mphubbing is a specific form of ostracism and social exclusion (David & Roberts, 2017; Roberts & David, 2016), and it can cause the eye shift, avoidance, and silence, which may send a clear message to adolescents that their mothers overlook them and prefer mobile phones over them (Stockdale et al., 2018). Thus, children may experience loneliness due to a sense of neglect or exclusion (Leary, 1990). Empirical studies have shown that loneliness and social exclusion are strongly correlated (Hajek & König, 2017). Adolescents who are socially excluded and clique isolated are more likely to be lonely than others (Buyukcebeci & Deniz, 2017; Hajek & König, 2017; Stillman et al., 2009; Witvliet et al., 2010). Thus, we assumed that:

Hypothesis 1: Mphubbing would be positively associated with loneliness among adolescents.

Mphubbing and MAC

Communication is one main dimension of family life which plays an important role in the development of adolescents (Barnes & Olson, 1985). As a key indicator of parent–child relationship quality (Riesch et al., 2003), the quality of parent–child communication is related to guilt, shame (Spira & Kenemore, 2000), the psychological level of difficulty adaption, and the level of moral reasoning (Barnes & Olson, 1985).

Conceptually, phubbing refers to the act of distracting one’ s attention by mobile phone while communicating with another person. It can be regarded as a form of evasion from interpersonal communication (David & Roberts, 2017; McDaniel & Radesky, 2018). Based on the displacement hypothesis (Kraut et al., 1998), spending time on media may displace and reduce meaningful parent–child interactions, which in turn may damage their communication with others (Roberts & David, 2016). Previous research has shown that the mere presence of a smartphone is enough to distract one’s attention during a conversation, and it could affect empathy, attention, and intimacy with the person one is talking to (Vanden Abeele et al., 2016). Mothers whose attention is dominated by mobile phones show lower responsiveness (Blackwell et al., 2016) and lower conversation intimacy to their children (Abeele et al., 2019), which are important elements in MAC. Some studies have shown that phubbing affects parent–child communication quality (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; Mcdaniel, 2019; Vanden Abeele et al., 2016). Based on the evidence above, it is reasonable to assume that there can be a negative correlation between Mphubbing and MAC.

Hypothesis 2: Mphubbing would be negatively associated with MAC.

Mphubbing and PMA

PMA represents stable cognitive evaluations that the mother cares for and values their children (Rogers & Compagnie, 2003). A mother’s physical and verbal acceptance, like kisses or hugs, creates a feeling of being loved and embraced; on the other hand, a mother’s silence or neglect indicates dislike and unacceptance (Walker, 1990). Moreover, phubbing can be regarded as a specific form of ostracism or social exclusion (David & Roberts, 2017; Roberts & David, 2016). Features of social exclusion, such as avoidance of eye contact, may further be interpreted as signals of “silence or rejection” (Silk et al., 2012; Wirth et al., 2010). And it may express indifference, no need, and no attention (Ferris et al., 2015; Jamieson et al., 2010), which seems to convey the mother’s unacceptance or rejection. The empirical research has confirmed that caretakers phubbing at meals are less likely to pay attention to their children (Radesky et al., 2014). It also proves that even physical proximity does not prevent feelings of neglect and rejection due to phubbing (Borelli et al., 2015; Kildare & Middlemiss, 2017). In conclusion, the evidence above suggests that Mphubbing would be associated with PMA. However, no studies have explored the link between Mphubbing and PMA.

Hypothesis 3: Mphubbing would be negatively associated with PMA.

MAC and PMA

The parental acceptance-rejection theory points that parental acceptance or rejection constitutes the warm aspect of nurturing relationships (Rohner, 1999, 2004), and the core feelings of perceived parental acceptance may come from loved and supportive experiences from their parents (Brock et al., 1998; Rohner & Britner, 2002). Research has shown that low perceived parental acceptance is associated with a large number of negative consequences such as externalizing problems, aggression, and academic difficulties (Khaleque & Rohner, 2012; Putnick et al., 2014).

Prior study has shown that warmth and acceptance can be expressed through body language (e.g., hugging, kissing), symbolic language (e.g., insulting gestures), and communications (e.g., praising, appreciating; Rohner & Lansford, 2017). A recent review has also suggested that affectionate communication is a favorable behavior that promotes warmth, acceptance, and other positive consequences; to be specific, affectionate communication is a way for individuals to convey warmth and promote interpersonal acceptance in intimate and parent–child relationships (Denes et al., 2017). Considering that communication is an indispensable element and the basis for affectionate communication, MAC may help adolescents perceive maternal acceptance. Nevertheless, no study has examined the link between MAC and PMA.

Hypothesis 4: MAC would be positively associated with PMA.

PMA and Adolescent Loneliness

Loneliness occurs when important social needs—such as being accepted by important groups—are not met (Weiss, 1973). At the same time, the parental acceptance-rejection theory points out that parental warmth is extremely important for individual development, and parental rejection will have a negative impact on psychopathological problems, behavioral disorders, and psychological adjustment (Khaleque & Rohner, 2012; Putnick et al., 2014). Specifically, individuals’ definitions of themselves are based on how others view them; parents’ low acceptance or rejection would lead these children to internalize this definition and describe themselves as not unworthy or incompetent (Rohner & Rohner, 1980). A rejected child may withdraw to protect himself from emotional harm (Walker, 1990). This withdrawal, in turn, impedes the formation of the mother–adolescent relationship, creating a vicious cycle that leads to withdrawal, which is a component of loneliness (Walker, 1990). Recently, some research has suggested that low perceived social or mother acceptance would contribute to loneliness (Ayşe Ulu-Yalçınkaya & Demir, 2018; Buist et al., 2011; T. Jackson, 2007; L. M. Jackson et al., 2005; Richaud de Minzi, 2006). Based on the above evidence, we assumed that PMA would be negatively correlated with adolescent loneliness.

Hypothesis 5: PMA would be negatively associated with adolescent loneliness.

The Present Study

In summary, this study aims to explore the associations between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness and the multiple mediating roles of mother–child communication and PMA in this relationship. To our knowledge, no study has examined the associations between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness. Besides, multiple mediating models can simultaneously examine various mechanisms from independent variables to dependent variables (Hayes, 2013), which can provide us with a thorough understanding of how Mphubbing could be associated with adolescent loneliness. Based on the above literature, we assumed that:

Hypothesis 6: MAC would mediate the association between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness.

Hypothesis 7: PMA would mediate the association between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness.

Hypothesis 8: MAC and PMA would sequentially mediate the association between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness.

Method

Participants

The 3,293 participants being measured were senior high school students recruited from Hebei, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Jiangxi province of China (53.2% were female). Their average age was 16.28 (SD = 0.73, range = 10–20 years). The majority of them lived in rural areas (76%) and were not only-child (83%). Thirty-four percent of the participants’ father and 29% of the participants’ mother had a high school degree or above. The variables were part of a survey variables, including Mphubbing, MAC, PMA, and loneliness.

Measures

Mphubbing

The MPhubbing Scale was revised from the Generic Scale of Being Phubbed (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018) and it has been used in Chinese sample (Bai et al., 2020). This scale measures the feeling of being phubbed by one’s mother, which includes 22 items (e.g., “My mother would rather pay attention to their phones than talk to me”). Each item was assessed on a Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 7 (always). Its Cronbach’s α in our study was .91 (Cronbach’s α of the original scale was .92).

MAC

MAC was measured by the Parent–Adolescent Communication Scale (Barnes & Olson, 1982), which has been used in Chinese samples (Q. X. Liu et al., 2012). This scale contains two subscales, one is Open Family Communication and another is Problems in Family Communication. The two subscales, each consisting of 10 items (e.g., “My mother tries to understand my point of view”) and each item was scored on a 7-point scale (1 = never, 7 = always). They would be combined in this research to yield a total scale score (Collins et al., 1995). Its Cronbach’s α in our study was .82 and .81 (Cronbach’s α for each subscale were .87 and .78).

PMA

Perceived acceptance from one’s mother was measured by a subscale of the Perceived Acceptance Scale (Brock et al., 1998), which has been used in Chinese sample (Zhou et al., 2016). It consists of 10 items (e.g., “My mother was always careful not to hurt my feelings”). These items were scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α in our study was .82 (Cronbach’s α of the original scale was .94).

Loneliness

Adolescent loneliness was measured by the short version of the Loneliness Scale (Hughes et al., 2004), which has been applied in Chinese samples (L. J. Liu, & Guo, 2007). This scale consists of three items (e.g., “How often do you feel left out”), which were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = almost never, 7 = almost always). Cronbach’s α in our study was .82 (Cronbach’s α of the original scale was .72).

Covariates

For the sake of improving the generalization of the results, we take father’s educational background (FEB), mother’s educational background (MEB), family structure (only child or not), gender, and age as covariates. Gender was a dichotomous variable (male = 1, female = 0), and age was measured in years. Birth place (0 = city, 1 = rural), FEB/MEB (1 = illiteracy, 2 = primary school, 3 = junior middle school, 4 = high school, 5 = university, and 6 = graduate and above), and only child (0 = one child, 1 = not only child) were measured in the above method.

Procedure

The first author’s University Ethics Committee approved the materials and process for this study. We obtained the informed consent of the students and their teachers. The survey was conducted by pretrained psychology graduate students, and the data were collected according to the operational procedure. All the variables were collected anonymously and voluntarily, and participants were asked to complete all questionnaires in a truthful and independent manner.

Data Analysis

In the first step, we used SPSS Version 25.0 to calculate descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation between all variables. In the second step, Hayes’s PROCESS Macro for SPSS (Model 6) was used to analyze the sequential mediation model of MAC and PMA in the relation between Mphubbing and loneliness, aiming to verify all possible paths in the research model (Figure 1). In the third step, the significance of the effects was tested by the bootstrapping method. The bootstrapping method produced confidence intervals (CIs) of 95% of these effects from 5,000 resampled data. If 0 is not included in the 95% CI, then the mediation effect should be regarded as significant.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation index of all the variables (Spearman’s correlations when at least one of the two variables is categorical). Specifically, Mphubbing was negatively correlated with MAC (r = −.34, p < .001), PMA (r = −.28, p < .001) and was positively correlated with loneliness (r = .20, p < .001). MAC was positively correlated with PMA (r = .65, p < .001) and was negatively correlated with loneliness (r = −.27, p < .001). At last, PMA was negatively correlated with loneliness (r = −.22, p < .001).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Study Variables.

Variable Name	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Gender	0.47	0.50	1
2. Age	16.41	0.77	−.08**	1
3. Only child	0.78	0.44	.08**	.10**	1
4. Birth place	0.77	0.42	.03	.15**	.37***	1
5. FEB	2.36	1.01	−.01	−.12**	−.23***	−.32***	1
6. MEB	2.23	1.03	.03	−.16**	−.25***	−.33***	.60**	1
7. MP	2.37	0.97	−.02	−.03	−.07**	−.01	.02	.07**	1
8. Loneliness	2.00	0.67	.01	.00	.01	.00	−.03	−.03	.20***	1
9. MAC	4.47	0.92	.15**	−.02	−.06**	−.04**	.08**	.11**	−.34***	−.27***	1
10. PMA	4.86	1.17	.11**	−.08**	−.07**	−.05**	.06**	.09**	−.28***	−.22***	.65***	1

Note. N = 3,293. Gender was dummy coded such that 1 = male and 0 = female. MP = mother phubbing; FEB = father’s education background; MEB = mother’s education background; MAC = mother–adolescent communication; PMA = perceived mother acceptance.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The Sequential Mediation Model

As shown in Figure 1 and Table 2, all indirect effects of Mphubbing on loneliness through MAC and PMA were examined by PROCESS macro Model 6 (Hayes, 2013). The sequential mediation model explained a significant amount of variance in Mphubbing. Specifically, the pathway of “Mphubbing → MAC → loneliness” was significant (b = .06, 95% CI [.041, .076]). Meanwhile, the pathway of “Mphubbing → PMA → loneliness” was significant (b = .01, 95% CI [.003, .012]). These results revealed that both MAC and PMA played a significant mediating role in the association between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness. Furthermore, the sequential pathway of “Mphubbing → MAC → PMA → loneliness” was significant (b = .02, 95% CI [.009, .028]). Thus, Mphubbing was correlated with MAC (b = −.35, p < .001), PMA (b = −.08, p < .001), and loneliness (b = .12, p < .001) among adolescents in an orderly manner. At last, after controlling the influence of MAC and PMA, the residual direct pathway of “Mphubbing → loneliness” remained significant (b = .12, 95% CI [.08, .15]), indicating that MAC and PMA partially mediated the relationship between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness.

Figure 1.

The sequential mediation model. Path values are the path coefficients (standard errors). Note. The relation between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness is mediated by mother–adolescent communication and perceived mother acceptance. *p < .05. ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Testing the Pathways of the Sequential Mediation Model.

Effect	b	95% CI
Effect	b	[Lower, Upper]
Direct effects
Mphubbing → MAC	−.35***	[−.38, −.32]
Mphubbing → PMA	−.08***	[−.11, −.05]
MAC → PMA	.60***	[.58, .63]
Mphubbing → loneliness	.12***	[.08, .15]
MAC → loneliness	−.17***	[−.21, −.12]
PMA → loneliness	−.08***	[−.13, −.04]
Indirect effect
Mphubbing → MAC → loneliness	.06	[.041, .076]
Mphubbing → PMA → loneliness	.01	[.003, .012]
Mphubbing → MAC → PMA → loneliness	.02	[.009, .028]

Note. N = 3,293. MAC = mother–adolescent communication; PMA = perceived mother acceptance.

*p < .05.***p < .001.

Discussion

More and more studies are focusing on the negative effects of parental phubbing on adolescent development. But the link between Mphubbing and loneliness in adolescents has not been revealed yet, and the mediating mechanisms behind this link are poorly understood. Based on the social exclusion theory (Baumeister & Tice, 1988), the displacement hypothesis (Coyne et al., 2014; Kraut et al., 1998; Roberts & David, 2016), and parental acceptance-rejection theory (Rohner & Rohner, 1980), this study explored whether Mphubbing would be positively correlated with loneliness in adolescents and whether MAC and PMA would mediate this relationship. The results displayed that Mphubbing was positively correlated with loneliness in adolescents, and MAC and PMA sequentially mediated this relationship, even after controlling a series of demographic variables. These findings are discussed in detail below.

Mphubbing and Adolescent Loneliness

Previous research has examined the relation between parental phubbing and adolescents’ mental health and behavioral problems, which has found that adolescents who are phubbed by their parents had poor quality of parent–child interactions (Mcdaniel & Coyne, 2016b; Mcdaniel & Radesky, 2017), low learning efficiency (Reed et al., 2017), high academic burnout (Bai et al., 2019), and increased internalizing problems like depression (Mcdaniel & Radesky, 2017; Wang et al., 2020). As hypothesized, the current study suggested that Mphubbing was positively correlated with loneliness in adolescents. This is consistent with the latest literature (Pancani et al., 2020) and the viewpoint that being excluded or neglected by parents or other important social relationships would lead to loneliness (Buyukcebeci & Deniz, 2017; Hajek & König, 2017; Stillman et al., 2009; Witvliet et al., 2010). This result can be explained by social exclusion theory (Baumeister & Tice, 1988) that human beings have a basic motivation to avoid being excluded from important social groups (Leary, 1990). As a gregarious specie, integration into the community will have more opportunities to be protected thus providing people with a wealth of social, physical, and physiological resources (Hill & Craig, 1987). Otherwise, the social exclusion would lead to social anxiety, depression, and loneliness (Leary, 1990). When a mother turns her eyes away from her child to her phone, it is a sign of disinterest, thus adolescents may feel that their mothers are less concerned about them due to the distraction of mobile phones (Stockdale et al., 2018), which are similar to the mother’s exclusion. As people increasingly rely on smartphones, Mphubbing would happen more frequently in the family context, thus, adolescents may feel more lonely due to Mphubbing.

The Multiple Mediation Role of MAC and PMA

As hypothesized, MAC and PMA sequentially mediate the relation between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness. Specifically, our results suggested that adolescents exposed to Mphubbing had a lower level of MAC, the lower level of MAC led to a lower level of PMA, and the lower level of PMA ultimately led to an increased risk of feeling lonely. The displacement hypothesis (Coyne et al., 2014) suggests that not being able to fully engage in conversation or shared time because of smartphone-related distractions makes mothers less involved in it, thereby decreasing the quality of the communication with their children (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; Mcdaniel, 2019; Vanden Abeele et al., 2016). Besides, consistent with the parental acceptance-rejection theory (Rohner, 1999), physical contact and verbal affirmation in communications convey the support and warmth of mothers. Therefore, high-quality MAC is associated with perceived more acceptance from mothers (Rohner & Lansford, 2017). Meanwhile, when the acceptance from parents is not satisfied, people will feel lonely (Rohner & Rohner, 1980; Weiss, 1973).

Additionally, it is worth noting that MAC plays an irreplaceable role in this sequential mediation model. This result is consistent with previous studies, showing that family communication was found to be a significant predictor of adolescent loneliness (Selvaraj, 2016; Uruk & Demir, 2003). The reason may be that MAC provides a platform through which adolescents could acquire skills in speaking, interacting, listening, and negotiating (Uruk & Demir, 2003). In addition, high-quality MAC makes their children feel concerned, valued, and easily understood by their mothers (Ayşe Ulu-Yalçınkaya & Demir, 2018; Demo et al., 1987). Communication is necessary for family members to respect each other’s needs and desires. Without it, mothers and their children would not know or even ignore each other’s thoughts or feelings and eventually, MAC would be replaced by mind reading or silence, leading to feelings of disappointment, frustration, resentment, hurt, and loneliness (Selvaraj, 2016). Meanwhile, communication is an ongoing process, and family members can work together to develop intergenerational openness. Therefore, mothers need to recognize the adverse impacts of dysfunctional or conflicted communication mode.

Meanwhile, low level of PMA is a proximal factor for adolescent loneliness. When perceiving low acceptance from the mother, the child was more likely to receive indifferent and ignored behavioral signals. Thus, the child’s unmet emotional needs may lead to loneliness (Ayşe Ulu-Yalçınkaya & Demir, 2018). At the same time, a rejected child could also withdraw, which damages the mother–adolescent relationship and leads to a downward spiral of withdrawal. This undesirable pattern is also an important component of loneliness (Walker, 1990). Based on our result, children should be allowed to express themselves and mothers should be sensitive to their children’s needs, so as to create a loving atmosphere that does not show hostility or neglect to their children, which can make the child feel more accepted by their mothers and eventually feel less lonely (Ayşe Ulu-Yalçınkaya & Demir, 2018). In summary, enhanced level of the MAC and PMA is of great value in alleviating loneliness among adolescents.

Implications

There are certain theoretical and practical values for the prevention and intervention of adolescent loneliness in this study. Firstly, our study examined the relation between Mphubbing and loneliness, suggesting that Mphubbing can be an antecedent for loneliness in adolescents. Most people would experience loneliness in their lives, which is a long and painful experience with harmful effects on both mental and physical health (Van Dulmen & Goossens, 2013). Based on the findings of this study, it reminds mothers that phubbing sends a message of neglect or rejection which may hurt their children’s psychological development. At the same time, a feasible strategy for controlling Mphubbing is to reduce the frequency of smartphone use by establishing rules, such as setting smartphone-free zones and times to restrict Mphubbing (David & Roberts, 2017). Secondly, our study shows that MAC and PMA are both explanatory factors for the relationship between Mphubbing and loneliness in adolescents, which remind mothers to pay attention to the quality of communication and the expression of acceptance for their children. Further, the sequential mediation of this study is enlightening for the intervention of adolescent loneliness in the family setting, and focusing on intervening the two mediators simultaneously may be more effective than intervening in any single mediator. Hence, interpersonal psychotherapy that helps develop communication skills and parent–child relationship interventions promoting acceptance may play key roles in alleviating adolescent loneliness.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations that can be strengthened in the future. First of all, the cross-sectional design adopted cannot infer causality. Longitudinal design and experimental methods are required to verify the causal assumptions in this sequential mediation model in the future. Second, the participants came from the collectivist Chinese cultural that emphasizes family relations (Miller et al., 2013), while individualistic culture, such as the western countries, pays more attention to the role of individual independence. Therefore, the applicability of this conclusion in different cultural contexts should be further explored. Third, the variables collected in this study were obtained through self-report of the participants, and the social desirability bias could not be controlled. In the future, other studies may consider collecting data from multiple informants to ensure the authenticity of the data.

Conclusion

This study explores the relationship and internal mechanisms between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness. The current study expands the literature by establishing a sequential mediation model between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness. Specifically, we find that Mphubbing is an antecedent of adolescent loneliness. More importantly, MAC and PMA sequentially mediate the relationship between Mphubbing and adolescent loneliness, which indicates that Mphubbing can lead to an increase in loneliness through affecting MAC and PMA.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Pengcheng Wang is a post-doctoral at the School of Education, Renmin University of China, China. His research interests include the interactions between Internet media and adolescents’ mental health development and family relationships in social networks.

Meng Zhao is the police at the Beijing Municipal Administration of Education and Correction, Beijing. His work focuses on behavior correction of adolescents taking drugs and the exploration of correction methods.

Biao Li is a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication, Renmin University of China Beijing. His work focuses on the application of communication, the interactions between media tools and family members, and interpersonal relationships.

Xingchao Wang is a professor at the School of Educational Science, Shanxi University, China. His research spans the impact of mobile phone use on personal well-being and social relationships among adolescents and their parents.

Xiaochun Xie is an associate professor at the School of Psychology, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China. His research spans the relationships between media and public mental health.

Jingyu Geng is a doctoral candidate at the School of Education, Renmin University of China, China. Her work focuses on cyberpsychology adolescent development, and parent– child relationship.

Jia Nie is a doctoral candidate at the School of Education, Renmin University of China, China. Her work focuses on cyberpsychology and adolescent development.

Pan Zeng is a doctoral candidate at the School of Education, Renmin University of China, China. Her work focuses on cyberpsychology and adolescent development.

Ningning Mao is a doctoral candidate at the School of Psychology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Learning and Cognition and School of Psychology, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China. Her research spans the cognitive mechanism and intervention of adolescent anxiety and depression, and the characteristics of adolescent mental health in the multimedia network environment.

References

Abeele

M. P. V.

Hendrickson

A. T.

Pollman

M. H.

Ling

(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

Al-Saggaf

O’Donnell

S. B.

(2019). Phubbing: Perceptions, reasons behind, predictors, and impacts. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.137

Bai

Dan

Lei

Wang

(2019). Mother phubbing and adolescent academic burnout: The mediating role of mental health and the moderating role of agreeableness and neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109622

Bai

Lei

Hsueh

F.-H.

Wang

(2020). Parent-adolescent congruence in phubbing and adolescents’ depressive symptoms: A moderated polynomial regression with response surface analyses. Journal of Affective Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.156

Barnes

H. L.

Olson

D. H.

(1982). Parent adolescent communication scale. In Olson

D. H.

(Ed.), Family inventories: Inventories used in a national survey of families across the family life cycle (pp. 33–48). Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

Barnes

H. L.

Olson

D. H.

(1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56(2), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129732

Baumeister

R. F.

Tice

D. M.

(1988). Metatraits. Journal of Personality, 56, 571–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1988.tb00903.x

Blackwell

Gardiner

Schoenebeck

(2016). Managing expectations: Technology tensions among parents and teens. In Gergle

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1390–1401). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819928

Borelli

J. L.

Compare

Snavely

J. E.

Decio

(2015). Reflective functioning moderates the association between perceptions of parental neglect and attachment in adolescence. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 32(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037858

10.

Brock

D. M.

Sarason

I. G.

Sanghvi

Gurung

R. A. R.

(1998). The perceived acceptance scale: Development and validation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598151001

11.

Buist

K. L.

Deković

Gerris

J. R. M.

(2011). Dyadic family relationships and adolescent internalizing and externalizing problem behavior: Effects of positive and negative affect. Family Science, 2, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2011.601895

12.

Buyukcebeci

Deniz

M. E.

(2017). Adolescents’ social exclusion, loneliness and subjective well-being in school: Mediating role of emphatic tendency*. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2017.03.011

13.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Patrick

(2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. Norton.

14.

Chen

DeSouza

Chen

Wang

. (2006). Reticent behaviour and experiences in peer interactions in Canadian and Chinese children. Developmental Psychology, 42, 656–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.656

15.

Chotpitayasunondh

Douglas

K. M.

(2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018

16.

Chotpitayasunondh

Douglas

K. M.

(2018). The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(6), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12506

17.

Chotpitayasunondh

Douglas

K. M.

(2018). 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.020

18.

Collins

W. E.

Newman

B. M.

Mckenry

P. C.

(1995). Intrapsychic and interpersonal factors related to adolescent psychological well-being in stepmother and stepfather families. Journal of Family Psychology, 9(4), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.9.4.433

19.

Coyne

S. M.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Fraser

A. M.

Fellows

Day

R. D.

(2014). \”media time = family time\”: Positive media use in families with adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29(5), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414538316

20.

David

M. E.

Roberts

J. A.

(2017). Phubbed and alone: Phone snubbing, social exclusion, and attachment to social media. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1086/690940

21.

Demo

D. H.

Small

S. A.

Savin-Williams

R. C.

(1987). Family relations and the self-esteem of adolescents and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 705–715. https://doi.org/10.2307/351965

22.

Denes

Bennett

Winkler

K. L.

(2017). Exploring the benefits of affectionate communication: Implications for interpersonal acceptance-rejection theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(4), 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12218

23.

Dubowitz

(2011). Epidemiology of child neglect—Child abuse and neglect-5. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4160-6393-3.00005-1

24.

Ergün

Göksu

İ.

Sakız

(2020). Effects of phubbing: Relationships with psychodemographic variables. Psychological Reports, 123(5), 1578–1613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119889581

25.

Ferris

D. L.

Lian

Brown

D. J.

Morrison

(2015). Ostracism, self-esteem, and job performance: When do we self-verify and when do we self-enhance? Academy of Management Journal, 58, 279–297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0347

26.

Hajek

König

(2017). The association of falls with loneliness and social exclusion: Evidence from the DEAS German ageing survey. BMC Geriatrics, 17(1), 204–204. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0347

27.

Hales

Dvir

Wesselmann

E. D.

Kruger

D. J.

Finkenauer

(2018). Cell phone-induced ostracism threatens fundamental needs. Journal of Social Psychology, 158(4), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1439877

28.

Halpern

Katz

J. E.

(2017). Texting’s consequences for romantic relationships: A cross-lagged analysis highlights its risks. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.051

29.

Hawkley

L. C.

Cacioppo

J. T.

, 2010. Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40, 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8

30.

Hayes

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51(3), 335–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050

31.

Hildyard

K. L.

Wolfe

D. A.

(2002). Child neglect: Developmental issues and outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 679−695. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00341-1

32.

Hill Craig

(1987). Affiliation motivation: People who need people. But in different ways. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52(5), 1008–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.1008

33.

Hughes

M. E.

Waite

L. J.

Hawkley

L. C.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Research on Aging, 26(6), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574

34.

Jackson

L. M.

Pratt

M. W.

Hunsberger

Pancer

S. M.

(2005). Optimism as a mediator of the relation between perceived parental authoritativeness and adjustment among adolescents: Finding the sunny side of the street. Social Development, 14, 273–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2005.00302.x

35.

Jackson

(2007). Protective self-presentation, sources of socialization, and loneliness among Australian adolescents and young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1552–1562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.012

36.

Jamieson

J. P.

Harkins

S. G.

Williams

K. D.

(2010). Need threat can motivate performance after ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209358882

37.

Jose

J. P.

Cherayi

S. J.

(2020). Effect of parental alcohol abuse severity and child abuse and neglect on child behavioural disorders in Kerala. Child Abuse & Neglect, 107, 104608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104608

38.

Kearns

Whitley

Tannahill

Ellaway

(2015). Loneliness, social relations and health and well-being in deprived communities. Psychology Health & Medicine, 20(3), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2014.940354

39.

Khaleque

Rohner

R. P.

(2012). Transnational relations between perceived parental acceptance and personality dispositions of children and adults: A meta-analytic review. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311418986

40.

Kildare

C. A.

Middlemiss

(2017). Impact of parents mobile device use on parent-child interaction: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.003

41.

Kraut

Patterson

Lundmark

Kiesler

Scherlis

(1998). A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9). 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.53.9.1017

42.

Leary

M. R.

(1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.221

43.

Liu

L. J.

Guo

(2007). Loneliness and health-related quality of life for the empty nest elderly in the rural area of a mountainous county in China. Quality of Life Research, 16(8), 1275–1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9250-0

44.

Liu

Q. X.

Fang

X. Y.

Deng

L. Y.

Zhang

J. T.

(2012). Parent-adolescent communication, parental internet use and internet-specific norms and pathological internet use among Chinese adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1269–1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.010

45.

Mcdaniel

B. T.

(2019). Parent distraction with phones, reasons for use, and impacts on parenting and child outcomes: A review of the emerging research. Human Behavior & Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.139

46.

Mcdaniel

B. T.

Coyne

S. M.

(2016a). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000065

47.

Mcdaniel

B. T.

Coyne

S. M.

(2016b). Technology interference in the parenting of young children: Implications for mothers’ perceptions of coparenting. The Social Science Journal, 53(4), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.53.9.1017

48.

Mcdaniel

B. T.

Galovan

A. M.

Cravens

J. D.

Drouin

(2018). “Technoference” and implications for mothers’ and fathers’ couple and coparenting relationship quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.019

49.

Mcdaniel

B. T.

Radesky

J. S.

(2017). Technoference: Parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Development, 89(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12822

50.

McDaniel

B. T.

Radesky

J. S.

(2018). Technoference: Longitudinal associations between parent technology use, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Pediatric Research, 84(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-018-0052-6

51.

Miller

R. B.

Mason

T. M.

Canlas

J. M.

Wang

Nelson

D. A.

Hart

C. H.

(2013). Marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms in China. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(4), 677–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033333

52.

Pancani

Gerosa

Gui

Riva

(2020). “Mom, dad, look at me”: The development of the parental phubbing scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520964866

53.

Peplau

L. A.

Perlman

(1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In Peplau

L. A.

Perlman

(Eds.), Loneliness: A source book of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 1–8). Wiley.

54.

Prasanna

Yogesh

Mahesh

Shrikant

Snehal

(2018). Impact of child abuse & neglect on children: A review article. MIDSR Journal of Dental Research, 1, 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199621)14

55.

Przybylski

A. K.

Weinstein

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512453827

56.

Putnick

D. L.

Bornstein

M. H.

Lansford

J. E.

Malone

P. S.

Pastorelli

Skinner

A. T.

Sorbring

Tapanya

Tirado

L. M. U.

Zelli

Alampay

L. P.

Al-Hassan

S M.

Bacchini

Bombi

A. S.

Chang

Deater-Deckard

Giunta

L. D.

Dodge

K. A.

Oburu

(2014). Perceived mother and father acceptance-rejection predict four unique aspects of child adjustment across nine countries. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(8), 923–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12366

57.

Qualter

Brown

S. L.

Rotenberg

K. J.

Vanhalst

Harris

R. A.

Goossens

Bangee

Munn

(2013). Trajectories of loneliness during childhood and adolescence: Predictors and health outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 1283– 1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.01.005

58.

Qualter

Vanhalst

Harris

Van Roekel

Lodder

Bangee

Verhagen

(2015). Loneliness across the life span. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615568999

59.

Radesky

J. S.

Kistin

C. J.

Zuckerman

Nitzberg

Gross

Kaplan-Sanoff

Augustyn

Silverstein

(2014). Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics, 133(4), e843–e849. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-3703

60.

Reed

Hirsh-pasek

Golinkoff

R. M.

(2017). Learning on hold: Cell phones sidetrack parent-child interactions. Developmental Psychology, 53(8), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000292

61.

Richaud de Minzi

M. C.

(2006). Loneliness and depression in middle and late childhood: The relationship to attachment and parental styles. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167(2), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.167.2.189-210

62.

Riesch

S. K.

Jackson

N. M.

Chanchong

(2003). Communication approaches to parent-child conflict: Young adolescence to young adult. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 18(4), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-5963(03)00083-6

63.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058

64.

Rogers

C. R.

& Constable and Compagnie. (2003). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(1), 134–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0052805

65.

Rohner

R. P.

(1999). Acceptance and rejection. In Levinson

Ponzetti

Jorgensen

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of human emotions (Vol. 1, pp. 6–14). Macmillan.

66.

Rohner

R. P.

(2004). The parental “acceptance–rejection syndrome”: Universal correlates of perceived rejection. American Psychologist, 59, 827–840. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.830

67.

Rohner

R. P.

Britner

P. A.

(2002). Worldwide mental health correlates of parental acceptance-rejection: Review of cross-cultural and intracultural evidence. Cross-Cultural Research, 36(1), 16–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939710203600102

68.

Rohner

R. P.

Lansford

J. E.

(2017). Deep structure of the human affectional system: Introduction to interpersonal acceptance-rejection theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9, 426–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12219

69.

Rohner

(1980). Antecedents and consequences of parental rejection: A theory of emotional abuse. Child Abuse Neglect, 4, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(80)90007-1

70.

Russell

Cutrona

Rose

Yurko

(1984). Social and emotional loneliness: An examination of Weiss’ typology of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1313–1321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1313

71.

Sawyer

M. G.

Kosky

R. J.

Graetz

B. W.

Arney

Zubrick

S. R.

Baghurst

(2000). The national survey of mental health and wellbeing: The child and adolescent component. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34(2), 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2000.00729.x

72.

Selvaraj

(2016). Parent communication and adolescent loneliness. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 5(8).161–164.

73.

Silk

J. S.

Stroud

L. R.

Siegle

G. J.

Dahl

R. E.

Lee

K. H.

Nelson

E. E.

(2012). Peer acceptance and rejection through the eyes of youth: Pupillary, eye tracking and ecological data from the Chatroom Interact task. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr044

74.

Spira

Kenemore

(2000). Adolescent daughters of mothers with breast cancer: Impact and implications. Clinical Social Work Journal, 28(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005106301713

75.

Stillman

T. F.

Baumeister

R. F.

Lambert

N. M.

Crescioni

A. W.

Dewall

C. N.

Fincham

F. D.

(2009). Alone and without purpose: Life loses meaning following social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 0–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.007

76.

Stockdale

L. A.

Coyne

S. M.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

(2018). Parent and child technoference and socioemotional behavioral outcomes: A nationally representative sample of 10- to 20-year-old adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.034

77.

Ulu-Yalçınkaya

Demir

(2018). Loneliness with regard to maternal and paternal acceptance-rejection and sibling relationship quality. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 28(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2017.12

78.

Uruk

A. C.

Demir

(2003). The role of peers and families in predicting the loneliness level of adolescents. Journal of Psychology, 137(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980309600607

79.

Vanden Abeele

M. M. P.

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(September), 562–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.005

80.

VanderWeele

T. J.

Hawkley

L. C.

Thisted

R. A.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2011). A marginal structural model analysis for loneliness: Implications for intervention trials and clinical practice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022610

81.

Van Dulmen

M. H. M.

Goossens

(2013). Loneliness trajectories. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1247–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.08.001

82.

Vanhalst

Goossens

Luyckx

Scholte

R. H. J.

Engels

R. C. M. E.

(2013). The development of loneliness from mid to late adolescence: Trajectory classes, personality traits, and psychosocial functioning. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 1305–1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.002

83.

Walker

J. M.

(1990). Effects of perceived parental rejection, maltreatment, and attachment style on self-esteem, loneliness, and psychological distress in college students: A causal model [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California.

84.

Wang

Gao

Yang

Zhao

Wang

(2020). Parental phubbing and adolescents’ depressive symptoms: Self-esteem and perceived social support as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(2), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01185-x

85.

Wang

Xie

Wang

Lei

(2017). Partner phubbing and depression among married Chinese adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship length. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.014

86.

Weiss

R. S.

(Ed.). (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. In Behavior therapy. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1976.30.4.685

87.

Wirth

J. H.

Sacco

D. F.

Hugenberg

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, 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210370032

88.

Wiseman

Mayseless

Sharabany

(2006). Why are they lonely? Perceived quality of early relationships with parents, attachment, personality predispositions and loneliness in first-year university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.015

89.

Witvliet

Brendgen

Van Lier

P. A. C.

Koot

H. M.

Vitaro

(2010). Early adolescent depressive symptoms: Prediction from clique isolation, loneliness, and perceived social acceptance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(8), 1045–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9426-x

90.

Xie

Tang

Rapp

Tong

Wang

(2020). Does forgiveness alleviate depression after being phubbed for emerging adults? The mediating role of self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior, 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106362

91.

Zhou

Shang

Wang

(2016). Emotion suppression in multiple social contexts and its effects on psychosocial functioning: An investigation with Chinese samples. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19(4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12149