Supervisor Phubbing Phenomenon in Organizations: Determinants and Impacts

Abstract

Supervisor phubbing occurs when supervisors use their mobile phone during an interaction with a subordinate. This study explores the effects of supervisor phubbing on employees’ organization-based self-esteem with a specific focus on subordinates’ experience of social exclusion. Drawing on data from a sample of 407 respondents, the study findings show no direct relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and organization-based self-esteem. However, employees who perceive their supervisor as using a phone more frequently during interpersonal interactions with them reported higher feelings of social exclusion during these interactions, which, in turn, predicted lower organization-based self-esteem. The study also examined the facilitating effect of power distance between supervisors and employees, which was partially supported. The implications of these findings for organizational policy are discussed.

Keywords

supervisor phubbing social exclusion organization-based self-esteem rejection sensitivity need to belong power distance

Introduction

Phubbing is a colloquial term used to refer to the use of a mobile phone during copresent interactions (Roberts & David, 2017; Vanden Abeele, 2019). Derived from the words “phone” and “snubbing,” phubbing can be defined as “the act of snubbing someone in a social setting by looking at your phone instead of paying attention” (Ugur & Koc, 2015, p. 1023). Phubbing is known to negatively affect a wide range of relational outcomes in interpersonal relationships, such as impression formation, interaction quality, and relationship quality (e.g., Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; Krasnova et al., 2016; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2017; Vanden Abeele et al., 2016).

Several studies have explored the effects of phubbing in the context of friendships and romantic relationships (Balta et al., 2020; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; Roberts & David, 2016; Wang et al., 2017). For example, Roberts and David (2016) found that being phubbed in personal contexts was found to indirectly affect depression. Moreover, Wang et al. (2017) confirmed these findings in an Asian context and found that partner phubbing was negatively related to relationship satisfaction. In turn, this lower relationship satisfaction led to more feelings of depression. More recently, Vanden Abeele et al. (2019) found that partner’s phone use was negatively related to conversation intimacy. Finally, Çikrikci et al. (2022) found that communication disturbance as dimension of phubbing led to lower satisfaction with life.

In contrast to the rising amount of studies in a (private) relationship context, only a few studies have explored the impact of phubbing on relationships in workplace settings (Al-Saggaf & O’Donnell, 2019). Cameron and Webster’s (2011) work on multicommunication in the workplace revealed that in some context’s employees experience more mistrust and perceive their colleagues as more uncivil when these employees are in different interactions at once during copresent workplace interactions. Since phubbing is a specific behavior of communicating with somebody else, when in a personal conversation, this early study already suggests the possible negative effect of supervisor phubbing during face-to-face meetings. More recently, Roberts and David (2017) actually found that employees’ perceptions of supervisor phubbing negatively predict their perceptions of the supervisor’s trustworthiness. This lower perceived trust in the supervisor, in turn, was associated with lower feelings of psychological meaningfulness and engagement in the organization. Additionally, Roberts and David (2020) also found supervisor phubbing to have an indirect negative effect on employee’s job performance via supervisory trust and job satisfaction.

These first studies suggest that phubbing could be equally detrimental in the organizational context as in a private (social) context, and thus may lead to undesirable organizational outcomes.

Albeit few, the extant studies show that workplace phubbing is an urgent matter, as the implications for organizations may be profound. Therefore, the first aim of the current study is to contribute to this novel body of scholarship by examining the association between supervisor phubbing and employees’ organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), which refers to the degree to which employees believe that they are significant, worthy, and capable at work (Pierce et al., 1989). OBSE is a relevant outcome to consider, as a vast amount of research has indicated that OBSE leads to positive outcomes for organizations (Bowling et al., 2010; Chan et al., 2013; Ferris et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2018).

One reason why supervisor phubbing may threaten employees’ OBSE is that supervisor phubbing behavior might make subordinates feel socially excluded. Indeed, previous research suggests that people perceive phubbing as a prioritization of a virtual conversation partner over the copresent interaction (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018). This may lead them to experience social exclusion, which, in turn, can be threatening to self-esteem (Leary, 1999, 2005). As OBSE is linked to acceptance or rejection by the group, leader, or organization (Williams, 2007), we thus anticipate that when supervisor phubbing leads employees to experience social exclusion, this may negatively affect the employees’ OBSE, as they might feel devalued, less attached to the organization, and isolated due to thwarted belongingness (cf. Ferris et al., 2008; MacDonald & Leary, 2005; Williams, 2001). Hence, the current study assumes that employees’ experience of social rejection during supervisor interactions explains the association between perceived supervisor phubbing and OBSE.

There is reason to assume that these relationships are moderated by intrapersonal and contextual factors (cf. Vanden Abeele, 2019). Hence, a second aim of this study is to examine the moderating role of rejection sensitivity, need to belong and power distance. In terms of intrapersonal factors, employees’ rejection sensitivity and organizational need to belong are likely to be relevant moderators: Employees who are more sensitive to rejection may interpret supervisor phubbing more strongly as ostracizing behavior, and may thus respond with a stronger experience of social rejection. However, Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2018) found no support for such a moderation effect in the context of nonworkplace interpersonal relationships. With respect to organizational need to belong, individuals who generally attach greater importance to belonging to the organization may perceive supervisor phubbing behavior as a greater threat to their belongingness needs. Finally, with respect to contextual factors, power distance could be a relevant cultural variable that moderates the association between supervisor phubbing and experienced social rejection. In cultures in which power distance is high, people are more likely to expect and accept displays of authority by the leader or superiors than in cultures in which power distance is low (Hsiung & Tsai, 2017).

We examine these research aims by drawing on a cross-sectional survey that was administered to 407 employees in the United States.

Theoretical Framework

Phubbing and Social Exclusion

In phubbing research, the term “phubber” refers to the person who engages in phubbing (i.e., the perpetrator), while the “phubbee” refers to the phubber’s conversation partner, who is at the receiving end of the phubbing behavior (i.e., the victim). Studies show that phubbers are considered to be impolite and inattentive (Vanden Abeele et al., 2016), and that their behavior adversely affects indicators of interaction quality and relationship satisfaction (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; Krasnova et al., 2016; McDaniel et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017). An effective symmetrical communication is considered during face-to-face interaction of an employee when they communicates with their manager (Lee, 2022).

Although research on the workplace context is scarce, the extant research suggests that phubbing is equally harmful for relationships at work (Cameron & Webster, 2011; Roberts & David, 2017). In the current study, we build further on this assumption by specifically focusing on the impact of supervisor phubbing on employee well-being.

One reason why supervisor phubbing might hamper employee well-being is that employees may interpret the phubbing behavior as ostracizing or socially excluding them (Gruter & Masters, 1986; Williams, 1997). Social exclusion is defined by Williams (2001) as “being invisible and being excluded from the social interactions of those around you” (p. 2). Earlier work on social exclusion has shown that inattentive behavior by an individual during interpersonal interactions can be interpreted as a sign of social exclusion (K. D. Scott, 2007; Williams, 1997). When individuals experience social exclusion, they feel threatened with respect to four fundamental human needs: their need to belong, their need for self-esteem, their need for meaningful existence, and their need for control over the situation as well as their life more generally (Gerber &Wheeler, 2009; Williams, 2001; Zadro et al., 2004).

Previous research on phubbing in the context of friendships has revealed that individuals may experience social exclusion when they are phubbed by a friend (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; David et al., 2018). Hence, we may assume that supervisors who phub create an ostracizing experience for their interaction partner by focusing their attention on their phone rather than on the employee with whom they are interacting. Thus, we expect the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Employees who perceive that their supervisor phubs them more frequently will experience greater social exclusion during interactions with their supervisor, which is manifest in a greater threat to their (a) belongingness, (b) self-esteem, (c) meaningful existence, and (d) control needs.

Phubbing, Social Exclusion, and Organization-Based Self-Esteem

Supervisor phubbing may harm OBSE both directly and indirectly via its threat to employees’ fundamental needs. OBSE refers to the degree to which individuals believe that they are significant, valued, and capable at work (Pierce et al., 1989). Members of an organization can judge their value from the signals they receive during their communication with managers in the organization (Baumeister, 1999; Gardner et al., 2004). When the routine behaviors and words used during interactions between supervisors and their employees transmit the message that the employees are needed and valuable to the organization, these employees will feel competent and valued (Korman, 1970; Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Supervisor phubbing can interfere with these routine behaviors and therefore directly lead to less positive feelings (e.g., self-esteem):

Hypothesis 2: Employees who perceive that their supervisor phubs them more frequently will report lower OBSE.

Supervisor phubbing may also indirectly hamper OBSE by eliciting an experience of social exclusion. Previous studies show that experiencing social exclusion in the workplace can harm employee well-being. For example, employees who feel socially rejected by their colleagues are more likely to feel aggression toward others (Twenge et al., 2001), engage in self-defeating actions (Twenge et al., 2002), suffer psychologically (Wu et al., 2012), and experience reduced self-esteem (Leung et al., 2011;Williams, 2001, 2007).

We assume that when supervisor phubbing elicits an experience of social exclusion among employees, their perceptions of their own value and worth for the organization decrease; after all, the supervisor’s phubbing behavior can be interpreted as a signal that they are not considered worthy of the supervisor’s full attention. For this reason, we expect that when employees feel socially excluded during interactions with their supervisor due their supervisor’s phubbing behavior, their OBSE level will be lower:

Hypothesis 3: Employees’ experience of a threat to their fundamental needs: (a) belongingness, (b) self-esteem, (c) meaningful existence, and (d) control needs mediates the relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and OBSE.

Moderators

It is likely that not all employees experience their supervisor’s phubbing behavior as equally ostracizing. For this reason, it is important to consider potential mechanisms influencing the relationship between supervisor phubbing and the experience of social exclusion. Important moderators may include intrapersonal and contextual factors (cf. Vanden Abeele, 2019).

The first intrapersonal factor we examine is employees’ rejection sensitivity, or their propensity to “anxiously expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection” (cf. Downey & Feldman, 1996, p. 1327). People with high rejection sensitivity have a greater ability to sense and attend to social rejection signals. For example, individuals with high rejection sensitivity experienced more pain in reaction to vague social rejection (Downey et al., 1998; Downey & Feldman, 1996; Kawamoto et al., 2015) and reported higher conflictual ratings in response to their partners (Norona et al., 2014). In the current study, we examine rejection sensitivity as a moderator in the context of the supervisor-employee relationship. We thus expect the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Rejection sensitivity moderates the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and threatened fundamental needs for (a) belongingness, (b) self-esteem, (c) meaningful existence, and (d) control in such a way that the relationship is stronger among employees with higher rejection sensitivity than among employees with low rejection sensitivity.

A second important intrapersonal factor that we explore as a moderator is employees’ workplace need to belong. Need to belong refers to humans’ fundamental desire to have lasting and positive interpersonal relationships with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, Downey & Feldman, 1996; Staebler et al., 2011). While the need to belong need is universal, there are variations in how people express and satisfy this need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Interpersonal relationships formed at work serve a critical role in employees’ workplace success and career advancement (Allen et al., 2004; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Scandura, 1992). Employees’ workplace need to belong can be understood as employees’ desire to have such relationships in the workplace. The impact of supervisor phubbing may be more threatening for employees with a higher need to belong than for employees with a lower need to belong, as they may attach greater importance to a positive interpersonal relationship with their supervisor. Hence, we expect the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Need to belong moderates the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and fundamental threatened needs for (a) belongingness, (b) self-esteem, (c) meaningful existence, and (d) controlling such a way that the relationship is stronger among employees with a high need to belong than among employees with a low need to belong.

A third moderator in this study is a cultural factor, namely the power distance between the supervisor and employees. People living in high power distance cultures are more likely to accept and follow orders from leaders without questioning the leader’s authority than those living in low power distance cultures (Clugston et al., 2000; Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997). A positive significant relationship was found between downward communication and employee work outcomes in a research study conducted by Raina and Roebuck (2016). Therefore, supervisor phubbing may be experienced as more threatening in workplaces where supervisor-employee relationships are characterized by a low power distance because socially excluding behavior by the supervisor may be less tolerated. Hence, the third moderator we explore for the relationship between supervisor phubbing and the experience of threatened needs is power distance. We expect the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: Power distance moderates the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and fundamental threatened needs for (a) belongingness, (b) self-esteem, (c) meaningful existence, and (d) control in such a way that the relationship will be weaker for employees who are low in power distance rather than high in power distance.

The hypotheses guiding our study are visualized in the following theoretical model (see Figure 1):

Figure 1.

Theoretical framework.

Method

Participants and Design

To test the hypotheses, we administered an online survey via Amazon Mechanical Turk to persons who were actively employed in an organization. Participation was remunerated with US$1.5 dollars. After removing participants who were not from the United States (29%),¹ failed to notice the attention check (n = 16), completed the survey in an unrealistically short amount of time (n = 8) or had missing data (n = 1), the final sample consisted of 407 American individuals who were employed in an organization at the time of the survey. Of these individuals, 59% were male. The mean age was 34.75 years (SD = 9.20). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Tilburg University, Netherlands.

Measures

Organization-Based Self-Esteem

We used K. L. Scott et al.’s (2008) five-item scale to measure OBSE. Sample items are “I count around here,” “I am valuable around here,” and “There is faith in me around here.” Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The internal consistency of the scale was good, α = .92.

Perceived Supervisor Phubbing

We measured supervisor phubbing (SPhubbing) using a slightly modified version of Roberts and David’s (2017) nine-item scale for boss phubbing. Respondents were asked to rate their direct supervisor’s phone behavior during face-to-face meetings or interactions with them. Sample items included “My supervisor places his or her cell phone where I can see it when we are together,” and “When my supervisor’s cell phone rings or beeps, he/she pulls it out even if we are in the middle of a conversation.” We removed one item that correlated very weakly with the other scale items. A 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used to record responses. The final scale was internally consistent, α = .94.

Social Exclusion/Threat to Fundamental Needs

We used an adapted version of Jamieson et al.’s (2010) 20-item Need Threat Measure to assess the threat to four fundamental needs employees may feel in response to an experience of social exclusion or ostracism (cf. Williams, 2009). This scale consisted of five items per need. Example items are “During interactions with my supervisor, I feel disconnected” (Belonging); “During interactions with my supervisor, I feel liked” (Self-esteem); “During interactions with my supervisor, I feel invisible” (Meaningful existence); and “During interactions with my supervisor, I feel powerful” (Control). A 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) was used. Similar to the scale validation study by Gerber et al. (2017), a factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution, with one factor representing positively worded and the other factor representing negatively worded items. A forced four-factor solution did not exhibit the anticipated four-factor structure, but rather suggested that subscales could be differentiated most optimally by reducing the number of items per dimension. We therefore used three items per dimension. The reliability of the subscales measuring threatened belonging needs (α = .92), self-esteem needs (α = .88), meaningful existence needs (α = .93), and control needs (α = .87) was satisfactory. For all scales, we computed the variables so that a lower score indicates that the respondent experiences a greater threat to the respective need, while a higher score indicates that the need is more satisfied.

Rejection Sensitivity

The Rejection Sensitivity Adult Questionnaire (Downey & Feldman, 1996) was used to assess rejection sensitivity. This scale presents nine scenarios and asks respondents to assess, first, their concern about, and second, the perceived potential for rejection in each scenario (e.g., “How concerned or anxious would you be over whether or not your family would want to help you?” and “I would expect that they would agree to help me as much as they can”). The responses were measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very unconcerned/very unlikely) to 6 (very concerned/very likely). The reliability of the Rejection Sensitivity Adult Questionnaire scale was satisfactory, α = .76. Rejection sensitivity was used as a moderator.

Workplace Need to Belong

We used a slightly modified 10-item scale originally developed by Leary et al. (2013) to measure workplace need to belong. A sample item is “I try hard not to do things that will make my supervisor avoid or reject me.” Responses were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). The reliability of the scale was satisfactory, α = .84. Workplace need to belong was used as a moderator.

Power Distance

We used Dorfman and Howell’s (1988) six-item power distance scale. Responses were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The reliability of the power distance scale in this study was good, α = .87. Power distance was used as a moderator.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Before addressing the hypotheses, we first discuss some descriptive findings. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the different measures in the total sample. In general, the employees in our study were fairly neutral in terms of disagreeing/agreeing that their supervisor phubs them during interpersonal interactions (M = 4.16, SD = 1.54; Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 7). We also see that, in general, participants reported high levels of OBSE (M = 5.43, SD = 1.11).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. PSP	4.2	1.5	—
2. Belonging (NTM)	3.8	1.2	−.64**	—
3. Self-esteem (NTM)	3.5	1.0	−.19**	.22**	—
4. Meaningful Existence (NTM)	3.8	1.3	−.58**	.89**	.18**	—
5. Control (NTM)	2.9	1.2	.03	−.12*	.68**	−.18**	—
6. OBSE	5.4	1.1	−.07	.28**	.63**	.25**	.52**	—
7. A-RSQ	9.2	3.5	.25**	−.31**	−.32**	−.29**	−.15**	−.34**	—
8. NTB	4.5	1.2	.31**	−.28**	.21**	−.31**	.23**	.23**	.18**	—
9. PD	3.82	1.5	.43**	−.52**	.07	−.54**	.26**	.06	.28**	.36**	—

Note. PSP = perceived supervisor phubbing; NTM = Need Threat Measure; OBSE = organization-based self-esteem; A-RSQ = adult rejection sensitivity questionnaire; NTB = need to belong; PD = power distance.

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

A correlation analysis showed that there was no direct association between perceived supervisor phubbing and participants’ OBSE (r = −.07, p = .155). Significant negative associations were found between supervisor phubbing and three of the fundamental needs (belonging, meaningful existence, and self-esteem). Table 1 further shows that these three needs are positively related to each other. However, while participants’ control needs were positively associated with their self-esteem needs, we found weak, albeit significant negative associations with belonging (r = −.12, p = .014) and meaningful existence (r = −.18, p < .000).

Test of the Theoretical Model

We first used Process Model 4 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) to test our mediation model, disregarding the moderators. In this model, gender and age were included as covariates. With respect to the total effect of supervisor phubbing on OBSE, the results show that when controlling for gender (b = −.11, standard error (SE) = .11, 95% confidence interval [CI: −.338, .110]) and age (b = −.00, SE = .01, 95% CI [−.012, .012]), there is no significant negative association between supervisor phubbing and OBSE (b = −.05, SE =.04, 95% CI [−.121, .022]).

Our first hypothesis stated that an increase in supervisor phubbing would predict a decrease in employees’ experienced belongingness needs (Hypothesis 1a), self-esteem needs (Hypothesis 1b), meaningful existence needs (Hypothesis 1c), and control needs (Hypothesis 1d) during face-to-face interactions. When exploring the direct relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and respondents’ experiences of need threat during supervisor interactions, we found that supervisor phubbing significantly and negatively predicted belonging needs (Hypothesis 1a: b = −.50, SE = .03, 95% CI [−.569, −.444]), self-esteem needs (Hypothesis 1b: b = −.13, SE = .03, 95% CI [−.191, −.065]), and meaningful existence needs (Hypothesis 1c: b = −.47, SE = .03, 95% CI [−.538, −.406]). Supervisor phubbing did not predict control needs (Hypothesis 1d: b = .02, SE = .04, 95% CI [−.048, .091]). Thus, the more employees perceive supervisor phubbing, the lower their feelings of belonging, feelings of self-esteem, and feelings of meaningful existence during interactions with their supervisor (Hypothesis 1a, Hypothesis 1b, Hypothesis 1c supported, and Hypothesis 1d not supported; see Table 2).

Table 2.

Mediation Results.

	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	B	SE	t	p	LL	UL
Mediator models
Outcome variable = Belonging; R² = .41, F = 93.32, p < .000
Gender	−.05	.096	−0.54	.59	−.2419	.1379
Age	.01	.01	2.08	.04	.0006	.0209
Supervisor phubbing	−.50	.03	−16.43	.00	−.5648	−.4441
Outcome variable = Self-esteem; R² = .04, F = 5.63, p < .000
Gender	−.04	.10	−0.43	.67	−.2427	.1554
Age	−.00	.01	−0.43	.39	−.0153	.0060
Supervisor phubbing	−.13	.03	−3.98	.00	−.1913	−.0648
Outcome variable = Meaningful existence; R² = .34, F = 68.08, p < .000
Gender	−.04	.11	−0.41	.68	−.2518	.1651
Age	.01	.01	1.95	.05	−.0001	.0222
Supervisor phubbing	−47	.03	−0.41	.00	−.5384	−.4059
Outcome variable = Control; R² = .03, F = 4.61, p < .005
Gender	−.29	.11	−2.62	.01	−.5078	−.0730
Age	−.01	.01	−2.20	.03	−.0247	−.0014
Supervisor phubbing	.02	.04	0.610	.54	−.048	.091
Dependent variable model
Outcome variable = OBSE; R² = .50, F = 56.61, p < .000
Gender	.02	.08	0.19	.85	−.1468	.1774
Age	.00	.00	0.48	.63	−.0065	.0107
Belonging	.21	.08	2.80	.01	.0623	.3572
Self-esteem	.43	.06	7.25	.00	.3106	.5420
Meaningful existence	.15	.07	2.21	.03	.0166	.2889
Control	.32	.05	5.93	.00	.2155	.4294
Supervisor phubbing	.18	.03	5.25	.00	.1101	.2419
Total effects model
Outcome variable = OBSE; R² = .01, F = 1.03, p > .1
Gender	−.11	.11	−1.00	.32	−.3384	.1095
Age	−.00	.01	−0.02	.98	−.0121	.0119
Supervisor phubbing	−.05	.04	−1.37	.17	−.1207	.0216
	Effect	SE	95% CI
	Effect	SE	LL	UL
Standardized indirect effects
Total	−.23	.04	−.3046	−.1483
Belongingness	−.11	.04	−.1906	−.0223
Self-esteem	−.05	.02	−.0916	−.0235
Meaningful Existence	−.07	.03	−.1432	.0001
Control	.01	.01	−.0175	.0335

Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; SE = standard error; OBSE = organization-based self-esteem.

Hypothesis 3 stated that the experience of threatened needs would predict OBSE, thus mediating the relationship between supervisor phubbing and OBSE. The results revealed that perceived supervisor phubbing significantly and negatively indirectly predicted OBSE via belonging needs (Hypothesis 3a: b = −.11, SE =.04, 95% CI [−.191, −.022]), and self-esteem needs (Hypothesis 3b: b = −.05, SE = .02, 95% CI [−.092, −.024]), but not via meaningful existence needs (Hypothesis 3c: b = −.07, SE = .03, 95% CI [−.143, .000]) or control needs (Hypothesis 3d: b = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI [−.018, .034]). Interestingly, the direct relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and OBSE turned significantly positive when controlling for these needs (b = .18, SE = .03, 95% CI [.110, .242]). This suggests an inconsistent mediation (i.e., the direction of the association between perceived supervisor phubbing and OBSE is reversed when accounting for the mediators; see also MacKinnon et al., 2007). Hence Hypothesis 3a and Hypothesis 3b were supported, whereas Hypothesis 3c and Hypothesis 3d were not supported; see Table 2.

The Moderating Role of Rejection Sensitivity, Need to Belong, and Power Distance

Hypothesis 4a to Hypothesis 4d, Hypothesis 5a to Hypothesis 5d, and Hypothesis 6a to Hypothesis 6d stated that rejection sensitivity, need to belong and power distance would moderate the relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and threat to fundamental needs. We tested these hypotheses using Hayes’ (2017) Process Model 7 for testing moderated mediation in SPSS.

The results of the moderated mediation analysis revealed that rejection sensitivity did not moderate the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and belonging needs, self-esteem needs, meaningful existence needs, or control needs (see Table 3). Thus, Hypothesis 4a to Hypothesis 4d were not supported.

Table 3.

Moderated Mediation Results.

	Moderator = need to belong		Moderator = rejection sensitivity		Moderator = power distance
	B (SE)	t	B (SE)	t	B (SE)	t
Moderation effects on mediators
Outcome variable = Belonging
Gender	−.08 (.09)	−.856	−.03 (.10)	−0.357	−.08 (.09)	−0.909
Age	.01 (.01)	1.91	.01 (.01)	2.252	.01 (.00)	1.305
Supervisor phubbing (SP)	−.04 (.10)	−.41	−.46 (.07)	−6.761	−.15 (.08)	−1.910
Moderator	.32 (.10)	3.30	−.05 (.04)	−1.443	.07 (.10)	0.669
Moderator * SP	−.10 (.02)	−.86	−.00 (.01)	−0.146	−.07 (.02)	−3.411
	R² = .45, F = 63.20, p < .001		R² = .44, F = 61.45, p < .001		R² = .49, F = 74.65, p < .001
	B (SE)		B (SE)		B (SE)
Conditional effect
Moderator value = 3.2; 2.3	−.36 (.04)				−.31 (.04)
Moderator value = 4.6; 3.8	−.49 (.03)				−.42 (.03)
Moderator value = 5.8; 5.3	−.61 (.04)				−.52 (.05)
Moderated mediation index	−.02 (.01)				−.01 (.01)
	Moderator = need to belong		Moderator = rejection sensitivity		Moderator = power distance
	B (SE)	t	B (SE)	t	B (SE)	t
Outcome variable = Self-esteem
Gender	−.06 (.10)	−0.609	.00 (.10)	0.022	.04 (.10)	0.382
Age	−.00 (.01)	−0.753	−.00 (.01)	−0.770	−.00 (.01)	−0.298
Supervisor phubbing (SP)	−.24 (.11)	−2.30	−.21 (.07)	−2.966	−.54 (.09)	−6.219
Moderator	.18 (.10)	1.752	−.15 (.04)	−4.089	−.35 (.11)	−3.235
Moderator * SP	.01 (.02)	0.585	.01 (.01)	2.008	.10 (.02)	4.635
	R² = .11, F = 10.19, p < .000		R² = .12, F = 11.24, p < .000		R² = .11, F = 9.539, p < .001
	B (SE)		B (SE)		B (SE)
Conditional effect
Moderator value = 3.2; 2.3					−.30 (.04)
Moderator value = 4.6; 3.8					−.14 (.04)
Moderator value = 5.8; 5.3					.01 (.05)
Moderated Mediation Index	.01 (.01)				.05 (.01)
	Moderator = need to belong		Moderator = rejection sensitivity		Moderator = power distance
	B (SE)	t	B (SE)	t	B (SE)	t
Outcome variable = Meaningful existence
Gender	−.08 (.10)	−0.747	−.03 (.11)	−0.246	−.09 (.10)	−0.932
Age	.01 (.01)	1.748	.01 (.01)	2.103	.01 (.01)	1.045
Supervisor phubbing (SP)	.15 (.11)	1.390	−.427 (.08)	−5.647	.01 (.08)	0.158
Moderator	.40 (.11)	3.785	−.05 (.04)	−1.267	.14 (.11)	1.305
Moderator * SP	−.13 (.02)	−5.615	−.00 (.01)	−0.199	.10 (.02)	−4.579
	R² = .40, F = 52.87, p < .000		R² = .36, F = 44.97, p < .000		R² = .46, F = 66.49, p < .001
	B (SE)		B (SE)		B (SE)
Conditional effect
Moderator value = 3.2; 2.3	−.27 (.05)				−.22 (.04)
Moderator value = 4.6; 3.8	−.45 (.03)				−.37 (.03)
Moderator value = 5.8; 5.3	−.61 (.05)				−.52 (.05)
Moderated mediation index	−.02 (.01)				−.02 (.01)
	Moderator = need to belong		Moderator = rejection sensitivity		Moderator = power distance
	B (SE)	t	B (SE)	t	B (SE)	t
Outcome variable = Control
Gender	−.30 (.11)	−2.809	−.26 (.11)	−2.397	−.22 (.10)	−2.085
Age	−.01 (.01)	−2.087	−.01 (.01)	−2.155	−.01 (.01)	−1.332
Supervisor phubbing (SP)	−.19 (.12)	−1.632	−.02 (.08)	−0.226	−.59 (.09)	−6.496
Moderator	.07 (.11)	0.645	−.09 (.04)	−2.114	−.44 (.11)	−3.886
Moderator * SP	.04 (.02)	1.410	.01 (.01)	0.958	.15 (.02)	6.238
	R² = .09, F = 8.016, p < .001		R² = .06, F = 5.059, p < .001		R² = .18, F = 17.041, p < .001
	B (SE)		B (SE)		B (SE)
Conditional effect
Moderator value = 3.2; 2.3					−.25 (.05)
Moderator value = 4.6; 3.8					−.03 (.04)
Moderator value = 5.8; 5.3					.19 (.05)
Moderated mediation index	.01 (.01)		.00 (.00)		.04 (.01)

Note. SE = standard error. The values are significant at p<.05.

With respect to Hypothesis 5, which concerned the moderating role of employees’ need to belong, the results of the moderated mediation analysis revealed that need to belong did not moderate the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and self-esteem needs or control needs (see Table 3). However, the need to belong did moderate the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and belonging needs (Hypothesis 5a: b = −.10, p < .001) as well as meaningful existence needs (Hypothesis 5c: b = −.13, p < .001). Table 3 shows the moderating effect of need to belong on the relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and belonging needs as well as meaningful existence needs: When employees’ need to belong is high, the negative effect of supervisor phubbing on belongingness needs and meaningful existence needs is low. Support for a moderated mediation for belonging needs (Index = −.02, 95% CI [−.041, −.004]) was found (Hypothesis 5a and Hypothesis 5c supported, Hypothesis 5b and Hypothesis 5d not supported).

With respect to power distance, the results of the moderated mediation analysis revealed that power distance moderated the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and (a) belonging needs, (b) self-esteem needs, (c) meaningful existence needs, and (d) control needs. Table 3 shows that when employees’ power distance is low, the negative effects of perceived supervisor phubbing on belonging (Hypothesis 6a: b = −.07, p<.001), self-esteem (Hypothesis 6b: b = .10, p < .000), meaningful existence (Hypothesis 6c: b = .10, p < .000), and control needs (Hypothesis 6d: b = .15, p < .000) are lower. Thus, support for a moderated mediation for belonging needs (Index = −.01, 95% CI [−.027, −.002], self-esteem needs (Index = .05, 95% CI [.021, .074]), meaningful existence needs (Index = −.02, 95% CI [−.034, −.001]), and control needs (Index = .05, 95% CI [.023, .072]) was found (Hypothesis 6a-Hypothesis 6d supported).

Discussion

The aim of this inquiry was to extend our understanding of supervisor phubbing in the workplace and how it lowers followers’ self-esteem through an array of employee needs. As expected, supervisor phubbing lowered employees’ sense of belonging, which is in line with previous studies (e.g., Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; Hales et al., 2018). However, contrary to expectations, employees’ need for control was not affected by phubbing. We believe that this is related to low mean score of the control needs measure; due to the hierarchical nature of relationships between supervisors and subordinates, the latter may generally not feel powerful and not expect to feel powerful during their interactions with their supervisors—regardless of whether the supervisor phubs them or not.

The three fundamental needs that were predicted by supervisor phubbing behavior were positive predictors of employees’ OBSE. However, while the findings supported a fully mediated effect of supervisor phubbing on OBSE via threats to employees’ belongingness and self-esteem needs, we found no mediation via meaningful existence. Thus, while this finding supports Roberts and David’s (2016) claim that phubbing in the workplace can have detrimental consequences for employees’ well-being, and by extension the organization, it also add nuance to this claim by pointing to certain mechanisms upon which the association between supervisor phubbing and OBSE appears to be conditional.

In addition to the aforementioned effects, we also explored the role of rejection sensitivity, need to belong and power distance as potential moderators of the relationship between supervisor phubbing and need threats. Rejection sensitivity did not moderate the relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and fundamental needs. Despite strong evidence of this moderating effect, a few studies, such as Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2018), likewise found no moderating effect of rejection sensitivity on the relationship between phubbing and the experience of ostracism. These findings were explained with reference to previous observations that ostracism experiences appear fairly robust to moderation by individual differences and situational factors. However, as expected, we did find a moderating effect of employees’ workplace need to belong, which suggests that forms of ostracism that are highly situation specific, such as supervisor phubbing in the workplace, may be contingent upon the extent to which these situations matter to persons. The need to belong was operationalized as the extent to which employees attach importance to being accepted by individuals in their workplace. This makes it an important aspect of working life; hence, we argue that without a need to belong, the workplace social context is incomplete, which affects all workplace interactions, including supervisor phubbing and its outcomes.

Finally, the moderation by power distance suggests that supervisor phubbing has a positive effect on needs at high power distances, but a negative effect at low power distances. Power distance is a cultural framework in which high power distance and low power distance are associated with hierarchy and equality, respectively. In high power distance countries, people accept and expect the supervisor to exercise their power and do not expect to participate in the decision-making process (Hofstede, 1980). This interesting finding suggests that in high power distance cultures, phubbing can also be seen as something that followers cannot question and the boss has an inherent right to engage in. A low power distance culture, on the other hand, has a weakening effect on the relationship between phubbing and needs, thus implying that phubbing is considered a bigger problem, as its weakening effect indicates that more phubbing causes greater damages to employees’ needs in cultures with a low power distance.

Managerial Implications

The findings of our study have some managerial implications. First, our study shows that supervisor phubbing is a practice that cannot only be observed in organizations but also affects the working life of employees subjected to it by threatening some of their fundamental needs and thereby lowering their OBSE. OBSE is known to be an important factor for both the well-being of individual employee as well as organizational success, because employees are known to contribute more to the organization when they feel that they are accepted and valued (Pierce et al., 1989; Williams, 2007).

Given the importance of OBSE, this study’s findings are relevant for organizational leaders, who may wish to take action to prevent this supervisor behavior, whether intentional or unintentional, from having a negative effect on employees. For instance, they may wish to develop workplace policies on phone use and/or organize campaigns to increase awareness of the adverse effects of phubbing in the workplace, particularly during face-to-face interactions when employees anticipate receiving the undivided attention of their supervisor (Roberts & David, 2017). As face-to-face interaction is critical to achieve concerted work (Mangrum et al., 2001). Similar to creating smoke-free environments, workplaces may wish to create work spaces in which phone use is restricted, while perhaps also designating specific areas for smartphone use.

Finally, the current study also extends a wide variety of organizational communication research on the positive effects of communication satisfaction (Raina & Roebuck, 2016; Varona, 1996), communication climate (Bartels et al., 2007; Smidts et al., 2001), and supervisor-employee communication (Mikkelson et al., 2015; van Vuuren et al., 2007) on employees’ attitudes toward the organization (e.g., satisfaction, motivation, and organizational commitment). Since phubbing is perceived as a specific new form of possible disrespectful online communication in organizations, managers should be aware of the negative consequences of this behavior. The danger of supervisor phubbing lies in the fact that it could lead to negative perceptions of supervisor-employee communication, leading to less communication satisfaction among employees, which, in turn, could harm the organization overall.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although the present study is the first to investigate supervisors’ phubbing in the workplace, it nevertheless has a few limitations.

First, the data were collected using an online survey and had a cross-sectional nature. Future research could focus on the longitudinal effect of supervisor phubbing at a specific moment in time on employees’ perceptions and behaviors toward the organization in a later stage. To avoid possible common method bias and to be able to investigate the negative organizational effects of supervisor phubbing in the long run.

Future research is also needed to further test the underlying processes of being phubbed at workplace due to the use of specific social media. Research could focus on the moderating or mediating role of for example employees’ feelings of organizational justice (McAllister & Bigley 2002; Schroth & Pradhan Shah, 2000), employees’ perceptions of vertical communication in organizations (Bartels et al., 2010) or negative perceptions of leader-membership-exchange (Rafferty & Restubog, 2011) to explain the relationship between supervisor phubbing and OBSE better.

Finally, this study focused on employee’s perceptions of organizational based self-esteem. Although previous studies have already emphasized the importance of OBSE (Bowling et al., 2010; Pierce et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2018), future studies could more closely examine several specific (negative) behaviors as a consequence of supervisor phubbing. For example, studies show that negative perceptions of supervisor-employee communication is associated with cyberloafing (e.g., private online social media use during work hours; Lim, 2002; Usman et al., 2021). Future research could investigate whether supervisor phubbing eventually leads to this negative online employee behavior via for example OBSE.

Conclusion

Mobile phones provide an important medium for social interactions in social life, including in the workplace. However, excessive mobile phone use affects the quality of relationships in the workplace and creates psychological harm. This study provides a way forward for studying workplace phubbing in greater detail, which ultimately will guide us in how to use technology for functional purposes rather than dysfunctional. This, in turn, will affect both employees and organizations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sajid Bashir

Notes

Author Biographies

Raja Mehtab Yasin is a PhD scholar in HRM at the department of management and social sciences at Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad and he was a visiting research scholar at Department of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, the Netherlands. His research areas are phubbing, smartphone and work ethics.

Sajid Bashir is a professor of Management at the Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad . His research interests include personality, employee attitudes, and application of Human Resource Management in various sectors such as Public Administration, Project Management, Health Care Management, and Hospitality Management. He has published in the American Review of Public Administration, Learning and Individual Differences, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Applied Psychology: An International Review and the International Journal of Project Management, among others.

Mariek Vanden Abeele is associate professor, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University (the Netherlands). Her research focuses on the social implications of mobile communication technology, with a particular focus on children and youths.

Jos Bartels is currently assistant professor in the Department of Communication and Cognition at Tilburg University. His research activities focus on quantitative studies on 1) organizational communication, media usage and organizational identification, 2) corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. He has published in peer-reviewed journals like, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Business Research, British Journal of Management, Journal of Economic Psychology, Journal of Environmental Psychology, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Management Communication Quarterly and Journal of Brand Management.

References

Allen

T. D.

Eby

L. T.

Poteet

M. L.

Lentz

Lima

(2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127

Al-Saggaf

O’Donnell

S. B.

(2019). Phubbing: Perceptions, reasons behind, predictors, and impacts. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.137

Balta

Kircaburun

Griffiths

M. D.

(2020). Neuroticism, trait-fear of missing out, and phubbing: The mediating role of state-fear of missing out and problematic Instagram use. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 18, 628-639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9959-8

Bartels

Peters

de Jong

Pruyn

van der Molen

(2010). Horizontal and vertical communication as determinants of professional and organisational identification. Personnel Review, 39(2), 210-226. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481011017426

Bartels

Pruyn

De Jong

Joustra

(2007). Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 173-190. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.420

Baumeister

R. F.

(Ed.). (1999). The self in social psychology. Psychology Press.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Bowling

N. A.

Eschleman

K. J.

Wang

Kirkendall

Alarcon

(2010). A meta-analysis of the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 601-626. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X454382

Cameron

A. F.

Webster

(2011). Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: Integrating incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organization Science, 22(3), 754-771. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0540

10.

Chan

S. C.

Huang

Snape

Lam

C. K.

(2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108-128. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1797

11.

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

12.

Çikrikci

Ö.

Griffiths

M. D.

Erzen

(2022). Testing the mediating role of phubbing in the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and satisfaction with life. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20, 44-56 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00115-z

13.

Clugston

Howell

J. P.

Dorfman

P. W.

(2000). Dispositional influences on pay preferences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(2), 311-320. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007824118977

14.

David

M. E.

Roberts

J. A.

Christenson

(2018). Too much of a good thing: Investigating the association between actual smartphone use and individual well-being. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 34(3), 265-275. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1349250

15.

Dorfman

P. W.

Howell

J. P.

(1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3(1), 127-150.

16.

Downey

Feldman

S. I.

(1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327-1343. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327

17.

Downey

Lebolt

Rincón

Freitas

A. L.

(1998). Rejection sensitivity and children’s interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074-1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06161.x

18.

Dreher

G. F.

Ash

R. A.

(1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 539-546. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.539

19.

Ferris

D. L.

Brown

D. J.

Berry

J. W.

Lian

(2008). The development and validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348-1366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012743

20.

Ferris

D. L.

Brown

D. J.

Heller

(2009). Organizational supports and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.09.001

21.

Gardner

D. G.

Van Dyne

Pierce

J. L.

(2004). The effects of pay level on organization-based self-esteem and performance: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179041752646

22.

Gerber

Wheeler

(2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 468-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01158.x

23.

Gerber

J. P.

Chang

S. H.

Reimel

(2017). Construct validity of Williams’ ostracism needs threat scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 50-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.008

24.

Gruter

Masters

R. D.

(1986). Ostracism as a social and biological phenomenon: An introduction. Ethology and Sociobiology, 7(3-4), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(86)90043-9

25.

Hales

A. H.

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

26.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

27.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300

28.

Hsiung

H. H.

Tsai

W. C.

(2017). The joint moderating effects of activated negative moods and group voice climate on the relationship between power distance orientation and employee voice behavior. Applied Psychology, 66(3), 487-514.

29.

Jamieson

J. P.

Harkins

S. G.

Williams

K. D.

(2010). Need threat can motivate performance after ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 690-702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209358882

30.

Kawamoto

Ura

Nittono

(2015). Intrapersonal and interpersonal processes of social exclusion. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, Article 62. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00062

31.

Kirkman

B. L.

Shapiro

D. L.

(1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 730-757. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9708210724

32.

Korman

A. K.

(1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied psychology, 54(1, Pt. 1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028656

33.

Krasnova

Abramova

Notter

Baumann

(2016, June). Why phubbing is toxic for your relationship: Understanding the role of smartphone jealousy among “Generation y” users. (Research Paper No. 109). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5c39/610f9ee13c101768b06169153d580605d7ec.pdf

34.

Leary

M. R.

(1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 32-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00008

35.

Leary

M. R.

(2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value: Getting to the root of self-esteem. European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), 75-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280540000007

36.

Leary

M. R.

Kelly

K. M.

Cottrell

C. A.

Schreindorfer

L. S.

(2013). Construct validity of the need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.819511

37.

Lee

(2022). Dynamics of symmetrical communication within organizations: The impacts of channel usage of CEO, managers, and peers. International Journal of Business Communication, 59, 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488418803661

38.

Leung

A. S.

L. Z.

Chen

Y. Y.

Young

M. N.

(2011). The impact of workplace ostracism in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 836-844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.01.004

39.

Lim

V. K.

(2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 675-694. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.161

40.

MacDonald

Leary

M. R.

(2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202-223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202

41.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Fairchild

A. J.

Fritz

M. S.

(2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593-614. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542

42.

Mangrum

F. G.

Fairley

M. S.

Wieder

D. L.

(2001). Informal problem solving in the technology-mediated work place. Journal of Business Communication, 38(3), 315-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194360103800307

43.

McAllister

D. J.

Bigley

G. A.

(2002). Work context and the definition of self: How organizational care influences organization-based self-esteem. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 894-904.

44.

McDaniel

B. T.

Coyne

S. M.

(2016). “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

45.

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

46.

Mikkelson

A. C.

York

J. A.

Arritola

(2015). Communication competence, leadership behaviors, and employee outcomes in supervisor-employee relationships. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 336-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615588542

47.

Miller-Ott

A. E.

Kelly

(2017). A politeness theory analysis of cell-phone usage in the presence of friends. Communication Studies, 68(2), 190-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2017.1299024

48.

Norona

J. C.

Salvatore

J. F.

Welsh

D. P.

Darling

(2014). Rejection sensitivity and adolescents’ perceptions of romantic interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 37(8), 1257-1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.09.003

49.

Pierce

J. L.

Gardner

D. G.

(2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30(5), 591-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.10.001

50.

Pierce

J. L.

Gardner

D. G.

Crowley

(2016). Organization-based self-esteem and well-being: Empirical examination of a spillover effect. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 25(2), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1028377

51.

Pierce

J. L.

Gardner

D. G.

Cummings

L. L.

Dunham

R. B.

(1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 622-648. https://doi.org/10.2307/256437

52.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

53.

Rafferty

A. E.

Restubog

S. L. D.

(2011). The influence of abusive supervisors on followers’ organizational citizenship behaviours: The hidden costs of abusive supervision. British Journal of Management, 22(2), 270-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00732.x

54.

Raina

Roebuck

D. B.

(2016). Exploring cultural influence on managerial communication in relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and the employees’ propensity to leave in the insurance sector of India. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 97-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525453

55.

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

56.

Roberts

J. A.

David

M. E.

(2017). Put down your phone and listen to me: How boss phubbing undermines the psychological conditions necessary for employee engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 206-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.021

57.

Roberts

J. A.

David

M. E.

(2020). Boss phubbing, trust, job satisfaction and employee performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 155. Article 109702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109702

58.

Scandura

T. A.

(1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 169-174. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130206

59.

Schroth

H. A.

Pradhan Shah

(2000). Procedures: Do we really want to know them? An examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 462-471. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.462

60.

Scott

K. D.

(2007). The development and test of an exchange-based model of interpersonal workplace exclusion [Doctoral dissertations, University of Kentucky]. https://www.mobt3ath.com/uplode/book/book-28083.pdf

61.

Scott

K. L.

Shaw

J. D.

Duffy

M. K.

(2008). Merit pay raises and organization-based self-esteem. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(7), 967-980. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.539

62.

Smidts

Pruyn

A. T. H.

Van Riel

C. B.

(2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051-1062. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069448

63.

Staebler

Helbing

Rosenbach

Renneberg

(2011). Rejection sensitivity and borderline personality disorder. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(4), 275-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.705

64.

Twenge

J. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

Tice

D. M.

Stucke

T. S.

(2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058-1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058

65.

Twenge

J. M.

Catanese

K. R.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2002). Social exclusion causes self-defeating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 606-615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.606

66.

Ugur

N. G.

Koc

(2015). Time for digital detox: Misuse of mobile technology and phubbing. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1022-1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.491

67.

Usman

Javed

Shoukat

Bashir

N. A.

(2021). Does meaningful work reduce cyberloafing? Important roles of affective commitment and leader-member exchange. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40, 206-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1683607

68.

Vanden Abeele

M. M. P.

(2019). The social consequences of phubbing: A framework and a research agenda. In Ling

Goggin

Fortunati

Lim

S. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of mobile communication, culture, and information. Oxford University Press. Section 4.3.

69.

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, 562-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.005

70.

Vanden Abeele

M. M. P.

Hendrickson

A. T.

Pollmann

M. 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

71.

van Vuuren

de Jong

M. D.

Seydel

E. R.

(2007). Direct and indirect effects of supervisor communication on organizational commitment. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(2), 116-128. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710744801

72.

Varona

(1996). Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational commitment in three Guatemalan organizations. International Journal of Business Communication, 33(2), 111-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369603300203

73.

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

74.

Williams

K. D.

(1997). Social ostracism. In Kowalski

R. M.

(Ed.), The Plenum series in social/clinical psychology: Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133-170). Springer.

75.

Williams

K. D.

(2001), Ostracism: the power of silence. Guilford Press.

76.

Williams

K. D.

(2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641

77.

Williams

K. D.

(2009). Ostracism: Effects of being excluded and ignored. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 275-314). Academic Press.

78.

L. Z.

Yim

F. H. K.

Kwan

H. K.

Zhang

(2012). Coping with workplace ostracism: The roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee psychological distress. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 178-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01017.x

79.

Yang

Zhang

Kwan

H. K.

Chen

(2018). Crossover effects of servant leadership and job social support on employee spouses: The mediating role of employee organization-based self-esteem. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 595-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2943-3

80.

Zadro

Williams

K. D.

Richardson

(2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006