TL;DR
Get gifts for the two of you delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
The Gottman Institute’s report describes phubbing—looking at a phone instead of paying attention to someone nearby—as a common relationship friction point that may happen without deliberate intent. It cites a survey in which 46% of 453 adults said a partner phubbed them, while 23% said it caused conflict. The report recommends discussing the behavior and setting shared expectations for phone use.
The Gottman Institute has published guidance on “phubbing”—looking at a phone instead of paying attention to someone nearby—arguing that the habit can leave a partner feeling ignored even when the behavior is not deliberate. The report points to a survey in which nearly half of 453 adults said a partner phubbed them, and recommends taking complaints seriously and agreeing on phone-use rules together.
The term phubbing combines “phone” and “snubbing.” Merriam-Webster defines it as snubbing someone in a social setting by looking at a phone instead of paying attention. The Gottman Institute’s report uses ordinary examples: checking a screen while a partner is speaking, keeping a phone in hand during a conversation, or looking at it during a pause.
The report cites a Baylor University survey of 453 adults, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior. In that survey, 46% said their partner phubbed them, and 23% said the behavior had caused conflict. Those figures describe the surveyed adults; the source does not provide a broader population estimate or a survey date.
The Gottman Institute says it has not studied phubbing specifically. It connects phone distraction to relationship research on “bids” for attention, affection, humor or support. A partner mentioning a school call, for example, may be seeking engagement. A response can turn toward that bid, ignore it, or answer with irritation. The report says devices can make it easier to turn away, while also stressing that inattention may reflect habit or mindlessness rather than malice.
How Small Misses Affect Connection
The concern in the report is not that every glance at a screen signals a relationship problem. It is that repeated interruptions can shape how available and heard a partner feels. When one person makes a small attempt to connect and the other repeatedly does not respond, the first may experience the pattern as rejection, regardless of the phone user’s intention.
The Institute draws on John Gottman’s writing about bids and relationship connection, rather than presenting phubbing-specific findings of its own. It cites a six-year study of newlyweds in which couples who stayed married turned toward each other’s bids 86% of the time, compared with 33% among couples who divorced. That comparison concerns responses to bids in the cited research; it does not establish that phone use caused those relationship outcomes.
For readers, the practical point is to discuss the effect of the habit rather than assume intent. A shared rule—such as putting phones away during meals or when either person needs to talk—can make expectations clearer. The report advises treating a partner’s complaint as a real concern, even when the other person sees the behavior differently.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Institute’s Bids Framework
The report places phubbing within a framework developed in John Gottman’s work on couples. A “bid” can be a direct question, a comment, a sigh or a message. The other person can turn toward it with a response, turn away by not engaging, or turn against it with irritation. The source presents these as ways of understanding everyday interaction, not as a diagnosis of a couple.
Gottman’s writing also warns that technology can interrupt conversation or offer a way to avoid a difficult exchange. The report says people may not notice how habitual their device use has become, and characterizes some unmet needs as arising from “mindlessness, not malice.” It recommends beginning with concrete agreements, including no texting or email at meals, on date nights, or during conversations that need attention.
The Institute also offers an Electronic Distractions Quiz with ten statements, scored from Rarely to Often. Its published guidance groups scores of 0–10 as not a serious issue, 11–20 as a reason for conversation, and 21–30 as a prompt to agree on a daily screen limit for a week and revisit the arrangement. These are the Institute’s suggested discussion thresholds, not a clinical assessment.
““out of mindlessness, not malice.””
— The Gottman Institute, quoting John Gottman
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Survey Cannot Establish
The survey figures show what 453 adults reported; the source does not give the survey date, sampling details or enough information to determine how representative the group was. The percentages should not be read as estimates for all couples. Nor does the cited survey, as summarized in the report, show that phubbing alone caused relationship conflict.
The Institute says it has not conducted research specifically on phubbing. Its discussion connects the behavior with broader work on attention and relationship bids, but it does not establish that every phone check is harmful or that a particular screen-time limit will work for every couple. The report also does not quantify the claim that searches for the term rose in the United States over the past year.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Agree on Rules and Revisit Them
The report recommends that partners start by describing what happens and how it feels, then agree on specific phone-use expectations that suit both people. Examples include putting devices aside at meals or during important conversations, and setting agreed times or places for calls and messages. The Institute’s quiz suggests revisiting a screen-time agreement after one week, but it does not present that schedule as a formal treatment plan.
If the same conflict keeps returning, or if the issue seems to involve broader difficulty communicating or connecting, the Institute points readers toward further material on turning toward bids, emotional availability and recurring relationship disagreements. The source does not report new research or a formal intervention beyond this guidance; whether the suggested rules improve a particular relationship will depend on the people involved.
mindfulness meditation for couples
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What does phubbing mean?
Phubbing is looking at a phone instead of paying attention to someone who is physically present. Examples include checking a screen mid-sentence or keeping a phone in hand during a conversation.
Does phubbing always mean someone is being rude on purpose?
No. The Gottman Institute’s report says phone distraction may happen through habit or mindlessness rather than malice. That does not mean the impact on a partner is irrelevant.
How common did the cited survey find it to be?
In the Baylor University survey cited by the report, 46% of 453 adults said their partner phubbed them, and 23% said it had caused conflict. These are survey responses, not estimates for all couples.
What does the report suggest couples do?
It advises taking a partner’s concern seriously and agreeing on practical rules, such as putting phones away during meals or important conversations. The rules should be discussed and agreed on by both partners.
Is the Electronic Distractions Quiz a clinical test?
The source presents it as a short self-assessment to help couples discuss device use. It does not describe the quiz as a clinical diagnosis, and its score ranges are the Institute’s own discussion guidance.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
