EFFECT OF PARTNER PHUBBING ON RELATIONSHIP

SATISFACTION AND TRUST

Research Proposal Report of Semester – III

Session: 2025-26

Submitted for the Degree of Master of Arts in Psychology

Course Code: MPSYC 523

Supervisor: Submitted by:

Dr. Rashmi Rani Vijay Lakshmi Pandey
Assistant Professor M.A. III Semester
ROLL NO. 2512050010039

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

DEEN DAYAL UPADHAYAY GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY

Introduction

In today's digital age, smartphones have become indispensable tools in romantic

relationships, enabling partners to stay connected, bridge long distance gaps, and foster

emotional closeness (Gomes et al.,2021). On the other hand, when a mobile phone is used in the

presence of one's partner, it can distract from the present conversation and be a source of

annoyance and conflict (Miller-Ott & Kelly,2015; Dwyer et al.,2018; Przybylski &

Weinstein,2013).The use of mobile phone during a conversation a is known with the term

phubbing .The term ‘Phubbing’ was coined by the McCann Group in 2012, defining the act of

phone snubbing, which occurs when someone in a social setting shifts attention to a smartphone

instead of engaging with others. This has become a common occurrence in everyday life. It was

further defined by Roberts & David in 2016 as, “any interruption of your conversation with

someone when he or she attends to their cellphone or when you are in close proximity to another

but they use their cellphone instead of communicating with you”. This behavior has been shown

to result in negative consequences,such as emotional disconnection and conflicts. According to

Bouffard et al. (2021), social media apps such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter negatively

impact relationship dynamics because cell phones and social media activities diminish the time

spent and attention given to partners. In partner - phubbing one can distinguish a phubber and a

phubbee.

The phubber is the person who, during a co-present social interaction, focuses all or part

of their attention on their cell phone. The phubbee is the person who is snubbed by their mobile-

using partner (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,2016). Various scholars have noted the negative

effects that partner-phubbing can have on conversation quality and relationship satisfaction
(Vanden Abeele,2020; Vanden Abeele et al.,2016). Using a cell phone during co - present

interaction creates a situation in which one is physically, but not mentally present . Such face- to-

face interactions in which one is ‘absent present’(Gergen,2002) or ‘alone together’(cf

Turkle,2011) is argued to reduce the experienced quality of conversations, which in turn

undermines relationship satisfaction (McDaniel & Coyne,2014). Partner phubbing has emerged

as a significant negative trigger, seriously threatening the quality satisfaction of relationships

among couples. These findings highlight the importance of addressing phubbing to prevent

romantic relationships crises and promote sustainable romantic relationships.

Relationship satisfaction is an interpersonal assessment of one's partner’s positive

feelings and attractiveness to the relationship (Rusbult and Buunk 1993). Relationship

satisfaction has been defined as subjective sense of relational quality arising from evaluations of

the positive and negative dimensions of one's romantic relationships(Fallis et al.,2016,adapted

from Lawrance and Byers,1995).A satisfying relationship is essential for the health Status and

quality of life of both the partners. Relationship satisfaction reflects an evaluation of feelings,

thoughts,and behaviours associated with romantic relationships (Hendrick,1998). Some specific

features of romantic relationship such as love, commitment, communication, trust and intimacy

can provide relative influence in the evaluation and analysis of the quality of relationship.

Relationship satisfaction is adjustment (Locke & Wallace,1959). Relationship satisfaction means

functioning and well- being (Honeycutt,1986; Acitelli,1992). Theories suggest that prominent

qualities like the ability to resolve conflicts, commitment, love, intimacy, trust etc. lead to

satisfaction in a relationship. It is not just the qualities that determine satisfaction in a

relationship,but also the degree to which these expectations are met by their actual experiences.

Relationship satisfaction is the most accurate predictor and interpreter of relationship stability
(Horn et al., 1997). A research conducted on online relationship found that communication

satisfaction, trust and intimacy are the most powerful predictors of relationship satisfaction

(Anderson et al., 2006). Relationship satisfaction, defined as one's overall feelings and attitude

towards their romantic relationship (Fincham & Rogge,2010; Kamp Dush et al.,2008),has been

associated consistently with better physical and mental health (Adamczyk et al.,2001;

Braithwaite & Holt -Lunstad,2017; Wilson & Novak ,2022). Individuals who are less satisfied

with their relationships, for example, tend to have higher rates of depressive symptoms, more

chronic diseases, and are at greater risk of premature mortality, whereas individuals with

satisfying relationships tend to have better health and live longer (Adamczyk et al., 2021; Wilson

& Novak,2022). Romantic relationships Play a crucial role in many aspects of an individual's life

and are associated with long term health outcomes, including morbidity and mortality (Lev-Ari

et al.,2021; Whisman et al.,2018). An extensive body of research points to the importance of

relationship satisfaction as a construct (Buhler et al.,2021). Relationship satisfaction is critical

for both reproductive success and individual health outcomes across the lifespan. Indeed, few

socio- emotional variables predict well-being and longevity more robustly than the quality of

one's romantic relationships. Relationship status is important to relationship satisfaction. For

most adults, romantic relationships are an essential part of the daily social network. A satisfying

romantic can increase trust and happiness between partners (Robles et al.,2014). There is also

significant increase in individual distress when a relationship breaks up (Tashiro and

Crazier,2003). Studies have found that when relationship satisfaction is low , individuals show

lower relationship commitment, care more about the cost of relationship investment

(Rusbult,1980), and seek more alternative relationships.

“ Therefore, it stands to reason that relationship satisfaction is associated with many negative

behaviours.

Most of the attention on negative behaviours is focused on those with high intensity and

great harm ,such as domestic violence, and dating violence (Kaura and Lohman,2007; Ramezani

et al.,2015), while there are few studies on common but easily ignored negative behaviours, such

as phubbing. But it is important to pay attention to these behaviors because the damage they

cause is often long- term. Features which have been found to increase romantic relationship

satisfaction are for example partner support, trust, and intimacy. Furthermore, people tend to

experience greater relationship quality when they perceive that their partner understands them.

Trust is subjective belief in another person's ability to be there,the idea of relying on

someone when the need to be. Rotter (1980) defined trust as “generalized expectancy held by an

individual that the word, promise, or statement of another individual can be relied on”. In

relationships, the concept of trust is the feeling of trust, security and comfort that one person

feels in another person. In relationships, trust has an important place in assessing the quality of

the relationship. Trust is essential for establishing stable and fulfilling romantic relationships

between partners. Trust plays a pivotal role in maintaining functional and fulfilling relationships,

deepening intimacy, and providing continuity (Larzelere and Huston,1980; Kemer et al.,2016).

Lack of trust can lead to negative reactions, lying, low relationship quality perception and

attachment anxiety, negatively impacting relationships (Simpson,2007; Campbell et al.,2010;

Towner et al .,2015). On the other hand, trust positively affects relationship satisfaction in close

romantic relationships (Buyuksahin and Hovardaoglu,2007).

Need for Trust in Romantic Relationship: Trust serves as a glue that binds individuals

together, creating a safe and supportive environment . Laborde, Gonzalez, and Minnis (2015),
concluded in their research study that trust in romantic relationship was related to

fidelity ,emotional intimacy and vulnerability. A successful partnership relies heavily in trust.

Trust encourages self-disclosure which as previously established, increases relationship pleasure

and brings people closure together. According to Pinto et al. (2009), trust serves as an emotional

bond , a link that connects two people. As a result , trust draws people closer together , which

promotes couple relationship pleasure. Trust even directs and preserve partnerships during

difficult and turbulent times . It helps to reinforce expectations , hopes, and confidence through

tough and difficult situations . If there is no trust , relationships are tainted with doubts and

insecurities ,which eventually leads to arguing between couples , discontent, and even the

breakup . Finally , trust- based relationships tend to continue longer and bring more

relationship happiness to the person involved.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Phubbing , a combination of “ partner” and “ phubbing” ( phone snubbing ) ,describes

the act of ignoring a romantic partner in favor of using a smartphone or digital device ( Komnik

,2024; Lutz and Knop ,2020 ). Based on several studies , partner phubbing causes low

relationship satisfaction (Halpern & Katz 2017; Mc Daniel & Coyne , 2016 ; Roberts &

David, 2016; Wang et al., 2017 ). The higher the phubbing behavior , the lower the relationship

satisfaction between married couples in china (Wang et al., 2017 ) and also on couple in United

States (Roberts and David. Based on the research that is conducted by (Mc Daniel & Coyne ,

2016 ; Roberts & David , 2016) find that phubbing damages the romantic relationship

satisfaction which is caused by the conflict ,the decline in the romantic relationship satisfaction

and well being of a person . some previous studies have demonstrated that partner phubbing is

negatively associated with relationship satisfaction (Beukeboom and Pollman , 2021 ; David and

Roberts ,2021). However other findings indicated that partner phubbing is not significantly
related to relationship satisfaction (Cizmeci,2017; Wang et al. , 2021). Although there is no

consensus among previous studies , the phubbing phenomenon has been shown to hinder

personal relationships, potentially altering the fabric of social interactions ( Blachnio et al.,

2021). Recently , Vanden Abeele et al. (2024) tested expectancy violations theory as an

explanation for the negative effect of phubbing their findings indicated that more intensive

phubbing leads to lower perceptions of attentiveness, conversation quality, and relationship

quality , although it does not significantly affects basic psychological needs ( Chotpitaysunondh

and Douglas, 2018; Knausenberger et al., 2022 ; Vanden Abeele et al., 2024). A qualitative

preliminary study conducted by researchers on 7 students aged 19-22 years who have dating

romantic relationships with a relationship duration ranging from 1-6 years found that all

respondents’ partners had neglected their partners when they were communicating directly by

operating the telephone. Attachment theory suggest early life relationship early life relationships

shape adult attachement styles, which in turn affect how individuals engage in and respond to

Pphubbing ( Broning and Wartberg , 2022). Those with high attachment anxiety tend to fear

rejection and abandonment , making them particularly sensitive to perceived relationship threats

such as Pphubbing ( Broning and Wartberg , 2022; Roberts and David ,2016). The cognitive

approach, drawing from Cognitive Behavioral Theory , emphasizes the role of maladaptive

cognitions in shaping emotional and behavioral responses to Pphubbing . Pphubbing threatens

the sense of emotional security and trust within a relationship, particularly among individuals

with anxious or avoidant attachment styles (Wang et al., 2024). Trust in romantic

relationships plays an important role in the development and maintenance of healthy

relationship by contributing positively to the well being of the individuals ( Myers et al., 2004).

Rationale of the Study

 Numerous studies have shown a strong correlation between partner phubbing and

relationship quality. Research indicates that when individuals feel ignored due to their partner’s

phone use, trust, emotional connection, and overall relationship satisfaction decrease. Results

consistently show that partner phubbing is negatively associated with trust and satisfaction

(Roberts & David, 2016; Wang, Xie & Lei, 2017). It was found that when partners are distracted

by their phones during interactions, feelings of neglect and disconnection increase, which

contributes to lower relational stability.

Several studies (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; Krasnova et al., 2016; Chotpitayasunondh &

Douglas, 2018) examined how phubbing disrupts communication, reduces perceived partner

responsiveness, and leads to higher levels of conflict. It has been observed that individuals who

experience frequent phubbing report reduced trust, emotional insecurity, and dissatisfaction

within their relationships. As a result, the quality of interaction decreases, and partners may feel

undervalued or unimportant. It was also determined that phubbing undermines fundamental

relational processes such as attention, empathy, and emotional presence—core components

necessary for building trust and satisfaction. Despite these findings, research still lacks deeper

examination of how partner phubbing jointly impacts both trust and relationship satisfaction as

interconnected variables. Therefore, the present study aims to explore the direct impact of

partner phubbing on trust and relationship satisfaction, addressing this gap and contributing to a

clearer understanding of how digital distractions affect modern romantic relationships.

Objective
The present study aims to elucidate the effect of ‘spouses’ (husbands and wives), and ‘levels’

(low and high) partner phubbing on relationship satisfaction in married couples.

Hypotheses
To meet the after mentioned objective following hypotheses are being proposed:

1. There would be significant main effects of spouses (husbands and wives) on the relationship

satisfaction

2. High as compared to low scorers on partner phubbing would manifest lower indices on the

measure of relationship satisfaction and trust

3. The interaction effects of spouses and levels of partner- phubbing (2 spouses X 2 levels

of partner-phubbing) on behavioral measures (relationship satisfaction and trust) are

exploratory in nature. It is expected that two factor interaction effects would be in

conformity to the main effects of the independent variables on the measures the

dependent variable.

METHODOLOGY

Design of Research

To achieve the objective, low scorer (Mean – 1SD) and high scorer (Mean + 1SD)

participants on partner- phubbing were screened out, and there corresponding scores on the

measures of relationship outcomes – (relationship satisfaction and trust) were analyzed by

employing 2 X2 factorial designs (2 spouse x 2 levels of partner phubbing) on behavioral

measures ( trust and romantic relationship satisfaction ).

Sample

The proposed study was conducted on 100 spouses (husband= 50 and wife= 50) from

Gorakhpur city of Uttar Pradesh by snowball sampling. Several extraneous variables like socio-

economic status marital age, family background, and relationship duration were recorded with
the objective to equate/ match the sample in order to obtain a representative group for the

conduct of the study .

Behavioral Measures

The study under report employed Hindi version of behavioral measures of (i)

Partner Phubbing Scale (PPS; Robert and David, 2016). (ii) Relationship Assessment Scale

(Susan S. Hendrick , 1988). (iii) Trust Scale (Rempel and Holmes , 1986).

(i) Partner Phubbing Scale (PPS; Roberts and David , 2016)

The Partner Phubbing Scale, compromises 9 items that assess the extent to

which individuals experience partner phubbing in their relationships. The scale has

demonstrated strong psychometric properties , including high internal consistency , with a

cronbach’s alpha of 0.83, including the reliable measurement . Additionally , the scale has

been validated across different cultural context , including adaptations for Iranian and Brazilian

populations, which confirmed it’s reliability and validity in measuring partner phubbing

behaviors in diverse setting .

(ii) Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Susan S. Hendrick, 1988)

The Relationship Assessment Scale was designed to measure individuals’ satisfaction with

their romantic relationships. The scale consists of 7 statements that evaluates various aspects

the relationship ,such as love ,commitment , communication , and overall satisfaction .

Responses are rated on five-point Likert scale ( from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree).

RAS shows moderate to high correlations with measures of marital satisfaction , good test-
retest reliability and consistent measurement properties across samples of ethnically diverse and

age diverse couples.

(iii) Trust Scale (Rempel and Holmes , 1986)

The Trust Scale measure trust within close interpersonal relationship, a 18-item scale. The

scale is divided into 3 subscales viz .predictability( how consistent and reliable a partner’s

behavior is ), dependability (confidence in the partner’s honesty and integrity ),and faith ( believe

that the partner will remain caring and responsive even in uncertain situations ). Items are rated

on a 7-point Likert type scale which range from 1(strongly disagree ) to 7(strongly agree) for

items 1,2,4,7,9,10,11,14,18 and 7(strongly disagree) to 1 (strongly agree) for items

3,5,6,8,12,13,15,16,17. High scores reflect better trust in relationship. The overall Cronbach’s

alpha was calculated to be .81, along with subscales reliabilities of .80 for faith, .72 for

dependability, and .70 for predictability.

Procedure

First of all , good rapport will established with the respondent, kept relaxed and

pleasant in order to elicit the most frank or candid answers possible , advised not dwell for any

length of time on any given item , to give his overall reaction , will informed that there is no

right or wrong answer to any item , and encouraged to respond rapidly and the way they really

feel. The three behavioral measures will administered on the respondents in a random manner.

Statistical Analysis
 Two-way analyses of variance (2 x 2 ANOVA) used to highlight main and interaction

effects of spouse and levels of partner phubbing on relationship satisfaction and trust.

Implications:

The findings of the study will add to the existing body of knowledge in this area of

research. Moreover, the findings of this study may demonstrated that partner phubbing can

disrupt emotional connection by weakening trust and lowering relationship satisfaction . These

findings underline the importance of mindful technology use in romantic relationships. The

study also encourages future research to examine how everyday digital behaviors shape intimacy

in modern relationship.

References

Aagaard J. (2019). Digital akrasia: A qualitative study of phubbing. Al & Socıety, 35(1), 237–
244. [Link]
Abdel-Khalek, A.M. (2013). Love of life and its association with personality dimension in
college students. In: Sarracino, F. (eds) The happiness compass: Theories, actions
and perspectives for well-being, Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science, pp. 53–65.

Abeele M. M. V., 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. [Link]
Abeele, M. M. V., Hendrickson, A. T., Pollmann, M. M., and Ling, R. (2019). Phubbing
behavior in conversations and its relation to perceived conversation intimacy and
distraction: an exploratory observation study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 100, 35–47.
Alferi, S.M., Carver, C.S., Antoni, M.H., Weiss, S., & Duran, R.E. (2001). An exploratory study
of social support, distress, and life disruption among low income Hispanic women
under treatment for early stage breast cancer. Health Psychology, 20(1), 41-46.

Aljasin, S. (2022). Presert but absent in the digital age testing a conceptual model of Prabang and
relationship satisfaction among marned couples Hum Behav Emerg Technox 2022

Allred. R. 3. (20201 Cell phone presence, phubbing and rejection Antecedents and effects of cell
phorie usage ituring face to-face communication Mansfiest: CT. University of
Connecticut

Al-Saggaf Y., MacCulloch R., Wiener K. (2018). Trait boredom is a predictor of phubbing
frequency. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 1–8(3), 245–
252. [Link]
Anderson, T. L., & Emmers-Sommer, I M. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in
online romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 57(2), 153-172.

Ansirt S. Areem, A. Khan and Istui N (2024) Association of Phubbing Behavior and Fear of
misang out a systematic review and Meta-arveysis, Cyberpsychol Behav Soc.
Netw 27, 467-481. do 10 1000/cyber 20230761

Arikewuyo, A. O., Eluwole, K. K., & Özad, B. (2020). Influence of lack of trust on romantic
relationship problems: The mediating role of partner cell phone snooping.
Psychological Reports, 124(1), 348-365.

Arpacıoğlu, S., Dönmez, B., Ayık, B., & Karadere, M. E. (2022). Romantik ilişkilerde
kıskançlığım benlik saygısı, empati becerisi, güven, ilişki kalitesi ve çeşitli
faktörler üzerinden incelenmesi [Examination of jealousy in romantic
relationships based on self-esteem, empathy skills, trust, relationship quality and
various factors). Journal of Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research,
11(2), 116-124. [Link] 114837

Arshad, A., & Imran, H. (2022). Partner phubbing, romantic jealousy and marital satisfaction
among married individuals. Applied Psychology Review, 1(2), 01-06.
[Link] 32350/apr.12.01
Arshad. A. and Imran H 2022) Partner phutiting, romantic jealousy and marital satotaction
among married individuals Appi Pychol Rev 1.1-6 do 10 12150/apr1201

Atak, H., & Taştan, N. (2012). Romantik ilişkiler ve aşk. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, 4(4),
520-546. [Link] 20120431

Aytug 2. G. Rothstein. Zhou, W. and Rem MC 2012) Revealed or concealed? Transparency of

procedures, decisions and judgment calls in Meta-analyses Organ les 15. 103-133

Back, M. D., Krause, S., Hirschmuller, S., Stopfer, J. M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2009).
Unraveling the three faces of self-esteem. A new information-processing
sociometer perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 933-937,
[Link] jrp.2009.04.002

Bata 5. En Katurun and Gerths MD (20201 Neuroticom rail fear of mangout, and Prutibing the
mediating reie of state fear of masing out and protematic Instagram used J Med
Heal Adet 15. 628-639.00

Bat-Sokeact SJ, and Defleur M. L. 11976) A dependency model of mass media effects Cornu
Rex 3.3-21 10:1577/009345027000300101

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
497-529.

Begüm, S., & Deniz, M. E. (2018). Cinsiyetin romantik ilişki doyumu üzerindeki etkisi: Bir
meta-analiz çalışması. [Gender differences in romantic relationship satisfaction: A
meta-analysis study). Elementary Education Online, 17(2), 1077-1095.
[Link] 2018.419356

Berry, H.L., & Welsh, J. A. (2010). Social capital and health in Australia: An overview from the
household, income and labour dynamics in Australia survey. Social Science &
Medicine, 70 (4), 588-596.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Interpersonal attraction and close relationships. In S. Fiske,
D., Gilbert, G., Lindzey, E., & Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, 2,
(pp.193-281). New York: Random House

Blanchard, V. L., Hawkins, A. J., Baldwin, S. A., & ve Fawcett, E. B. (2009). Investigating the
effects of marriage and relationship education on couples' communication skills:
A meta-analytic study. Journal of Family Psychology: IFP Journal of the
Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association
(Division 43), 23(2), 203-214. [Link]

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and
determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 62(4), 964-980.
Broning, S., & Wartberg, L. (2022), Attached to your smartphone? A dyadic perspective on
perceived partner phubbing and attachment in long-term couple relationships.
Computers in Human Behavior, 126, Article, 106996.
[Link]

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4),
822-848.
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional
communication, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1-2), 30-48
hups://doi. org/10.1177/0261927493121003

Cacioppo, J.T., Hughes, M.E., Waite, L.J., Hawkely, L.C., & Thisted, R.A. (2006). Loneliness as
a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: cross-sectional and longitudinal
analyses. Psychology and Aging, 21(1), 140-151.

Camelley, K. B. Vowels, L. M, Stanton, S. C.,Millings, A., & Hart, C. M. (2023).

Cameron, A. F., & Webster, J. (2011). Relational outcomes of multicummunicating: Integrating

incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organization Science, 22(3), 754-771.
httpsc/[Link]/10.1287/onic 1100.0540
Campbell, L., Boldry, J., Simpson, J., & Rubin, H. (2010). Trust, variability in relationship
evaluations, and relationship processes. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 99(1), 14-31

Campbell, L., Boldry, J., Simpson, J., & Rubin, H. (2010). Trust, variability in relationship
evaluations, and relationship processes. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 99(1), 14-31

Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J. G., & Rubin, H. (2010). Trust, variability in relationship
evaluations, and relationship processes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 9911, 14-31. [Link]

Campbell, L., Simpson, J.A., Boldry,J., & Kashy, D. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support
in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 88, 510531.

Carsel, T.S. (2020). In context we trust: social-cognitive theory of trust. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Illinois, Chicago Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A.,
Boldry, J. G., Collins, W.A., Welsh, D.P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent
romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 25.1- 25.22.

Carsel, T.S. (2020). In context we trust: social-cognitive theory of trust. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Illinois, Chicago Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A.,
Boldry, J. G., Collins, W.A., Welsh, D.P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent
romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 25.1- 25.22.

Choi, S, & Han, G. (2008). Trust and distrust sociocultural perspectives. Charlotte, NC
Information Age Publishing Inc.

Choi, S, & Han, G. (2008). Trust and distrust sociocultural perspectives. Charlotte, NC
Information Age Publishing Inc.

Chotpitayasunondh, V.; Douglas, K.M. Measuring Phone Snubbing Behavior Development and
Validation of the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP) and the Generic Scale of
Being Phubbed (GSBP). Comput. Hum. Behav 2018, 88, 5-17.
Demir, M. (2008). Sweetheart, you really make me happy: Romantic relationship quality and
personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 9, 257–277.

Dunn, M. G., & O'Brien, K. M. (2009). Psychological Health and Meaning in Life. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31(2), 204-227.

Ellis, A. (1960). The Art and Science of Love. New York: Lyle Stuart

Fisher, H. (2004). Why we love: The nature and the chemistry of romantic love. New York, NY:
Henry Holt.

Floyd, K. (2006) Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context.

Cambridge University Press.
Floyd, K. (2006). Human affection exchange: XII. Affectionate communication is associated
with diurnal variation in salivary free cortisol. Western Journal of
Communication, 70, 47–63.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology,
2(3), 300-319.

Freitag, M., Traummuller, R. (2009). Spheres of trust: An empirical analysis of the foundations
of particularized and generalized trust. European Journal of Political Research,
Net Industries. Trast- the impact of trust in established relationships. Retrieved
from [Link]
[Link]

Freitag, M., Traummuller, R. (2009). Spheres of trust: An empirical analysis of the foundations
of particularized and generalized trust. European Journal of Political Research,
48(6), [Link]: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.00849 x. Retrieved from
[Link]

Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI). Journal of Family
Psychologie, 21,57-583.
Glenn, N. D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality in the 1980s: A critical review.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(4), 818-831
Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2013). Close encounters: Communication in
relationships. Sage Publications.
Hendrick, S. 5. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 93-98
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 15(1), 137-142

Man n-Daz, V., Muñoz-González, J.M., Sampedro-Requena, B.E. Problematic relationships with
Smartphones of Spanish and Colombian University Students. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2020, 17,5370.

Net Industries. Trast- the impact of trust in established relationships. Retrieved from
[Link]
[Link]

Pistole, M., Roberts, A., & Chapman, M. (2010). Attachment, relationship maintenance, and
stress in long distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Journal of
Social & Personal Relationships, 27(4), [Link].1177/0265407510363427

Pistole, M., Roberts, A., & Chapman, M. (2010). Attachment, relationship maintenance, and
stress in long distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Journal of
Social & Personal Relationships, 27(4), [Link].1177/0265407510363427

Pistole, MC, Roberts, A, &Mosko, J.E. (2010). Commitment predictors: long-distance versus
geographically close relationships. Journal of Counseling and Development, 88
Retrieved from

Pistole, MC, Roberts, A, &Mosko, J.E. (2010). Commitment predictors: long-distance versus
geographically close relationships. Journal of Counseling and Development, 88
Retrieved from
Roberts, J., Yaya, L., Manolis, C. The Invisible Addiction: Cell-Phone Activities and Addiction
among Male and Female College Students. / Behav. Addict. 2014, 3, 254-265.