Abstract
Multitasking on digital devices during social interactions has become increasingly common, but research on this behavior is far from thorough. Expanding on literature of phubbing and technoference, the authors proposed a theoretical framework, digital social multitasking, defined as performing technology-based multitasking during a social interaction, to study the behavior. This mixed-methods study focused on one type of digital social multitasking: phone use during a face-to-face interaction with a friend. Self-report survey data were collected from 222 college students (Mage = 19.87; 82% female; 45% Black or African American, 43% White or European American). Results showed that digital social multitasking mostly took place when the face-to-face interaction was casual, and the majority of the phone-based activities were shared between the participant and the friend. Participants did not hold a negative view of their own or friend’s digital social multitasking, but when they saw their own multitasking as distracting or friend’s multitasking as dismissive, they reported lower friendship quality and higher loneliness. The level of one’s own and friend’s multitasking did not directly associate with friendship quality and loneliness; they only indirectly associated with the well-being outcomes via negative perception of the behavior. Friend’s digital social multitasking had stronger associations with poor socioemotional well-being when the face-to-face interactions were serious in nature. Overall, the socioemotional implications of college emerging adults’ phone use during peer interactions did not seem as alarming as what many may have believed, and the implications were contingent upon the context of the behavior.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is clear that phubbing concerns negative perception of “partner’s” (rather than self’s) multitasking. Conceptually, technoference may involve negative perception of both partner’s and self’s multitasking, but it was not discussed and defined in the original theory. Given that the most commonly used measure of technoference focuses on partner’s technology use (McDaniel and Coyne 2016), and that the scholars who developed the theory saw technoference and phubbing as closely related constructs (e.g., McDaniel and Drouin 2019), the authors of this study regarded technoference as an example of negative perception of partner’s multitasking in the new framework.
References
Ang, C. S., Teo, K. M., Ong, Y. L., & Siak, S. L. (2019). Investigation of a preliminary mixed method of phubbing and social connectedness in adolescents. Addiction and Health, 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.22122/ahj.v11i1.539.
Baron, N. S. (2008). Adjusting the volume: technology and multitasking in discourse control. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp. 177–193). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262113120.003.0014.
Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Becker, M. W., Alzahabi, R., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). Media multitasking is associated with symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0291.
Berg, J. H. (1987). Responsiveness and self-disclosure. In Derlega, V. J. & Berg J. H. (Eds), Self-disclosure: theory, research, and therapy (pp. 101–130). Boston, MA: Springer.
Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: the social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2011). Media multitasking behavior: cofncurrent television and computer usage. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0350.
Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds), Handbook of adolescent psychology: contextual influences on adolescent development ( pp. 74–103). New York: Wiley.
Brown, G., Manago, A. M., & Trimble, J. E. (2016). Tempted to text: college students’ mobile phone use during a face-to-face interaction with a close friend. Emerging Adulthood, 4, 440–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696816630086.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bukowski, W. M., Motzoi, C., & Meyer, F. (2009). Friendship as process, function, and outcome. In K. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski & B. Laursen (Eds), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups ( pp. 217–231). New York: Guilford Press.
Campisi, J., Folan, D., Diehl, G., Kable, T., & Rademeyer, C. (2015). Social media users have different experiences, motivations, and quality of life. Psychiatry Research, 228, 774–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.04.042.
Choi, M., & Toma, C. L. (2014). Social sharing through interpersonal media: patterns and effects on emotional well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.026.
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018.
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48, 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12506.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dong, Y., & Peng, C. J. (2013). Principled missing data methods for researchers. SpringerPlus, 2, 222–239. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-222.
Finlay, A. K., Ram, N., Maggs, J. L., & Caldwell, L. L. (2012). Leisure activities, the social weekend, and alcohol use: evidence from a daily study of first-year college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73, 250–259. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2012.73.250.
Forgays, D. K., Hyman, I., & Schreiber, J. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything: Gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.053.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
Hall, J. A., & Baym, N. K. (2012). Calling and texting (too much): mobile maintenance expectations, (over)dependence, entrapment, and friendship satisfaction. New Media & Society, 14, 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811415047.
Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40, 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys. Research on Aging, 26, 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574.
Karadağ, E., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Şahin, B. M., & Babadağ, B. (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: a structural equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4, 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.005.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds), The uses of mass communications: current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kononova, A., & Chiang, Y.-H. (2015). Why do we multitask with media? Predictors of media multitasking among Internet users in the United States and Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.052.
Lapierre, M. A., & Lewis, M. (2018). Should it stay or should it go now? Smartphones and relational health. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7, 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000119.
Ling, R. (2010). Texting as a life phase medium. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01520.x.
Little, T. D., Jorgensen, T. D., Lang, K. M., & Moore, E. W. (2014). On the joys of missing data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst048.
Liu, D., Baumeister, R. F., Yang, C. C., & Hu, B. (2019). Digital communication media use and psychological well-being: a meta-analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 24, 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz013.
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, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000065.
McDaniel, B. T., & Drouin, M. (2019). Daily technology interruptions and emotional and relational well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.027.
McDaniel, B. T., Galovan, A. M., Cravens, J. D., & Drouin, M. (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.
Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J., & Yuan, M. (2016). The iPhone effect: the quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environment and Behavior, 48, 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514539755.
Morry, M. M. (2005). Allocentrism and friendship satisfaction: the mediating roles of disclosure and closeness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 37, 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087258.
Nesi, J., Choukas-Bradley, S., & Prinstein, M. J. (2018). Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 1—a theoretical framework and application to dyadic peer relationships. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 21, 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-018-0261-x.
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., & Zhou, M. (2012). Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being among 8- to 12-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology, 48, 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027030.
Pew Research Center. (2019). Mobile fact sheet. https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2013). Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512453827.
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.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059.
Shih, S. (2013). A null relationship between media multitasking and well-being. PLoS ONE, 8 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064508
Stieger, S., & Lewetz, D. (2018). A week without using social media: results from an ecological momentary intervention study using smartphones. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21, 618–624. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0070.
Sumner, E. M., & Ramirez, A. (2019). The effects of multimodal communication frequency, geographic distance, and coresidence on parent-child relationship quality during emerging adulthood. Communication Research Reports, 36, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2019.1583552.
Thomas, L., Orme, E., Kerrigan, F. (2020). Student loneliness: the role of social media through life transitions. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103754.
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: the power of talk in a digital age. New York; NY: Penguin Press.
van der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Literature review: the consequences of media multitasking for youth: a review. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.035.
Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Decreases in psychological well-being among American adolescents after 2012 and links to screen time during the rise of smartphone technology. Emotion, 18, 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000403.
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.
Walsh, R. M., Forest, A. L., & Orehek, E. (2020). Self-disclosure on social media: the role of perceived network responsiveness. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106162. Advance online publication.
Wang, X., Xie, X., Wang, Y., Wang, P., & Lei, L. (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.
Wang, X., Zhao, F., Lei, L. (2019). Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction: self-esteem and marital status as moderators. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00275-0.
Weinstein, E. (2018). The social media see-saw: positive and negative influences on adolescents’ affective well-being. New Media & Society, 20, 3597–3623. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818755634.
Xu, S., Wang, Z. J., & David, P. (2016). Media multitasking and well-being of university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.040.
Yan, Z. (2018). Child and adolescent use of mobile phones: an unparalleled complex developmental phenomenon. Child Development, 89, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12821.
Yang, C.-c (2018). Social media as more than a peer space: college freshmen encountering parents on Facebook. Journal of Adolescent Research, 33, 442–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558416659750.
Yang, C.-c (2020). Similar patterns, different implications: first-generation and continuing college students’ social media use and its association with college social adjustment. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120902755. Advance online publication.
Yang, C.-c, & Brown, B. B. (2016). Online self-presentation on Facebook and self development during the college transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 402–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0385-y.
Yang, C.-c, Brown, B. B., & Braun, M. T. (2014). From Facebook to cell calls: layers of electronic intimacy in college students’ interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society, 16, 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812472486.
Yang, C.-c, Holden, S. M., & Carter, M. D. K. (2018). Social media social comparison of ability (but not opinion) predicts lower identity clarity: identity processing style as a mediator. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 2114–2128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0801-6.
Yang, C.-c, & Lee, Y. (2020). Interactants and activities on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter: associations between social media use and social adjustment to college. Applied Developmental Science, 24, 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1440233.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following colleagues for their feedback to the project and/or assistance with data collection: Mollie D. K. Carter, Sean M. Holden, Xu (Lilya) Jiang, and Jessica J. Webb (the names are presented in an alphabetical order).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
C.-c.Y. conceptualized the study, conceived of the design, collected data, performed the statistical analyses, interpreted the results, and composed the paper; K.C. participated in data coding and manuscript editing. All authors read and approved the final paper.
Data Sharing and Declaration
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, Cc., Christofferson, K. On the Phone When We’re Hanging Out: Digital Social Multitasking (DSMT) and Its Socioemotional Implications. J Youth Adolescence 49, 1209–1224 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01230-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01230-0