Maya placed the groceries down on the counter with a heavy thud. She repeated the news about the school, this time raising her voice slightly to cut through the invisible barrier of the device. Marcus finally looked up, but for a lingering second, it was entirely plain to see that he had not registered either version of what she had said.
By the time she had finished putting the milk away in the refrigerator, she had a specific word for the quiet frustration blooming in her chest. She had encountered the term earlier that week in a digital headline, and at the time, it had elicited a brief, amused chuckle. Now, standing in her kitchen, it no longer felt funny.
What Does Phubbing Mean?
Phubbing has emerged in contemporary lexicon as the everyday shorthand for snubbing the person you are physically with by looking at your phone instead of engaging. The lexicographers at Merriam-Webster formally define the phenomenon as “the act of snubbing someone in a social setting by looking at your phone instead of paying attention.”
Linguistically, the portmanteau traces its origins back to May 2012, when Australia’s Macquarie Dictionary collaborated with an advertising agency to combine the words "phone" and "snubbing" into a single, descriptive term for a rapidly growing modern social malady. In the years since, and particularly over the past year, public interest and searches for the word have risen steeply across the United States as digital connectivity increasingly bleeds into physical intimacy.
Between romantic partners, this behavior has become an omnipresent fixture of daily life. In a comprehensive survey of 453 adults conducted by Baylor University and published in the academic journal Computers in Human Behavior, researchers found that 46 percent of respondents reported being phubbed by their romantic partners. Furthermore, 23 percent indicated that this subtle dismissal had directly caused friction and conflict within their relationships.
The researchers leading the study, James Roberts and Meredith David, measured the phenomenon through ordinary, everyday micro-moments: a smartphone kept permanently within arm’s reach or clutched in the hand, a quick, habitual glance at the screen mid-sentence, a device placed face-up where it constantly demands peripheral vision, or a swift check during a natural lull in a conversation. These seemingly harmless habits, researchers note, accumulate over time to create a profound sense of emotional distance.
Connection and Intimacy in the Age of the Phone
While renowned relationship research institutions like the Gottman Institute have not historically studied phubbing under that specific modern label, Dr. John Gottman has written extensively about the corrosive effects of smartphones and technological distractions on marriage in his landmark book, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work.
According to Gottman’s extensive observational research, partners in long-term relationships are constantly making small, verbal and non-verbal bids for each other’s attention, affection, humor, or support. When Maya says, “The school called about Friday,” that statement is a bid for connection. Similarly, a heavy sigh, a shared laugh, or a quick text message sent in the middle of the working day all constitute bids.
The recipient of the bid faces a fundamental choice: they can turn toward the bid, or they can turn away from it. Turning toward a partner’s bid can be as simple as answering a mundane question like, “Are we out of butter?” with an engaged response such as, “I don’t know, let me go check and grab some just in case,” rather than a dismissive shrug. Turning away, conversely, involves a physical shrug, silence, or failing to look up from an ongoing task or screen.
Gottman’s research also outlines a more damaging third response known as turning against, which involves answering a bid with active irritation, such as snapping, “Can’t you see that I’m busy?” A fundamental, habitual tendency to turn toward one’s partner, Gottman writes, serves as the foundational bedrock of trust, emotional connection, and lasting passion within a relationship.
In a famous six-year study of newlyweds conducted by Gottman, the couples who ultimately stayed happily married had successfully turned toward each other’s bids for attention an astounding 86 percent of the time. Conversely, the couples who ultimately divorced had only done so 33 percent of the time during observation. Intriguingly, Gottman found that the vast majority of arguments that couples fought about were not grand, structural disagreements over money or sex. Instead, they grew out of small, everyday bids that had repeatedly gone unanswered.
In another referenced study of young professional couples living in Los Angeles, researchers discovered that spouses spent an average of just thirty-five minutes a week in genuine conversation with each other, a significant portion of which was dedicated strictly to administrative household errands. Gottman identifies the constant, compulsive interruption of personal electronic devices as a primary culprit behind this intimacy deficit.
A smartphone, he observes, acts as an effortless vehicle for turning away. A partner who harbors subconscious anxiety or wishes to avoid a difficult, emotionally heavy conversation will frequently reach for a glowing screen as an immediate escape hatch. Crucially, Gottman adds that this inattention is rarely born out of malice or deliberate cruelty. Instead, people simply fail to notice how intensely habit-forming their devices have become, routinely sidelining their partner’s emotional needs out of pure mindlessness rather than active neglect.
To combat this creeping digital detachment, Gottman recommends taking a partner’s complaints about technological distraction seriously. If a spouse expresses feeling that their partner is more emotionally invested in an electronic screen than in them, that perception constitutes a valid relationship issue, even if the accused partner initially disagrees.
Couples are advised to establish mutually agreed-upon rules of etiquette tailored to their lifestyle, starting with fundamental boundaries such as completely banning texting or checking email during meals, throughout dedicated date nights, or during moments when either partner explicitly needs to talk through something important.
As Gottman notes, most people readily and unquestioningly turn off their devices when entering places of worship, solemn memorial spaces, or dark movie theaters. Extending that same baseline respect, courtesy, and undivided attention to a spouse, he argues, is essential for preserving the health of the partnership.
The contrast in household dynamics became apparent the very next Tuesday in Portland. When Maya walked back through the garage door carrying her grocery bags, the smartphone was resting face down on the kitchen counter, completely out of sight. Marcus immediately asked what the school had communicated about the schedule for Friday. She told him the details, and this time, she only had to say it once.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is phubbing?
Phubbing is the modern practice of snubbing the person you are physically with by looking at your phone instead of paying attention. Merriam-Webster officially recognized and traced the word back to 2012, combining the terms "phone" and "snubbing."
Is phubbing a sign of a bad relationship?
Not necessarily by itself. According to Dr. John Gottman’s relationship research, the critical factor is whether partners consistently turn toward each other’s small, daily bids for attention. A smartphone simply makes it significantly easier to miss those bids unintentionally.
How do I talk to my partner about phubbing?
Gottman suggests taking your partner’s feelings seriously and mutually agreeing on clear rules of etiquette, beginning with simple boundaries like keeping phones away during meals, date nights, or when one of you needs to have a conversation.
How do you stop phubbing?
The recommended approach involves establishing shared technological boundaries together—such as banning texting or email use during meals and date nights—and, if device use has escalated into a broader problem, setting a strict daily time limit for screens and evaluating how it impacts the relationship after a week.
