Workplace Phubbing: Phone Distraction, Attention, and Social Connection at Work
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Workplace phubbing happens when attention moves from a person to a phone during a face-to-face work interaction and the other person experiences that shift as being ignored, sidelined, or treated as less important. It can occur when a manager checks a smartphone during a one-to-one meeting, when coworkers scroll during a shared break, when a teammate repeatedly reads messages while someone is speaking, or when a phone pulls attention away from a professional exchange.
The behavior is common enough to have generated a distinct workplace literature, but the evidence deserves careful reading. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized 21 quantitative studies involving 8,485 employees. Higher perceived workplace phubbing was associated with less favorable organizational and psychological outcomes, including dimensions related to leadership, engagement, and workplace functioning. Yet the evidence base was highly heterogeneous, two-thirds of the included studies were cross-sectional, and only one study fully met the review's robustness criteria. Workplace phubbing is therefore a meaningful interpersonal and attention-related research construct, not a diagnosis and not proof that every glance at a phone causes harm.
The central question is context. A phone can be a work tool, an accessibility device, an emergency channel, a caregiving lifeline, or a source of unnecessary interruption. The same physical action—looking at a screen—can mean very different things depending on why it happens, what it interrupts, whether the other person understands the reason, how often it occurs, and whether it changes communication or performance.
What Is Workplace Phubbing?
Phubbing is a blend of “phone” and “snubbing.” In research, it generally refers to attending to a phone in the presence of another person in a way that displaces attention from the ongoing social interaction. A 2026 systematic review of phubbing across contexts describes the phenomenon as a form of digital disconnection that can occur in romantic, family, friendship, educational, and workplace settings.
Workplace phubbing is the work-context version of that behavior. The 2026 workplace review separates two perspectives: perceived phubbing, in which an employee experiences another person as phubbing them, and enacted phubbing, in which the employee is the person directing attention to the phone. This distinction matters because the person checking the phone and the person observing the behavior may interpret the same moment differently.
Boss or supervisor phubbing
Boss phubbing, also called supervisor or leader phubbing, refers to employees' perception that a manager uses or is distracted by a phone while interacting with them. This is the most extensively studied form of workplace phubbing. The behavior attracts particular interest because supervisory interactions carry status, evaluation, resource, and decision-making consequences. A subordinate who is interrupted by a manager's phone may not feel equally free to challenge the interruption or ask for undivided attention.
Coworker phubbing
Coworker phubbing occurs horizontally between colleagues. It can happen during meetings, collaborative work, informal conversations, shared meals, or breaks. The research base is newer than the supervisor literature. In a 2025 Swedish study of electricians, greater exposure to coworker phubbing during breaks was associated with lower perceived social support, sense of community, horizontal trust, and organizational commitment. The study was observational, so it could not establish that phubbing produced those outcomes.
Enacted phubbing
Enacted phubbing asks a different question: what is associated with the employee's own phone-directed behavior? This is important because workplace research can otherwise treat the person being phubbed as the only relevant perspective. Phone checking may reflect habit, notification pressure, work demands, social norms, uncertainty about availability, or a deliberate task-related choice. The evidence does not justify treating enacted phubbing as a sign of “phone addiction” or another clinical disorder.
Work phone use is not automatically phubbing
Looking at a phone during work is not, by itself, enough to classify an interaction as harmful phubbing. A clinician on call, a parent waiting for an urgent caregiving message, a technician consulting a work app, or a manager checking a time-sensitive operational alert may have a legitimate reason to shift attention. The interpersonal issue emerges when phone-directed attention competes with an interaction and is experienced as disregard, exclusion, or loss of presence.
What Does the Best Current Evidence Show?
The strongest broad evidence available in 2026 is the systematic review and meta-analysis by Bonfanti and colleagues. It included 21 workplace studies and 8,485 employees across sectors. Fourteen studies were cross-sectional, five provided longitudinal data, and two used experimental methods. Only about 4% of the included studies fully met the review's robustness criteria; roughly half were rated at medium risk of bias and roughly half at high risk. That distribution places a clear limit on causal interpretation.
For adverse workplace psychological outcomes, the review pooled eight correlations and found a small-to-moderate average association, r = .257, with a 95% confidence interval from .129 to .385. Heterogeneity was very high (I² = 92.21%), meaning the size and even practical meaning of associations varied substantially across studies and contexts. A pooled association can tell us that perceived phubbing and poorer outcomes tend to travel together across this literature. It cannot tell us that a phone check causes a fixed amount of harm in a particular workplace.
This is a crucial distinction for workplace policy. The evidence supports taking repeated interpersonal phone distraction seriously. It does not support turning every phone-visible moment into misconduct, assuming that screen time is the mechanism, or diagnosing employees from a behavior that may be ordinary, situational, and role-dependent.
How Workplace Phubbing Can Affect Social Connection
Workplace phubbing is fundamentally an allocation-of-attention event. During a conversation, people use eye contact, timing, verbal responses, facial expression, posture, and other cues to infer whether the other person is following, understanding, and responding. A phone can interrupt that reciprocal loop. The social effect does not require the phone user to intend disrespect.
Perceived exclusion
One of the clearest workplace mechanisms is perceived social exclusion. In a study of 407 respondents, Yasin and colleagues found no direct association between supervisor phubbing and organization-based self-esteem. Instead, employees who perceived more supervisor phone use during interactions reported stronger feelings of social exclusion, and those feelings in turn were associated with lower organization-based self-esteem. The absence of a direct effect is informative: the phone behavior does not map mechanically onto every outcome. Interpretation of the interaction matters.
Trust and relational availability
Managerial attention can also function as a cue about availability and trust. In three studies, Roberts and David found that boss phubbing was linked to lower supervisory trust and, through that pathway, lower employee engagement. Their work included both measured perceptions and a situational prime, which strengthens the case that the social meaning of supervisor phone distraction can influence how an interaction is experienced, while still falling short of proving broad long-term workplace effects.
A later pair of US studies by the same authors found that boss phubbing was negatively associated with employee performance through supervisory trust and job satisfaction. The samples included adults working across industries. These are mediation models: they are useful for testing whether observed patterns fit a proposed pathway, but statistical mediation by itself does not establish the full causal chain.
Rapport, belonging, and workplace climate
Coworker phubbing may matter because informal interaction is one route through which people maintain social support and a sense of community at work. Shared breaks are especially interesting: they are often one of the few periods when workers can recover socially rather than only exchange task information. The 2025 Swedish coworker study found that exposure to more active forms of phubbing—such as more overt phone engagement—showed stronger associations with poorer psychosocial-work-environment measures than subtler forms. That result suggests that how a phone is used may matter more than its mere presence.
Workplace Phubbing and Attention
Phubbing has a social side and an attention side. Those should be distinguished. Socially, the other person may experience a loss of responsiveness. Cognitively, the phone user may be shifting attention between the conversation, the device, and whatever task the device represents.
A useful broader concept is digital distraction: phones, apps, alerts, and online cues can compete with an ongoing goal for selective attention and executive control. When the phone is checked, the user may also incur task-switching and resumption demands. None of these mechanisms imply that a person's “attention span” has been permanently damaged.
Notifications can produce measurable short-term disruption even before someone touches the phone. In a 2026 controlled experiment, smartphone-style social-media notifications during a Stroop task produced a transient slowdown in cognitive processing of about seven seconds on average. Effects varied with inferred relevance and habitual interaction frequency rather than total phone time. For a detailed review of this immediate interruption literature, see Notifications and Attention: How Alerts Interrupt Focus and Task Performance.
That experimental notification finding should not be overextended. It was obtained in a controlled cognitive task with university students. It does not prove that workplace phubbing has the same magnitude of effect during every meeting, nor that notifications cause chronic attention impairment. It does show why a phone can create competition for attention even when the person never opens the incoming message.
Conversation attention is not the same as task performance
A colleague can be socially distracted while still completing a task accurately. A manager can glance at a work alert without losing the thread of a conversation. Conversely, a phone check can be brief yet socially consequential if it happens while someone is disclosing a concern, receiving feedback, asking for help, or being evaluated. Social attention and cognitive performance overlap, but they are not interchangeable outcomes.
The task being interrupted matters
Interruption costs depend on the demands of the primary activity. A routine conversation with low memory load is different from a safety briefing, a technical handoff, a performance review, or a problem-solving session in which several dependencies must be held in working memory. Workplace research should therefore be cautious about generalizing from one interaction type to all work.
Does Workplace Phubbing Reduce Performance?
Several studies report associations between supervisor phubbing and lower self-reported or assessed work outcomes, but the strength of the causal claim varies by design.
In a cross-cultural study conducted in Pakistan and the United States, Yousaf and colleagues found that supervisor phubbing was negatively related to employee job performance and work engagement through intrinsic motivation. The two samples included 370 service-sector employees in Pakistan and 352 US participants recruited through Prolific. The cross-cultural replication is useful, yet the models still rely heavily on measured associations and proposed mediation.
A different line of evidence comes from an experimental professional setting. In a 2025 mixed-method experiment, 93 participants completed a simulated job interview in which the interviewer repeatedly phubbed some participants. Phubbing worsened first impressions, judgments, and subjective states; participants also performed a mental-arithmetic task faster during portions when they were not being phubbed. This provides more direct evidence that phone snubbing can affect immediate experience and performance in a high-stakes interaction. Its laboratory-like interview context, however, is narrower than everyday organizational life.
The strongest reason for restraint comes from newer longitudinal evidence. A 2026 three-wave study of 887 Swedish workers examined coworker phubbing during shared breaks across a 12-month period. Coworker phubbing correlated with poorer psychosocial work environment outcomes at baseline, but the researchers found no evidence of the proposed longitudinal effects on social support, sense of community, organizational commitment, or work engagement at the studied time lags. The authors concluded that coworker phubbing may function as a concurrent marker of broader psychosocial-work-environment problems rather than a simple causal driver.
Taken together, current evidence supports an immediate and relationally meaningful phenomenon. It does not support the claim that workplace phubbing is a universal, independent cause of poor performance. In some organizations, phubbing may contribute to distraction or degraded interaction; in others, it may partly reflect existing overload, weak norms, low trust, fragmented communication, or work cultures that already demand constant digital availability.
Why Boss Phubbing Can Carry Extra Weight
The same phone behavior can have different meaning depending on who performs it. Hierarchy changes the interaction. A manager often controls information, feedback, assignments, schedules, opportunities, and evaluation. When a supervisor repeatedly turns toward a phone while a subordinate is speaking, the subordinate may interpret the shift as a cue about priority, respect, or psychological availability.
This does not mean supervisors must never use phones in meetings. It means ambiguity is costlier when power is unequal. A manager can often reduce that ambiguity simply by making the reason visible: “I am waiting for an urgent client update; I may need to check it once.” That explanation changes the social information available to the other person, even though the device behavior may look similar from across the table.
Evidence also suggests possible behavioral transmission. In a three-wave study of head nurses, Khan, Shahzad, and Bartels reported that boss phubbing was associated with lower work meaningfulness and with employees' own phubbing behavior, with self-esteem threat included as a proposed mechanism. This does not establish a universal contagion effect, but it fits the practical observation that leaders help define what counts as normal interactional behavior in a team.
Workplace Phubbing, Withdrawal, and Work Alienation
One possible downstream response to feeling ignored is psychological withdrawal. This term refers to mentally or behaviorally distancing oneself from work rather than to a psychiatric diagnosis.
A two-wave study of 302 Chinese employees found that perceived supervisor phubbing was associated with psychological withdrawal behavior and that work alienation statistically mediated part of that relationship. The authors explicitly noted that their time-lagged design did not establish causality and called for experimental or stronger longitudinal research. That limitation should travel with the finding whenever it is discussed.
The result is best understood as evidence for a plausible interpersonal pathway: repeated experiences of being disregarded by a supervisor may coincide with feeling more detached from work. It is not evidence that phone use automatically causes burnout, depression, anxiety disorder, or another clinical condition.
Workplace Phubbing Is Not the Same as Related Digital Behaviors
Workplace phubbing vs. digital distraction
Digital distraction is broader. It includes any competition between digital cues and a person's current goal, whether or not another person is present. Workplace phubbing specifically adds an interpersonal interaction in which phone-directed attention may be experienced as social disregard.
Workplace phubbing vs. notification interruption
A notification is a cue. Phubbing is a social behavior or perceived interaction pattern. A notification can interrupt a person who is working alone, while phubbing can occur without a new notification—for example, when someone voluntarily opens a feed during a conversation. The immediate cognitive effects of alerts belong to notifications and attention.
Workplace phubbing vs. partner phubbing and technoference
The romantic-relationship literature studies a different social system with different expectations and outcomes. Couple-specific evidence is covered in Phubbing and Technoference in Relationships: How Phones Interrupt Couple Connection. Findings from intimate relationships should not simply be imported into organizational settings.
Workplace phubbing vs. workplace ostracism
Workplace ostracism usually refers to being ignored or excluded by others at work. Phubbing can produce a moment that feels excluding, but the constructs are not identical. A person can experience ostracism without any phone, and a phone check may occur without a broader pattern of exclusion. The supervisor-phubbing literature often studies perceived social exclusion as a mechanism rather than treating phubbing itself as synonymous with ostracism.
Workplace phubbing vs. problematic smartphone use
Repeated phone use can coexist with problematic or dysregulated smartphone behavior, but phubbing alone does not establish it. Frequency of checking, total time, functional impairment, loss of control, context, and consequences are different variables. Workplace phubbing is an interpersonal research construct, not a clinical diagnosis and not proof of “smartphone addiction.”
When Is a Phone Check More Likely to Be Experienced as Phubbing?
Research does not provide a universal cutoff such as “three checks per meeting.” The behavior is interpreted in context. Several features are likely to make the social interruption more salient.
Repeatedness matters. A single glance at an urgent message is different from cycling back to the phone throughout the interaction. Timing matters. Checking during a transition or after asking permission is different from checking while someone is answering a difficult question. Visibility matters. Typing or scrolling while another person speaks provides a stronger competing cue than keeping the device silent and unused. Power matters. A subordinate may experience the same interruption differently when it comes from a supervisor. Task relevance matters. Looking up a document for the conversation is different from opening unrelated content.
Interpretation also depends on norms. In teams where phones are openly used as work tools, some forms of checking may be expected. In settings where a one-to-one conversation signals protected attention, the same behavior may be experienced as a stronger violation. Effective policies therefore need interaction-specific expectations rather than a single moral rule about screens.
Remote and Hybrid Work: Does Phubbing Still Apply?
The classic definition of phubbing focuses on face-to-face interaction, which makes in-person smartphone use the clearest case. Remote work introduces analogous forms of divided digital attention—checking another window during a video call, answering messages while someone speaks, or visibly multitasking—but these are better described as digital distraction, media multitasking, or divided attention unless a study explicitly operationalizes them as phubbing.
This boundary matters scientifically. Calling every form of online multitasking “phubbing” would erase the construct's interpersonal and phone-specific meaning. Hybrid teams may still benefit from the same principle: define what level of synchronous attention the task requires, and make necessary multitasking transparent when it cannot be avoided.
What Employees Can Do Without Treating the Phone as the Enemy
Make necessary phone use legible
When a phone check is genuinely required, a brief explanation can reduce uncertainty: “I need to confirm the delivery time,” or “I am waiting for a call from the hospital.” The point is not to ask permission for ordinary work. It is to prevent the other person from having to guess whether attention disappeared for an urgent reason, a relevant task, or unrelated content.
Reduce avoidable interruption during high-value conversations
Not every interaction needs protected attention. Performance reviews, conflict conversations, safety briefings, complex handoffs, mentoring, interviews, and emotionally difficult discussions often do. Silencing nonessential alerts, using focus modes, or moving the device out of immediate reach can reduce competing cues during these periods. These are attention-management strategies, not treatment for a disorder.
Use deliberate checking windows when the job allows it
Some roles require continuous responsiveness; others do not. When immediate response is unnecessary, batching low-priority checks can preserve longer stretches of uninterrupted conversation or task work. The practical target is not minimum screen time. It is reducing unnecessary switching at moments when presence or cognitive continuity has high value.
Notice the interaction, not only the device
A useful self-check is simple: did the other person have to repeat themselves, pause until the phone was put down, compete with scrolling, or visibly lose the thread of the exchange? Those interactional signals can be more informative than an abstract count of phone pickups.
What Managers and Teams Can Do
Set norms by interaction type
“No phones at work” is usually too crude for environments where phones are legitimate tools. A stronger norm specifies when full attention is expected. A team might protect one-to-one feedback, safety-sensitive discussions, and short decision meetings while allowing device use during operational monitoring, collaborative lookup, or designated breaks.
Create an emergency exception before it is needed
Phone norms work better when people know how urgent exceptions are handled. Employees may need to remain reachable for caregiving, health, disability-related, safety, or operational reasons. A transparent exception structure prevents a presence norm from becoming an accessibility or equity problem.
Reduce organizational causes of constant checking
A workplace cannot plausibly demand instant responses in every channel and then blame employees for checking devices. Notification volume, duplicated messaging systems, unclear escalation rules, after-hours expectations, and meeting overload can all create incentives to monitor phones continuously. Organizations should examine the communication system as well as individual behavior.
Managers should model the norm they request
Because supervisor behavior carries status signals, leaders are especially visible norm setters. If a manager needs to monitor an urgent issue during a meeting, naming that exception can preserve clarity. If the issue is not urgent, putting the phone aside communicates that the conversation has priority.
Address patterns rather than isolated moments
A single ambiguous phone check rarely justifies a sweeping conclusion about respect, motivation, or performance. Repeated patterns that interrupt work or relationships are more actionable. A useful conversation focuses on observable behavior and impact: “During our last three one-to-ones, we stopped several times for messages and had to revisit decisions,” rather than “You are addicted to your phone.”
What Organizations Should Avoid
Organizations should avoid converting an emerging evidence base into simplistic surveillance. The current literature does not justify monitoring every phone pickup, imposing a universal clinical-sounding threshold for acceptable use, or inferring disengagement from screen time alone.
Blanket phone bans can also create practical conflicts in jobs where mobile devices are tools, security credentials, scheduling systems, emergency channels, or accessibility supports. A more defensible approach starts from work requirements and interaction quality: which tasks need protected attention, which digital functions are necessary, which alerts can wait, and how teams communicate exceptions.
The research also does not support viral neurological claims. Workplace phubbing is not evidence that phones have “fried” the brain, depleted a finite attention span, or created “dopamine addiction.” The measurable mechanisms in this topic are narrower: short-term attentional capture, switching, social interpretation, perceived exclusion, trust, and work-related outcomes measured in specific study designs.
How Strong Is the Evidence?
The evidence is meaningful but uneven. The 2026 workplace meta-analysis is a major step because it organizes a fragmented literature and quantifies associations. It also exposes the field's limitations: high heterogeneity, substantial risk of bias, heavy reliance on cross-sectional designs, and varied measures of phubbing and workplace outcomes.
Experimental evidence shows that phubbing can alter immediate social judgments and performance in controlled professional interactions. Longitudinal evidence is beginning to test whether cross-sectional associations persist over time, and at least one large three-wave study found no longitudinal effects across a year for coworker phubbing and several psychosocial outcomes. That mix is exactly why claims should be calibrated to design.
A reasonable evidence statement in 2026 is this: repeated perceived workplace phubbing is associated with poorer relational, organizational, and psychological outcomes in many studies, and controlled experiments suggest that phubbing can affect immediate experience and performance. Evidence for broad long-term causal effects remains limited and heterogeneous.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is workplace phubbing just rude phone use?
It can be experienced as rude, but the research construct is more specific than an etiquette label. It concerns phone-directed attention during an interpersonal interaction and how that behavior is perceived or enacted. Intent, work relevance, frequency, timing, and context all matter.
Is boss phubbing worse than coworker phubbing?
Supervisor phubbing has been studied more extensively and may carry extra social weight because managers hold power over evaluation, resources, and opportunities. The current evidence does not establish a universal numerical rule that boss phubbing is always more harmful than coworker phubbing.
Can workplace phubbing lower productivity?
Some studies associate supervisor phubbing with lower performance and engagement, and an experiment found slower performance during phubbed portions of a simulated job interview task. Much of the wider literature remains observational, so it is more accurate to say phubbing can interfere with attention and is associated with performance-related outcomes than to claim it inevitably reduces productivity.
Does workplace phubbing cause anxiety, depression, or burnout?
Current workplace-phubbing research does not justify a general claim that phubbing causes a clinical disorder. Studies examine outcomes such as exclusion, self-esteem threat, alienation, engagement, trust, job satisfaction, and psychological withdrawal. Those constructs should not be converted into diagnoses.
Is checking a work message phubbing?
It can be perceived that way if it interrupts an interaction, but purpose matters. Checking information needed for the conversation is different from unrelated scrolling. When a work-critical check is necessary, making the reason clear can reduce ambiguity.
Is workplace phubbing a form of phone addiction?
No diagnostic conclusion follows from phubbing. Workplace phubbing is an interpersonal behavior or research construct. The World Health Organization’s ICD-11 materials identify gambling disorder and gaming disorder under disorders due to addictive behaviours; they do not list a standalone “smartphone addiction” diagnosis. Repeated checking can occur for many reasons without establishing any clinical disorder.
Should workplaces ban phones in meetings?
The evidence does not establish a universal phone-ban rule. Some meetings benefit from protected attention; others depend on mobile tools or urgent monitoring. Interaction-specific norms with clear exceptions are more consistent with the evidence than a blanket policy.
What is the simplest way to reduce workplace phubbing?
Protect the moments where attention has the highest interpersonal or cognitive value, silence avoidable alerts during those moments, and explain necessary checks. At the team level, align response-time expectations and emergency channels so people do not need to monitor every notification continuously.
The Bottom Line
Workplace phubbing is best understood as an interaction between digital attention and social context. Phones can interrupt focus, but the workplace consequence does not come from the device alone. It emerges from what the phone interrupts, who is involved, how the behavior is interpreted, whether it is repeated, and what the organization expects people to monitor.
Current research consistently finds associations between perceived phubbing and less favorable workplace outcomes, especially in supervisor-subordinate interactions. Experimental studies show immediate effects are possible. At the same time, newer longitudinal evidence warns against treating every association as a causal pathway. The practical goal is therefore not to eliminate phones from working life. It is to protect attention and social presence when they are necessary for good work, while keeping legitimate digital access available.
Related Articles
References
Bonfanti, R. C., Salerno, L., Giovanelli, C., Giorgi, G., & Ruggieri, S. (2026). The association between phubbing in the workplace context, organizational behaviours and psychological outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2026.2643806
Fournier, H., Fournel, A., Osiurak, F., Koenig, O., Pâris, F., Gaujoux, V., & Ringeval, F. (2026). Attention hijacked: How social media notifications disrupt cognitive processing. Computers in Human Behavior, 179, 108926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2026.108926
Jakhar, M., Gupta, R. K., & Vyas, D. (2026). Digital disconnection: A systematic review of phubbing behavior. Acta Psychologica, 269, 107559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107559
Khan, M. N., Shahzad, K., & Bartels, J. (2022). Examining boss phubbing and employee outcomes through the lens of affective events theory. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 74(5), 877–900. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-07-2021-0198
Martinsson, P., Larsman, P., Allard, K., & Gunnarsson, M. (2025). Coworker phubbing and links to the psychosocial work environment among electricians in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 66(5), 792–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.13121
Martinsson, P., Allard, K., Gunnarsson, M., Thomée, S., & Larsman, P. (2026). Coworker phubbing and psychosocial work environment outcomes: A longitudinal mediation study. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 24, 101288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101288
Ochs, C., Kosnowski, N., Jaunin, A., & Sauer, J. (2025). Professionally phubbed: A mixed-method experiment measuring the effects of phone snubbing behavior during a job interview. Mobile Media & Communication, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579241305717
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
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2020). Boss phubbing, trust, job satisfaction and employee performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109702
World Health Organization. (n.d.). Alcohol, drugs and addictive behaviours: Terminology. https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/alcohol-drugs-and-addictive-behaviours/terminology
Yao, S., & Nie, T. (2023). Boss, Can't You Hear Me? The impact mechanism of supervisor phone snubbing (phubbing) on employee psychological withdrawal behavior. Healthcare, 11(24), 3167. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38132057/
Yasin, R. M., Bashir, S., Vanden Abeele, M., & Bartels, J. (2023). Supervisor phubbing phenomenon in organizations: Determinants and impacts. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(1), 150–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420907120
Yousaf, S., Rasheed, M. I., Kaur, P., Islam, N., & Dhir, A. (2022). The dark side of phubbing in the workplace: Investigating the role of intrinsic motivation and the use of enterprise social media (ESM) in a cross-cultural setting. Journal of Business Research, 143, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.043