Replication of the Mere Presence Hypothesis: The ...

Communication Studies

ISSN: 1051-0974 (Print) 1745-1035 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20

Replication of the Mere Presence Hypothesis: The Effects of Cell Phones on Face-to-Face Conversations John P. Crowley, Ryan J. Allred, Julianna Follon & Carly Volkmer To cite this article: John P. Crowley, Ryan J. Allred, Julianna Follon & Carly Volkmer (2018) Replication of the Mere Presence Hypothesis: The Effects of Cell Phones on Face-to-Face Conversations, Communication Studies, 69:3, 283-293, DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2018.1467941 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1467941

Published online: 14 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcst20

Communication Studies Vol. 69, No. 3, 2018, pp. 283–293

Replication of the Mere Presence Hypothesis: The Effects of Cell Phones on Face-to-Face Conversations John P. Crowley, Ryan J. Allred, Julianna Follon, & Carly Volkmer

Research on the mere presence hypothesis shows mixed findings for the effects of cell phone presence on various conversation outcomes. The current study performed a partial replication of Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study, which showed that strangers were likely to report lower levels of relational quality and empathy (among other variables) when a cell phone was placed in their view, particularly when their conversations were rated as meaningful. The results of the current study failed to replicate Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) findings, because cell phone presence did not significantly influence relational quality or empathy, nor was meaningfulness a moderator of cell phone presence on conversation outcomes. Changing norms in cell phone usage and competing explanations for cell phone effects are explored as possible explanations for the failure to replicate. Keywords: Cell Phone Presence; Mobile Technology; Interpersonal Communication

Innovation surrounding the turn of the 21st century introduced an increase in cell phone presence during interpersonal conversations. As a result, research has sought to understand the effects of cell phones on the quality of face-to-face (FTF) conversations. Early findings suggest that texting (Shuter & Chattopadhyay, 2010), calling (Pettigrew, 2009), using other cell phone functions (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015), and even the mere presence of cell phones (Allred & Crowley, 2017) during conversations John P. Crowley is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington. Ryan J. Allred is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication at the University of Connecticut. Julianna Follon and Carly Volkmer were undergraduate students at Colorado State University during the time of data collection for this study. Correspondence to: John P. Crowley, 4060 E Stevens Way NE, Seattle, WA 98195. E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) © 2018 Central States Communication Association DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1467941

284

J. P. Crowley et al.

may lead to negative outcomes. Each year, however, cell phone access continues to increase (Pew Research, 2017). Individuals, particularly those in younger generations, are more likely to own, use, and expect access to cell phones in every day contexts (Rotondi, Stanca, & Tomasuolo, 2017). As technology increasingly becomes a part of everyday human interaction, it is important for scholars to investigate how cell phone presence, along with contemporary attitudes of cell phone usage, influence interpersonal communication. This research is particularly important, given claims by scholars that technologies such as cell phones are fundamentally changing the nature of human relationships (Turkle, 2011). The mere presence hypothesis proffers that cell phones act as an environmental distraction that is disruptive for conversation partners (Gergen, 2002; Misra, Cheng, Genevie, & Yuan, 2016). Experimental tests of the mere presence hypothesis have revealed negative effects of cell phones on empathy, relational quality, and partner closeness (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013), but other research suggests that it may be the perception that cell phones are present, not their actual presence, that yields negative outcomes (Allred & Crowley, 2017). Inconsistencies and a lack of clarity concerning the effects of cell phone presence on FTF conversations warrant additional investigation. The present study seeks to clarify mixed findings on the mere presence hypothesis through a partial replication of Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study, which found that cell phone presence negatively impacted various indicators of conversation quality. In the five years since their study was published, the affordances of cell phones have changed, as have norms surrounding their usage (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). For example, in 2013, 51% of adults in America owned smart phones, whereas, in 2017, 77% of adults in America owned smart phones (Pew Research, 2017). This increase in ownership not only suggests the likelihood that phones will be more commonly present during conversations but may also indicate a general increase in acceptance toward having cell phones accessible during FTF interactions. Przybylski and Weinstein (2013) conducted two experiments in which they manipulated the presence of cell phones during stranger interactions. The first of their experiments examined the impact of cell phone presence on relational quality and closeness, controlling for the influence of conversation partners’ positive affect. The results of the first experiment identified lower levels of reported closeness and relational quality among strangers who interacted with a cell phone within their visual field. In the second experiment the authors sought to uncover whether the meaningfulness of stranger conversations moderated the influence of cell phone presence on two additional relational outcomes, interpersonal trust and perceived partner empathy, as well as with relational quality. Meaningfulness was manipulated by assigning participants to a topic that was either casual (i.e., plastic holiday trees) or meaningful (i.e., events of the past year). The results of the second experiment identified that, among meaningful conversations, the presence of a cell phone negatively impacted partner trust, empathy, and relational quality.

Replication of the Mere Presence Hypothesis 285

The current study adapted Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study in two ways to increase the face validity of the experimental design and therefore represents a partial replication (Hendrick, 1990). Rather than investigating conversations occurring between two strangers, participants interacted with a stranger confederate to better approximate realistic manipulations of cell phone absence or presence. Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study included a cell phone on a table that was owned by neither participant. However, cell phone presence may negatively impact conversation quality because individuals feel that they are competing with imagined others who are accessible through their conversation partner’s cell phone (Gergen, 2002). Therefore, the current study instructed confederates to place their phones in view of participants as opposed to having a nondescript phone in view of two strangers. Hence, in a way consistent with Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study, we postulate that the presence of a confederate’s cell phone will negatively impact reports of relationship quality and empathy. Moreover, we investigate this question among conversations rated as more or less meaningful to determine whether meaningfulness is a moderator of cell phone presence and its impacts on conversation outcomes. H1: The presence of a cell phone will negatively influence participants’ reports of relationship quality. H2: The presence of a cell phone will negatively influence participants’ perceptions of empathy. H3a-b: The relationship between cell phone presence and outcomes associated with conversations (relationship qualitya and empathyb) will be moderated by the reported meaningfulness of the conversation topic.

Method Sample Participants (N = 87) were 28.7% males and 71.3% females, and identified as Caucasian (67.8%), Hispanic (12.6%), Black/African American (12.6%), Asian/Pacific Islander (5.7%), and Native American (1.1%). The age of participants ranged from 18 to 27 (M = 20.3, SD = 1.60). The sample was composed of first-year (11.5%), second-year (49.4%), third-year (14.9%), and fourth-year college students (23.0%), as well as college graduates (1.1%).

Procedure After obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board, participants were recruited from communication courses at a large midwestern university where they were offered extra credit for participation. An investigator met with all participants to obtain consent, explain the nature of the study, and schedule a lab appointment, which was estimated to take 30 minutes. On the day of their lab appointment, participants were greeted by an investigator who escorted them to a space where they completed a pretest survey, including demographic questions. The pretest

286


survey also informed participants that they would participate in a 10-minute conversation with a conversation partner (referred to below as a confederate). Participants were provided with a list of 10 conversation topics and asked to select up to three from the list to guide their conversation with the confederate. Conversation topics were developed by the researchers and, consistent with Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study, reflected topics that represented either meaningful events or meaningful relationships (i.e., favorite college course, mentor, best friend, overcoming a challenge, favorite childhood memory, a family activity, helping a friend to overcome a challenge, how they met a significant other, a sports memory, or a favorite vacation). Participants were then randomly assigned to either a cell phone presence or cell phone absence group and led to a separate space where one of three confederates had prepared for their conversation. The environment for the conversation between confederate and participant included two chairs situated diagonally across from one another, a small coffee table in between the chairs, and a small house plant placed to the left side of the confederate’s chair and another to the left of the participant’s chair. During conversations assigned to the cell phone presence group, confederates placed their own cell phones in a clearly visible location on the coffee table within the first minute of the conversation. After 10 minutes of conversation, participants were escorted back to the original space and asked to take a posttest survey. Posttest surveys instructed participants to report the topics that they discussed with their confederate as well as their perceptions of relationship quality and empathy for their confederate. Upon completing the posttest survey, participants were provided debriefing forms and dismissed.

Confederate Training Confederates were selected from upper-level division undergraduate communication courses and consisted of two females (confederate 1 and confederate 2) and one male (confederate 3). Confederate 1 participated in 32 conversations (7 male participants and 25 female participants), confederate 2 in 25 conversations (7 male participants and 18 female participants), and confederate 3 in 30 conversations (11 male participants and 19 female participants). Prior to actual study conversations, confederates completed two stages of training. First, confederates were trained to communicate similarly across conditions. Specifically, they were trained to maintain consistent levels of nonverbal (e.g., smiling, eye gaze, vocal tone) and verbal (e.g., greeting participants, asking questions) communication. This training ensured that confederates communicated similarly regardless of cell phone presence. Once confederates successfully demonstrated a sufficient level of conversational consistency, they trained in actual conversations with the investigator both with and without the presence of a cell phone. The investigator provided further feedback to confederates on their level of consistency and made suggestions for adjustments.


Measures All items were measured by using Likert-type scales ranging from 1–7 where the higher number indicated a greater intensity of the variable. Items from each scale were averaged to create individual scores for each variable. Relationship Quality Consistent with Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study, relationship quality was measured by using a six-item version of the connectedness subscale from McAuley, Duncan, and Tammen’s (1989) Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. To measure the degree to which participants felt connected to the confederate, participants were asked to report their level of agreement with specific statements (e.g., “I felt close to my conversation partner”; “It is likely that my conversation partner and I could become better friends if we interacted a lot”; “I felt really distant from my conversation partner”). Scale reliability was acceptable (α = .89). Empathy To measure empathy, this study adapted seven-items from the empathic concern subscale of Davis’s (1980) Differences in Empathy Measure (e.g., “My conversation partner has tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than them”; “My conversation partner is not a soft-hearted person”; “My conversation partner would not feel sorry for other people when they are having problems”). Initial scale reliability was below acceptable limits (α = .67). One item was subsequently deleted (i.e., “My conversation partner would feel very much pity when they see someone being treated unfairly”) to increase reliability to an acceptable level (α = .74).

Results Data were first checked for normality distributions for each measure. Consistent with guidelines proposed by Kline (1998), distributions of skewness and kurtosis for each measure fell within acceptable ranges (< 3 and < 10, respectively). As indicated in Table 1. Correlations Between Study Variables.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Sex Age Cell Phone Presence 0 = Absence 1 = Presence Relationship Quality Empathy Conversation Meaningfulness

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

1

2

3

−.249* .069 .129 .311** −.322**

−.041 −.091 −.237* −.020

−.003 .104 −.125

4

5

6

.497** .613**

.178

-

-

288


Table 1, no evidence of multicollinearity emerged among the primary variables in the study. A post hoc power analysis was conducted by using G*Power 3.1 to determine if the study was sufficiently powered to detect moderate and large effects for an Omnibus Multiple Regression with seven predictors (i.e., independent variables, interaction terms, and up to four covariates) and a sample size of 87 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). The analysis indicated that power was .71 to detect a moderate effect (i.e., f2 = .15) and .99 to detect a large effect (i.e., f2 = .35).

Conversations Participants across both conditions rated the topic (M = 5.22, SD = 1.24) and the conversation (M = 5.00, SD = 1.11) as meaningful on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 represented “not at all meaningful” and 7 represented “very meaningful.” Across conversations, most participants chose to speak about a favorite vacation memory (n = 48), a memory playing sports (n = 30), or a favorite college course (n = 28).

Manipulation Checks Several analyses were performed to ensure the validity of the study manipulations. First, manipulation checks were performed to determine the influence, if any, of confederate effects. Participants were asked to report whether or not they previously knew the confederate and, if so, the amount of previous interactions they had with the confederate. Although no participants reported more than four previous interactions, 12 (13.7%) participants reported between one and four previous interactions with their assigned confederate. Two independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare reports of relationship quality and perceptions of empathy between participants who had no previous interaction with confederates and those who had some previous interaction with confederates. Participants who reported having no previous interaction with their assigned confederate (M = 4.81, SD = .89) demonstrated lower levels of relationship quality than those who reported some previous interaction (M = 5.78, SD = 1.13) with their assigned confederate; t(85) = −3.37, p = .001. Similarly, participants who reported no previous interaction (M = 5.23, SD = .82) also demonstrated lower perceptions of empathy than those who reported some previous interaction (M = 5.94, SD = .86) with their assigned confederate; t (85) = −2.79, p = .007. Therefore, a dichotomous variable reflecting the presence of previous interaction with the confederate was included as a covariate in all analyses. Second, one-way ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether significant differences across the three confederates emerged for participants’ perceptions of relationship quality and empathy. No statistically significant differences were detected between confederates for reports of relationship quality F(2, 84) = .41, p = .66. There were, however, statistically significant differences between confederates for perceptions of empathy F(2, 84) = 5.19, p = .01. Specifically, LSD post hoc tests showed that participants who spoke with the male confederate (confederate 3) rated their partner


as having less empathy (M = 4.96, SD = .89) than those who spoke with female confederates (confederate 1, M = 5.61, SD = .77, p = .002; confederate 2, M = 5.42, SD = .76, p = .039). To address differences in perceptions of empathy across confederates, two adjustments were made to hypothesis testing. First, empathy was included as a covariate within the models testing the effects of the experiment on relational quality. Prior research has linked empathy to relational quality (Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2005) and therefore the significant confederate effect on empathy was important to partial out in models testing relational quality. Second, a categorical variable reflecting confederate assignment (participants’ assignment with either confederate 1, 2, or 3) was included as a covariate in the models testing the effects of the experiment on empathy. Controlling for confederate effects on empathy allowed for analysis of the experimental effects of the cell phone presence manipulation on perceptions of empathy. To examine the influence, if any, of time on confederate effects, Pearson correlations were conducted between the order with which conversations took place across the study period and each outcome variable. No statistically significant relationship emerged between time and relational quality (confederate 1, r(32) = .05, p = .77; confederate 2, r(25) = .20, p = .33; confederate 3, r(30) = −.12, p = .54) or empathy (confederate 1, r(32) = .32, p = .08; confederate 2, r(25) = .24, p = .25; confederate 3, r (30) = .15, p = .45). In other words, as confederates engaged in more conversations, statistically significant changes did not occur in ways that influenced any of the outcome variables.

Covariates On the basis of Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study we investigated sex and age as possible covariates to control for variance in perceptions of relational quality and empathy. There were no relationships between sex and age on relational quality. However, sex (r = .31, p = .003) and age (r = −.24, p = .027) were significantly correlated with perceptions of empathy and were therefore included in all models testing empathy outcomes.

Hypothesis Testing H1 examined the effects of cell phone presence on relationship quality. An ANCOVA was employed with condition (cell phone presence or absence) as the fixed factor and relationship quality as the dependent variable. Empathy and previous interaction with confederates (dummy coded) were used as covariates. No statistically significant difference was noted F(3, 83) = .05, p = .83. H1 was therefore not supported. H2 examined the effects of cell phone presence on perceptions of empathy. An ANCOVA was employed with condition (cell phone presence versus absence) as the fixed factor, empathy as the dependent variable, and sex (dummy coded), age, previous interaction with confederates, and confederate assignment as covariates. Confederate assignment

290


reflected differences between confederate 3 and the other confederates. That is, participants assigned to the male confederate 3 were coded as “zeros,” whereas participants assigned to female confederates 1 and 2 were coded as “ones.” The model was not statistically significant, F(5, 81) = 1.38, p = .24. H2 was therefore not supported. H3a-b postulated that conversation meaningfulness would moderate the relationship between cell phone presence and each outcome variable (i.e., relationship qualitya and empathyb). Cell phone presence and conversation meaningfulness were entered in the first step of the regression analysis. The interaction term between cell phone presence and conversation meaningfulness was entered in the second step of the regression analysis. Empathy and previous interaction with confederates (dummy coded) were used as covariates for the model testing relational quality. Sex (dummy coded), age, confederate assignment (dummy coded for confederate sex), and previous interaction were used as covariates for the model testing empathy. Conversation meaningfulness did not moderate the relationship between cell phone presence and relationship quality ΔR2 = .002, F(5, 81) = 19.76, β = .24, p = .51. Although direct effects were evident for meaningfulness (β = .49, p < .001) and empathy (β = .35, p < .001) on relationship quality, no statistically significant direct effects were detected for cell phone presence (β = .60, p = .53) or previous interaction (β = .13, p = .10) on relationship quality. Similarly, conversation meaningfulness did not moderate the relationship between cell phone presence and empathy ΔR2 = .03, F(7, 79) = 6.21, β = .82, p = .06. Direct effects were detected for participant sex (β = .30, p = .004) and confederate sex (β = −.25, p = .01) on empathy, but not for cell phone presence (β = .67, p = .12), meaningfulness (β = .13, p = .32), age (β = −.14, p = .14), or previous interaction (β = .16, p = .11) on empathy. Therefore, the models proposed by H3a-b were not supported.

Discussion The current study sought to clarify mixed findings on the mere presence hypothesis. Specifically, results from several studies have shown that cell phones may act as an environmental distraction that negatively impacts outcomes associated with conversations for partners (Misra et al., 2016; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). Yet other research has shown that it may be the perception of cell phone presence, as opposed to the actual physical presence, that reaps negative outcomes for conversation partners (Allred & Crowley, 2017). This study performed a partial replication of Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study, which experimentally manipulated cell phone absence and presence among strangers to determine its influence on conversation outcomes, relational quality, and empathy, among other variables. An important adaptation was made to their study in which confederates were instructed to place their cell phones in view of participants assigned to the experimental condition. In addition to reconciling mixed findings on the mere presence hypothesis, a replication of


Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study is important given changing norms surrounding cell phone usage and increased rates of cell phone ownership. The results failed to replicate the findings from Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study, because the presence of cell phones did not significantly influence relational quality or empathy, nor did the meaningfulness of the conversation moderate any effects of presence on these conversation outcomes. The failure to replicate raises important questions concerning the influence of cell phones on interpersonal communication and identifies at least two important implications concerning the mere presence hypothesis. First, the increase in cell phone presence over recent years may have influenced perceptions of the appropriateness for cell phone presence during conversations. Since 2012, smartphone ownership has increased over 38% in the United States (Pew Research, 2017). That is, it may be that cell phone presence is no longer considered a violation of conversational norms or that expectations surrounding cell phone presence are becoming less restrictive. As conversational norms evolve, expectations for uses and the presence of technology during conversation are likely to change (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). This may explain why cell phone presence did not significantly lead to lower evaluations of relational quality or empathy for the receiver in the present study. It is therefore important for additional research to understand the changing norms surrounding cell phone presence in FTF contexts. A second implication concerns the use of confederates. While the inclusion of confederates better approximated a realistic manipulation of cell phone presence, confederates were trained to ignore their cell phones. This training allowed for a more precise test of the mere presence hypothesis but may have also neutralized at least two mechanisms by which cell phone presence may incur negative outcomes. First, confederates were likely less distracted by their phones and more likely to appropriately engage both verbally and nonverbally in their conversations. Prior work has proffered that cell phones negatively impact conversation outcomes because of the imagined others available through the affordances of cell phone technology (Gergen, 2002) and that this may impact important immediacy cues that signal attention and interest in a conversation partner (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). Given that confederates were trained to ignore their phones, it is possible that this effect was neutralized. Second, researchers have argued that perceptual biases of individuals may account for the negative outcomes associated with cell phone presence (Allred & Crowely, 2017). It is possible that the engagement confederates demonstrated with their phones, or lack thereof, was insufficient to trigger perpetual biases on behalf of their conversation partners. While these claims are clearly speculative, future research is needed to investigate the interpersonal (e.g., immediacy) or perceptual (e.g., cell phone bias) explanatory mechanisms that account for prior findings supporting the mere presence hypothesis. It is also important that researchers design experiments that manipulate cell phone presence in a way that is not only realistic but also tests for rival or complementary explanations for the phenomenon, including the effects of cell phone presence upon the individual to whom the phone belongs.

292


The current study fails to replicate Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study, but there are important limitations that warrant consideration. First, not all the outcome variables in Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study were measured. Specifically, conversation partner trust and closeness were not measured as dependent variables; therefore, only claims can be made about the failure to replicate the significant findings concerning relational quality and empathy and the moderating effects of conversation meaningfulness of cell phone presence on these outcome variables. An additional limitation is the exclusion of a positive affect scale as a potential covariate for our primary dependent variables. Moreover, the current study is a partial replication, and while the experimental design may have better approximated a realistic cell phone manipulation, the decision to not manipulate cell phone presence with a nondescript phone amidst two strangers represents a limitation to full replicability. Finally, analyses regarding the confederate effects revealed significant differences in perceptions of empathy across the three confederates. While changes to hypothesis testing were made to account for this effect, it is unclear how, if at all, the results of the study were further impacted by differences in participants’ views of the confederates. This study sought to perform a partial replication of Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study that showed negative effects associated with cell phone presence on conversation outcomes. The results show that cell phone presence had no influence on relational quality or empathy and that conversation meaningfulness had no moderating influence on the presence/absence of cell phones on these conversation outcomes. Given the lack of statistically significant findings, it is important to consider changing norms surrounding cell phone usage and ownership and the role it may play in the impact of cell phone presence on perceptions of conversation outcomes. Funding Research for this paper was financially supported by the Department of Communication Studies at Colorado State University.

References Allred, R. J., & Crowley, J. P. (2017). The “mere presence” hypothesis: Investigating the nonverbal effects of cell-phone presence on conversation satisfaction. Communication Studies, 68, 22–36. doi:10.1080/10510974.2016.1241292 Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology. 10, 85. Retrieved from https://www.uv.es/ friasnav/Davis_1980.pdf Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Replication of the Mere Presence Hypothesis 293 Gergen, K. J. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 227–241). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Hendrick, C. (1990). Replications, strict replications, and conceptual replications: Are they important? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 5, 41–49. Retrieved from https://search. proquest.com/openview/1561d1420ebe8c77538bce783314dac5/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=1819046 Kline, R. B. (1998). Principle and practice of structural modeling. New York, NY: Guilford. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58. doi:10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413 Miller-Ott, A., & Kelly, L. (2015). The presence of cell phones in romantic partner face-to-face interactions: An expectancy violation theory approach. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 253–270. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2015.1055371 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. doi:10.1177/0013916514539755 Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: A longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 368–378. doi:10.1177/0146167204271597 Pettigrew, J. (2009). Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 697–716. doi:10.1080/01494920903224269 Pew Research. (2017). Mobile phone ownership. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/chart/ mobile-phone-ownership/ 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. doi:10.1177/0265407512453827 Rotondi, V., Stanca, L., & Tomasuolo, M. (2017). Connecting alone: Smartphone use, quality of social interactions and well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 63, 17–26. doi:10.1016/j. joep.2017.09.001 Shuter, R., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2010). Emerging interpersonal norms of text messaging in India and the United States. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 39, 123–147. doi:10.1080/17475759.2010.52631 Turkle, S. (2011). The tethered self: Technology reinvents intimacy and solitude. Continuing Higher Education Review. 75, 28–81. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967807.pdf