The relationship between phubbing and social relationships among Turkish college students: mediating roles of self-control and empathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study explored whether self-control and empathy mediate the link between phubbing and the quality of social relationships.Method A total of 664 Turkish university students (373 female), aged 18–34 (M = 20.66, SD = 2.02), completed an online survey including the Phubbing Scale, Brief Multidimensional Self-Control Scale, Toronto Empathy Questionnaire, and Social Relationship Scale.Results Higher phubbing was associated with lower self-control and empathy, and weaker relationships with family, friends, and neighbours. In contrast, greater self-control and empathy were positively linked to stronger social connections. Mediation analyses showed that self-control and empathy both mediated the negative impact of phubbing on social relationships.Conclusion These findings suggest that phubbing weakens social bonds by reducing self-control and empathy. However, individuals with stronger self-control and empathy are more likely to maintain close relationships, despite frequent technology use. Interventions that promote mindful phone use and strengthen emotional and behavioural regulation skills may help young adults build and sustain healthier social ties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".