The phone between you: what four studies say about phubbing and marriage

You finally sit down together after a long day. Your spouse starts telling you something, and your phone lights up. You glance down, type a reply, then look up and say, “I’m listening.” But the conversation has already changed. Can two people share a couch and still feel that nobody is available?

I want to take that question seriously without making technology the villain. Phones help us work, coordinate school pickups, and stay connected across distance. They also carry the messages that Vanessa Lima and I, Ricardo Martins, share through O Casal Legendário, known in English as The Legendary Couple. The tool is not the enemy. Our habits deserve attention.

Researchers use the word phubbing, a combination of “phone” and “snubbing,” for ignoring someone in favor of a phone. With a romantic partner, it becomes partner phubbing. The label does not automatically mean addiction, infidelity, or lack of love. It describes behavior that can communicate distance even when that is not the intention.

What the research found

1. Roberts and David: conflict helps explain the connection

The study by James A. Roberts and Meredith E. David, published in 2016 in Computers in Human Behavior, developed a partner-phubbing scale and tested its proposed relationships in a second study involving 145 adults. The researchers found a pattern in which phubbing was connected with conflict over cellphone use, which in turn was connected with relationship satisfaction.

The abstract also reports that people with anxious attachment styles experienced greater cellphone-related conflict than people with less anxious attachment styles. That is not permission to dismiss a hurt spouse as “too insecure.” It suggests that interruptions can land differently depending on the person and the relationship.

The researchers also reported an indirect statistical pathway involving relationship satisfaction, life satisfaction, and depression. That model does not establish that a phone caused a particular person’s depression. Nor does it provide a diagnosis. These were adults in romantic relationships, not 145 married couples observed through years of family life.

2. McDaniel and Coyne: the problem extends beyond phones

The study by Brandon T. McDaniel and Sarah M. Coyne, published in 2016 in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, included 143 married or cohabiting women in heterosexual relationships. Participants completed an online questionnaire about technology and personal and relational well-being.

Women who perceived more technology interruptions also reported more conflict over technology use, lower relationship satisfaction, more depressive symptoms, and lower life satisfaction. The authors called these everyday interruptions technoference. The devices included computers, cellphones or smartphones, and television.

That changes the household question. Putting a phone away while remaining absorbed in television does not necessarily create connection. On the other hand, showing your spouse a funny video can become a shared experience. The meaningful distinction is not simply “screen” versus “no screen.” It is whether the activity supports the encounter or repeatedly interrupts it.

The limitations matter. This was the women’s perspective, not separate reports from both partners. A questionnaire cannot establish whether interruptions damaged the relationship, relationship distress encouraged retreat into devices, or both were happening. Reported depressive symptoms should not be treated as a clinical diagnosis either.

3. Przybylski and Weinstein: presence alone can matter

The article by Andrew K. Przybylski and Netta Weinstein, published in 2013 in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, reported two experiments. In the first, 74 participants were randomly assigned to a phone-present or phone-absent condition. A pocket notebook replaced the phone in the comparison condition.

Pairs of strangers had a conversation in a laboratory. They were not spouses working through a painful disagreement. The researchers found negative effects of phone presence on measures of connection; across the experiments, the findings emphasized the importance of context, particularly personally meaningful conversations.

The design helps investigate immediate effects under controlled circumstances. It does not measure divorce, sexual intimacy, or long-term marital satisfaction. Saying that any phone on any table ruins any conversation would overreach. A more reasonable application is that removing a potential distraction can be a small act of care when the subject matters.

4. Dwyer, Kushlev, and Dunn: a test at the restaurant table

The study by Ryan Dwyer, Kostadin Kushlev, and Elizabeth Dunn, published in 2018 in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, included a field experiment with 304 participants. Students and community members shared a restaurant meal with friends or family. Groups were randomly assigned to keep their phones on the table or put them away.

When phones were available, participants reported more distraction and less enjoyment of the interaction. The article also reported a second study using experience sampling in daily life. During face-to-face interactions, phone use was associated with greater distraction and lower enjoyment.

These were not 304 married couples. Enjoying a meal less does not mean someone has stopped loving the people at the table. The experiment provides evidence about an immediate social experience, not a forecast for a marriage. Its practical contribution is that divided attention can carry a cost even when there is no argument, secret message, or dramatic betrayal.

What these studies do not establish

These projects came from research settings in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. They do not provide a universal percentage of marriages harmed by smartphones. Findings about strangers, friends, or relatives also cannot simply be relabeled as findings about married partners.

Different designs answer different questions. Surveys identify associations. Experiments can test short-term effects in specific settings. None of these papers establishes a universal “safe” number of screen minutes or demonstrates that banning phones from the bedroom repairs a marriage.

If depression, persistent distress, or significant difficulty functioning is present, professional evaluation matters. Household technology agreements may support connection, but they are not mental health treatment. They should not become an excuse for monitoring a partner, demanding passwords, or invading privacy.

What this changes in everyday life

1. Protect one encounter rather than policing the whole day

Choose a realistic occasion: dinner, the first conversation after work, or a short time together before bed. Put devices out of reach. This is a practical experiment for your household, not a scientifically validated treatment schedule. The aim is a predictable space where neither person has to compete for basic attention.

Start with a commitment you can keep. A modest agreement makes availability visible without turning every interruption into a referendum on your love.

2. Explain genuine exceptions before they interrupt

If you are on call or waiting for news about a child, say so. “I need to watch for this message. Once it comes, I’ll let you know.” That offers context rather than leaving your spouse to guess. Agree on when work availability ends, too. An exception without a boundary can quietly become the normal arrangement.

3. Describe the behavior instead of judging the heart

“You love that phone more than you love me” is a verdict. Try a specific request instead: “When I start telling you about my day and you keep scrolling, I feel alone. Could you put it away while we talk?”

That does not guarantee a warm response. It does make the concern clearer and the requested change more workable. You are asking for a behavior, not demanding that your spouse defend their entire character.

4. Review the agreement without becoming an investigator

After several days, ask whether conversations were easier to finish, whether meals felt more enjoyable, and whether the plan was realistic. Do not build an offense scoreboard or inspect each other’s usage reports unless both genuinely want that.

If the agreement failed, make it smaller and clearer. Ask what got in the way. A useful boundary supports the relationship; it does not create a second job as your partner’s compliance officer.

5. Replace scrolling with actual curiosity

Putting down the phone is a beginning, not the goal. Ask what was difficult today. Listen long enough to understand before offering a solution. Remember something your spouse told you and return to it later.

A person can be device-free and emotionally absent. The goal is not an immaculate dinner table where nobody cares about anyone. It is availability expressed through interest, patience, and a willingness to receive what the other person is saying.

Where biblical wisdom speaks to this

The Bible does not discuss smartphones. We do not need to pretend that it does. It does address listening and honoring other people, wisdom that can guide how we use our tools.

Proverbs 18:13 says, “To answer before listening—that is folly and shame” (NIV). This is not a laboratory finding about multitasking. It is a warning against replacing attention with a rushed response. Letting your spouse finish a thought is a simple expression of respect.

Romans 12:10 says, “Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves” (NIV). Paul is addressing Christian community. Applying that posture of honor to marriage makes sense; using it to demand a partner’s submission to our surveillance does not.

Nearby is not the same as available

I do not want you to finish this article hating your phone. I want you to ask a more honest question: when the person I love reaches for connection, what do they encounter?

Many messages can wait. Your marriage should not have to survive on whatever attention remains after everyone else has been answered. Begin with one realistic encounter today, without a courtroom atmosphere or a promise of instant healing.

For more practical conversations about faith and rebuilding connection, follow Ricardo Martins and Vanessa Lima on The Legendary Couple’s YouTube channel.