Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42706664›Full record

ArticleJournal of community psychology2026

The Silent Rejection: The Indirect Path From Partner Phubbing to Psychological Well-Being Through Self-Esteem and Romantic Loneliness.

Muhammet Can Doğru, Tuğba Türk Kurtça

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Muhammet Can DoğruDepartment of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0357-2023
Tuğba Türk KurtçaDepartment of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, Trakya University, Edirne, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4361-3769

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Romantic relationships play an important role in individuals' psychological well-being. However, with the widespread use of digital technologies, these relationships may face new challenges. Partner phubbing refers to an individual's preoccupation with their phone during face-to-face interactions with a romantic partner and may weaken relational bonds. In this context, it is important to examine how this form of digital disengagement in romantic relationships is associated with individuals' psychological well-being, as well as the mediating variables that may help explain this relationship. The study included 1627 heterosexual young adults (821 females, 806 males; age range = 18-35, M = 21.63) recruited through convenience sampling. The findings indicated that partner phubbing was associated with lower self-esteem and higher levels of romantic loneliness. In the serial mediation model, self-esteem and romantic loneliness fully mediated the relationship between partner phubbing and psychological well-being. Identifying the mediating roles of self-esteem and romantic loneliness may help clarify how partner phubbing is associated with individuals' internal evaluations and relationship experiences. These findings may contribute to the development of targeted interventions in clinical and counseling practice by illustrating how communication problems in romantic relationships affect psychological well-being as part of broader social interaction patterns.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsLonelinessSelf ConceptSexual PartnersAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMalePsychological Well-BeingYoung Adultpartner phubbingpsychological well‐beingromantic lonelinessself‐esteemyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID42706664
PMCPMC13550703

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.