International Journal of Human Research and Social Science Studies

Phubbing, the act of snubbing a conversation partner by focusing on one's phone, has emerged as a pervasive relational threat in contemporary couples, particularly among dual-earner couples who navigate multiple competing demands on their time and attention. This quantitative study examines the mediating role of perceived partner responsiveness in the relationship between technoference (technology interference, including phubbing) and marital satisfaction among dual-earner couples in Ghana. Using a dyadic, cross-sectional survey design, data were collected from 312 dual-earner couples (N = 624 individuals) through stratified random sampling across five regions of Ghana. Validated instruments measured technoference (Technoference Scale), perceived partner responsiveness (Perceived Partner Responsiveness Scale), and marital satisfaction (Couples Satisfaction Index). Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM) analysis using structural equation modelling revealed significant actor effects: technoference was negatively associated with perceived partner responsiveness (β = -0.32, p < .001) and marital satisfaction (β = -0.28, p < .001), and perceived partner responsiveness was positively associated with marital satisfaction (β = 0.41, p < .001). Perceived partner responsiveness significantly mediated the actor effect of technoference on marital satisfaction (indirect effect β = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, -0.08]). Partner effects were also significant: an individual's technoference negatively predicted their partner's perceived responsiveness (β = -0.11, p = .004) and marital satisfaction (β = -0.09, p = .008). The dyadic indirect effect through partner perceived responsiveness was also significant (β = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.07, -0.02]). Gender moderated these relationships, with the actor effect of technoference on perceived responsiveness being stronger for wives (β = -0.36) than for husbands (β = -0.28). The findings extend the Technoference Framework and Interdependence Theory by demonstrating the dyadic and mediating mechanisms through which phubbing affects marital satisfaction in dual-earner couples. Implications for couple therapy, workplace policies, and digital wellbeing interventions are discussed.

Phubbing, technoference, perceived partner responsiveness, marital satisfaction, dual-earner couples, actor-partner interdependence model, Ghana

1. Agyei, D. D. (2018). Dual-earner couples and work-family conflict in Ghana. Ghana Journal of Sociology, 12(1), 45-67.
2. Badasu, D. M. (2017). Gender roles and family structure in Ghana. Journal of Ghanaian Studies, 8(2), 112-134.
3. Carlson, C. L., Mayfield, J. R., & Anderson, J. R. (2018). Work-family conflict and marital satisfaction: The mediating role of partner support. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(4), 512-522.
4. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458-476). Sage.
6. Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49(4), 797-809.
7. Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572-583.
8. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.
9. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. Wiley.
10. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
11. Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. W. (2015). Smartphones distract parents from cultivating quality time with children. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4), 725-735.
12. Maisel, N. C., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The paradox of received social support: The importance of responsiveness. Psychological Science, 20(8), 928-932.
13. McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). Technology interference in parent-child and romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 274-282.
14. McDaniel, B. T., Galovan, A. M., & Drouin, M. (2018). Daily technoference and romantic relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(7), 958-978.
15. Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2016). The presence of cell phones in romantic partner face-to-face interactions. Southern Communication Journal, 81(2), 70-83.
16. Pew Research Center. (2021). Social media use in sub-Saharan Africa. Pew Research Center.
17. Reis, H. T., & Clark, M. S. (2013). Responsiveness. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 400-423). Oxford University Press.
18. Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-225). Lawrence Erlbaum.