The Impact of Maternal Phubbing on Toddlers’ Language Development and Subsequent Social Development: A Three-Month Time-Lagged Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this report on maternal phubbing and children’s language and social development.  This study had several strengths, including the sample size, the use of multiple reporters (parent and child), and multiple (2) time points in data collection.  Though, there were a number of areas of concern that temper my enthusiasm for this report and I will outline some of my larger concerns:

INTRODUCTION

I enjoyed reading the introduction, but after reading the entire report, I do not think the introduction aligns with the paper well.  There is too much discussed that is not evaluated in this report, and there is not enough discussion about the details of “maternal phubbing” as measured by this paper.  I think that aligning the introduction better with what was assessed may even ease some of my later concerns.  But, for instance, talking about use of screens/phones by children in detail seems unrelated to this topic.    Some things in the introduction also seemed overstated (e.g., is “eye contact” truly the basis of attachment??)

METHOD

1. The first few sentences of the methods belong in the introduction with the discussion of why toddlers is an important population to study
2. How were teachers identified, questionnaires collected, and how were questionnaires deemed "unreliable?" Recruitment methods should be explained more clearly.
3. The population of Korean population should be briefly explained (e.g., how does this income range compare to general census? Do most toddlers in Korea go to daycare/school programs?)
4. Would be helpful if the Methods section defined an a priori statistical plan, and described how statistics were analyzed (what program was used) and what type of tests were run.
5. The construct of maternal phubbing appears different than what is discussed in the introduction. The subscales seem to be talking about problematic use and emotional concerns related to phone use (phone addiction; emotional distress/isolation) as opposed to what the introduction was leading up to in terms of time spent not having an enriching interaction with the toddler (i.e., responsiveness to facial expressions, etc.). Indeed, it does not appear to even capture that mothers are on their phone IN FRONT OF their CHILD specifically.  This changes a lot of the lead up in the introduction.

RESULTS

3. Since skewness and kurtosis values are provided, would be helpful to explain how authors evaluated these numbers. I do not understand why CFA was used, this seems more appropriate for SEM with model fit, and it’s unclear why this is conceptualized as a factor analysis.  The introduction did not talk about evaluating the measures used through CFA as a goal of the study- and if it is, the choice of population and representativeness should be explained in more detailed and the steps of the study goals should be clarified.  To me, it makes most sense to cut section 3.3.
4. The introduction did not justify controlling for child’s gender or monthly income (though this is justifiable and should be mentioned). But the role of age DOES seem to be acknowledged given the “language boom” in toddlerhood, and I would expect to see the child’s age as a control variable.

DISCUSSION

1. There is a positive correlation between maternal phubbing and expressive language (of seemingly equivalent effect size as the negative correlation between phubbing and social relations) but this is not discussed in the abstract/conclusions. Indeed, the discussion seems to say the association between phubbing and language was simply not significant (only attending to SEM) rather than acknowledging the correlation, as you did with phubbing and social development.
2. Related to my concern in the method- the maternal phubbing measure seems different than how it is discussed as a construct. When in the discussion you state “this suggests that the mothers in this study make an effort to refrain from smartphone use and avoid phubbing while spending time with their children” this seems entirely overstated given what the items actually ask- at least as described in the method.
3. The presentation of the ANOVA findings in the discussion seem confusing, and make me wonder, especially without a statistical plan outlined in the Methods and seeming nitpicking of results to talk about- if there was some fishing for data. I would leave out discussion of the ANOVA not otherwise presented or planned for.
4. The limitation of having the mother complete two of the measures (reporter bias) should be acknowledged. For example, beyond bias within the same reporter, could be that mother’s with problematic phone use (e.g., those that feel anxious/irritable in the absence of the phone) also struggle to complete rating scales, particularly ones that are so lengthy, and tend to respond more positively (erasing the link between phubbing and language, potentially). 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments. We have made revisions accordingly to reflect your suggestions as accurately as possible.

 

INTRODUCTION

1.  

I enjoyed reading the introduction, but after reading the entire report, I do not think the introduction aligns with the paper well. There is too much discussed that is not evaluated in this report, and there is not enough discussion about the details of “maternal phubbing” as measured by this paper. I think that aligning the introduction better with what was assessed may even ease some of my later concerns. But, for instance, talking about use of screens/phones by children in detail seems unrelated to this topic. Some things in the introduction also seemed overstated (e.g., is “eye contact” truly the basis of attachment?).

 

=> Editing: We revised the introduction to improve alignment with the study focus by removing unrelated content, clarifying the definition of maternal phubbing, and moderating overstated expressions, including revising statements that overemphasized the role of eye contact in attachment.

However, maternal phubbing is a behavior that can reduce responsiveness to an infant’s signals or needs. Maternal phubbing refers to a pattern of behavior where a mother’s attention is diverted by smartphone use during interactions with her child, resulting in reduced interaction or fragmented attention, comprising dimensions such as nomophobia, interpersonal conflict, self-isolation, and problem awareness (Kim et al., 2022; Roberts & David, 2016). Beyond observable interactional disruptions during mother–child interactions but also reflects broader patterns of problematic smartphone use, such as excessive dependence, interpersonal conflict, and social withdrawal. These underlying characteristics may reduce mothers' attentional availability, thereby undermining the quality of mother–child interaction (Corkin et al., 2021; McDaniel & Radesky, 2018; Radesky et al., 2014).

 

Smartphone-immersed mothers may struggle to accurately interpret the intentions behind their child’s behavior (Radesky et al., 2014), and eye contact, an important component of early caregiver–infant interaction related to attachment formation, may be disrupted (Raudaskoski et al., 2017).

 

METHOD

2.  

The first few sentences of the methods belong in the introduction with the discussion of why toddlers is an important population to study.

 

=> Editing: We moved the initial description of toddlers from the Methods section to the Introduction to better justify the selection of toddlers as the target population and to improve the logical flow of the manuscript.

 

Toddlers exhibit a rapid increase in vocabulary beginning around 16 months, with a notable ‘vocabulary explosion’ typically occurring between 18 and 24 months (Fenson et al., 1994). As language development during this period is highly sensitive to caregiver interaction, toddlers under the age of three constitute a particularly vulnerable group for examining the effects of maternal phubbing (McGillion et al., 2024; Swanson, 2020). During this stage, interaction with the mother plays a pivotal role in supporting children’s language development and early social skills. However, maternal phubbing may disrupt these interactions by reducing maternal responsiveness and emotional engagement, consequently diminishing the quality of mother–child interaction (Carson & Kuzik, 2021).

 

3.  

How were teachers identified, questionnaires collected, and how were questionnaires deemed "unreliable?" Recruitment methods should be explained more clearly.

 

=> Adding information: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have revised the Methods section to provide a clearer description of participant recruitment, data collection procedures, and the criteria used to exclude unreliable data. Specifically, we clarified how childcare centers and participants were identified, how the questionnaires were administered to both mothers and teachers, and how data were screened for inclusion in the final analysis. These revisions were made to improve the transparency and rigor of the methodology.

 

In South Korea, childcare center enrollment rates for children aged 1 and 2 exceed 90% (Ministry of Education, 2025). The researcher initially contacted the directors of 31 childcare centers to explain the study's purpose and request their cooperation. Through these centers, mothers of enrolled toddlers were invited to participate in an online survey, resulting in a total of 255 respondents. Approximately three months later, the classroom teachers of the corresponding toddlers assessed the children’s social development. Following the exclusion of cases with significant missing values or unmatched mother–teacher data, a final sample of 239 toddlers was included in the final analysis.

 

4.  

The population of Korean population should be briefly explained (e.g., how does this income range compare to general census? Do most toddlers in Korea go to daycare/school programs?).

 

=> Adding information: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have added contextual information to better describe the Korean sample. Specifically, we included national statistics on childcare enrollment rates and clarified how the reported income range corresponds to the general population. These additions were made to improve the interpretability and contextual relevance of the sample characteristics

 

The prevalent average monthly household income fell between 4 million and 7.99 million KRW (n = 111, 46.4%), which corresponds to the third and fourth quintiles of income groups in Korea (National Data Portal, 2025). Finally, the most frequently reported daily smartphone usage time among mothers was "between 2 and 3 hours" (n = 82, 34.3%).

 

5.  

Would be helpful if the Methods section defined an a priori statistical plan, and described how statistics were analyzed (what program was used) and what type of tests were run.

 

=> Adding information: We added a detailed a priori statistical analysis plan, including the statistical software used and the types of analyses conducted.

 

The data analysis plan was established a priori. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 and AMOS 22. Descriptive statistics and frequency analyses were employed to examine the demographic characteristics of the participants, and Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess reliability. Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to assess the associations among variables.

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using AMOS 22 to evaluate the measurement model. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was then utilized to examine the mediating effect of toddlers’ language development on the link between maternal phubbing and toddlers’ social development. Toddler gender and average monthly household income were included as control variables. Finally, bootstrapping was conducted to test the significance of direct, indirect, and total effects, using 95% confidence intervals.

 

6.  

The construct of maternal phubbing appears different than what is discussed in the introduction. The subscales seem to be talking about problematic use and emotional concerns related to phone use (phone addiction; emotional distress/isolation) as opposed to what the introduction was leading up to in terms of time spent not having an enriching interaction with the toddler (i.e., responsiveness to facial expressions, etc.). Indeed, it does not appear to even capture that mothers are on their phone IN FRONT OF their CHILD specifically.  This changes a lot of the lead up in the introduction.

 

=> Editing: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s critical insight regarding the conceptual alignment between our introduction and the measurement of maternal phubbing. We agree that the scale employed focuses on trait-level problematic smartphone use rather than real-time behavioral frequency during mother–child interactions. To address this, we have refined the introduction to better bridge the gap between "phubbing as a behavior" and "phubbing as a manifestations of underlying psychological patterns." We have also expanded the Limitations section to explicitly discuss the absence of direct observational data.

 

While the dimensions measured in this study—such as nomophobia and self-isolation—primarily reflect a mother’s psychological dependence on smartphones, they serve as proxies for reduced cognitive and emotional availability during interactions with their children. These underlying psychological traits increase the likelihood of attentional drifting, where a mother may be physically present but psychologically disengaged, thereby interfering with responsive caregiving (McDaniel & Radesky, 2018). Consequently, the observed effects in this study should be understood as the impact of problematic usage patterns that manifest as maternal phubbing in daily routines.

 

In addition, these sub-dimensions represent patterns of problematic smartphone use that may function as underlying mechanisms of maternal phubbing, as they are associated with reduced attentional control and responsiveness in parent–child interactions (McDaniel & Radesky, 2018).

 

Furthermore, the measurement of maternal phubbing focused on self-reported psychological patterns rather than direct, real-time observation of smartphone use in the child’s presence. Although these sub-dimensions function as robust indicators of problematic use that likely disrupt maternal responsiveness, they do not fully capture the immediate, situational frequency of phubbing behaviors during specific interactional episodes.

 

RESULTS

7.  

Since skewness and kurtosis values are provided, would be helpful to explain how authors evaluated these numbers. I do not understand why CFA was used, this seems more appropriate for SEM with model fit, and it’s unclear why this is conceptualized as a factor analysis.  The introduction did not talk about evaluating the measures used through CFA as a goal of the study- and if it is, the choice of population and representativeness should be explained in more detailed and the steps of the study goals should be clarified.  To me, it makes most sense to cut section 3.3.

 

=> Adding information: We have revised the manuscript to clarify the evaluation of skewness and kurtosis, as well as the rationale for conducting confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Specifically, we added criteria used to assess normality and explained that CFA was conducted to verify the adequacy of the measurement model prior to structural equation modeling. These explanations have been incorporated into the Results section and are also reflected in the Data Analysis section (Section 2.3), where the overall analytical procedure is described. In addition, the table title was revised to improve clarity.

 

The overall mean for maternal phubbing was 2.21 (SD = .53), which is lower than the median. Among its sub-factors, interpersonal conflict and self-isolation showed very low scores, whereas nomophobia and problem awareness were at moderate levels.

 

In addition, the normality of the data was assessed by examining skewness and kurtosis. All variables met the acceptable criteria for normality (absolute skewness < 2, absolute kurtosis < 7), indicating no substantial deviation from normality (West et al., 1995). Therefore, parametric statistical methods were deemed appropriate for subsequent analyses.

 

Prior to testing the structural model, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to ensure the adequacy of the measurement model. All factor loadings were within acceptable ranges, supporting the validity of the measurement model. The model fit results are presented in Table 3.

 

Table 3. Model Fit Indices

 

8.  

The introduction did not justify controlling for child’s gender or monthly income (though this is justifiable and should be mentioned). But the role of age DOES seem to be acknowledged given the “language boom” in toddlerhood, and I would expect to see the child’s age as a control variable.

 

=> Editing: We have revised the manuscript to clarify the rationale for including control variables. Specifically, toddler gender and average monthly household income were included as control variables. These revisions have been incorporated into the Data Analysis section (Section 2.3).

 

DISCUSSION

9.  

There is a positive correlation between maternal phubbing and expressive language (of seemingly equivalent effect size as the negative correlation between phubbing and social relations) but this is not discussed in the abstract/conclusions. Indeed, the discussion seems to say the association between phubbing and language was simply not significant (only attending to SEM) rather than acknowledging the correlation, as you did with phubbing and social development.

 

=> Adding information: We have revised the manuscript to more fully address the relationship between maternal phubbing and toddlers’ expressive language. Specifically, we added a discussion acknowledging the significant correlation observed in the bivariate analysis, including results at the sub-factor level (e.g., maternal self-isolation), and clarified the discrepancy between correlation findings and the non-significant results in the structural equation model (SEM). These revisions were made to provide a more balanced and nuanced interpretation of the results and have been incorporated into the Discussion section.

 

In particular, correlation analysis revealed a small but significant positive association between maternal phubbing and infants’ expressive language scores, and the magnitude of this association was similar to the negative correlation observed between phubbing and social relationships. However, this effect was not statistically significant in the structural equation model (SEM). This discrepancy may reflect differences between bivariate and multivariate analyses, suggesting that the observed association may be influenced by other variables rather than representing a direct effect. Therefore, this finding should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, the finding that language development has a strong positive effect on social development suggests that the influence of maternal phubbing on language development may operate through indirect and complex pathways. Therefore, future research should more closely examine the relationship between expressive language and phubbing

 

What is especially noteworthy is that the relationship between maternal phubbing and language development appears to be more complex than its relationship with social development. A small but significant positive correlation was observed between maternal self-isolation and children’s expressive language. However, this association was not supported in the structural equation model, suggesting that it may not represent a direct effect. Therefore, this finding should be interpreted with caution, and it may reflect indirect or context-dependent relationships rather than a meaningful positive influence of maternal phubbing. The influence of language skills on subsequent social competence underscores the integrated nature of early development.

 

10.  

Related to my concern in the method- the maternal phubbing measure seems different than how it is discussed as a construct. When in the discussion you state “this suggests that the mothers in this study make an effort to refrain from smartphone use and avoid phubbing while spending time with their children” this seems entirely overstated given what the items actually ask- at least as described in the method.

 

=> Editing: We have revised the manuscript to avoid overstated interpretations of maternal phubbing. Specifically, we modified the description of the findings to more accurately reflect the self-reported nature of the measure and removed language implying that mothers actively refrain from smartphone use during interactions with their children. Instead, the results are now interpreted as indicating relatively lower reported levels of phubbing and variations across sub-dimensions. These revisions were made to ensure a more cautious and accurate interpretation of the findings.

 

First, maternal phubbing was found to be at a level lower than the median. This suggests that mothers reported relatively lower levels of smartphone use while spending time with their children. Among the sub-factors of phubbing, nomophobia and problem awareness were relatively high, suggesting that mothers reported higher levels of anxiety related to smartphone absence and awareness of their smartphone use.

 

11.  

The presentation of the ANOVA findings in the discussion seem confusing, and make me wonder, especially without a statistical plan outlined in the Methods and seeming nitpicking of results to talk about- if there was some fishing for data. I would leave out discussion of the ANOVA not otherwise presented or planned for.

 

=> Editing: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have revised the Discussion to improve clarity and avoid overinterpretation of exploratory findings. Specifically, we removed the discussion of ANOVA results that were not part of the main analytical plan and eliminated related interpretations (e.g., childcare center stay duration effects) that could be perceived as post hoc explanations. In addition, we refined the wording by replacing strong or definitive expressions with more cautious language and reorganized the discussion to focus on the primary findings derived from the structural equation model. These revisions were made to ensure that the interpretation remains consistent with the study’s analytical framework.

 

Despite the lack of an observed effect from phubbing on language, language development exerted a strong positive influence on social development three months later. These results support Sameroff’s (2010) integrative developmental model, suggesting that language ability is a key foundation for peer relationships and social competence (Beitchman et al., 2001) and that toddler development operates integrally rather than in isolation.

 

First, it may be cautiously suggested that toddlers' language development is influenced by multiple environments, including both the home and childcare settings, rather than relying solely on maternal factors.

 

12.  

The limitation of having the mother complete two of the measures (reporter bias) should be acknowledged. For example, beyond bias within the same reporter, could be that mother’s with problematic phone use (e.g., those that feel anxious/irritable in the absence of the phone) also struggle to complete rating scales, particularly ones that are so lengthy, and tend to respond more positively (erasing the link between phubbing and language, potentially).

 

=> Adding information: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have revised the manuscript to more explicitly acknowledge the potential for same-reporter bias. In addition to noting common method bias, we expanded the discussion to consider how maternal characteristics related to problematic smartphone use may influence response patterns (e.g., difficulty sustaining attention on lengthy questionnaires or a tendency toward more favorable responses). These revisions were made to provide a more comprehensive and cautious interpretation of the findings.

 

Finally, this study is limited by potential same-reporter bias, as maternal self-reports were used to assess both maternal phubbing and toddlers’ language development. This may introduce common method bias, potentially inflating or attenuating the observed associations between variables. In addition, mothers with higher levels of problematic smartphone use may experience difficulties in sustaining attention when completing lengthy questionnaires or may respond in a more socially desirable manner, which could further bias the results. Therefore, the relationships identified in this study should be interpreted with caution. Future research should address this limitation by incorporating multiple informants or objective observational measures.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting and highly relevant study on maternal phubbing behavior and toddlers' language and social development. I only have minor comments. 

 

Discussion, page 8 (lines 306 - 308): "maternal phubbing was found to be at a level lower than the median. This suggests that the mothers in this study make an effort to refrain from smartphone use and avoid phubbing while spending time with their children."  This implies intentionality, which the study data cannot confirm. I suggest that authors rephrase this to something like "This suggests that authors reported lower levels of smartphone use while spending time with their children"

Discussion: I would suggest that authors add the limitations of the current study. For example, the study assessed the maternal phubbing at child's age of 16 months, and didn't find the concurrent relation with language development. But it is possible that at the earlier ages (during the 1st or early second year, the phubbing might affect language more). Also, authors might consider discussing the potential effects of usage of other screen device during the mother-child interaction. Also, study relies on parental reports, which also might be seen as a limitation. 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback and the time invested in evaluating our work. We are encouraged by your assessment that the study on maternal phubbing and its impact on toddler development is both interesting and highly relevant. We have carefully addressed your minor comments to further enhance the quality of the manuscript.

1.

Discussion, page 8 (lines 306 - 308): "maternal phubbing was found to be at a level lower than the median. This suggests that the mothers in this study make an effort to refrain from smartphone use and avoid phubbing while spending time with their children."  This implies intentionality, which the study data cannot confirm. I suggest that authors rephrase this to something like "This suggests that authors reported lower levels of smartphone use while spending time with their children”.

 

=> Editing: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have revised the manuscript to avoid implying intentionality in the interpretation of maternal phubbing. Specifically, we replaced language suggesting that mothers actively refrain from smartphone use with a more accurate description based on self-reported data. In addition, we clarified the interpretation of sub-factors to reflect reported tendencies rather than inferred behaviors. These revisions were made to ensure a more cautious and data-consistent interpretation.

 

First, maternal phubbing was found to be at a level lower than the median. This suggests that mothers reported relatively lower levels of smartphone use while spending time with their children. Among the sub-factors of phubbing, nomophobia and problem awareness were relatively high, suggesting that mothers reported higher levels of anxiety related to smartphone absence and awareness of their smartphone use.

 

2.  

Discussion: I would suggest that authors add the limitations of the current study. For example, the study assessed the maternal phubbing at child's age of 16 months, and didn't find the concurrent relation with language development. But it is possible that at the earlier ages (during the 1st or early second year, the phubbing might affect language more). Also, authors might consider discussing the potential effects of usage of other screen device during the mother-child interaction. Also, study relies on parental reports, which also might be seen as a limitation. 

 

=> Adding information: We have expanded the Discussion to more explicitly address the limitations of the study. Specifically, we added (a) the potential influence of toddlers’ direct and indirect exposure to digital media beyond maternal phubbing, (b) the limitation related to the timing of measurement, noting that phubbing was assessed during toddlerhood rather than earlier developmental stages when caregiver interaction may be more influential, and (c) the issue of same-reporter bias due to reliance on maternal self-reports. These additions were made to provide a more comprehensive discussion of the study’s limitations and directions for future research.

 

Third, future research should consider both direct and indirect exposure to smart media in toddlers. While this study focused on maternal phubbing, toddlers’ language development is likely influenced by a combination of parental interaction and their own experiences with digital media. In addition, the potential impact of other screen devices, such as tablets and televisions, during mother–child interactions should be examined (Lee, 2014). Moreover, because maternal phubbing was assessed when toddlers were between 16 and 36 months of age, the concurrent relationship with language development may not have been fully captured. Given that earlier developmental stages, particularly during the first and early second year of life, are highly sensitive to caregiver interaction (Tomasello, 2017), future research should examine the effects of phubbing at earlier ages.

 

Finally, this study is limited by potential same-reporter bias, as maternal self-reports were used to assess both maternal phubbing and toddlers’ language development. This may introduce common method bias, potentially inflating or attenuating the observed associations between variables. Therefore, the relationships identified in this study should be interpreted with caution. Future research should address this limitation by incorporating multiple informants or objective observational measures.