Workplace Phubbing in Nursing Teams: Occupational Mental Health–Relevant Psychosocial Stress, Resilience, and Job Performance

Abstract

Workplace phubbing (being ignored during an interaction because a colleague is attending to a mobile phone) is increasingly common in clinical settings and may function as a subtle interpersonal stressor relevant to nursing teamwork, occupational well-being, and cooperative functioning. This cross-sectional survey examined associations between perceived workplace phubbing and self-reported job performance (overall, in-role, and extra-role). It tested whether resilience and perceived phubbing norms were related to performance. Nurses and nurse assistants from six public hospitals in Northern Greece provided eligible questionnaires (N = 338). In the primary overall-score models, being phubbed was positively associated with total and in-role performance but not with extra-role performance. In secondary dimension-level models, perceived phubbing norms were positively associated with all three performance outcomes, whereas feeling ignored and interpersonal conflict were not independent predictors. Resilience was positively associated with total, in-role, and extra-role performance. The GSBP total × resilience interaction was statistically significant only for in-role performance; however, simple-slope interpretation indicated attenuation of a positive association at higher resilience rather than buffering of an adverse association. Overall, resilience appeared to function as an independent correlate of perceived work performance rather than as evidence of the hypothesized buffering of a negative phubbing–performance association. These findings suggest that workplace phubbing should be understood as a context-dependent interpersonal phenomenon rather than a uniform performance risk. Clarifying digital-attention norms and protecting inclusive communication during key clinical interactions may support teamwork, psychosocial climate, and occupational well-being among nurses.

1. Introduction

The rapid advancement of communication technologies, culminating in the widespread adoption of smartphones, has transformed human interaction, reshaping how people connect and coordinate. Smartphones now integrate functions that were previously distributed across multiple tools, including address books, calendars, browsers, calculators, and maps. As a result, they support users’ cognitive tasks while also meeting affective and practical needs, such as immediate access to information, continuous connectivity, efficient communication, and entertainment [1]. This form of use has been associated with positive relational outcomes, as it facilitates effortless connections with friends and family members [2]. However, the same devices that enhance coordination can undermine face-to-face context. In recent years, familiar scenes have proliferated, including groups of adolescents silently absorbed in their phones, couples watching their screens rather than each other, family members sharing the same space without speaking, and professionals checking their phones even during collaborative work. What was once regarded as a breach of etiquette is now often perceived as ordinary interaction and, in many contexts, as increasingly normative, while also introducing new challenges to social engagement.

One such challenge is phubbing, a term coined from “phone” and “snubbing,” which refers to ignoring one’s immediate social companions in favor of interacting with a smartphone [3]. Phubbing is closely related to, but conceptually distinct from, general phone use, workplace incivility, and ostracism. Unlike general phone use, which may be appropriate or norm-consistent, phubbing occurs during face-to-face exchanges and diverts attention from the interaction partner to the device, thereby signaling reduced interpersonal availability. In workplace settings, phubbing can be understood as a specific smartphone-mediated form of incivility because it may be experienced as rude or discourteous behavior with ambiguous intent and as a violation of norms of mutual respect [4]. Its distinctive feature is not that it falls outside incivility, but that the uncivil signal is expressed through device-mediated attentional disengagement. Although phubbing shares features with ostracism, it is not equivalent to ostracism. It represents a micro-level, momentary form of exclusion in which the target remains present but is psychologically sidelined, a pattern that can elicit the need-threat responses documented in the ostracism literature. Drawing on Ostracism Theory, phubbing can be conceptualized as a brief, smartphone-mediated form of social exclusion that may activate need-threat processes similar to those described in the broader ostracism literature, including threats to belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. In high-pressure clinical teams, these repeated attentional violations may function as chronic psychosocial stressors that undermine the relational safety necessary for effective nursing teamwork and clinical care [5].

In occupational mental health research, repeated low-intensity social stressors in everyday interactions are increasingly recognized as meaningful because they can accumulate, shape perceived social safety, and influence strain-related processes. Workplace phubbing is not proposed as more severe than major nursing stressors, such as high workload, shift demands, and exposure to emotionally demanding clinical situations. Its importance lies instead in the fact that it occurs within the interpersonal exchanges nurses rely on to manage these demands. During handovers, medication-related communication, rapid clinical coordination, and requests for assistance, smartphone-mediated attentional disengagement may fragment attention, create uncertainty about a colleague’s availability, and weaken the mutual responsiveness required for safe and cooperative work [6,7,8,9,10]. Because these episodes may be brief, recurrent, and increasingly normalized, they may compound an already demanding psychosocial work environment rather than operate as an isolated or competing occupational stressor [4,11]. Within clinical teams, where coordination and emotional demands are high, such micro-level interactional disruptions may be particularly consequential for day-to-day functioning.

Phubbing may arise from habitual or poorly controlled smartphone checking [3], fear of missing out and related emotional factors [12], and social norms that increasingly normalize smartphone use during face-to-face interaction [3].

People can both engage in phubbing as phubbers and experience being phubbed as targets. Being phubbed denotes the experience of being ignored while one’s partner’s attention is on a smartphone [3]. This experience signals reduced interpersonal availability and may have three related consequences: (a) it threatens fundamental social needs, including belonging, self-esteem, and control; (b) it creates an interpersonal demand that drains attention and emotion-regulation resources; and (c) it alters exchange expectations, thereby reducing trust and willingness to contribute extra-role effort [13,14,15].

The experience of being phubbed is conceptualized as multidimensional. In the Generic Scale of Being Phubbed framework, perceived norms capture the extent to which smartphone-related attentional shifts are viewed as common or expected in social interaction; feeling ignored reflects the subjective experience of being disregarded while another person attends to a smartphone; and interpersonal conflict refers to tensions or disagreements associated with such phone-related disengagement [16]. These dimensions are relevant in workplace settings because they may not have identical implications for functioning: perceived norms may shape how phone use is interpreted, whereas feeling ignored and interpersonal conflict may more directly reflect the interpersonal cost of phubbing.

Workplace phubbing can be understood as a smartphone-mediated form of interpersonal incivility because it involves being ignored or disregarded during interaction, usually with ambiguous intent. This framing is consistent with broader incivility research, which shows that repeated low-intensity disrespectful behaviors can accumulate and affect employee well-being, strain responses, and even longer-term health-related processes [4,11]. Experiencing conversational disengagement while performing demanding work may elicit appraisals of social rejection and threaten fundamental social needs, including belonging, self-esteem, and control, thereby increasing affective strain and taxing emotion-regulation resources [13,17]. In nursing teams, where rapid coordination, mutual support, and psychological safety are essential, such interactional signals may reduce willingness to engage in discretionary helping and cooperation beyond formal duties (i.e., extra-role behaviors) [6].

From an occupational well-being and workplace incivility perspective, repeated experiences of micro-exclusion and disrupted interpersonal attention may act as social stressors that erode psychological safety and increase emotional strain over time. In nursing teams, these processes may be reflected in day-to-day work functioning, including cooperation, discretionary help, and job performance.

The impact of being phubbed may depend on the source and meaning of the behavior. In workplace settings, research on boss phubbing has shown that being ignored by a supervisor because of smartphone use can weaken supervisory trust, reduce employee engagement, and undermine job performance [18]. Workplace phubbing may also affect relational and psychological outcomes [19,20]. These findings provide an important basis for examining phubbing as a performance-relevant workplace stressor. However, less is known about whether similar processes occur in nursing teams, where phubbing may occur laterally among colleagues during clinical communication, handovers, or routine teamwork. In such contexts, the meaning of smartphone-related attentional disengagement may be ambiguous: it may be interpreted as work-related and situational, or as interpersonal disregard.

This raises an important question: are there personal resources that may help nurses maintain work functioning when exposed to workplace phubbing? Resilience is one such candidate resource. Resilience refers to the capacity to recover or “bounce back” from stress and adversity and is particularly relevant in high-demand clinical environments where nurses are exposed to repeated interpersonal, emotional, and organizational demands [21,22]. In digitally intensive workplaces, smartphone-related interruptions and expectations of constant availability may create techno-stressors that deplete attention, lead to psychological detachment, and deplete self-regulatory resources [23]. These processes are relevant to resilience because maintaining performance under repeated interpersonal and digital attention demands may require flexible coping and stress recovery. From an occupational well-being perspective, resilience may help nurses preserve attention, emotional regulation, and cooperative functioning when workplace interactions are disrupted. Therefore, examining resilience in the phubbing–performance pathway may clarify whether it serves as an independent resource for job performance or as a buffer mitigating the potential negative association between being phubbed and performance.

Experiences of being phubbed may reduce perceived social support and positive peer interactions, which may be relevant to resilience among nursing personnel [24]. Evidence shows that most studies examine resilience as a moderator and not as an outcome. In research conducted among Chinese college students, resilience buffered the link between peer phubbing and cyber dating victimization and reduced the pathway through rejection sensitivity [25].

The impact of phubbing on the workplace is increasing, and attention has been focused on the connection between excessive smartphone use and levels of work engagement and, in turn, job performance [26]. In the healthcare sector, particularly in nursing, smartphone-related social disengagement may have implications that extend beyond personal relationships. Nursing is inherently collaborative, requiring effective communication, mutual trust, and emotional support among colleagues. Social disengagement through phubbing could undermine these processes by fragmenting communication and creating interpersonal friction. Furthermore, repeated experiences of social neglect may be associated with weaker resilience resources and greater cognitive and emotional strain, which, in turn, may be related to poorer job performance. Behaviors such as phubbing during professional interactions may reduce team cohesion, impair information exchange, and foster feelings of exclusion [7,26]. Over time, these dynamics may contribute to a less supportive psychosocial climate and heightened perceived work strain, which may in turn be associated with lower resilience resources and poorer job performance. In nursing practice, such disruptions may also have implications for patient care, because fragmented communication, reduced attentiveness, and weaker team coordination can affect the continuity and quality of care [7].

Given the high demands and emotional intensity of nursing work, understanding the impact of being phubbed in professional settings is essential for designing interventions that promote both staff well-being and the quality of patient care. However, to our knowledge, the nursing literature has not explicitly integrated resilience into the phubbing–performance pathway (as a moderator, mediator, or outcome), leaving a clear gap. By focusing on nurses, this study extends the emerging workplace phubbing literature to a high-stakes healthcare context and clarifies when the detrimental association with performance may be less pronounced. In doing so, it highlights resilience as a potentially protective personal resource that may inform prevention efforts oriented toward occupational mental health.

By focusing on a psychosocial workplace stressor in nursing teams, this study contributes to research on workplace incivility, resilience, and job performance in healthcare settings. The present cross-sectional study aimed to examine associations among workplace phubbing, resilience, and nurses’ self-reported job performance, including overall, in-role, and extra-role performance, while controlling for demographic and work-related factors. Drawing on workplace incivility and personal-resource perspectives, we hypothesized that higher levels of being phubbed at work would be associated with lower job performance (H1). We further hypothesized that higher resilience would be positively associated with job performance, after accounting for workplace phubbing and covariates (H2). Finally, because resilience may help employees maintain functioning when exposed to interpersonal stressors, we hypothesized that resilience would moderate the association between workplace phubbing and job performance, such that the negative association between being phubbed and job performance would be weaker among nurses with higher resilience (H3). In addition to these hypothesis-testing models based on the overall GSBP score, secondary dimension-level analyses examined whether perceived norms, feeling ignored, and interpersonal conflict showed distinct associations with each job-performance outcome.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Participants

This cross-sectional study was conducted among nursing staff at one tertiary and five secondary hospitals in Northern Greece. Data were collected via self-completed paper-based questionnaires using a convenience sampling approach. The study description was disseminated to potential participants through multiple channels, including hospital nursing station postings and staff portals. Across the six hospitals, the invitation was made available to all nursing personnel assigned to participating departments during the recruitment period (postings at nursing stations and announcements via staff portals). Because staffing denominators were not consistently retrievable across hospitals/departments, we are unable to compute a precise response rate. To increase coverage across shifts, recruitment materials remained posted throughout the data-collection period, and departments were re-contacted at least once to maintain visibility. Participation was entirely voluntary. Interested personnel contacted the first author and received an anonymous questionnaire. To reduce perceived coercion and enhance confidentiality, questionnaires were distributed in sealed envelopes and returned sealed to a designated department mailbox, with no identifying information. No incentives were offered. Participants could complete the questionnaire during non-clinical time. Recruitment was open throughout July–September 2025, allowing participation by staff working different shifts. Eligibility criteria included permanent employment status and at least 1 year of work experience. Completion time was approximately 15–20 min. Questionnaires were excluded if eligibility criteria were not met (non-permanent employment or <1 year of experience) or if key study variables were missing to the extent that the questionnaire could not be analyzed (complete-case analysis was applied at the analysis stage; see Statistical analysis).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Demographic and Professional Characteristics

Information was collected on participants’ age, gender, living arrangement, professional category, years of professional experience, and department of employment. Age and professional experience were recorded in years. Living arrangement was categorized as living alone or living with a partner/family. The professional category was classified as nurse or nurse assistant, and the department of employment was categorized as a general medical ward or a critical/interventional unit.

2.2.2. The Generic Scale of Being Phubbed (GSBP)

The Generic Scale of Being Phubbed (GSBP) is a psychometric instrument developed by Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas [16] to assess individuals’ experiences of being ignored or dismissed during social interactions due to others’ engagement with their smartphones, a phenomenon known as being phubbed. The scale includes 22 items, rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Never to 7 = Always). It comprises three subscales: Perceived Norms, Feeling Ignored, and Interpersonal Conflict. The scale was translated into Greek following standard cross-cultural adaptation procedures proposed by Beaton et al. [27] and consistent with the ISPOR good-practice recommendations [28]. To ensure cultural relevance and consistency, cognitive interviews were conducted with 10 nurses. No comprehension issues were reported.

2.2.3. The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)

The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) was developed by Smith et al. [22] to specifically assess the ability to “bounce back” or recover from stress, reflecting the original, most basic meaning of resilience. The scale consists of six items, three positively worded and three negatively worded (reverse scored), rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Scores are calculated as the means of all items, with higher scores indicating greater resilience. The BRS has been translated and culturally adapted into Greek [29].

2.2.4. The Job Performance Scale

The Job Performance Scale (JPS) developed by Goodman and Svyantek [30] is designed to assess two key dimensions of employee performance: task performance, also referred to as in-role performance, which reflects behaviors directly related to completing job-specific duties; and contextual performance, also referred to as extra-role performance, which reflects behaviors that contribute to the organizational, social, and psychological environment, such as helping coworkers or supporting organizational objectives [31]. The instrument consists of six statements: three measuring task performance and three measuring contextual performance, rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “Does not describe me at all” to 7 = “Describes me perfectly”. Higher scores indicate higher self-reported job performance (JP). It has been adapted into Greek [32].

2.3. Ethical Considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee (55705/475—15 April 2025) before data collection. Participation was voluntary, and all participants provided informed consent after receiving detailed information about the study’s purpose and procedures. Confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents were strictly maintained throughout the research process.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics are presented as means and standard deviations or frequencies and percentages. Regression analyses were based on complete cases; four participants with missing department information were excluded only from department comparisons. Distributional characteristics were evaluated using histograms, Q–Q plots, skewness, and kurtosis. Because the outcomes were composite multi-item scores and the sample was relatively large, parametric procedures were used for the principal analyses. All GSBP items were scored in their original direction, with higher scores indicating greater experience of being phubbed; perceived norms items were not reverse-coded. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s α. CFA evaluated correlated three-factor and second-order GSBP models using χ², CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR, and standardized factor loadings. These analyses supported examination of both the overall GSBP score and its dimensions in separate models. Pearson’s correlations and Welch’s independent-samples t-tests were used for the primary bivariate analyses. Spearman’s correlations and Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted as sensitivity analyses and are reported in Supplementary Table S1. Multivariable associations were examined using two parallel sets of hierarchical linear regression models for total, in-role, and extra-role job performance. In the primary models, age, living arrangement, and work experience were entered in Block 1; the mean-centered GSBP total score and resilience in Block 2; and their interaction in Block 3. Significant interactions were examined using simple slopes at the mean and one standard deviation above and below the mean of resilience. In secondary dimension-level models, the same covariates were entered in Block 1, followed by perceived norms, feeling ignored, interpersonal conflict, and resilience in Block 2. The GSBP total score and dimensions were never entered in the same model, and no automated stepwise selection was used. Changes in explained variance were evaluated using ΔR² and F-change tests. Multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factors and tolerance, and model assumptions were examined through residual and influence diagnostics. Two-tailed statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26, and CFA was performed in JASP version 0.19.1.

3. Results

A total of 391 questionnaires were received. A precise response rate could not be calculated because denominators of eligible staff were not consistently available across departments/hospitals. After excluding 53 questionnaires for ineligibility or incomplete data, 338 participants were included in the final analysis. The respondents included 217 (64.2%) nurses and 121 (35.8%) assistant nurses. The majority were female (87.6%), lived with their partner/family (84.3%), and worked in general medical wards (54.7%). The demographic and occupational characteristics of the participants are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic and occupational characteristics.

Variables	n (%)
Gender
Male	42 (12.4%)
Female	296 (87.6%)
Age a	46.6 (8.39)
Living arrangement
Live alone	53 (15.7%)
Live with my partner/family	285 (84.3%)
Nursing personnel
Nurses	217 (64.2%)
Nurse assistants	121 (35.8%)
Working experience a	19 (10.4)
Working department
General medical wards	185 (54.7%)
Critical/Interventional Units	153 (45.3%)

^a mean (SD).

Descriptive statistics and internal consistency coefficients for the study scales are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s α for the GSBP, BRS, and JPS.

Scale	Mean	Standard Deviation	Cronbach’s α
GSBP	3.35	0.93	0.951
Perceived norms	4.04	1.02	0.923
Feeling ignored	2.81	1.14	0.951
Interpersonal conflict	2.54	1.19	0.896
BRS	3.76	0.71	0.799
JPS	4.86	0.87	0.891
In-role	4.81	0.93	0.908
Extra-role	4.92	0.98	0.790

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the dimensional structure of the GSBP in the present nursing sample. The correlated three-factor model showed marginal-to-acceptable fit to the data: χ²(206) = 684.24, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.928, TLI = 0.897, RMSEA = 0.083, and SRMR = 0.076. All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant, with loadings ranging from 0.837 to 0.940 for perceived norms, from 0.430 to 0.925 for feeling ignored, and from 0.822 to 0.885 for interpersonal conflict. A second-order representation was also examined to evaluate whether the three GSBP dimensions could be meaningfully summarized by an overall being-phubbed score. The second-order model yielded equivalent fit indices: χ²(206) = 684.24, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.928, TLI = 0.897, RMSEA = 0.083, and SRMR = 0.076. All three first-order dimensions loaded positively on the higher-order factor, with standardized loadings of 0.641 for perceived norms, 0.910 for feeling ignored, and 0.824 for interpersonal conflict. These findings suggest that the GSBP dimensions share a common higher-order component, although the perceived norms dimension showed a comparatively lower loading. Therefore, the overall GSBP score was retained for the primary analyses, while dimension-level scores were also examined to capture potentially distinct associations with job performance outcomes.

Parametric bivariate associations between participant characteristics, study variables, and self-reported job performance are presented in Table 3. Age and working experience were positively associated with total, in-role, and extra-role performance. Overall, being phubbed was positively associated with total and in-role performance but not with extra-role performance. Perceived norms and resilience were positively associated with all three performance outcomes, whereas feeling ignored and interpersonal conflict were not significantly associated with any performance outcome. No statistically significant differences in performance were identified according to gender, living arrangement, nursing personnel category, or department in the parametric group comparisons.

Table 3. Parametric bivariate analyses between independent variables and self-reported job performance.

	Total Self-Reported JP		In-Role JP		Extra-Role JP
Independent Variable	Statistic	p	Statistic	p	Statistic	p
Gender	t(47.6) = −1.530	0.133	t(47.6) = −1.371	0.177	t(48.5) = −1.513	0.137
Age	r = 0.211	<0.001	r = 0.179	<0.001	r = 0.208	<0.001
Living arrangement	t(82.2) = −1.369	0.175	t(82.6) = −0.777	0.440	t(84.1) = −1.761	0.082
Nursing personnel	t(189.0) = −0.879	0.380	t(166.6) = −0.832	0.407	t(202.7) = −0.762	0.447
Working experience	r = 0.235	<0.001	r = 0.244	<0.001	r = 0.191	<0.001
Department	t(332.0) = −1.229	0.220	t(332.0) = −0.986	0.325	t(330.9) = −1.274	0.204
Overall being phubbed (GSBP total)	r = 0.129	0.017	r = 0.172	0.002	r = 0.068	0.210
Perceived norms	r = 0.219	<0.001	r = 0.227	<0.001	r = 0.178	0.001
Feeling ignored	r = 0.035	0.517	r = 0.092	0.090	r = −0.025	0.652
Interpersonal conflict	r = 0.041	0.447	r = 0.089	0.103	r = −0.010	0.851
Resilience	r = 0.198	<0.001	r = 0.206	<0.001	r = 0.160	0.003

Note. JP = job performance; GSBP = Generic Scale of Being Phubbed. Pearson’s r was used for continuous variables. Welch’s independent-samples t-test was used for two-group comparisons. The order of subtraction for t-tests was male minus female, living alone minus living with a partner/family, nurses minus nurse assistants, and general medical wards minus critical/interventional units. Analyses were based on N = 338, except department comparisons (N = 334). Two-tailed p values are reported; statistically significant results are indicated by p < 0.05.

The non-parametric sensitivity analyses were broadly consistent with the parametric findings. Two differences were observed: overall being phubbed was associated with total job performance using Pearson’s correlation (r = 0.129, p = 0.017), but not Spearman’s correlation (ρ = 0.072, p = 0.185), whereas living arrangement was associated with total and extra-role performance in the Mann–Whitney analyses (p = 0.045 and p = 0.024, respectively), but not in the corresponding Welch t-tests (p = 0.175 and p = 0.082). Thus, the findings were broadly, but not completely, robust to the choice of statistical procedure. Full non-parametric results are presented in Supplementary Table S1.

The hierarchical regression analyses comprised primary overall-score models (Table 4) and secondary dimension-level models (Table 5), applied consistently to total, in-role, and extra-role self-reported job performance. In the primary models, the addition of the GSBP total score and resilience significantly improved explained variances for all three outcomes. The GSBP total score was positively associated with total and in-role performance but was not independently associated with extra-role performance. Resilience was positively associated with all three performance outcomes.

Table 4. Primary hierarchical regression models using the overall GSBP score to predict self-reported job performance outcomes.

Outcome	Predictor	B	SE	β	p
Total self-reported JP	Age	0.011	0.007	0.105	0.112
	Living arrangement	0.164	0.131	0.066	0.211
	Working experience	0.011	0.006	0.135	0.042
	Overall being phubbed (GSBP total)	0.151	0.053	0.150	0.005
	Resilience	0.199	0.068	0.156	0.004
	Overall being phubbed × Resilience	−0.126	0.077	−0.088	0.101
Model statistics	Block 2: ΔR2 = 0.044, F-change(2, 332) = 8.259, p < 0.001; Block 3: ΔR2 = 0.007, F-change(1, 331) = 2.706, p = 0.101; final R2 = 0.116; adjusted R2 = 0.100.
In-role performance	Age	0.005	0.007	0.044	0.501
	Living arrangement	0.104	0.137	0.039	0.452
	Working experience	0.016	0.006	0.180	0.006
	Overall being phubbed (GSBP total)	0.208	0.056	0.195	<0.001
	Resilience	0.225	0.072	0.166	0.002
	Overall being phubbed × Resilience	−0.166	0.081	−0.109	0.041
Model statistics	Block 2: ΔR2 = 0.061, F-change(2, 332) = 11.514, p < 0.001; Block 3: ΔR2 = 0.011, F-change(1, 331) = 4.218, p = 0.041; final R2 = 0.133; adjusted R2 = 0.117.
Extra-role performance	Age	0.018	0.008	0.147	0.029
	Living arrangement	0.224	0.148	0.081	0.132
	Working experience	0.007	0.006	0.071	0.294
	Overall being phubbed (GSBP total)	0.094	0.060	0.084	0.118
	Resilience	0.173	0.077	0.122	0.026
	Overall being phubbed × Resilience	−0.087	0.087	−0.055	0.320
Model statistics	Block 2: ΔR2 = 0.021, F-change(2, 332) = 3.847, p = 0.022; Block 3: ΔR2 = 0.003, F-change(1, 331) = 0.994, p = 0.320; final R2 = 0.079; adjusted R2 = 0.062.

Note. B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; β = standardized coefficient; JP = job performance; GSBP = Generic Scale of Being Phubbed. Coefficients are from the final Block 3 models. Block 1 included age, living arrangement, and work experience; Block 2 added the mean-centered GSBP total score and resilience; Block 3 added the GSBP total × resilience interaction. Living arrangement was coded 0 = living alone and 1 = living with a partner/family. N = 338.

Table 5. Secondary dimension-level regression models predicting self-reported job performance outcomes.

Outcome	Predictor	B	SE	β	p
Total self-reported JP	Age	0.012	0.007	0.114	0.078
	Living arrangement	0.087	0.128	0.035	0.495
	Working experience	0.013	0.006	0.147	0.024
	Perceived norms	0.246	0.053	0.277	<0.001
	Feeling ignored	−0.044	0.062	−0.053	0.483
	Interpersonal conflict	−0.043	0.056	−0.055	0.442
	Resilience	0.196	0.067	0.154	0.004
Model statistics	Block 2: ΔR2 = 0.083, F-change(4, 330) = 8.086, p < 0.001; final R2 = 0.148; adjusted R2 = 0.130.
In-role performance	Age	0.005	0.007	0.047	0.466
	Living arrangement	0.026	0.136	0.010	0.847
	Working experience	0.017	0.006	0.192	0.003
	Perceived norms	0.230	0.057	0.243	<0.001
	Feeling ignored	0.010	0.066	0.012	0.875
	Interpersonal conflict	−0.032	0.060	−0.038	0.593
	Resilience	0.237	0.071	0.175	<0.001
Model statistics	Block 2: ΔR2 = 0.084, F-change(4, 330) = 8.065, p < 0.001; final R2 = 0.145; adjusted R2 = 0.127.
Extra-role performance	Age	0.019	0.008	0.161	0.015
	Living arrangement	0.149	0.144	0.054	0.303
	Working experience	0.008	0.006	0.082	0.216
	Perceived norms	0.263	0.060	0.267	<0.001
	Feeling ignored	−0.098	0.070	−0.107	0.164
	Interpersonal conflict	−0.055	0.063	−0.063	0.389
	Resilience	0.156	0.075	0.110	0.039
Model statistics	Block 2: ΔR2 = 0.067, F-change(4, 330) = 6.291, p < 0.001; final R2 = 0.122; adjusted R2 = 0.103.

Note. B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; β = standardized coefficient; JP = job performance; GSBP = Generic Scale of Being Phubbed. Coefficients are from the final Block 2 models. Block 1 included age, living arrangement, and work experience; Block 2 added mean-centered perceived norms, feeling ignored, interpersonal conflict, and resilience. The GSBP total score was not included in these models. Living arrangement was coded 0 = living alone and 1 = living with a partner/family. N = 338.

The GSBP total × resilience interaction was statistically significant only for in-role performance. Simple-slope analysis showed that the positive association between the GSBP total score and in-role performance was significant at low and average levels of resilience but not at high resilience. This pattern reflected attenuation of a positive association rather than buffering of an adverse association.

In the secondary dimension-level models, perceived norms were positively associated with total, in-role, and extra-role performance, whereas feeling ignored and interpersonal conflict were not independently associated with any outcome. Resilience remained positively associated with all three outcomes. Among the covariates, work experience was positively associated with total and in-role performance, and age was positively associated with extra-role performance. Complete coefficients and model statistics are presented in Table 4 and Table 5.

4. Discussion

This study examined the associations of workplace phubbing and resilience with nurses’ self-reported total, in-role, and extra-role job performance. The findings provided different levels of support for the hypotheses. H1 was not supported because overall being phubbed was not negatively associated with performance; instead, the GSBP total score was positively associated with total and in-role performance and was unrelated to extra-role performance. H2 was supported, as resilience was positively associated with all three outcomes. H3 was not supported in its hypothesized buffering form. Although the GSBP total × resilience interaction was statistically significant for in-role performance, the positive association between being phubbed and in-role performance weakened as resilience increased rather than showing that resilience buffered an adverse association.

The unexpected positive or null associations involving the overall GSBP score may reflect the contextual meaning of smartphone use in clinical work. Where smartphone use and interruptions are common, attentional shifts may be interpreted as task- or communication-driven rather than personally directed. This interpretation is consistent with evidence that phubbing can become normalized [3] and that perceived phubbing norms may reflect descriptive commonness rather than social approval [33]. Smartphones are also used by nurses to access clinical information and communicate with the healthcare team [8]. In contrast, both personal mobile-phone use and smartphone-based interruptions are common in hospital settings [34,35]. The positive coefficients should therefore not be interpreted as evidence that being phubbed improves performance; they may instead reflect routine smartphone use, digitally intensive work, or normalized attention shifts.

The secondary dimension-level analyses help clarify this pattern. Perceived norms were positively associated with all three performance outcomes, whereas feeling ignored and interpersonal conflict were not independently associated with any outcome. Perceived norms may therefore capture the normalization of smartphone-related attention shifts more strongly than the interpersonal harm associated with being disregarded. In clinical environments, such norms may indicate that visible smartphone use is interpreted as routine or work-related [8,9,16]. Conversely, the absence of independent associations for feeling ignored and interpersonal conflict suggests that these more explicitly interpersonal components did not explain self-reported performance after their shared variance with the other dimensions was considered. Because these analyses were secondary and cross-sectional, causal or beneficial interpretations are not warranted.

The positive association between resilience and all three performance outcomes is consistent with its conceptualization as a personal resource that supports adaptation and functioning under demanding conditions [21,24]. However, resilience did not operate as the hypothesized protective buffer against an adverse phubbing–performance association. The significant interaction for in-role performance instead indicated that the positive association involving overall being phubbed was weaker at higher resilience. Resilience should therefore be interpreted primarily as an independent resource associated with perceived work functioning, rather than as a demonstrated moderator that protects nurses from a negative effect of phubbing.

Among the covariates, greater work experience was positively associated with total and in-role performance, whereas age was positively associated with extra-role performance. Living arrangement was not independently associated with any performance outcome. Because these covariate associations were not the primary focus of the study, they should be interpreted cautiously and examined further in studies designed specifically to evaluate demographic and occupational determinants of performance.

4.1. Organizational Implications for Occupational Well-Being in Nursing Teams

Given the cross-sectional design, the following implications should be considered provisional. They are framed as team- and system-level practices to support day-to-day functioning and psychosocial climate, rather than as clinical mental health interventions: (i) investing in resilience-supporting initiatives (e.g., peer-support structures, brief skills-based stress-management training, and reflective debriefing routines) to sustain functioning in high-demand clinical environments [36]; (ii) prioritizing team-level norm-setting over blanket restrictions by establishing shared expectations for respectful attention and clear “digital etiquette” during critical interactions [16,18]; and (iii) protecting inclusive communication and psychological safety through micro-practices that support cooperation and discretionary helping in nursing teams [6,37]. In addition, practical attention-protection routines (e.g., brief “phone-free windows” during handovers, briefings, and medication checks) align with patient-safety evidence demonstrating that interruptions during medication administration increase the risk of errors and that bundled “do-not-interrupt” interventions can reduce interruptions [38,39].

However, the present study uniquely highlights the normative context as a direct, low-cost target for intervention. Specifically, the observed pattern that perceived norms around smartphone use are meaningfully linked to both core task performance and discretionary contribution suggests that clinical teams may benefit from reducing ambiguity in interpreting attentional shifts (clinical necessity vs. interpersonal disregard). Therefore, beyond general etiquette statements, units may consider explicitly co-designing and communicating “micro-context rules” (i.e., what is acceptable during handover vs. routine tasks), alongside brief “repair” scripts when interruptions are unavoidable (e.g., acknowledging the interruption and re-engaging). This norm-clarification implication is less commonly emphasized in the workplace phubbing literature, which has typically focused on exposure or individual differences. Yet, it is consistent with the present study’s findings and provides a pragmatic route to potentially support psychosocial climate and sustain cooperation in high-demand clinical settings [16,18].

4.2. Limitations and Strengths

Several limitations should be considered. First, the cross-sectional, concurrent, and single-source design precludes causal or temporal conclusions. In particular, the study cannot establish the temporal sequence required for mediation analysis. Self-reported job performance may also be affected by social desirability, self-enhancement, and common-method bias; therefore, the findings concern perceived work functioning rather than objectively assessed performance. Mental health and well-being outcomes were not directly measured.

Second, convenience sampling from six hospitals in Northern Greece, voluntary participation, the unavailable response-rate denominator, and the predominantly female sample may have introduced selection bias and restricted generalizability. The study also did not control potentially important occupational and organizational stressors, including workload, staffing adequacy, shift and emotional demands, burnout, workplace violence, leadership climate, and organizational support. Residual confounding therefore cannot be excluded, and the observed associations should not be attributed specifically or independently to workplace phubbing.

Third, the study assessed passive experiences of being phubbed without distinguishing their source or context, such as supervisors versus colleagues or handovers versus breaks. The extra-role measure did not distinguish citizenship behavior directed toward individuals from that directed toward the organization. Although CFA supported overall and dimension-level GSBP scoring, measurement invariance was not examined across gender, professional category, or clinical department. Future longitudinal, diary-based, experimental, and multi-source studies should incorporate objective or externally rated performance, occupational well-being and relational mechanisms, broader workplace stressors, and source- and context-specific phubbing measures. Strengths include the multisite nursing sample, culturally adapted measures with satisfactory internal consistency, examination of the GSBP structure, parallel regression models, and parametric analyses supported by non-parametric sensitivity testing.

5. Conclusions

This study provides preliminary evidence on associations between workplace phubbing, resilience, and self-reported job performance among nursing staff in Greek hospitals. The overall GSBP score was positively associated with total and in-role performance but was not associated with extra-role performance, providing no support for the hypothesized negative association. Resilience was positively associated with all three performance outcomes. Although the GSBP total × resilience interaction was statistically significant for in-role performance, its direction reflected attenuation of a positive association at higher resilience rather than buffering of an adverse effect; therefore, the hypothesized moderation mechanism was not supported. In secondary dimension-level models, perceived norms were positively associated with all three outcomes, whereas feeling ignored and interpersonal conflict were not independent predictors. Collectively, these findings suggest that workplace phubbing is a context-dependent interpersonal phenomenon and that perceived norms may partly reflect the normalization of smartphone-related attention shifts in clinical work. Longitudinal, diary-based, experimental, and multi-source studies are needed to clarify directionality and distinguish work-related smartphone use from interpersonal disregard.