# Linking Phubbing Behavior to Self-Reported Attentional Failures and Media Multitasking
## 3 Results
### Initial Regression Model of Everyday Attentional Failures Predicting Phubbing Behavior  
Because all of the everyday attentional failures were correlated with phubbing, we investigated which of these domains was most predictive of this behavior. We used standard multiple regression, rather than hierarchical or statistical regression, because this method provides the most conservative assessment of the unique contribution of each predictor variable on the outcome variable [54]. In an initial regression model, GSP scores were predicted using scores on ARCES, MW-S, MAAS-LO, AC-S, MW-D, and AC-D. This initial regression model allowed us to isolate the extent to which everyday attentional failures can predict phubbing behavior. The overall regression was statistically significant, and a large amount of the variance in GSP scores were explained by the attention measures, \(R\) = 0.78, _R_\({}^{2}\) = 0.61, adjusted _R_\({}^{2}\) = 0.61, _F_(6, 366) = 96.80, \(p\) < 0.001. To assess the unique contribution of each predictor, the \(t\) ratios for the individual regression slopes were examined. All six predictors significantly predicted GSP scores, which in included the MAAS-LO, AC-D, MW-D, MW-S, AC-S, and ARCES, _t_s = -2.10-5.11, _ps_ < 0.05 (see Table 3). Specifically, higher scores on the ARCES, AC-S, MW-S, MW-D, and MAAS-LO predicted higher scores on the GSP, respectively. Interestingly, lower scores on the AC-D, which indicates less distractibility, predicted higher scores on the GSP. Overall, these results imply that, at least among this sample, a higher frequency of everyday attentional failures, excluding distractibility, predicted engagement in phubbing behavior. In particular, experiencing a greater frequency of cognitive failures as a result of absentmindedness was most likely to predict phubbing behavior. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Predictor** & **Estimate** & **SE** & \(\mathbf{t}\) & \(\mathbf{p}\) & **Stand. Estimate** \\ \hline Intercept & \(-\)13.40 & 3.08 & \(-\)4.34 & \(<\)0.001 & - \\ ARCES & 0.73 & 0.14 & 5.11 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.30 \\ AC-S & 4.45 & 1.24 & 3.59 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.19 \\ MW-S & 3.55 & 1.09 & 3.27 & 0.001 & 0.21 \\ MW-D & 2.47 & 0.94 & 2.63 & 0.009 & 0.14 \\ AC-D & \(-\)2.24 & 1.07 & \(-\)2.10 & 0.037 & \(-\)0.09 \\ MAAS-LO & 0.21 & 0.10 & 2.03 & 0.043 & 0.12 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. \(R\) = 0.78, _R_\({}^{2}\) = 0.61; Adjusted _R_\({}^{2}\) = 0.61; _F_(6, 366) = 96.80, \(p\) < 0.001. Estimates represent unstandardized regression coefficients. ARCES = Attention-Related Cognitive Errors Scale; AC-S = Attentional Control: Shifting; MW-S = Mind Wandering: Spontaneous; MW-D = Mind Wandering: Deliberate; AC-D = Attentional Control: Distraction; MAAS-LO: Mindful Attention Awareness Scale—Lapses Only.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Summary of initial standard multiple regression analysis for attentional predictors of phubbing behavior (_N_ = 373). Expanded Regression Model of Everyday Attentional Failures, Demographics, and Select Psychosocial and Personality Variables Predicting Phubbing Behavior  
In an effort to better account for the variance in phubbing behavior scores, we repeated the standard multiple regression with the six a priori attention predictors to include the significant demographic, psychosocial, and personality correlates of GSP scores. These variables included age, BIS-11 scores, SSRQ scores, and SCS scores. We did not include media use frequency as a covariate in this expanded regression model because this measure was designed to accompany the MMM-S, and for our purposes, we were not interested in predicting phubbing behavior with media multitasking. When we introduced these additional potential predictors of phubbing behavior to this expanded regression model, it remained statistically significant, \(R=0.79\), \(R^{2}=0.63\), adjusted \(R^{2}=0.62\), \(F(10,362)=61.30\), \(p<0.001\). Compared to the initial regression model, the accounted variance in phubbing behavior scores increased from 61% to approximately 63%.