# Phubber's Emotional Activations: The Association between PANAS and Phubbing Behavior
## 4 Results
### Inferential Analysis
#### 4.2.5 Phubbing and SMA Emotional Activations  
We relied on partial correlations once again in order to produce modeling about emotional activation related to both phubbing and SMA that could be free from the previously identified relationships regarding sex and age. For guilty and ashamed variables, a non-parametric partial correlation was performed.  
In Table 3, phubbing and SMA did not seem to be related to positive affects, with a few exceptions (i.e., CD correlations with determined, attentive, and concentrating adjectives and the correlation between PO and concentrating). Active, interested, enthusiastic, strong, inspired, excited, and proud adjectives appeared unrelated to both phubbing scores and social media addiction.  
Negative affects appeared instead to be more steadily related with both phubbing and SMA, with almost identical effect sizes. In general, as the phubbing and SMA level increases, so does the negative affect. To better emphasize the relationship that phubbing and social media addiction entertained with negative affect, we discretized phubbing and social media addiction scores according to the respective mean value, as they are normally distributed, and compared these two groups (i.e., above and below CD, PO, and SMA mean values) in terms of negative affect through [PERSON]'s \(t\)-test. Individuals with CD (t\({}_{(338)}\) = \(-2.89\); \(p\) = 0.004; [PERSON]'s d = \(-0.29\)), PO (t\({}_{(408)}\) = \(-3.87\); \(p\) < 0.001; [PERSON]'s d = \(-0.38\)) and SMA (t\({}_{(411)}\) = \(-5.00\); \(p\) < 0.001; [PERSON]'s d = \(-0.49\)) scores above the mean value had on average higher levels of negative affect (Figure 1).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**PANAS** & **CD** & **PO** & **SMA** \\ \hline Determined & \(-0.17\) *** (0.16 ***) & \(-0.03\) n.s. (\(-0.01\) n.s.) & \(-0.02\) n.s. (\(0.02\) n.s.) \\ Attentive & \(-0.11\) * (\(-0.10\) *) & \(-0.06\) n.s. (\(-0.04\) n.s.) & \(-0.02\) n.s. (\(-0.04\) n.s.) \\ Concentrating & \(-0.15\) ** (\(-0.14\) **) & \(-0.13\) * (\(-0.11\) *) & \(-0.06\) n.s. (\(-0.04\) n.s.) \\ Afraid & \(0.11\) ** (\(0.14\) **) & \(0.16\) ** (\(0.19\) ***) & \(0.11\) * (\(0.19\) ***) \\ Upset & \(0.13\) ** (\(0.16\) ***) & \(0.15\) ** (\(0.18\) ***) & \(0.12\) * (\(0.20\) ***) \\ Nervous & \(0.13\) ** (\(0.15\) ***) & \(0.19\) *** (\(0.19\) ***) & \(0.15\) ** (\(0.21\) ***) \\ Jittery & \(0.21\) ** (\(0.23\) ***) & \(0.20\) ** (\(0.24\) ***) & \(0.13\) * (\(0.21\) ***) \\ Scared & \(0.15\) ** (\(0.17\) ***) & \(0.12\) * (\(0.16\) ***) & \(0.11\) * (\(0.18\) ***) \\ Distressed & \(0.11\) * (\(0.13\) **) & \(0.11\) * (\(0.16\) ***) & \(0.11\) * (\(0.19\) ***) \\ Guilty & \(0.14\) ** (\(0.14\) **) & \(0.12\) ** (\(0.12\) **) & \(0.14\) ** (\(0.14\) **) \\ Ashamed & \(0.18\) *** (\(0.20\) ***) & \(0.17\) *** (\(0.17\) ***) & \(0.14\) ** (\(0.16\) ***) \\ Irritable & \(0.09\) n.s. (\(0.11\) *) & \(0.13\) ** (\(0.15\) **) & \(0.09\) n.s. (\(0.14\) **) \\ Hostile & \(0.13\) ** (\(0.14\) **) & \(0.12\) * (\(0.14\) **) & \(0.12\) * (\(0.15\) **) \\ PANAS\_PA & \(-0.07\) n.s. (\(-0.05\) n.s.) & \(0.06\) n.s. (\(-0.03\) n.s.) & \(0.02\) n.s. (\(-0.06\) n.s.) \\ PANAS\_NA & \(0.19\) *** (\(0.22\) ***) & \(0.21\) *** (\(0.24\) ***) & \(0.16\) *** (\(0.24\) ***) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \(N\) = 419. * \(p\) < 0.005; ** \(p\) < 0.01; *** \(p\) < 0.001; n.s. = not significant; CD = communication disturbance; PO = phone obsession; PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Partial correlation of PANAS with both phubbing (CD and PO) and SMA (controlled for age and sex). Non-controlled Pearson’s correlation values are reported within brackets.