Analyzing The Fear Of Missing Out
Analyzing The Fear Of Missing Out
Third, write your abstract (Part II) and upload it here
· Use this Abstract Assignment Grading Rubric (DOC)
·
· as you write your paper
Paper to Write About
Methods Two Preview Paper (FOMO).pdf
Example Paper
This is an example of a good paper. You can use this to guide your own paper, and to give you an idea of how your paper should look. Your paper should look just like this one:
Methods II Abstract Assignment – Example, Part II (DOC)
Analyzing The Fear Of Missing Out (FoMO) and Scarcity In Social Media: When You
Can’t Go To The Event of the Year
ANONYMOUS STUDENT
Florida International University
FOMO ANALYSIS 2
Abstract
Methods One Students: Typically, authors add their abstract for the paper here on the second
page. As you can see, the abstract for this paper is missing. Your job is to supply that abstract!
Read over the following paper, which is an actual paper turned in by a former student taking
Research Methods and Design II at FIU. This is similar to a paper you will write next semester.
Review the studies in this paper, and spot the hypotheses, independent and dependent variables,
participants, results, and implications, and write it up in one paragraph (no more than 250 words
maximum). Make sure to include keywords as well (keywords are words or short phrases that
researchers use when searching through online databases like PsycInfo – they need to be
descriptive of the paper, so come up with three or four that seem to suit this paper). Good luck!
Keywords: methods, paper, abstract, assignment, preview
FOMO ANALYSIS 3
Analyzing The Fear Of Missing Out (FoMO) and Scarcity In Social Media: When You
Can’t Go To The Event of the Year
The fear of missing out, FoMO, is a new age phenomenon that struck many victims with
its negative feelings of loneliness, depression, envy, or anxiety. FoMO is the act of feeling fear
when missing out on a rewarding experience that others having (Franchina et al., 2018). For
example, think of the following scenario: a group of friends is going to a beach bonfire, but one
is not able to make it. They are stuck at home either with COVID or studying for their final exam
that is to take place tomorrow. Everyone at the beach bonfire is posting videos and pictures
smiling and laughing, while the one that is forced to stay home is viewing the fun from their
phone in their bedroom feeling negatively of themselves. That feeling of envy or slight
depression is what FOMO is about, the fear of missing out.
As social media and technology have taken the world by storm in the twenty-first
century, the feeling of FOMO has increased exponentially. Anyone that has access to a phone
with internet can see what people are up to in their daily and social lives. While social media and
technology have increased, so have the risk of experiencing FOMO. Buglass et al. (2017) state
that constant and frequent use of social network sites is associated to fear of missing out
(FOMO). While the use of social network sites increased, the individual would experience a
decrease in self-esteem (Buglass et al., 2017). Buglass et al. (2017) also state, since self-esteem
decreased, it could encourage a possibly harmful cycle of FOMO-inspired social network site
use.
In comparison to Buglass et al. (2017) another study done by Alfasi (2019) researched
the effects of Facebook social comparison on self-esteem and depression. The social comparison
theory (Festinger, 1954) states that people compare themselves to others as a result of an innate
FOMO ANALYSIS 4
human need for self-evaluation. When social comparison has taken place online it is unique
because it conjures upward comparison, comparison to others who are doing better than most
(Alfasi, 2019). On social media, people tend to present an idealized image of themselves and
share the primary positive aspects of their lives and not the negative aspects (Alfasi, 2019).
Social media tends to distort the reality for others- when people see that a person is only posting
pictures of happy, successful, and enjoyable moments, they assume that there is no pain,
suffering, failures, or problems that take place in the day-to-day lives of those they see posting
such positive images (Alfasi, 2019). These picturesque representations of others tend to arouse
negative thoughts that something is going wrong in our own lives (Alfasi, 2019). This can cause
many emotions like shame and envy to trigger after seeing the positive aspects of others thus,
comparing it to a person’s own reality (Alfasi, 2019).
The experimental study done by Alfasi (2019) involves two groups who have Facebook
accounts to scroll through Facebook. One group scrolled through their Facebook News Feed
while the control group browsed a non-social Facebook page. The Facebook News Feed is the
feature that displays to users the content posted by members of Facebook (Pempek et al., 2009).
Alfasi concluded that participants who scrolled their Facebook News Feed documented lower
self-esteem and higher levels of depression compared to the participants who browsed the non-
social Facebook page. In other words, the group that viewed the Facebook News Feed where
people update and post about their day resulted in lower self-esteem and a higher depression rate.
The study shows additional evidence that upward social comparison does lead to a weakened
sense of self-esteem. In addition to participants who scrolled through their Facebook News Feed
experienced feelings of depression and proceeded to social comparison after viewing the Social
News Feeds. The final finding concluded an underlying link between exposure to the social
FOMO ANALYSIS 5
content presented on Facebook and negative psychological outcomes, like depression, lower self-
esteem, general social comparison tendency, and anxiety.
On a similar note, researchers Reer et al. (2019) composed a survey study on a large
sample of German users from ages 14-39 to investigate how social media engagement correlates
to loneliness, anxiety, and depression with FOMO and social comparison as likely mediators.
They found that loneliness, depression, and anxiety increase with social media engagement.
Also, FoMO and social comparison mutually facilitated the connection between well-being and
social media engagement, meaning that as well-being decreases, FoMo and social comparison
positively anticipate social media engagement (Reer et al., 2019). Finally, Reer et al. (2019)
concluded that social comparison and FoMO can be found to positively relate to each other,
prompting that people with high social comparison can become at-risk in developing FoMO, thus
causing a detriment cycle for one’s well-being.
Moreover, related research done by Roberts and David (2020) explores the relationship
between FoMO, social media intensity, connection, and well-being. They conducted two studies.
The first study explored the relationship between FoMO, social media intensity, and social
connection (Roberts & David, 2020). Study 1 indicated that FoMO is positively linked with
social intensity but negatively linked with social connection (Roberts & David, 2020). Mediation
test reveals that FoMO has a positive indirect effect on social connection through social media
intensity, indicating that FoMO can be a positive factor that can lead to greater social connection
(Roberts & David, 2020). Study 2 results suggest that FoMO affects well-being, both negatively
and positively through the impact of social media intensity and social connections (Roberts &
David, 2020). Ultimately, the authors concluded that FoMO does affect well-being negatively
FOMO ANALYSIS 6
while it can have a positive effect on well-being if social media use is utilized to create social
connections (Roberts & David, 2020).
Research studies on FoMO and well-being have produced similar results, stating that
frequent use of social media does result in low self-esteem, loneliness, higher levels of
depression, and higher risk of FoMO (Alfasi, 2019; Buglass et al., 2017; Reer et al., 2019;
Roberts & David, 2020). Nevertheless, researchers Hunt et al. (2018) discuss how limiting social
media use can decrease feelings of loneliness and depression. In this study, participants were
randomly assigned either to limit their use on social media (Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook) to a
maximum 10 minutes a day, per platform, or to continue their usual social media use, the control
group, for three weeks. The authors concluded that the participants in the limited use group
demonstrated a significant decrease in loneliness and depression compared to the control group.
Also, both groups showed a remarkable decrease in anxiety and FoMO, implying a benefit of
increased self-monitoring.
Study 1
The current study was designed to measure FoMO in participants when they read that
they will be the only ones not attending a social event while all their friends can attend. Three
conditions described which friends were going to the concert: all, none, and some. In general, we
predicted that if participants imagined they were the only person unable to attend an event while
all other social media friends could attend then, they would experience higher FoMO feelings
than when either none or some of their social media friends were able to attend, with no
differences in FoMO feelings emerging between conditions where either none or only some
other social media friends were able to attend. More specifically, we predicted that if participants
imagined they were the only person unable to attend an event while all other social media friends
FOMO ANALYSIS 7
could attend, then they would feel more frustrated and more likely to feel like they were missing
out than participants who read that none or only some other social media friends were able to
attend.
Methods
Participants
One hundred and nineteen individuals, mostly FIU students, were randomly selected to
participate in our study. The 119 participants included 47.1% (n = 56) males, 51.3% (n = 61)
females, and 1.7% (n = 2) who did not specify their gender. Ages varied from a minimum of 15
to a maximum of 67 years old (M = 24.72, SD = 7.40). The sample population consisted of
53.8% Hispanic (n = 64), 24.4% Caucasian (n = 29), 11.8% African Americans (n = 14), 3.4%
Asian American (n = 4), 1.7% Native American (n = 2), and 5% reporting “Other” (n = 6). See
Table 1.
Table 1
Demographics – Study One
FOMO ANALYSIS 8
Materials and Procedure
In regard to the uniform standards for informed consent, potential participants were asked
if he or she is willing to participate in the study. As well as disclosing if there were any risks to
the participant in this study. If they gave verbal consent, then the research materials were
presented to them. Participants randomly received one of three distinct documents that consisted
of five parts. Each document included one of the three conditions that were either “All”, “None”,
or “Some”. Participants were asked to follow the instructions at the top of the page and answer
questions about it later.
Part one consisted of participants looking at a Facebook page for a person named Ben
Addams. The page included a profile picture of Ben, menu links (i.e., Friends, Groups, Events,
FOMO ANALYSIS 9
Memories, etc.…), links to stories, advertisement links, Live Videos, contacts, friend requests,
birthdays, and other details that are regularly seen on a standard Facebook page. Participants see
a post created by Ben inviting his friends to an event that is to take place soon, and he wants to
buy the tickets as soon as possible. The post itself is non-specific about the event, just a male
performer having a rescheduled show that was canceled because of Covid from the previous
year. Ben’s Facebook post says: “Hey everyone! I’ve got great news. I know we’re all thrilled
that the Covid Quarantine is over and life is finally back to normal. But REAL normal means
ENTERTAINMENT IS BACK! Yep, that’s right. Remember the night out we had scheduled for
fall, 2020 until it got cancelled? Well, I just got an alert that he’s back in town and he’s ready to
ENTERTAIN! You know who I mean (and if you don’t know who, then you’re no friend of
mine!). The show is Sunday at 8:00. So who’s with me? I need to book tickets ASAP, and
they’re going fast. I need a headcount really soon (Like today! Like now!).”
Following Ben’s post, five friends respond to Ben in a separate post (Lisa, Erika, Carlos,
Ari, also included is the fifth post a “YOUR RESPONSE” post that participants imagined
posting). Everything on Ben’s Facebook page is identical across the three conditions, but the
only thing that is different is the responses from Ben’s first four friends. In the “All” condition,
the first four responses (Lisa, Erika, Carlos, and Ari) to Ben’s Facebook post stated that all four
would all attend the event. Examples of responses included – Lisa Nichols: “You know I’m in.
I’ve been waiting for this for a long time! I’d go even if I was swamped with work. Thanks!”
Erika Siu: “How did you get the alert before I did? I’d love to go! Plus, I’ve got nothing else to
do on Sunday. I can believe it’s been a year since he was scheduled to perform. Sucks that the
show got cancelled then, but it’s great that I get to go now.”
FOMO ANALYSIS 10
In the “None” condition, the first four responses (Lisa, Erika, Carlos, and Ari) to Ben’s
Facebook post about the event indicated that none of them would attend. Examples of responses
included – Carlos Hererra: “I’m out. I’ve really been looking forward to a return to normalcy, but
I have something else that night, and this is short notice. I can’t change my plans.” Ari Anaz: “I
have a thing going on that night, so I think I’ll have to bow out this time. I hate to miss out on
this, especially after the year we’ve had. Covid Sucks! But I can’t go.”
In the “Some” condition, the first four responses (Lisa, Eriak, Carlos, and Ari) to Ben’s
Facebook post showed that two friends would attend, while the other two would not attend.
Examples of responses included – Lisa Nichols: “You know I’m in. I’ve been waiting for this for
a long time! I’d go even if I was swamped with work. Thanks!” Ari Anaz: “I have a thing going
on that night, so I think I’ll have to bow out this time. I hate to miss out on this, especially after
the year we’ve had. Covid Sucks! But I can’t go.”
Throughout all the three conditions (All, None, and Some), there is a fifth response that is
identical across all conditions known as “YOUR RESPONSE”. Participants were asked to
imagine they responded to Ben’s post, stating that they cannot join the event: “YOUR
RESPONSE: “Sorry, but your timing couldn’t be worse, Ben. I can’t go. I have a huge project
due on Monday and I really can’t make the time for the show.”
After reading all five responses, participants were directed to part two. In part two,
participants rated their feelings about their imagined response on not being able to attend the
event. Research participants responded to ten statements regarding their feelings with an interval
scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). The ten statements would begin
with “I would feel …” followed by numerous emotions. The ten statements were, “I would feel
frustrated”, “I would feel happy”, “I would feel depressed”, “I would feel alone”, “I would feel
FOMO ANALYSIS 11
like I was missing out”, “I would feel I anxious”, “I would feel calm”, “I would feel joyful”, “I
would feel envious”, and “I would not feel any strong emotion”.
Part three asked research participants to rate five statements in regard to how each
statement applies to their general life. This part analyzed for the trait of FoMO from a scale of 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). The statements in part three were: “I fear others have
more rewarding experiences than me”, “When I miss out on a planned get-together, it bothers
me”, I get worried when I find out my friends are having fun without me”, I get anxious when I
don’t know what my friends are up to”, and “When I go on vacation, I continue to keep tabs on
what my friends are doing”.
Part four asked participants to fill out their demographic information such as their age,
gender, relationship status, race/ethnicity, if their first language was English, and if they were a
current FIU student. Part five was an attention check (manipulation check). Part five asked
participants, without looking back at the Facebook post, how many of Ben’s friends stated that
they will attend the event, mark one of the following, “all agreed to attend”, “none agreed to
attend”, or “some agreed to attend”. Once participants finished with their surveys they were
thanked for their participation and debriefed about the purpose of this study.
Note that there were many dependent variables, but our key focus was on “feel
frustrated”, “like I was missing out” as our dependent variables, and if our participants correctly
answered our attention check in part five.
Results
Our survey conditions (All, None, or Some) served as our independent variable and the
recall of how many friends agreed to attend the event served as our dependent variable. Using
this information, we ran a manipulation check which presented a significant effect, X2(4) =
FOMO ANALYSIS 12
79.31, p < .001. However, more than half of the participants in the “All” condition incorrectly
recalled how many were attending the event (55.3%) , more specifically they recalled that none
of the friends were attending, while the remainder correctly remembered that all friends were
attending (42.1%) Most participants in the “None” condition correctly recalled that none of the
friends were attending the event (68.4%). As well as the majority of participants in the “Some”
condition correctly remembered that only a few but not all of the friends were attending (81.4%).
Cramer’s V was significant. These results indicate that our manipulation worked. See Table 2.
Table 2
Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study One
FOMO ANALYSIS 13
The findings from our first independent One-Way ANOVA revealed that our independent
variable, the different conditions (All, None, or Some) and our dependent variable, the
agreement scale response from “I would feel frustrated” had a significant effect, F(2, 116) =
9.03, p < .001. Tukey post hoc tests revealed that participants in the “All” condition thought they
would feel more frustrated (M = 3.45, SD = 0.50) than the “None” condition (M = 3.00, SD =
0.62) and “Some” condition (M = 2.95, SD = 0.58), though “None” and “Some” conditions did
not differ from each other. The results show that participants in the “All” condition were more
likely to feel frustrated if they were the only one not attending the event, thus supporting our
prediction. See Table 3.
Table 3
ANOVA Frustrated – Study One
FOMO ANALYSIS 14
For our second analysis we ran an independent One-Way ANOVA with the different
conditions (All, None, or Some) as our independent variable and “I would feel like I was missing
out” as our dependent variable. The test outcome was significant F(2, 116) = 10.58, p < .001.
Tukey post hoc tests showed that participants in the “All” condition thought that they would feel
like they were missing out (M =2.82, SD = 0.73) than the participants in the “None” condition
(M = 2.21, SD = 0.53) and “Some” condition (M = 2.33, SD = 0.57), though the “None” and
“Some” conditions did not differ from each other. This supports our predictions that participants
would feel like they were missing out if they were the only one not capable of attending. See
Table 4.
Table 4
ANOVA “Like I was Missing Out” – Study One
FOMO ANALYSIS 15
Discussion
Our predictions for this study were supported. We predicted that participants in the “All”
condition would feel more “frustrated “and like they were “missing out” if they were the only
person not able to attend the event compared to participants in the “None” and “Some”
conditions. However, although the test was significant the majority of people in the “All”
FOMO ANALYSIS 16
condition failed our manipulation check stating that none of the friends were attending the event.
Despite the failure in the manipulation check, our results still showed significance on dependent
variables, “feel frustrated” and “like I was missing out”. This could be due to the possibility that
when unfortunately, being the only one unable to attend, participants felt like they knew what
they were missing, which is a fun night out with all their friends.
Study Two
Many marketers use the scarcity effect to increase the desirability of products, thus
making it a powerful influence and marketing tool on people consumer (Aggarwal et al., 2011).
When people see that a product they want is limited in quantity, that product is then viewed
differently compared to a product that is unlimited quantity. Imagine a person is looking for a
hotel for their upcoming trip to California. While looking through the online booking sites to
find a hotel for their trip, they come across one wonderful hotel. Next to the hotel name, there is
a little announcement saying, “Hurry only 1 room left!” They are stuck in a tight position; do
they look for a better hotel or do they just choose that one because there is only one room left.
With the scarcity effect, the product is more desirable and causes a sense of urgency for the
consumer (Aggarwal et al., 2011).
Research on scarcity shows how impactful scarcity is to the consumer. A study done by
Aggarwal et al. (2011) examined the effects of two types of scarcity on purchase intention, how
likely participants would purchase the item. The first type was limited-quantity scarcity, and the
second type was limited-time scarcity. One hundred and twenty-one students were randomly
assigned to three conditions (limited-time, limited-quantity, and control). The study analyzed
whether limited-quantity scarcity was more effective than limited-time scarcity. Participants
were presented with different advertisements that included scarcity messages. One group of
FOMO ANALYSIS 17
participants saw an advertisement with the message of “First 100 customers only”, the second
group of participants saw an advertisement with the message “For six days only” and the third
group saw no scarcity message (Aggarwal et al., 2011). The authors concluded that limited-
quantity scarcity was most effective when influencing purchase intentions (the likeliness to buy)
compared to limited-time scarcity.
In a similar study, Song et al. (2021) looked at scarcity effects on the impact of consumer
existence. The study looked at limited-quantity scarcity and limited-time scarcity on the
inclination to buy, apparent consumer competition, and social cues messages on scarcity (i.e.,
one person is watching this deal now). The results showed that on willingness to purchase
between scarcity message and social cue message had significant interaction. With limited-
quantity scarcity the company of social cue messaging led to a significantly greater willingness
to purchase compared to the absence of social cue messaging. In limited-time scarcity, there was
no significant difference in willingness to purchase across absence and present social cue
messages (Song et al., 2021). The researchers concluded that showing social cue messages
prompted consumer competition and higher purchase intention when it was limited-quantity
scarcity. However, displaying social cue messages when it was limited-time scarcity did not
have much impact on perceived consumer competition and purchase intention (Song et al.,
2021).
However, studies done by Kristofferson et al. (2017) looked at how scarcity can
negatively impact the consumer. More specifically, their study showed how exposure to limited
quantity advertainments generated aggression in individuals. In study one, they measured
exposure to limited-quantity scarcity and the number of gunshots fired in a video game
(Kristofferson et al., 2017). The results showed that when exposed to limited-quantity
FOMO ANALYSIS 18
promotions participants shot the gun more compared to those not exposed to limited-quantity. In
study two, they measured exposure to limited quantity promotions and physical aggression. The
researchers concluded that exposure to limited-quantity scarcity promotions led to physical
aggression. In study three, they measured exposure to limited quantity and testosterone levels.
The researchers concluded that when exposed to limited quantity promotions, participants’
testosterone levels increased. This indicates that exposure to promotions involved with scarcity
the body makes itself ready for aggressive behavior. In study four, the researchers looked at
exposure to limited quantity promotions and other consumer threats, and physical violence.
Results showed that exposure to these types of promotions made the participants view the other
consumers as a potential threat. Also, explore to limited-quantity promotions increased physical
violence in the participants. More specifically, when exposed to limited quantity promotions,
individuals threw extra punches at human-like initials compared to those in the control group.
Overall, various research studies have shown that when it comes to scarcity and limited
quantity, most consumers show a higher willingness to buy (Aggarwal et al., 2011; Song et al.,
2021). Additionally, research done by Kristofferson et al. (2017) supports how scarcity can have
a negative impact and signal aggression in individuals.
This leads to our second study which introduces scarcity as a new variable. The current
study was designed to measure how scarcity affects feelings of FoMO when participants read
that the tickets were either limited or unlimited. Our hypotheses are as follows: In general, if
participants are told that “all” of their friends can attend, then they will experience more negative
feelings than if they are told that “none” of their friends can attend. We also predict that
participants in the “limited” ticket condition would report more negative feelings than those in
the “unlimited” ticket condition. Finally, we predicted an interaction between two variables, with
FOMO ANALYSIS 19
participants in the “all” friends can attend AND “limited” ticket condition reporting the highest
level of negative feelings (anxiety, FoMO, loneliness, etc.). Participants in the “no” friends can
attend and “unlimited” tickets condition should experience the lowest level of frustration and less
likely to feel like they were missing out.
Methods Study Two
Participants
For our second study, 209 individuals participated in the study. The two-hundred and
nine participants comprised of 39.7% (n = 83) males, 58.4% (n = 122), 0.5% (n = 1) other, and
1.4% (n = 3) who did not specify their gender. The ages from our study ranged from a minimum
of 15 to a maximum of 55 years old (M = 23.44, SD = 8.41). The sample population comprised
of 73.7% Hispanic (n = 154), 10.0% Caucasian (n = 21), 6.2% African American (n = 13), 0.5%
Native American (n = 1), 3.3% Asian American (n = 7), 4.8% reporting “Other” (n = 10), and
1.4% (n = 3) who did not specify. Note that two participants did not provide any materials.
See Table 5.
Table 5
Demographics – Study Two
FOMO ANALYSIS 20
Statistics
What is your
gender?
What is your
age? (Please
use numbers,
like 22)
What is your
race/ethnicity?
– Selected
Choice
N Valid 206 207 206
Missing 3 2 3
Mean 1.60 23.44 2.33
Median 2.00 21.00 2.00
Mode 2 20 2
Std. Deviation .501 8.406 1.159
Variance .251 70.655 1.342
Minimum 1 13 1
Maximum 3 55 6
What is your gender?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 83 39.7 40.3 40.3
Female 122 58.4 59.2 99.5
Other 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 206 98.6 100.0
Missing System 3 1.4
Total 209 100.0
FOMO ANALYSIS 21
What is your race/ethnicity? – Selected Choice
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Caucasian 21 10.0 10.2 10.2
Hispanic 154 73.7 74.8 85.0
Native American 1 .5 .5 85.4
African American 13 6.2 6.3 91.7
Asian American 7 3.3 3.4 95.1
Others–Please specify 10 4.8 4.9 100.0
Total 206 98.6 100.0
Missing System 3 1.4
Total 209 100.0
Materials and Procedure
In relation to the uniform standards for informed consent, potential participants were
asked if he or she is willing to participate in an online study. Additionally disclosing if there
were any risks to the participants in this study. If potential participants agreed to continue then
the research materials were presented to the potential participants through Qualtrics software.
Once participants agreed to participate in the study, they were permitted to the entire survey
which includes five sections. Participants were randomly assigned to four conditions: All Can
Attend and Limited Tickets, All Can Attend and Unlimited Tickets, None Can Attend and
Unlimited Tickets, and the last condition was None Can Attend and Limited Tickets.
Similar to study One, participants were asked to look at a Facebook Home Page for Ben
Addams and read the initial post and the responses from his friends. Participants were asked to
imagine that they provided the last response. The Facebook Home Page consisted of Ben
FOMO ANALYSIS 22
Addams’ last post and under his post are five friends, Lisa Nichols, Erika Siu, Carlos Herrera,
Ari Anaz, and a “YOUR RESPONSE” that participants imaged they posted themselves. Parallel
to study one, all the responses consisted of the same wording including the “YOUR
RESPONSE”.
All participants read the same post from Ben that said, “Hey everyone! I’ve got great
news. I knew we’re all thrilled that the Covid Quarantine is over and life is final back to normal.
But REAL normal means ENTERTAINMENT IS BACK! Yep, that’s right. Remember that
night our we had scheduled for fall, 2020 until it got cancelled? Well, I just got an alert that he’s
back in town and he’s ready to ENTERTAIN! You know who I mean (and if you don’t know
who, then you’re no friend of mine!). I need to book tickets ASAP.” But the last few sentences
differed across conditions. In the “Limited” Condition the last few sentences stated “It is already
nearly sold out already, and I can only get 6 tickets. I’m one of them, so that leaves just 5 left for
you guys. Let me know ASAP everyone! Tickets are limited!” In the “Unlimited” Condition the
last few sentences stated “It is a huge place, so there are tons of tickets, and I can get as many as
I want. I’m getting mine, so let me know how many I need to get for you guys. Let me know
ASAP everyone! Tickets are unlimited!”
Participants assigned to the “All Can Attend and Limited Tickets” Condition read Ben’s
Facebook post that highlighted that they were only 5 tickets available. Beneath Ben’s post were
the same responses from his friends as in study one stating all friends will attend the event.
Whereas participants assigned to the “None Can Attend and Unlimited Tickets” Condition, saw
the same post from Ben but the difference was the responses from Ben’s friends. In this
condition, everyone replied under Ben’s Facebook post stating that they cannot attend the event.
FOMO ANALYSIS 23
Participants randomly assigned to the “All Can Attend and Unlimited Tickets” Condition
read Ben’s Facebook post that highlighted unlimited tickets. Under the post were responses from
all Ben’s friends replying that they will all attend the event. Whereas participants randomly
assigned to the “None Can Attend and Unlimited Tickets” Condition saw the same post from
Ben but the aspect that differs in this scenario is the responses from Ben’s friends. In this
condition, all of Ben’s friends replied stating that they cannot attend the event.
Similar to study one, in part two participants were asked to rate how they would think
they would feel knowing that they provided the response that they cannot attend. We used the
same ten statements from study one. The ten statements would begin with “I would feel …”
followed by several emotions such as frustrated, happy, depressed, alone, like I was missing out,
anxious, calm, joyful, envious, or I would not feel any strong emotion. Participants rated from a
scale of 1 (Strongly Disagreed) to 6 (Strongly Agree).
In Part Three, participants were asked to rate from a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6
(strongly Agree) the same five statements as in study one. Part Four asked participants to fill out
their demographic information while having the option to leave any question blank if participants
felt uncomfortable answering. The questions asked for their gender, age, race/ethnicity, if
English is their first language, if they were a current FIU student, and for their current
relationship status.
Part Five consisted of our manipulation check. We asked the participants to answer the
following questions without looking back. The first question was “Without looking back, think
about the other responses to Ben’s invitation (responses from Lisa, Erika, Carlos, and Ari). How
many said they would attend the event?”. Participants either marked “All agreed to attend” or
None agreed to attend”. Question two stated “According to Ben’s initial Facebook post, how
FOMO ANALYSIS 24
many tickets did he say he could get?”. Participants either marked “Limited (He said he could
only get up to 6 tickets)” or “Unlimited (He said he could get as many tickets as he wanted)”.
The last question of our manipulation check asked “What were you asked to imagine your
response was for attending the event?”. Participants either marked one of the following “I
imagined I was able to attend” or “I imagined I was unable to attend” or “I was not asked to
imagine whether I could attend an event”.
After finishing the survey participants at the end saw a debriefing statement. Like study
one our key focus in study two was on “feel frustrated”, “like I was missing out” as our
dependent variables, and if research participants correctly answered our attention check in part
five. We additionally analyzed the interaction between Attendance and Scarcity for both
dependent variables.
Results Study Two
Our survey conditions, scarcity (Limited and Unlimited) served as our independent
variable and the recall of how many tickets were available served our dependent variable. With
this information, we ran a manipulation check which revealed a significant effect, X2(1) = 65.53,
p < .001. The majority of the participants in the “Limited” condition correctly recalled that Ben
could get only a certain number of tickets (80.2%). The majority of the participants in the
“Unlimited” condition correctly remembered that Ben could get as many tickets as he wanted
(76.0%). Phi was significant. These results indicate that our manipulation worked. See Table 6.
Table 6
Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study Two
FOMO ANALYSIS 25
IV Condition Limited (1 = Limited, 2 = Unlimited) * Manipulation Check – Ticket Limit (1 =
Limited, 2 = Unlimited) Crosstabulation
Manipulation Check – Ticket
Limit (1 = Limited, 2 =
Unlimited)
Total
Limited (He
said he could
only get up to
6 tickets)
Unlimited (He
said he could
get as many
tickets as he
wanted)
IV Condition Limited (1 =
Limited, 2 = Unlimited)
Limited Tickets Count 89 22 111
% within IV Condition
Limited (1 = Limited, 2 =
Unlimited)
80.2% 19.8% 100.0%
Unlimited Tickets Count 23 73 96
% within IV Condition
Limited (1 = Limited, 2 =
Unlimited)
24.0% 76.0% 100.0%
Total Count 112 95 207
% within IV Condition
Limited (1 = Limited, 2 =
Unlimited)
54.1% 45.9% 100.0%
FOMO ANALYSIS 26
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 65.529a 1 .000
Continuity Correctionb 63.284 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 69.318 1 .000
Fisher’s Exact Test .000 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 65.212 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 207
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 44.06.
b. Computed only for a 2×2 table
Symmetric Measures
Value
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .563 .000
Cramer’s V .563 .000
N of Valid Cases 207
Our second survey conditions, attendance (All and None) served as our independent
variable and the recall of how many tickets were available served our dependent variable. With
this information, we ran a manipulation check which revealed a significant effect, X2(1) =
103.24, p < .001. The majority of the participants in the “All” condition correctly recalled that all
the friends were attending the event (92.5%). As well as the majority of the participants in the
FOMO ANALYSIS 27
“None” condition correctly remembered that no friends agreed to attend (77.0%). Phi was
significant. These results indicate that our manipulation worked. See Table 7.
Table 7
Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study Two
IV Condition Attendance (1 = All, 2 = None) * Manipulation Check –
Attendance (1 = All, 2 = None) Crosstabulation
Manipulation Check –
Attendance (1 = All, 2
= None)
Total
All agreed
to attend
None
agreed to
attend
IV Condition
Attendance (1 =
All, 2 = None)
All can
attend
Count 99 8 107
% within IV
Condition
Attendance (1 =
All, 2 = None)
92.5% 7.5% 100.0
%
None can
attend
Count 23 77 100
% within IV
Condition
Attendance (1 =
All, 2 = None)
23.0% 77.0% 100.0
%
Total Count 122 85 207
% within IV
Condition
Attendance (1 =
All, 2 = None)
58.9% 41.1% 100.0
%
FOMO ANALYSIS 28
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 103.237a 1 .000
Continuity Correctionb 100.385 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 115.578 1 .000
Fisher’s Exact Test .000 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 102.739 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 207
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 41.06.
b. Computed only for a 2×2 table
Symmetric Measures
Value
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by
Nominal
Phi .706 .000
Cramer’s V .706 .000
N of Valid Cases 207
For our first analysis, we ran a 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA with scarcity (Limited or
Unlimited) and attendance (All or None) as our independent variables and “I would feel
frustrated” as our dependent variable. There was no main effect for scarcity, F(1, 203) = 1.28, p
> .05. There were no meaningful differences between limited tickets (M = 3.69, SD = 1.40) and
unlimited tickets (M = 3.92, SD = 1.33). There was also no main effect for attendance, F(1, 203)
= 1.82, p > .05. There was no significant difference between all attending (M = 3.92, SD = 1.40)
and none attending (M = 3.67, SD = 1.33). There was no significant interaction, F(1, 203) = 0.78,
p = .379. This indicates that participants did not differ in their assessments of whether they
would feel frustrated when all attended and limited tickets available (M = 3.74, SD = 1.48), none
FOMO ANALYSIS 29
can attend and limited tickets available (M = 3.65, SD = 1.32), all attended and unlimited tickets
available (M = 4.12, SD = 1.29), or when none attended and limited tickets available (M = 3.70,
SD = 1.35). See Table 8.
Table 8
ANOVA Frustrated – Study Two
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Part II: I would feel frustrated
IV Condition Limited (1 =
Limited, 2 = Unlimited)
IV Condition Attendance (1 =
All, 2 = None) Mean Std. Deviation N
Limited Tickets All can attend 3.74 1.482 57
None can attend 3.65 1.320 54
Total 3.69 1.400 111
Unlimited Tickets All can attend 4.12 1.288 50
None can attend 3.70 1.348 46
Total 3.92 1.327 96
Total All can attend 3.92 1.402 107
None can attend 3.67 1.326 100
Total 3.80 1.368 207
FOMO ANALYSIS 30
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Part II: I would feel frustrated
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 7.092a 3 2.364 1.268 .286
Intercept 2969.859 1 2969.859 1593.295 .000
IVConditionLimited 2.384 1 2.384 1.279 .259
IVConditionAttend 3.383 1 3.383 1.815 .179
IVConditionLimited *
IVConditionAttend
1.448 1 1.448 .777 .379
Error 378.387 203 1.864
Total 3370.000 207
Corrected Total 385.478 206
a. R Squared = .018 (Adjusted R Squared = .004)
We ran another 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA with tickets (Limited or Unlimited) and
attendance (All or None) as our independent variable and “I would feel like I was missing out”
as our dependent variable. There was no main effect for tickets F(1, 203) = 0.00, p > .05. There
were no meaningful differences between limited tickets (M = 4.13, SD = 1.47) and unlimited
tickets (M = 4.14, SD = 1.57). However, there was a significant main effect for attendance, F(1,
203) = 10.66, p < .001. Participants felt like they were missing out when all the friends attended
the event (M = 4.45, SD = 1.50) than when none of the friends would attend (M = 3.79, SD =
1.46). However, there was no significant interaction between tickets and attendance, F(1,203) =
1.06, p > .05. Thus, there were no differences in participants feeling of missing out between all
can attend and limited tickets (M = 4.35, SD = 1.53), none can attend and limited tickets (M =
3.89, SD = 1.37), all can attend and unlimited tickets (M = 4.56, SD = 1.46)) and none can attend
and unlimited tickets (M = 3.67, SD = 1.46). See Table 9.
FOMO ANALYSIS 31
Table 9
ANOVA Missing Out – Study Two
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Part II: I would feel like I was missing out
IV Condition Limited (1 =
Limited, 2 = Unlimited)
IV Condition Attendance (1
= All, 2 = None) Mean Std. Deviation N
Limited Tickets All can attend 4.35 1.529 57
None can attend 3.89 1.369 54
Total 4.13 1.465 111
Unlimited Tickets All can attend 4.56 1.459 50
None can attend 3.67 1.564 46
Total 4.14 1.567 96
Total All can attend 4.45 1.494 107
None can attend 3.79 1.458 100
Total 4.13 1.510 207
FOMO ANALYSIS 32
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Part II: I would feel like I was missing out
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 24.734a 3 8.245 3.763 .012
Intercept 3488.134 1 3488.134 1592.130 .000
IVConditionLimited .000 1 .000 .000 .989
IVConditionAttend 23.358 1 23.358 10.662 .001
IVConditionLimited *
IVConditionAttend
2.312 1 2.312 1.055 .306
Error 444.744 203 2.191
Total 4001.000 207
Corrected Total 469.478 206
a. R Squared = .053 (Adjusted R Squared = .039)
Discussion Study Two
For study two, we introduced a new independent variable, scarcity in tickets (Limited and
Unlimited). We theorized that scarcity of tickets would have a negative impact on participants’
feelings. In other words, we believed that participants would feel more frustrated and have higher
feelings of FoMo if tickets were limited than if tickets were unlimited. Also, we predicted an
interaction between variables “frustration” and FoMO, with participants in the “All” friends
attend and “Limited” ticket condition having the highest level of frustration and FoMO. Finally,
we predicted that the “No” friends can attend and “Unlimited” tickets condition should
experience the lowest level of negative feelings, such as frustration and FoMO. For the
dependent variable, “frustrated” did not result in significant main effects or significant
interactions. Although we predicted that participants would feel more frustrated if tickets were
limited, those who saw “All” can attend did not differ than those who saw “No” friends
FOMO ANALYSIS 33
attending. Participants did not have any impactful negative feelings when either “All” friends
would attend versus “no” friends would attend. These results did not support our hypothesis.
For the dependent variable, “I would feel like I was missing out” resulted in one main
effect. Attendance showed a significant main effect. Participants did not have considerable
negative feelings if tickets were either limited or unlimited. This unfortunately did not support
our hypothesis, implying that participants felt higher feelings FoMO when “all” friends would
attend versus when “no” friends would attend. There was no interaction between the variables
attendance and scarcity in tickets with participants in the “All” condition and “Limited”
condition having the highest level of frustration and FoMO. These results did not support our
hypothesis.
General Discussion
As hypothesized, in study one, when forced to be the only one not attending, participants
had a significant impact on their well-being. Both feelings of frustration and FoMO increased in
the “All” condition compared to the “None” and “Some” conditions. The higher number of
participants in the “All” condition felt more frustrated and like they were missing out. The lower
number of participants in the “None” and “Some” conditions reported little feelings of frustration
and FoMO. These results support previous findings from other studies, indicating that FoMO can
cause people to experience undesirable feelings (Alfasi, 2019; Buglass et al., 2017; Reer et al.,
2019; Roberts & David, 2020).
In study two, when we introduced the new independent variable scarcity, we
hypothesized that participants in the “All and Limited” condition would have higher feelings of
FoMO and frustration in comparison to all the other conditions in the study. Though, our
predictions for study two were not supported. In relation to all experimental groups in the study,
FOMO ANALYSIS 34
participants felt indifferent when tickets were scarce. Studies done prior have shown that when
things are limited in quantity people are more likely to buy them (Aggarwal et al., 2011). In
addition, a study done by Kristofferson et al. (2017) showed that scarcity can produce negative
feelings in consumers. Despite previous studies done on how scarcity can cause people to want
an item more and generate negative feelings, our results do not support previous studies.
Participants showed no extensive negative feelings when tickets were limited than if tickets were
unlimited. This states that scarcity did not cause the event to become more desirable since
tickets were limited. This also states that scarcity did not create any undesirable feelings in
participants.
The findings of both studies suggest that people would feel more FoMO and frustration
when all their friends say that they will attend. This could be due to when participants were
aware that all of their friends were attending, then participants knew that they were missing out
on a good time. Though when we introduced the scarcity in study two, our findings suggest that
the limited tickets did not play a major in FoMO and frustration as we had thought. This could
be due to scarcity of the tickets. Since the tickets were limited then participants possibly felt that
there was a slim chance of obtaining that ticket.
Limitations were present for both studies. The first limitation would be the small number
of participants. We did not have enough participants which could have caused changes in the
results. Future studies in FoMO should have a larger pool of participants that way it can
represent more people, thus giving a more representative sample. The second limitation found is
in this study was that there was not much diversity. Most of the participants were undergraduate,
Hispanic students. Future studies in FoMO should include a more diverse group of participants
so it can better represent the population.
FOMO ANALYSIS 35
Future applications of this study could benefit from changing the social media platform.
Facebook is a social platform that not many young people use now. By changing the social
media platform from Facebook to a new and more used social platform like Instagram or TikTok
it could be possible to see a difference in FoMO and frustration. Future applications of this study
could also benefit from changing the scenario. Instead of analyzing for a future event, others can
analyze for a live event. This might bring about negative feelings if participants see the event
happening live.
It is common for people to want to be involved and not feel left out, especially if they
know that all their friends will attend. Dissimilarity, scarcity may not be as of a factor in when it
comes to social events. Overall, it is critical to understand and continue the research of the
negative feelings such as FoMO especially in social media. In today’s world where everything
and anything can be posted anywhere, people are more susceptible to FoMO and its underlying
issues.
FOMO ANALYSIS 36
References
Aggarwal, P., Jun, S. Y., Huh, J. H. (2011). Scarcity messages: A consumer competition
perspective. Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 19–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-
3367400302
Alfasi, Y. (2019). The grass is always greener on my friends’ profiles: The effect of Facebook
social comparison on state self-esteem and depression. Personality and Individual
Differences, 147, p. 111-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.032
Buglass, S. L., Binder, J. F., Betts, L. R., Underwood, J. D. M. (2017). Motivators of online
vulnerability: The impact of social network site use and FOMO. Computers in Human
Behavior, 66, 248-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.055
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–
140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Franchina, V., Vanden Abeele, M., Van Rooij, A., Lo Coco, G., De Marez, L. (2018). Fear of
missing out as a predictor of problematic social media use and phubbing behavior among
flemish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 15(10), 2319. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph15102319
FOMO ANALYSIS 37
Hunt, M. G., Marx, R., Lipson, C., Young, J. (2018). No more FOMO: Limiting social media
decreases loneliness and depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 37(10),
751–768. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2018.37.10.751
Kristofferson, K., McFerran, B., Morales, A. C., Dahl, D. W. (2017). The dark side of scarcity
promotions: How exposure to limited-quantity promotions can induce aggression.
Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5), 683-706. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw056
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking
experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 227–
238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010
Reer, F., Tang, W. Y., Quandt, T. (2019). Psychosocial well-being and social media engagement:
The mediating roles of social comparison orientation and fear of missing out. New Media
& Society, 21(7), 1486-1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818823719
Roberts, J. A., David M. E. (2020). The social media party: Fear of missing out (FoMO), social
media intensity, connection, and well-being. International Journal of Human–
Computer Interaction, 36(4), 386-392, https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1646517
Song, M., Choi, S., Moon, J. (2021). Limited time or limited quantity? The impact of other
consumer existence and perceived competition on the scarcity messaging – purchase
FOMO ANALYSIS 38
intention relation. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 47, 167–175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.03.012
- Analyzing The Fear Of Missing Out (FoMO) and Scarcity In Social Media: When You Can’t Go To The Event of the Year
- Abstract
- Analyzing The Fear Of Missing Out (FoMO) and Scarcity In Social Media: When You Can’t Go To The Event of the Year