Analyzing The Fear Of Missing Out

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