Fear Of Missing Out Scale: A self‐concept perspective

Abstract

Fear of missing out (FOMO) is an emerging topic in consumer psychology. However, the theoretical foundations of FOMO are underdeveloped and extant FOMO scales confine the construct to the context of social media. Without a theoretical foundation and a new FOMO scale, the future development of research on this promising phenomenon is limited. This article provides a new conceptualization of FOMO and a new FOMO scale. Using self‐concept theory, the authors propose that FOMO is an emotional response to perceived psychological threats to one's self‐concept. Because the self‐concept involves a private and a public self, FOMO involves two dimensions: a personal FOMO and a social FOMO. Accordingly, a new scale was developed. The results of four studies support the validity and reliability of the two‐dimensional scale. This new conceptualization and scale will enable consumer researchers to examine FOMO in a broader set of contexts, test the relationship between FOMO and related constructs, and develop a nomological network around the construct.

1 INTRODUCTION

An increasingly significant concept evolving in consumer behavior, especially in the context of social media marketing, is fear of missing out (FOMO). In such context, FOMO refers to the anxiety social media users feel when they perceive their peers are doing, experiencing, or possessing something rewarding while they are not (Gil, Chamarro, & Oberst, 2015; Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013). It is a feeling of being “left behind” (Salem, 2015), wherein the frequency and extent of social media engagement, as well as the individual desire to remain informed and connected with other people's experiences, intensifies (Przybylski et al., 2013). Interestingly, FOMO has also been found to be related to offline behavior, including smartphone overuse (Elhai, Levine, Dvorak, & Hall, 2016), substance abuse (Riordan, Flett, Hunter, Scarf, & Conner, 2015), and diminished sleep (Milyavskaya, Saffran, Hope, & Koestner, 2018).

Nonetheless, despite the evidence that FOMO permeates into offline behavior, academic research examining the conceptual background of FOMO and its empirical relationship with offline consumer behavior is in its infancy. One factor that could be partially responsible for the limited FOMO research is the lack of a viable psychometric scale to measure the construct in offline contexts. Currently, FOMO scales are context‐bound. For example, one item from a widely cited scale (Przybylski et al., 2013) reads, “When I have a good time it is important for me to share the details online (e.g., updating status).” A more recent scale (Abel, Buff, & Burr, 2016) offers, “Assume you are unable to check social media when you want to. Generally, how frequently do you feel frightened?” Within the boundaries of a social media context, established scales have more than served their purpose well. However, a context‐free FOMO scale could become a useful tool to conduct overdue research related to the role of FOMO in a broader marketing context.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is twofold. First, we propose a theoretical foundation for FOMO. Following a self‐concept approach, we conceptualize that consumers experience FOMO when they perceive that missing an experience poses a psychological threat to the private and/or the public self. The private self refers to the evaluation of oneself while the public self‐deals with one's evaluations about how others view oneself. Currently, FOMO has only been associated with the fear resulting from threats to the public self. For example, Przybylski et al. (2013) define FOMO as, “a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent” (p. 1841). However, the fear associated with missing experiences associated with the private self has been neglected. For example, feeling FOMO on an experience related to one's personal, private dreams. We extend the theoretical conceptualization of FOMO to include a personal dimension.

And second, we develop a psychometric scale to measure FOMO. Consistent with our theoretical approach, the proposed FOMO scale includes two dimensions: a personal and a social FOMO dimension. We followed scale development procedures recommended by Churchill (1979), Gerbing and Anderson (1988), and Mowen and Voss (2008). The results of four separate studies, with a total of over 1000 responses, supported the validity and reliability of the newly developed scale. Study 1 involved item generation and initial analysis. In Study 2, the scale items were purified. As a result, a nine‐item two‐dimensional FOMO scale was developed. In Study 3, the scale was tested for convergent and discriminant validity. Finally, in Study 4, the nomological validity of the scale was assessed.

In the remainder of the article, we review the extant literature on FOMO and develop our bi‐dimensional conceptualization of the construct. Following, we describe four studies related to our scale development procedure. We end with the description of a preliminary, but fertile, research agenda that substantiates the potential contribution of the proposed conceptualization.

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Current conceptualization of FOMO

In the popular press, FOMO was introduced to describe a social psyche in market economies, one in which consumers live in a constant state of FOMO on experiences other people enjoy (e.g., Hedges, 2014). According to media reports, FOMO is related to a growing consumer trend toward experiential consumption and an increase in social media usage. In 2018, a study by Expedia and the Center for Generational Kinetics, reported that 74% of Americans prioritize experiences over products or things. Consumers report increased spending on experiences such as TV streaming videos, live concerts, gaming, extreme sports, travel, and other leisure activities (Morgan, 2015; The Harris Group, 2015). Social media exacerbates FOMO by allowing consumers to see the wide range of experiences that other people enjoy. Consumers constantly check social media to avoid being “left out” of a potentially rewarding experience. Marketing practitioners have adopted FOMO marketing appeals to allure consumers yearning for unique experiences (Hodkinson, 2019).

In academia, FOMO was first introduced by Herman (2000) as a potential explanation for the success of limited‐edition brands. He argued that in many market economies the number of product options from which to choose has increased. When consumers feel incapable of exhausting all those options, they become fearful about the risk of possibly missing desirable opportunities. The FOMO increases consumers' urgency to exhaust all available offerings in the market, especially those that are scarce. Thus, FOMO could be a powerful consumer motivation (Herman, 2019). Herman's contribution is conceptual.

Psychology researchers pioneered empirical research on FOMO, in the context of social media. Przybylski et al. (2013) conducted the first empirical study to identify the construct's motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates. They defined and measured FOMO as a pervasive feeling that others are having better experiences than oneself. The authors drew from self‐determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985), which asserts an individual's psychological well‐being emanates from the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The authors theorized individuals with low levels of need satisfaction experienced psychological discomfort (i.e., FOMO) and, consequently, attempted to find ways to regulate their psychological health (e.g., social media use). Przybylski et al. (2013) found that FOMO mediates the effect of low levels of psychological well‐being on social media use. The authors argued that FOMO motivates individuals to explore social media as a means to find ways to satisfy their needs.

Other relevant studies showed that correlates of FOMO extend beyond the social media context. FOMO is relatable to smartphone overuse (Elhai et al., 2016), brain damage (Dossey, 2014), and substance abuse (Riordan et al., 2015). Hogan (2015) showed that FOMO is related to lower life satisfaction, increased detachment from friends and family, increased feelings of loneliness, increased unfair judgment of others, paranoia, jealousy, and decreases in concentration. FOMO has also been associated with a preference for scarce options (John, Melis, Read, Rossano, & Tomasello, 2018), escalated stress and diminished sleep (Milyavskaya et al., 2018), and interdependent self‐construal (Dogan, 2019).

Following Przybylski et al.'s (2013) conceptualization, researchers describe FOMO as an uneasy feeling that others may have better (i.e., rewarding or advantageous) “experiences” compared with oneself's experiences. FOMO is associated with a feeling of being absent from desired experiences (social exclusion), or having a strong desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing. Table 1 presents a list of frequently used definitions of FOMO. As the table shows, the existing literature depicts FOMO as the fear of missing out on opportunities other people enjoy; the result of one's comparison to others. For this reason, FOMO research has thrived in the social media context where consumers are constantly comparing themselves to others (Buglass, Binder, Betts, & Underwood, 2017; Gil et al., 2015). Within the boundaries of a social media context, current FOMO conceptualizations have more than served their purpose well. However, we propose to broaden the conceptualization of FOMO. Specifically, we posit that consumers not only fear missing out on experiences other people enjoy (social FOMO), but also fear missing out on experiences they had wished for themselves (personal FOMO).

Table 1. Previous definitions of fear of missing out

Author (year)	Definition
JWT Intelligence in Przybylski et al. (2013)	The uneasy and sometimes all‐consuming feeling that you are missing out, that your peers are doing something, are in the know about, or in possession of more of something better than you.
Przybylski et al. (2013)	A phenomenon characterized by the desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing and a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent.
Gil et al. (2015)	Fear of missing out is a concept that aims to describe the feeling that something is happening on social networks and you are not part of it.
Riordan et al. (2015)	The uneasy and often all‐consuming sense that “friends or others are having rewarding experiences from which one is absent.”
Salem (2015)	A kind of anxiety, a sense that you will be inadequate or left behind if you don't react.
Abel et al. (2016)	FOMO is comprised of irritability, anxiety, and feelings of inadequacy, with these feelings tending to worsen when an individual logs on in to social media websites.
Herman (2019)	A fearful attitude towards the possibility of failing to exhaust available opportunities and missing the expected joy associated with succeeding in doing so. Simply put, it is concentration of attention on the empty half of the glass.

2.2 Proposed conceptualization

Fear is an emotion resulting from the perception of threats to one's well‐being (Gill & Burrow, 2018). Threats involve negative outcomes that the individual wants to terminate, escape from, or avoid (Gray, 1971). Fear can be automatically triggered by a threatening condition to the physical existence or biological integrity of the individual (Saad, 2013). For example, fear of a snake. However, fear can also be activated by psychological threats to one's well‐being. For example, fear of losing one's freedom (Clee & Wicklund, 1980), rejection and abandonment (Thomson, Whelan, & Johnson, 2011), and negative evaluations (Mohan, Voss, & Jiménez, 2017), among others.

We propose that FOMO is activated by psychological threats to the self‐concept. The self‐concept refers to the “totality of the individual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object” (Rosenberg, 1979, p. 7). It involves an individual thinking about who or what she or he is, and what she or he wants to become (Mowen & Minor, 2006). Individuals tend to behave in a way that is consistent with their self‐concept (Rosenberg, 1979). The self has been reported to be “inter‐dependent with the surrounding context, and it is the 'other' or the 'self‐in‐relation‐to‐other' that is focal in individual experience” (Chang, 2010, p. 400). Inconsistencies between self‐concept and behavior can lead to psychological discomfort and can threaten the self‐concept.

One of the first applications of self‐concept in marketing was in the realm of consumer behavior, as consumers were believed to purchase certain products as a way to define who they were in relation to others (Reed, 2002). Missing out on consumption experiences, therefore, can become a threat to consumers' self‐concept. Consumers tend to acquire and use goods and services to maintain or enhance their self‐concept (Sirgy, 1982). Consumers may perceive missing out on consumption experiences to be inconsistent with their self‐concept. For example, a consumer that identifies herself as a die‐hard Guns N' Roses fan may feel FOMO on a limited edition of a new recording by the band or the opportunity to see them perform in person. Or take the feelings of a life‐long Washingtonian fan who does not have access to watch the Washington Nationals play against the Astros in the 2019 edition of the World Series. The same feeling may occur when a broke 41‐year‐old reflects on her dream of becoming a homeowner by age 50.

The self‐concept can be divided in a private and a public self. The private self refers to a person's evaluation of her or his own thoughts, feelings, behaviors, or appearance (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975). The private self is often assessed while reflecting, fantasizing, daydreaming, or mulling over oneself. It includes unobservable behaviors by others. Private thoughts are often kept to the self or to an intimate group of people (Tedeschi, 1986). The public self refers to how a person believes that others perceive her or him (Fenigstein et al., 1975). Individuals manage their public self, depending on how they want to be perceived by others.

FOMO can result from threats to the public and/or private self. As discussed in the previous section, most of the articles dealing with FOMO deal with experiences that are related to the public self. For example, consumers report FOMO when they do not have access to social media. They cannot see what other people are saying about events, about others, or about them (Przybylski et al., 2013). Missing out on social media threads hinders consumers' ability to manage their public self.

This study extends the current view on FOMO by arguing that consumers may also feel FOMO on an experience related to the private self. A threat to the private self occurs when an individual misses a consumption experience that can enhance or maintain their private self‐identity. Throughout life, individuals tend to compare what they believe they are to what they thought they would be (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). People often develop images of their future ideal self, dream about unrealized accomplishments, and create personal bucket lists of desired lifetime experiences (Sirgy, 1982). Accordingly, individuals constantly set, monitor, and self‐evaluate their private goals (Whitbourne, 1986).

Theoretically, the private and public self can overlap. An individual could set private goals (e.g., a bucket list) consistent with a desired public image. An individual's public image could potentially be the same as the individual's own perceived identity. However, it is also possible for individuals to manage and compartmentalize their self in at least private and public (Fenigstein et al., 1975). For example, to manage the public self, a new employee may start drinking Starbucks coffee to fit in the new company cohort, even when the employee self‐identifies more with local coffee shops. In a workday morning, the new employee may experience FOMO on Starbucks coffee for public, rather than private, reasons. Because the private and the public self can differ, it is important to capture both dimensions. Based on this theorizing, we define FOMO in the following section.

2.3 FOMO: Definition and dimensionality

We propose that FOMO is an emotional response to missing an experience that is related to the private or publicself. We define FOMO as a fear of missing an experience that can help an individual maintain or enhance her/his private and/or social self. FOMO involves a feeling that missing out on something will make one left behind, personally and/or socially.

We propose that FOMO is composed of two dimensions: personal FOMO and social FOMO. Although personal FOMO is related to the private self and social FOMO is related to the public self, we opted for new labels to avoid confusion between self‐concept theory and FOMO. Personal FOMO represents the degree of the FOMO on experiences associated with the private self. Social FOMO involves the degree of FOMO on experiences that others are enjoying.

Following Mowen and Voss' (2008) recommendations for the development of multidimensional scales, a researcher must define the relationship between the construct and its dimensions a priori. Law, Wong, and Mobley (1998) identify three models of multidimensional constructs: the latent model, the aggregate model, and the profile model. The latent model specifies that the higher‐order construct underlies the correlation of the dimensions. This model is analogous to a reflective measurement model. In an aggregate model, the dimensions form a mathematical function of the higher‐order construct. It is analogous to a formative model. The profile model holds that the set of dimensions define the higher‐level construct. In a profile model, the dimensions are treated as independent constructs. In this framework, we theorize that FOMO's dimensionality corresponds to an aggregate model because the higher‐order FOMO is formed from its personal and social dimensions. The weights of the dimensions could vary depending on the context.

Mowen and Voss (2008) further indicate that a researcher should distinguish, a priori, “whether a construct is truly a dimension of a higher‐order construct” (p. 497), instead of an antecedent or a consequence. The authors specified three criteria. First, the dimensions and the higher‐order construct must be at the same level of abstraction. Second, any antecedent or consequence associated with the higher‐order construct should also be associated with the dimensions. And third, the dimensions should be temporally coincident with the higher‐order construct.

We posit that FOMO meets these three specific criteria. First, a review of theories of the self‐concept by Tedeschi (1986, p. 5) pointedly describes the theorized relationship between the private and public self. The author states that self‐conceptualizations involve social comparisons and reflective appraisals. These appraisals occur at the same level of abstraction. Second, the public and private self interact, are mutually dependent, and jointly define the self‐concept. And third, private and public evaluations can occur simultaneously in an instantaneous feedback loop including perceptions of one's own behavior and perceptions of others.

Since the private and public self are different but interrelated components of self‐conceptualization, the same relationship is theorized among FOMO dimensions. Specifically, personal and social FOMO are described at the same level of abstraction than FOMO. Personal and social FOMO share antecedents and consequences with the higher‐order FOMO construct. And finally, when any of the dimensions manifest, FOMO manifests. Thus, we propose that FOMO is a bidimensional construct.

3 SCALE DEVELOPMENT

Our proposed conceptualization of FOMO requires a new psychometric measure for at least four reasons. First, some of the existing fear scales measure physiological reactions rather than psychological states. Physiological scales assess high levels of fear through physiological reactions such as increased alertness, visual focus on the object, increased heart rate and blood pressure, and others (Whitley, 1992). These measures, however, do not assess the psychological dimensions of FOMO. Second, fear is activated by an identifiable source (Whitley, 1992). For this reason, fear scales typically identify specific sources (e.g., fear of negative evaluations). These source‐specific fear scales are less adaptable across contexts. Third, extant FOMO scales are bounded within the context of social media (e.g., Przybylski et al., 2013). Finally, current FOMO scales do not measure FOMO's dimensions.

Without a measurement scale that truly captures the definition of the construct, empirical research would be seriously impaired (Gilliam & Voss, 2013; Peter, 1981). Thus, based on our conceptualization and definition of the construct, we continued the scale development process.

4 STUDY 1: ITEM GENERATION

The goal of this study was to generate an initial pool of items for the construct. To do so, 238 undergraduate students from a university in the Midwestern United States were recruited to answer an open‐ended questionnaire, in exchange for course credit. Participants were asked to report what comes to mind when they think about the “fear of missing out” and were asked to write about a situation in which they experienced the feeling. Our definition of FOMO was not provided to avoid demand artifacts and priming effects.

The authors coded the responses from the undergraduate student participants into personal and social FOMO themes and generated scale items. Careful attention was taken to safeguard preservation of the meaning stated by each participant. Thirty‐two items were developed. To ensure that the initial pool of items was fully representative of the construct, a group of seven business doctoral students independently assessed how much each item reflected the dimensions of the construct (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003). Raters used a 5‐point Likert scale from 1 = “Not Representative at All” to 5 = “Extremely Representative.” Six items received scores below 3 and were excluded from the pool (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Participants constantly reported feeling anxiety, sadness, and regret along with “fear of missing out.” Hence, although we aim to measure fear, we also included scale items referring to anxiety, sadness, and regret. Individuals often fail to distinguish or express closely related feelings (Bay & Algase, 1999). The remaining 26 items appear in Table 2. In the pool, items 1–16 were hypothesized to be related to personal FOMO, while items 17–26 were hypothesized to measure social FOMO.

Table 2. Initial set of scale items

1. I feel sad about missing events/opportunities

2. I feel curious about the information about events/opportunities

3. I feel anxious that I did not experience the event/opportunity

4. I feel I am disconnected with what is going on in life

5. I have a sense of uncertainty if I don't know what I missed out

6. I am dissatisfied about current state of life after missing the opportunity

7. I feel lost or don't know what to do if I miss the opportunity

8. I feel motivated to make sure of catching up events/opportunities next time

9. I believe I am falling behind compared with others

10. I feel anxious because I know something important or fun must have happened

11. I feel sad that I was not capable of participating in event due to constraints of other things

12. I fear that I don't have what everyone else has or I can't do what others are able to do

13. I feel regretful of missing the event/opportunity

14. I try to convince myself the opportunity/event is not that important

15. I can't stop thinking about what was going on in the event

16. I try to find out what I have missed

17. I feel jealous of my friends who attended event

18. I think my social groups view me as unimportant (when I miss events/opportunities)

19. I am anxious about not joining my social groups for event

20. I think I am not welcomed by my social groups (when I miss events/opportunities)

21. I think I do not fit in social groups (when I miss events/opportunities)

22. I have a sense of loneliness when my friends attend events without me

23. I feel disconnected with my social groups (when I miss events/opportunities)

24. I think I am excluded by my social groups (when I miss events/opportunities)

25. I feel ignored/forgotten by my social groups (when I miss events/opportunities)

26. I keep thinking that my friends are having fun in the event

5 STUDY 2: SCALE PURIFICATION

In this study, the dimensionality of scale items was assessed with a new sample. Three hundred and ninety‐two undergraduate students from a large university in the Southwestern United States were recruited to answer a questionnaire containing FOMO items, in exchange for course credit. Participants rated items with a 7‐point Likert scale from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree.” The dimensionality was assessed via exploratory factor analysis (EFA). We ran the EFA with common factor analysis, rather than with principal components analysis. Common factor analysis is employed when the objective is to identify latent dimensions, constructs, in the data set. Principal components is a data reduction technique used to identify the minimum number of factors needed to explain the total variance of a set of variables (Hair et al., 1998). Because we are interested in the theoretical investigation of FOMO as a latent variable and its latent dimensions, common factor analysis was chosen. The analysis showed a two‐factor solution (Factor 1, eigenvalue = 11.88; Factor 2, eigenvalue = 2.25; explained variance = 61.45%). The results supported the conceptualization of FOMO as a two‐dimensional composite construct with a personal and a social dimension (Law et al., 1998).

For further purification of the scale, items with cross‐loadings (factor scores > .5 in both dimensions) were dropped one at a time (Hair et al., 1998). Redundant, closely worded items were also dropped (Hair et al., 1998). Short scales with essential and concise items are better than long scales, which often lead to respondent fatigue (Hair et al., 1998; Netemeyer et al., 2003). In the end, nine items (five for the personal dimension and four for the social dimension) were retained. Table 3 shows the EFA factor loadings for the final list of scale items.

Table 3. EFA factor loadings for final set of FOMO scale items

	Factors
Items	1	2	Mean	SD
Personal FOMO dimension
P1 I feel anxious when I do not experience events/opportunities	0.82		4.28	1.65
P2 I believe I am falling behind compared with others when I miss events/opportunities	0.66		3.81	1.84
P3 I feel anxious because I know something important or fun must happen when I miss events opportunities	0.82		3.73	1.74
P4 I feel sad if I am not capable of participating in events due to constraints of other things	0.82		4.03	1.77
P5 I feel regretful of missing events/opportunities	0.83		3.85	1.74
Social FOMO dimension
S1 I think my social groups view me as unimportant when I miss events/opportunities		0.78	2.63	1.62
S2 I think I do not fit in social groups when I miss events/opportunities		0.94	2.73	1.68
S3 I think I am excluded by my social groups when I miss events/opportunities		0.94	2.61	1.6
S4 I feel ignored/forgotten by my social groups when I miss events/opportunities		0.88	2.70	1.66

• Note: Factor 1, eigenvalue = 11.88; Factor 2, eigenvalue = 2.25; explained variance = 61.45%.
• Abbreviations: EFA, exploratory factor analysis; FOMO, fear of missing out.

The data supported the reliability of the two‐dimensional FOMO scale. The final set of scale items in the personal FOMO dimension (Cronbach's α = 0.86), and the social FOMO dimension (Cronbach's α = 0.92) showed internal consistency reliability. Table 4 presents the detailed item‐to‐total correlations and Cronbach's αs of the two dimensions.

Table 4. Item‐to‐total correlations for scale items

Items	Item‐to‐total correlation	Cronbach's α
Personal FOMO		0.86
P1	0.60
P2	0.63
P3	0.73
P4	0.69
P5	0.74
Social FOMO		0.92
S1	0.71
S2	0.80
S3	0.87
S4	0.87

• Abbreviation: FOMO, fear of missing out.

The dimensionality of the scale was further tested via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Two structural models were estimated and compared: a two‐factor versus a one‐factor model (Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003). A total of 386 cases were included in the analysis. Nine cases were excluded due to missing data in at least one item. The results for the two‐factor structural model showed a good fit (χ2 = 44.66, degrees of freedom (df) = 25, p = 0.009; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.98, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.99, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.987; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.045; Browne and Cudeck, 1992; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schermelleh‐Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003). Figure 1 shows the standardized regression weights for the item loadings.

[Image Omitted. See PDF.]

In the one‐factor model all scale items load onto FOMO. The one‐factor model showed poor model fit (χ2 = 527.166, df = 27, p > 0.05; NFI = 0.76, CFI = 0.77, TLI = 0.69; RMSEA = 0.219). A χ2 difference test showed that the second‐order model had better fit than the one‐factor model (Δχ2 = 482.51 [2 df]; p < 0.01). This result supports our conceptualization that the personal FOMO and a social FOMO are related, but distinct dimensions of FOMO.

In sum, the results of Study 2 support the reliability and bidimensionality of the FOMO scale.

6 STUDY 3: CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY

This study tested the convergent and discriminant validity of the two‐dimensional FOMO scale. The test employed data from a new sample of 236 student participants from a large university in the Midwestern United States. Participants answered a battery of scales, including the new FOMO scale and scales for related constructs.

Convergent validity was tested in four ways. First, a new CFA was estimated modeling a two‐dimensional construct. All items loaded into the expected dimension. The composite reliability (CR) for the construct and for each of the dimensions was above the recommended 0.80 threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Overall CR for FOMO = 0.94; CR for personal FOMO = 0.86; CR for social FOMO = 0.92. Second, the average variance extracted (AVE) for overall FOMO was 0.63, for personal FOMO was 0.56, and for social FOMO was 0.73. All scores exceeded the 0.5 criterion recommended by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). The results support the convergence of the scale items into the dimensions of the construct.

Third, the relationship between the new FOMO scale and a social media usage scale was assessed. Previous research shows that FOMO is positively related to social media use (Przybylski et al., 2013) and social media engagement (Alt, 2015). Social media usage was measured by a 5‐item scale using the following sentences: “I often check my friends' status on social media,” “I often check social media to get information about events and information,” “I check social network sites to see what's going on at least once per day,” “I always use social media to get to know about the world,” and “I often use social media to connect with my friends and social groups.” Participants responded on a 7‐point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).

Two models were estimated and compared. Model 1 included the hypothesized second‐order factor model with two first‐order factors (i.e., personal and social dimensions) predicting social media usage. Model 2 estimated the two dimensions as independent constructs predicting social media usage. Figure 2 shows the two competing models. The results showed that Model 1 (two‐factor second‐order model) fits the data well (χ2 = 107.78, df = 74; NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.04). Model 2 (two‐construct model) had poor fit (χ2 = 514.76, df = 71; NFI = 0.72, CFI = 0.75, TLI = 0.68; RMSEA = 0.16). A χ2 difference test showed that Model 1 fits the data better than Model 2 (Δχ2 = 406.98, df = 3, p < 0.01).

[Image Omitted. See PDF.]

The discriminant validity of the FOMO scale was assessed with two related but different constructs: novelty seeking and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Novelty seeking is defined as “an emotional‐motivation state facilitating the search for stimulation occasioned by novelty, complexity, uncertainty, or conflict, irrespective of specific questions or problem” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Novelty seeking behaviors, such as searching for new information and stimuli, can be driven by the intrinsic need to avoid boredom (Fowler, 1965) or by extrinsic environmental stimuli (Berlyne, 1967).

Similar to FOMO, novelty‐seeking behavior is argued to emerge from individuals' motivation to resolve incongruity between a current state (perception) and an ideal state (expectation; Hebb, 1949). Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence refers to the need to conform to the social group's expectations (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989). Susceptible individuals constantly monitor what individuals in the group are doing and mimic group behaviors. Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence emerges from low satisfaction for relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, FOMO should be related to, but different from, novelty seeking and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence.

Novelty seeking was measured using Manning, Bearden, and Madden (1995) consumer novelty‐seeking scale. Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influences was measured with five items taken from Bearden et al. (1989). Scales were measured with a 7‐point Likert‐style scale. The data was collected in the same questionnaire used to assess convergent validity (N = 236).

The results of a CFA showed that the AVE of FOMO was 0.63 (0.55 for the personal dimension and 0.73 for social dimension), the AVE of novelty seeking was 0.62, and the AVE of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence was 0.59. All AVE scores were above the recommended 0.50 criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Construct AVEs were higher than the squared correlation between FOMO and novelty seeking (0.04), and between FOMO and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence (0.07). The results provide support for the discriminant validity of the FOMO scale (Voorhees, Brady, Calantone, & Ramirez, 2016). Table 5 summarizes the results of the discriminant validity tests. Table 6 shows the correlations among the constructs in Study 3.

Table 5. Results of discriminant validity—Study 3

	EFA components
Scale items	1	2	3	4	5	CFA standardized loading	Construct reliability	Average variance extracted
Fear of missing out (FOMO)
Personal FOMO							0.95	0.78
1. I feel anxious when I do not experience events/opportunities	0.19	0.08	0.80	0.10	0.16	0.80
2. I believe I am falling behind compared with others when I miss events/opportunities	0.07	0.01	0.72	0.05	0.29	0.69
3. I feel anxious because I know something important or fun must happen when I miss events/opportunities	0.18	0.21	0.68	0.11	0.32	0.74
4. I feel sad if I am not capable of participating in events due to constraints of other things	0.05	0.04	0.75	0.25	0.17	0.72
5. I feel regretful of missing events/opportunities	0.06	−0.01	0.77	0.11	0.27	0.77
Social FOMO							0.96	0.87
1. I think my social groups view me as unimportant when I miss events/opportunities	0.03	0.11	0.27	0.06	0.77	0.73
2. I think I do not fit in social groups when I miss events or opportunities	−0.06	0.16	0.27	0.10	0.81	0.77
3. I think I am excluded by my social groups when I miss events or opportunities	0.07	0.15	0.29	0.03	0.85	0.92
4. I feel ignored or forgotten by my social groups when I miss events or opportunities	0.08	0.14	0.30	0.07	0.85	0.94
Novelty seeking							0.98	0.84
1. I often seek out information about new products and brands	0.78	0.03	0.00	0.12	0.07	0.75
2. I like to go to places where I will be exposed to information about new products and brands	0.84	0.06	0.03	0.05	−0.06	0.80
3. I like magazines that introduce new brands	0.80	0.02	0.12	0.13	−0.04	0.77
4. I frequently look for new products and services	0.88	0.00	0.04	0.14	0.07	0.87
5. I seek out situations in which I will be exposed to new and different sources of product information	0.85	0.01	0.10	−0.01	−0.01	0.83
6. I am continually seeking new product experiences	0.84	0.07	0.10	0.08	0.09	0.82
7. I take advantage of the first available opportunity to find out about new and different products	0.70	0.00	0.13	0.04	0.04	0.65
Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence							0.96	0.83
1. It is important that others like the products and brands I buy	0.01	0.80	−0.04	0.02	0.22	0.78
2. When buying products, I generally purchase those brands that I think others will approve of	−0.04	0.86	0.02	−0.02	0.12	0.83
3. If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect me to buy	0.06	0.82	0.13	0.06	0.00	0.77
4. I like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others	0.07	0.77	0.07	0.18	0.03	0.72
5. I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that others purchase	0.05	0.80	0.07	0.09	0.16	0.75
Social media usage							0.93	0.73
1. I often check my friends' status on social media	−0.02	0.05	0.16	0.68	0.09	0.58
2. I often check social media to get information about events	0.22	0.04	0.12	0.77	0.08	0.73
3. I check social network sites to see what's going on at least once per day	0.15	0.12	0.04	0.78	0.07	0.75
4. I often use social media to get to know about the world	0.11	0.01	0.12	0.80	0.01	0.78
5. I often use social media to connect with my friends and social groups	0.04	0.10	0.07	0.82	−0.01	0.79

• Note: Bold values indicate scale items that loaded on the same factor.

Table 6. Correlations among constructs in Study 3

Construct	1	2	3	4	5
1. Personal FOMO	–
2. Social FOMO	0.60* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.	–
3. Novelty seeking	0.24* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.	0.10	–
4. Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence	0.19* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.	0.29* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.	0.09	–
5. Social media usage	0.31* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.	0.18* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.	0.23* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.	0.182* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.	–

• * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
• Abbreviation: FOMO, fear of missing out.

7 STUDY 4: NOMOLOGICAL VALIDITY

The purpose of this study is to assess whether FOMO fits into an expected network of relationships with other constructs. First, we propose that self‐concept maintenance (SCM)—the degree to which an object or a brand reflects who the individual is (Jiménez & Voss, 2014, p. 365)—can be an antecedent of FOMO. By itself, missing on a consumption experience does not necessarily lead to FOMO. FOMO manifests when consumers perceive missing a product or experience that is related with their private and/or social self. Second, we posit that perceived scarcity does not always trigger FOMO. Scarcity refers to the “insufficiency of product supply or time of availability” (Lee & Seidle, 2012, p. 1487). Consumers' desirability for a product can increase when its perceived scarcity is high (Jang, Ko, Morris, & Chang, 2015). However, we posit that perceived scarcity does not trigger FOMO automatically. Perceived scarcity of a product or experience will trigger FOMO only when the product or experience is related to the self‐concept. And third, we argue that FOMO can increase the willingness to pay (WTP) for the missed product or experience.

To test the proposed relationships, we conducted a 2 (SCM: low vs. high) × 1 (perceived scarcity: high) between‐subjects experiment. One hundred and fifty‐seven adults (25–78 years old, Mage = 43, 79 female) participated in the study. Participants were recruited by an online consumer panel provider (Qualtrics) in the United States. SCM and perceived scarcity were manipulated. To manipulate SCM, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the first condition, participants were asked to report the name of a singer they strongly identify with. In the second condition, participants were asked to report the name of a singer they do not identify with at all. After participants reported the singer's name, they answered a manipulation check measure for self‐concept connection. The manipulation check scale for SCM included four items (Cronbach's α = 0.98) adapted from Escalas and Bettman's (2003) self‐connection scale: “The singer reflects who I am,” “I can identify with this singer,” “I feel a personal connection with this singer,” and “I (can) use this singer to communicate who I am to other people.” Participants rated the items using a 7‐point Likert‐type scale ranging from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 7 “Strongly Agree.”

Next, all participants read a scenario eliciting high perceived scarcity: Imagine that the singer you chose in the previous section is coming to town for a 1‐day tour concert. In this concert, the singer will release new material and shoot a video for a new song. You go to do your groceries one day and by chance, the grocery store gives you a VIP ticket for the concert, as part of a promotional campaign. Only a few number of fans will get VIP access for this concert. However, you have to work that day at the very same time. You asked your boss for permission, but she denied. You tried to see if someone could cover for you or do something, but nothing would work. Your job is very important right now, you need it. You cannot quit. It seems that you will miss the concert.

Finally, participants answered measures of perceived scarcity, FOMO, and WTP. Consistent with previous studies (Eisend, 2008; Jang et al., 2015), perceived scarcity was measured by adapting a single‐item “How available is VIP access to this concert?” Participants answered with a 7‐point scale with endpoints “Very restricted availability” to “Widely available.” FOMO was measured with our proposed nine‐item scale. Scale items were adapted to the context (e.g., I would feel anxious for missing out on the concert). WTP was measured by asking participants to report: “In regular conditions, how much would you be willing to pay for a VIP ticket for this artist?” Two instructional manipulation checks (i.e., “Choose number five” and “Select Strongly Disagree”) were interspersed within the survey (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, & Davidenko, 2009). The online consumer panel provider (Qualtrics) excluded responses from participants that failed the instructional manipulation checks.

Before testing the relationships, we checked the psychometric properties of the FOMO scale. A factor analysis confirmed a two factor solution (personal FOMO, eigenvalue = 5.76; social FOMO, eigenvalue = 1.94; explained variance = 83.98%). The scale items in the personal FOMO dimension (Cronbach's α = 0.95) and the social FOMO dimension (Cronbach's α = 0.95) showed internal consistency reliability. The results provide support for the dimensionality and reliability of the scale.

The manipulation of SCM was successful. The results showed that, on average, participants in the low SCM condition reported lower scores in the manipulation check scale (N = 75, M = 2.18, SD = 1.85) than participants in the high SCM condition (N = 82, M = 4.97, SD = 1.36). The difference was statistically significant (t = −10.76, df = 1 and 155, p < 0.01). Next, we compared perceived scarcity scores between the two conditions. The manipulation was successful. Perceived scarcity was high across both conditions. The results showed that the mean scores of perceived scarcity between the low (M = 2.52) and high (M = 2.39) SCM were not statistically different (t = 0.420, df = 1 and 155, p = 0.67). Let us remember that the perceived scarcity scale included endpoints from 1 = “Very restricted availability” to 7 “Widely available.” On average, participants scored high on perceived scarcity of the VIP ticket.

Next, we analyzed participants' scores on FOMO across conditions. The results of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with personal FOMO and social FOMO as dependent variables and SCM conditions as an independent variable showed a significant effect of SCM on personal FOMO (F = 42.65, df = 1 and 155, p < 0.01). The effect of SCM on social FOMO was not significant (F = 0.31, df = 1 and 155, p = 0.57). A follow‐up analysis revealed that participants in the high SCM condition (M = 4.78) reported higher scores on personal FOMO than participants in the low SCM condition (M = 2.88; t = −6.53, df = 1 and 155, p < 0.01). In sum, the results showed that SCM is an antecedent of FOMO. In the context of our manipulation scenario, high SCM elicited FOMO via its personal dimension.

Next, we tested the effect of personal FOMO on WTP. Participants reported WTP as a dollar amount. Overall, WTP ranged from $0 to $1200. The mean WTP in the low SCM condition was $105.92 with a standard deviation of 189.35. In the high SCM condition, WTP was $207.24 with a standard deviation of 204.27. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Jiménez & Voss, 2014), we performed a logarithmic transformation of WTP before the analysis. A regression analysis showed a positive association between personal FOMO and WTP (β = 0.26, t = 3.05, p < 0.01). In this study, social FOMO was not related to WTP (β = −1.12, t = −1.34, p = 0.18). The results are consistent with our manipulation. Since we asked participants to choose an artist they identify with, personal FOMO was more salient (i.e., FOMO on a personal dream) while social FOMO was not (i.e., missing out on what others enjoy).

We also ran a regression between perceived scarcity and WTP. We did not find a relationship between perceived scarcity and WTP (β = −1.46, t = −1.62, p = 0.11). If personal FOMO is related to WTP and SCM is an antecedent of personal FOMO, personal FOMO should mediate the effect of SCM on WTP. Thus, we conducted a mediation analysis. Figure 3 depicts the mediation model. First, we tested a positive relationship between SCM and WTP (Jiménez & Voss, 2014). The results of a regression analysis showed that SCM was related to WTP (β = 0.17, t = 1.98, p < 0.05). To test for the mediation of personal FOMO, we employed the procedure specified by Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010) and PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2013) with 5000 bootstrapped samples. The results showed a significant indirect effect of SCM through personal FOMO (a × b = 0.19), with a 95% confidence interval excluding zero [0.02 to 0.44]. The direct effect of SCM on WTP was not significant (c1 = 0.31, p = 0.23). The results suggest that personal FOMO fully mediates (indirect‐effect only) the relationship between SCM and WTP. In sum, the results support our prediction that personal FOMO is positively related to WTP.

[Image Omitted. See PDF.]

Overall, the findings in Study 4 show that SCM is an antecedent of FOMO. The findings also indicate that FOMO, rather than perceived scarcity, predicts WTP. Thus, the results provide initial support for the nomological validity of the scale. Table 7 shows the correlations among constructs in Study 4.

Table 7. Correlations among constructs in Study 4

Construct	1	2	3	4
1. Personal FOMO	–
2. Social FOMO	0.52* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.	–
3. Perceived scarcity	0.25* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.	0.49* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.	–
4. Willingness to pay (WTP) Ln	0.27	‐0.12	0.14	–

• * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

8 GENERAL DISCUSSION

In this article, based on the self‐concept theory, we offer a new theoretical foundation for the FOMO. FOMO is conceptualized as the FOMO on a consumption experience that can enhance or maintain the self‐concept. Because the self‐concept involves a private and a public self, we posit that FOMO involves a personal and a social dimension. Personal FOMO refers to the FOMO on experiences that can maintain or enhance the private self. Social FOMO relates to the FOMO on experiences that can maintain or enhance the public self. Personal and social FOMO form fear of missing out.

Two aspects differentiate our conceptualization from Przybylski et al.'s (2013) framework. First, Przybylski and colleagues define FOMO as a desire to stay connected with others (p. 1841). They employ SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to explain that FOMO is a situational disposition that activates when individuals feel dissatisfied with basic human needs (i.e., needs for competence, autonomy, and connectedness). They propose that social networks allow individuals to find resources to satisfy their needs. In contrast, we propose that FOMO is an emotion. We draw from self‐concept theory (Rosenberg, 1979) to contend that FOMO is the fear an individual feels from missing out on an experience that can enhance or maintain her/his self‐concept. Missing out on this type of experience threatens the individual's psychological well‐being. A second difference between Przybylski et al.'s approach and ours is that we extrapolate FOMO to contexts outside social media. Because prior research has defined the concept as the desire to stay connected, researchers have typically examined the relationship between FOMO and social media usage. Our approach positions FOMO as a feeling that individuals can experience in any setting, online and offline. Theoretically, individuals may fear missing out on any type of consumption experience that is related to enhancing or maintaining their self‐concept.

To provide initial empirical support for our theorizing, it was necessary to develop of a bidimensional FOMO scale. The results of four studies support the convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity of the new measure. In Study 1, a reliable and meaningful pool of items was generated. In Study 2, the pool of items was purified and construct validity was assessed. A final set of nine items, five for the personal dimension and four for the social dimension, was selected. A series of model tests supported the two‐dimensional structure of the measure. The present study is the first study to conceptualize and empirically support the bidimensionality of FOMO. In Study 3, the convergent validity of the FOMO measure was indicated by the correlation between the FOMO scale and a social media usage scale. The FOMO measure also showed to be similar to, but different from, measures of novelty seeking and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Finally, in Study 4, the hypothesized relationships between SCM, perceived scarcity, FOMO, and WTP were supported. The findings provide support for the nomological validity of the measure. Together, the studies provide preliminary support for the bidimensional conceptualization of the FOMO.

9 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

One limitation of our scale development is that most of the data were collected from student samples in the United States. We chose to develop scale items with a student sample because FOMO is more evident in young people (Przybylski et al., 2013). The results of Study 4, which includes an adult nonstudent sample, provide initial support for the reliability and validity of the scale in older populations. However, more research is needed to fully establish the validity of the scale among older populations. Testing the scale with older adults is important because interpretations of FOMO could be susceptible to aging. More studies in different countries are also encouraged to test the stability of the scale across cultural contexts.

Another limitation of the present study is that the relationship between the newly developed scale and previous social media FOMO scales was not tested. The proposed scale does not include items from existing FOMO scales because current scales were developed to measure a different conceptualization of FOMO in the social media context. Given that we provide a new conceptualization, definition, and dimensionality of FOMO, we felt compelled to start from scratch. However, the question of whether or not the new FOMO scale could be used in conjunction with or in lieu of existing social media FOMO scales remains unanswered. Future research could empirically compare and contrast the applicability of different FOMO scales.

Finally, the results of Study 4 indicate that perceived scarcity may not automatically trigger FOMO. However, we only tested these relationships when perceived scarcity was high. More research is needed to test the effectiveness of FOMO marketing (Hodkinson, 2019) in different consumption contexts. Also, we used a hypothetical scenario without a realism check (Dabholkar, 1996). Future studies could test the validity of the new scale in different contexts and scenarios.

10 RESEARCH AGENDA

The contribution of our proposed conceptualization is reflected in the potential proliferation of FOMO research in consumer psychology. In the following, we present a non‐exhaustive and nonexclusive research agenda. Our intention is to provoke further discussion on the topic and to invite researchers to consider a new stream of research that examines the role of FOMO in consumer behavior and well‐being.

Future work could further delineate the domain of the construct. The term “missing out” can have different connotations. In this article, missing out refers to experiences that are perceived as attainable. We argue that FOMO is a feeling of fear of potential negative consequences from inaction on perceived opportunities. Fear itself is an uncomfortable feeling of anticipation to a threat. However, some authors may use the term to capture the feeling of missing out on experiences that are no longer possible to attain. Missing out on unavailable opportunities is not related to fear. Instead, it is related to feelings of frustration, despair, and regret (Phillips, 2012). It is a reflection on what could have happened, a feeling of having lost (for good) the possibility to experience something valuable. Take, for example, a never‐married octogenarian regretting not getting married to her high school sweetheart when he proposed. Researchers could explore what type of consumption patterns occur when people realize that they can no longer reach their dreams. For example, would people stop saving and start spending? What happens when consumers shift from FOMO to resignation? Are there any factors in the marketplace that inhibit or enhance this process? Future research could explore why, when, and how missing out transforms from fear to frustration, despair, regret, or resignation.

Another avenue is to further investigate the relationship between scarcity and FOMO. Based on our findings, we would predict that not all scarcity message appeals using the slogan “Don't Miss Out” will elicit fear. Fear manifests when individuals are unable to engage in an opportunity or opportunities perceived to have the potential to enhance or maintain the self‐concept. However, the situational activation of FOMO remains an open question.

John et al.'s (2018) study offer initial insights on the relationship between perceived scarcity and FOMO. They conducted a series of experiments to test whether or not a preference for scarce goods is an evolutionary trait in humans. In their experiments, they manipulated the perceived scarcity of a good and the type of environment (noncompetitive vs. competitive). Research participants involved samples of chimpanzees and human children. The results showed the phenomenon of a preference for scarce goods is a human trait. Chimpanzees did not show a scarcity preference. Chimpanzees chose the “best” alternative across scarcity and competitive conditions. The results from a sample of 4‐year olds showed similar results. However, in a sample of 6‐year olds, a scarcity preference was found, but only in males and in competitive situations. The authors speculate that scarcity preference is an evolutionary response to competition. In competitive contexts, humans prefer scarce goods when they perceive that such goods could become a resource to maintain or enhance dominance and uniqueness. The authors theorize that the effect of perceived scarcity on choice could be mediated by the FOMO. Note that this explanation is consistent with our idea that perceived scarcity may elicit FOMO when the consumption experience enhances or maintains the self‐concept. Future research should test the relationship between SCM, perceived scarcity, FOMO, and consumer choice across different contexts.

Future investigations could examine how consumers cope with FOMO. Past research shows that individuals tend to react to fear by freezing, running away, or fighting back (Gray, 1971). For example, Herman (2000) hypothesizes that consumers that experience FOMO will tend to switch brands more often. Because fear may lead to instant reactions, consumers may be prone to act spontaneously. For example, it would be useful to examine whether FOMO is related to impulse buying, unplanned purchases, down payments, credit card use, and other consumption patterns associated with spontaneous purchases.

Furthermore, research is needed to understand how consumers cope with FOMO when financial (e.g., poverty), physical (e.g., disability, illness), legal (e.g., age), and social (e.g., networks) constraints restrict their access to products and experiences in the marketplace. For instance, at the time of this writing, the world is facing the worst public health crisis in the last century—the COVID‐19 (aka Coronavirus) pandemic. To contain the spread of the virus, millions of consumers worldwide have been ordered to live in lockdown with limited access to the market. We would expect consumers in confinement to feel FOMO. But, how do consumers in lockdown cope with FOMO? A possible coping mechanism, for example, could be the reshaping of the self. Consumers can internalize goods (e.g., Starbucks coffee), services (e.g., golf), and experiences (e.g., concerts) as part of the self (Metha & Belk, 1991). Consumers that do not have access to products and experiences that help them define their self may fall into an identity crisis and may need to redefine the self‐concept (Lastovicka & Fernandez, 2005). The investigation of FOMO in the context of market restrictions deserves further examination.

The aforementioned list of avenues for future research is not comprehensive. The purpose of this section was to incite researchers to consider FOMO as a potentially fertile construct in consumer psychology. Although we opted to present the research agenda in a conceptual manner, researchers could examine FOMO in any consumption context across any stage of the consumer decision‐making process.

11 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

Our research findings have implications for marketing managers. First, our study offers a valid and reliable scale of FOMO that managers can use in market research studies to assess how much FOMO consumers feel about a particular brand. Our results show that FOMO is related to WTP. Thus, the assessment of FOMO could inform managers about consumers' price sensitivity. Second, our study suggests that the success of FOMO marketing campaigns (e.g., “Don't miss out” or “Limited edition”) are likely to be contingent on consumers' self‐identification with the product, brand, or activity. For instance, our findings show that individuals reported higher (lower) levels of FOMO on a concert when they strongly (weakly) identified with the artist. Managers could use brand‐self connection as a segmentation variable for FOMO advertising.

12 CONCLUSION

Practitioner and academic interest in FOMO is undeniably growing. However, the conceptual development on this budding topic remains in its infancy. This article proposes that FOMO occurs when individuals perceive that foregoing an opportunity poses a threat to their self‐concept. Accordingly, we developed a new FOMO scale. The scale can be a useful tool to test antecedents and consequences of FOMO in online and offline consumption contexts. This article opens a new line of thought about FOMO by presenting a preliminary list of research opportunities. Indeed, we suggest that myriad research avenues related to FOMO remain to be discovered. We urge curious and adventurous researchers not to miss out on this opportunity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Dr. Kevin Voss, Dr. Frank Cabano, Dr. Li Mengge, Dr. Gary Frankwick, and Dr. Miguel Ramos for their feedback in previous versions of the manuscript.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.

Open Research

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Abel, J. P., Buff, C. L., & Burr, S. A. (2016). Social media and the fear of missing out: Scale development and assessment. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 14, 33– 43.

Alt, D. (2015). College students' academic motivation, media engagement and fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 111– 119.

Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338– 375.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74– 94.

Bay, E. J., & Algase, D. L. (1999). Fear and anxiety: A simultaneous concept analysis. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge, 10(3), 103– 111.

Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473– 481.

Berlyne, D. E. (1967). Arousal and reinforcement. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 1– 110). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230– 258.

Buglass, S. L., Binder, J. F., Betts, L. R., & Underwood, J. D. M. (2017). Motivators of online vulnerability: The impact of social network use and FOMO. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 248– 255.

Chang, C. (2010). Making unique choices or being like others: How priming self‐concepts influences advertising effectiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 27(4), 399– 416.

Churchill Jr, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64– 73.

Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 389– 405.

Dabholkar, P. (1996). Consumer evaluations of new technology‐based self‐service options: An investigation of alternative models of service quality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(1), 29– 51.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self‐determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109– 134.

Dogan, V. (2019). Why do people experience the fear of missing out (FoMO)? Exposing the link between the self and the FoMO through self‐construal. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 50, 524– 538.

Dossey, L. (2014). FOMO, digital dementia, and our dangerous experiment. Explore, 10, 69– 73.

Eisend, M. (2008). Explaining the impact of scarcity appeals in advertising: The mediating role of perceptions of susceptibility. Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 33– 40.

Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing out, need for touch, anxiety and depression are related to problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 509– 516.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339– 348.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self‐consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522– 527.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39– 50.

Fowler, H. (1965). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186– 192.

Gil, F., Chamarro, A., & Oberst, U. (2015). PO‐14: Addiction to online social networks: A question of "Fear of Missing Out"? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4, 51– 52.

Gill, M. J., & Burrow, R. (2018). The function of fear in institutional maintenance: Feeling frightened as an essential ingredient in haute cuisine. Organization Studies, 39(4), 445– 465.

Gilliam, D. A., & Voss, K. (2013). A proposed procedures for construct definition in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 47(1/2), 5– 26.

Gray, J. A. (1971). The psychology of fear and stress. New York, NY: Word University Library.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis ( 5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.

Harris Group. (2015). Millennials: Fueling the experience economy. Retrieved April 28, 2020, from https://www.eventbrite.com/blog/academy/millennials-fueling-experience-economy/

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Hebb, D. O. (1949). Organization of behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.

Hedges, K. (2014). Do you have FOMO: Fear of missing out? Forbes. Retrieved April 28, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2014/03/27/do-you-have-fomo-fear-of-missing-out/#1705e0984ec4

Herman, D. (2000). Introducing short‐term brands: A new branding tool for a new consumer reality. Journal of Brand Management, 7, 330– 340.

Herman, D. (2019). The fear of missing out. Retrieved from http://fomofearofmissingout.com/fomo

Hodkinson, C. (2019). ‘Fear of Missing Out’ (FOMO) marketing appeals: A conceptual model. Journal of Marketing Communications, 25, 65– 68.

Hogan, M. (2015). Facebook and the ‘Fear of Missing Out’ (FoMO). Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-one-lifespan/201510/facebook-and-the-fear-missing-out-fomo

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1– 55.

Jang, W. E., Ko, Y. J., Morris, J. D., & Chang, Y. (2015). Scarcity message effects on consumer behavior: Limited edition product considerations. Psychology & Marketing, 32(10), 989– 1001.

Jiménez, F. R., & Voss, K. E. (2014). An alternative approach to the measurement of emotional attachment. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 360– 370.

John, M., Melis, A. P., Read, D., Rossano, F., & Tomasello, M. (2018). The preference for scarcity: A developmental and comparative perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 35, 603– 615.

Lastovicka, J. L., & Fernandez, K. V. (2005). Three paths to disposition: The movement of meaningful possessions to strangers. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 813– 823.

Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. M. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23, 741– 755.

Lee, S. Y., & Seidle, R. (2012). Narcissists as consumers: The effects of perceived scarcity on processing of product information. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(9), 1485– 1499.

Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O., & Madden, T. J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329– 345.

Metha, R., & Belk, R. W. (1991). Artifacts, identity, and transition: Favorite possessions of Indians and Indian immigrants to the United States. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 398– 411.

Milyavskaya, M., Saffran, M., Hope, N., & Koestner, R. (2018). Fear of missing out: Prevalence, dynamics, and consequences of experiencing FOMO. Motivation and emotion, 42, 725– 737.

Mohan, M., Voss, K. E., & Jiménez, F. R. (2017). Managerial disposition and front‐end innovation success. Journal of Business Research, 70, 193– 201.

Morgan, B. (2015). NOwnership, no problem: Why millennials value experiences over owning things. Forbes. Retrieved April 28, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2015/06/01/nownershipnoproblem-nowners-millennials-value-experiences-over-ownership/#6f78aa545406

Mowen, J. C., & Minor, M. S. (2006). Consumer behavior. Mason, OH: Thomson.

Mowen, J. C., & Voss, K. E. (2008). On building better construct measures: Implications of a general hierarchical model. Psychology & Marketing, 25(6), 485– 505.

Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867– 872.

Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 133– 145.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Phillips, A. (2012). Missing out. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1841– 1848.

Reed, A., II (2002). Social identity as a useful perspective for self‐concept‐based consumer research. Psychology & Marketing, 19(3), 235– 266.

Riordan, B. C., Flett, J. A. M., Hunter, J. A., Scarf, D., & Conner, T. S. (2015). Fear of missing out (FoMO): The relationship between FoMO, alcohol use, and alcohol‐related consequences in college students. Journal of Psychiatry and Brain Functions, 2(9), 1– 7.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self‐determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well‐being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68– 78.

Saad, G. (2013). Evolutionary consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 351– 371.

Salem, P. J. (2015). Human communication technology. Austin, TX: Sentia Publishing.

Schermelleh‐Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness‐of‐fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23– 74.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self‐concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287– 300.

Tedeschi, J. T. (1986). Private and public: Experiences and the self. In R.F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public and private self (pp. 1‐ 20). New York, NY: Springer‐Verlag.

Thomson, M., Whelan, J., & Johnson, A. R. (2011). Why brands should fear fearful consumers: How attachment style predicts retaliation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 289– 298.

Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119– 134.

Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310– 320.

Whitbourne, S. K. (1986). The me I know: A study of adult identity. New York, NY: Springer‐Verlag.

Whitley, G. G. (1992). Concept analysis of fear. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies, 3(4), 155– 161.

Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197– 206.