Article

Psychological Reports
0(0) 1–27
Fear of Missing Out ! The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
and Personality as sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0033294120936184
Predictors of Social journals.sagepub.com/home/prx

Networking Sites
Usage: The
Instagram Case

Kelly Moore and

Georgiana Craciun
Department of Marketing, Palumbo-Donahue School of
Business, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Abstract
With the exponential increase in the number of social networking sites (SNS) users,
there is also a significant shift in the popularity of these SNS. Moreover, fear of
missing out (FOMO) is often blamed for the growth in SNS addictive tendencies.
The current research examines the influence of FOMO and Big 5 personality traits
on SNS attitudes, usage, and addictive tendencies in the context of an increasingly
popular SNS – Instagram. Participants completed online questionnaires that assessed
their personality traits and then be-friended one of the researchers on Instagram,
which provided the actual Instagram activity data (e.g., total number of Instagram
posts, total number of likes, etc.). Hierarchical regression results showed that per-
sonality factors explained significant amounts of variance in terms of attitude
towards Instagram, number of likes, total number of Instagram posts since account
inception, and social media addictive tendencies. Furthermore, FOMO had a signif-
icant positive effect on attitude toward Instagram, the total number of Instagram
accounts that respondents followed, and social media addictive tendencies.

Corresponding Author:
Kelly Moore, Department of Marketing, Palumbo-Donahue School of Business, Duquesne University, 911
Rockwell Hall, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Email: moorek4@duq.edu
2 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Keywords
Personality, fear of missing out, Instagram, social networking sites, attitude, addictive
tendencies

Introduction
About 69% of the U.S. population use some form of social media (Hill &
Zheng, 2018), which is up from only 7% in 2005 (Juergensen & Leckfor,
2019). Further, about 20% of total time spent online in the U.S. is spent on
social networking sites (SNS) (Adler, 2014). Instagram has shown rising popu-
larity in recent years. It is the fastest growing SNS (Wagner, 2015) and has
become the 17th most popular web site in the United States and 30th globally
(Ridgway & Clayton, 2016). Young people are especially involved, with 53% of
young adults between the ages of 18-29 reporting having an Instagram account
(Wagner, 2015) and between 55% and 82% of teenagers and young adults using
SNS on a regular basis (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011). In fact, Facebook’s recent drop
in users has been attributed to both the 2018 Cambridge Analytica personal data
breach scandal and the fact that college aged users are transitioning to
Instagram (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011).
Though similar to other SNS (e.g., Facebook), Instagram is distinct in five
important ways. First, Instagram facilitates online social interaction though the
use of pictures (J. L. Wang et al., 2012). Instagram is about sharing photos and
short videos (up to one minute in duration). A user can include a comment
below the photo, but the focus is on the picture. Second, it is possible to follow
people on Instagram who are not one’s friends in “real life” (i.e. celebrities). In
contrast, on Facebook, connecting with other users is reciprocal, that is, both
users can see each other’s updates. Third, on Instagram, following and/or being
followed by strangers is facilitated by hashtags or labels that one can attach to
photos. Once a photo receives a hashtag, it becomes searchable on Instagram.
Fourth, Instagram offers enhancement filters that allow users to beautify images
before posting. Therefore, Instagram posts are skewed toward positive images
more so than Facebook, which displays status updates that contain both pos-
itive and negative feelings (Lup et al., 2015). Finally, on Instagram, there is only
a heart icon for “liking” others’ photos and there is no “dislike” option. Taken
together, Instagram has several unique characteristics that distinguish it from
Facebook and other SNS. Past research suggests that various SNS features may
appeal differently to different personality types (Zhang et al., 2017). In order to
understand Instagram usage we need to examine what attracts users to these
unique characteristics.
The popular press (Safronova, 2015) points to Instagram users in particular
possessing a higher level of fear of missing out (FOMO), which is the fear that
Moore and Craciun 3

other people are having more fun and enjoyable experiences without you
(Blackwell et al., 2017; Przybylski et al., 2013). Yet, to our knowledge, no
prior studies have examined FOMO in the context of the Instagram platform.
Moreover, no prior research has examined the influence of FOMO on actual
SNS behavior, as most studies have used only self-reports of SNS engagement.
Finally, despite the extensive examination of the personality drivers of
Facebook usage (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010; Moore & McElroy,
2012; Ross et al., 2009), very little is known about the young adults’ motivation
to use Instagram. Researchers have suggested that excessive use of new technol-
ogies (such as Instagram), may be particularly addictive to young adults (Kuss
& Griffiths, 2011).
Our research makes several contributions to the literature. We address how
personality characteristics influence the degree to which individuals use
Instagram, a relatively new form of SNS. Also, past personality research has
typically used surveys to examine a user’s attitude towards social media (with
the exception of Amichai-Hamburger and Vinitzky, 2010 and Moore and
McElroy, 2012), whereas we observe the influence of personality traits and
FOMO on actual SNS behaviors (e.g., number of followers, total numbers of
posts, etc.). Lastly, we distinguish FOMO from the Big Five personality traits to
examine the role of FOMO in Instagram usage and social media addictive
tendencies.

Literature review
The Big Five
Personality traits indicate how an individual thinks, feels and acts in different
situations (Chen & Lin, 2017; McCrae & Costa, 1999). The “Big Five” person-
ality model has received considerable empirical support and has come to repre-
sent the standard personality trait measure (Wehrli, 2008). It states that
individuals differ in the personality traits of extraversion, neuroticism (emotion-
al stability), conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience (intel-
lect) (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These personality dimensions have been widely
accepted by psychological scholars as covering a wide spectrum of traits with as
few components as possible (Blumer & D€ oring, 2012). The Big Five have also
been found to relate to people’s behavior in a broad range of social contexts
(Wehrli, 2008).
Researchers have demonstrated that personality is a major predictor of inter-
net behavior in general (Amiel & Sargent, 2004; McElroy et al., 2007) and SNS
(i.e., Facebook) use in particular (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010; Ross
et al., 2009; Wehrli, 2008). Research involving Facebook has found certain
personality traits to be more useful than others (Moore & McElroy, 2012).
Historically extraversion has shown consistent and strong effects on SNS
4 Psychological Reports 0(0)

usage (Wehrli, 2008). Extraverts tend to have wider social networks (Amichai-
Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010) and use SNS as a communication tool (Kraut
et al., 2002). Neurotics spend more time online (McElroy et al., 2007) seeking
attention and social support (Ross et al., 2009) because they are anxious and
self-conscious (Trapnell & Campbell, 1999). Conscientious individuals are hard-
working (Costa & McCrae, 1992), believe SNS usage hampers production
(Devaraj et al., 2008), and therefore use it less (Ryan & Xenos, 2011).

Fear of missing out

Recently, fear of missing out (FOMO) has been implicated as a driver of SNS
engagement and SNS addiction. FOMO has been defined “as a pervasive appre-
hension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is
absent” (Przybylski et al., 2013, p. 1841). From a theoretical standpoint, FOMO
is a relatively new construct (Wegmann et al., 2017). It has been theorized to be
comprised of irritability, anxiety, and feelings of inadequacy (Abel et al., 2016).
Individuals who experience FOMO find social media particularly attractive
because it provides social connection and involvement (Stead & Bibby, 2017).
Constant access to social media leads to SNS users always being able to view
what they are missing out on. This leads to feelings of dissatisfaction, anxiety
and unworthiness, and temporarily lowers users’ self-esteem (Abel et al., 2016).
We contribute to the FOMO literature stream by looking specifically at how the
trait drives Instagram usage.
Prior research has found FOMO is related to negative emotional feelings
(Stead & Bibby, 2017). Individuals with a low satisfaction with life and poor
emotional state have been found to experience FOMO more than satisfied
people (Dhir et al., 2018; Przybylski et al., 2013). One study found nearly
70% of adults admitted to experiencing feelings of missing out (Abel et al.,
2016).
Individuals have a tendency to overestimate the positive experiences and
underestimate the negative emotional experiences of people they are following
on SNS (Jordan et al., 2011; Rozgonjuk et al., 2019). This results in followers
seeing a positively skewed version of other people’s lives (Reagle, 2015) and
therefore believing these people to be happier, more successful, and more emo-
tionally positive than themselves (Chou & Edge, 2012). It has previously been
argued that Instagram may foster a higher FOMO than Facebook and other
SNS, since Instagram users presumably personally know a small proportion of
the people they are connected to because the platform allows users to follow
celebrities and public figures (Donnelly & Kuss, 2016). In the case of Instagram,
users may feel less privileged than the celebrities they follow, resulting in
increased levels of depression (Donnelly & Kuss, 2016) and FOMO
(Safronova, 2015). Scholars have argued attribution theory explains this ten-
dency (Lup et al., 2015). People attribute others’ behavior to dispositional
Moore and Craciun 5

factors rather than situational (Jones, 1979). Hence browsing celebrities’

enhanced photos leads them to believe that is actually how others live, which
is an unrealistic comparison. This can trigger negative feelings about one’s self
(Lup et al., 2015).
Experiencing FOMO affects individuals’ decision making and behavior (Abel
et al., 2016). Social media users with high FOMO have been shown to have
higher engagement in SNS and more compulsive SNS use (Baker et al., 2016).
FOMO has been linked to numerous negative outcomes, such as internet addic-
tion (Stead & Bibby, 2017), social media addiction (Blackwell et al., 2017;
Casale et al., 2018), problematic smartphone usage (Elhai et al., 2016, 2018),
smartphone addiction (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016), and risky alcohol
consumption behaviors (Riordan et al., 2015).
Milyavskaya et al. (2018) found FOMO is unrelated to the Big Five person-
ality traits and Przybylski et al. (2013) suggest there is a need for FOMO to be
distinguished from the Big Five. Accordingly, we fill in this gap in the literature
by including FOMO in our model in addition to and independent from the Big
Five personality traits. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, prior
research has focused on FOMO’s impact on self-reported measures of SNS
engagement, whereas our current study examines the effect of FOMO on
actual SNS behavior.

Social media addictive tendencies

SNS promote interactivity, which can satisfy a user’s personal needs and thereby
reinforce the behavior (Griffiths, 1998). This can lead to overuse of SNS and
encourage addictive tendencies (Griffiths, 1998; Wilson et al., 2010). Addictive
behavior has been defined as an over-attachment to an object or activity (Walsh
et al., 2007). Indicators of behavioral addiction include withdrawal (negative
physiological or psychological response to not engaging in the behavior), loss of
control (engaging in behavior more than intended), and salience (the activity
domination thoughts or behavior) (Wilson et al., 2010).
A few prior studies have investigated the link between the Big Five and
addictive tendencies related to technology usage. Neuroticism has been associ-
ated with increased Internet addiction (Andreassen et al., 2013), social media
addiction (C. W. Wang et al., 2015), Instagram addiction (Ershad & Aghajani,
2017), and stronger mobile phone addictive tendencies (Ehrenberg et al., 2008).
Extraversion was positively associated with Facebook addiction (Andreassen
et al., 2013) and social media addiction (C. W. Wang et al., 2015).
Conscientiousness was negatively associated with Facebook addiction
(Andreassen et al., 2013). Wilson et al. (2010) found extraverted and uncon-
scientious individuals reported higher levels of SNS addictive tendencies and
SNS use in an Australian sample. Yet, these authors did not consider the role of
FOMO as an antecedent of addictive tendencies. We aim to replicate Wilson
6 Psychological Reports 0(0)

and colleagues (2010) findings concerning personality drivers of SNS addictive

tendencies in an American sample. Moreover, since FOMO has previously been
linked to several types of technology addictions, we will examine the link
between FOMO and social media addictive tendencies.

Hypotheses development
Extraversion is linked to being sociable and belonging to groups (Seidman,
2013). Extraverted individuals are typically talkative and outgoing (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). In contrast, introverts (individuals with low amounts of extra-
version) are reserved and serious and prefer to stay alone or within close circles
(Wehrli, 2008). Individuals high in extraversion are expected to engage in high
amounts of social interaction and approach others more easily (Wehrli, 2008).
Extraverts have significantly wider social networks (Amichai-Hamburger &
Vinitzky, 2010) and show higher contact frequencies (Wehrli, 2008) than intro-
verts. For example, extraverts belong to more Facebook groups, have more
friends (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011), and are thought to use Facebook more fre-
quently (Gosling et al., 2011) than their introverted counterparts. Wilson et al.
(2010) found individuals high in extraversion reported more time spent on SNS
and stronger social media addictive tendencies.
Extraverts prefer to use Facebook as a tool to communicate and socialize,
using functions like status updates (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011; Ryan & Xenos,
2011). Extraverts also use Facebook to comment on friends’ pages (Gosling
et al., 2011). Extraverts are also more likely to post a photo in a different
style, such as black and white or altered colors (Kr€amer & Winter, 2008).
Extraverts have also been found to engage more in online gaming (Huh &
Bowman, 2008) and more frequently host weblogs (Kr€amer & Winter, 2008)
than their introverted counterparts.
Facebook empirical evidence has supported the “rich-get-richer” hypothesis,
which states that extraverts (as opposed to introverts) benefit the most from
using SNS since they are able to extend their networks and pursue their com-
munication needs on social media (Kraut et al., 2002). We expect these differ-
ences to carry over to other forms of social media, so we offer the following
hypothesis:

H1: Individuals high (vs. low) in extraversion will have a more favorable attitude
towards Instagram, follow a larger number of Instagram accounts, have more
Instagram followers, post more on Instagram, have more “likes,” and have stron-
ger social media addictive tendencies.

Neuroticism is characterized by anxiousness and sensitivity to threat

(Marshall et al., 2015). Neuroticism is tied with an individual’s ability to cope
with stress (Wehrli, 2008) and low self-esteem (Judge et al., 2002). Neuroticism is
Moore and Craciun 7

also associated with social anxiety and public self-consciousness (Trapnell &
Campbell, 1999). Additionally, neurotic individuals believe they are not attrac-
tive to others and are fearful of rejection (Wehrli, 2008).
Neurotics spend more time online than their emotionally stable counterparts
(McElroy et al., 2007). However, neurotics seek attention and social support
online (Ross et al., 2009), which may be due to their fear that they would burden
others offline (Forest & Wood, 2012). Since neuroticism can be manifested as
loneliness, it may influence individuals to use the internet as a means to reduce
their loneliness (Correa et al., 2010) and to earn social support (Lee et al., 2015).
They also vent about personal drama online (Seidman, 2013). Neurotics have
self-presentation concerns, which results in more time spent engaging in online
gaming (Huh & Bowman, 2008) and on SNS (Seidman, 2013) where they can
control their ‘virtual image’ and present their idealized selves online (Leary &
Allen, 2011; Seidman, 2013).
As it relates to Facebook specifically, neurotic individuals use Facebook fre-
quently (Correa et al., 2010; Rozgonjuk et al., 2019) and for social purposes
(Hughes et al., 2012) because they tend to see Facebook as a safe place for
self-expression (Forest & Wood, 2012). They prefer to engage in asynchronous
communication on Facebook (i.e. by posting on their timeline vs. chatting in
Messenger) since this type of communication allows them to control the timing,
pace, and content of their interactions (Rozgonjuk et al., 2019). Neurotics have
reported the Wall as their favorite Facebook activity (Ross et al., 2009), and are
more likely to post private information than their less neurotic counterparts
(Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010). An explanation that has been offered
is that neurotics feel vulnerable and are trying to bolster psychological support
and seek attention from friends (Ross et al., 2009). Neuroticism is positively
correlated with social passive Facebook use, such as playing games and following
fan pages (Rozgonjuk et al., 2019; Ryan & Xenos, 2011).
Given Instagram’s unique features that allow picture enhancements and
encourage the use of “likes” (no “dislike” option is available), we propose
that Instagram will be particularly popular among neurotics. Neurotic
Instagram users may experience a decrease in loneliness (Pittman & Reich,
2016; Sheldon, 2008), leading to a more favorable attitude towards Instagram.
Positive images viewed on Instagram can help mitigate negative psychological
states and induce positive ones, because users may feel they are communicating
with an actual person (Pittman & Reich, 2016). Since neurotics are also more
likely to vent about personal drama (Seidman, 2013), they may have more
Instagram followers because they post private information other Instagram
users are interested in because it has entertainment value. Consequently, we
hypothesize:

H2: Individuals high (vs. low) in neuroticism will have a more favorable attitude
towards Instagram, post more on Instagram, receive more “likes,” follow more
8 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Instagram accounts, have more Instagram followers, and have stronger social
media addictive tendencies.

Conscientious individuals are typically hard working, disciplined, organized

and responsible (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Highly conscientious people are intrin-
sically motivated and always trying to improve their job performance (Moore &
McElroy, 2012). Conscientious individuals have been found to have more and
better quality interpersonal relationships (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998), suggest-
ing they may use SNS to seek and maintain social connections (Seidman, 2013).
They usually have more Facebook friends (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky,
2010) and are less likely to post to seek attention or acceptance (Seidman, 2013).
Researchers posit that individuals high in conscientiousness believe Facebook
does not drive efficiency or production, so they have decreased behavioral
intentions towards it (Devaraj et al., 2008). Highly conscientious people tend
to use Facebook less frequently than those lower in conscientiousness (Gosling
et al., 2011), because they prefer to stick to their main goals by avoiding dis-
traction (Wehrli, 2008). Moreover, prior studies have found conscientiousness
to be negatively associated with SNS use (Ryan & Xenos, 2011) and social
media addictive tendencies (Wilson et al., 2010). Therefore it has been suggested
that conscientious people are cautious and may choose to satisfy belonging
needs offline instead of online (Seidman, 2013). Extrapolating this to
Instagram usage, we hypothesize:

H3: Individuals high (vs. low) in conscientiousness will post less on Instagram,
follow fewer Instagram accounts, and have weaker social media addictive
tendencies.

Agreeable individuals tend to be cooperative, friendly, and helpful (Costa &

McCrae, 1992). They have a strong orientation towards others, and therefore
belongingness is important to agreeable individuals (Seidman, 2013). However,
Moore and McElroy (2012) and Ross et al. (2009) did not find evidence that
agreeable individuals communicate more on Facebook. Agreeable individuals
prefer to present an authentic version of themselves online (Leary & Allen, 2011)
and have been found to have greater perceived control over their online self-
presentation (Sun & Wu, 2012).
Early studies have shown that agreeableness is not related to internet or social
media use (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010; Correa et al., 2010; Hughes
et al., 2012; Ross et al., 2009). More recently, one study has found agreeableness
to be positively associated with posting on Facebook to communicate and con-
nect with others and negatively associated with attention-seeking posting
(Seidman, 2013) or bad-mouthing others (Stoughton et al., 2013).
Individuals high in the openness to experience (intellect) trait tend to be
intelligent, creative, and curious. Some researchers found openness to be
Moore and Craciun 9

positively related to frequency of social media usage and argued this was due to
intellects’ interest in creating new online profiles (Correa et al., 2010). Yet,
others found no relation to SNS usage (Hughes et al., 2012; Ross et al., 2009;
Wilson et al., 2010). Further, research has shown that intellects are more likely
to use social media for finding and disseminating information rather than social-
izing (Hughes et al., 2012). Open individuals have been found to be more likely
to blog (Guadagno et al., 2008) and reveal personal information in their
Facebook profiles (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010).
Since the literature has been inconclusive due to conflicting results or a lim-
ited body of work, we will not hypothesize a relationship between the person-
ality traits of agreeableness or openness to experience and Instagram use or
social media addictive tendencies, but will explore whether any such relation-
ships exist.
Fear of Missing Out has been linked to higher anxiety and fear of being socially
excluded (Blackwell et al., 2017). Baker et al. (2016) cite several studies demon-
strating that social media users with high FOMO are likely to spend more time on
social media and engage in more compulsive social media use (Oberst et al., 2017;
Wolniewicz et al., 2018). Further, several studies argue that people who have a
higher desire to know what their friends are doing are more often involved in
Facebook (Błachnio & Przepiorka, 2018; Calancie et al., 2017). Beyens et al.
(2016) found FOMO to mediate the relationship between an increased need for
popularity/to belong and increased Facebook usage. Dempsey et al. (2019) found
FOMO to be related to problematic Facebook use severity.
As argued earlier, Instagram allows people to follow not only friends, but
also strangers. Thus, Instagram users can follow an unlimited number of celeb-
rities and public figures’ accounts. Therefore, we posit that individuals with high
FOMO will be more involved in Instagram by following more accounts, having
more positive attitudes, and having stronger social media addictive tendencies.
Because Instagram does not require reciprocal following, FOMO will not be
related to the number of followers a user has or the number of likes a user
receives.

H4: Individuals with increased FOMO will have a more favorable attitude toward
Instagram, follow more accounts on Instagram, post more on Instagram, and have
stronger social media addictive tendencies.

Method
Participants and procedures
Undergraduate students at a private Northeastern university in the United
States were offered extra credit to participate in the study. The study was
10 Psychological Reports 0(0)

approved by the Institutional Review Board. The sample (N ¼ 156) was 44%
male, with 93% speaking English as their native language. The median age was
20 years old. Of the sample, 56% (N ¼ 88) indicated they had an Instagram
account, were willing to allow the primary investigator access to follow them on
Instagram, and provided sufficiently accurate information to match their survey
responses to their Instagram account.
The study consisted of two parts. First, participants completed a web-based
survey in a campus computer lab. Next, participants were asked if they were
willing to be-friend the primary investigator’s Instagram account that was set up
specifically for research purposes. In line with best practices for social media
research (Moreno et al., 2013), the primary investigator did the following; 1)
accurately portrayed her identity with a profile picture, 2) obtained the partic-
ipants’ consent to follow them, 3) made it clear that the primary investigator was
following them (and not Instagram), 4) indicated she would not post any infor-
mation to her account, and 5) posted/made a statement concerning the type of
data that would be collected from their Instagram site and how it would be used.
The investigator also indicated the time frame in which the research account
would be closed. Since Instagram users can follow public profiles and celebrities,
it is reasonable to assume that the participants did not have unreasonable
expectations for a close or prolonged relationship with the primary investigator
(Moreno et al., 2013). Those who were willing to participate sent the investiga-
tor a “follow” request. The investigator accepted their request and then sent
them a “follow” request. Only one participant who initiated a “follow” invita-
tion did not accept the investigator’s “follow” request.
F-tests were conducted to determine whether any differences existed between
those who befriended the investigator and participated in the second phase and
those who opted out. No significant differences were found between the two
groups on any of the five personality factors or FOMO. The only significant
difference was found for gender (v2 ¼ 9.16, p < .05), such that, among those who
had an Instagram account, 71.6% of women, but only 46.9% of men befriended
the researcher and participated in the second phase. This is consistent with prior
research in which women showed higher response rates in both Web and paper
surveys (Correa et al., 2010).

Measures
The survey provided data on user personality, FOMO and self-reported SNS
usage. Numerous personality measures, such as the NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI), have been used in prior research. Goldberg et al.’s (2006) 50-item
International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) was used to measure the Big-Five
personality factors since it is nonproprietary and short. Additionally, it has
shown strong evidence of convergent and discriminant validity, and inter-
changeability with the NEO-FFI (Lim & Ployhart, 2006). Cronbach’s alphas
Moore and Craciun 11

for the personality factors were all at acceptable levels [Extraversion (a ¼ .90),
Agreeableness (a ¼ .83), Conscientiousness (a ¼ .81), Emotional Stability
(a ¼ .86), Intellect (a ¼ .81)].
Following Przybylski et al. (2013), we used a ten-item 5-point FOMO scale
containing items such as “I fear others have more rewarding experiences than
me” and “I get anxious when I don’t know what my friends are up to.” Higher
scores indicate increased levels of fear of missing out. Cronbach’s alpha for the
FOMO scale was .87.
Attitude towards Instagram was measured with a six-item 5-point scale (e.g.
“Instagram has become part of my daily routine” and “I’d be sad if Instagram
was shut down”) from Pittman and Reich (2016), with higher scores indicating
Instagram was more important to the individual. Cronbach’s alpha for the
attitude towards Instagram scale was .92.
The addictive tendencies scale was developed by Walsh et al. (2007) in the
domain of mobile phone addiction and was adapted by Wilson and colleagues
(2010) to measure SNS addictive tendencies. Social media addictive tendencies
were measured with three items (Walsh et al., 2007) measuring the individual’s
level of withdrawal (“I feel lost when I cannot access my social networking
site”), loss of control (“I find it hard to control my use of a social networking
site”), and salience (“One of the first things I do each morning is log onto a
social networking Internet site”) on a 7-point scale (1 ¼ Strongly Disagree, 7 ¼
Strongly Agree). The Cronbach’s alpha was .82.
Gender was included as a control measure because prior research has estab-
lished gender differences in SNS behavior (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011). Gender was
entered as a dummy variable where Male ¼ 1 and Female ¼ 2.
Following the methodology employed in Moore and McElroy (2012) and
Amichai-Hamburger and Vinitzky (2010), data on actual Instagram usage
was collected in part two of the study where we followed respondents’
Instagram accounts. Most of the behavioral measures were retrieved from
the user’s Instagram profile page (example shown in Figure 1) and included:
the number of Instagram posts (since account inception), the number of
Instagram accounts the individual was following, and the number of fol-
lowers the Instagram user had. One additional behavioral measure, the
total number of “likes” the Instagram users received for their posts during
an 18-day monitoring period, was also computed. The number of likes
received on a post is an automated count appearing underneath the post
on the user’s Instagram feed (example also in Figure 1). Therefore, the
number of “likes” variable represents the sum total of all likes on all posts
in the 18-day monitoring period. For an example see Figure 1. The pictures
were blurred and some information was omitted for privacy reasons.
Permission was obtained from the Instagram account owner to use this pic-
ture (Figure 1).
12 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Figure 1. Example of Instagram profile and post (Instagram behavioral dependent variables in
boxes).

Results
About 24% of the study participants reported spending more than 30 minutes
per day on Facebook and over 64% reported spending more than 30 minutes
per day on Instagram. About 20% of respondents were spending more than 90
minutes per day on Instagram. This demonstrates that this age group (97% of
the sample fell in the 18-22 age range) represents heavy users of Instagram.
Further, when coding the valence (positive vs. negative) of the pictures our
respondents had posted on Instagram during the 18-day study duration,
100% of the pictures had a positive valence. This is in line with our earlier
assertion that Instagram posts are skewed toward positive images (Lup et al.,
2015). Therefore, we examine how personality traits and FOMO influence these
young users Instagram attitudes and usage.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations are shown in Table 2.
Hierarchical regression was used to test the effect of personality and FOMO
on attitude towards Instagram, number of Instagram accounts followed,
 Table 1. Scale descriptions and reliabilities.
Variable
1. Gender
2. Extraversion
3. Emotional Stability
4. Conscientiousness
5. Agreeableness
6. Openness to Experience
7. Fear of Missing Out (FoMO)
8. Attitude Towards Instagram
9. # Instagram Following
10. # Instagram Followers
11. # Total Instagram Posts
12. Total Number of Likes
13. Addictive Tendencies
13
Cronbach’s alpha Source Scale description
NA NA Male ¼ 1 and Female ¼ 2
0.90 Goldberg et al. (2006) Ten-item 5-point scale where higher scores indi-
cate more extraversion
0.86 Goldberg et al. (2006) Ten-item 5-point scale where higher scores indi-
cate more emotional stability
0.81 Goldberg et al. (2006) Ten-item 5-point scale where higher scores indi-
cate more conscientiousness
0.83 Goldberg et al. (2006) Ten-item 5-point scale where higher scores indi-
cate more agreeableness
0.81 Goldberg et al. (2006) Ten-item 5-point scale where higher scores indi-
cate more openness to experience
0.87 Przybylski et al. (2013) Ten-item 5-point FoMO scale where higher
scores indicate increased levels of FoMO
0.92 Pittman and Reich (2016) Six-item 5-point scale where higher scores indi-
cate Instagram is more important to the
individual
NA NA Instagram user profile page - # Followers
NA NA Instagram user profile page - # Following
NA NA Instagram user profile page - Count of the Total
Posts since account inception
NA NA Automated count listed on the bottom left side of
every post in the 18 day monitoring period
0.82 Walsh et al. (2007) Three-item 7-point scale where higher scores
indicate more addictive tendencies
14
Table 2. Correlations and descriptive statistics.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Gender 1.56 0.50 —

2. Extraversion 3.43 0.81 0.15 —
3. Emotional Stability 3.13 0.76 .29** .31** —
4. Conscientiousness 3.64 0.63 0.1 0.06 0.09 —
5. Agreeableness 3.94 0.59 .27** .28** 0.01 .23** —
6. Openness to 3.74 0.57 0.13 0.16 0.15 .20* .28** —
Experience
7. Fear of Missing Out 2.33 0.77 0.05 0.02 .25** 0.05 0.08 0.1 —
(FoMO)
8. Attitude Towards 31.62 8.24 .26** 0.04 .23** 0.02 0.07 0.03 .37** —
Instagram
9. # Instagram 780.02 395.93 .28** 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.18 0.11 .23* 0.15 —
Following
10. # Instagram 1037.11 666.35 .29** 0.09 0.2 0.12 0.19 0 0.18 .29** .71** —
Followers
11. # Total Instagram 134.50 153.36 .31** 0.14 0.03 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.12 .31** .34** —
Posts
12. Total Number of 402.88 348.91 0.14 .36* 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.28 0.29 .42* .51** .51** —
Likes
13. Addictive 13.91 4.49 .17* .06 .23** .21 .07 .03 .43** .57** .28** .25* .02 .26
Tendencies

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Moore and Craciun 15

number of Instagram followers, total number of Instagram posts, total number

of likes, and social media addictive tendencies. Gender was entered in step 1 as a
control variable (see Model 1 in Table 3). The Five Factor Model of personality
was entered in step 2 (see Model 2 in Table 3). Lastly, FOMO was entered in
step 3 (see Model 3 in Table 3).
Gender had a significant effect on the number of Instagram accounts the user
was following, the number of Instagram followers they had, the total number of
Instagram posts, and social media addictive tendencies independently, in the
presence of the personality factors (model 2) and in the presence of FOMO
(model 3). Women followed more Instagram accounts and had more
Instagram followers. These findings are in line with previous research that
women are more relationship-oriented and more interested in using SNS to
search for information about others (Hawi & Samaha, 2019). Women also
had a higher number of Instagram posts since account inception and stronger
social media addictive tendencies.
The addition of the five personality factors significantly added to the variance
explained in several dependent variables. The statistically significant amount of
additional variance explained by personality over and above that explained by
gender was 14% for attitude towards Instagram, 22% for total number of likes,
and 12% for social media addictive tendencies. In model 3, the statistically
significant amount of additional variance explained by FOMO over and
above that explained by personality and gender was 7% for both attitude
towards Instagram and number of Instagram accounts the user follows, and
14% for social media addictive tendencies.
H1 predicted a positive relationship between extraversion and Instagram
attitude and usage. As hypothesized, we found a positive correlation between
extraversion and total number of Instagram posts (since account inception).
Extraverts also received significantly more likes on their Instagram posts in
the 18-day period analyzed than their introverted counterparts. Additionally,
extraverts reported stronger social media addictive tendencies. Yet, extraversion
was not related to attitude towards Instagram, number of Instagram accounts
followed or number of followers.
H2 predicted that neurotic individuals would have a more favorable attitude
towards Instagram, post more on Instagram, receive more likes, follow more
Instagram accounts, have more Instagram followers, and have stronger social
media addictive tendencies. We found that neurotic individuals had a more
favorable attitude towards Instagram. Further, neurotic individuals did not
post more, did not follow more Instagram accounts, and did not have more
likes than their emotionally stable counterparts did.
H3 predicted a negative relationship between conscientious individuals and
Instagram posts, number of accounts followed, and social media addictive ten-
dencies. Individuals high in conscientiousness did not post less on Instagram
Table 3. Regression results.
Attitude towards # Instagram # Instagram Total number of instagram Total number of Addictive
Instagram following followers posts (since account inception) likes (in 18 days) tendencies

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Step 1
Gender 3.40* 2.78 3.27 229.18** 189.25* 216.19* 475.79*** 347.25* 375.40** 96.53*** 135.42*** 138.10*** 209.22 336.76 329.34 1.38* 1.66** 1.84**

Step 2
Extraversion 0.58 0.32 63.16 48.98 102.54 87.71 40.30** 38.89** 287.63*** 231.96** 1.04** .86*
Emotional Stability 3.74*** 2.71** 41.95 14.61 215.96** 155.85 23.77 29.39 121.07 72.72 1.39*** .75
Conscientiousness 1.17 0.59 27.46 59.12 20.46 53.54 26.67 29.82 14.4 50.3 1.54** 1.43**
Agreeableness 1.95 1.88 69.34 73.51 150.03 154.38 36.12 35.70 55.50 17.29 1.10 1.00
Openness to 1.56 1.22 117.41 98.64 145.97 126.34 17.41 19.28 156.54 151.41 0.34 0.74
Experience
Step 3
FOMO 2.64** 145.50** 152.07 14.47 112.79 2.3***
R2 0.05 0.19 0.25 0.07 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.20 0.23 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.37 0.42 0.02 0.14 0.28
Adj R2 0.03 0.11 0.17 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.02 0.22 0.25 0.02 0.10 0.25
F 3.40* 2.56** 3.16*** 5.76** 1.57 2.27** 9.74*** 2.78** 2.79** 10.87*** 3.07** 2.71** 1.51 2.47* 2.44** 3.22* 3.71*** 7.51***
F 2.33** 5.70** 0.75 5.83** 1.34 2.48 1.45 0.60 2.58* 1.81 3.75*** 26.12***
R2 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.22 0.00 0.12 0.14

*p <¼ .10, **p <¼ .05, ***p <¼.01.

Moore and Craciun 17

and did not follow fewer Instagram accounts. However, conscientious individ-
uals had significantly weaker social media addictive tendencies.
H4 predicted a positive relationship between FOMO and attitude toward
Instagram, number of accounts followed, number of posts, and social media
addictive tendencies. As predicted, individuals with increased FOMO followed
more Instagram accounts, had a significantly more favorable attitude towards
Instagram, and reported stronger social media addictive tendencies. However,
FOMO did not affect the total number of Instagram posts in our data.
No relationship was found between the personality traits of agreeableness
and openness to experience and Instagram use or social media addictive
tendencies.

Discussion
This study found that extraverts (1) had more Instagram posts (since account
inception), (2) received more likes on their posts for the 18-day period we mon-
itored, and (3) reported stronger social media addictive tendencies. The first
result is in line with prior research that has shown that extraverts are very
active on SNS (Correa et al., 2010) and are more likely to post altered photos
(Kr€amer & Winter, 2008). Further, extraverts also tend to have larger social
networks (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010), belong to more Facebook
groups (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011) and have more Facebook friends (Kuss &
Griffiths, 2011). Since extraverts have numerous friends/followers and they
show high usage frequency, it is reasonable to assume they are more likely to
“like” their friends’ posts. We believe this encourages their wide network of
friends to engage in reciprocal behavior and “like” the extraverts’ posts back.
This finding lends evidence to the rich-get-richer hypothesis (Kr€amer & Winter,
2008; Sheldon, 2008) for Instagram (in addition to Facebook). To the authors’
knowledge, this is the first study to link the number of likes a post receives to
personality traits. Lastly, our results replicate Wilson et al.’s (2010) findings with
respect to the link between extraversion and SNS addictive tendencies with an
American sample.
We also found that extraversion was not related to attitude toward
Instagram. Extraverts are charismatic and rely on their social skills, so they
feel less of a need to promote themselves online (Amichai-Hamburger et al.,
2002), especially to strangers. Research has shown that Instagram tends to fulfill
users’ need for self-promotion rather than communication (Sheldon & Bryant,
2016). Instagram is less about reciprocal communication with friends (as is the
case for Facebook) and more about following pictures on topics of interest
which are posted by friends or strangers (e.g., the user likes Star Wars and
follows pages of Star Wars pictures) (Correa et al., 2010). Given the increased
interaction with strangers on Instagram and the fact that extraverts are more
18 Psychological Reports 0(0)

interested in interacting with people they know, Instagram may not appeal as
much to extraverts as Facebook does (Correa et al., 2010).
Surprisingly, we found that extraversion was not related to number of
Instagram accounts followed or number of followers. This contradicts prior
research that has found that extraverts tend to have more Facebook friends
than introverts (Moore & McElroy, 2012). More research is needed to examine
whether extraverts and introverts follow different types of accounts (e.g., friends
vs. strangers) on Instagram.
Our study found that neurotic individuals reported a more favorable attitude
towards Instagram than more emotionally stable individuals. These results are
consistent with prior SNS research (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2002; Correa
et al., 2010; Moore & McElroy, 2012). Neurotic individuals use Facebook fre-
quently (Correa et al., 2010) and for social passive purposes, such as following
fan pages (Ryan & Xenos, 2011). Instagram may be particularly attractive for
neurotics in this regard since they can follow celebrities without the reciprocal
following relationship required by Facebook. Furthermore, since Instagram
allows users to enhance their photos, it appeals to neurotics who have high
self-presentation concerns (Correa et al., 2010), and who are more likely than
emotionally stable users to present their ideal and false self on Facebook
(Michikyan et al., 2014).
Since neurotics are more likely to post personal information (Amichai-
Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010) that may be entertaining to others, we tested
whether they would post more selfies than other-related pictures (i.e., friends
or activities). Hence, we examined the characteristics of the pictures neurotic
users posted during the 18-day monitoring period. Two research assistants
coded Instagram pictures into two categories, selfies versus others. There were
no significant differences (t < 1) in the average number of selfies or the average
number of other-related pictures between neurotics and emotionally stable
users. However, it is important to note the sample limitations. During an 18-
day collection period, 51% of participants did not post any pictures. The aver-
age number of total pictures posted was 1.77.
Contrary to our hypothesis, we found conscientiousness was not significantly
related to the number of Instagram posts or number of Instagram accounts the
user followed. Prior research has suggested conscientious individuals use
Facebook less (Gosling et al., 2011) and are careful to avoid distractions
(Wehrli, 2008). Nevertheless, conscientious individuals have also been found
to have more interpersonal relationships (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998) and
more Facebook friends (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010). Prior research
has also noted they spend time in an online environment on academic pursuits
instead of leisure (McElroy et al., 2007). Since users can follow Instagram
accounts of companies and individuals they do not know, it is possible consci-
entious individuals are using Instagram for information-gathering (academic)
purposes. This suggests that the difference between people low (versus high) in
Moore and Craciun 19

conscientiousness may be more qualitative (e.g., the type of account followed or

the purpose of following an account) than quantitative (e.g., number of
accounts followed). Further, in line with prior research (Wilson et al., 2010),
we found that people low in conscientiousness reported higher SNS addictive
tendencies.
Recent SNS research has proposed FOMO as an important predictor in SNS
usage (Baker et al., 2016). In our study, individuals with higher (vs. lower)
FOMO reported a more favorable attitude towards Instagram, followed more
Instagram accounts, and reported stronger social media addictive tendencies.
This lends credence to prior research illustrating FOMO is positively associated
with problematic Facebook usage and social media addiction (Blackwell et al.,
2017; Casale, Rugai, & Fioravanti, 2018). It is also in line with prior Facebook
research illustrating that people with a higher desire to know what their friends
are doing are more involved in Facebook (Błachnio & Przepiorka, 2018;
Calancie et al., 2017). Surprisingly, we found no relationship between neuroti-
cism and social media addictive tendencies. In contrast, prior research has found
neurotic individuals spend more time online (McElroy et al., 2007), use
Facebook more frequently (Correa et al., 2010), and have more mobile phone
addictive tendencies (Ehrenberg et al., 2008). Hence, future research should
continue to address this possibility.

Limitations and implications for future research

Previous personality research has cited small effect sizes as a limitation (Ross
et al., 2009). Using actual SNS data helps to explain more significant amounts of
variance in personality models of SNS usage (Moore & McElroy, 2012). The
current study used the IPIP measure of personality (Goldberg et al., 2006).
Although there is evidence that this instrument is interchangeable with the
NEO-FFI measures (Lim & Ployhart, 2006), further studies replicating these
results with other measures of personality would strengthen our findings. The
small sample size and the characteristics of our respondents (i.e., college stu-
dents) limit the generalizability of our results.
The limited body of research on Instagram has focused on motivations for
using Instagram (Lee et al., 2015), the relationship between Instagram usage and
depressive symptoms (Lup et al., 2015), and selfie posting behaviors (Ridgway &
Clayton, 2016; Shah & Tewari, 2016). An interesting future research direction
would be to explore the type of accounts Instagram users are following – strang-
ers, friends, or companies/brands. Perhaps extraverts do not have a more favor-
able attitude towards Instagram because they follow more strangers than
friends. Prior Facebook research shows only about 15% of a Facebook user’s
network is comprised of people they have not actually met face to face (S. S.
Wang et al., 2010). We argue this percentage will be much higher on Instagram
since users can engage in non-reciprocal following and follow users who interest
20 Psychological Reports 0(0)

them. Previous studies have recognized a difference between the types of social
media users, and found people who have parasocial relationships with celebrities
and public figures have higher feelings of loneliness than users who mostly have
relationships with their friends (Baek et al., 2013; Hill & Zheng, 2018). This
stranger versus friend distinction could also have implications for the increased
prevalence of FOMO amongst Instagram users (as opposed to Facebook users),
as discussed previously.
As it relates to the more general SNS literature, researchers should examine
whether personality and/or FOMO affect various characteristics of posts. The
content of the post has been shown to have an impact on how the post is
perceived by other users, such as if it is a factual disclosure (includes personal
facts) or an emotional disclosure (includes feelings or opinions) (Hassan,
Mydock III, Pervan, & Kortt, 2016). Emotional disclosures seem to foster a
more intimate relationship with the follower, according to Reis & Shaver’s
interpersonal process model of intimacy (Hassan et al., 2016; Reis & Shaver,
1988). We would expect neurotics to publish more emotional posts and, there-
fore, elicit more followers.
There have been several calls for research on other factors that affect social
media usage (Moore & McElroy, 2012; Ross et al., 2009). A theoretical frame-
work is needed to explain what individual characteristics drive SNS usage. Prior
research has suggested numerous factors affect SNS usage, such as demographic
characteristics (Sheldon, 2008) and personality characteristics (Huh & Bowman,
2008; Kr€ amer & Winter, 2008; Rozgonjuk et al., 2019). Further, there is a lot of
interest in whether specific personality traits lead to differential types of SNS
usage (i.e. active vs. passive use) (Rozgonjuk et al., 2019).
Recently a stream of research on individual well-being (i.e., stress, life satis-
faction, depression, etc.) as it relates to SNS usage has emerged as well (Utz &
Breuer, 2017). However, there has been inconclusive evidence of the causal
direction (whether SNS usage leads to well-being or vice versa) and sign of
the effect (whether SNS usage leads to positive or negative well-being). Future
research should continue to investigate the relationship between individual well-
being measures and SNS usage, as well as social media addictive tendencies.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partially supported by the
Presidential Scholarship Award for the first author from Duquesne University.
Moore and Craciun 21

ORCID iD
Kelly Moore https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0707-3766

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
(Online), 14(1), 33.
Adler, E. (2014). Social media engagement: The surprising facts about how much time
people spend on the major social networks. Business Insider, 8, 21.
Alhabash, S., & Ma, M. (2017). A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students? Social
Media þ Society, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117691544
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1289–1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.
03.018
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). “On the Internet no one knows
I’m an introvert”: Extroversion, neuroticism, and Internet interaction.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 125–128. https://doi.org/10.1089/
109493102753770507
Amiel, T., & Sargent, S. L. (2004). Individual differences in Internet usage motives.
Computers in Human Behavior, 20(6), 711–726.
Andreassen, C. S., Griffiths, M. D., Gjertsen, S. R., Krossbakken, E., Kvam, S., &
Pallesen, S. (2013). The relationships between behavioral addictions and the five-
factor model of personality. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(2), 90–99.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1531.
Baek, Y. M., Bae, Y., & Jang, H. (2013). Social and parasocial relationships on social
network sites and their differential relationships with users’ psychological well-being.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(7), 512–517.
Baker, Z., Krieger, H., & LeRoy, A. (2016). Fear of missing out: Relationships with
depression, mindfulness, and physical symptoms. Translational Issues in Psychological
Science, 2(3), 275.
Balta, S., Emirtekin, E., Kircaburun, K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Neuroticism, trait
fear of missing out, and phubbing: The mediating role of state fear of missing out and
problematic Instagram use. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 18,
628–639.
Beyens, I., Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2016). “I don’t want to miss a
thing”: Adolescents’ fear of missing out and its relationship to adolescents’ social
needs, Facebook use, and Facebook related stress. Computers in Human Behavior,
64, 1–8.
Błachnio, A., & Przepi orka, A. (2018). Facebook intrusion, fear of missing out,
narcissism, and life satisfaction: A cross-sectional study. Psychiatry Research, 259,
514–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.11.012
Blackwell, D., Leaman, C., Tramposch, R., Osborne, C., & Liss, M. (2017). Extraversion,
neuroticism, attachment style and fear of missing out as predictors of social media use
22 Psychological Reports 0(0)

and addiction. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 69–72. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.paid.2017.04.039
Blumer, T., & D€ oring, N. (2012). Are we the same online? The expression of the five factor
personality traits on the computer and the Internet. Cyberpsychology: Journal of
Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 6(3), 5. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2012-3-5
Calancie, O., Ewing, L., Narducci, L. D., Horgan, S., & Khalid-Khan, S. (2017).
Exploring how social networking sites impact youth with anxiety: A qualitative
study of Facebook stressors among adolescents with an anxiety disorder diagnosis.
Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11(4), 2. https://
doi.org/10.5817/CP2017-4-2
Casale, S., Rugai, L., & Fioravanti, G. (2018). Exploring the role of positive metacogni-
tions in explaining the association between the fear of missing out and social media
addiction. Addictive Behaviors, 85, 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.05.020
Chen, Z., & Lin, T. (2017). Automatic personality identification using writing behaviours:
An exploratory study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(8), 839–845.
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm:
The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human
Behavior, 63, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018
Chou, H.-T. G., & Edge, N. (2012). “They are happier and having better lives than I am”:
The impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others’ lives. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(2), 117–121.
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Z ~iga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: The
un
intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(2), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality
and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dempsey, A. E., O’Brien, K. D., Tiamiyu, M. F., & Elhai, J. D. (2019). Fear of missing
out (FOMO) and rumination mediate relations between social anxiety and problem-
atic Facebook use. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 9, 100150.
Dennis, C., Harris, i., & Sandhu, B. (2002). From bricks to clicks: Understanding the
e-consumer. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 5(4), 281–290.
Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Crant, J. M. (2008). Research note—how does personality
matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information
Systems Research, 19(1), 93–105.
Dhir, A., Yossatorn, Y., Kaur, P., & Chen, S. (2018). Online social media fatigue and
psychological wellbeing—A study of compulsive use, fear of missing out, fatigue,
anxiety and depression. International Journal of Information Management, 40,
141–152.
Donnelly, E., & Kuss, D. (2016). Depression among users of social networking sites
(SNS): The role of SNS addiction and increased usage. Journal of Addiction and
Preventive Medicine, 1(2), 107.
Ehrenberg, A., Juckes, S., White, K. M., & Walsh, S. P. (2008). Personality and self-
esteem as predictors of young people’s technology use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior,
11(6), 739–741.
Moore and Craciun 23

Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Alghraibeh, A. M., Alafnan, A. A., Aldraiweesh, A. A., &
Hall, B. J. (2018). Fear of missing out: Testing relationships with negative affectivity,
online social engagement, and problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 89, 289–298.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.
05.079
Ershad, Z. S., & Aghajani, T. (2017). Prediction of Instagram social network addiction
based on the personality, alexithymia and attachment Styles. Sociological Studies of
Youth, 8(26), 21–34.
Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is not working: Individuals
with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on
Facebook. Psychological Science, 23(3), 295–302.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger,
C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future
of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1),
84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
Gosling, S. D., Augustine, A. A., Vazire, S., Holtzman, N., & Gaddis, S. (2011).
Manifestations of personality in online social networks: Self-reported Facebook-relat-
ed behaviors and observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 14(9), 483–488.
Griffiths, M. (1998). Internet addiction: Does it really exist? In J. Gackenbach (Ed.),
Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implica-
tions (pp. 61–75). Academic Press.
Guadagno, R. E., Okdie, B. M., & Eno, C. A. (2008). Who blogs? Personality predictors
of blogging. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1993–2004.
Hassan, M., Mydock S. III, Pervan, S. J., & Kortt, M. (2016). Facebook, self-disclosure,
and brand-mediated intimacy: Identifying value creating behaviors. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 15(6), 493–502.
Hawi, N., & Samaha, M. (2019). Identifying commonalities and differences in personality
characteristics of Internet and social media addiction profiles: Traits, self-esteem, and
self construal. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(2), 110–119.
Hill, L., & Zheng, Z. (2018). A desire for social media is associated with a desire for
solitary but not social activities. Psychological Reports, 121(6), 1120–1130.
Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs.
Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(2), 561–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.001
Huh, S., & Bowman, N. D. (2008). Perception of and addiction to online games as a
function of personality traits. Journal of Media Psychology, 13(2), 1–31.
Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist,
34(2), 107.
Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., Dweck, C. S., Lovett, B. J., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2011).
Misery has more company than people think: Underestimating the prevalence
of others’ negative emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(1),
120–135.
24 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem,
neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common
core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693– 710.
Juergensen, J., & Leckfor, C. (2019). Stop pushing me away: Relative level of
Facebook addiction is associated with implicit approach motivation for Facebook
stimuli. Psychological Reports, 122(6), 2012–2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0033294118798624
Kircaburun, K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Instagram addiction and the Big Five of
personality: The mediating role of self-liking. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(1),
158–170.
Kr€amer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self
esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites.
Journal of Media Psychology, 20(3), 106–116.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002).
Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49–74.
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Online social networking and addiction—A review
of the psychological literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 8(9), 3528.
Leary, M. R., & Allen, A. B. (2011). Self-presentational persona: Simultaneous manage-
ment of multiple impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5),
1033.
Lee, E., Lee, J.-A., Moon, J. H., & Sung, Y. (2015). Pictures speak louder than words:
Motivations for using Instagram. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
18(9), 552–556. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0157
Lim, B.-C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Assessing the convergent and discriminant validity
of Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool: A multitrait-multimethod exami-
nation. Organizational Research Methods, 9(1), 29–54.
Lup, K., Trub, L., & Rosenthal, L. (2015). Instagram #Instasad?: Exploring associations
among Instagram use, depressive symptoms, negative social comparison, and strang-
ers followed. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 18(5), 247–252. https://
doi.org.authenticate.library.duq.edu/10.1089/cyber.2014.0560
Marcus, B., Machilek, F., & Schütz, A. (2006). Personality in cyberspace: Personal Web
sites as media for personality expressions and impressions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90(6), 1014.
Marshall, T. C., Lefringhausen, K., & Ferenczi, N. (2015). The Big Five, self-esteem, and
narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates.
Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.
04.039
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. Handbook
of personality: Theory and research, 2(1999), 139–153.
McElroy, J. C., Hendrickson, A. R., Townsend, A. M., & DeMarie, S. M. (2007).
Dispositional factors in internet use: Personality versus cognitive style. MIS
Quarterly, 31, 809–820.
Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Dennis, J. (2014). Can you tell who I am?
Neuroticism, extraversion, and online self-presentation among young adults.
Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.010
Moore and Craciun 25

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.
Moore, K., & McElroy, J. C. (2012). The influence of personality on Facebook usage,
wall postings, and regret. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 267–274. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.009
Moreno, M. A., Goniu, N., Moreno, P. S., & Diekema, D. (2013). Ethics of social media
research: Common concerns and practical considerations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 16(9), 708–713.
Oberst, U., Wegmann, E., Stodt, B., Brand, M., & Chamarro, A. (2017). Negative con-
sequences from heavy social networking in adolescents: The mediating role of fear of
missing out. Journal of Adolescence, 55, 51–60.
Pittman, M., & Reich, B. (2016). Social media and loneliness: Why an Instagram picture
may be worth more than a thousand Twitter words. Computers in Human Behavior,
62, 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.084
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(4), 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014
Reagle, J. (2015). Following the Joneses: FOMO and conspicuous sociality. First
Monday, 20(10).
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. Handbook of
Personal Relationships, 24(3), 367–389.
Ridgway, J. L., & Clayton, R. B. (2016). Instagram unfiltered: Exploring associations of
body image satisfaction, Instagram# selfie posting, and negative romantic relationship
outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(1), 2–7.
Riordan, B. C., Flett, J. A., Hunter, J. A., Scarf, D., & Conner, T. S. (2015). Fear of missing
out (FOMO): The relationship between FOMO, alcohol use, and alcohol-related con-
sequences in college students. Annals of Neuroscience and Psychology, 2(7), 1–7.
Rohm, A. J., & Swaminathan, V. (2004). A typology of online shoppers based on shop-
ping motivations. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 748–757.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009).
Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 25(2), 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024
Rozgonjuk, D., Ryan, T., Kuljus, J. K., T€aht, K., & Scott, G. G. (2019). Social com-
parison orientation mediates the relationship between neuroticism and passive
Facebook use. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace,
13(1), article 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2019-1-2
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship
between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers
in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658–1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004
Safronova, V. (2015). On Instagram, the summer your’re not having. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/fashion/on-instagram-the-summer-
youre-not-having.html
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality
influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences,
54(3), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009
26 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Shah, R., & Tewari, R. (2016). Demystifying ‘selfie’: A rampant social media activity.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(10), 864–871.
Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and students
Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(2), 67–75.
Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to
narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89–97. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059
Shi, Y., Luo, Y. L. L., Liu, Y., & Yang, Z. (2019). Affective experience on social net-
working sites predicts psychological well-being off-line. Psychological Reports, 122(5),
1666–1677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118789039
Shumaker, R. (2018). The main differences between Facebook and Instagram you need to
know. https://marketing.sfgate.com/blog/the-main-differences-between-facebook-
andinstagram-you-need-to-know
Stead, H., & Bibby, P. A. (2017). Personality, fear of missing out and problematic inter-
net use and their relationship to subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior,
76, 534–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.016
Stoughton, J. W., Thompson, L. F., & Meade, A. W. (2013). Big Five personality traits
reflected in job applicants’ social media postings. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 16(11), 800–805. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0163
Sun, T., & Wu, G. (2012). Traits, predictors, and consequences of Facebook self-presen-
tation. Social Science Computer Review, 30(4), 419–433.
Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor
model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 284.
Utz, S., & Breuer, J. (2017). The relationship between use of social network sites, online
social support, and well-being. Journal of Media Psychology, 29, 115–125. https://doi.
org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000222
Wagner, K. (2015, January 9). Instagram is the fastest growing major social network.
Recode. https://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/11557626/instagram-is-the-fastest-growing-
major-social-network
Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. M. (2007). Young and connected: Psychological
influences of mobile phone use amongst Australian youth. In G. Goggin & L. Hjorth
(Eds.), Proceedings: International conference on social and cultural aspects of mobile
phones, convergent media and wireless technologies (pp. 125–134). University of
Sydney.
Wang, C. W., Ho, R. T., Chan, C. L., & Tse, S. (2015). Exploring personality character-
istics of Chinese adolescents with internet-related addictive behaviors: Trait differ-
ences for gaming addiction and social networking addiction. Addictive Behaviors,
42, 32–35.
Wang, J. L., Jackson, L. A., Zhang, D.J., & Su, Z.Q. (2012). The relationships among the
Big Five personality factors, self-esteem, narcissism, and sensation-seeking to Chinese
University students’ uses of social networking sites (SNS). Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(6), 2313–2319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.001
Wang, S. S., Moon, S.I., Kwon, K. H., Evans, C. A., & Stefanone, M. A. (2010). Face
off: Implications of visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26(2), 226–234.
Moore and Craciun 27

Wegmann, E., Oberst, U., Stodt, B., & Brand, M. (2017). Online-specific fear of missing
out and Internet-use expectancies contribute to symptoms of Internet-communication
disorder. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 5, 33–42.
Wehrli, S. (2008). Personality on social network sites: An application of the five factor
model. ETH Sociology (Working Paper No. 7).
Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological predictors of young
adults’ use of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 13(2), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0094
Wolniewicz, C. A., Tiamiyu, M. F., Weeks, J. W., & Elhai, J. D. (2018). Problematic
smartphone use and relations with negative affect, fear of missing out, and fear of
negative and positive evaluation. Psychiatry Research, 262, 618–623.
Wortham, J. (2011). Feel like a flower? Maybe it’s your Facebook wall. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/business/10ping.html
Zhang, L., Pentina, I., & Fox, W. K. (2017). Who uses mobile apps to meet strangers:
The roles of core traits and surface characteristics. Journal of Information Privacy and
Security, 13(4), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/15536548.2017.1394072

Author Biographies
Kelly Moore: is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Duquesne University.
She received her PhD in Marketing at Iowa State University. Her research
interests include individual differences such as personality characteristics,
social media, food marketing, and online word-of-mouth. Her work has
appeared in scholarly journals such as Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Computers in Human Behavior, Services Marketing
Quarterly, and Journal of Food Products Marketing.

Georgiana Craciun: is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Duquesne

University. She received her doctoral degree in marketing from University of
South Carolina. Her research interests include online information disclosure and
privacy, electronic word-of-mouth, social media, consumer welfare, and inno-
vation in teaching methods. Her research has been published in Journal of
Business Research, Decision Support Systems, Computers in Human
Behavior, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Journal of Marketing Education,
and Marketing Education Review. She received the Best Paper Award at WeB
2018. She is a member of the American Marketing Association and serves on the
editorial board of Journal of Marketing Education.
Copyright of Psychological Reports is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.