Dispositional Fear of Missing Out Susceptibility: Development of a Trait-Scale

Dominik Neumanna, b * & Nancy Rhodesb

a
Leibniz Institut für Wissensmedien, Everyday Media Lab, Tübingen, Germany
b
Michigan State University, Department of Advertising and Public Relations, East Lansing (MI), United States

Popular culture, advertising, marketing strategies, and academia recently paid increased attention to the experience of
Fear of Missing Out (FOMO). Yet, there is only scant research on its complex nature and the personality-based
dispositional susceptibility fostering the FOMO experience. In the present investigation, the authors present a robust
Dispositional FOMO Susceptibility (DFS) scale based on a mixed-methods approach. They show that fear of exclusion
and worries about inclusion, regret anticipation, and experiential envy comprise the dispositional susceptibility for
FOMO. In the subsequent preregistered studies, the authors experimentally test the predictive validity of this DFS scale
in the context of Instagram content viewed by users. They demonstrate how high-DFS people report higher explicitly
(self-reported) and implicitly (word fragmentation task) expressed negative and lower positive emotions after viewing
social information on Instagram. Consequently, the authors provide a novel, conceptually matured, and evolved
viewpoint on why consumers experience FOMO and what underlying personality traits drive the experience. They offer
a survey instrument to help scholars conduct fine-grained, context-independent research on FOMO.

Keywords: Fear of Missing Out, Emotions, Scale development, Social media, Instagram

When becoming aware of rewarding experiences
others enjoy, consumers often struggle with a
nagging feeling of being less fortunate, possibly
excluded, and even envious. These processes are
essential to consumer behavior as prior work
identified anticipated regret as a driver of impulse
purchasing (Simonson, 1992), social exclusion as a
driver for positive ad and brand evaluations (Wu &
Dodoo, 2020), and envy as a motivator for purchase
decisions (Salerno et al., 2019).
These psychological processes also describe the
Fear of Missing Out (FOMO), a well-known
phenomenon in popular culture, business strategy,
and academia (Neumann, 2020). Businesses design
advertising and marketing strategies that leverage
consumers’ FOMO to motivate them to purchase
products and services. One notable recent example
was the promotion of the FYRE festival, which
leveraged FOMO to sell tickets to a non-existent,
fraudulent music festival (Talbot, 2019). However,
scholarly research, particularly in consumer behavior
and marketing, examining the individual dispositions
that further cognitions resulting in the experience of
FOMO is still in a nascent phase. Even though the
underlying personality traits driving FOMO are not
well known, seven in ten Millennials regularly
experience FOMO, half of Millennials overspent in
the past to keep up with their friends, and more than
40% submit to peer pressure out of fear of being
excluded in the future (Quelette, 2019). Prior
research, too, has inked FOMO to other negative
consequences. These consequences include fear of
evaluation (Wolniewicz et al., 2018), advertising
fatigue (Bright & Logan, 2018), and lack of healthy
sleep (Milyavskaya et al., 2018).
When reviewing prior literature on the
phenomenon, it seems like scholarly attention
focused predominantly on the consequences of
FOMO and, only to a lesser degree, on its
antecedents, such as an underlying personality trait
leading to higher susceptibility to experience FOMO.
This research focused on the dispositional
susceptibility to experiencing FOMO as a
multidimensional measure of personality. Thus, we
developed a new measurement instrument to assess
the dispositional FOMO susceptibility following
scale development best practices (Churchill, 1979).
This work is essential as it answers the call for a more
nuanced understanding of the underlying drivers of
FOMO, providing a conceptual and theoretical
foundation for future FOMO research, and identifies
personality-based antecedents leading to
experiencing FOMO. Based on this dispositional
FOMO susceptibility, we tested the scale predicting
affective outcomes of social media content.
Fear of Missing Out Across Contexts
Initially, Przybylski et al. (2013, p. 1841) defined

*
Correspondence at Dominik Neumann, contact@dominikneumann.com, www.dominikneumann.com
1
the state-concept of FOMO as "a pervasive
apprehension that others might be having rewarding
experiences from which one is absent." Prior research
has conceptualized FOMO as a negative affective
experience that threatens well-being and tied it to
social media use (e.g., Xie et al., 2018).
For instance, businesses use the FOMO
experience when promoting their products.
Experiencing FOMO might impact negative and
positive affective prospects, such as anticipated
elation and self-enhancement (positive affective) and
anticipated expense regret (negative affective). These
prospects, in turn, influence consumers' purchase
likelihood of experiential products (Good & Hyman,
2020). In addition, news outlets report on investors'
FOMO in the financial markets (Hardin & Bischof,
2020) and how the experience might be a driver for
financial decision-making, especially amongst non-
professional investors. Prior research showed that
professional (vs. non-professional) investors showed
higher levels of FOMO (Kim et al., 2020) and that
smartphone push notifications have a motivational
effect on investment allocations for professional
investors with high investment information FOMO
(Clor-Proell et al., 2019). FOMO might also affect
career paths. FOMO motivates people to expand their
horizons within and between professions (Hanlon,
2016) or increases the risk for burnout and distraction
because of more message-checking behavior
(Budnick et al., 2020).
Consumers differ in how they experience FOMO
and how often they engage in this FOMO experience.
But, little research aimed to define the personality
trait of FOMO and the dimensions it comprises. This
lack of understanding is problematic because our
digital society offers individuals much social
information, which may negatively affect their well-
being (Reer et al., 2019). Earlier studies showed that
FOMO might lead to more favorable product
evaluations in online shops after exposure to these
products on social media (Neumann et al., 2021)
because high-FOMO individuals are more motivated
to process available information. Consequently,
conducting a fine-grained exploration of the concept
is vital to offer fundamental insights into how
differences in dispositional FOMO susceptibility
affect individual FOMO experiences.
Fear of Missing Out and its Components
Initial research on FOMO proposed that the
concept is embedded in Self-Determination Theory
(SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Individuals experience
FOMO when they seek to satisfy threatened
psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness (Przybylski et al., 2013). FOMO triggers
intrinsic motivation to engage in behaviors that help
satisfy needs, such as seeking connectedness to peers
and friends.
Further, FOMO is closely linked to the Need-to-
Belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Exposing high-
FOMO individuals to social inclusion cues may lead
to better processing of social stimuli (Lai et al.,
2016). Better processing may bring advantages when
sustaining an inclusionary status within valued social
groups. Therefore, the FOMO experience constitutes
an affective reaction based on a comparative process
because observing even strangers together may
exacerbate FOMO-related negative emotions
(Reagle, 2015). These negative emotions may
motivate consumers to change their consumption and
spending patterns to uphold their inclusionary status
with relevant peers and friends (Duclos et al., 2012).
Additionally, an association between
interdependent self-construal and FOMO suggests
that high trait-FOMO individuals attribute more
importance to what others think (Dogan, 2019),
possibly affecting consumer decisions (Mandel,
2003). But, in addition to how individuals construe
themselves based on social characteristics
(interdependently), FOMO might also have a
personal side grounded in the self-concept
(Rosenberg, 1979). Besides the feelings of missing
out associated with what others enjoy, a personal
FOMO describes how feelings of missing out are
related to judgments about the private self (Zhang et
al., 2020). Product and brand choices may affect self-
judgments (Weiss & Johar, 2016).
Hayran et al. (2020) conceptually differentiated
FOMO from experiences of social exclusion,
anticipated regret, and envy. However, we argue here
that individuals’ susceptibility to experiencing these
cognitions forms a personality trait indicative of an
individual’s susceptibility to experiencing FOMO
more often.
First, perceived disconnectedness, social
exclusion, and threats to social standings might be a
part of FOMO (Zhang et al., 2020). Lai et al. (2016),
for example, reported a positive correlation between
individuals’ trait-FOMO and the processing of social
stimuli. They suggested that high-FOMO individuals
feel more excluded when observing others being
together, similar to the experiences of social pain.
2
Holte et al. (2022) demonstrated the centrality of the
need to belong and fears of exclusion in the FOMO
experience using the cyberball paradigm. Consumers
who are dispositionally concerned about their
inclusionary status within their peer group might be
more likely to experience FOMO regularly.
Second, the FOMO experience may come with
anticipated regret. For example, Hodkinson (2019)
found that anticipated regret as consumers’
deliberations might be related to the negative,
affective FOMO experience. He suggested that regret
occurs at two stages of a FOMO-laden situation, pre-
and post-decisional. However, as a component of the
personality trait associated with FOMO, anticipated
(pre-decisional) regret might be more relevant.
Third, an envious social comparison might be a
cognition that plays an important role when
experiencing FOMO (Reagle, 2015). FOMO is not
only about feeling excluded but also about others
being included instead. Prior research found an
association between envy and problematic
smartphone use, mediated by FOMO (Wang et al.,
2019). Thus, consumers who tend to socially
compare their opportunities and lives to their peers’
to create value for themselves within a given social
group (Festinger, 1954) may experience FOMO more
often.
Consequently, this current research contrasted
other research in the past (Hayran et al., 2020) by
assuming that social disconnectedness, anticipated
regret, and experiential envy proneness are not
conceptually distinct traits of FOMO proneness.
Instead, we suggested that the susceptibility to these
concepts are distinct personality-based drivers of
FOMO. Consumers’ proneness to experience these
cognitions may form a personality trait that affects
how likely they are to experience FOMO across
different situations and contexts.
Why Existing Fear of Missing Out Scales are
Problematic
Prior Scales are Context-Dependent
People can experience FOMO in many different
situations, such as social get-togethers and events or
financial investments. Prior research developed
several scales to assess the experience of FOMO as a
state, but these scales often depend on a context
(overview of scales in Table 1). The context
dependency and consequent ongoing adaptation of
these scales are problematic, according to Haws et al.
(accepted), as frequently, researchers fail to test
whether adapted measurement tools are still valid.
For example, Przybylski et al. (2013) initially
developed the most widely used FOMO scale
independent of a context. However, Zhang et al.
(2020) argued that this scale mainly assesses social
media-driven FOMO as reflected in some scale
items. Consequently, they developed a state FOMO
scale based on an individual’s self-concept. Abel et
al. (2016) developed a trait FOMO scale that
examines FOMO predominantly in social media,
based explicitly on social media anxieties and self-
esteem. Then, Clor-Proell et al. (2019) developed and
validated a scale that described investors' FOMO.
This scale offers limited comparability across
contexts other than financial news. Good (2019)
developed a situational FOMO measure to examine
experiential product consumption.
In summary, although several measurement
instruments exist, especially for state FOMO, it is
unclear whether these constructs measure the same
experience (i.e., FOMO) since the authors often tailor
them to specific contexts. Clearly, the existing
FOMO scales each have an application within a
particular context. But, as state measures, they fail to
provide a more general understanding of individual
differences engaging more or less often in the
cognitive processes that lead to the negative affective
FOMO experience. Therefore, we aimed to provide
an instrument that captures the dispositional FOMO
susceptibility independent of context to address this
lack of suitable measurement instruments currently
available to researchers.
Prior Scales Lack Conceptual Complexity
A second central argument for a new
measurement tool was the lack of conceptual
maturity of currently available survey instruments.
Prior research called for a conceptual evolution of the
FOMO concept to help researchers to understand
better the underlying psychological processes
(Tandon et al., 2021). Although it is clear from prior
literature that FOMO is a complex experience, the
most widely used scale of FOMO has a
unidimensional structure (Przybylski et al., 2013). It
fails to capture essential FOMO components, such as
social exclusion, regret, and envy. A later scale
measuring social media FOMO (Abel et al., 2016)
reflected a more complex trait-like FOMO. In that
3
 Table 1. Overview of existing FOMO scales
Source Items
I fear others have more rewarding experiences than me.
I fear my friends have more rewarding experiences than me.
I get worried when I find out my friends are having fun without me.
I get anxious when I don’t know what my friends are up to.
Trait FOMO It is important that I understand my friends ‘‘inside jokes’’.
Przybylski et al. (2013) Sometimes, I wonder if I spend too much time keeping up with what is going on.
It bothers me when I miss an opportunity to meet up with friends.
When I have a good time, it is important for me to share the details online.
When I miss out on a planned get-together it bothers me.
When I go on vacation, I continue to keep tabs on what my friends.

I feel anxious when I do not experience events/opportunities

I believe I am falling behind compared with others when I miss events/opportunities
I feel anxious because I know something important or fun must happen when I miss events
I feel sad if I am not capable of participating in events due to constraints of other things
Self-concept
I feel regretful of missing events/opportunities
FOMO Zhang et al. (2020)
I think my social groups view me as unimportant when I miss events/opportunities
I think I do not fit in social groups when I miss events/opportunities
I think I am excluded by my social groups when I miss events/opportunities
I feel ignored/forgotten by my social groups when I miss events/opportunities

I take a positive attitude toward myself.

On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
I feel I have a number of good qualities.
All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
Trait FOMO I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
Abel et al. (2016) I feel uncomfortable meeting new people.
I am troubled by shyness.
When in a group of people, I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about.
I feel frightened.
I feel nervous.

It bothers me when I don’t hear news about my investments until the next day
I get anxious when I don’t know what the companies I’m investing in are planning.
It is important to me that I am “on top” of the latest news for the companies I’m interested in investing in.
When I go on vacation, I continue to keep tabs on my investments.
I feel anxious if I’m “unplugged” from news about my investments.
Investment FOMO
I would prefer to be interrupted by breaking news about my investments rather than to receive the
Clor-Proell et al. (2019)
information later at a more convenient time
I get worried when I am not able to check in on my portfolio.
I would get anxious if my phone battery ran out when I was expecting news about one of my stocks.
When I miss out on industry news it bothers me.
I fear being the last to know about news that is relevant to my portfolio.

I’m afraid later I will feel sorry I didn’t go with my friends.

I will worry about what I’m missing.
I will worry my friends are doing more rewarding things than me.
I will feel concerned that my friends are having more fun without me.
State FOMO
I will feel left out.
Good (2019)
I will feel sorry that I didn’t experience an event with friends.
I will feel anxious about not being with my friends.
I will feel bothered that I missed an opportunity to be with friends.
I’m afraid later I will feel sorry I didn’t go with my friends.

4
research, Abel et al. (2016) provided initial evidence findings in a between-subjects design because our
for the multidimensional nature of FOMO. However, initial evidence resulted from a small student sample
this scale focused on social anxiety, ignoring other in a within-participants survey. We further extended
aspects, such as regret. They offered self-esteem, the results by employing measures of explicit (self-
introversion, and social-media anxiety as proposed reported) and implicit (word fragmentation task)
dimensions. Zhang et al. (2020) developed a scale affect (Study 2b). Table 2 provides an overview of all
that reflected individuals' self-concepts. Whereas samples used in this study, and we provide more
most other scales focused on comparisons between information about the data cleaning procedure in
the self and others, Zhang et al. proposed an Figure 1.
additional dimension to FOMO that is personal (and
not social). They suggested that the FOMO Figure 1. Cleaning procedures
experience best represented a self-concept
maintenance construct based on individuals’
motivations but failed to account for their everyday
experiences, emotions, and cognitions.
Some of these scales provide a more nuanced view
of FOMO than the original, unidimensional scale
(Przybylski et al., 2013). However, these scales are
also too context-confined (Abel et al., 2016) or too
narrow in scope (Zhang et al., 2020), not allowing
scholars to examine what complex cognitive
dispositions lead to the FOMO experience. Further,
conceptually none of the previously developed scales
reflect personality traits that lead to experiencing
FOMO more often and account for essential
cognitions closely connected to FOMO. These scales
failed to help understand what differences in
individuals may result in variation or similarity of
FOMO experiences.

Overview of Present Research

Our goal was to develop the Dispositional FOMO

Susceptibility (DFS) scale. This multidimensional
measurement instrument reflects a complex
personality trait responsible for experiencing
negative affective FOMO more often. The DFS scale
allows researchers to study FOMO independent of
context by representing a multidimensional
personality trait. Thus, we used a mixed-methods
scale development approach (Study 1).
Additionally, we tested the scale’s predictive Ethics Approval, Openness, and Transparency
validity by examining how the DFS scale was At [omitted for blind review], the Institutional
associated with the affective nature of the FOMO Review Board approved all studies. We provide the
experience in social media (Study 2). Prior research interview guide, survey instruments, data, and scripts
suggested that FOMO leads to decreased positive for analyses on our Open Science Framework (OSF)
affect and increased negative affect (e.g., websites (see links below). We offer additional study
Milyavskaya et al., 2018). Thus, we examined how materials on these OSF websites and in the
individuals with different scores on the DFS scale are Supplemental Materials of this research article. We
affected positively or negatively based on social report all manipulations, measures, and exclusions in
media content (Study 2a). We replicated these these studies. Qualitative interview data is excluded
5
 Table 2. Demographic composition of samples in the present research.
Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D
(Dynata) (Prolific) (Students) (Prolific)
Recruited N 1,161 275 101 261
Valid N 731 248 90 244

Age Median (Range) 39 [18, 87] 30 [18, 80] 20 [18, 35] 29 [18, 50]
Gender (% female) 52.7 52.8 71.1 59.0

Race and Ethnicity(%)

White or Caucasian 75.4 54.0 66.7 61.9
Black or African American 8.6 6.0 11.1 10.2
Asian 6.0 25.4 15.6 12.3
Hispanic 6.0 9.7 3.3 9.0
Mixed 1.5 2.4 1.1 5.7
Other 1.4 1.6 2.2 0.8

Household income (%)

Less than $10,000 9.2 6.0 4.4 8.2
$10,000 to $49,999 34.3 30.6 13.3 32
$50,000 to $99,999 32.0 38.7 25.6 34.4
$100,000 to $149,999 13.1 16.9 23.3 16.8
$150,000 or more 10.5 7.3 33.3 8.2

Highest education (%)

Less than high school 1.9 0.4 - 1.6
High school graduate 23.0 15.3 - 13.5
Some college, no degree 20.9 22.2 - 30.7
Associate degree 11.4 7.7 - 9.4
Bachelor's degree 25.9 35.9 - 29.5
Master's degree 11.6 14.5 - 12.3
Professional degree 3.1 2.0 - 2.0
Doctoral degree 1.6 2.0 - 0.8

NOTE. – Sample A: Study 1; Sample B: Study 1; Sample C: Study 2a; Sample D: Study 1 and Study 2b; Valid N shows the number of participants
included in statistical analyses after excluding participants based on quality concerns (more details about cleaning procedure in Web Appendix
B); all percentages computed based on Valid N

from this shared repository to protect participants'
anonymity and privacy. We (partially) preregistered
all studies, including hypotheses, study design,
sample size, exclusion criteria, and planned analyses.
We computed all analyses using R (v 4.0.3).
Study 1: The Dispositional Fear of Missing Out
Susceptibility Scale
Item Generation
This research (OSF: www.bit.ly/3JwstHC) aimed
to develop an instrument measuring individuals'
dispositional FOMO susceptibility. We used an
exploratory approach to the scale development
process because the theoretical grounds of the
affective and cognitive FOMO experience have
evolved (Tandon et al., 2021). We developed a
comprehensive pool of items describing the FOMO
experience and allowed the item generation process
to be open to new emerging patterns. The
phenomenological approach to scale development
was appropriate because it reflected a shared
meaning of FOMO grounded in individual
perspectives (Arksey & Knight, 1999; DeVellis,
2017). Thus, we conducted 27 semi-structured, in-
depth interviews between December 2018 and
August 2019 and compensated interviewees $10 to
participate in a study titled "When do you feel you
miss out?". We asked participants to describe the
FOMO experience across ten contexts (e.g., brands
and products, financial investments, social get-
togethers, and career opportunities). The first author
screened all transcribed interviews and extracted
statements that mirrored the FOMO experience. We
rephrased the extracted statements to fit the trait scale
instructions: "Generally speaking, how often do you
experience each of the following statements or
emotions." The resulting initial item pool included
235 items.
6
 To ensure the face validity of the initial item pool,
we consulted an expert panel (Churchill, 1979; Haws
et al., accepted) from academic research in social
psychology, communication, and media. These
experts built academic careers on social norms,
cognitive processing, attitude accessibility, and
media effects and processes. We asked them to
review the statements extracted by the first author.
Before the review procedure, we discussed prior
conceptual definitions and research on FOMO in
face-to-face conversations. We retained those items
marked as relevant to FOMO by at least two experts.
We copy-edited items and eliminated one item due to
close similarity to another item. The resulting pool of
items consisted of 79 items (reviewed item pool
available in Supplemental Material B).
Initial Exploratory Factor Analysis
Method
This preregistered study (www.bit.ly/3dpAr7h)
aimed at reducing the initial pool of items to create
the first draft of the DFS scale (OSF:
www.bit.ly/3vaxD70). We recruited participants in
an online survey for exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) in October 2019 from the general U.S.
population using the Dynata sampling service
(Sample A, N = 731). We compensated participants
according to their panel membership and the Dynata
compensation scheme and asked them to respond to
all 79 items of the reviewed item pool. However,
after completing the data collection for Sample A, we
inspected the item pool of 79 items again and
excluded five items that reflected romantic regrets
(e.g., "You wonder if you maybe have missed the
opportunity to be with your soul mate"). We
submitted data for 74 items to parallel analysis (Horn,
1965) to determine the number of factors to extract in
consequent EFA using unrotated Eigenvalues and
5,000 bootstrapping intervals. After selecting the
number of factors to extract (Ford et al., 1986; Kline,
2013), we submitted data to EFA using maximum
likelihood estimation and Promax rotation
(Churchill, 1979). We excluded items with cross-
loadings or factor loadings < .50.
Results and Discussion
Results of Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p < .01)
and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value (.99) exceeded
recommendations (.60) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007),
indicating that submitting data to EFA was
appropriate. We retained three factors after
consulting the parallel analysis results (extract five
factors) and an initial EFA (items loaded on three of
five factors), which also matched our prior
theorizing. A series of EFA showed evidence for
these three factors explaining 52% of the variance.
According to our preregistered analysis plan,
throughout four iterations of item-exclusion and re-
submitting to follow-up EFA, we excluded 29 items
from further analyses because they showed cross-
loadings or small factor loadings (λ < .50). We
ensured that items were not highly correlated (-.50 <=
r <= .50) with participants’ social desirability bias
(Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972). Results indicated
acceptable average correlations of r = -.26, so no
items were excluded due to social desirability
(Cohen, 1988). Last, an additional 12 items were
excluded based on redundancies (e.g., "you think
people in an in-group are happier than you") or lack
of specificity (e.g., "you want something").
As proposed a priori, the structure of the DFS
scale yielded three factors that described social
disconnectedness (e.g., "you worry that friends will
not invite you in the future"), regret anticipation
(e.g., "you think of all the things you wish you would
have done differently"), and experiential envy (e.g.,
"you want to have the same fun other people are
having"). Thus, our analyses initially indicated—
contrasting Hayran et al. (2020)—that social
exclusion, regret, and envy are not necessarily
conceptually different from FOMO. Instead,
proneness to these experiences may make it more
likely to experience FOMO.
However, 33 items still described these factors
after our initial scale purifying efforts. We
considered it problematic to retain that many items,
as a large number of items within single factors might
yield alpha inflation (DeVellis, 2017). Thus, we
recruited another sample to reduce the number of
items included in the final scale.
Further Item Reduction and Scale Dimensionality
Method
This preregistered study (www.bit.ly/3dpAr7h)
aimed at reducing the number of items on the DFS
scale (OSF: www.bit.ly/38yVFkg). We recruited
participants from the international opt-in
crowdsourcing panel Prolific (Sample B, N = 248).
We compensated them with an average of £7.24/hr.
We defined panel members as eligible when they
7
 Table 3. Factor loadings for first- and second-order exploratory factor analyses.
Social Regret Experiential Fear of Threats to
disconnectedness anticipation envy exclusion inclusion
You think you will get pushed away for possibly being absent from something. .82 .51
You worry that friends will not invite you in the future. .77 .63
You think you are missing out on fun activities because you are not part of the "in-group." .70 .67
You think your friends like each other better than they like you because you are not spending time with them. .77 1.00
You think there might be negative effects on your social relationships when you are not part of a shared activity. .76 .47
You think something cool might happen in your absence, and you are afraid you won't be able to talk about it. .78 .95
You are afraid you will not be able to talk about events you have not been invited to. .82 .61
You just want to be a part of something because everyone else is a part of it. .61 .81
You think you are missing out on bonding with friends by not owning the same things they do. .74 .59
You do not want to miss out on things others are doing, even though you are not really interested in it. .62 .57

You think you missed your "one opportunity." .65

You think about potential failure in what you are doing. .74
You think of all the things you wish you would have done differently. .74
You are worrying about "what could have been." .74
You experience uncertainty. .76

You wish you could have been with your friends when they were having fun. .50
You want to have the same fun other people are having. .76
You think other people are doing really cool things. .66
You want to have access to opportunities others are having. .57

Proportion Variance explained (%) .30 .15 .10 .25 .29

Cumulative Variance explained (%) .30 .45 .55 .25 .54
Cronbach’s alpha .94 .86 .80 .90 .88
Average variance extracted .59 .55 .50 .64 .61

NOTE. – Values based on data from Sample A

8
reported their country of residence to be the U.S.,
were fluent in English and had an approval rating of
prior studies of > 95% on Prolific. We asked
participants to respond to the 33-item DFS scale in an
online study. We submitted data for the DFS scale to
EFA. To develop a parsimonious scale, we decided a
priori to exclude items when dropping them led to an
increase or no change in Cronbach's alpha of the
respective component. To reduce the number of
items in the two largest factors, we subjected the
items of the respective large factor to an additional
EFA (DeVellis, 2017). We examined reliabilities
using Cronbach’s alpha > .70, composite reliabilities
> .70, and average variance extracted (AVE) > .50
within Sample A and B.
Results and Discussion
Again, the resulting factor structure in this study
was consistent with our a priori explication of the
dispositional FOMO susceptibility dimensions and
our earlier findings in Sample A: (1) social
disconnectedness, (2) regret anticipation, and (3)
experiential envy. Only six items did not load on any
of these factors, and we excluded them. Two factors
remained large: social disconnectedness with 14
items and regret anticipation with nine items. We
examined a potential hierarchical structure by
submitting these factors to additional EFAs. Within
the second-order factor of social disconnectedness,
we found two first-order factors: (1) fear of exclusion
(e.g., "you think you will get pushed away for
possibly being absent from something") and (2)
worries about inclusion (e.g., "you are afraid you will
not be able to talk about events you have not been
invited to"). Five items described these two first-
order factors. We reduced regret anticipation to a
single first-order factor comprised of five items.
Table 3 displays factor loadings of first- and second-
order factors. Thus, a partially nested hierarchical
four-factor solution with 19 items reflected the final
DFS scale.
Structural Validity
This partially preregistered study
(www.bit.ly/3dpAr7h) provided evidence for the
DFS scale's structural validity (OSF:
www.bit.ly/3Kz7V2x). We cross-validated our
findings with an independent sample among the
general population (Brakus et al., 2009) and followed
prior research to assess our scale’s goodness of fit
(Homburg et al., 2015). We submitted data from
samples A, B, and D (more details on Sample D, see
below) to confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to
examine the hierarchical four-factor solution.
Method
We used common goodness-of-fit indices
(RMSEA < 0.08, SRMR < 0.08, TLI > 0.95, CFI >
0.95, χ2/df-ratio < 3) to assess the final DFS scale and
factor structure (DeVellis, 2017; Homburg et al.,
2015; Kline, 2013). We determined the model fit of
the hierarchical four-factor solution by comparing
the final model to a baseline model, a unidimensional
model, and a three-factor model. The latter model
combined the fear of social exclusion and worries
about inclusion as a single social disconnectedness
factor.
Results and Discussion
Based on all three samples, the CFA provided
evidence for the hierarchical four-factor model
specification, which showed excellent model fit
based on χ2/df, CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR (Table
4). The hierarchical four-factor solution performed
consistently better than other model specifications
across samples. These results show that the
hierarchical structure best described the data in three
independent samples. We consider this strong
evidence for the hierarchical factor structure of the
DFS scale.
The Nomological Net
We examined the DFS scale within its
nomological net. As the DFS scale represents a trait
assessment of individuals’ dispositional FOMO, we
expected that the DFS scale positively correlated
with other FOMO measures developed by Przybylski
et al. (2013) and Abel et al. (2016). Given the
negative affective nature of the FOMO experience,
we expected that individuals high in measures of
negative trait affect would also score higher on the
DFS scale (Milyavskaya et al., 2018). Because the
DFS scale represented experiential envy and
anticipated regret as sub-dimensions, we expected
positive correlations with social comparison
processes and individuals' tendencies to appraise
counterfactuals, which are related constructs
(Neumann, 2020). To reflect on prior theorizing, we
expected our scale would positively associate with
interdependent self-construal, as shown by Dogan
(2019), and negatively with need satisfaction (e.g.,
relatedness), as shown by Przybylski et al. (2013).
9
 Table 4. Assessing model fit.
χ2 Goodness-of-fit
Δχ2 p-value
Value df p χ2/df-ratio RMSEA SRMR TLI CFI
Sample A (N = 731)
Hierarchical model 345.9 148 < .001 2.34 .04 .03 .98 .98
Null model 9406.6 171 < .001 55.01 .27 .50 9,060.7 < .001
Unidimensional 1244.2 152 < .001 8.19 .10 .06 .87 .88 898.3 < .001
Three factors 433.5 149 < .001 2.91 .05 .03 .97 .97 87.7 < .001

Sample B (N = 248)
Hierarchical model 301.5 148 < .001 2.04 .07 .05 .94 .94
Null model 2924.5 171 < .001 17.10 .26 .43 2,622.9 < .001
Unidimensional 781.3 152 < .001 5.14 .13 .10 .74 .77 479.8 < .001
Three factors 341.9 149 < .001 2.30 .07 .06 .92 .93 40.4 < .001

Sample D (N = 244)
Hierarchical model 332.1 148 < .001 2.24 .07 .06 .93 .94
Null model 3189.2 171 < .001 18.65 .27 .47 2,857.1 < .001
Unidimensional 755.2 152 < .001 4.97 .13 .08 .78 .80 423.1 < .001
Three factors 405.7 149 < .001 2.72 .08 .06 .90 .92 73.6 < .001

Based on prior research on the emotional
character of FOMO, we expected that people who
score highly on the DFS scale should also score
highly on trait anxiety (Hayran et al., 2020). High
trait-FOMO individuals were more neurotic and
anxious than low trait-FOMO individuals
(Rozgonjuk et al., 2021). Based on findings by
Riordan et al. (2019) and Popovac and Hadlington
(2020), we expected high DFS participants also to be
less risk-averse. Additionally, we expected a
complex relationship between the DFS scale and the
behavioral inhibition (BIS), activation (BAS), and
fight-flight-freeze (FFFS) system sensitivities based
on the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory
(rRST) (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Because high-
FOMO individuals have a higher drive for more
rewarding social experiences (Riordan et al., 2019),
those people may also score high on BAS (fun-
seeking). But, as they also tend to be more neurotic
and anxious, they may further score highly on BIS.
We expected no correlational relationships between
BAS (drive), BAS (reward responsiveness), and
independent self-construal. Finally, we explored the
correlations of each DFS sub-dimension with the
measures above to investigate differences in the
dimensions of the DFS scale.
H1. The DFS scale will be positively correlated
with but discriminate from (a) prior FOMO
scales, (b) trait-anxiety, (c) interdependent self-
construal, (d) behavioral activation fun-seeking,
and (e) behavioral inhibition.
H2. The DFS scale will be negatively correlated
with satisfaction with the needs for (a) autonomy,
(b) competence, (c) relatedness, and (d) risk
aversion.
H3. The DFS scale will be uncorrelated with (a)
behavioral activation drive, (b) behavioral
activation reward responsiveness, and (c)
independent self-construal.
RQ1. How are the individual components of the
DFS scale correlated with trait anxiety,
interdependent and independent self-construal,
behavioral activation, behavioral inhibition, basic
need satisfaction, and risk aversion?
Method
We preregistered (http://www.bit.ly/3dpAr7h) the
research design and hypotheses for the variables in
Sample B (OSF: https://bit.ly/37BzSIi). We
submitted data (Sample A and B) for the DFS scale,
its sub-scales, and all variables of interest to (partial)
Pearson correlations, using pairwise-complete
observations and Holm's adjustment for p-values.
Deviating from our preregistration, we computed
partial correlations when looking at the DFS sub-
scales, controlling for the other sub-scales. We
considered this more appropriate to capture the
unique variance explained by each scale. We looked
at the square root of average variance extracted
(√AVE) of the DFS scale and compared it to the
construct's correlations with each other. We
established discriminant validity when a factor's
10
 Table 5. (Partial) Pearson correlations between the DFS scale and related variables.
DFS Fear of Exclusion Threat to Inclusion Regret Anticipation Experiential Envy
M SD α r P adj. rpartial P adj. rpartial P adj. rpartial P adj. rpartial P adj.
SAMPLE A (N = 731) α = .95, √AVE = .72 α = .91, √AVE = .81 α = .90, √AVE = .81 α = .87, √AVE = .76 α = .83, √AVE = .74
FOMO (Przybyslski et at.) 3.07 1.48 .93 .77 <.001 .21 <.001 .34 <.001 .10 .030 .05 .366
FOMO (Abel et al.) 3.24 1.29 .89 .64 <.001 .22 <.001 .01 .711 .49 <.001 –.19 <.001
Self-esteem 3.06 1.31 .81 .50 <.001 .15 <.0001 .00 .950 .44 <.001 –.20 <.001
Introversion 3.58 1.73 .85 .57 <.001 .20 <.001 –.01 .852 .33 <.001 –.07 .127
Social anxiety 3.15 1.70 .81 .60 <.001 .17 <.001 .06 .167 .40 <.001 –.15 <.001
Positive trait-affect 3.23 0.83 .90 –.04 .251 –.02 .516 .06 .209 –.28 <.001 .19 <.001
Negative trait-affect 2.16 0.95 .94 .67 <.001 .11 .010 .11 .010 .45 <.001 –.07 .087
Social comparison orientation 3.07 0.77 .85 .62 <.001 .09 .049 .11 .011 .05 .149 .27 <.001
Opinion-focused 3.33 0.86 .77 .44 <.001 .04 .907 .03 .907 –.01 .907 .29 <.001
Ability-focused 2.89 0.86 .80 .63 <.001 .10 .015 .15 <.001 .09 .040 .19 <.001
Counterfactual thinking 2.82 0.80 .92 .74 <.001 .01 1.000 .16 <.001 .40 <.001 .23 .000
None-referent down 3.05 0.91 .82 .43 <.001 –.02 .546 .09 .049 .07 .102 .21 <.001
Other-referent down 2.70 1.01 .87 .62 <.001 .01 .733 .17 <.001 .23 <.001 .14 .001
Self-referent up 2.74 0.94 .82 .69 <.001 .03 .779 .12 .005 .40 <.001 .15 <.001
None-referent up 2.80 0.97 .85 .70 <.001 .03 .510 .07 .235 .49 <.001 .16 <.001

SAMPLE B (N = 248) α = .93, √AVE = .66 α = .90, √AVE = .80 α = .88, √AVE = .78 α = .86, √AVE = .74 α = .80, √AVE = .71
Risk aversion 4.67 0.97 .81 .31 <.001 .10 .324 –.04 .577 .36 <.001 –.11 .324
Trait-anxiety 2.33 0.72 .96 .60 <.001 .07 .557 .00 .972 .73 <.001 –.09 .557
FFFS 8.84 1.83 .65 .37 <.001 .01 1.000 –.04 1.000 .41 <.001 .05 1.000
BIS 12.35 2.29 .77 .52 <.001 .18 .020 –.14 .103 .35 <.001 .19 .013
BAS 36.96 4.79 .79 .09 .477 –.13 .183 .07 .299 –.10 .275 .27 .000
Fun-seeking 10.62 2.09 .67 .12 .207 –.11 .171 .09 .171 –.15 .114 .28 <.001
Drive 10.19 2.17 .73 .00 .980 –.03 .839 .08 .711 –.12 .262 .05 .839
Reward responsiveness 16.14 2.13 .73 .08 .477 –.15 .086 –.02 .796 .06 .708 .27 <.001
Independent construal 4.53 1.09 .73 –.38 <.001 –.16 .081 –.03 1.000 –.11 .352 .00 1.000
Interdependent construal 3.87 0.95 .62 .37 <.001 .09 .481 .14 .152 .02 1.000 .01 1.000
Need satisfaction 4.91 0.95 .89 –.53 <.001 –.17 .044 –.01 .932 –.57 <.001 .20 .010
Autonomy 5.03 1.27 .76 –.52 <.001 –.08 .624 –.08 .624 –.44 <.001 .06 .624
Competence 4.55 1.16 .78 –.50 <.001 –.18 .027 .10 .226 –.61 <.001 .15 .094
Relatedness 5.16 0.98 .81 –.37 <.001 –.12 .140 –.05 .393 –.38 <.001 .22 .003
NOTE. – ‘FFFS’ = fight-flight-freeze system, ‘BIS’ = behavioral inhibition system, ‘BAS’ = behavioral activation system; a total correlation computed using Pearson correlations for pairwise complete observations
(Holm’s adjustment); b partial correlations for each factor calculated by controlling for the respective other two factors (Holm’s adjustment)

11
√AVE exceeded its correlations with the other participants' need satisfaction. In contrast to our prior
variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). We deviated review, we found only a weak, non-significant
from our preregistration by computing partial correlation of the DFS scale with fun-seeking instead
correlations of each FOMO measure (DFS and of a positive correlation and a negative instead of
FOMO by Przybylski et al. (2013) and Abel et al. non-significant correlation with independent self-
(2015)) with relevant correlates (i.e., positive and construal. Thus, FOMO seems more dependent on
negative trait-affect, social comparison orientation, others and less appetitive than initially anticipated.
and counterfactual thinking), controlling for the We also found a positive instead of a negative
respective other two FOMO measures. Thus, we correlation between the DFS scale and risk aversion.
exemplified how the DFS scale is superior to Although surprising at first, this finding aligns with
previously proposed FOMO measures by better the DFS scale’s high correlation with behavioral
predicting relevant correlations. inhibition, reflecting a form of situational anxiety
when anticipating punishment or no rewards (Carver
Measures
& White, 1994). Thus, FOMO might be a
In addition to the DFS scale, in Sample A, we behaviorally inhibiting but cognitively engaging
included other FOMO measures (Abel et al., 2016; experience.
Przybylski et al., 2013), positive and negative trait-
affect (PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988), social Table 6. Partial Pearson correlations between
comparison orientation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999), FOMO scales and related variables.
and counterfactual thinking for negative events (Rye
DFS FOMOa FOMO b
et al., 2008). In Sample B, we included trait-anxiety Positive trait-affect .09* .21*** –.49***
(Spielberger, 1983), risk aversion (Mandrik & Bao, Negative trait-affect .30*** .03 .48***
2004), interdependent and independent self-construal
SCO .40*** .14*** –.13***
(D’Amico & Scrima, 2016), FFFS, BAS, and BIS Opinion-focused .33*** .09* –.23***
(Carver & White, 1994), and basic need satisfaction Ability-focused .37*** .14*** –.02
(Johnston & Finney, 2010).
Counterfactual thinking .52*** .02 .04
Results and Discussion None-referent down .32*** .03 –.15***
Other-referent down .38*** .07 .03
Table 5 summarizes the results of (partial) Self-referent up .47*** –.01 .09*
correlations. We found a high correlation between None-referent up .47*** –.04 .20***
the DFS scale and all three Abel et al. (2016) scale NOTE. – a Przybylski et al. (2013), b Abel, Buff, and Burr (2015).
components. We found a strong correlation between SCO = social comparison orientation. Partial correlations of each
the DFS scale and Przybylski et al. (2013) scale, but FOMO measure controlling for the other two FOMO measures,
predicting personality traits related to FOMO (Holm’s adjusted).
the √AVE of the DFS scale was lower than its
correlation. We submitted data (Sample A) for both
Table 6 summarizes our results concerning the
scales to CFA, similar to approaches in prior research
partial correlations with the DFS and FOMO scales
(Homburg et al., 2015). We specified a
developed in the past (Abel et al., 2016; Przybylski
unidimensional model, with all items for both scales
et al., 2013) with relevant correlates of FOMO. Our
loading on a single factor, and a two-dimensional
results provide evidence for the predictive validity of
model with items of each FOMO measure loading on
our scale above and beyond other FOMO measures.
a different factor. Results indicated that the two-
The scale developed by Abel et al. (2016) represented
factor solution provides a better model fit (AIC Δ = -
increased negative and decreased positive affect, was
61). These results provided evidence for the
unrelated to counterfactual thinking, and negatively
convergent and discriminant validity (Haws et al.,
related to social comparison orientation. Thus,
accepted) of the DFS scale with the FOMO scale
although prior research developed this scale initially
developed by Przybylski et al. (2013).
to capture FOMO, this measure reflected only the
Aligning with our expectations, we found strong
affective aspect of FOMO. The scale developed by
positive correlations of the DFS scale with negative
Przybylski et al. (2013) focused on the social
trait affect, social comparison orientation,
comparison aspect of FOMO while unable to capture
counterfactual thinking, trait anxiety, and BIS. In
additional variance in counterfactual thinking.
addition, we found strong negative correlations with
12
 Surprisingly, this scale also was positively related
to positive trait-affect and did not account for any
additional variance of negative trait-affect. The DFS
scale captured correlational variance above and
beyond the other concepts in negative trait-affect,
social comparison, and counterfactual thinking.
Thus, the DFS scale reflected all aspects of
participants’ FOMO even when controlling for other
FOMO measures. Therefore, these other FOMO
measures only captured some aspects of FOMO
without providing a complete picture.
We explored the partial correlations of each factor
of the DFS scale with the personality variables of
interest to elucidate potential differences between the
distinct factors. Experiential envy represented a
conceptually different aspect of what led to FOMO.
Specifically, we found a positive correlation between
experiential envy and positive trait-affect, BAS fun-
seeking, BAS reward responsiveness, and
satisfaction with relatedness when controlling for the
other factors. These correlations stand diametrically
opposed to the correlations of the other factors. They
indicate two general motivational drives comprising
the antecedents of FOMO: approach (experiential
envy) and avoidance (fear of exclusion, worries
about inclusion, and regret anticipation).
Individuals who score high on the DFS scale may
want to live eventful lives, similar to their peers
(experiential envy). Still, the fear of social
consequences for missing out on these experiences
(fear of exclusion and worries about inclusion) may
plague them. They mentally predict possible adverse
outcomes when deciding about these exciting
experiences (regret anticipation). Our scale captures
people’s dispositions to the conflicting cognitions
that may lead to these motivational tensions while
other measurement instruments do not.
Summary of the Scale Development Process
Using a mixed-methods approach, we developed
a 19-item trait scale for individuals’ dispositional
FOMO susceptibility (more information about the
final scale, such as means and standard deviations, in
Supplemental Material C). In the context of the DFS
scale, we defined the fear of exclusion as individuals’
dispositional fear of being actively excluded by their
peers because of missing out on shared experiences.
We defined worries about inclusion as individuals’
continued concerns about maintaining their current
inclusionary status within a peer group because
missing out on events leads to no future invites. As
prior research showed, these two higher-order factors
to social disconnectedness may affect consumer
behavior by inducing feelings of social exclusion,
possibly leading to brand and product switching
behavior (Su et al., 2016).
We define regret anticipation as susceptibility to
rumination, counterfactual thinking, and worrying. A
large body of past consumer behavior research has
investigated the effects of anticipated regret on
purchase decisions (e.g., Tsiros & Mittal, 2000).
Some work showed that these reflections on future
regret are potent drivers of spontaneous purchases
(Walchli & Landman, 2003). Our DFS scale accounts
for consumers’ susceptibility to these feelings before,
during, and after purchase decisions. Experiential
envy is the proneness to an upward comparative
process between one’s experiences and the
experiences of others. Envy is an inherently social
comparison process, which prior research identified
as a motivational driver for purchase decisions
(Salerno et al., 2019). The comparative nature of
FOMO is a known feature of the experience
(Milyavskaya et al., 2018), and early consumer
research has identified social comparison processes
as essential for consumer behavior (Moschis, 1976).
Developing the DFS scale was to explicate a
theoretically robust and evolved conceptual
understanding of character traits that lead to the
complex FOMO phenomenon. By showing that our
four-dimensional hierarchical DFS scale correlated
highly with other state and trait FOMO measures but
predicted relevant correlates above and beyond these
measures, we offer a research tool that helps to
conduct detailed process-oriented investigations of
consumers’ FOMO susceptibility. Though the DFS
scale highly correlated with existing measures of
FOMO, here we explicated a granular personality
measure of individuals' likelihood to experience
FOMO. We showed that the DFS scale and its sub-
dimensions were associated with relevant correlates
of FOMO above and beyond other scales, aiding in
its conceptual development yet assessing the same
general phenomenon (Tandon et al., 2021). Thus, in
the following, we used the newly developed DFS
scale to measure consumers’ sensitivity to
experiencing FOMO to investigate the role of social
media content on subjective consumer well-being
(affective outcomes).
13
 Study 2a: FOMO, Social Media, and Affect
We examined the effects of DFS on the emotional
outcomes of FOMO-relevant social media content.
Mainly, we focused on Instagram as the platform has
recently grown in popularity. The platform also
became a research focus due to its effects on purchase
behavior (Djafarova & Bowes, 2021) and the
detrimental effects on mental health due to social
comparison materials (Faelens et al., 2021). We
deemed this important as affect serves as an
information system when consumers make purchase
decisions (Chang & Tuan Pham, 2013).
A large body of research shows that FOMO and
social media use negatively affect consumers
(Milyavskaya et al., 2018). Thus, to test the
predictive validity of the DFS scale, we contrasted
social media contents that were either explicitly (e.g.,
social get-togethers) or implicitly (e.g., brand
products) social with control content (e.g., unbranded
kitchen utensils). We aimed to show that the
underlying personality traits of dispositional FOMO
would predict higher negative and lesser positive
affect. We expected that the DFS sub-scales would
differentially predict emotional outcomes relevant to
FOMO. The feeling of belonging and the stress
induced by a lack of that feeling have an inherently
social nature (Baumeister et al., 2007; Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). We predicted that for high (vs. low)
DFS individuals, exposure to social Instagram
content would lead to more negative and less positive
affect than control content. We expected this effect to
be most potent in explicit expressions of sociality and
significant in implicit expressions than in control
content.
H4. Higher scores for social disconnectedness are
associated with more negative and less positive
affect for social (vs. branded products and vs.
control) and branded products (vs. control) social
media stimuli.
Like the effects of dispositional feelings of
disconnectedness, we expected that individuals
susceptible to anticipating regret would experience
more negative and less positive affect when exposed
to social content (Roese & Summerville, 2005).
However, we expected explicit and implicit
expressions of sociality would not differ because
both represent decisions that could have lasting
effects. For example, when individuals miss a social
event, they may anticipate regret missing a good time
(Hayran et al., 2020). When they miss purchasing an
in-style branded product, they anticipate regret of
missed reputational gain.
H5. Higher scores for anticipated regret will be
associated with more negative and less positive
affect for social (vs. control) and branded
products (vs. control) social media stimuli. There
will be no difference in negative and positive
affect for social stimuli compared to branded
products stimuli.
Last, we expected that individuals prone to
experiential envy might experience more negative
and more positive affect when exposed to social
content on social media as compared to control
content. This expectation was guided by our previous
findings when examining the DFS scale’s
nomological net. As envy can be benign and
malicious (Lange & Crusius, 2014; Salerno et al.,
2019), we expected both mechanisms to be active in
FOMO proneness, leading to positive and negative
affect.
H6. Higher scores for experiential envy will be
associated with more negative and positive affect
for social (vs. control) and branded products (vs.
control) social media stimuli. There will be no
difference in negative and positive affect due to
social stimuli compared to branded products
stimuli.
Method
Procedure
We recruited participants (Sample C, N = 90) from
a public university student pool in March 2021 for
this preregistered study (www.bit.ly/3sJku1g; OSF:
www.bit.ly/3v9Fz8t). We screened participants for
having an active Instagram account and compensated
them with course credit. They answered the DFS
scale and completed the Positive and Negative Affect
Scale (PANAS, Watson et al., 1988). We asked them
to imagine a short scenario in which they evaluated
twelve mock-up Instagram posts in block-
randomized order. We determined a priori that 100
participants should suffice based on the within-
participants design.
14
Research Design and Dependent Variables
We employed a three (post category: social vs.
branded products vs. control) by four (examples
within a category) within-participants design. We
asked participants to imagine seeing the twelve
following posts on Instagram and instructed them to
imagine that the person posting the images was one
of their friends. Four individual mock-up posts
formed one of three stimulus blocks, respectively: (1)
social situations, (2) branded products, and (3)
kitchen utensils (control). Within each block, the
information provided in the posts was the same.
Across all blocks, the number of likes, profile
pictures, and the person's name posted on the image
was constant. We used single-item scales (1 = “not at
all” to 10 = “very”) for positive and negative affect
as dependent variables and the likelihood to
experience FOMO as a manipulation-check. Single-
item measures were appropriate as they respect
participants’ time in a repeated measures design
(Allen et al., 2022). Prior research identified them as
not inferior to multi-item scales (Bergkvist &
Rossiter, 2007).
Results and Discussion
Manipulation-Check
Participants were significantly more likely to
experience FOMO when seeing social posts vs.
branded products posts (Msocial = 5.37, Mbranded =
2.02, t(359) = 22.3, p < .001, d = 1.18) and vs. control
posts (Mcontrol = 1.61, t(359) = 23.3, p < .001, d =
1.23). Participants were slightly more likely to
experience FOMO when seeing branded products vs.
control posts (t(359) = 4.8, p < .001, d = 0.25).
Multilevel Regression Analyses
We submitted the data to a series of eight
multilevel regression analyses with positive and
negative affect as dependent variables. We included
the general DFS scale (α = .95), and its sub-scales
social disconnectedness (α = .94), regret anticipation
(α = .85), and experiential envy (α = .79) as the
independent variables. Deviating from our
preregistration, we added positive (α = .91) and
negative (α = .90) pre-experimental mood as control
variables; results did not differ when adding this
control variable. Observations were nested within
individuals, and we standardized all continuous
dependent variables before submitting them to
analyses. We added interactions between the DFS
sub-scales and the post category. Additional to our
preregistered analyses, we grand-mean-centered all
continuous independent variables.
Our findings (Table 7) partially aligned with our
expectations and with results from Study 1. Partially
aligning with H4, disponsitional social
disconnectedness was associated with greater
negative affect (social vs. control: b = 0.23, 95% CI
[0.12; 0.34], p < .001; branded vs. control: b = 0.10,
95% CI [-0.00; 0.21], p = .056) and not related to
positive affect. The standardized effect of social
media content on negative affect was larger for social
(vs. control) than for branded products (vs. control)
posts. In our prior study, proneness for regret
anticipation correlated positively with negative trait-
affect and negatively with positive trait-affect (Study
1). Similarly, and in line with H5, here we found
greater negative affect (b = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.00;
0.23], p = .060) and less positive affect (b = -0.14,
95% CI [-0.25; -0.03], p = .014) as a result of social
(vs. control) content for increasing reported levels of
regret anticipation. Thus, individuals high in
dispositions for regret anticipation are generally
feeling less positive and more negative (results from
Study 1) and are emotionally affected more severely
by situational stimuli (results from this study)
However, the findings of this current study also
differed from the findings of our earlier research. In
Study 1, susceptibility to experiential envy was
associated with greater positive trait affect and
marginally lower negative trait affect. In contrast to
these findings and H6, here, experiential envy was
associated with lower positive affect (b = -0.19, 95%
CI [-0.31; -0.06], p = .005) for social (vs. control)
content. Individuals high in trait experiential envy
generally report more subjective well-being (or
positive trait-affect, according to Study 1). But, there
are adverse situational effects when observing social
media posts that picture other people having
enjoyable experiences. Thus, individuals who score
high in experiential envy seem to feel more positive
(Study 1) but are severely affected by being absent
from rewarding experiences (results from this study).
Overall, we found that social content induced
marginally lower positive affect (b = -0.10, 95% CI
[-0.23; 0.02], p = .099) and significantly higher
negative affect (b = 0.22, 95% CI [0.10; 0.35], p <
.001) with higher levels of DFS as compared to
control content. Branded products had no effect on
positive (b = -0.02, n.s.), and only marginal effects
on negative affect (b = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02; 0.24],
15
 Table 7. Effects on positive and negative affect by users' DFS score.
DFS – Social DFS – Regret DFS – Experiential
DFS – overall a
disconnectedness a anticipation a envy a
Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
affect b affect b affect b affect b affect b affect b affect b affect b
(Intercept) –0.29** –0.26** –0.29** –0.26** –0.29** –0.26** –0.29** –0.26**
DFS c –0.17 0.09 –0.17+ 0.09 –0.12 0.07 –0.01 0
Branded products c 0.22** 0.17** 0.22** 0.17** 0.22** 0.17** 0.22** 0.17**
Social posts d 0.63** 0.61** 0.63** 0.61** 0.63** 0.61** 0.63** 0.61**
Positive mood e 0.06 –0.07 0.06 –0.07 0.06 –0.07 0.07 –0.07
Negative mood e 0.20+ 0.09 0.20+ 0.09 0.22+ 0.11 0.13 0.17
DFS x branded products –0.02 0.11+ 0.00 0.10+ –0.04 0.07 –0.06 0.05
DFS x social posts –0.10+ 0.22** –0.03 0.23** –0.14* 0.11+ –0.19** 0.09

Random Effects
Within-subjects variance .45 .50 .45 .49 .45 .50 .45 .50
Between-subjects variance .47 .41 .46 .40 .47 .43 .49 .44
Intraclass correlation coef. .51 .45 .51 .45 .51 .46 .52 .46
R2Marginal .11 .11 .11 .12 .10 .09 .09 .08
R2Conditional .56 .51 .56 .52 .56 .51 .56 .51

NOTE. – Number of participants = 90, number of evaluation objects = 12, total N = 1,080. Significance levels: ‘+’ < .10, ‘*’ < .05, ‘**’ < .01. DFS scale and its respective factors are independent variables,
including their interaction with the condition. Positive and negative mood (control) were assessed using PANAS asking participants how they feel right now before evaluating stimuli. a Top-row in the table
indicates the respective DFS sub-scale as the independent variable in the models. b Positive and negative state-affect were standardized & centered before analysis. c 0 = Control, 1 = Branded products. d 0 =
Control, 1 = Social posts. e Independent continuous variables in the models were grand-mean-centered before analysis.

16
p = .091) with increasing scores on the DFS scale as
compared to control content. These findings show
that individuals high in dispositional FOMO
susceptibility are more likely to be negatively
affected by FOMO-inducing content on Instagram.
However, as we conducted this initial study using a
within-participants design, we could not rule out a
possible carry-over effect, even though we used a
block-wise randomization design. Further, our
affective results were based on self-reported single-
item scales. We wanted to replicate these findings
using an implicit measure of affect in the following
study to provide additional evidence.
Study 2b: Replicating Affective Outcomes
Due to our results and theorizing in Study 2a, we
aimed to replicate our prior results. Therefore, we
conducted an additional experimental online survey
study to examine the effect of dispositional FOMO
susceptibility on affect based on Instagram content in
a between-participants design. This replication was
essential to provide further evidence for the relevance
of the DFS scale and the need to examine FOMO and
its personality-based antecedents more granularly.
Power Analysis
We planned to recruit 250 participants from the
Prolific opt-in platform. Based on an a priori power
analysis with p < .05, within-subjects variance = 1,
between-subjects variance = 0.60, and 2,000
simulated repetitions of the multilevel regression
analysis, we expected to detect an interaction effect
size of b = 0.40 with a power of .801.
Method
Procedure
To replicate Study 2a, in April 2021, we recruited
an additional Prolific sample (Sample D, N = 244,
OSF: www.bit.ly/37hDC1E) using the same
screening criteria as for Sample B and an average
compensation of £5.53/hr. Further, we screened for
active Instagram use and 18-50 years old participants
(Study 2b). In this preregistered study
(www.bit.ly/3xfRWjx), we focused on the effects of
the social content condition compared to control
stimuli. We used the same stimuli as in Study 2a but
omitted the branded products condition. The post
category was a between-participants factor, and
examples within the category were a within-
participants factor. As in Study 2a, our self-reported
dependent variables were single-item positive and
negative affect scales, and we added the likelihood of
experiencing FOMO as a manipulation check. After
evaluating all four mock-up posts, we added a word
fragmentation task as another dependent variable
(Rusting & Larsen, 1998).
Word Fragmentation Task Cleaning Procedure
In this word fragmentation task, participants
viewed 32 ambiguous word fragments (e.g., “CAL_”
or “DIS_US_”) in random order. Participants could
complete these word fragments either as neutral (e.g.,
“CALL” or “DISCUSS”), positive or negative (e.g.,
“CALM” or “DISGUST”). The measure was not part
of our preregistration because we had no prior
experience using it.
We coded answers with no values (including
participants answering "?") as missing. We re-coded
answers for which participants only typed the
missing characters and not the entire word to the
word (e.g., word fragment "CAL_," participant
answer "M," re-coded value "CALM"). In this step,
we changed 344 values. We removed all spaces and
counted the characters for each reply. We coded
answers as missing when they were either too short
(e.g., word fragment: "G _ _ D," participant answer
"GOD") or too long (e.g., word fragment "THRI_ _,"
participant answer: "THIRSTY") to fit the word
fragment. We excluded n = 285 answers. Then we
created a list with unique answers (n = 280). These
unique answers also included misspellings (e.g.,
word fragment: "F.R. _ T," participant answer:
"FART") and words that were not part of the English
dictionary (e.g., word fragment: "G_I_TY,"
participant answer: "GIGITY"). We checked each
unique answer for correctness and coded wrong
answers with a missing value (n = 303). Altogether,
participants provided 110 unique words across the
word fragmentation task. There were also 634
missing values in this task.
We included these words in an online survey to
score participants' implicit affect, and 20 independent
participants on Prolific rated them as positive,
negative, or neutral (Fleiss' Kappa = .442). A word
was assigned the value positive/negative/neutral
when more participants evaluated it as
positive/negative/neutral than the other two
categories. To compute the implicit affectivity for
each participant, we created the sums of positive (M
= 12.08, SD = 2.23) and negative words (M = 10.82,
17
 Table 8. Effects on explicit positive and negative affect by users' DFS scores.
DFS – Social DFS – Regret DFS – Experiential
DFS – overall a
disconnectedness a anticipation a envy a
Positive Negative affect Positive Negative affect Positive Negative affect
Mixed-effects model (explicit affect) Positive affect b Negative affect b
affect b b affect b b affect b b

(Intercept) –0.20** –0.42** –0.19** –0.42** –0.19** –0.42** –0.19** –0.42**

FOMO a 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.08 –0.03 –0.03 –0.11 0.02
Condition c 0.39** 0.89** 0.39** 0.87** 0.37** 0.91** 0.39** 0.88**
Positive mood d 0.30** –0.05 0.32** –0.07 0.27** –0.06 0.30** –0.08
Negative mood d –0.04 0.18* –0.07 0.18** –0.02 0.24** –0.05 0.25**
FOMO x Condition –0.26* 0.48** –0.24* 0.39** –0.22* 0.38** –0.08 0.43**
Random Effects
Within-subjects variance .31 .22 .31 .22 .31 .22 .31 .22
Between-subjects variance .54 .48 .55 .48 .53 .51 .54 .50
Intraclass correlation coef. (ICC) .63 .68 .64 .68 .63 .70 .63 .69
R2Marginal .16 .31 .15 .30 .16 .27 .16 .28
R2Conditional .69 .78 .69 .78 .69 .78 .69 .78

Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative

Regression model (implicit affect) Positive words Negative words
words words words words words words
(Intercept) 0.37 0.61 0.36 0.55 0.35 0.51 0.41 0.65
FOMO a –0.03 –0.07 –0.02 –0.06 –0.03 –0.05 –0.04 –0.08
Condition b –0.67 –0.86+ –0.54 –0.50 –0.36 –0.63 –0.80 –1.40*
Positive mood c 0.01 –0.16* 0.00 –0.16* –0.00 –0.15* 0.00 –0.15*
Negative mood c –0.18+ 0.00 –0.18+ 0.01 –0.15 0.01 –0.16+ 0.00
FOMO x Condition 0.22 0.32* 0.20 0.22 0.11 0.23+ 0.23 0.43*
N 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244
R2 .02 .05 .02 .04 .02 .04 .02 .06

NOTE. – Mixed-effects model: Number of participants = 244, number of evaluation object per participant = 4, total N = 976. Significance levels: ‘+’ < .10, ‘*’ < .05, ‘**’ < .01. Positive and negative mood
(control) were assessed using PANAS asking participants how they feel right now before evaluating stimuli. Regression model: We measured dependent variables as the standardized sum of positive/negative
words for each participant across 32 word fragments. Responses coded 'positive,’ 'neutral,' or 'negative' words as evaluated by an independent sample (N = 20) of raters (Fleiss' Kappa = .442). a Top-row in the
table indicates the respective DFS (sub-) scales as the independent variable in the models. b Positive and negative moods were standardized & centered before analysis. c 0 = Control, 1 = Social posts. d
Independent continuous variables in the models were grand-mean-centered before analysis.

18
SD = 2.54) across all word fragments. In the
following analysis, we did not consider neutral words
(M = 6.82 SD = 2.73).
Results
Manipulation-Check
Participants were significantly more likely to
experience FOMO when seeing social posts vs.
control posts (Mcontrol = 1.92, Msocial = 5.44, p < .001,
d = 1.44).
Multilevel Regression Analysis
We submitted standardized dependent and grand-
mean-centered independent variables to the same
series of multilevel regression models as in Study 2a.
Our findings (upper section of Table 8) confirmed the
findings in Study 2a. Social content induced lower
positive (b = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.50; -0.02], p = .037)
and higher negative affect (b = 0.48, 95% CI [0.26;
0.71], p < .001) with increasing scores on the DFS
scale as compared to control content. These findings
were the same across all individual FOMO
components except for experiential envy. Though
there was a negative association between positive
affect and experiential envy for social content
compared to control content, this effect was not
statistically significant.
Word Fragmentation Task Results
Supplemental to our preregistered analyses, we
conducted eight linear regression analyses. Findings
for implicit affectivity mirrored results from explicit
affectivity analyses. Our results (lower section of
Table 8) indicated that participants who scored
higher on the DFS scale identified more negative
words in the social condition than in the control
condition (b = 0.33, 95% CI [0.02; 0.63], p = .037).
Though this effect was similar across all DFS sub-
scales the main driver of negative affect was
experiential envy (b = 0.43, 95% CI [0.13; 0.72], p =
.005). When comparing effect sizes for the
interaction term across multilevel models,
experiential envy (b = 0.43, p = .005) showed a more
potent standardized effect than social
disconnectedness (b = 0.22, p = .109) or regret
anticipation (b = 0.23, p = .081).
These findings aligned and partially replicated
Study 2a. The relationship between individuals' DFS
and FOMO-related affect is based on people’s
susceptibility to the three FOMO components. As
suggested previously, we showed that Instagram
content might threaten users’ subjective well-being
depending on their dispositional FOMO
susceptibility (Barry & Wong, 2020). We consider
our predictive validity testing for the DFS scale
successful.
General Discussion
The findings from explicit (self-reported) and
implicit (word fragmentation task) affect assessment
align with each other and partially replicated Study
2a. The relationship between individuals' tendency to
experience FOMO and FOMO-related affect is based
on complex cognitive experiences. In general, our
findings speak to the negative affective nature of the
FOMO experience in the context of social media. We
show that social media content may threaten users’
subjective well-being depending on their cognitive
disposition for FOMO, which has been suggested
previously (Barry & Wong, 2020). We consider these
negative emotions not necessarily adverse effects, as
some research found that consumers emotionally
bond with brands they encounter under fear (Dunn &
Hoegg, 2014). However, since fear appeals may
interfere with message processing (Rhodes, 2017),
marketers must be careful when using FOMO
appeals.
Our findings have two important implications.
First, they speak to the predictive validity of our
developed measurement instrument because
increases in DFS scores were associated with
negative affect when social information was received
via social media. Second, the main driver for the
(implicit) affective outcomes was experiential envy
and the other cognitive components to a lesser
degree. We show that a detailed and fine-grained
view of FOMO as a multidimensional concept is
essential.
General Discussion
Our goal was to develop a measurement
instrument that captures dispositional FOMO
susceptibility. Based on multiple qualitative and
quantitative samples, we found that dispositional
FOMO is a combination of individuals’ (1) chronic
feelings of social disconnectedness as a function of
their fear of being excluded and perceived threats to
being included, (2) their disposition to anticipate
regret and overthink their decisions, and (3) their
susceptibility to feelings of envy towards experiences
19
others are having and from which they are absent.
The developed DFS scale showed reliable and
internally valid properties and was a (malicious envy) goal pursuit and, consequently,
methodologically and theoretically robust measure.
Thus, this work answered a call by Tandon et al.
(2021), who proposed the need for a more complex
FOMO measure to aid the phenomenon’s conceptual
evolution. Although prior work has suggested that
FOMO is strongly related to but conceptually
different from feelings of social exclusion,
anticipated regret, and envy (Hayran et al., 2020), we
show that people who are more susceptible to these
cognitions are more likely to experience FOMO.
We captured an interpersonal component of
wanting to belong. We identified the sub-scale of
social disconnectedness—the fear of social exclusion
and threats to social inclusion comprised this factor.
Based on our correlational findings, the fear of
exclusion sub-scale mainly represented low self-
esteem, introversion, social anxiety, and the
importance of social groups. Threats to inclusion
mirrored social comparison processes. Our results are
consistent with other work in this area (e.g., Lai et al.,
2016). We propose that individuals who score high in
the DFS are more susceptible to thoughts of being
excluded from their peer groups. These ostracism and
social exclusion feelings may affect consumer
behavior, such as brand choice (Su et al., 2016). In
other words, high-DFS consumers might switch
brands towards popular brands to uphold their
inclusionary status with friends and peers who
endorse them. On the other side, the feeling of social
exclusion also leads to financial risk-taking (Duclos
et al., 2012). Therefore, FOMO might nudge
consumers toward brands even though these
purchases pose a substantial financial risk, evidenced
by the overprized and predatory FYRE Festival
promotions (Poulsen, 2019).
Furthermore, high-DFS individuals are more
likely to perceive their peer group to have superior
experiences, better lives, and more opportunities.
This aspect of the cognitive disposition for FOMO is
represented by the experiential envy sub-scale, which
in our work was positively related to, for example,
social comparison orientation and fun-seeking. Prior
research provided similar findings (e.g., Rifkin et al.,
2015) showing the impact of becoming aware of
another attractive event while engaging socially: The
attractiveness of the missed event appreciates, and
the attractiveness of the current event deteriorates.
Both benign and malicious envy are relevant
emotions in consumer behavior as they motivate
process-focused (benign envy) or outcome-focused
consumer self-improvement (Salerno et al., 2019).
Additionally, high-DFS individuals may question
the decisions they make. As a result, they may
overthink, ruminate, and constantly fear having made
the wrong choice. The regret anticipation sub-scale
captures the concept of overthinking. This concept
was strongly tied to risk aversion, dissatisfaction with
psychological needs, and anxiety. Previous studies
have linked FOMO to anticipated regrets (e.g.,
Hodkinson, 2019). When consumers expect regret in
purchase decisions, they are more likely to engage in
sales events and prefer well-known brands
(Simonson, 1992). Thus, since we show that high-
DFS consumers are more likely to engage in these
ways of thinking, FOMO might be an essential driver
for brand choice and susceptibility for sales events.
Consequently, here we offer researchers in the
future a measurement tool to investigate and explore
the personality traits furthering the experience of
FOMO in more detail. We found that the DFS sub-
scales were highly intercorrelated and often worked
in concert. However, we provide initial exploratory
evidence that our sub-scales differentially affected
post-decision outcomes in some contexts. We invite
future research to use our scale to detangle the
complexity of the FOMO experience.
Testing the predictive validity of our scale, we
additionally showed that participants’ DFS scores
anticipate adverse affective outcomes in the context
of social media. Therefore, this current work's
additional vital contribution concerns the
relationship between dispositional FOMO and
affectivity. For instance, we robustly show that
Instagram content leads to more negative and less
positive affect after viewing social content than non-
social content for high-DFS individuals vs. low-DFS
individuals. We found these effects on affectivity for
explicitly expressed affect (self-report) and implicitly
expressed (word fragmentation task) positive and
negative affect.
Limitations and Future Research
This present research does come with several
limitations. First, concerning the scale development
process, we were limited to items based on
qualitative research, including interviewees from
[omitted for blind review). Future work should
conduct cross-cultural research to validate the DFS
20
scale within different cultural environments. Because
these constructs should reflect relatively stable
individual differences, we invite future research to
establish the temporal validity of the developed scale
(DeVellis, 2017).
Additionally, although we offer a more
sophisticated explication of the FOMO concept as a
trait than other research, we only provide weak
evidence for the DFS sub-scales potentially differing
roles. Therefore, future research should design
studies specifically to explore the various
predispositions comprising FOMO as antecedents for
when one is to experience FOMO. Though we
provide the much-needed measurement instrument
that allows for a context-independent and
multifaceted exploration of FOMO in the future, it
was out of the scope of this current research to
robustly test these mechanisms in detail. Research
should design studies to establish boundary
conditions.
Conclusion
In summary, we developed a scale representing
individuals’ personality-based cognitive
predisposition for FOMO independent of the context
of this research. We examined the impact of
Instagram content on emotional outcomes dependent
on individuals’ dispositional FOMO susceptibility
scores. Thus, we offer an evolved explication of the
FOMO phenomenon. Comprised of social
disconnectedness, regret anticipation, and
experiential envy, the dispositional FOMO
susceptibility as a personality trait might be an
essential driver of affectivity. By identifying the
dispositions leading to negative-affective FOMO
experiences, we offer a novel perspective on FOMO
that may help investigate protective behaviors for
people who suffer from FOMO in the future.
Offering a multidimensional, context-independent
personality trait measure allows future research to
detangle the different drivers of FOMO in a diverse
set of contexts. Thus, we invite scholars to conduct
fine-grained explorations of the phenomenon to aid
its conceptual evolution.
Data Availability and Deposition
Quantitative data, analyses, and materials:
1. www.bit.ly/3JwstHC (Study 1)
2. www.bit.ly/3vaxD70 (Study 1)
3. www.bit.ly/38yVFkg (Study 1)
4. www.bit.ly/3Kz7V2x (Study 1)
5. www.bit.ly/37BzSIi (Study 1)
6. www.bit.ly/3v9Fz8t (Study 2a)
7. www.bit.ly/37hDC1E (Study 2b)
We partially preregistered this research:
1. www.bit.ly/3dpAr7h (Study 1)
2. www.bit.ly/3sJku1g (Study 2a)
3. www.bit.ly/3xfRWjx (Study 2b)
Disclosure Statement
The authors have no financial or non-financial
conflict to disclose.
Acknowledgment
We thank Drs. Esther Thorson, David Ewoldsen,
Patricia Huddleston, and Ashley Sanders-Jackson for
their valuable contributions and mentorship in this
research project. We acknowledge the Advertising
and Public Relations Department at Michigan State
University for providing a collegial work
environment. We are grateful for the vital work of the
dean of the Advertising and Public Relations
Department at Michigan State University, Dr. Teresa
Mastin. She works tirelessly to create a safe and
inclusive academic environment that promotes open
dialogues and judgment-free exchanges.
21
 Reference

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(1), 33.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v14i1.9554

Allen, M. S., Iliescu, D., & Greiff, S. (2022). Single Item Measures in Psychological Science. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699

Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists. SAGE Publications.
Barry, C. T., & Wong, M. Y. (2020). Fear of missing out (FoMO): A generational phenomenon or an
individual difference? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(12), 2952-2966.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520945394

Baumeister, R. F., Brewer, L. E., Tice, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (2007). Thwarting the Need to Belong:
Understanding the Interpersonal and Inner Effects of Social Exclusion. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 1(1), 506-520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00020.x

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item versus Single-Item
Measures of the Same Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175-184.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175

Brakus, J. J. k., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It
Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52-68.
www.jstor.org/stable/20619022

Bright, L. F., & Logan, K. (2018). Is my fear of missing out (FOMO) causing fatigue? Advertising, social
media fatigue, and the implications for consumers and brands. Internet Research, 28(5), 1213-1227.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-03-2017-0112

Budnick, C. J., Rogers, A. P., & Barber, L. K. (2020). The fear of missing out at work: Examining costs and
benefits to employee health and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106161

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to
impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67(2), 319-333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319

Chang, H. H., & Tuan Pham, M. (2013). Affect as a Decision-Making System of the Present. Journal of
Consumer Research, 40(1), 42-63. https://doi.org/10.1086/668644

Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. JMR,
Journal of Marketing Research (pre-1986), 16(000001), 64.

22
Clor-Proell, S., Guggenmos, R. D., & Rennekamp, K. M. (2019). Mobile Devices and Investment News
Apps: The Effects of Information Release, Push Notification, and the Fear of Missing Out. The
Accounting Review, 0000-0000. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2991262

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Second ed.). Erlbaum.

D’Amico, A., & Scrima, F. (2016). The Italian Validation of Singelis’s Self-Construal Scale (SCS): a Short
10-Item Version Shows Improved Psychometric Properties. Current Psychology, 35(1), 159-168.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9378-y

DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale Development - Theory and Application. SAGE Publications Inc.

Djafarova, E., & Bowes, T. (2021). ‘Instagram made Me buy it’: Generation Z impulse purchases in fashion
industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 102345.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102345

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(4), 524-538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022119839145

Duclos, R., Wan, E. W., & Jiang, Y. (2012). Show Me the Honey! Effects of Social Exclusion on Financial
Risk-Taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 122-135. https://doi.org/10.1086/668900
Dunn, L., & Hoegg, J. (2014). The Impact of Fear on Emotional Brand Attachment. Journal of Consumer
Research, 41(1), 152-168. https://doi.org/10.1086/675377

Faelens, L., Hoorelbeke, K., Cambier, R., van Put, J., Van de Putte, E., De Raedt, R., & Koster, E. H. W.
(2021). The relationship between Instagram use and indicators of mental health: A systematic
review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, 100121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100121

Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied
psycholoy: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 291-314.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00583.x

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale
of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 129-142.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.129

Good, M. C. (2019). Fear of missing out appeals: You can’t always get what you want [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. New Mexico State University.

Good, M. C., & Hyman, M. R. (2020). ‘Fear of missing out’: antecedents and influence on purchase
likelihood. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 28(3), 330-341.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2020.1766359
23
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of
the Septo-Hippocampal System (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Hanlon, S. M. (2016). Managing my fear of missing out. Science, 353(6306), 1458.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.353.6306.1458

Hardin, T., & Bischof, B. (2020). The Fear of Missing Out NASDAQ. Retrieved February, 4 from
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-fear-of-missing-out-2020-06-10

Haws, K. L., Sample, K. L., & Hulland, J. (accepted). Scale use and abuse: Towards best practices in the
deployment of scales. Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1320

Hayran, C., Anik, L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2020). A threat to loyalty: Fear of missing out (FOMO) leads to
reluctance to repeat current experiences. PLOS ONE, 15(4), e0232318.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232318

Hodkinson, C. (2019). ‘Fear of Missing Out’ (FOMO) marketing appeals: A conceptual model. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 25(1), 65-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1234504

Holte, A. J., Fisher, W. N., & Ferraro, F. R. (2022). Afraid of Social Exclusion: Fear of Missing Out
Predicts Cyberball-Induced Ostracism. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-022-00251-9

Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M., & Kuehnl, C. (2015). New Product Design: Concept, Measurement, and
Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 79(3), 41-56. www.jstor.org/stable/43784405

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2),
179-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447

Johnston, M. M., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research
and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 280-296.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.04.003

Kim, H. J., Hong, J. S., Hwang, H. C., Kim, S. M., & Han, D. H. (2020). Comparison of Psychological
Status and Investment Style Between Bitcoin Investors and Share Investors. Frontiers in Psychology,
11(3230). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.502295

Kline, R. B. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Y. Petscher, C. Schatschneider, & D.
L. Compton (Eds.), Applied quantitative analysis education and the social sciences (pp. 171–207).
Routledge.

Lai, C., Altavilla, D., Ronconi, A., & Aceto, P. (2016). Fear of missing out (FOMO) is associated with
activation of the right middle temporal gyrus during inclusion social cue. Computers in Human
Behavior, 61, 516-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.072

Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2014). Dispositional Envy Revisited: Unraveling the Motivational Dynamics of
Benign and Malicious Envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 284-294.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214564959

24
Mandel, N. (2003). Shifting Selves and Decision Making: The Effects of Self-Construal Priming on
Consumer Risk-Taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 30-40.
https://doi.org/10.1086/374700

Mandrik, C. A., & Bao, Y. (2004, October 7-10, 2004). Exploring the Concept and Measurement of General
Risk Aversion. Advances in Consumer Research, Portland, Oregon.

Milyavskaya, M., Saffran, M., Hope, N., & Koestner, R. (2018). Fear of missing out: prevalence, dynamics,
and consequences of experiencing FOMO. Motivation and Emotion, 42(5), 725-737.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9683-5

Moschis, G. P. (1976). Social Comparison and Informal Group Influence. Journal of Marketing Research,
13(3), 237-244. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150733

Neumann, D. (2020). Fear of Missing Out. In J. van den Bulck (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of
Media Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0185

Neumann, D., Huddleston, P. T., & Behe, B. K. (2021). Fear of missing out as motivation to process
information: How differences in Instagram use affect attitude formation online. . New Media &
Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211011834

Popovac, M., & Hadlington, L. (2020). Exploring the role of egocentrism and fear of missing out on online
risk behaviours among adolescents in South Africa. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth,
25(1), 276-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1617171

Poulsen, V. (2019). Pics or it didn’t happen: FOMO culture and Fyre Festival. Retrieved March 7 from
https://www.adolescent.net/a/pics-or-it-didnt-happen-fomo-culture-and-fyre-festival

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

Quelette, C. (2019). FOMO Statistics You Need to Grow Your Business. TrustPulse. Retrieved October 20
from https://trustpulse.com/fomo-statistics/

Reagle, J. (2015). Following the Joneses: FOMO and conspicuous sociality. First Monday, 20(10).
https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i10.6064

Reer, F., Tang, W. Y., & Quandt, T. (2019). Psychosocial well-being and social media engagement: The
mediating roles of social comparison orientation and fear of missing out. New Media & Society,
21(7), 1486-1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818823719

Rhodes, N. (2017). Fear-Appeal Messages: Message Processing and Affective Attitudes. Communication
Research, 44(7), 952-975. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214565916

Rifkin, J. R., Chan, C., & Kahn, B. (2015, October 1-4, 2015). Fomo: How the Fear of Missing Out Leads to
Missing Out. Advances in Consumer Research, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Riordan, B. C., Flett, J. A. M., Cody, L. M., Conner, T. S., & Scarf, D. (2019). The Fear of Missing Out
(FoMO) and event-specific drinking: The relationship between FoMO and alcohol use, harm, and

25
 breath alcohol concentration during orientation week. Current Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00318-6

Roese, N. J., & Summerville, A. (2005). What We Regret Most... and Why. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31(9), 1273-1285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205274693

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. Basic.

Rozgonjuk, D., Sindermann, C., Elhai, J. D., & Montag, C. (2021). Individual differences in Fear of Missing
Out (FoMO): Age, gender, and the Big Five personality trait domains, facets, and items. Personality
and Individual Differences, 171, 110546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110546

Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1998). Personality and Cognitive Processing of Affective Information.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(2), 200-213.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298242008

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation,
development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Rye, M. S., Cahoon, M. B., Ali, R. S., & Daftary, T. (2008). Development and Validation of the
Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(3), 261-
269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701884996

Salerno, A., Laran, J., & Janiszewski, C. (2019). The Bad Can Be Good: When Benign and Malicious Envy
Motivate Goal Pursuit. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(2), 388-405.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy077

Simonson, I. (1992). The Influence of Anticipating Regret and Responsibility on Purchase Decisions.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1086/209290
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the Slate-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). ConsuIting Psychologists
Press.

Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 191-193. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
4679(197204)28:2<191::AID-JCLP2270280220>3.0.CO;2-G

Su, L., Jiang, Y., Chen, Z., & DeWall, C. N. (2016). Social Exclusion and Consumer Switching Behavior: A
Control Restoration Mechanism. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 99-117.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw075

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5 ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Talbot, K. (2019). What the Fyre Festival Documentaries Reveal About Millennials. Retrieved March 7
from https://www.forbes.com/sites/katetalbot/2019/01/21/what-the-fyre-festival-documentaries-
revealed-about-millennials/

Tandon, A., Dhir, A., Almugren, I., AlNemer Ghada, N., & Mäntymäki, M. (2021). Fear of missing out
(FoMO) among social media users: a systematic literature review, synthesis and framework for
future research. Internet Research, online. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-11-2019-0455

26
Tsiros, M., & Mittal, V. (2000). Regret: A Model of Its Antecedents and Consequences in Consumer
Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 401-417. https://doi.org/10.1086/209571

Walchli, S. B., & Landman, J. (2003). Effects of counterfactual thought on postpurchase consumer affect.
Psychology & Marketing, 20(1), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10057

Wang, P., Wang, X., Nie, J., Zeng, P., Liu, K., Wang, J., Guo, J., & Lei, L. (2019). Envy and problematic
smartphone use: The mediating role of FOMO and the moderating role of student-student
relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 136-142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.013

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive
and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-
1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Weiss, L., & Johar, G. V. (2016). Products as Self-Evaluation Standards: When Owned and Unowned
Products Have Opposite Effects on Self-Judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 915-930.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv097

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.09.058

Wu, L., & Dodoo, N. A. (2020). Being Accepted or Ostracized: How Social Experience Influences
Consumer Responses to Advertisements with Different Regulatory Focus. Journal of Advertising,
49(3), 234-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1743217

Xie, X., Wang, Y., Wang, P., Zhao, F., & Lei, L. (2018). Basic psychological needs satisfaction and fear of
missing out: Friend support moderated the mediating effect of individual relative deprivation.
Psychiatry Research, 268, 223-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.07.025

Zhang, Z., Jiménez, F. R., & Cicala, J. E. (2020). Fear Of Missing Out Scale: A self-concept perspective.
Psychology & Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21406

27