Received: 15 January 2020 | Revised: 29 June 2020 | Accepted: 18 August 2020

DOI: 10.1002/mar.21406

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Fear Of Missing Out Scale: A self‐concept perspective

Zhuofan Zhang1 | Fernando R. Jiménez2 | John E. Cicala3

1
College of Business Administration, Texas
A&M University ‐ Kingsville, Kingsville, Abstract
Texas, USA
2 Fear of missing out (FOMO) is an emerging topic in consumer psychology. However,
College of Business Administration, The
University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, the theoretical foundations of FOMO are underdeveloped and extant FOMO scales
Texas, USA
confine the construct to the context of social media. Without a theoretical foun-
3
College of Business, The University of North
Alabama, Florence, Alabama, USA dation and a new FOMO scale, the future development of research on this promising
phenomenon is limited. This article provides a new conceptualization of FOMO and
Correspondence
Zhuofan Zhang, College of Business a new FOMO scale. Using self‐concept theory, the authors propose that FOMO is an
Administration, Texas A&M emotional response to perceived psychological threats to one's self‐concept.
University ‐ Kingsville, Kingsville,
TX, 78363, USA. Because the self‐concept involves a private and a public self, FOMO involves two
Email: [email protected] dimensions: a personal FOMO and a social FOMO. Accordingly, a new scale was
developed. The results of four studies support the validity and reliability of the
two‐dimensional scale. This new conceptualization and scale will enable consumer
researchers to examine FOMO in a broader set of contexts, test the relationship
between FOMO and related constructs, and develop a nomological network around
the construct.

KEYWORDS

COVID‐19, fear of missing out, FOMO, scale development, scarcity, self‐concept

1 | INTRODUCTION consumer behavior is in its infancy. One factor that could be

partially responsible for the limited FOMO research is the lack of a
An increasingly significant concept evolving in consumer behavior, viable psychometric scale to measure the construct in offline
especially in the context of social media marketing, is fear of missing contexts. Currently, FOMO scales are context‐bound. For ex-
out (FOMO). In such context, FOMO refers to the anxiety social ample, one item from a widely cited scale (Przybylski et al., 2013)
media users feel when they perceive their peers are doing, experi- reads, “When I have a good time it is important for me to share the
encing, or possessing something rewarding while they are not (Gil, details online (e.g., updating status).” A more recent scale (Abel,
Chamarro, & Oberst, 2015; Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Buff, & Burr, 2016) offers, “Assume you are unable to check social
Gladwell, 2013). It is a feeling of being “left behind” (Salem, 2015), media when you want to. Generally, how frequently do you feel
wherein the frequency and extent of social media engagement, as frightened?” Within the boundaries of a social media context,
well as the individual desire to remain informed and connected with established scales have more than served their purpose well.
other people's experiences, intensifies (Przybylski et al., 2013). However, a context‐free FOMO scale could become a useful tool
Interestingly, FOMO has also been found to be related to offline to conduct overdue research related to the role of FOMO in a
behavior, including smartphone overuse (Elhai, Levine, Dvorak, & broader marketing context.
Hall, 2016), substance abuse (Riordan, Flett, Hunter, Scarf, & Therefore, the purpose of this study is twofold. First, we propose
Conner, 2015), and diminished sleep (Milyavskaya, Saffran, a theoretical foundation for FOMO. Following a self‐concept ap-
Hope, & Koestner, 2018). proach, we conceptualize that consumers experience FOMO when
Nonetheless, despite the evidence that FOMO permeates into they perceive that missing an experience poses a psychological threat
offline behavior, academic research examining the conceptual to the private and/or the public self. The private self refers to the
background of FOMO and its empirical relationship with offline evaluation of oneself while the public self‐deals with one's

Psychology & Marketing. 2020;1–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC | 1

2 | ZHANG ET AL.

evaluations about how others view oneself. Currently, FOMO has options from which to choose has increased. When consumers feel
only been associated with the fear resulting from threats to incapable of exhausting all those options, they become fearful about
the public self. For example, Przybylski et al. (2013) define FOMO as, the risk of possibly missing desirable opportunities. The FOMO in-
“a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding creases consumers' urgency to exhaust all available offerings in the
experiences from which one is absent” (p. 1841). However, the fear market, especially those that are scarce. Thus, FOMO could be a
associated with missing experiences associated with the private self powerful consumer motivation (Herman, 2019). Herman's contribu-
has been neglected. For example, feeling FOMO on an experience tion is conceptual.
related to one's personal, private dreams. We extend the theoretical Psychology researchers pioneered empirical research on FOMO,
conceptualization of FOMO to include a personal dimension. in the context of social media. Przybylski et al. (2013) conducted the
And second, we develop a psychometric scale to measure FOMO. first empirical study to identify the construct's motivational, emo-
Consistent with our theoretical approach, the proposed FOMO tional, and behavioral correlates. They defined and measured FOMO
scale includes two dimensions: a personal and a social FOMO dimen- as a pervasive feeling that others are having better experiences
sion. We followed scale development procedures recommended by than oneself. The authors drew from self‐determination theory (SDT;
Churchill (1979), Gerbing and Anderson (1988), and Mowen and Voss Deci & Ryan, 1985), which asserts an individual's psychological well‐
(2008). The results of four separate studies, with a total of over 1000 being emanates from the satisfaction of three basic psychological
responses, supported the validity and reliability of the newly developed needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The authors theo-
scale. Study 1 involved item generation and initial analysis. In Study 2, rized individuals with low levels of need satisfaction experienced
the scale items were purified. As a result, a nine‐item two‐dimensional psychological discomfort (i.e., FOMO) and, consequently, attempted
FOMO scale was developed. In Study 3, the scale was tested for con- to find ways to regulate their psychological health (e.g., social media
vergent and discriminant validity. Finally, in Study 4, the nomological use). Przybylski et al. (2013) found that FOMO mediates the effect of
validity of the scale was assessed. low levels of psychological well‐being on social media use. The
In the remainder of the article, we review the extant literature authors argued that FOMO motivates individuals to explore social
on FOMO and develop our bi‐dimensional conceptualization of media as a means to find ways to satisfy their needs.
the construct. Following, we describe four studies related to our scale Other relevant studies showed that correlates of FOMO extend
development procedure. We end with the description of a pre- beyond the social media context. FOMO is relatable to smartphone
liminary, but fertile, research agenda that substantiates the potential overuse (Elhai et al., 2016), brain damage (Dossey, 2014), and sub-
contribution of the proposed conceptualization. stance abuse (Riordan et al., 2015). Hogan (2015) showed that
FOMO is related to lower life satisfaction, increased detachment
from friends and family, increased feelings of loneliness, increased
2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND unfair judgment of others, paranoia, jealousy, and decreases in
concentration. FOMO has also been associated with a preference for
2.1 | Current conceptualization of FOMO scarce options (John, Melis, Read, Rossano, & Tomasello, 2018),
escalated stress and diminished sleep (Milyavskaya et al., 2018), and
In the popular press, FOMO was introduced to describe a social interdependent self‐construal (Dogan, 2019).
psyche in market economies, one in which consumers live in a Following Przybylski et al.'s (2013) conceptualization, re-
constant state of FOMO on experiences other people enjoy (e.g., searchers describe FOMO as an uneasy feeling that others may have
Hedges, 2014). According to media reports, FOMO is related to a better (i.e., rewarding or advantageous) “experiences” compared with
growing consumer trend toward experiential consumption and an oneself's experiences. FOMO is associated with a feeling of being
increase in social media usage. In 2018, a study by Expedia and the absent from desired experiences (social exclusion), or having a strong
Center for Generational Kinetics, reported that 74% of Americans desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing.
prioritize experiences over products or things. Consumers report Table 1 presents a list of frequently used definitions of FOMO. As the
increased spending on experiences such as TV streaming videos, live table shows, the existing literature depicts FOMO as the fear of
concerts, gaming, extreme sports, travel, and other leisure activities missing out on opportunities other people enjoy; the result of one's
(Morgan, 2015; The Harris Group, 2015). Social media exacer- comparison to others. For this reason, FOMO research has thrived in
bates FOMO by allowing consumers to see the wide range of ex- the social media context where consumers are constantly comparing
periences that other people enjoy. Consumers constantly check themselves to others (Buglass, Binder, Betts, & Underwood, 2017; Gil
social media to avoid being “left out” of a potentially rewarding et al., 2015). Within the boundaries of a social media context, current
experience. Marketing practitioners have adopted FOMO market- FOMO conceptualizations have more than served their purpose well.
ing appeals to allure consumers yearning for unique experiences However, we propose to broaden the conceptualization of FOMO.
(Hodkinson, 2019). Specifically, we posit that consumers not only fear missing out on
In academia, FOMO was first introduced by Herman (2000) as a experiences other people enjoy (social FOMO), but also fear
potential explanation for the success of limited‐edition brands. He missing out on experiences they had wished for themselves
argued that in many market economies the number of product (personal FOMO).
ZHANG ET AL. | 3

T A B L E 1 Previous definitions of fear of missing out

Author (year) Definition

JWT Intelligence in Przybylski The uneasy and sometimes all‐consuming feeling that you are missing out, that your peers are doing
et al. (2013) something, are in the know about, or in possession of more of something better than you.

Przybylski et al. (2013) A phenomenon characterized by the desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing and a
pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent.

Gil et al. (2015) Fear of missing out is a concept that aims to describe the feeling that something is happening on social
networks and you are not part of it.

Riordan et al. (2015) The uneasy and often all‐consuming sense that “friends or others are having rewarding experiences from
which one is absent.”

Salem (2015) A kind of anxiety, a sense that you will be inadequate or left behind if you don't react.

Abel et al. (2016) FOMO is comprised of irritability, anxiety, and feelings of inadequacy, with these feelings tending to
worsen when an individual logs on in to social media websites.

Herman (2019) A fearful attitude towards the possibility of failing to exhaust available opportunities and missing the
expected joy associated with succeeding in doing so. Simply put, it is concentration of attention on the
empty half of the glass.

2.2 | Proposed conceptualization die‐hard Guns N' Roses fan may feel FOMO on a limited edition of a
new recording by the band or the opportunity to see them perform in
Fear is an emotion resulting from the perception of threats to person. Or take the feelings of a life‐long Washingtonian fan who
one's well‐being (Gill & Burrow, 2018). Threats involve negative does not have access to watch the Washington Nationals play against
outcomes that the individual wants to terminate, escape from, or the Astros in the 2019 edition of the World Series. The same feeling
avoid (Gray, 1971). Fear can be automatically triggered by a may occur when a broke 41‐year‐old reflects on her dream of
threatening condition to the physical existence or biological becoming a homeowner by age 50.
integrity of the individual (Saad, 2013). For example, fear of a The self‐concept can be divided in a private and a public self. The
snake. However, fear can also be activated by psychological private self refers to a person's evaluation of her or his own thoughts,
threats to one's well‐being. For example, fear of losing one's feelings, behaviors, or appearance (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975).
freedom (Clee & Wicklund, 1980), rejection and abandonment The private self is often assessed while reflecting, fantasizing, day-
(Thomson, Whelan, & Johnson, 2011), and negative evaluations dreaming, or mulling over oneself. It includes unobservable behaviors
(Mohan, Voss, & Jiménez, 2017), among others. by others. Private thoughts are often kept to the self or to an
We propose that FOMO is activated by psychological threats to intimate group of people (Tedeschi, 1986). The public self refers to
the self‐concept. The self‐concept refers to the “totality of the in- how a person believes that others perceive her or him (Fenigstein
dividual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an et al., 1975). Individuals manage their public self, depending on how
object” (Rosenberg, 1979, p. 7). It involves an individual thinking they want to be perceived by others.
about who or what she or he is, and what she or he wants to become FOMO can result from threats to the public and/or private self.
(Mowen & Minor, 2006). Individuals tend to behave in a way that is As discussed in the previous section, most of the articles dealing with
consistent with their self‐concept (Rosenberg, 1979). The self has FOMO deal with experiences that are related to the public self. For
been reported to be “inter‐dependent with the surrounding context, example, consumers report FOMO when they do not have access to
and it is the 'other' or the 'self‐in‐relation‐to‐other' that is focal social media. They cannot see what other people are saying about
in individual experience” (Chang, 2010, p. 400). Inconsistencies events, about others, or about them (Przybylski et al., 2013). Missing
between self‐concept and behavior can lead to psychological dis- out on social media threads hinders consumers' ability to manage
comfort and can threaten the self‐concept. their public self.
One of the first applications of self‐concept in marketing was in This study extends the current view on FOMO by arguing that
the realm of consumer behavior, as consumers were believed to consumers may also feel FOMO on an experience related to the
purchase certain products as a way to define who they were in re- private self. A threat to the private self occurs when an individual
lation to others (Reed, 2002). Missing out on consumption experi- misses a consumption experience that can enhance or maintain their
ences, therefore, can become a threat to consumers' self‐concept. private self‐identity. Throughout life, individuals tend to compare
Consumers tend to acquire and use goods and services to maintain or what they believe they are to what they thought they would be
enhance their self‐concept (Sirgy, 1982). Consumers may perceive (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). People often develop images of their
missing out on consumption experiences to be inconsistent with their future ideal self, dream about unrealized accomplishments, and cre-
self‐concept. For example, a consumer that identifies herself as a ate personal bucket lists of desired lifetime experiences (Sirgy, 1982).
4 | ZHANG ET AL.

Accordingly, individuals constantly set, monitor, and self‐evaluate dimensions and the higher‐order construct must be at the same level
their private goals (Whitbourne, 1986). of abstraction. Second, any antecedent or consequence associated
Theoretically, the private and public self can overlap. An in- with the higher‐order construct should also be associated with the
dividual could set private goals (e.g., a bucket list) consistent with a dimensions. And third, the dimensions should be temporally coin-
desired public image. An individual's public image could potentially cident with the higher‐order construct.
be the same as the individual's own perceived identity. However, it is We posit that FOMO meets these three specific criteria. First, a
also possible for individuals to manage and compartmentalize their review of theories of the self‐concept by Tedeschi (1986, p. 5)
self in at least private and public (Fenigstein et al., 1975). For ex- pointedly describes the theorized relationship between the private
ample, to manage the public self, a new employee may start drinking and public self. The author states that self‐conceptualizations involve
Starbucks coffee to fit in the new company cohort, even when the social comparisons and reflective appraisals. These appraisals occur
employee self‐identifies more with local coffee shops. In a workday at the same level of abstraction. Second, the public and private self
morning, the new employee may experience FOMO on Starbucks interact, are mutually dependent, and jointly define the self‐concept.
coffee for public, rather than private, reasons. Because the private And third, private and public evaluations can occur simultaneously in
and the public self can differ, it is important to capture both an instantaneous feedback loop including perceptions of one's own
dimensions. Based on this theorizing, we define FOMO in the behavior and perceptions of others.
following section. Since the private and public self are different but interrelated
components of self‐conceptualization, the same relationship is the-
orized among FOMO dimensions. Specifically, personal and social
2.3 | FOMO: Definition and dimensionality FOMO are described at the same level of abstraction than FOMO.
Personal and social FOMO share antecedents and consequences
We propose that FOMO is an emotional response to missing an ex- with the higher‐order FOMO construct. And finally, when any of
perience that is related to the private or publicself. We define FOMO the dimensions manifest, FOMO manifests. Thus, we propose
as a fear of missing an experience that can help an individual main- that FOMO is a bidimensional construct.
tain or enhance her/his private and/or social self. FOMO involves a
feeling that missing out on something will make one left behind,
personally and/or socially. 3 | S C A L E D EV EL O P M EN T
We propose that FOMO is composed of two dimensions: per-
sonal FOMO and social FOMO. Although personal FOMO is related Our proposed conceptualization of FOMO requires a new psycho-
to the private self and social FOMO is related to the public self, we metric measure for at least four reasons. First, some of the existing
opted for new labels to avoid confusion between self‐concept theory fear scales measure physiological reactions rather than psychological
and FOMO. Personal FOMO represents the degree of the FOMO on states. Physiological scales assess high levels of fear through phy-
experiences associated with the private self. Social FOMO involves siological reactions such as increased alertness, visual focus on the
the degree of FOMO on experiences that others are enjoying. object, increased heart rate and blood pressure, and others (Whitley,
Following Mowen and Voss' (2008) recommendations for the 1992). These measures, however, do not assess the psychological
development of multidimensional scales, a researcher must define dimensions of FOMO. Second, fear is activated by an identifiable
the relationship between the construct and its dimensions a priori. source (Whitley, 1992). For this reason, fear scales typically identify
Law, Wong, and Mobley (1998) identify three models of multi- specific sources (e.g., fear of negative evaluations). These source‐
dimensional constructs: the latent model, the aggregate model, and specific fear scales are less adaptable across contexts. Third, extant
the profile model. The latent model specifies that the higher‐order FOMO scales are bounded within the context of social media (e.g.,
construct underlies the correlation of the dimensions. This model is Przybylski et al., 2013). Finally, current FOMO scales do not measure
analogous to a reflective measurement model. In an aggregate model, FOMO's dimensions.
the dimensions form a mathematical function of the higher‐order Without a measurement scale that truly captures the definition
construct. It is analogous to a formative model. The profile model of the construct, empirical research would be seriously impaired
holds that the set of dimensions define the higher‐level construct. In (Gilliam & Voss, 2013; Peter, 1981). Thus, based on our con-
a profile model, the dimensions are treated as independent con- ceptualization and definition of the construct, we continued the scale
structs. In this framework, we theorize that FOMO's dimensionality development process.
corresponds to an aggregate model because the higher‐order FOMO
is formed from its personal and social dimensions. The weights of the
dimensions could vary depending on the context. 4 | S T U D Y 1 : I T EM G EN ER A T I O N
Mowen and Voss (2008) further indicate that a researcher
should distinguish, a priori, “whether a construct is truly a dimension The goal of this study was to generate an initial pool of items for the
of a higher‐order construct” (p. 497), instead of an antecedent or a construct. To do so, 238 undergraduate students from a university
consequence. The authors specified three criteria. First, the in the Midwestern United States were recruited to answer an
ZHANG ET AL. | 5

open‐ended questionnaire, in exchange for course credit. Participants fatigue (Hair et al., 1998; Netemeyer et al., 2003). In the end, nine
were asked to report what comes to mind when they think about the items (five for the personal dimension and four for the social di-
“fear of missing out” and were asked to write about a situation in mension) were retained. Table 3 shows the EFA factor loadings for
which they experienced the feeling. Our definition of FOMO was not the final list of scale items.
provided to avoid demand artifacts and priming effects. The data supported the reliability of the two‐dimensional FOMO
The authors coded the responses from the undergraduate stu- scale. The final set of scale items in the personal FOMO dimension
dent participants into personal and social FOMO themes and gen- (Cronbach's α = 0.86), and the social FOMO dimension (Cronbach's
erated scale items. Careful attention was taken to safeguard
preservation of the meaning stated by each participant. Thirty‐two
items were developed. To ensure that the initial pool of items was T A B L E 2 Initial set of scale items
fully representative of the construct, a group of seven business 1. I feel sad about missing events/opportunities
doctoral students independently assessed how much each item re-
2. I feel curious about the information about events/opportunities
flected the dimensions of the construct (Netemeyer, Bearden, &
Sharma, 2003). Raters used a 5‐point Likert scale from 1 = “Not Re- 3. I feel anxious that I did not experience the event/opportunity

presentative at All” to 5 = “Extremely Representative.” Six items received 4. I feel I am disconnected with what is going on in life
scores below 3 and were excluded from the pool (Hair, Anderson, 5. I have a sense of uncertainty if I don't know what I missed out
Tatham, & Black, 1998). Participants constantly reported feeling
6. I am dissatisfied about current state of life after missing the
anxiety, sadness, and regret along with “fear of missing out.” Hence, opportunity
although we aim to measure fear, we also included scale items
7. I feel lost or don't know what to do if I miss the opportunity
referring to anxiety, sadness, and regret. Individuals often fail to
8. I feel motivated to make sure of catching up events/opportunities
distinguish or express closely related feelings (Bay & Algase, 1999).
next time
The remaining 26 items appear in Table 2. In the pool, items 1–16
were hypothesized to be related to personal FOMO, while items 9. I believe I am falling behind compared with others

17–26 were hypothesized to measure social FOMO. 10. I feel anxious because I know something important or fun must
have happened

11. I feel sad that I was not capable of participating in event due to
5 | S T U D Y 2: SC AL E PU R IF IC AT I O N constraints of other things

12. I fear that I don't have what everyone else has or I can't do what
In this study, the dimensionality of scale items was assessed with a others are able to do

new sample. Three hundred and ninety‐two undergraduate students 13. I feel regretful of missing the event/opportunity
from a large university in the Southwestern United States were re- 14. I try to convince myself the opportunity/event is not that
cruited to answer a questionnaire containing FOMO items, in ex- important
change for course credit. Participants rated items with a 7‐point
15. I can't stop thinking about what was going on in the event
Likert scale from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree.” The
16. I try to find out what I have missed
dimensionality was assessed via exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
We ran the EFA with common factor analysis, rather than with 17. I feel jealous of my friends who attended event

principal components analysis. Common factor analysis is employed 18. I think my social groups view me as unimportant (when I miss
when the objective is to identify latent dimensions, constructs, in the events/opportunities)

data set. Principal components is a data reduction technique used to 19. I am anxious about not joining my social groups for event
identify the minimum number of factors needed to explain the total 20. I think I am not welcomed by my social groups (when I miss events/
variance of a set of variables (Hair et al., 1998). Because we are opportunities)
interested in the theoretical investigation of FOMO as a latent
21. I think I do not fit in social groups (when I miss events/
variable and its latent dimensions, common factor analysis was opportunities)
chosen. The analysis showed a two‐factor solution (Factor 1, eigen-
22. I have a sense of loneliness when my friends attend events
value = 11.88; Factor 2, eigenvalue = 2.25; explained variance = without me
61.45%). The results supported the conceptualization of FOMO as a
23. I feel disconnected with my social groups (when I miss events/
two‐dimensional composite construct with a personal and a social opportunities)
dimension (Law et al., 1998).
24. I think I am excluded by my social groups (when I miss events/
For further purification of the scale, items with cross‐loadings opportunities)
(factor scores > .5 in both dimensions) were dropped one at a time
25. I feel ignored/forgotten by my social groups (when I miss events/
(Hair et al., 1998). Redundant, closely worded items were also opportunities)
dropped (Hair et al., 1998). Short scales with essential and concise
26. I keep thinking that my friends are having fun in the event
items are better than long scales, which often lead to respondent
6 | ZHANG ET AL.

α = 0.92) showed internal consistency reliability. Table 4 presents the T A B L E 4 Item‐to‐total correlations for scale items
detailed item‐to‐total correlations and Cronbach's αs of the two Items Item‐to‐total correlation Cronbach's α
dimensions.
Personal FOMO 0.86
The dimensionality of the scale was further tested via con-
P1 0.60
firmatory factor analysis (CFA). Two structural models were esti-
P2 0.63
mated and compared: a two‐factor versus a one‐factor model (Voss, P3 0.73
Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003). A total of 386 cases were included P4 0.69
in the analysis. Nine cases were excluded due to missing data in at P5 0.74
least one item. The results for the two‐factor structural model
Social FOMO 0.92
showed a good fit (χ2 = 44.66, degrees of freedom (df) = 25, p = 0.009;
S1 0.71
normed fit index (NFI) = 0.98, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.99, S2 0.80
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.987; root mean square error of S3 0.87
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.045; Browne and Cudeck, 1992; Hu & S4 0.87
Bentler, 1999; Schermelleh‐Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003).
Abbreviation: FOMO, fear of missing out.
Figure 1 shows the standardized regression weights for the item
loadings.
In the one‐factor model all scale items load onto FOMO. The scales, including the new FOMO scale and scales for related
one‐factor model showed poor model fit (χ2 = 527.166, df = 27, constructs.
p > 0.05; NFI = 0.76, CFI = 0.77, TLI = 0.69; RMSEA = 0.219). A χ2 Convergent validity was tested in four ways. First, a new CFA
difference test showed that the second‐order model had better fit was estimated modeling a two‐dimensional construct. All items
than the one‐factor model (Δχ2 = 482.51 [2 df]; p < 0.01). This result loaded into the expected dimension. The composite reliability
supports our conceptualization that the personal FOMO and a social (CR) for the construct and for each of the dimensions was above
FOMO are related, but distinct dimensions of FOMO. the recommended 0.80 threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
In sum, the results of Study 2 support the reliability and bidi- Overall CR for FOMO = 0.94; CR for personal FOMO = 0.86; CR
mensionality of the FOMO scale. for social FOMO = 0.92. Second, the average variance extracted
(AVE) for overall FOMO was 0.63, for personal FOMO was 0.56,
and for social FOMO was 0.73. All scores exceeded the 0.5 cri-
6 | S T U D Y 3: CO N V E R G E N T A N D terion recommended by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). The results sup-
DISCRIMIN ANT VAL IDITY port the convergence of the scale items into the dimensions of
the construct.
This study tested the convergent and discriminant validity of the Third, the relationship between the new FOMO scale and a
two‐dimensional FOMO scale. The test employed data from a social media usage scale was assessed. Previous research shows that
new sample of 236 student participants from a large university in FOMO is positively related to social media use (Przybylski et al.,
the Midwestern United States. Participants answered a battery of 2013) and social media engagement (Alt, 2015). Social media usage

T A B L E 3 EFA factor loadings for final set of FOMO scale items

Factors

Items 1 2 Mean SD

Personal FOMO dimension

P1 I feel anxious when I do not experience events/opportunities 0.82 4.28 1.65
P2 I believe I am falling behind compared with others when I miss events/opportunities 0.66 3.81 1.84
P3 I feel anxious because I know something important or fun must happen when I miss events opportunities 0.82 3.73 1.74
P4 I feel sad if I am not capable of participating in events due to constraints of other things 0.82 4.03 1.77
P5 I feel regretful of missing events/opportunities 0.83 3.85 1.74

Social FOMO dimension

S1 I think my social groups view me as unimportant when I miss events/opportunities 0.78 2.63 1.62
S2 I think I do not fit in social groups when I miss events/opportunities 0.94 2.73 1.68
S3 I think I am excluded by my social groups when I miss events/opportunities 0.94 2.61 1.6
S4 I feel ignored/forgotten by my social groups when I miss events/opportunities 0.88 2.70 1.66

Note: Factor 1, eigenvalue = 11.88; Factor 2, eigenvalue = 2.25; explained variance = 61.45%.
Abbreviations: EFA, exploratory factor analysis; FOMO, fear of missing out.
ZHANG ET AL. | 7

F I G U R E 1 Two‐factor model—Study 2.
FOMO, fear of missing out

was measured by a 5‐item scale using the following sentences: new information and stimuli, can be driven by the intrinsic need to
“I often check my friends' status on social media,” “I often check avoid boredom (Fowler, 1965) or by extrinsic environmental stimuli
social media to get information about events and information,” (Berlyne, 1967).
“I check social network sites to see what's going on at least once per Similar to FOMO, novelty‐seeking behavior is argued to emerge
day,” “I always use social media to get to know about the world,” from individuals' motivation to resolve incongruity between a current
and “I often use social media to connect with my friends and social state (perception) and an ideal state (expectation; Hebb, 1949).
groups.” Participants responded on a 7‐point Likert type scale Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence refers to the need
ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). to conform to the social group's expectations (Bearden, Netemeyer,
Two models were estimated and compared. Model 1 included the & Teel, 1989). Susceptible individuals constantly monitor what
hypothesized second‐order factor model with two first‐order factors individuals in the group are doing and mimic group behaviors. Con-
(i.e., personal and social dimensions) predicting social media usage. sumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence emerges from low
Model 2 estimated the two dimensions as independent constructs satisfaction for relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, FOMO should
predicting social media usage. Figure 2 shows the two competing be related to, but different from, novelty seeking and consumer
models. The results showed that Model 1 (two‐factor second‐order susceptibility to interpersonal influence.
model) fits the data well (χ2 = 107.78, df = 74; NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.98, Novelty seeking was measured using Manning, Bearden, and
TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.04). Model 2 (two‐construct model) had poor Madden (1995) consumer novelty‐seeking scale. Consumer suscept-
fit (χ2 = 514.76, df = 71; NFI = 0.72, CFI = 0.75, TLI = 0.68; RMSEA = ibility to interpersonal influences was measured with five items taken
0.16). A χ difference test showed that Model 1 fits the data better
2
from Bearden et al. (1989). Scales were measured with a 7‐point
than Model 2 (Δχ2 = 406.98, df = 3, p < 0.01). Likert‐style scale. The data was collected in the same questionnaire
The discriminant validity of the FOMO scale was assessed with used to assess convergent validity (N = 236).
two related but different constructs: novelty seeking and consumer The results of a CFA showed that the AVE of FOMO was 0.63
susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Novelty seeking is defined (0.55 for the personal dimension and 0.73 for social dimension), the
as “an emotional‐motivation state facilitating the search for stimu- AVE of novelty seeking was 0.62, and the AVE of consumer sus-
lation occasioned by novelty, complexity, uncertainty, or conflict, ir- ceptibility to interpersonal influence was 0.59. All AVE scores were
respective of specific questions or problem” (Peterson & above the recommended 0.50 criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Seligman, 2004). Novelty seeking behaviors, such as searching for Construct AVEs were higher than the squared correlation between
8 | ZHANG ET AL.

F I G U R E 2 Competing models for convergent validity test—Study 3. CFI, comparative fit index; df, degree of freedom; FOMO, fear of missing
out; NFI, normed fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index
ZHANG ET AL. | 9

FOMO and novelty seeking (0.04), and between FOMO and con- boss for permission, but she denied. You tried to see if someone
sumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence (0.07). The results could cover for you or do something, but nothing would work. Your
provide support for the discriminant validity of the FOMO scale job is very important right now, you need it. You cannot quit. It seems
(Voorhees, Brady, Calantone, & Ramirez, 2016). Table 5 summarizes that you will miss the concert.
the results of the discriminant validity tests. Table 6 shows the Finally, participants answered measures of perceived scarcity,
correlations among the constructs in Study 3. FOMO, and WTP. Consistent with previous studies (Eisend, 2008;
Jang et al., 2015), perceived scarcity was measured by adapting a
single‐item “How available is VIP access to this concert?” Participants
7 | S T U D Y 4: NO M O L O G I C A L V A L I D I T Y answered with a 7‐point scale with endpoints “Very restricted avail-
ability” to “Widely available.” FOMO was measured with our proposed
The purpose of this study is to assess whether FOMO fits into an nine‐item scale. Scale items were adapted to the context (e.g., I would
expected network of relationships with other constructs. First, we feel anxious for missing out on the concert). WTP was measured by
propose that self‐concept maintenance (SCM)—the degree to which an asking participants to report: “In regular conditions, how much would
object or a brand reflects who the individual is (Jiménez & Voss, 2014, you be willing to pay for a VIP ticket for this artist?” Two instructional
p. 365)—can be an antecedent of FOMO. By itself, missing on a con- manipulation checks (i.e., “Choose number five” and “Select Strongly
sumption experience does not necessarily lead to FOMO. FOMO Disagree”) were interspersed within the survey (Oppenheimer,
manifests when consumers perceive missing a product or experience Meyvis, & Davidenko, 2009). The online consumer panel provider
that is related with their private and/or social self. Second, we posit (Qualtrics) excluded responses from participants that failed the
that perceived scarcity does not always trigger FOMO. Scarcity refers instructional manipulation checks.
to the “insufficiency of product supply or time of availability” (Lee & Before testing the relationships, we checked the psychometric
Seidle, 2012, p. 1487). Consumers' desirability for a product can in- properties of the FOMO scale. A factor analysis confirmed a two factor
crease when its perceived scarcity is high (Jang, Ko, Morris, & Chang, solution (personal FOMO, eigenvalue = 5.76; social FOMO, eigenva-
2015). However, we posit that perceived scarcity does not trigger lue = 1.94; explained variance = 83.98%). The scale items in the personal
FOMO automatically. Perceived scarcity of a product or experience FOMO dimension (Cronbach's α = 0.95) and the social FOMO dimension
will trigger FOMO only when the product or experience is related to (Cronbach's α = 0.95) showed internal consistency reliability. The results
the self‐concept. And third, we argue that FOMO can increase the provide support for the dimensionality and reliability of the scale.
willingness to pay (WTP) for the missed product or experience. The manipulation of SCM was successful. The results showed
To test the proposed relationships, we conducted a 2 (SCM: low vs. that, on average, participants in the low SCM condition reported
high) × 1 (perceived scarcity: high) between‐subjects experiment. One lower scores in the manipulation check scale (N = 75, M = 2.18, SD =
hundred and fifty‐seven adults (25–78 years old, Mage = 43, 79 female) 1.85) than participants in the high SCM condition (N = 82, M = 4.97,
participated in the study. Participants were recruited by an online SD = 1.36). The difference was statistically significant (t = −10.76,
consumer panel provider (Qualtrics) in the United States. SCM and df = 1 and 155, p < 0.01). Next, we compared perceived scarcity
perceived scarcity were manipulated. To manipulate SCM, participants scores between the two conditions. The manipulation was successful.
were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the first condition, Perceived scarcity was high across both conditions. The results
participants were asked to report the name of a singer they strongly showed that the mean scores of perceived scarcity between the low
identify with. In the second condition, participants were asked to report (M = 2.52) and high (M = 2.39) SCM were not statistically different
the name of a singer they do not identify with at all. After participants (t = 0.420, df = 1 and 155, p = 0.67). Let us remember that the per-
reported the singer's name, they answered a manipulation check mea- ceived scarcity scale included endpoints from 1 = “Very restricted
sure for self‐concept connection. The manipulation check scale for SCM availability” to 7 “Widely available.” On average, participants scored
included four items (Cronbach's α = 0.98) adapted from Escalas and high on perceived scarcity of the VIP ticket.
Bettman's (2003) self‐connection scale: “The singer reflects who I am,” Next, we analyzed participants' scores on FOMO across condi-
“I can identify with this singer,” “I feel a personal connection with this tions. The results of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
singer,” and “I (can) use this singer to communicate who I am to other with personal FOMO and social FOMO as dependent variables and
people.” Participants rated the items using a 7‐point Likert‐type scale SCM conditions as an independent variable showed a significant
ranging from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 7 “Strongly Agree.” effect of SCM on personal FOMO (F = 42.65, df = 1 and 155, p < 0.01).
Next, all participants read a scenario eliciting high perceived The effect of SCM on social FOMO was not significant (F = 0.31,
scarcity: Imagine that the singer you chose in the previous section is df = 1 and 155, p = 0.57). A follow‐up analysis revealed that partici-
coming to town for a 1‐day tour concert. In this concert, the singer pants in the high SCM condition (M = 4.78) reported higher scores on
will release new material and shoot a video for a new song. You go to personal FOMO than participants in the low SCM condition
do your groceries one day and by chance, the grocery store gives you (M = 2.88; t = −6.53, df = 1 and 155, p < 0.01). In sum, the results
a VIP ticket for the concert, as part of a promotional campaign. Only showed that SCM is an antecedent of FOMO. In the context of our
a few number of fans will get VIP access for this concert. However, manipulation scenario, high SCM elicited FOMO via its personal
you have to work that day at the very same time. You asked your dimension.
 10

T A B L E 5 Results of discriminant validity—Study 3

|

EFA components
CFA standardized Construct Average variance
Scale items 1 2 3 4 5 loading reliability extracted

Fear of missing out (FOMO)

Personal FOMO 0.95 0.78
1. I feel anxious when I do not experience events/opportunities 0.19 0.08 0.80 0.10 0.16 0.80
2. I believe I am falling behind compared with others when I miss events/opportunities 0.07 0.01 0.72 0.05 0.29 0.69
3. I feel anxious because I know something important or fun must happen when I miss events/ 0.18 0.21 0.68 0.11 0.32 0.74
opportunities
4. I feel sad if I am not capable of participating in events due to constraints of other things 0.05 0.04 0.75 0.25 0.17 0.72
5. I feel regretful of missing events/opportunities 0.06 −0.01 0.77 0.11 0.27 0.77

Social FOMO 0.96 0.87

1. I think my social groups view me as unimportant when I miss events/opportunities 0.03 0.11 0.27 0.06 0.77 0.73
2. I think I do not fit in social groups when I miss events or opportunities −0.06 0.16 0.27 0.10 0.81 0.77
3. I think I am excluded by my social groups when I miss events or opportunities 0.07 0.15 0.29 0.03 0.85 0.92
4. I feel ignored or forgotten by my social groups when I miss events or opportunities 0.08 0.14 0.30 0.07 0.85 0.94

Novelty seeking 0.98 0.84

1. I often seek out information about new products and brands 0.78 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.07 0.75
2. I like to go to places where I will be exposed to information about new products and brands 0.84 0.06 0.03 0.05 −0.06 0.80
3. I like magazines that introduce new brands 0.80 0.02 0.12 0.13 −0.04 0.77
4. I frequently look for new products and services 0.88 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.07 0.87
5. I seek out situations in which I will be exposed to new and different sources of product 0.85 0.01 0.10 −0.01 −0.01 0.83
information
6. I am continually seeking new product experiences 0.84 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.82
7. I take advantage of the first available opportunity to find out about new and different 0.70 0.00 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.65
products

Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence 0.96 0.83

1. It is important that others like the products and brands I buy 0.01 0.80 −0.04 0.02 0.22 0.78
2. When buying products, I generally purchase those brands that I think others will −0.04 0.86 0.02 −0.02 0.12 0.83
approve of
3. If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect me 0.06 0.82 0.13 0.06 0.00 0.77
to buy
4. I like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others 0.07 0.77 0.07 0.18 0.03 0.72
5. I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that others 0.05 0.80 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.75
purchase
ZHANG
ET AL.
TABLE 5 (Continued)
ZHANG

EFA components
CFA standardized Construct Average variance
ET AL.

Scale items 1 2 3 4 5 loading reliability extracted

Social media usage 0.93 0.73

1. I often check my friends' status on social media −0.02 0.05 0.16 0.68 0.09 0.58
2. I often check social media to get information about events 0.22 0.04 0.12 0.77 0.08 0.73
3. I check social network sites to see what's going on at least once per day 0.15 0.12 0.04 0.78 0.07 0.75
4. I often use social media to get to know about the world 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.80 0.01 0.78
5. I often use social media to connect with my friends and social groups 0.04 0.10 0.07 0.82 −0.01 0.79

Note: Bold values indicate scale items that loaded on the same factor.
|
11
12 | ZHANG ET AL.

T A B L E 6 Correlations among constructs in Study 3 samples. The results showed a significant indirect effect of SCM
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 through personal FOMO (a × b = 0.19), with a 95% con-
fidence interval excluding zero [0.02 to 0.44]. The direct effect of
1. Personal FOMO –
SCM on WTP was not significant (c1 = 0.31, p = 0.23). The results
2. Social FOMO 0.60* –
suggest that personal FOMO fully mediates (indirect‐effect only)
3. Novelty seeking 0.24* 0.10 – the relationship between SCM and WTP. In sum, the results sup-
4. Consumer susceptibility to 0.19* 0.29* 0.09 – port our prediction that personal FOMO is positively related
interpersonal influence to WTP.
5. Social media usage 0.31* 0.18* 0.23* 0.182* – Overall, the findings in Study 4 show that SCM is an antecedent
of FOMO. The findings also indicate that FOMO, rather than
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Abbreviation: FOMO, fear of missing out. perceived scarcity, predicts WTP. Thus, the results provide initial
support for the nomological validity of the scale. Table 7 shows the
correlations among constructs in Study 4.

Next, we tested the effect of personal FOMO on WTP. Partici-

pants reported WTP as a dollar amount. Overall, WTP ranged from 8 | G E N E R A L D I SC U S S I O N
$0 to $1200. The mean WTP in the low SCM condition was $105.92
with a standard deviation of 189.35. In the high SCM condition, WTP In this article, based on the self‐concept theory, we offer a new
was $207.24 with a standard deviation of 204.27. Consistent with theoretical foundation for the FOMO. FOMO is conceptualized as
previous research (e.g., Jiménez & Voss, 2014), we performed a the FOMO on a consumption experience that can enhance or
logarithmic transformation of WTP before the analysis. A regression maintain the self‐concept. Because the self‐concept involves a pri-
analysis showed a positive association between personal FOMO and vate and a public self, we posit that FOMO involves a personal and a
WTP (β = 0.26, t = 3.05, p < 0.01). In this study, social FOMO was not social dimension. Personal FOMO refers to the FOMO on experi-
related to WTP (β = −1.12, t = −1.34, p = 0.18). The results are con- ences that can maintain or enhance the private self. Social FOMO
sistent with our manipulation. Since we asked participants to choose relates to the FOMO on experiences that can maintain or enhance
an artist they identify with, personal FOMO was more salient (i.e., the public self. Personal and social FOMO form fear of missing out.
FOMO on a personal dream) while social FOMO was not (i.e., missing Two aspects differentiate our conceptualization from Przybylski
out on what others enjoy). et al.'s (2013) framework. First, Przybylski and colleagues define
We also ran a regression between perceived scarcity and FOMO as a desire to stay connected with others (p. 1841). They
WTP. We did not find a relationship between perceived scarcity employ SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to explain that FOMO is a situa-
and WTP (β = −1.46, t = −1.62, p = 0.11). If personal FOMO is re- tional disposition that activates when individuals feel dissatisfied
lated to WTP and SCM is an antecedent of personal FOMO, per- with basic human needs (i.e., needs for competence, autonomy, and
sonal FOMO should mediate the effect of SCM on WTP. Thus, we connectedness). They propose that social networks allow individuals
conducted a mediation analysis. Figure 3 depicts the mediation to find resources to satisfy their needs. In contrast, we propose that
model. First, we tested a positive relationship between SCM and FOMO is an emotion. We draw from self‐concept theory (Rosenberg,
WTP (Jiménez & Voss, 2014). The results of a regression analysis 1979) to contend that FOMO is the fear an individual feels from
showed that SCM was related to WTP (β = 0.17, t = 1.98, p < 0.05). missing out on an experience that can enhance or maintain her/his
To test for the mediation of personal FOMO, we employed self‐concept. Missing out on this type of experience threatens the
the procedure specified by Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010) and individual's psychological well‐being. A second difference between
PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2013) with 5000 bootstrapped Przybylski et al.'s approach and ours is that we extrapolate FOMO

F I G U R E 3 Mediation model in Study 4.

FOMO, fear of missing out
ZHANG ET AL. | 13

T A B L E 7 Correlations among constructs in Study 4 Another limitation of the present study is that the relationship
Construct 1 2 3 4 between the newly developed scale and previous social media FOMO
scales was not tested. The proposed scale does not include items
1. Personal FOMO –
from existing FOMO scales because current scales were developed
2. Social FOMO 0.52* –
to measure a different conceptualization of FOMO in the social
3. Perceived scarcity 0.25* 0.49* – media context. Given that we provide a new conceptualization,
4. Willingness to pay (WTP) Ln 0.27 ‐0.12 0.14 – definition, and dimensionality of FOMO, we felt compelled to start
from scratch. However, the question of whether or not the new
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
FOMO scale could be used in conjunction with or in lieu of existing
social media FOMO scales remains unanswered. Future research
to contexts outside social media. Because prior research has defined could empirically compare and contrast the applicability of different
the concept as the desire to stay connected, researchers have FOMO scales.
typically examined the relationship between FOMO and social media Finally, the results of Study 4 indicate that perceived scarcity
usage. Our approach positions FOMO as a feeling that individuals can may not automatically trigger FOMO. However, we only tested these
experience in any setting, online and offline. Theoretically, individuals relationships when perceived scarcity was high. More research is
may fear missing out on any type of consumption experience that is needed to test the effectiveness of FOMO marketing (Hodkinson,
related to enhancing or maintaining their self‐concept. 2019) in different consumption contexts. Also, we used a hypothe-
To provide initial empirical support for our theorizing, it was tical scenario without a realism check (Dabholkar, 1996). Future
necessary to develop of a bidimensional FOMO scale. The results of studies could test the validity of the new scale in different contexts
four studies support the convergent, discriminant, and nomological and scenarios.
validity of the new measure. In Study 1, a reliable and meaningful
pool of items was generated. In Study 2, the pool of items was pur-
ified and construct validity was assessed. A final set of nine items, 10 | RE SE ARCH AGENDA
five for the personal dimension and four for the social dimension, was
selected. A series of model tests supported the two‐dimensional The contribution of our proposed conceptualization is reflected in
structure of the measure. The present study is the first study to the potential proliferation of FOMO research in consumer psychol-
conceptualize and empirically support the bidimensionality of FOMO. ogy. In the following, we present a non‐exhaustive and nonexclusive
In Study 3, the convergent validity of the FOMO measure was in- research agenda. Our intention is to provoke further discussion on
dicated by the correlation between the FOMO scale and a social the topic and to invite researchers to consider a new stream of
media usage scale. The FOMO measure also showed to be similar to, research that examines the role of FOMO in consumer behavior and
but different from, measures of novelty seeking and consumer sus- well‐being.
ceptibility to interpersonal influence. Finally, in Study 4, the hy- Future work could further delineate the domain of the construct.
pothesized relationships between SCM, perceived scarcity, FOMO, The term “missing out” can have different connotations. In this arti-
and WTP were supported. The findings provide support for the cle, missing out refers to experiences that are perceived as attain-
nomological validity of the measure. Together, the studies provide able. We argue that FOMO is a feeling of fear of potential negative
preliminary support for the bidimensional conceptualization of consequences from inaction on perceived opportunities. Fear itself is
the FOMO. an uncomfortable feeling of anticipation to a threat. However, some
authors may use the term to capture the feeling of missing out on
experiences that are no longer possible to attain. Missing out on
9 | RESEARCH LIMITATIONS unavailable opportunities is not related to fear. Instead, it is related
to feelings of frustration, despair, and regret (Phillips, 2012). It is a
One limitation of our scale development is that most of the data were reflection on what could have happened, a feeling of having lost
collected from student samples in the United States. We chose to (for good) the possibility to experience something valuable. Take, for
develop scale items with a student sample because FOMO is more example, a never‐married octogenarian regretting not getting
evident in young people (Przybylski et al., 2013). The results of Study married to her high school sweetheart when he proposed.
4, which includes an adult nonstudent sample, provide initial support Researchers could explore what type of consumption patterns occur
for the reliability and validity of the scale in older populations. when people realize that they can no longer reach their dreams. For
However, more research is needed to fully establish the validity of example, would people stop saving and start spending? What hap-
the scale among older populations. Testing the scale with older adults pens when consumers shift from FOMO to resignation? Are there
is important because interpretations of FOMO could be susceptible any factors in the marketplace that inhibit or enhance this process?
to aging. More studies in different countries are also encouraged to Future research could explore why, when, and how missing out
test the stability of the scale across cultural contexts. transforms from fear to frustration, despair, regret, or resignation.
14 | ZHANG ET AL.

Another avenue is to further investigate the relationship be- as part of the self (Metha & Belk, 1991). Consumers that do not have
tween scarcity and FOMO. Based on our findings, we would predict access to products and experiences that help them define their self
that not all scarcity message appeals using the slogan “Don't Miss may fall into an identity crisis and may need to redefine the self‐
Out” will elicit fear. Fear manifests when individuals are unable to concept (Lastovicka & Fernandez, 2005). The investigation of FOMO
engage in an opportunity or opportunities perceived to have the in the context of market restrictions deserves further examination.
potential to enhance or maintain the self‐concept. However, the The aforementioned list of avenues for future research is not
situational activation of FOMO remains an open question. comprehensive. The purpose of this section was to incite researchers
John et al.'s (2018) study offer initial insights on the relationship to consider FOMO as a potentially fertile construct in consumer
between perceived scarcity and FOMO. They conducted a series of psychology. Although we opted to present the research agenda in a
experiments to test whether or not a preference for scarce goods is conceptual manner, researchers could examine FOMO in any con-
an evolutionary trait in humans. In their experiments, they manipu- sumption context across any stage of the consumer decision‐making
lated the perceived scarcity of a good and the type of environment process.
(noncompetitive vs. competitive). Research participants involved
samples of chimpanzees and human children. The results showed the
phenomenon of a preference for scarce goods is a human trait. 11 | MANA GE RIAL IMPL IC ATION S
Chimpanzees did not show a scarcity preference. Chimpanzees chose
the “best” alternative across scarcity and competitive conditions. The Our research findings have implications for marketing managers.
results from a sample of 4‐year olds showed similar results. However, First, our study offers a valid and reliable scale of FOMO that
in a sample of 6‐year olds, a scarcity preference was found, but only managers can use in market research studies to assess how much
in males and in competitive situations. The authors speculate that FOMO consumers feel about a particular brand. Our results show
scarcity preference is an evolutionary response to competition. In that FOMO is related to WTP. Thus, the assessment of FOMO could
competitive contexts, humans prefer scarce goods when they inform managers about consumers' price sensitivity. Second, our
perceive that such goods could become a resource to maintain or study suggests that the success of FOMO marketing campaigns (e.g.,
enhance dominance and uniqueness. The authors theorize that the “Don't miss out” or “Limited edition”) are likely to be contingent on
effect of perceived scarcity on choice could be mediated by the consumers' self‐identification with the product, brand, or activity. For
FOMO. Note that this explanation is consistent with our idea that instance, our findings show that individuals reported higher (lower)
perceived scarcity may elicit FOMO when the consumption experi- levels of FOMO on a concert when they strongly (weakly) identified
ence enhances or maintains the self‐concept. Future research should with the artist. Managers could use brand‐self connection as a seg-
test the relationship between SCM, perceived scarcity, FOMO, and mentation variable for FOMO advertising.
consumer choice across different contexts.
Future investigations could examine how consumers cope with
FOMO. Past research shows that individuals tend to react to fear by 12 | CON CLUSIO N
freezing, running away, or fighting back (Gray, 1971). For example,
Herman (2000) hypothesizes that consumers that experience FOMO Practitioner and academic interest in FOMO is undeniably growing.
will tend to switch brands more often. Because fear may lead to However, the conceptual development on this budding topic remains
instant reactions, consumers may be prone to act spontaneously. For in its infancy. This article proposes that FOMO occurs when in-
example, it would be useful to examine whether FOMO is related to dividuals perceive that foregoing an opportunity poses a threat to
impulse buying, unplanned purchases, down payments, credit card their self‐concept. Accordingly, we developed a new FOMO scale.
use, and other consumption patterns associated with spontaneous The scale can be a useful tool to test antecedents and consequences
purchases. of FOMO in online and offline consumption contexts. This article
Furthermore, research is needed to understand how consumers opens a new line of thought about FOMO by presenting a preliminary
cope with FOMO when financial (e.g., poverty), physical (e.g., dis- list of research opportunities. Indeed, we suggest that myriad re-
ability, illness), legal (e.g., age), and social (e.g., networks) constraints search avenues related to FOMO remain to be discovered. We urge
restrict their access to products and experiences in the marketplace. curious and adventurous researchers not to miss out on this
For instance, at the time of this writing, the world is facing the worst opportunity.
public health crisis in the last century—the COVID‐19 (aka
Coronavirus) pandemic. To contain the spread of the virus, millions of AC KNO WL EDG M EN TS
consumers worldwide have been ordered to live in lockdown with The authors would like to thank Dr. Kevin Voss, Dr. Frank Cabano,
limited access to the market. We would expect consumers in con- Dr. Li Mengge, Dr. Gary Frankwick, and Dr. Miguel Ramos for their
finement to feel FOMO. But, how do consumers in lockdown cope feedback in previous versions of the manuscript.
with FOMO? A possible coping mechanism, for example, could be
the reshaping of the self. Consumers can internalize goods (e.g., CON F LI CT OF IN TE RES T S
Starbucks coffee), services (e.g., golf), and experiences (e.g., concerts) The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.
ZHANG ET AL. | 15

D A T A A V A I L A B I LI TY S TA T E ME N T Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self‐
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522–527.
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of
OR CID Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Zhuofan Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3501-2039 Fowler, H. (1965). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Fernando R. Jiménez https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0685-5563
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale
John E. Cicala https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5369-7815 development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment.
Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186–192.
Gil, F., Chamarro, A., & Oberst, U. (2015). PO‐14: Addiction to online
REFERENC ES social networks: A question of "Fear of Missing Out"? Journal of
Abel, J. P., Buff, C. L., & Burr, S. A. (2016). Social media and the fear of Behavioral Addictions, 4, 51–52.
missing out: Scale development and assessment. Journal of Business & Gill, M. J., & Burrow, R. (2018). The function of fear in institutional
Economics Research, 14, 33–43. maintenance: Feeling frightened as an essential ingredient in haute
Alt, D. (2015). College students' academic motivation, media engagement cuisine. Organization Studies, 39(4), 445–465.
and fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 111–119. Gilliam, D. A., & Voss, K. (2013). A proposed procedures for construct
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: definition in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 47(1/2), 5–26.
Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), Gray, J. A. (1971). The psychology of fear and stress. New York, NY: Word
338–375. University Library.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate
models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.
Bay, E. J., & Algase, D. L. (1999). Fear and anxiety: A simultaneous concept Harris Group. (2015). Millennials: Fueling the experience economy.
analysis. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge, 10(3), 103–111. Retrieved April 28, 2020, from https://www.eventbrite.com/blog/
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of academy/millennials-fueling-experience-economy/
consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
Consumer Research, 15(4), 473–481. process analysis: A regression‐based approach. New York, NY: Guilford
Berlyne, D. E. (1967). Arousal and reinforcement. In D. Levine (Ed.), Publications.
Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 1–110). Lincoln, NE: University Hebb, D. O. (1949). Organization of behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.
of Nebraska Press. Hedges, K. (2014). Do you have FOMO: Fear of missing out? Forbes.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model Retrieved April 28, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-
fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. progress/2014/03/27/do-you-have-fomo-fear-of-missing-out/#1705
Buglass, S. L., Binder, J. F., Betts, L. R., & Underwood, J. D. M. (2017). e0984ec4
Motivators of online vulnerability: The impact of social network use Herman, D. (2000). Introducing short‐term brands: A new branding tool
and FOMO. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 248–255. for a new consumer reality. Journal of Brand Management, 7, 330–340.
Chang, C. (2010). Making unique choices or being like others: How Herman, D. (2019). The fear of missing out. Retrieved from http://
priming self‐concepts influences advertising effectiveness. Psychology fomofearofmissingout.com/fomo
& Marketing, 27(4), 399–416. Hodkinson, C. (2019). ‘Fear of Missing Out’ (FOMO) marketing appeals: A
Churchill Jr, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of conceptual model. Journal of Marketing Communications, 25, 65–68.
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. Hogan, M. (2015). Facebook and the ‘Fear of Missing Out’ (FoMO).
Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/
psychological reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 389–405. blog/in-one-lifespan/201510/facebook-and-the-fear-missing-out-fomo
Dabholkar, P. (1996). Consumer evaluations of new technology‐based Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
self‐service options: An investigation of alternative models of covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
service quality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(1), alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
29–51. 6(1), 1–55.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Jang, W. E., Ko, Y. J., Morris, J. D., & Chang, Y. (2015). Scarcity message
Self‐determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, effects on consumer behavior: Limited edition product considerations.
109–134. Psychology & Marketing, 32(10), 989–1001.
Dogan, V. (2019). Why do people experience the fear of missing out Jiménez, F. R., & Voss, K. E. (2014). An alternative approach to the
(FoMO)? Exposing the link between the self and the FoMO through measurement of emotional attachment. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5),
self‐construal. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 50, 524–538. 360–370.
Dossey, L. (2014). FOMO, digital dementia, and our dangerous John, M., Melis, A. P., Read, D., Rossano, F., & Tomasello, M. (2018). The
experiment. Explore, 10, 69–73. preference for scarcity: A developmental and comparative
Eisend, M. (2008). Explaining the impact of scarcity appeals in advertising: perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 35, 603–615.
The mediating role of perceptions of susceptibility. Journal of Lastovicka, J. L., & Fernandez, K. V. (2005). Three paths to disposition: The
Advertising, 37(3), 33–40. movement of meaningful possessions to strangers. Journal of
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing Consumer Research, 31(4), 813–823.
out, need for touch, anxiety and depression are related to Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. M. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of
problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23,
509–516. 741–755.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence Lee, S. Y., & Seidle, R. (2012). Narcissists as consumers: The effects of
of reference groups on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of perceived scarcity on processing of product information. Social
Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339–348. Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(9), 1485–1499.
16 | ZHANG ET AL.

Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O., & Madden, T. J. (1995). Consumer Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic.
innovativeness and the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self‐determination theory and the
Psychology, 4(4), 329–345. facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well‐being.
Metha, R., & Belk, R. W. (1991). Artifacts, identity, and transition: Favorite American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
possessions of Indians and Indian immigrants to the United States. Saad, G. (2013). Evolutionary consumption. Journal of Consumer
Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 398–411. Psychology, 23(3), 351–371.
Milyavskaya, M., Saffran, M., Hope, N., & Koestner, R. (2018). Fear of Salem, P. J. (2015). Human communication technology. Austin, TX: Sentia
missing out: Prevalence, dynamics, and consequences of experiencing Publishing.
FOMO. Motivation and emotion, 42, 725–737. Schermelleh‐Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating
Mohan, M., Voss, K. E., & Jiménez, F. R. (2017). Managerial disposition and the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and
front‐end innovation success. Journal of Business Research, 70, descriptive goodness‐of‐fit measures. Methods of Psychological
193–201. Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
Morgan, B. (2015). NOwnership, no problem: Why millennials value Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self‐concept in consumer behavior: A critical review.
experiences over owning things. Forbes. Retrieved April 28, 2020, from Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2015/06/01/nownershipno Tedeschi, J. T. (1986). Private and public: Experiences and the self. In R.F.
problem-nowners-millennials-value-experiences-over-ownership/#6f78 Baumeister (Ed.), Public and private self (pp. 1‐20). New York, NY:
aa545406 Springer‐Verlag.
Mowen, J. C., & Minor, M. S. (2006). Consumer behavior. Mason, OH: Thomson, M., Whelan, J., & Johnson, A. R. (2011). Why brands should fear
Thomson. fearful consumers: How attachment style predicts retaliation. Journal
Mowen, J. C., & Voss, K. E. (2008). On building better construct measures: of Consumer Psychology, 22, 289–298.
Implications of a general hierarchical model. Psychology & Marketing, Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016).
25(6), 485–505. Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Science, 44(1), 119–134.
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the
manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of
power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872. Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320.
Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and Whitbourne, S. K. (1986). The me I know: A study of adult identity. New
marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 133–145. York, NY: Springer‐Verlag.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A Whitley, G. G. (1992). Concept analysis of fear. International Journal of
handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Nursing Terminologies, 3(4), 155–161.
Association. Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and
Phillips, A. (2012). Missing out. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of
Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing
out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1841–1848.
Reed, A., II (2002). Social identity as a useful perspective for self‐
concept‐based consumer research. Psychology & Marketing, 19(3),
235–266.
How to cite this article: Zhang Z, Jiménez FR, Cicala JE. Fear
Riordan, B. C., Flett, J. A. M., Hunter, J. A., Scarf, D., & Conner, T. S. (2015). Of Missing Out Scale: A self‐concept perspective. Psychology
Fear of missing out (FoMO): The relationship between FoMO, alcohol & Marketing. 2020;1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21406
use, and alcohol‐related consequences in college students. Journal of
Psychiatry and Brain Functions, 2(9), 1–7.