FEAR OF MISSING OUT: CONCEPTUALIZATION, MEASUREMENT, AND RELEVANCE TO MARKETING By Dominik Neumann A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University i n partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Information and Media Doctor of Philosophy 2020 ABSTRACT FEAR OF MISSING OUT: CONCEPTUALIZATION, MEASUREMENT, AND RELEVANCE TO MARKETING By Dominik Neumann Although commonly used as an advertising appeal and a marketing strateg y , the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) has received little attention in marketing - relevant literature . One reason for this lack of attention might be rooted in issues with a clear conceptual understanding of the FOMO experience. In this dissert ation I aimed to address these problems with prior conceptualizations by providing a detailed exploration of the FOMO concept using mixed methods. I introduce d the concept of FOMO and its relevance in marketing research and practice in Chapter 1 . I discuss ed issues with its prior conceptualization and operationalization in scholarly research and provide d an overview of this dissertation project. In Chapter 2 , I review ed prior literature on the contexts in which FOMO has been studied in the past , and the definitions used to conceptualize FOMO as a trait or state. In Chapter 3, I utilize d the findings of 27 semi - structured, in - depth interviews in a phenomenological study to propose the FOMO process . This FOMO process is a context - independent conceptual framework explaining how FOMO is experienced cognitive ly and affective ly. This process is dynamic and comprised of four mechanisms, which are described by the interpl ay between social comparison, missed prior opportunities, counterfactual thinking, negative affect, and two distinct ways of coping, which are either paralyzing or motivating action. In Chapter 4 , I develop ed a conceptually and methodologically sound measu process using qualitative and quantitative methods, such as interviews, expert feedback, and surveys. I use d interview data from Chapter 3 to construct a large pool of items, which were then insp ected by experts in the field to ensure face validity. I used four quantitative samples to reduce the number of scale items and explore dimensionality, to show robustness of the scale, and to demonstrate its temporal stability as well as convergent and dis criminant validity. Results indicate d a robust and temporally stable, four - dimensional proneness to engage in the FOMO process construct consisting of 16 items. These items described the dimensions: (1) tendency to socially compare, (2) dispositional counterfactual thinking, (3) negative trai t affect, and (4) sensitivity to missed opportunities. In Chapter 5 , I show ed that the FOMO process is positively related to financial, ethical, and recreational risk perceptions; consumers who are more likely to engage in the FOMO process are also more li kely to engage in these risky behaviors. However, the FOMO process is also shown to be unrelated to social risks. The overall findings of the qualitative and quantitative research studies reported in this dissertation project are discussed in Chapter 6 s pe cifically, with respect to its relevance for marketing and advertising literature and practice. Therefore, in this dissertation , I provide d three major contributions to marketing and advertising theory and practice : First, I explore d the FOMO experience it self and exten d prior theorizing of this concept by proposing the FOMO process . Thus, I show ed that the result for this FOMO process is a negative affective experience, which led me to caution marketers and advertisers to use FOMO appeals in their strategy , because these negative affective and highly cognitive processes might have adverse effects on advertising effectiveness. Second, I offer ed a tool for market researchers to assess the proneness to engage in the FOMO process, which can be used for market s egmentation and strategic planning for advertising and communication design and targeting. And third, this dissertation project is the first to tie the FOMO experience to risk - seeking behavior . This has implications for consumer behavior research as percei ved consumer risk is at the heart of consumer decision - making processes . iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful for helpful comments received from Drs. Nancy Rhodes, Esther Thorson, David Ewoldsen, Patricia Huddleston, Ashley Sanders - Jackson, and Kira Kolb. I further would like to exten d my appreciation for comments from Jean - Luc Wagner and Eleni Lionas. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... viii Chapter 1: Intro duction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 Fear of Missing Out Across Contexts ................................ ................................ ........................ 7 Prior Definitions of Fear of Missing Out ................................ ................................ ................. 11 Fear of Missing Out as Cognition ................................ ................................ ............................ 14 Fear of Missing Out as Negative Affect ................................ ................................ .................. 16 Chapter 3: Conceptualizing Fear of Missing Out ................................ ................................ .... 19 Method and Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 21 Participants and sampling. ................................ ................................ ............................... 23 Procedure. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 25 Preparation of qualitative interview data. ................................ ................................ ........ 26 Codebook development and coding of interview data. ................................ ..................... 26 Construct development ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 27 Proposition Development ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 32 The first mechanism: Cognition. ................................ ................................ ....................... 32 The second mechanism: Negative affect. ................................ ................................ .......... 33 The third mechanism: Paralyzing action. ................................ ................................ ......... 34 The fourth mechanism: Motivating action. ................................ ................................ ....... 35 Fear of Missing Out as a Process ................................ ................................ ............................. 35 Similarities and Differences of FOMO Across Context ................................ .......................... 37 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 38 Theoretical implicatio ns ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 38 Managerial Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 39 Limitations and Future Research ................................ ................................ ...................... 39 Summary of Conceptual Development Results ................................ ................................ ....... 40 Chapter 4: Operationalizing Fear of Missing Out ................................ ................................ ... 41 Proneness to Engage in the FOMO Process ................................ ................................ ............. 41 Tendency to socially compare. ................................ ................................ .......................... 41 Sensitivity to missed opportunities. ................................ ................................ ................... 42 Dispositional counterfactual thinking ................................ ................................ ............... 43 Negative trait affect. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 43 Existing Scales ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 44 The Scale Development Process ................................ ................................ .............................. 46 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 46 Samples. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 49 vi Item Generation (Step 1) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 49 Face Val idity (Step 2) ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 50 Item Reduction and Dimensionality (Step 3) ................................ ................................ ........... 50 Sample and data preparation. ................................ ................................ ........................... 50 Exploratory factor analysis. ................................ ................................ .............................. 52 Furt her item reduction. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 54 Dimensionality. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 54 Scale Validation (Step 4) ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 57 Sample and procedures . ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 57 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 59 Temporal Stability (Step 5) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 59 Sample and procedures. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 59 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 60 Convergent, Content, and D iscriminant Validity (Step 6) ................................ ....................... 60 Convergent and discriminant validity. ................................ ................................ .............. 61 Content validity. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 63 Discussion of the Scale Development Results ................................ ................................ ......... 64 ................................ ...... 65 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 66 Results and Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 67 Chapter 6: General Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 71 Theo retical Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 71 Fear of Missing Out and Embodied Cognition ................................ ................................ . 73 Cognitive Dissonance Theory ................................ ................................ ........................... 74 Limitations & Future Research Directions ................................ ................................ .............. 76 Managerial Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 78 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 80 APPENDIX ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 82 Appendix 1: Interview Gu ide ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 83 Appendix 2: Codebook ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 86 Appendix 3: Distribution of Codes Across Contexts ................................ ............................... 92 Appendix 4: Survey Exploratory analysis (Sample 1) ................................ .......................... 96 Appendix 5: Survey Confirmatory analysis (Sample 2) ................................ ..................... 104 Appendix 6: Survey Confirmatory analysis (Sample 3) ................................ ..................... 108 Appendix 7: Survey Retest reliability analysis (Sample 4) ................................ ................ 116 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 123 vii L IST OF TABLES Table 1 Examples for studies examining FOMO within different roles and contexts .................... 8 Table 2 Example definitions of the FOMO concept in prior literature ................................ ......... 12 Table 3 Overview of available demographics of interviewees in this study ................................ 24 Table 4 Prior FOMO scales developed in scholarly research ................................ ....................... 45 Table 5 Overview of scale development process ................................ ................................ .......... 47 Table 6 Demographic composition of the quantitative samples across all studies ....................... 48 Table 7 Exploratory factor analysis results (sample 1) ................................ ................................ . 53 Table 8 Model fit tests of four - factor solution (samples 1, 2, and 3) ................................ ........... 55 Table 9 Items included in the final sc ale (sample 1) ................................ ................................ .... 56 Table 10 Intercorrelations of FOMO components and other constructs ................................ ....... 62 Table 11 Final codebook for qualitative coding ................................ ................................ ........... 86 viii L IST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Counts of codes assigned in qualitative interview data ................................ .................. 28 Figure 2 Conceptual model of the FOMO process ................................ ................................ ....... 36 Figure 3 Confirmatory factor analysis results ................................ ................................ ............... 58 Figure 4 Path model of the FOMO process predicting risk - attitudes ................................ ........... 70 Figure 5 Distributions of Counts of Social Get - toget her Codes ................................ ................... 92 Figure 6 Distributions of Counts of Vacations with Friends Codes ................................ ............. 92 Figure 7 Distributions of Counts of Family Events Codes ................................ ........................... 93 Figure 8 Distributions of Counts of Personal Life Choices Codes ................................ ............... 93 Figure 9 Distributions of Counts of Career Opportunities Codes ................................ ................. 93 Figure 10 Distributions of Counts of Advertising Codes ................................ ............................. 94 Figure 11 Distributions of Counts of Products and Brands Codes ................................ ............... 94 Figure 12 Distributions of Counts of Services Codes ................................ ................................ ... 94 Figure 13 Distributions of Counts of Financial Investments Codes ................................ ............. 95 Figure 14 Distributions of Counts of Breaking News Events Codes ................................ ............ 95 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Within the last decade the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) has become a well - known phenomenon in popular culture, business strategy, and academia alike. Businesses design by indicating possibly forgoing rewardi ng experiences. These practices aim to motivate consumers to purchase products and services. One notable recent example was the promotion of the FYRE festival, which , among other deceptive practices, leveraged FOMO to sell tickets to an underfunded and dis organized failure of a music festival ( Poulsen, 2019 ; Talbot, 2019 ) . However, scholarly research examining FOMO in the context of marketing and advertising is still in a nascent phase. Within the marketing literature FOMO has been linked to increased cogni tive effort, opportunity cost overestimation, and threats to customer loyalty ( Hayran, Anik, & Gürhan - Canli, 2020 b ; Hodkinson, 2019 ; Weiss & Kivetz, 2019 ) , but with inconsistent findings. S ome research identified negative effects of the FOMO experience on consumer behavior outcomes , such as threats to consumer loyalty ( Hayran, Anik, & Gürhan - Canli, 2020 a ) . O thers found a positive connection of FOMO and consumer behavior outcomes, such as increased likelihood to buy when anticipating envy of others and elati on ( Good & Hyman, 2020 ) . T hese differences may be due to a lack of conceptual and operational understanding of the FOMO experience and issue s with its operationalization. Overall, prior literature in FOMO is characterized by disagreement with its conceptualization and operationalization ( Abel, Buff, & Burr, 2016 ) . That is, prior scholarship on FOMO has been hindered because FOMO has been examined in a variety of roles , such as a dependent, independent, mediating, or moderating variable ( Chai et al., 2019 ; Milyavskaya, Saffran, Hope, & Koestner, 2018 ; Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013 ; Reer, 2 Tang, & Quandt, 2019 ) . Further, in prior literature FOMO has been concep tualized and operationalized as a trait, individual difference, and state ( Abel et al., 2016 ; Przybylski et al., 2013 ) . These differences in conceptualization are indicative of a lack of concrete understanding of what FOMO is, how it is experienced, wh ich factors play a role, and how these factors can be conceptualized. Further, t hese disagreements call for a redefined perspective of the construct. , having rewarding ( Przybylski et al., 2013, p. 1841 ) , early research conceptualized FOMO as a cognitive or affective experience that has negative - being ( e.g., Reer et al., 2019 ) . FOMO has been tied to various negative outcomes, such as problematic smartphone usage, depression, problematic drinking behavior , and a decrease in healthy sleep ( Elhai, Gallinari, Rozgonjuk, & Yang, 2020 ; Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ; Riordan, Flett, Cody, Conner, & Scarf, 2019 ) . To address these disagreements in conceptual understanding of the FOMO experience, and to provide a robust measurement, i n this dissertation , I present both a conceptual synthesis of prior theorizing with respect to FOMO and a methodologically sound measurement scale. I follow ed a two - step process similar to prior research in scale development ( Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009 ; Homburg, Schwemmle, & Kuehnl, 2015 ) : (1) I conceptually define d the FOMO process and its components, and (2) I develop e d a measurement scale for the trait proneness to engage in the FOMO process following scale development best practices ( Carpenter, 2018 ; Churchill, 1979 ; DeVellis, 2017 ; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006 ) . I further test ed the measurement scale within the cont ext of consumer behavior , specifically with respect . Hence, I provide d novel evidence for the applicability of the 3 concept in marketing and advertising research. This dissertation provides valuable findings for additional research within the fields of marketing, advertising, and consumer behavior. I aim to address gaps in prior literature; not only in marketing, but also social psychology and communication. Th us , in Chapter 2 I wil l review the relevant literature on FOMO, focusing on prior conceptualizations, operationalizations, definitions, and its understanding as cognition and affect. In Chapter 3 I present a conceptual framework that unifies prior theories and breaks the FOMO c onstruct down in its underlying subprocesses. In Chapter 4 I provide a scale instrument that can be used in future research and consumer segmentation to examine Last , in Chapter 5 I provide eviden ce for the relevance of FOMO in both the marketing literature and practice. In Chapter 6 , I will discuss the findings of this dissertation project in light of marketing and advertising theory and practice. 4 Chapter 2: Literature Review I n this dissertation I develop ed a scale based on qualitative insights. However, an initial theoretical conceptualization summarizing the existing literature in consumer behavior, social psychology, and communication is indispensable ( DeVellis, 2017 ) . In the following c hapter I will review and synthesize prior literature as well as qualitative findings from a phenomenological interview study. Thereby, I will establish the theoretical framework that determines the proneness to engage in the FOMO process con sequently developed and tested . To date, there are only a few research studies investigating the role of FOMO within marketing and advertising. Specifically, the cognitive and affective processes within consumers who experience FOMO are not well understood . R esults of studies examining FOMO in marketing and advertising show mixed results of the effects of the FOMO experience on outcomes of consumer behavior . For example, some researchers find negative effects of the FOMO experience, such as threats to consu mer loyalty (Hayran, Anik, & Gürhan - Canli, 2020 b ) . That is, using online surveys, experimental research, and field studies, Hayran, Anik, and Gürhan - Canli ( 2020 b) - relevance of the experience that More importantly , they report decreases in redo/revisit intentions and word - of - mouth of consumers , who are experiencing FOMO during an experience. They tested these effects within the context of local festivals and events, new restaurants participants imagined visiting, after hour get - togethers, vacations that might be missed because of summer school, and museum visits and loyalty programs. In all cases th eir study suggested that consumers , who associate d an activity with the experience of FOMO were likely to not engage in the activity again. 5 However, o thers find positive effects, such as favorable bran d evaluations of culturally symbolic brands ( Kang, Son, & Koo, 2019 ) . That is, Kang, Son, and Koo (2019) hypothesized that among other variables (e.g., price acceptability and brand reputation), FOMO has a positive effect on brand excitement and brand enga gement, and that brand excitement itself positively predicts brand engagement. They conducted research in the context of culturally symbolic brands in the Chinese market using an online survey instrument. Their findings indicated that FOMO had the stronges t effect on brand excitement (significantly outperforming other predictors , such as quality consciousness of consumers and brand reputation). Though , not directly affecting brand engagement, this research (Kang, Son, Soo, 2019) showed that the FOMO experie nce positively affected consumers excitement about culturally symbolic brands in the Chinese market and that brand excitement, in turn, was a strong driver for brand engagement. Thus, it appears that the FOMO experience, despite its potentially negative e ffects on consumer behavior, also has found to be positively related to outcomes relevant to consumer behavior. R esearch outside the domain s of marketing and advertising show similar discrepancies. That is , a plethora of research connected FOMO to social m edia usage ( e.g., Reer et al., 2019 ) . S everal studies used the FOMO experience to explain increases in social media engagement and significant relations between the FOMO experience and social media usage. For example, Reer et al. ( 2019 ) showed, using an on line experiment , variable between s ocial comparison orientation and psychosocial well - being as dependent variables, and the dependent variable social media engagement. Similar findings on FOMO and social media use have also been reported by early research on FOMO (Przybylski et al., 2013). However, others found that the involvement of social media was not a necessary condit ion for FOMO to occur ( Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ) . That is, Milyavskaya et al. ( 2018 ) used 6 ctivity that the y had planned to do and an alternate activity. Possible planned activities in their experimental design were completing an assignment, reading a book, or seeing a friend . The possible alternative activities were watching a TV show, going to a party with a reminder from a friend, or going to a party with a reminder from social media . Thus , this study ( Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ) aimed at examining the effects of social media involvement versus when social media was not involved; an approach several other studies prior to this described research have failed to account for (e.g., Przybylski et al., 2013). Their ( Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ) results indicated that the reported FOMO experience was more severe when the chosen activity was non - social, but alternative activities were social in nature. More importantly, they did not find significant dif ferences in FOMO when comparing the two alternatives going to a party with a reminder from a friend versus a reminder from social media , indicating that social media was not a driving force behind the FOMO experience, but rather the experience of the party itself. Reasons for the differences in findings across fields of inquiry and within the exploration of FOMO includ e with respect to the FOMO experience itself. That is, in th e past, researchers have embedded FOMO within Self - Determination Theory ( Przybylski et al., 2013 ) and Construal Level Theory ( Dogan, 2019 ) , and others proposed a response framework for externally initiated FOMO appeals ( Hodkinson, 2019 ) . Prior research has operationalized FOMO as mediator, moderator, dependent, and independent variable (e.g., Good & Hyman, 2020 ; Rifkin, Chan, & Kahn, 2015 ; X ie, Wang, Wang, Zhao, & Lei, 2018 ) and conceptualized FOMO as trait and state ( Abel et al., 2016 ; Przybylski et al., 2013 ) . In the following sections I will review prior conceptualizations, operationalizations, and definitions of FOMO across contexts to pr ovide a better justification for 7 the need of this research. I will elaborate on two specific ways FOMO has been conceptualized in the past, namely FOMO as cognition and FOMO as affect. Fear of Missing Out Across Contexts The Fear of Missing Out has been a popular research topic in recent years within a broad range of contexts. Table 1 provides just an exemplary excerpt of how the concept has been conceptualized and operationalized, to what variables it was related, and in which contexts it has been examined. Thus, Table 1 shows the vast way in which FOMO has been used in the past, especially with respect to the study context and its use within each of these different contexts. The various roles FOMO played (trait, state, antecedent, mediator, moderator, and outcome), are as diverse as the contexts in which it has been used. That is, FOMO has been a concept of interest for advertising and consumer behavior, and also in the contexts of wellbeing, (social) medi a use, health risks, recreational activities, social belonging, financial investments, travels, and news information (for references see Table 1). However, across these contexts, FOMO has been conceptualized and operationalized differently, which serves as an indicator of a poor understanding of the concept and the experience itself. For example, some studies found that FOMO increases perceived Facebook stress with respect to their need for belonging ( Beyens, Frison, & Eggermont, 2 016 ). That is, FOMO has found to be a mediator between need to belong and need for popularity as independent variables, and Facebook use, and perceived Facebook stress with respect to popularity and belonging as dependent variables using commonly used Like rt - type scales to assess each variable in the model. Others found that FOMO was positively predicted by social networking site (SNS) use and thus acted as a mediator between SNS use and online 8 Table 1 Examples for studies examining FOMO within different roles and contexts Conceptualization Operationalization Context Related variable Example, Author (year) Trait FOMO Antecedent SNS use Social media usage urges Abel et al. ( 2016 ) State FOMO Antecedent Wellbeing Unhealthy sleeping patterns Adams et al. (2017) Trait FOMO Mediator Learning Learning and problematic internet use Alt et al. ( 2018 ) Trait FOMO Mediator SNS use Social needs and stress Beyens et al. ( 2016 ) Trait FOMO Antecedent Advertising Social media fatigue Bright et al. ( 2018 ) Trait FOMO Mediator SNS use Social media use and online vulnerability Buglass et al. ( 2017 ) Trait FOMO Moderator Wellbeing Social media use and subjective wellbeing Chai et al. (2019) Trait FOMO Moderator Investments Mobile app news and investment allocation Clor - Proell et al. ( 2019 ) Trait FOMO Mediator SNS use Social anxiety & Facebook use Dempsey et al. ( 2019 ) State FOMO Outcome Cultural studies Interdependent/independent self - construal Dogan (2019) State FOMO Mediator Consumer behavior Anticipated emotions & purchase behavior Good et al. ( 2020 ) Trait FOMO Antecedent Career Career choices Hanlon (2016) State FOMO Antecedent Leisure activities Loyalty Hayran et al. ( 2020a ) Trait FOMO Outcome Travel & SNS use Social media use and studying abroad Hetz et al. ( 2016 ) State FOMO Outcome Advertising FOMO appeals and consumer responses Hodkinson (2019) Trait FOMO Antecedent Branding Brand excitement and brand engagement Kang et al. ( 2019 ) Trait FOMO Antecedent Social belonging Attention to social cues during inclusion Lai et al. ( 2016 ) Trait FOMO Antecedent Leisure activities Sport involvement & team identity salience Larkin et al. ( 2016 ) State FOMO Antecedent Wellbeing Negative affect, fatigue, stress, and sleep Milyavskaya et al. ( 2018 ) Trait FOMO Antecedent Wellbeing Needs, social media use, risky driving Przybylski et al. ( 2013 ) State FOMO Outcome Social belonging Social belonging and enjoyment of social events Rifkin et al. ( 2015 ) Trait FOMO Antecedent Health risks Risky drinking behavior Riordan et al. ( 2019 ) Trait FOMO Antecedent News information Sharing of fake news Talwar et al. ( 2019 ) Trait FOMO Antecedent Leisure activities Social media sharing of a movie Tefertiller et al. ( 2020 ) Note. SNS = social networking site, Examples organized in alphabetical order based on first author of the respective research study 9 wellbeing) and - self - esteem ( Buglass, Binder, Betts, & Underwood, 2017 ) . Additionally , u tilizing EEG measures , some research report ed a positive correlation between trait - FOMO and the right middle temporal gyrus in an inclusion condition (not in exclusion or neutral conditions). The right middle temporal gyros is a brain region responsible for the processing of social stimuli (Brunet et al., 2000 ) .T hese findings therefore indicated that individuals , who are more prone to experience FOMO , pay greater attention to positive internal states of others when being presented stimuli of social inclu sion , but not when being when being presented stimuli of social exclu sion ( Lai et al., 2016 ) . The authors additionally f ou nd a greater activation of the secondary somatosensory cortex , which has been found to be a neural correlate of social pain experiences (Kross, Berman, Mischel , Smith, & Wager, 2011) feeling s of being socially excluded during the social inclusion clue. Similar examples can be found in the marketing and advertising literature: Some studies claim that FOMO appeals threat en customers loyalty ( Hayran, Anik, & Gürhan - Canli, 2020 b ) . That is, using a three - item subscale of a previously develop ed FOMO measure (Przybylski et al., 2013), the authors found that participants in experimental and survey research as well as in field studies were consistently more likely to experience FOMO when a given alternative activity that was manipulated to be hig h (versus low) in favorability and high (versus low) in self - relevance, but not when the alternative activity was manipulated as high (versus low) in popularity. There w ere no effect s rm) or for non - social media manipulations (e.g., recommendations of friends or statistics). Further, the 10 authors found that the increase in FOMO based on favorability and self - relevance led, for example, to a decrease in revisit intentions of a restaurant participant s imagined dining at when presented with the manipulated alternative activities. Additionally, this study ( Hayran, Anik, & Gürhan - Canli, 2020 b ) showed that the FOMO experience was associated with 1) a decrease in revisit intentions of summer sch ool, when participants were presented with missed vacations, 2) a decrease in willingness to work longer hours in the office, when presented with after hour get togethers participants missed, and 3) with accepting a lower Dollar amount to leave a current e vent at a local museum to engage in an alternative activity. These findings are indicative of severe threats to re - visit/re - purchase intentions of consumers , and therefore constitute threats to customer loyalty. Further, a qualitative study by Hodkinson ( 2 019 ) revealed that the FOMO experience is accompanied by high cognitive load when processing externally initiated FOMO appeals (i.e., advertising appeals that explicitly state that consumers are missing out on something). This high cognitive load might block cognitive capa cities throughout a decision - making process and thus hinder decisions that are made more deliberately. However, other studies in marketing and advertising show that when consumers anticipate elation and envy of others, their exper ienced FOMO might actually lead to higher purchase likelihood of, for example, experiential products ( Good & Hyman, 2020 ) . That is, the authors us ed a scenario design in an online survey study in which they manipulated the severity of the FOMO appeals (FOM O - laden appeal versus non - FOMO appeal) by indicating that . They assessed anticipated elation, anticipated envy from other people, and comforting rationalization using previo usly established scale in the literature. They measured FOMO using an unpublished FOMO scale (Good, 2019) and purchase likelihood by asking about the probability participants 11 would buy a ticket and attend the concert (0 - 100% scale). Their results indicated that FOMO was negatively predicted by comforting rationalization, but positively by anticipated elation and anticipated envy of others, which in turn resulted in higher purchase likelihood for the concert. In this chapter I aim to explore and describe the FOMO experience across different contexts to carve out a conceptual definition and framework that unifies FOMO across contexts. This is important, because the FOMO experience has, in the past, only been examined within specific contexts, and not across . B y using theory - in - use ( TIU ) approaches to explicate the concept for a multitude of different contexts I provide scholars and practitioners with a detailed understanding of the FOMO experience . P rior Definitions of Fear of Missing Out In prior research various conceptual definitions of FOMO have been proposed and used. Although most research to date has conceptualized FOMO as a trait or individual difference (e.g., Abel et al., 2016 ; Blackwell, Leaman, Tramposch, Osborne, & Liss, 2017 ; Lai et al., 2016 ) others have examined FOMO as a state, or momentary experience (e.g., Adams et al., 2017 ; Hayran et al., 2020 a ; Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ) . Differences in conceptual definitions of FOMO, as exemplified in Table 2, are further observed with respect to the psychological nature of the FOMO experience. In the past, some researchers defined FOMO as a cognitive experience that involves significant cognitive load for individuals experiencing it ( Bright & Logan, 2018 ; Hodkinson, 2019 ; Wegmann, Obers t, Stodt, & Brand, 2017 ) , but others define the FOMO experience as a predominantly affective one, closely related to envy, social exclusion, jealousy, anxiety, and inadequacy ( Abel et al., 2016 ; Hayran et al., 2020 a ; Reagle, 2015 ) . Although most 12 Table 2 Example definitions of the FOMO concept in prior literature Authors (year) Conceptual definition Abel et al. (2016) has been suggested that when individuals feel they are missing out, they are experiencing feelings of irritability, Elhai et al. ( 2016 ) oMO) is a newer personality construct involving reluctance to miss important information, including Hayran et al. (2020 a ) Hodkinson (2019) Externally initiated FOMO appeal is defined as: Any initiating appeal, whether in person or impersonal, in which Commercial FOMO appeals are defined as: Any initiating appeal, whether in person or impersonal, originating from an specifically implied and the context of which is the stimulation Przybylski et al. (2013) rewarding experiences from which one is absent, FoMO is characterized by the desire to stay continually connected with what others are Reagle (2015) - related anxiety about missed experiences (fear of missing out) and belonging (fear of being left out) [, which are] characterized by some degree of social mobility, discretionary Wegmann et al. (2017) certain person al predisposition, but also a specific cognition regarding the fear of missing out on something that occurs terms of a relatively stable individual characteristic and as the general fear of an i - 35) Note. Examples organized in alphabetical order based on first author of the respective research study 13 research on the FOMO experience has used the initially developed FOMO measure by Przybylski et al. Hodkinson, 2019 ; Reagle, 2015 ) or developed their own scales for social media FOMO (W egmann, Oberst, Stodt, & Brand, 2017 ) or FOMO as a strict personally trait ( Abel et al., 2016 ). I will more elaborate on these other measures of FOMO in a later section of this dissertation. Some prior research ( Hayran et al., 2020 a ) conceptually differentiated FOMO from similar affective experiences, such as experienced and anticipated regret, envy, a nd feelings of social exclusion, and therefore aimed to elicit how FOMO is experienced. However, others have predominantly avoided a detailed discussion of the FOMO experience itself, and instead used the initial definition provided by Przybylski et al. (2 013) . This initial definition of FOMO was built on the very broad foundations of Self - connectedness, competence, and autonomy. This definition ( Przybylski et al., 2013 ) i s problematic, because more recent research showed that threa t s to the needs of connectedness, competence, and autonomy are not necessary, but merely sufficient conditions for the FOMO experience to occur ( Hayran et al., 2020 a ; Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ) . I t appears the initial definition provided might be too broad, and hence not descriptive of the FOMO experience. Other definitions, though, might be too narrow. For example, Wegmann et al. (2017) , posited that the FOMO experience is dependent on content obs erved by individuals online, specifically on social media. This presumption is problematic because other research provided evidence in longitudinal, qualitative, and quantitative studies that FOMO can be experienced whether social media provided information or not ( Hayran et al., 2020 a ; Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ; Reagle, 2015 ) . 14 Again, these discr epancies across definitions call for a detailed exploration of the FOMO experience itself. That is, in this c hapter I a m interested in how consumers experience FOMO and whether this FOMO experience is similar across contexts instead of focusing on antecede nts effectiveness as an advertising appeal. By being provided with a unifying definition and conceptual foundation of the FOMO experience across context s , marketer s and advertisers will be able to make more informed decisions on whether using FOMO appeals in their strategies and campaign designs is useful. In the following I provide a brief overview of two ways FOMO has been conceptualized in the past: FOMO as cogni tion and FOMO as negative affect. This narrative provides a summary of prior research that led to valid findings about the antecedents and effects of FOMO when conceptualized in two distinct ways. I propose there is a reason to believe that the process of experiencing FOMO might be comprised of both , cognition and negative affect. I , therefore, provide theoretical reasoning to consider a new and innovative way of conceptualizing FOMO, which I will investigate further and in a more detailed manner using a qu alitative approach. Fear of Missing Out as Cognition In studies proposing FOMO to be a mainly cognitive experience, two processes have commonly been suggested, but seldom empirically tested: Social comparison and counterfactual thinking . I n the following c hapter I will focus on these processes . Observing social activities of others increases FOMO ( Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ; Rifkin et al., 2015 ) . Thus, negative upward social comparison might be an essential part of the FOMO experience. This has als o been suggested by other authors who defined FOMO as a feeling of uneasiness about the possibility that others might have a better experience than one does ( Blackwell et al., 2017 ) . By 15 who seem to have better experiences, individuals are engaged in highly cognitive , negative , upward - comparison behavior. Social comparison is important for individuals to use in creating valid reference points for their self - assessment. In other words, peop le compare themselves, their situations, and their lives to others to evaluate themselves relative to a group or society ( Festinger, 1954 ) . This has important implications for marketing and advertising, in that reference groups and other objects of social comparison have a significant impact on consumer buying behavior ( Moschis, 1976 ) . The other cognitive component commonly suggested but not empirically tested in the past are counterfactual thoughts when experiencing FOMO ( Weiss & Kivetz, 2019 ) . Counterfac ( Markman, Gavanski, Sherman, & McMullen, 1993, p. 88 ) . Individuals construct counterfactuals not just and during decision - making ( De Brigard, Rodriguez, & Montañés, 2017 ) . C ounterfactuals are commonly referred to in the FOMO literature ( e.g., Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ) . That is, when people experience FOMO, they perceive the current event they have chosen as less enjoyable, and the event they missed out on as more enjoyable ( Rifkin et al., 2015 ) . This finding is confirmed by other researchers ( Adams et al., 2017 ; Blackw ell et al., 2017 ) , who state that individuals who experience FOMO perceive lives of others as more exciting. The importance of counterfactuals has also been suggested in the marketing and advertising literature , which suggest ed that consumers commonly prod uce counterfactuals before or after they purchase products ( McConnell et al., 2000 ) . Given that FOMO is a social concept that is driven by a fear of not feeling connected to peers and friends ( Beyens et al., 2016 ) , FOMO could serve as a motivator for purch ase behavior: By imagining how not buying a product consumer might 16 experience a state of being socially excluded . This is especially true , when others did purchase th at product and, therefore, are perceived as an in - group in consumers social circle, which they are then not a part of. C onsumer s then might produc e upward - oriented counterfactual thoughts of a world in which the product actual was purchased, and the individual ends up feeling excluded, because of this hypothetical and imagined alternative reality ( Su, Jiang, Chen, & DeWall, 2016 ) . The relevance of social comparison processes and counterfactual thought s to the FOMO experience becomes further apparent when consulting existing findings ( Go od & Hyman, 2020 ) that demonstrate that the FOMO experience lead s to increased purchase likelihood as a result of anticipated envy of others. Anticipation of envy is not only a highly cognitive process that is part it is also a process of comparing the self to others in a more favorable way. Fear of Missing Out as Negative Affect Several prior research studies support the idea of FOMO being a predominantly affective experience ( Abel et al., 2016 ; Elhai , Rozgonjuk , Li u , & Yang , 2020 ) . That is, Abel et al. (2016) qualitatively argue d for feelings of irritability, social anxiety, and inadequacy as drivers of experienced FOMO I am inclined to feel that I am a failure ed using experience sampling methodology that FOMO is correlated with negative affect assessments (PANAS - s hort form) and further with increasing negative affect over time after adjusting for covariates, such as depression and anxiety assessments. However, the exact nature of this emotional experience argues for other affective responses like anxiety ( Hayran et al., 2020 a ; Reagle, 2015 ) , or desire and apprehension ( Alt & Boniel - Nissim, 17 2018 ; Beyens et al., 2016 ; El hai et al., 2016 ) . A fter an initial fear reaction, individuals experience anxiety, uneasiness, and apprehension by imagining that others have more fun or are more included than themselves ( Blackwell et al., 2017 ; Przybylski et al., 2013 ; Reagle, 2015 ) . Ne vertheless, the exact nature of the affective component remains unclear. The only aspect that prior research has agreed upon seems to be that the experience of FOMO is accompanied by negative affect ( Hodkinson, 2019 ; Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ) . Given that n egative affect often is comprised of multiple negatively valanced emotions like fear, distress, being upset, nervousness, shame, guilt, irritability, and hostility ( Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988 ) , it might be reasonable to assume (based on previous defin itions of FOMO and the role of affect) that, as suggested by appraisal theories of emotions, a blend of negative emotions comprise FOMO ( Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989 ; Izard, 1977 ; Plutchik, 2001 ) . That said, negative affect in the case of FOMO might have a unique composition of discrete emotions that play into the affective component. To understand the possible affective nature of the FOMO experience is important in marketing and advertising, bec ause mood, affect, and valence of arousal have significant impact on decisions consumers make ( Luce, 1998 ) and on attitudes toward advertisings and brands ( Holbrook & Batra, 1987 ) . Given the connection of FOMO and feelings of social exclusion, the FOMO exp erience might be important to consumer decision - making outcomes , since research on social exclusion and consumer behavior showed a significant effect of feelings of social exclusion on brand switching behavior (Su et al, 2016). That is, Su et al. (2016) fo und that consumers , who feel chronically or temporarily excluded are more likely to show brand switching behavior than consumers who did not feel socially excluded. ( Hodkinson, 2019 ) . Its 18 connection to anticipated positive emotions has resulted in a signif icant impact on likelihood to buy in the past ( Hayran et al., 2020 a ) . Consequently, cognitive processes as well as negative affect seem to be important components of the FOMO experience. In that, t hey should not be seen isolated from each other , that is FOMO as being either cognitive or emotional/affective . In this current research I propose that the FOMO experience is both cognitive and affective and therefore might be more complex as prior research studies have conceptualized it. 19 Chapter 3: Co nceptualizing Fear of Missing Out The variability of operationalizations and conceptualizations of the FOMO concept across and within disciplines is a clear indicator of the need for qualitative foundational research. Thus, in this c hapter, I aim ed to shed light on how FOMO is experienced irrespective of context, and how the shared meaning of the experience is understood by individuals. It is important to provide scholars and practitioners with a detailed understanding of the cognitive and affective processes throughout the FOMO experience. This is because in the future, scholarly research across disciplines will be able to examine the concept based on a shared understanding, and practitioners in marketing and advertising understand the benefits and possible pitfalls of utilizing FOMO appeals in their message strategies. Without awareness of the cognitive and affective ramifications for consumers who experience FOMO, marketing and advertising managers might cause more harm than good by using FOMO with in their integrated campaigns. One example for how practitioners might cause harm to their organizations by using FOMO appeals is that prior research showed threats to loyalty, because experiencing FOMO during an activity decreases chances of consumers eng aging in the same activity again. T he purpose of this c hapter, which describes a phenomenological study , is to examine the cognitive and affective processes that are at play when one experiences FOMO, and to explore the essence of the FOMO experience acros s contexts. Using semi - structured, qualitative interviews , I closely follow ed a theory - in - use (TIU) approach for building marketing and advertising theory ( Zeithaml et al., 2020 ) . TIU approaches are suited to examin ing s in a particular domain or context ( Argyris & Schon, 1974 ) . However, I utilized a TI U approach to describe the FOMO experience 20 for multiple contexts. Thus, I w as FOMO and merely borrowed from the TIU methodology. Given the contrasting conceptualizations of FOMO in the past (i.e., FOMO as cognitive or affective experience), I intend ed to focus on both the cognitive and affective processes involved in the FOMO experience. To that end, I decided to use qualitative methods and follow recommendations for TIU approaches for theory building and phenomenological research design ( Creswell & Miller, 2000 ; Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2012 ; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009 ; Zeithaml et al., 2020 ) . This metho dology allows researchers to explore and describe how FOMO is experienced and what the underlying mechanisms of FOMO are. It is important to investigate FOMO across contexts, because the experience has been previously examined in various fields of inquiry. I therefore aim ed to provide a broad theoretical framework of the FOMO experience. By using the phenomenological method, I was able to gain a deeper understanding of the shared meaning of the subjectively encountered FOMO experience across consumers in va rious contexts. I was able to generate theoretical propositions, whic h inform ed the scale development procedures described in Chapter 4 . For marketing and advertising, specifically, it is important to gain a sophisticated understanding of the FOMO experien ce across context, because a plethora of different life gaining a holistic understanding of FOMO across all aspects of life is crucial for marketing and advertising prac titioners when designing strategies. Further, I aimed to develop a taxonomy of situations in which FOMO might present differently. FOMO is conceptually closely related to (anticipated) regret, which can be experienced prospectively (anticipated regret) or retrospectively (regret) ( Gilovich & Medvec, 1995 ; Tsiros & Mittal, 2000 ) . However, FOMO is 21 experienced in the present ( Hayran et al., 2020 a ) . FOMO, just like (anticipated) regret, can be experienced in varying aspects of life, such as (1) brands and products, (2) services, (3) advertisements, (4) financial investments, (5) social get - togethers or parties with friends, (6) trips or vacations with friends, (7) family - related events, (8) career opportunities, (9) personal life choices, and (10) important breaking news events . Given the close conceptual proximity of FOMO and (anticipated) regret we decided to focus on these aforementioned aspects of life, which have found to be relevant to regret ( Beike, Markman, & Karadogan, 2008 ; Gilovich & Medvec, 1995 ; Roese & Summerville, 2005 ; Tsiros & Mittal, 2000 ) . Consequently, these activities and life events form the contexts of interest in this c hapter . Method and Materials Theory - in - use approaches ( Argyris & Schon, 1974 ) for theory building have been successful of abstract concepts, such as market orientation ( Kohli & Jaworski, 1990 ) and service quality ( Parasuraman, 1985 ) . A recent publication in the Journal of Marketing proposes TIU approaches to be partic ularly useful to construct phenomenological research studies when developing grounded theory research ; whether by itself or in combination with other approaches ( Zeithaml et al., 2020 ) . Based on - construct theories together with consu mers and its close conceptual proximity to phenomenological research design I decided to follow guidelines for both research designs (i.e., phenomenological research and TIU approaches). That is, phenomenological research, at heart, aims to understand a ph enomenon or concept by using researcher convers ations with individuals who have a shared understanding of this phenomenon or concept. TIU approaches then go a step further and are particularly interested in how these shared understandings, or mental models , are particular to specific contexts. Both research 22 methodologies can be used to construct grounded theory by using qualitative insights in active exchange between researcher and participants. This is appropriate, because FOMO is an experience which consumers likely have undergone before, and about which they hold a subjective understanding or mental model. Integrating both research designs is appropriate as a research methodology to describe a shared meaning of subjective experienced cognitive and affective processes that are forming FOMO across contexts. Both phenomenological and TIU approaches have commonly been found to benefit from interview data ( Creswell & Poth, 2018 ; Zeithaml et al., 2020 ) . For both approaches the subjectively lived exper ience of the concept of interest is central. According to Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) , semi - structured interviews provide several advantageous characteristics that contribut e to its validity as a data collection approach from a phenomenological point of vie w: life world , or their lived experience, and the underlying meaning of these life worlds. They are qualitative and thus provide rich and descriptive insights that are expressed in common language. Interviews elicit exampl es of specific situations and allow the interviewer to examine a phenomenon deliberately naiveté ; that is, the interviewer allows for the emergence of novel and unexpected characteristics of the object of interest . They are focused on a pre - defined object of interest, are sometimes ambiguous in their interpretations, and subject to change throughout the progression of the interview. Interviews are sensitive to external and internal variables, such as the personalities of interviewee and interviewer or time and place they are conducted , and therefore provide a more detailed understanding of a subjectively experienced and described object of interest. They are conducted in interpersonal situations , and hence offer co - construction of findings between interviewe r and interviewee, and last, they might be a positive experience and offer insightful introspection for the interviewee 23 and interviewer. I therefore determined that interviews would be the most useful methodological instrument to use in this phenomenologic al study. In that, semi - structured in - depth interviews allowed me to co - construct the conceptual definition and a sophisticated understanding of the FOMO experience of participants who had experienced FOMO. Participants and s ampling . I conducted 28 interviews. However, one interview was not recorded because of technical problems, and therefore was not used in the current analysis. Thus, I analyzed interview data from 27 participants (15 females, 12 males) between 18 and 70 years old. Pa rticipants were recruited using a community - based research participant pool of a large midwestern public university and were compensated with $10 for taking part in an interview Caucasian, college education but not yet a degree. Table 3 summarizes all available demographic information of interviewees who contributed to this research. All nam es were altered by using the most popular names for each gender between 1919 - 2018 ( Social Security Administration, 2019 ) to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. Existing qualitative research ( Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006 ) has used the sampling concept sizes. Saturation is defined as the point at which no new information emerges from conducting more interviews ( Glaser & Strauss, 1999 ). However, in this current study the concept of saturation was problematic to apply based on our data structure. Instead , Malterud, Siersma, and Guassora (2015) proposed a more quantifiable approach to determine appropriate sample sizes: information power. I nformation power is a combination of narrow versus broad study aim, popul ation specificity, whether the research was theory - driven, dialogue quality , and means of analysis. Here , I defined the study aim as specific, because I w as interested in the FOMO 24 Table 3 Overview of available demographics of interviewees in this study Name Age Gender Ethnicity Sexuality Income Education James 21 - 25 Male Caucasian or White Heterosexual Under $25,000 Some college, no degree John 61 - 70 Male Caucasian or White Asexual $30,000 - $49,999 Mary 18 - 20 Female Caucasian or White Heterosexual Under $25,000 Some college, no degree Margaret 21 - 25 Female Hispanic or Latino Heterosexual Under $25,000 Some college, no degree Betty 46 - 50 Female Native Hawaiian Bisexual Under $25,000 Patricia 26 - 30 Female Caucasian or White Heterosexual Under $25,000 Robert 18 - 20 Male Caucasian or White Heterosexual Under $25,000 Some college, no degree Jennifer 31 - 35 Female Caucasian or White Lesbian $30,000 - $49,999 Thomas 26 - 30 Male Mixed Heterosexual Under $25,000 Linda 21 - 25 Female Caucasian or White Heterosexual Under $25,000 Some college, no degree Elizabeth 21 - 25 Female Caucasian or White Heterosexual Under $25,000 Barbara 21 - 25 Female Caucasian or White Heterosexual Under $25,000 Some college, no degree Michael 71+ Male Caucasian or White Heterosexual $75,000 - $99,999 Doctoral degree Daniel 31 - 35 Male Hispanic or Latino Heterosexual $25,000 - $29,999 William 21 - 25 Male Caucasian or White Heterosexual Under $25,000 Susan 21 - 25 Female Caucasian or White Heterosexual NA Some college, no degree Jessica 18 - 20 Female Caucasian or White Heterosexual Under $25,000 Some college, no degree David 18 - 20 Male Caucasian or White Bisexual Under $25,000 Some college, no degree Matthew 21 - 25 Male Black or African American Heterosexual under $25,000 Some college, no degree Richard 21 - 25 Male Mixed Heterosexual $25,000 - $29,999 Joseph 36 - 40 Male Caucasian or White Heterosexual Under $25,000 Sarah 18 - 20 Female Caucasian or White Heterosexual Under $25,000 Some college, no degree Lisa 26 - 30 Female Black or African American Heterosexual $50,000 - $74,999 Charles 46 - 50 Male Caucasian or White Heterosexual $100,000 - $149,999 Doctoral degree Nancy 31 - 35 Female Caucasian or White Heterosexual $30,000 - $49,999 Christopher 21 - 25 Male Black or African American Heterosexual NA Some college, no degree Dorothy 21 - 25 Female Mixed Heterosexual Under $25,000 25 experience within specific contexts. I defined sample specificity as dense, because all participants were expected to have experienced FOMO prior to engaging in this study. I w as conducting research in part based on established theory, but expected novel, theory - extending findings. The dialogue between interviewer and interviewee s was considered strong, based on ere analyzed cross - case to gain a holistic understanding of the subjective F OMO experience. In other words, we compared findings across participants and context to find similarities in the FOMO experience. Thus, I expected medium information power, and concluded 2 7 participants are appropriate, based on existing recommendations fo r sampling within TIU approaches and phenomenological research ( Creswell & Poth, 2018 ; Zeithaml et al., 2020 ) , which suggest 25 - 30 participants. This Procedure. Semi - structured, in - depth interviews were conducted in individual sessions with the author. They were audio recorded and lasted between 12.2 - 68.4 minutes. Each interviewee was welcomed and informed about the study purpose: to understand FOMO across diffe rent situations and contexts. Interviewees were asked for informed consent and compensated. Interviews started by asking interviewee about themselves first, eliciting information such as favorite leisure time activities. Interviewees were asked to define responded, they were told that subsequent questions were about different contexts where they may or may not have e xperienced FOMO. These contexts were: (1) brands and products, (2) services, (3) advertisements, (4) financial investments, (5) social get - togethers or parties with friends, (6) trips or vacations with friends, (7) family - related events, (8) career opportu nities, (9) 26 personal life choices, and (10) important breaking news events. They were asked the following situations in which you experienced this in terms of [C ONTEXT]? Please describe this situation I asked interviewees to re - define FOMO. The full interview guide can be found in Appendix 1. Preparation of q ualitative i nterview d ata. Audio recordings of interview data were ma nually transcribed using an online transcription service ( https://scribie.com ). Transcriptions were cleaned by the author. That is, non - relevant parts of the conversation, personal information about the interviewee, and the audio line of the researcher were deleted. Thus, only information related to FOMO was maintained. The author broke down the resulting data per interviewee and per context, thus creating interview fragments, which served as the body of text for conseque nt coding procedures. Codebook d evelopment and c oding of i nterview d ata . Data were coded by two research First, an initial codebook was developed by the author including the code descriptions for social comparison processes, counterfactuals , an d negative affect as proposed in the literature review of this study. These three codes seemed to be central to the FOMO experience in the past and therefore were included a priori. I also included a code for positive affect in order to explore data for di sconfirming evidence about the underlying affective nature of the FOMO experience ( Creswell & Miller, 2000 ) . I included a code for social media involvement , because of the overwhelming number of existing studies that tie the FOMO experience to social media ( e.g., Abel et al., 2016 ) . Additionally, a code for associations with age w ere included based on age - 27 related effects on FOMO proposed in prior research ( e.g., Przybylski et al., 2013 ) . Last, I included a code for the explicitly stated absence of FOMO . Nex t, both coders received the initial codebook and ambiguities were discussed with the author and revised when necessary. The coders then received the same ten interview fragments to code independently. Codes were compared and discussed between the author and coders, and five additional codes were added to the revised codebook: social avoidance, social exclusion, decision - making, relational proximity , and coping (see Appendix 2 for detailed definitions in the revised codebook ). The coders then received anot her set of ten interview fragments to code independently; again, the codes were discussed between coders and authors and disagreements were resolved. By using this process, I allowed the coding procedure not just to be built on a theoretical foundation , bu t also to evolve throughout the process. That is, I allowed for additional themes to emerge and to be added to the codebook as they were identified by coders who were unfamiliar with the hypotheses ( Gioia et al., 2012 ) . The remaining interview fragments we re divided between the two coders and coded according to the revised codebook to allow both coders to randomly code a subset of participants and contexts and therefore avoid systematic coder influence on a specific subset of qualitative data (Appendix 2) . Construct development Codes were assigned by coders in a potentially overlapping fashion, that is, some statements ha s been assigned more than one code, when the statement was accounting for more I thought about all the fun I could be mentioned least by participan ts. Number of assigned codes are summarized in Figure 1. 28 Figure 1 Counts of codes assigned in qualitative interview data In this Chapter I aimed to provide researchers and practitioners with an understanding of how FOMO is experienced across different contexts. I did this by asking interviewees in semi - structured, in - depth interviews about their subjective understanding of experienced FOMO. Here, I was more focused on the similarities across context, and not on the differenc es. That is, I aimed to construct a conceptual understanding of what the FOMO experience entails in terms of cognitive and affective processes. There were several interviewees who indicated that they did not think they have experienced FOMO in a majority o No, I don't think I've really experienced that. Any news that's important to me, I guess I usually know relatively frequently I haven't really experienced fear of missing out from advertisemen ts. I think that's mostly because of who I am ( David on advertising). However, these comments 29 suggesting the absence of FOMO were considerably scarcer than responses indicating that FOMO was indeed an experience that is a part of nearly all life stages a nd circumstances of consumers. I identified multiple accounts of participants indicating the FOMO experience becomes scarcer and less dominant with increasing age in some domains, such as products and brands: partly because I got older and I realized that it should not a matter what you wear for people to like you [...] (Linda) However, in oth er domains FOMO might actually increase with age, as suggested by one interviewee when reflecting on her financial decision - Now I have a serious fear of, I might be behind. so. Behind of everyone, in all honesty sa). This is partially in line with early research on FOMO ( Przybylski et al., 2013 ) , which posited that the FOMO experience generally declines with age. However, this also calls for a more diversified view on FOMO and its contexts. The qualitative data fu rther confirms prior research, which suggested that social media is not the root of the FOMO experience ( Hayran et al., 2020 a ; Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ) . Although social media involvement was mentioned several times predominantly by younger participants (e you're missing out on the experiences, the memories and the fun times [and] it's gonna be all over Facebook, all over Snapchat - togethers), others state d that social media actually eases their experienced FOMO on , for example, I don't really fear missing out because I feel like I'll find out eventually, either on my phone or on 30 I can't im agine what a young teen goes through today. We always feared being left out, but we weren't really sure. [With] s ocial media you know that you're left out might be a facilitator of FOMO, but not the sole reason. With respect to the actual FOMO experience, responses by the interviewees predominantly described FOMO as being closely related to feelings of social exclusion: A fear of isolation because any context where there is this fear of missing out, fear of miss ing out on the information, fear of missing out on social events, fear of missing out on opportunities, or new products, it all results in this idea of the contrary (David). This description of the FOMO experience confirms prior research, in that it sugges ts close ties of the FOMO experience, and feelings of social exclusion ( Adams et al., 2017 ) . But I also found ample reports of interviewees stating that the FOMO experience is not dependent on being excluded by others . Rather, it constitutes a decision - mak ing process about inclusion and exclusion and therefore, often times, is tied to social avoidance . That is, participants reported that they had agency over the exclusion situation (by being socially avoidant) and still experienced FOMO : I fear that I'm no t social enough. I don't meet enough people. That goes all the way back to be an adolescent and stuff. I didn't I didn't go to my prom because I didn't really want to go, but when it happened it was like, I felt like I missed out on something (Joseph). 31 The notion that FOMO is not dependent on not having agency in an exclusion situation confirms prior theorizing ( Hayran et al., 2020 a ) , which suggested that the absence of agency about exclusion and inclusion decisions is not a necessary conditio n for FOMO to be experienced. In fact, reports by the interviewees suggest that the hallmark of FOMO is its underlying role in decision - making. That is, interviewees described FOMO as a lifelong process of making decisions you hav e two options, and you choose to do the one, you might have FOMO about the other - making process is novel and particularly important for marketers and advertisers. That is, with respect to product and brands in I know a few of my friends have [these products] and that's really nice, but I was like, Do I really want to spend my money on that? This example of the FOMO experience highlights several major aspect s that h ave emerg ed from the qualitative data: (1) FOMO involves cognitive processes of comparison with others, (2) the relational proximity, or how close are consumers to the people they compare themselves to, is a crucial factor, and (3) counterfactuals that are generated affect future wellbeing. In fact, one of the most referenced aspects of the FOMO experience was negative affect. That is, across all contexts and accounts, interviewees frequently referred to FOMO as you're missing out on the fun, bonding, ( Jessica ) , missing this fulfilment from achieving some great things, and people definitely do suffer from that you are missing out on buying a product. I think it's kind of negative for me, (Jenni fer). So, although highly cognitive, I found vast evidence for an emotional or affective component within the FOMO experience. It therefore appears that the FOMO experience might be more 32 complex than existing research suggested by conceptualizing FOMO as a trait or state. This FOMO decision - making process , which is driven by cognitive and affective sub - mechanisms seems to be dynamic and multifaceted. Proposition Development The f irst m echanism : Cognition . In the beginning of the FOMO process consumers perceive an experiential discrepancy . That is, they perceive their current experience to be worse from a potential desired experience . This w as reported by interviewees across contexts, for They have the Apple watch and it makes me kind of want one even though I tried theirs and I know it's too bulky for my wrist my wife has a bigger family, so she speaks with them almost daily, and that makes me kind of furious sometimes because I'm not able to do that a lot of my friends still went back for football games I couldn't make it back [because] I was too busy studying , " rewarding, especially when these others are close friends results in upward counterfactu als as commonly expressed by interviewees: have happened if I would have changed something I ). This process of socially compar current experiences with possible experiences is highly dependent on the relational proximity to the people involved : and see p feel like you need to have some kind of personal connection to the product or the experience fo r you to feel like you're missing out (Margaret) 33 These imagined events are not just dependent on the current situation, but also on missed prior experiences. That is, cons umers learn over their lifetime across domains and contexts. In other words, consumers have had negative experiences in the past because they did not realize an opportunity they could have taken and will therefore use these past missed opportunities when making new de cisions. Thus, the summed negative emotional experiences of the past leads to predictions of how bad they will feel now. So, although it addresses the present context and current decisions, FOMO has a retrospective comparison It's gonna definitely be retrospective, no matter what, because you knew what your choices were at the time, and then you can evaluate, I made this choice. What if I made that choice? I think people always look back a little bit (Charles) . Another interviewee explained: I'm really into the British royal family. When the first wedding happened, I definitely had a FOMO so when the next one happened, I was definitely there The s econd m echanism : Negative affect . The constructed (upward) counterfactuals that are th e result of the first mechanism then lead to a negative affective experience . This became evident at various occasions throughout the I wasn't invited to t his open house. Therefore, I fear missing out becaus e something cool might happen, and I won't be able to talk about it or be there when it does happen. And therefore , I'll be excluded or made fun of because I wasn't there , " (Charles) . Another interviewee mentioned that I think the way [marketing make s] you feel like you are missing out on some consumer advantage if you don't have the latest smartphone fear of not being fully engaged with the world ed on an initial perceived discrepancy between what is and what is desired leads to negative affect. This negative affect is comprised of a little bit of sadness [and] maybe jealousy , general 34 anxiety about [the] future a feeling of bothering regret [for] not knowing [and feeling] unintelligent and uninformed P articipants equate d fear of missing out with exclusion The t hird m echanism : Paralyzing action . When individuals experience negative affect as a result of the two mechanisms that start the FOMO process, they have two ways of coping : by either motivating or paralyzing action. Coping with negative affect either by activating or inhibiting behavior has also been stated by the dual system operating proposed in existing theories of emotions ( Thayer, 1989 ) . ( Thayer, 1989 ) states that emotions can either result in action or in inaction. For example, one interviewee mentioned that sometimes when experiencing FOMO, he would not act on the FOMO experience and be that [he would be] missing out and that fear [is] proven true as you watch your friends have the But other times reall The third mechanism of the FOMO process, therefore, has been described by interviewees as paralyzing action . That is, consumers get caught in a spiral of rumination and dwelling, which leads to more counterfactuals, which in t urn leads to more negative affect, and so on. One interviewee reported about a social get - I would have been checking my phone the whole time Like it would be something that I couldn't get my mind off like what was going on or something I think that's where I can get caught in a trap of dwelling on the past and what could have been This unhealthy form of coping with negative affect stemming from the FOMO experience might be one possible explanation of various existing research findings, which connect FOMO to symptoms of depression, rumination, and social anxiety ( e.g., Dempsey et al., 2019 ) . 35 The f ourth m echanism : Motivating action . The fourth mechanism is a nother form of coping . As described before, consumers might try to reduce the experienced negative affect by trying to reduce the perceived experiential discrepancy that initiated the FOMO process. These healthy coping mechanisms can be either behavioral by, for example, engag ing in the behavior I finally decided to break down and get a new car, and I was feeling left out because the thing I was driving was not so wonderful (Michael). Another way of healthy coping is r ooted in dissonance reduction processes ( McGrath, 2017 ) kinda just get over the fact and live life realiz ing they] did good here [and] it won't matter considered motivating action within the FOMO process and demonstrate a healthy way of coping with the FOMO experience. Fear of Missing Out as a P rocess Based on the qualitative data I have analyzed in this chapter I offer a broad definition of the FOMO experience. These qualitative findings confirm my earlier proposition to define FOMO as a ffective and cognitive experience based on the perceived discrepancy betwee n experiences and the ones their immediate and extended social environment is having . This definition covers several key findings from the qualitative data: (1) FOMO is about an experience that is perceived as better than the one currently engaged in. These experiences can be related to a variety of targets, such as social and family - relate d experiences, but also product and brand experiences. Perceptions of experiential discrepancies intensify when others are involved with whom the consumer shares a closer relationship with, and when the consumer has 36 been in the situation before. This perce ived discrepancy further leads to the fabrication of scenarios. (2) The result of these cognitive processes is a negative affective experience. (3) This negati ve affect can be persistent, resulting in dwelling on the missed events, rumination about them, and negative effects on mental health and wellbeing; and therefore, can be coped with in an unhealthy way. (4) But this negative affect can also be short and fl eeting when consumers try to engage in healthy coping with this negative affect by, for example, deciding to change their current situation or cognitively reducing dissonance. Figure 2 Conceptual model of the FOMO process This se ries of mechanisms describe the FOMO process (Figure 2 ) , which is different from most prior theoretical frameworks (i.e., FOMO within Construal Theory or Self - Determination Theory). Conceptualizing FOMO as a process allows an expansion of the construct to include both affective and cognitive components . The FOMO process is a dynamic decision - making framework that takes social belonging into account . The FOMO process is 37 comprised of sub - mechanisms, which provide a context independent understanding of FOMO an d its effects on behavior in the marketplace and beyond. Similarities and Differences of FOMO Across Context I was further interested whether the FOMO experience is similar or different across context and if so, what aspects of the FOMO experience seem to vary. Consulting a detailed breakdown of code assignments by the two independent coders (Appendix 3), it appears that there is some variability across contexts. That is, assuming that number of counts of each code (s ocial c omparison , c ou nterfactual thinking , positive and n egative affect , s ocial media involvement , a ge , n o FOMO , s ocial exclusion , s ocial avoidance , d ecision - making , s ocial proximity , and c oping ) are indicative of role and importance within each context, the intervi ew data suggests several important findings. It appears that the importance of social comparison, counterfactual thoughts, and negative affect varies across context. That is, in the contexts of advertising, products and brands, investments, and career oppo rtunities the components of counterfactual thoughts and social comparison (or the cognitive components of the FOMO process) seem to have more weight and are more prevalent than the negative affective components. However, with respect to social get - together s, vacations, and family events there is more emphasize on the affective component. breaking news events and services. One reason for the lack of the FOMO experience with respect to services might be that services, generally speaking, are non - conspicuous products. Additionally, it appears that the FOMO experience, across contexts, is more associated with social exclusion than with social avoidance, with exception for t he context s vacations and personal life choices. Within these contexts, social avoidance was mentioned more often than 38 social exclusion. One reason might be higher controllability and personal responsibility for these contexts. That is, in terms of persona l life choices participants recognized that they made decisions in the past that were predominantly affected by themselves, and instead of feeling socially excluded, they felt like they withdrew from the opportunities themselves. Discussion Theoretical im plications . In this Chapter , reporting phenomenological study findings , I described the FOMO process. This cognitive and affective process is a novel way of predominantly as a trait or state, qualitative findings indicate that how FOMO is experienced is more complex and comprised of six sub - components: (1) social comparison, (2) missed prior opportunities, (3) counterfactual thinking, (4) negative affect, (5) paralyzing action, and (6) motivating action. These sub - components form the four s ub - mechanisms that together comprise the FOMO process. This perspective on the FOMO experience is novel and can help scholars in various fields to explain several prior findings by providing a sophisticated theoretical framework in which FOMO can be studie d. For example, FOMO s connection to poor mental health and its negative relations to wellbeing ( Reer et al., 2019 ) can be explained by the third mechanism (counterfactual thinking) , which describes unhealthy coping by engaging in rumination and over - think ing . relation to purchase behavior when expecting elation and envy of others ( Good & Hyman, 2020 ) can be explained by the fourth mechanism. That is, consumers initially feel bad (negative affect) but actively and healthily cope with these negative emotions by actually purchasing the product or service they have been missing out on. This purchase serves as a behavioral coping mechanism, which mends the initial perceived discrepancy between what is and what is desired. 39 Managerial Implications . This st udy has important implications for marketers and advertisers. That is, although I focus ed on other contexts besides advertising and product or brand communications, I provide practitioners with a sophisticated and detailed description of a FOMO process tha t is independent of the context it is experienced in. Advertising and consumer example, in this current study I show that the FOMO process is a highly cognitive proc ess that potentially occupies vast amounts of cognitive resources ( Hodkinson, 2019 ) . I additionally show that the result of these cognitive process are negative affective experiences. This, too, might be an issue since prior research provided ev idence that persuasive efforts that evoke negative emotions m ight be ineffective, because they are avoided by consumers ( Rhodes, 2017 ) . Luce, 1998, for example, found that when consumers experience negative emotions when making decisions, they have more difficulty processing available information , as shown by longer reaction times in decision - making tasks, and consequently avoided making a positive decision altogether. Or in other words, negative emotions led to choosing to stay with a current status quo in a purchase decision. However, I also show that the FOMO experience can be a and marketers use FOMO appeals with caution to not cause more harm than go od. Limitations and Future Research . Th e study comes with several preliminary limitations. First, although participants represented individuals in various stages of life (20 - year - old students, 34 - year - old full - time employees, 70 - year - old retirees) findings are not generalizable due to the fact that these 27 participants , who were part of this study , represented residents only from Michigan . In particular differences between participants in collectivistic versus individualistic cultures, and also socio - geogr aphical differences between U.S. residents might have affected 40 findings in this qualitative research study. Future research should validate qualitative findings of this qualitative study. Further, it was not in the scope of this research to explore demogra phic differences in the FOMO experience or fine - grained contextual differences. Thus, future research might need to further scrutinize the FOMO process based on possible demographic moderators. Here, I aimed to provide an overview of the FOMO experience th at is independent of context and as broad as possible. Summary of Conceptual Development Results In summary , I followed research recommendations of theory - in - u se approaches and phenomenological research design to provide scholars and practitioners with a s ophisticated and novel understanding of the FOMO experience. Breaking with existing proposals about the conceptualization of FOMO , I developed the conceptual definition of the FOMO process, which is described by four sub - mechanisms. These sub - mechanisms de scribe cognitive and affective processes that comprise the FOMO experience as well as coping processes. Consequently, I provide scholars in advertising, marketing, and other disciplines with the theoretical framework of the FOMO process . 41 Chapter 4: Operationalizing Fear of Missing Out In Chapter 4 I report findings from the development of a measurement tool that helps to segment and understand consumers. Therefore, I provide a tool that can help examine how prone consumers are to engage in the FOMO process. This is important, because t he proposed FOMO process explain s various consumer behavior outcomes , especially the ones that are based on resulting motivating or paralyzing effects of negative affect ( Hodkinson, 2019 ) . For example, due to internal or external constraints consumers sometimes fail to redeem offers they were eager to procure (experiential discrepancy), which leads to overestimation of the value of these missed opportunities (counterfactuals), and consequently higher desirabili ty of the missed opportunity or offer (motivating action following the negative affective experience) ( Weiss & Kivetz, 2019 ) . Therefore, I developed a trait - scale that helps to assess how prone consumers are to engage in the FOMO process . This trait scale will help future research to examine and predict the FOMO process and is therefore a necessary first step to understand the FOMO experience. I n the following section I summarize each of the components that are important to th e proneness to engage in the FO MO process and provide a detailed conceptual definition for each. Based on the goal to develop a theoretically and methodologically sound measurement scale it is important to have a clear conceptual understanding of each subcomponent. Proneness to Engage i n the FOMO Process Tendency to socially compare. The tendency to socially compare embedded in the proneness to engage in the FOMO process trait is defined as compare their situation, opportunities, lives, and possessions to others in order to find their place and create value for themselves within a given social group ( Festinger, 1954 ) . That is, some consumers more than others tend to prefer to be in the in - group, build social status, and adhere to 42 group norms through their purchases ( Moschis, 1976 ; Warren, Batra, Loureiro, & Bagozzi, 2019 ) . This tendency to socially compare depends on 1) the increased awareness of how current situations could be better than they are, and 2) stronger appraisal of the individual proximity to the people involved in these current situations . For example, some consumers are more aware of a new, innovative smartphone and might be more prone to perceive an experiential discrepancy between what could be (owning the new sma rtphone) and what is (keeping the current smartphone). When close friends purchase the new smartphone, this discrepancy will become more severe as opposed to distant acquaintances or strangers purchasing the smartphone . Sensitivity to missed opportunities. Opportunities missed in the past are outcomes of prior decisions that potentially affect present decisions. These past decisions and missed opportunities have been found to affect attitudes and cognitions about future consequences and therefore affect pre sent behavior ( Albarracín & Wyer Jr, 2000 ) . These outcomes of prior decisions can include, for example, not acting or acting wrongfully. For the FOMO process, the sensitivity to missed opportunities reflect s about missing out on new tren ds and developments. Having missed out in the past, they may be hypersensitive to new opportunities and more likely to act in the present . For example, if a consumer did not upgrade the last time a new smartphone was released, they may feel like they are n ot part of the in - group of their friends who did. Th e poor prior decision of not purchasing affect s the perceived experiential discrepancy they experience in the current situation, in which a new smartphone is released. Consequently, s ome consumers will be more sensitive to the missed prior opportunities when making new decisions. 43 Dispositional counterfactual thinking . In prior research counterfactuals have been ( Markman et al., 1993 ) . That is, consumers tend to create mental simulations about what could have happened if they had acted differently in the past, or what could happen if they act in a specific way in the present ( De Brigard, Addis, Ford, Schacter, & Giovanello, 2013 ; De Brigard et al., 2017 ) . Counterfactual thinking is closely related to decision - making outcomes of both , acting and not acting ( Weiss & Kivetz, 2019 ) . Counterfactuals are different from expectations, because they can be retrospective whereas expectations are only about future outcomes, and they do not need to be realistic. T hese imagined, alternative realities might be overly positively or negatively appraised and are more likely to reflect the best and/or worst - case scenario as a possible outcome ( Tsiros & Mittal, 2000 ) . Within the FOMO process a consumer might decide to not purchase the new smartphone, although all their friends do. Some consumers are then more prone than others to imagine what it would be like having the smartphone, how they would be able to talk to their friends about specific features, and how owning the smartphone would integrate them better into their social group ( Rye, Cahoon, Ali, & Daftary, 2008 ) . Negative trait affect. Negative trait affect is the proneness to experience negative affect as a result of the FOMO process ( Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ; Reagle, 2015 ) . Based on a constructionist point of view, negative affect, or emotions in general, are often comprised of a blend of multiple discrete emotions that may co - occur and therefore create unique emotional experiences ( Izard, 1977 ) . Based on appra isal theory ( Frijda et al., 1989 ) and the dual system of ( 1989 ) theor y of emotions these blends of emotions might result in either behavioral activation or inhibition ( Dillard & Peck, 2006 ) . Consequently, negative trait affect captures 44 ion in the proneness to engage dimension of the FOMO process trait - scale . With prior research having found that strong emotions not only affect message processing ( Rhodes, 2017 ) and consumer satisfaction ( Homburg, Koschate, & Hoyer, 2006 ) , but also consume r choice ( Coleman, Williams, Morales, & White, 2017 ; Luce, 1998 ) , it becomes clear that the proneness to engage in the FOMO process is releva nt for the field of marketing . Existing Scales P rior research studies have developed measurement scales that assess FOMO using a self - report scale (see Table 4) . Przybylski et al. ( 2013 ) developed the widely used 10 - item, unidimensional FOMO scale using Item Response Theory (IRT) methodology and a large international sample (N = 1,013). However, there is disagreement in the literature about whether th is scale represents a state, trait, or individual difference. Subsequent work divided the scale into trait and state dimensions of social media specific FOMO ( Wegmann et al., 2017 ) . Another scale developed by Abel et al. ( 2016 ) represents a three - dimensional trait measure for FOMO. Scale items were developed based on prior research in related concepts such as inadequacy, irritability, and self - esteem, using a small sample of 202 participants. All three scales are inadequate , lacking either conceptual or methodological rigor in their development . These inadequacies include, but are not limited to , small sample sizes, theoretically unfounded item development procedures, and a lack of generalizability of the resulting scales. Further, all three scales ( Abel et al., 2016 ; Przybylski et al., 2013 ; We gmann et al., 2017 ) put heavy emphasi s on the context of social media within the concept of FOMO. That is, all three measures include items specifically reflecting social media use. However, prior research as well as my own qualitative findings showed that 45 Table 4 Prior FOMO scales developed in scholarly research Authors Items Przybylski et al. (2013) Unidimensional 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. It is important that I understand my 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 (e.g. updating status). 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 are doing. Wegmann et al. ( 2017 ) Trait FOMO I fear others have more rewarding experiences than me I fear my friends have mo re 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 State FOMO When I miss out on a planned get - together it bothers me I am continuously online in order not to miss out on anything It is important that I have a say about the latest issues in my online social networks (videos, images, posts, etc.) I fear not to be up to date in my social networking sites I continuously consult my smartphone, in order not to miss out on anything When I have a good time, it is important for me to share the details online (e.g. updating status) It is important that I understand the Internet - slang my friends use When I go on vacations, I continue to keep tabs on what my friends are doing Abel et al. (2016 ) Sense of self/Self - esteem I take a positive attitude toward myself On the whole, I am satisfied with myself I feel that I have a number of good qualities I am inclined to feel that I am a failure I feel that I do not have much to be proud of Social Interaction/Extroversion When in a group of people, do you have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about? How frequently are you troubled by shyness? Do you feel uncomfortable meeting new peop le? Social Anxiety Assume you are unable to check social media when you want to: how frequently do you feel frightened? Assume you are unable to check social media when you want to: how frequently do you feel nervous? 46 social media is not its sole cause ( Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ; Reagle, 2015 ) . Most importantly, none of these three scales are reflective of the FOMO process. That is, they do not capture the distinct components that were identified and developed using qual itative phenomenological research in the previous chapter, such as counterfactual thinking and social comparison. These scales are not able to capture the nature of FOMO accurately. Although these scales posit static personality dimensions, it has become evident ( Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ) that a dynamic view is need ed, which s to experience this FOMO process. T he Scale Development Process Overview . T his work followed prior scale development procedures ( Brakus et al., 2009 ; Homburg et al., 2015 ) as well as best practices from the social sciences ( Carpenter, 2018 ; Churchill, 197 9 ; DeVellis, 2017 ; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006 ) . Table 5 provides a summarized overview of the scale development process. First, I used the adult community pool of participants from Chapter 3 . I generated a comprehensive list of items based on interviews (Step 1). Items were then evaluated for face validity using expert feedback and the initial list of items was reduced (Step 2). In a large national sample of U.S. respondents, I conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for further item reduction, and exploration of dimensionality (Step 3). Using two U.S. national samples and one college student sample I validated the resulting 16 - item, four - factor solution in independent samples (Step 4). Using longitudinal data (time b etween assessment was approximately two weeks) I established test - retest reliability for temporal stability (Step 5). Last, I established content and convergent validity of the scale by correlating each component with a prior FOMO measure, relevant charact er traits like affiliation motivation, social anxiety, and behavioral activation and inhibition (Step 6). 47 Table 5 Overview of scale development process Process steps Data and Methods Results 1. Item generation Twenty - seven qualitative semi - structured in - depth interviews; qualitative data Initial set of 235 items for scale development 2. Face validity and initial item reduction Three experts provided feedback on all items; items that were perceived as relevant to FOMO by two of three experts were retained 79 items for further analyses were identified 3. Further item reduction and scale dimensionality Quantitative procedures with N = test, KMO, inter - item & item - total correlation, social desirability, EFA and CFA); Sample 1 16 items were retained; four factors were identified for good model fit; Table 7 4. Scale validation with independent samples Additional data collection of N 2 = N 3 and applying quantitative procedures similar to S tep 3 (CFA); Sample 2 and 3 Goodness - of - fit indices for CFA in all samples were good; Table 8 and Figure 3 5. Temporal stability Collecting longitudinal survey data from N = 390 U.S. participants over two timepoints; examining invariance/ equivalence over time; Sample 4 No difference between time 1 and 2 for each component; measure is reliable 6. Convergent and content validity Checking convergent and content validity with measures related to FOMO; Pearson correlations with established scales; Sample 1, 3, and 4 Developed scale shows good convergent and content validity; Table 10 Note. KMO: Kaiser - Meyer - Olkin; EFA: exploratory factor analysis; CFA: confirmatory factor analysis 48 Table 6 Demographic composition of the quantitative samples across all studies Variable Sample 1 N=727 Sample 2 N=408 Sample 3 N=421 Sample 4 N=390 Age (Median) 39 20 39 34 Gender Male 332 171 213 194 Female 385 237 202 193 None of the above 3 0 3 1 Prefer not to say 0 0 2 2 Race White or Caucasian 551 286 307 290 Black or African American 63 29 41 30 Asian 44 61 32 29 Hispanic 44 14 16 23 Mixed 4 10 13 8 Other 6 2 6 6 Sexuality Heterosexual 651 362 367 346 Bisexual 26 21 23 20 Homosexual 27 13 25 20 None of the above 11 2 4 1 Prefer not to say 0 10 1 3 Education Less than a high school degree 14 - 15 3 High school graduate 168 - 95 59 Some college, but no degree 152 - 112 62 Associate degree 83 - 40 36 189 - 96 145 85 - 41 65 Doctoral degree 12 - 0 0 Professional degree 23 - 16 11 Income Less than $10,000 67 21 43 14 $10,000 - $49,999 250 50 154 115 $50,000 - $99,999 234 106 132 139 $100,000 - $149,999 96 87 55 77 $150,000 or more 77 144 36 45 Note. Information about the qualitative sample and more details about data cleaning procedures can be found online https://bit.ly/3dAMf5L 49 Samples. An overview of participant characteristics for all four quant itative samples is summarized in Table 6 . A detailed overview of participants in the qualitative interview study can be found in the prior Chapter (Table 3). All data were collected prior to February 6, 2020 . Thus, I avoided possible confounds due to the C OVID - 19 crisis. Item Generation (Step 1) The first aim in this Chapter was to develop a comprehensive pool of items describing the FOMO process. Prior research in the assessment of FOMO has developed items predominantly based on existing literature and popular writing ( e.g., Przybylski et al., 2013 ) . However, based on the process m odel of FOMO I decided to take a phenomenological approach ( Creswell & Poth, 2018 ) to the item development process as recommended in prior research ( Carpenter, 2018 ; DeVellis, 2017 ; Simms, 2008 ; Watson et al., 1988 ; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006 ) . This exp loratory approach was chosen to generate a large initial pool of items describing the multidimensional character of the FOMO process. This phenomenological approach is preferable over prior item - development procedures in the FOMO literature, because it ref lects a shared meaning of FOMO as described by consumer s perspectives ( Creswell & Poth, 2018 ) . To this end I conducted semi - structured interviews with twenty - seven participants, who were recruited from a communit y - based research participants pool of a large midwestern university in the United States (detailed description of the codebook is described in the third Chapter ). I extracted statements that were in b road accordance with the four proposed components (tendency to socially compare, sensitivity to missed opportunities, dispositional counterfactual thinking, and negative trait affect) and formulated scale items to fit the following instructions: 50 The resulting initial item pool included 235 items (see a detailed list on https://bit.ly/3dAMf5L ). Face Validity (Step 2) Next , all i nitial items were included in an online survey. Three experts in the fields of media psychology, social norms, and communication independently reviewed the initial item pool in random order and indicated whether each item is relevant to FOMO ( Carpenter, 2018 ) . B efore the coding procedure , the conceptual definition and prior research on the FOMO process were discussed in a face - to - face conversation between author and experts. Only items for which at least two of the experts agreed on relevance t o FOMO were retained for further analyses. This step was to establish face and content validity of the items included ( Churchill, 1979 ) . Items were spell - checked and copy - edited , with one item eliminated due to very close similarity to another item. The fi nal pool of items consisted of 79 statements . Based on Psychometric Theory ( Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007 ; Böckenholt & Lehmann, 2015 ; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994 ) I aimed to construct a lengthy measure of FOMO to reduce measurement error . I expected the proneness to engage in the FOMO process construct to be 1) multidimensional, 2) complex, and 3) a construct that affects various aspects of individuals and per ceptions , as shown in Chapter 3. DeVellis ( 2017 ) recommended including four times as many items in the initial item pool for EFA as desired in the final scale. Thus, I judged that 79 items were an appropriate number for the EFA (see https://bit.ly/3dAMf5L ) . Item Reduction and Dimensionality (Step 3) Sample and data preparation. After generating a pool of 79 items, I submitted them to EFA as recommended in prior research ( Carpenter, 2018 ; Churchill, 1979 ) . I recruited 1,161 participants from the United States using the sampling service Dynata ( www.dynata.com ). Dynata uses e - mail invitations, phone alerts, banners and messaging on panel community sites . 51 Participants were compensated based on the Dynata incentive structure (e.g. gift cards and charitable contributions). Participants answered all 79 items as well as other measures within an online survey (Appendix 4 ). After data cleaning measures (for more details see https://bit.ly/3dAMf5L ) the final sample ( Table 6 , S ample 1) for this study consisted of N = 727 participants (RR = 63%). Within this sample, less than 1% of data w ere missing within each variable, so I did not consider mis sing data to be problematic. Based on prior research recommendations ( Carpenter, 2018 ) I inspected the correlation matrix (of pairwise complete observations) for all 79 initial items. I made sure that all T est of S phericity (p < 0.01). I estimated the Kaise r - Meyer - Olkin value (0.99), which exceeded recommendations (0.60) of prior research ( Carpenter, 2018 ) . Thus, factor analysis was applied to the 79 items of the initial item pool. Before submitting data to EFA , I inspected all 79 items with respect to avera ge inter - item and item - to - total correlation. Both, the average inter - item correlation ( r = 0.51) as well as average item - total correlation ( r = 0.72) were considered large correlations ( Cohen, 1988 ; Hemphill, 2003 ) , so no items were excluded. According to DeVellis ( 2017 ) , items in an initial scale should follow a normal distribution with respect to their answers (low and high values occur less often than medium values) and fall in the middle of the answer options of the scale (2.5 for a five - point scale). T he items showed an average mean of 2.56, skewness of 0.33, and kurtosis of - 0.61, which I considered optimal. Last, I wanted to make sure items in the initial item pool were not highly correlated (either positively or negatively) with desirability bias ( DeVellis, 2017 ) . I included the 20 - item short version of the Marlow - Crowne Social Desirability Scale ( Crowne & Marlowe, 1960 ; Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972 ) , which has been shown to outperform other scales for social desirability ( Fischer & Fick, 1993 ) . 52 Participants indicated whether each item would be true or false for them personally. R eliability of the Marlow - Crowne I determined beforehand to exclude items with high correlations ( r > 0.50) with particip ( Cohen, 1988 ; Hemphill, 2003 ) . Results indicated acceptable average correlations of s = - 0.27 (range = - 0.41; - 0.17); no items were excluded before the EFA. Exploratory factor analysis. Based on recommendations of prior resea rch I conducted parallel analysis ( Horn, 1965 ) to identify the number of factors to extract. This method is more reliable than other methods, such as E igenvalue greater than 1 ( Carpenter, 2018 ; Watkins, 2006 ) . Using common factor analysis with unrotated E i genvalues and 5,000 bootstrapping intervals, I found that five factors were to be extracted. I submitted data to EFA and extracted factors using maximum likelihood estimation, because data were normally distributed ( Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999 ) . Promax rotation was applied, because factors within the construct were assumed to be correlated; promax rotation has found to be the most robust rotation procedure within oblique rotation methods ( Thompson, 2004 ) . The EFA resulted in five factors t o extract; 25 items did not load on any of the five factors and were excluded from further analyses. After excluding items that did not load, I submitted data to another EFA using the same specifications as before. However, two items did not load on any factor, which also led to an empty fifth factor. This factor was excluded based on prior scale development recommendations for at least three ite ms per factor ( Carpenter, 2018 ) . In a final step I submitted all remaining items to an EFA with four factors and promax rotation (Table 7 ). Uniquenesses were between 0.29 - % of cumulative variance. The test of the hypothesis that four factors were sufficient was statistically 53 Table 7 Exploratory factor analysis results (sample 1) Factor Item TSC SMO DCT NTA Uniquenesses TSC 1 0.72 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.38 TSC 2 0.68 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.44 TSC 3 0.79 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.42 TSC 4 0.67 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.47 SMO 1 0.16 0.74 0.06 0.03 0.32 SMO 2 0.02 0.80 0.00 0.05 0.34 SMO 3 0.08 0.78 0.15 0.01 0.31 SMO 4 0.02 0.80 0.03 0.01 0.37 DCT 1 0.04 0.08 0.73 0.04 0.37 DCT 2 0.04 0.09 0.69 0.02 0.41 DCT 3 0.18 0.10 0.68 0.02 0.40 DCT 4 0.04 0.01 0.70 0.11 0.35 NTA 1 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.79 0.36 NTA 2 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.78 0.33 NTA 3 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.78 0.29 NTA 4 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.78 0.38 Correlations a TSC SMO DCT NTA TSC 0.75 SMO 0.57 0.81 DCT 0.70 0.62 0.78 NTA 0.59 0.62 0.60 0.81 Note. and promax rotation; bold values indi cate the factor on which each item predominantly loads; cumulative variance explained by four factors: 0.57; test that 4 factors are sufficient significant (62) = 179.68; p < 0.01 a Pearson - correlations in the lower triangle and square root of average v ariance extracted on the diagonal 2 (321) = 668.83; p < 0.01). The four factors extracted confirmed the initial affect) and 4 (sensitivity to mis sed opportunities) included four items each, factor 1 (tendency to socially compare) included six items, and factor 2 (dispositional counterfactual thinking) included sixteen items. A large number of items in a single factor might yield alpha inflation and 54 redundancies ( Carpenter, 2018 ; DeVellis, 2017 ) . Thus, I eliminated items based on face and content validity criteria to achieve a parsimonious final scale of 16 items. Further item reduction . To reduce the number of items I compared all factors with each other to identify unique contributions to the FOMO construct. I assessed internal consistency by alpha ( DeVellis, 2017 ; Hu & Ben tler, 1995 ) . With respect to Factor 1 (tendency to socially compare) I dropped items that were not consistent with the conceptual definition of the tendency to socially compare, which resulted in four remaining items. This factor showed good internal consi thinking), four items were consistent with the conceptual definition of counterfactuals. The other items described involvement of others. Because social comparison process es were already identified in Factor 1, I retained only the four items that did not mention others. Internal (negative trait affect) included four items and was largel y consistent with negative affective 0.66). Factor 4 (sensitivity to missed opportunities) included four items and described missed opportunities that may affect cu rrent and future decisions; this was consistent with my 0.66). Dimensionality. To provide further evidence for the four - factor solution I examined whether the four factors extracted met Fornell & ( 1981 ) criterion, which states that discriminant validity between factors exists when the square root of AVE for each factor exceeds 7 ). I further 55 submitted data to a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the four - factor structure. The four - 2 2 / df = 2.64, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.03). Last, and in accordance with other scale development studies ( Brakus et al., 2009 ; Homburg et al., 2015 ) , I additionally tested the four - factor model structure against models with other specifica tions. That is, I specified a null model with no correlations between any of the included items and a unidimensional model in which all items loaded on one single factor. I also specified a two - factor solution, in which I grouped all Table 8 Model fit tests of four - factor solution (samples 1, 2, and 3) Chi - Square d.f. p - value a CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR AIC b Sample 1 Null 7061.68 120 0.28 0.46 - Four factors 258.97 98 < 0.01 0.98 0.97 0.05 0.05 0 Unidimensional 1517.58 104 < 0.01 0.80 0.77 0.14 0.08 1,246 Two factors 1023.17 103 < 0.01 0.87 0.85 0.11 0.06 754 Three factors 438.16 101 < 0.01 0.95 0.95 0.07 0.04 173 Sample 2 Null 3027.39 120 0.24 0.41 - Four factors 255.66 98 < 0.01 0.95 0.93 0.06 0.04 0 Unidimensional 337.8 104 < 0.01 0.92 0.91 0.07 0.05 70 Two factors 317.02 103 < 0.01 0.93 0.91 0.07 0.05 51 Three factors 307.03 101 < 0.01 0.93 0.92 0.07 0.05 45 Sample 3 Null 4128.31 120 0.28 0.48 - Four factors 332.85 98 < 0.01 0.94 0.93 0.08 0.05 0 Unidimensional 435.78 104 < 0.01 0.92 0.90 0.09 0.04 91 Two factors 430.03 103 < 0.01 0.92 0.91 0.09 0.04 87 Three factors 377.79 101 < 0.01 0.93 0.92 0.08 0.05 39 Note. Two factor model defined as cognitive versus affective factors (social comparison, counterfactual thinking, and missed opportunities combined), three factor model defined as cognitive versus learning versus affective factors (social comparison and counter factual thinking combined) a p - value based on chi - square difference tests between each model and the four - factor model b differences are calculated with four - factor model as reference model, because it showed the lowest AIC 56 Table 9 Items included in the final scale (sample 1) Item No Item M SD TSC 1 You think your friends have more fun than you. 2.93 1.07 TSC 2 You think your friends have more positive experiences than you. 2.76 1.11 TSC 3 You feel like you are behind everybody else because you are lacking information. 2.99 1.09 TSC 4 You feel not included with your friends because your life circumstances are different. 2.81 1.10 SMO 1 You go back and think about what you could have had. 2.59 1.24 SMO 2 You ar e worried that some opportunities will not be available for you later. 2.40 1.27 SMO 3 You wonder if you maybe have missed the opportunity to be with your soul mate. 2.42 1.32 SMO 4 You wonder how your life could have been different if some circumstances would have been different. 2.49 1.29 DCT 1 You think an opportunity not taken could derail your life. 2.36 1.20 DCT 2 You compare your current situation to an alternative situation and think you are worse off. 2.19 1.13 DCT 3 You think you are missing out on all of those fun things you could have been doing. 2.45 1.17 DCT 4 You think of all the things you wish you would have done differently. 2.36 1.21 NTA 1 You feel jealous. 2.70 1.10 NTA 2 You feel like you want something. 2.48 1.31 NTA 3 You feel isolated. 2.67 1.24 NTA 4 You feel lonely. 2.85 1.14 Note. nsitivity to missed all items assessed on a five - point Likert - Below is a collection of statements and emotional states about your everyday experience. U sing the scale provided please indicate how often you experience each of the following statements or emotional states. Please answer according to what really reflects your experie nces rather than what you think your experiences should be. Please treat each item separately from every other item 57 cognitive factors (tendency to socially compare, dispositional counterfactual thinking, and sensitivity to missed opportunities) and specified negative trait affect as a single factor. Last, I spec ified a three - factor solution, in which I grouped the social comparison counterfactuals relationship (based on their large overlap in initial EFA results) and left sensitivity to missed opportunities and negative trait affect as single factors. As summariz ed in Table 8, the four - factor solution performs consistently better than either of the other model specifications. This is further confirmed by the fact that the four - factor solution had the lowest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) value (Homburg, 1991). The final items for each factor as well as their means and standard deviations are summarized in Table 9. Scale Validation (Step 4) Sample and procedures . As shown in Step 3, an initial CFA showed excellent model fit with respect to the four - factor soluti on. To provide additional evidence for scale validity, in Step 4 I replicated this CFA with two additional datasets: One sample included 408 undergraduate students from a large midwestern university in the United States. Students received course credits fo r taking an online survey (Appendix 5 ) . Participant characteristics are summarized in Table 6 (Sample 2). Further, 1,201 participants from a national U.S. panel were recruited using the Dynata service. Participants answered an online survey (Appendix 6 ). After data purification measures and excluding participants from the re - test section of the survey (for more detail s see https://bit.ly/3dAMf5L ) the sample consisted of 421 participants , who are described in Table 6 ( Sample 3) . Similar to prior scale development research ( Brakus et al., 2009 ) I aimed to cross - validate my findings with respect to the developed scale with other populations (student population) and with an independent validation sample among the general population ( Churchill, 1979 ) . I , therefore , submitted data from Samples 2 and 3 to the same CFA procedure as 58 describ ed in S tep 3. That is, I specified four models (null, unidimensional, two - factor, three - factor, and four - factor) and assessed goodness - of - fit indices across the four model specifications, as well as within each sample. Figure 3 Confirmatory factor analysis results 59 Results . Model fit indices for Sample 2 (student sample) showed excellent fit for the four - 2 2 /df = 2.61; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = - factor solution consistently showed better performance than the other three model specifications (Table 8 ). Similarly, model fit in dices for Sample 3 (general population) showed very good model fit as 2 2 /df = 3.40; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.08; SRMR = - factor sol ution consistently outperformed the other three model specifications (Table 8) . Results for CFA with Sample 3 are further summarized in Figure 3. I conclude that my model showed robust goodness - of - fit indices across multiple populations, which provides str ong evidence for the I aimed to establish scale reliability across time. This is important, because I FOMO process. T he trait captured in this sca le should b e subject to little change over time ( Bazana & Stelmack, 2004 ) . Temporal Stability (Step 5) Sample and procedures . To establish temporal reliability of my scale (Step 5) , all participants of Sample 3 (N = 1,201) were re - contacted and invited to respond to a second survey by the Dynata service. Participants received additional incentives to complete this second survey (Appendix 7 ) . Overall, 390 participants responded to th e second survey and were included in Sample 4. Participant characteristics are summarized in Table 6 (Sample 4). Participants in the second survey answered the 16 - item, five - points Likert - type scale for proneness to engage in the FOMO process followed by a dditional scales that are not relevant here . Thus, I collected data with respect to the proneness to engage in the FOMO process at two timepoints (first and second 60 survey) that were approximately two weeks apart. I ur sub - components at both timepoints (T1 and T2) to a two one - sided test (TOST) respectively. The TOST, a tool for equivalence or non - inferiority testing, has been developed to test whether two means are equivalent ( Walker & Nowacki, 2011 ) . I set the equiv alence margin to 0.20, because all assessments were reported on five - point Likert - type scales and thus , I considered differences of 0.20 or smaller as being equivalent. Results . Internal reliabilities were good for all four sub - components: tendency to soci ally T1 T2 T1 T2 = 0.84), T1 T2 T1 = T2 = 0.83). Results further indicated equivalence of the respective reported paired values - 0.04 - 0.09], p < 0.01), dispositional - 0.02 - = 0 .03, CI [ - 0.03 - - 0.02 - 0.09], p < 0.01) . Thus, I established temporal stability of the proneness to engage in the FOMO process scale. I showed that my scale is a stable and reliabl e trait - measure. Convergent, Content, and Discriminant Validity (Step 6) In Step 6 , I aimed to establish convergent, content, and discriminant validity of each component captured in the proneness to engage in the FOMO process scale. I, therefore , followed guidelines of examining correlations between the scale and other measures that should and should not correlate ( Churchill, 1979 ) . This approach is similar to the multitrait - multimethod procedure developed in early research on scale validation ( Campbell & F iske, 1959 ) . I , however, used only one method of measurement (self - report on Likert - type scales). I consider ed this unproblematic, because early research suggested problems with the conceptualization of multi - 61 method assessments , such as avoiding high similarities between different methods of assessment ( Peter, 1981 ) . I included measures that should and should not be correlated with proneness to en gage in the FOMO process in three of the described samples (Sample 1, 3, and 4). More specifically, I included a commonly used unidimensional FOMO scale ( Przybylski et al., 2013 ) , positive and negative trait affect (PANAS) ( Watson et al., 1988 ) , social com parison orientation ( Gibbons & Buunk, 1999 ) , counterfactual thinking for negative events ( Rye et al., 2008 ) , affiliation motivation ( Hill, 1987 ) , social anxiety ( Nunes, Ayala - Nunes, Pechorro, & La Greca, 2018 ) , behavioral inhibition system (BIS), and behav ioral activation system (BAS) ( Carver & White, 1994 ) . A detailed description of each measure, including their sub - scales and their 0.94) is summarized online: https://bit.ly/3dAMf5L . Convergent and discriminant validity. The proneness to engage in the FOMO process measure shows a strong positive correlation with prior unidimensional measures of FOMO ( Przybylski et al., 2013 ) , which indicated convergent validity of the scale. To furthe r show discriminant validity, I submitted data for both scales to CFA, similar to approaches in prior research ( Homburg et al., 2015 ) . I specified a unidimensional model, with all items for both scales loading on a single factor, and a two - dimensional mode l with each construct loading on a separate factor. Results indicate that the two - - 2,187) . Additionally, the two - factor solution showed AVEs > 0.56 for each of the two components and the Fornell - Larcker Criterion ( 1981 ) was met for the pair of factors. This provides strong evidence for discriminant validity of the scale developed here with the unidimensional FOMO scale ( Przybylski et al., 2013 ) , which was designed to describe social media driven FOMO. The proneness to engage in the FOMO process scale was developed to provide a context independent perspective of the FOMO process. 62 Table 10 Intercorrelations of FOMO components and other constructs Tendency to socially compare Dispositional counterfactual thinking Negative trait affect Sensitivity to missed opportunities Sample 1 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 1 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 1 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 1 Sample 3 Sample 4 FOMO 0.60 0.63 0.62 0.74 0.60 0.57 0.51 0.53 0.52 0.56 0.58 0.53 PANAS Positive 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.22 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.14 Negative 0.49 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.62 0.63 0.71 0.58 0.60 0.53 0.68 0.67 Social comparison orientation Ability - related 0.60 0.48 0.53 0.60 0.49 0.45 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.47 0.44 0.46 Opinion - related 0.47 0.33 0.36 0.37 0.33 0.25 0.27 0.31 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.28 Counterfactual thinking Non - referent downward 0.62 0.55 0.57 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.57 0.59 Non - referent upward 0.62 0.52 0.59 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.54 0.57 0.59 0.53 0.49 0.55 Other - referent upward 0.60 0.53 0.58 0.58 0.62 0.62 0.55 0.62 0.63 0.54 0.54 0.57 Self - referent upward 0.58 0.55 0.60 0.61 0.64 0.67 0.56 0.63 0.64 0.59 0.56 0.59 Affiliation motivation Attention - 0.43 0.42 - 0.44 0.41 - 0.39 0.38 - 0.42 0.34 Positive stimulation - 0.37 0.36 - 0.38 0.33 - 0.33 0.30 - 0.32 0.27 Social comparison - 0.47 0.49 - 0.46 0.45 - 0.39 0.42 - 0.41 0.41 Emotional support - 0.38 0.38 - 0.36 0.32 - 0.28 0.30 - 0.33 0.28 Social anxiety Fear of negative evaluation - - 0.61 - - 0.54 - - 0.52 - - 0.57 Distress meeting new people - - 0.50 - - 0.46 - - 0.45 - - 0.52 General social distress - - 0.58 - - 0.50 - - 0.49 - - 0.55 BIS/BAS Punishment sensitivity (BIS) - - 0.37 - - 0.36 - - 0.37 - - 0.45 Reward responsive (BAS) - - 0.12 - - 0.10 - - 0.12 - - 0.07 Drive (BAS) - - 0.07 - - 0.05 - - 0.04 - - 0.01 Fun seeking (BAS) - - 0.25 - - 0.25 - - 0.21 - - 0.21 Note. Intercorrelations using Pearson - method and pairwise deletion; grey correlations not statistically significant on the p < 0.05 level 63 Content validity. Based on my conceptual definitions for tendency to socially compare, dispositional counterfactual thinking, negative trait affect, and sensitivity to missed opportunities, I expected each component to be positively correlated with the unidimensional FOMO scale, negative trait affect, social comparison orientation, and counterfactual thi nking for negative events. That is, I measured the same traits using different scales and show high correlations between them (Table 10 ). There were only a few significant correlation s between each component of proneness to engage in the FOMO process and p ositive affect. Thus, I can reason that the sub - components do not reflect positive trait affect, which is in line with prior research ( Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ) . I further show ( Table 10) that the components of proneness to engage in the FOMO process were consistent and , over independent samples , highly correlated with affiliation motivation, and social anxiety, in support of prior FOMO findings ( Blackwell et al., 2017 ; Dogan, 2019 ; Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ; Rifkin et al., 2015 ) . I show correlations with BIS, a motivational system that is sensitive to punishment cues and inhibits behavior ( Carver & White, 1994 ). This relationship is consistent with findings in prior research that closely ties FOMO t o negative affective experiences, symptoms of depression, choice - paralysis based on cognitive effort, and rumination ( Hodkinson, 2019 ; Reer et al., 2019 ; Rifkin et al., 2015 ) . This is in line with the third mechanism of the FOMO process (paralyzing action) . However, proneness to engage in the FOMO process was also correlated with the fun seeking sub - scale of the BAS, a reward sensitive motivational system that reflects approach tendencies for positive events ( Carver & White, 1994 ). This association confirms prior research, which suggests that individuals experienc e FOMO predominantly based on experiences that they do not want to miss out on ( Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ; Rifkin et al., 2015 ) . This is in line with the fourth mechanism of the FOMO process (motivat ing action). 64 Discussion of the Scale Development Results So far, I have conceptually defined and explicated the components of the proneness to engage in the FOMO process construct. The multi - dimensional and complex construct that resulted from the scale development research is composed of the tendency to socially compare , dispositional counterfactual thinking, negative trait affect, and sensitivity to missed experiences. I applied a rigorous mixed methods approach using five independent samples (one qualitative and four quantitative samples) to develop a conceptually and methodologically sound measurement scale. In six steps I developed scale items, explored dimensionality, showed a robust and reliable four - dimensional solution, and established convergent, discriminant, and content validity as well as temporal stability. However, to be able to show the relevance of the FOMO process not only to mental health and well - being ( Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ; Reer et al., 2019 ) , but also to the fields of marketing and advertising, additional research is needed. Thus, in the following c hapter I used data of Sample 4 to examine how the FOMO process and its components predict risk - attitudes of - attitudes are highly relevant to marketing theory and practice, because according to Prospect Theory risk tolerance and loss aversion are fundamental components of decision - making in the marketplace ( Kahneman & Tversky, 1979 ) . R esearch studies have shown that FOMO is connected to health - risk perceptions and behaviors, such as increased risky drinking behaviors ( Riordan et al., 2019 ) and texting and driving ( Przybylski et al., 2013 ) as well as to investment decisions ( Clor - Proell et al., 2019 ) . Less is known about other risk - domains, such as risk y recreational activities. I aimed to elucidate how the proneness to engage in it, is connected to risk perceptions. 65 Chapter 5: F ew prior research studies have examined the FOMO experience in the context of marketing and consumer behavior. Some studies provided evidence for benefits of using FOMO appeals and externally initiating the FOMO experience , such as more positive brand perc eptions ( Kang et al., 2019 ) and higher likelihood to buy when elation and envy of others are anticipated as a consequence of the purchase ( Good & Hyman, 2020 ) . Other study findings indicated pitfalls of the FOMO experience , such as reluctance to repeat cur rent experiences and therefore potential threats to loyalty ( Hayran et al., 2020 a ) . Hodkinson ( 2019 ) described a theoretical framework for externally initiated FOMO appeals. He describes that how these FOMO appeals are affectively a nd cognitively processed, and how this processing affects consequent decision - making is dependent on individual and situational differences, including but not limited to In detail, Hodkinson (2019) descr ibes the FOMO response model as a decision - making framework in which a FOMO appeal is initiated and affected by personal and situational variables and affective and cognitive responses and re - appraised after a decision has been reached, which ultimately le ads to learning. behavior is choice. Since the outcome of a choice can only be known in the future, the consumer ( Taylor, 1974, p. 54 ) . Therefore, by understanding I am providing the ground work for future scholarly research on FOMO in consumer behavior. FOMO might lead to opportunity cost over - estimations ( W eiss & Kivetz, 2019 ) and generally affects the attractiveness of given alternatives when decisions are made. Q ualitative research in this dissertation project showed that the FOMO experience is similar across various life contexts (e.g., financial and recr eational 66 activities) . That is, consumers prone to engage in the FOMO process might be generally prone to overestimate the attractiveness of a given alternative, and therefore overestimate possible gains from engaging in some alternative behavior ( Rifkin et al., 2015 ) . This overestimation leads to more favorable attitudes toward risky behavior s across contexts and is in line with research findings that stated that individuals who are more prone to experience FOMO construe themselves more interdependently ( Do gan, 2019 ) and those with an activated interdependent self are more risk - seeking ( Mandel, 2003 ) . Consequently, consumers who are more prone to engage in the FOMO process might be more favorable to engaging in risky behaviors. However, I acknowledge that ri sky behaviors are predominantly aimed to secure a consumer s place in the in - group , as shown in earlier qualitative findings . That is, negative affective feelings result ing from the FOMO process , such as feeling that one does not belong to a social group and jealousy of others who do , are not likely to lead to more favorable attitudes toward social risks ( Reagle, 2015 ) . This has also been shown in prior research, which found that the FOMO experience leads to acti vation of brain regions that are when participants were included, but not when they were excluded ( Lai et al., 2016 ) . That is, individuals who are more prone to experience FOMO are m ore receptive to social cues and therefore less risk seeking with respect to their social behaviors. Measures I consulted data collected in Sample 4 ( Table 6 ). I used the 16 - item, five - point Likert - type scale for proneness to engage in the FOMO process. In ternal reliabilities for all four I assessed social, financial, recreational, and ethical risk attitudes based on a scale developed in prior research ( Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002 ) . The original 67 scale developed in the Weber e t al. ( 2002 ) scale development study showed significant issues pertaining dimensionality and specifically discriminant validity within my sample . Therefore, I conducted EFA and CFA, leading to a four - factor solution. More details about EFA, CFA, and the fi nal list of items can be found online: https://bit.ly/3dAMf5L . Participants were asked to indicate on a five - point Likert - that you believe in at a soci - options were reverse coded (smaller numbers indicate higher likelihood), I recoded the scale, so that higher values indicated more favorable attitudes toward the respective risk behavior. Results and Discussion I submitted data to a SEM using Maximum Likelihood estimation. The model reflect ed the FOMO process: tendency to socially compare and sensitivity to missed opportunities predicted dispositional counterfactual thinking, which in turn predicted negative trait affect. To test my hypothes e s, I added the four respective domain - specific risk attitudes as dependent variables which were predicted by negative trait affect (Figure 4 ). All construct indicators were > 0.69, reliabilities exceeded 0.72, and AVEs of all co nstructs were > 0.56. Thus, the model specification met the Fornell - Larcker Criterion ( Fornell & Larcker, 1981 ) for discriminant validity of the included constructs. Further, in accordance with established goodness - of - fit index thresholds ( Bagozzi & Yi, 20 12 ; Hu & Bentler, 1995 ) , the estimated model showed excellent model fit (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.05). 68 In line with the FOMO process model I 0.34, p < 0.01) significantly predicted This provides further evidence of the validity and robustness of the developed measure ment scale for proneness to engage in the FOMO process. That is, our scale seems to reflect the FOMO process within personality traits of consumers. R esults indicate that within the proposed path model , related to negative trait affect . That is, the more prone participants were to feel jealousy, loneliness, and wanting, the more likely they were to engage in risky behaviors, such as risky financial investments, risky sports activities, and, for example, forgery. This supports prior consumer behavior research which showed negative relationships bet - esteem ( Schaninger, 1976 ) , which is closely related to feelings of jealousy and loneliness ( Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2005 ) . Other prior research additionally showed that feeling socially isolated led consumers to pursue riskier but potentially more profitable financial opportunities ( Duclos, Wan, & Jiang, 2012 ) . Further, results of the proposed path model suggest that negative trait affect, which describes the affective outcomes of the FOMO process, did not pr edict consumers likelihood to engage in social risks. This is in line with my prior hypothesiz ing and with prior research that showed the FOMO experience is a highly social construct ( Lai et al., 2016 ) neural responses to so cial inclusion ; not exclusion . According to these findings ( Lai et al., 2016 ) , consumers who are more prone to engage in the FOMO process pay greater attention to positive 69 internal states of others in order to stay included. That is, when consumers are mor e prone to engage in the FOMO process, they are more likely to strive for socially inclusive behaviors. They might not be willing to take risks with respect to their social relationships. However, it appears that these consumers are also not more risk aver se (which would have been indicated by a negative path). This demonstrates a neutral response of consumers toward socially risky behaviors (e.g. disagreeing on a topic in public). This might be because the two items in the scale predominantly represented r eputational risks and not actual inclusivity with social experiences. That is, consumers seem to be neither risk - seeking nor risk - averse with respect to a potential loss of reputation. Further research should examine risk behaviors and perceptions with res pect to different social risks in more detail. 70 Figure 4 Path model of the FOMO process predicting risk - attitudes Note. path diagram for better visualization; construct reliabilities exceeded 0.72 and AVEs of all constructs were > 0.56; model sh owed excellent model fit: CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.0 5 71 Chapter 6: General Discussion Theoretical Implications Although widely used in contemporary advertising and marketing strategy, the Fear of Missing Out, to this point, is only beginning to attract scholarly research attention. Vast differences in concept ualization and operationalization of the construct might have led to mixed findings in prior FOMO literature, such as more favorable brand attitudes, but also threats to customer loyalty (Hayran, Anik, & Gürhan - Canli, 2020b; Kang et al., 2019). These mixed findings are indicative of issues with a general understanding of FOMO as a cognitive and - making. This dissertation project furthered the theoretical grounding of the FOMO process by developing a conceptual framework and robust measurement tool, which can be used to conceptualize and operationalize the processes that define FOMO across contexts. This provides important theoretical contributions to the fields of social psychology, co mmunication, and marketing. First, I presented a conceptual framework that unifies prior theorizing and divided the FOMO construct into its underlying subprocesses : social comparison, missed prior opportunities, counterfactual thinking, and negative affect . B y conceptually explicating the FOMO process and its four components, I provided scholars and practitioners with a theoretical foundation of the FOMO process, which allows for both cognitive and affective experiences to be captured in a dynamic way to ex plain outcomes of interest (here: domain - specific risk attitudes) when investigating the FOMO experience across contexts. Thus, I addressed a gap in conceptually understanding a process that describes FOMO. Second, I provide a scale instrument that can be used in future research and for consumer segmentation to examine FOMO across contexts , such as product and brand - related FOMO or 72 social FOMO, and within the marketplace. This measurement scale is novel and unique in that it to various external (e.g., targets of social comparison) and internal (e.g., learning effects from missed prior opportunities) stimuli that might make them more prone to engage in the FOMO process. Th is scale was subjected to rigorous scale development bes t practices as suggested by social psychology, communication, and marketing scholars, and therefore represents a theoretically and methodologically sound measurement tool. I demonstrated content, convergent and discriminant validity, reliability, and tempo ral stability by showing stability over time and populations, and meaningful correlations with personality traits like affiliation motivation, social anxiety, and behavioral activation/inhibition systems. I also showed that, although highly correlated, the scale demonstrated discriminant validity to a widely used unidimensional FOMO scale (Przybylski et al., 2013) . This unidimensional scale focused primarily on a social media context. In this dissertation project, I provided a broad theoretical framework, the FOMO process, and a measurement tool that is context independent. Third, I provide evidence for the relevance of the FOMO process with respect to important consumer behavior outcomes: risk - attitudes. That is, I show that consumers who are mo re prone to engage in the FOMO process are more likely to engage in financial, recreational, and ethical risks . That is, consumers who are more affected by prior missed opportunities and socially compare themselves more, are more likely to produce counterf actuals about possible alternative realities, which leads to these consumers exhibiting higher likelihood to experience negative affect and consequently more favorable attitudes toward said risks. However , social risk attitudes are unaffected by this FOMO proneness . This is novel, since this is the research endeavor examining FOMO across risk domains, but also in line with prior research that showed that the FOMO experience is closely related to risky behaviors ( Riordan et al., 2019 ) . 73 Fear of Missing Out an d Embodied Cognition . The Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated Message Processing (LC4MP) is a model of information processing, which rests on the assumption that humans are information processors with limited capacity to do so (Lang, 2000). That i s, individuals are motivated to process information, which they are exposed to up to the point where their cognitive capacity to process any additional piece of information is reached; then, they have to let go of some previous thought in order to process a new one (Lang, 2000). Processing of information in this sense means perceiving some external stimuli in the world, making sense out of it by encoding it, and storing it to the brain from where it can be retrieved later. Thus, three important simultaneous ly occurring processes that are proposed by LC4MP are encoding, storage, and retrieval (Lang, 2000). As I defined earlier, the FOMO experience is a process that is dependent on receiving and interpreting information (Alt, 2015; Hetz, Dawson, & Cullen, 2015 ); specifically, information process might draw automatic motivational attention based on social information received. That is, resources might be automatically alloc ated to a FOMO inducing message or situation. This seems to be in line with activation of the appetitive system, which draws attention to help the individual to capitalize on possible opportunities (Lang et al., 2013), which I also showed by demonstrating However, the simultaneously demonstrated correlations of the FOMO process with the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) are also in line with the quick automatic activation of the a versive system in response to negative stimuli (Cacioppo & Gardner, 1999; Lang et al., 2013). Thus, according to LC4MP, which acknowledges that when opportunities and threats are manifesting simultaneously both systems can be co - activated, individuals will allocate cognitive 74 resources to these threats and opportunities. Given that FOMO is a highly cognitive experience based on social comparison processes, the accounting of prior information, and the generation of counterfactual thoughts, more cognitive reso urces might be allocated towards these FOMO inducing stimuli. Therefore, it appears that FOMO appeals and messages, may cause individuals to allocate more cognitive resources to the appeal (Hodkinson, 2016). With the increasing amount of (social) informat ion individuals are consistently exposed to, it is crucial to understand FOMO also from an LC4MP perspective when designing messages that need to break through user and firm generated content. Understanding how FOMO affects attention and cognitive resource allocation when being exposed to a mixture of social information and persuasive messages might help to capitalize on the experience of FOMO not just for advertising reasons, but also when designing messages that promote healthy behaviors. That is, designi ng and testing FOMO messages and appeals that help draw attention to urgent matters without causing fatigue, cognitive overload, and consequently hinders message processing seems to be important (Bright & Logan, 2018; Hodkinson, 2016; Yegiyan & Lang, 2010) . When the FOMO experience itself already imposes significant cognitive load on individuals who are exposed to a multitude of messages simultaneously, it is important to understand priority effects. That is, what kind of messages that may or may not capita lize on threats and opportunities receive preferred attention allocation when competing against each other. Cognitive Dissonance Theory . Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT, Festinger, 1957) holds that when individuals experience two related but inconsistent cognitions, they will experience severe affective discomfort (dissonance). Individuals are motivated to reduce this dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Cognitions with respect to CDT are all attitudes, believes, goals, 75 and values an individual might hold toward objects and behaviors. Further, these cognitions need to be a) understood as right and wrong, in that individuals need to be able to make a clear judgement about the valence of these cognitions, and b) targeting the same object or behavior (Gawronski, 201 2). Thus, individuals experience dissonance after there is an inconsistency between two related cognitions aiming at the same target. Following experienced dissonance, individuals become motivated to reduce this dissonance, and consequently engage in psych ological and behavioral coping strategies that aim to restore cognitive consistency by altering either of the two cognitions in play (Hinojosa et al., 2016). These strategies involve for example, (1) attitude change, changing either for the two cognitions to close the gap between them, (2) distraction and forgetting, since dissonance declines over time while the individual moves on, (3) trivialization, when the individual downplays the impact the dissonant cognition has, (4) denial of responsibility and the cognitions that are in line with the referent cognition, or seeing the bright sight of the choice made (McGrath, 2017). Based on the FOMO process mode, it appears that FOMO is a particular case of cogniti ve dissonance. CDT states that individuals hold two opposing cognitions, one dissonant and one consonant with a reference cognition about a specific object or behavior. With respect to the FOMO process, and particularly motivating and paralyzing action, th is might mean that individuals experience cognitive dissonance when choosing one event over another (Milyavskaya et al., 2018). That is, although individuals might want to include themselves in a social event with others, they hold the perception that they cannot or should not. For example, 76 stay at home and therefore engag which is in line with CDT, and therefore might increase uneasiness, negative affect, anxiety, anti cipated regret and similar affective reactions reported in FOMO literature (Browne et al., 2018; Milyavskaya et al., 2018; Przybylski et al., 2013; Wolniewicz et al., 2017). Therefore, understanding the FOMO process might contribute to CDT by providing in sights into possible negative copying strategies, which actually do not decrease dissonance. That is, according to paralyzing action mechanism, FOMO may lead to rumination and generation of more counterfactual thoughts and thus, individuals who experience FOMO as a particular form of cognitive dissonance might not be capable to reduce resulting dissonance and negative affect (Milyavskaya et al., 2018). Interview participants in this dissertation reported to not be able to keep their minds off what they are possibly missing, they report to dwell on the fact that they are absent from specific events, and actually increase experienced dissonance by generating upward - oriented counterfactuals. Therefore, even though individuals might try to reduce the negative af fective state of dissonance, is appears that sometimes the FOMO experience is an overwhelming all - consuming feeling that hinders dissonance reduction strategies by creating counterfactuals and making individuals engage in negative social comparison. Limita tions & Future Research Directions I provide a novel and unique perspective on FOMO as a construct that has gained attention in recent years in a variety of scholarly domains. Although I followed best practices in the scale development process and was led by successful scale validity - testing approaches from past scale development projects, there are limitations to my findings. 77 First, when validating the proposed scale showing meaningful relationships with - specifi c risk - attitudes scale developed in prior research. This scale showed issues pertaining to its general performance within my sample of participants. That is, I was not able to replicate the initially proposed factor structure. Although I tried to remedy th ese issues by performing EFA and CFA and by generating a more reliable scale, these initial issues might have led to biases in my findings. That is, by utilizing a potentially faulty scale to begin with, I cannot be certain that, for example, convergent va lidity for these risk - attitudes is still given. My findings are in line with prior research and a priori hypothesizing, and I employed rigorous measures to resolve potential issues with the risk - attitudes scales used (i.e., by showing discriminant validity and a robust factor structure). However, future research should replicate demonstrated findings with respect to risk perceptions using more reliable scales in order to confirm these findings. Second, attitudes toward specific risky behavior do not constitute actual risky behavior. Prior research found that the attitude - behavior relationship is unstable, because more favorable attitudes do not always lead to consequent behavior (Wicker, 1969). T herefore, although I provide evidence that consumers who are more prone to engage in the FOMO process evaluate specific risky behaviors more favorably, the reported results cannot speak for actual behavior. It is important for future research to conduct ex perimental studies that test the FOMO process and the proneness scale with respect to actual decision - making and risky behavior. Future research should employ experimental designs using actual, behavioral consumer decisions and manipulate the level of perc eived and actual risk of consumers. According to my findings, participants who are more prone to engage in the FOMO process would be more likely to engage in more risky 78 decisions. This research will help establish a more robust fundament of FOMO within the decision - making literature. Third, although risk perceptions are important within consumer decision - making, future research should use these findings as a foundation to design and conduct research that contributes to the understanding of FOMO in consumer behavior more broadly. For example, what role do different advertising claims (such as time limited offers) play when using FOMO appeals? What are effects of the FOMO process on brand perceptions and message processing? Is there a meaningful difference bet ween fear appeals and FOMO appeals; if so, what is the nature of this difference, and if not, do FOMO appeals, similar to fear appeals, follow an inverted U - shaped curve in how they affect consumer perceptions and persuasive intents (Rhodes, 2017)? Manager ial Implications strategies to drive their sales, and by doing so, leverage the FOMO of their consumers. This dissertation research affords several important insights for practitioners. First, by providing a clear and concise conceptual and theoretical understanding of the cognitive and affective processes at play I help marketing and adv ertising specialists to better understand FOMO. This will consequently help to employ strategies that leverage the FOMO of consumers in a way beneficial to the firm, such as exclusivity claims, time limitations, and generally the introduction of risk in co nsumer behavior decisions (i.e., not being in the in - group). By explicating the components of the FOMO process in a detailed and fine - grained fashion, I show that the FOMO experience, in fact, is not a positive one. On the contrary, by showing that the neg ative affective experience stemming from the FOMO process is dominated 79 by feelings of loneliness, jealousy, and wanting, I recommend that practitioners exercise caution when using FOMO appeals. As prior research (Rhodes, 2017) showed, appeals that too aggr insight that because FOMO appeals operate through negative affect, they should be designed and used with caution in order to not cause adverse effects. That is, based on the FOMO process model marketers need to keep in mind that when consumers experience FOMO they become aware of an experience or opportunity that they perceive to be more rewarding as their current situation; specifically when others are involved who ar e these consumers have a social relationship with (social comparison). They will further be influenced by their own personal experiences in the past, for example, their experiences with similar products, experiences, or brands (missed opportunities). Consu mers then construct counterfactual thoughts about how their current situation would change if they would actually act on this experiential discrepancy; they imagine a world in which they, for example, own this product they wanted and that everyone else has . However, realizing they do not actually own the product, but merely realizing that they are worse off by not having it, consumers feel bad and experience negative emotions. For marketers, what follows is crucial: if a consumer then, after feeling bad, is not able to resolve these negative emotions by addressing the experiential discrepancy which led to these negative feelings in the first place, they might be forced into the third mechanism of the FOMO process: paralyzing action. Reasons for not being abl e to resolve negative emotions might be include, but are not limited to, financial limitations, group membership, or geographical hindrances. In that, consumers ruminate, overthink, generate more counterfactuals, and feel worse. These negative emotions, wh ich become more severe over time, might become associated with the brand and additionally cause harm to the individual consumer. Thus, inducing FOMO 80 by using corresponding appeals would have been a bad strategic choice, because it led to adverse effects. H owever, if a consumer is actually able resolve the initial experiential discrepancy, for example by purchasing the product, the experienced negative affect results in the fourth mechanism of the FOMO process: motivating action. Thus, consumers become motiv ated to act and FOMO appeals were strategically speaking a good choice. Last, this research closely connects FOMO to several dimensions of perceived risks. Being able to segment consumers groups based on their potential risk aversion and tolerance and thro ugh their proneness to engage in the FOMO process might assist practitioners in creating marketing strategies that are tailored to these sub - groups of customers. This will likely have beneficial effects on the effectiveness of marketing and advertising str ategies. Conclusion FOMO appeals have commonly been used in commercial contexts to persuade consumers to buy, thus increasing demand, and consequently drive profits. Although there has been research appeals, little is known about the FOMO experience itself with respect to its cognitive and affective processes. Prior literature is discordant with respect to the role of FOMO and its theoretical groundings. Here, I conceptually explicate the FOMO experi ence as a process, which opposes previous conceptualizations of FOMO as a trait or state. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, I develop a FOMO process. In this dissertation project I address the following gaps in the literature : (1) I present a conceptual framework that unifies prior theories and differentiates the underlying subprocesses of the FOMO experience . (2) I provide a scale that can be used in future r esearch 81 marketplace. (3) I provide evidence for the relevance of FOMO to marketing research and practice by demonstrating its positive relationship to risk perceptions amon g consumers . I offer a tool for market researchers to assess the proneness to engage in the FOMO process, which can be used for market segmentation and strategic planning with respect to advertising and communication design and targeting. Reported results indicate that consumers who are likely to engage in the FOMO process are more prone to engage in risky behaviors, such as financial risks, which poses as a novel and important finding. However, I also show that FOMO might be a negative affective experience , based on its negative emotional make - up. I, therefore, show that FOMO appeals should be used with caution . 82 APPENDIX 83 Appendix 1: Interview Guide Hello, my name is Dominik Neumann. I am a doctoral student from the Department of Advertising and Public Relations at Michigan State University, and I am working on a research minutes, and then you are free to go knowing that you helped me quite a l ot with my work. First of all, I would like you to read and sign a consent form. This consent form will make sure that you have all information you need about your rights as a participant. It is very important to me that you know that you have the right t o quit the interview at any time and not to answer any question if you do not want to or if you feel uncomfortable sharing. However, I want to emphasize that this is supposed to be a safe environment for you and that all re not leaving this room. We will make sure that your personal information will be held confidential. Even though your responses will be audio recorded, we will strip it later from any information that would make you identifiable. Additionally, I want to emphasize that there are no right or wrong answers here and that your personal opinion is what is important for us to understand. I want to make sure that you feel comfortable sharing and expressing their opinion. Hand out consent form and turn on audio - r ecording device after all participant signed the consent form. Opening Question 1: What is your name and what you like to do in your free time? Question 2: What is your current occupation, or in other word, what do you work right now? Question 3: Tell me more about your family situation: Are you married, dating, or single? Do you have kids or other dependents living with you? Introduction Question 1: What does the phrase "Fear of Missing Out" or "FOMO" mean to you personally? There ar e no right or wrong answers, it is important to us to understand your personal conception of the phrase. Key Questions Question 1: Given your concept of fear of missing out, please talk about some situations in which you experienced this in terms of a pr oduct or brand you may or may not have bought? Please describe this situation in as much detail as possible. 84 Question 1a: Think back to the last month , how often do you think you experienced fear of missing out related to products or brands according to y our understanding of the term? Please give us your best guess . Question 2: Given your concept of fear of missing out, please talk about some situations in which you experienced this in terms of a service you may or may not have acquired? A service in this sense is when someone is doing work for you. Please describe this situation in as much detail as possible. Question 2a: Think back to the last month , how often do you think you experienced fear of missing out related to a service according to your unde rstanding of the term? Please give us your best guess . Question 3: Given your concept of fear of missing out, please talk about some situations in which you experienced this in terms of an advertisement you may have seen? Please describe this situation in as much detail as possible. Question 3a: Think back to the last month , how often do you think you experienced FOMO related to advertisements according to your understanding of the term? Please give us your best guess . Question 4: Given your concept of fear of missing out, please talk about some situations in which you experienced this in terms of a financial investment you may or may not have made? Please describe this situation in as much detail as possible. Question 4a: Think back to the last month , how often do you think you experienced FOMO related to financial investments according to your understanding of the term? Please give us your b est guess . Question 5: Given your concept of fear of missing out, please talk about some situations in which you experienced this in terms of a social get - together or party with friends you may or may not have attended? Please describe this situation in a s much detail as possible. Question 5a: Think back to the last month , how often do you think you experienced fear missing out related to social get - togethers or party with friends according to your understanding of the term? Please give us your best gues s . Question 6: Given your concept of fear of missing out, please talk about some situations in which you experienced this in terms of a trip or vacation with friends you may or may not went on? Please describe this situation in as much detail as possible. Question 6a: Think back to the last month , how often do you think you experienced fear of missing out related to a trip or vacation with friends according to your un derstanding of the term? Please give us your best guess . 85 Question 7: Given your concept of fear of missing out, please talk about some situations in which you experienced this in terms of a family - related event you may or may not have participated in? Ple ase describe this situation in as much detail as possible. Question 7a: Think back to the last month , how often do you think you experienced fear of missing out in terms of family - related events according to your understanding of the term? Please give us your best guess . Question 8: Given your concept of fear of missing out, please talk about some situations in which you experienced this in terms of a career opportunity you may or may not have had? Please describe this situation in as much detail as poss ible. Question 8a: Think back to the last month , how often do you think you experienced fear of missing out related to a career opportunity according to your understanding of the term? Please give us your best guess . Question 9: Given your concept of fea r of missing out, please talk about some situations in which you experienced this in terms of a personal life choices you made? Please describe this situation in as much detail as possible. Question 9a: Think back to the last month , how often do you think you experienced fear of missing out related to your personal life choices according to your understanding of the term? Please give us your best guess . Question 10: Given your concept of fear of missing out, please talk about some situations in which you experienced this when not knowing about important breaking news events ? Please describe this situation in as much detail as possible. Question 10a: Think back to the last month , how often do you think you experienced fear of missing out related not knowi ng about important breaking news events according to your understanding of the term? Please give us your best guess . Ending Question 11: After you thought more in detail about the term FOMO and based on your answers to the last questions , has your understanding of " Fear of Missing Out " or " FOMO " changed? Please define the term FOMO for us again. What is your understanding of Fear of Missing Out ? 86 Appendix 2: Codebook Please read through every single text file. Read them all carefully . Identify all statements in each file that describe each of the following codes . Please include all relevant information for a statement, that is, some statements might be just one sentence, others a full paragraph. Keep statements concise but include all important parts . Some statements might describe more than one code , if that is the case copy the whole statement in all relevant code files (e.g., a case of social comparison and a case of negative affect appears in ful l in both of the code files) Some statements might include the same coding category multiple times, please just copy that statement once into the respective code file (e.g., two cases of social comparison within the same statement only appear once in the code file) Be sure to include the context and the name of the participant for each statement in Excel tab for each respective code . Table 11 Final codebook for qualitative coding Code name Definition Examples Words Social comparison The act of people comparing themselves to others, or their situations to situations of others, or their lives to the lives of others in order to evaluate themselves relative to a n individual, group , or society. so much more were more successful than I more successful than my friends from high Similar Than Compared to Like A s 87 Table 11 Code name Definition Examples Words Counterfactuals M ental simulation of alternative mental simulation of outcomes that could have occurred if the they had acted differently in the past . OR mental simulations of possible outcomes when they act a spec ific way in the future. Interviewee should clearly make up a scenario that is imagined. Interviewee talks about a fictional cause - effect that would happen. gone to that party, I would have had so bad if I do not make this was the love of this phone I will not have a job in If Negative affect Having a bad feeling, experiencing negative emotions or expressing negative feelings; the object of negative affect needs to be the not negative affect), interviewee conveys some sort of implicit distress that is re flected in their narrative, depressed and just down and unpleasant; I excluded, but I actually had a choice, I decided to not be part of Negative emotion words, such as sad, angry, depressed, lonely, guilty, etc. Feel(ing) Emotions 88 Table 11 Code name Definition Examples Words Positive affect Having a good feeling, experiencing positive emotions or expressing positive, joyful, happy feelings; the object of positive affect needs to be the interviewee good; just glad, to be better; I was feeling happy Positive emotion words, such as happy, joyful, (feeling) good, etc Feel(ing) Emotions Social media involvement Mentioning the effects of involvement or of social media consumption. Social media are Internet - based channels that allow users to interact a nd self - present with audiences who derive value from user - generated content and interaction with others. media makes this Instagram helps with the feeling. It is like you are Snapchat there would not be any Social media platform names, like Twitter Instagram, Snapchat, or Facebook Social media Following Posting Age Mentioning the effects of age or differences of the experience based on age older you Kids Children Back then When we were younger 89 Table 11 Code name Definition Examples Words No FOMO Participant states explicitly that there was no FOMO, it is not like FOMO, to the question at hand. might not be this (FOMO) is No FOMO!!! Social exclusion Being or feeling s actively excluded, ostracized, or rejected by others; know, left friends did these fun things, but I part of it, as if excluded, but I actually had a choice, I decided to not be part of Not invited Excluded Ostracized Alone Lonely 90 Table 11 Code name Definition Examples Words Social avoidance Avoiding being with, talking to, or escaping from other people or social events for any reason, such as work, personal preferences, feeling uncomfortable, other obligations and caring for someone else. going, because I have done this, but I decided to excluded, but I actually had a choice, I decided to not be part of Decided not to join Did not want to Decision - making P rocess resulting in the selection of a belief or a course of action among several alt ernative possibilities. Decision - making is the process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values, preferences and beliefs of the decision - maker excluded, but I actually had a choice, I decided to not be part of multiple options and when you do one, you cannot Options Alternatives Choice Decided 91 Table 11 Code name Definition Examples Words Relational proximity Participant compares the FOMO experience across different friend groups that are more close or distant to them. Participant says something about closeness of relationship with the people involved. because they are closer friends to much about celebrities, but I do care about my when you know them better: Relationship Friends Peers Group Best friends Family Coping Action or thought process that results of or caused by the feeling of FOMO and that dictates how the individual behaved or felt as a consequence of FOMO. Coping can be positive (healthy) or negative (unhealthy and pathological) depressed a nd kept on scrolling through my not to be there; it was probably not out to my friends and tried to see them another 92 Appendix 3: Distribution of Codes Across Contexts Figure 5 Distributions of Counts of Social Get - together Codes Figure 6 Distributions of Counts of Vacations with Friends Codes 93 Figure 7 Distributions of Counts of Family Events Codes Figure 8 Distributions of Counts of Personal Life Choices Codes Figure 9 Distributions of Counts of Career Opportunities Codes 94 Figure 10 Distributions of Counts of Advertising Codes Figure 11 Distributions of Counts of Products and Brands Codes Figure 12 Distributions of Counts of Services Codes 95 Figure 13 Distributions of Counts of Financial Investments Codes Figure 14 Distributions of Counts of Breaking News Events Codes 96 Appendix 4: Survey Exploratory analysis (Sample 1) Quality We care about the quality of our data. In order for us to get the most accurate measures of your knowledge and opinions, it is important that you thoughtfully provide your best answers to each question in this survey. Do you c ommit to thoughtfully provide your best answers to each question in this survey? I will provide my best answers I will not provide my best answers Consent The purpose of the study is to understand human social and risk - taking behavior. You will be asked to answer questions about yourself, and your everyday emotions and experiences. Then we would like to know more about how you perceive specific risks. Your participation is voluntary. You can withdraw at any time. Yo u must be 18 or older to participate. If you have any questions please contact Dr Nancy Rhodes, at rhodesn3@msu.edu in the Department of Advertising and Public Relations at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Yes, by selecting this option I hereby give my voluntary consent to participate in this study I do not wish to participate in this study Thank you Thank you for your willingness to participate in this study. In the following pages, we will ask you some questions about your prior everyday exp eriences and feelings. Please be assured that your responses are kept completely confidential. No identifying information will be collected about you in this study, and there will be no way to connect your responses back to you. Therefore, please be as h onest as possible. Social desirability scale Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and characteristics. Please, read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false for you personally I always try to practice what I preach. I never resent being asked to return a favor. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. I have never deliberately said some I like to gossip at times. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. 97 I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. I have never intensely disliked someone. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrong doings. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew th ey were right. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. Proneness to engage in the FOMO process scale Bel ow is a collection of statements and emotional states about your everyday experience. Using the scale provided please indicate how often you experience each of the following statements or emotional states. Please answer according to what really reflects yo ur experiences rather than what you think your experiences should be. Please treat each item separately from every other You see others doing something and ask yourself why you are not doing that. You think you are n ot being present for something exciting. You are unsure about missing something potentially exciting. You think an opportunity not taken could derail your life. You think you will get pushed away for possibly bei ng absent from something. You think you are doing something inferior to a possible alternative. You compare your current situation to an alternative situation and think you are worse off. You think something cool might happen in your absence, and you are afraid you won't be able to talk about it. You go back and think about what you could have had. You think about who you could have been with. You go back and reevaluate the choices you made. You think about potential failure in what you are doing. You think you miss a good time after deciding not to be a part of something. You observe something that you wish to be a part of. You wish you would have attended an event, but you did not. You wish you could have been with your friends when they were having fun. You think there might be negative effects on your social relationships when you are not part o f a shared activity. 98 You think you are missing out on something that could have happened if you would have made a different decision in the past. You think you are missing out on all of the fun things you could have been doing. You are afraid of not buildi ng friendships with some people when you are not joining them in social events. You are worried that some opportunities will not be available for you later. You wonder, if you maybe have missed the opportunity to be with your soul mate. You wonder, if you are missing the chance to meet someone who is a better match for you. You wonder how your life could have been different, if some circumstances would have been different. You wish you would be with all of your frien ds, even though you are doing something enjoyable. You are susceptible to advertisements that emphasize how your life could be better. You tell yourself something you were not a part of could have been an enriching experience for you, if you would have been part of it. The thought of a potentially positive experience makes you change your mind about your plans. You think of all the things you wish you would have done differently. You worry that friends will not invite you in the future. You think you are missing something much more enjoyable than the situation you are in. You compare your activities with activities you see others doing. You think others have more positive experiences than you. You think your friends have more fun than you. You see others doing something that you want to do. You feel stuck when seeing friends going out together. You thi nk you are missing out on fun activities because you are not part of the in - group. You think people in an in - group are happier than you. You think people in an in - group have more friends than you. You think you are less knowledgeable than people in the in - group. You are afraid you will not be able to talk about events you have not been invited to. You think others have more positive experiences than you. You think your friends have more positive experiences than you. You just want be a part of something because everyone else is a part of it. You feel excluded from conversations because others had common experiences you were absent from. You think you are missing out on bondin g with friends by not owning the same things they do. You are irritated when others have shared experiences without you. You want to connect with people who are connecting with others instead. 99 You compare how much fun you have and how much fun others ar e having together. You feel not to be a part of something when others show you what they experience. You do not want to miss out on things others are doing, even you are not really interested in it. You regret not buying time limited products, because y ou are afraid your friends will. You think your friends like each other better than they like you, because you are not spending time with them. kes. You want to be "cool." You think you are not able to do an activity that other people you care about are doing. You think you should get something just because others have it. You feel like you are behind everybody else because you are uninformed. You want to have the same fun other people are having. You think other people live a more modern life. You feel not included with your friends because your life circumstances are d ifferent. You think other people are doing really cool things. When everyone is doing something, you do not want to be the one who is not. You think you do not want to be the only person who does not know about something. You are trying to fill a void i n your life. You want to have access to opportunities others are having. Jealousy. Feeling bad. Wanting something. Isolation. Loneliness. Uncertainty. PANAS This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word. Indicate to what extent you generally feel this way, that is, how you feel on the average). Use the following scale to Interested Excited Strong Enthusiastic Proud Inspired Determined Attentive Active Afraid 100 Distressed Upset Guilty Scared Hostile Irritable Ashamed Nervous Jittery Social comparison orientation Most people compare themselves from time to time with others. For example, they may compare the way they feel, their opinions, their abilities, and/or their situation with those of other people. There is nothing particularly 'good' or 'bad' ab out this type of comparison, and some people do it more than others. We would like to find out how often you compare yourself with other people. To do that we would like to ask you to indicate how much you agree with each statement below, by using the foll I often compare how my loved ones (boy or girlfriend, family members, etc.) are doing with how others are doing I always pay a lot of attention to how I do things compared with how others do things If I want to find out how well I have done something, I compare what I have done with how others have done I often compare how I am doing socially (e.g., social skills, popularity) with other people I am not the type of person who compares ofte n with others I often compare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life I often like to talk with others about mutual opinions and experiences I often try to find out what others think who face similar problems as I face I always like to know what others in a similar situation would do If I want to learn more about something, I try to find out what others think about it I never consider my sit uation in life relative to that of other people Attention check It is very important to us that you are paying attention to our survey and read all questions Counterfactual thinking for negative events Please think of an event that occurred somewhat recently that had a negative impact on you. Take a few moments to vividly recall that experience and what it was like for you. N ow, think about the types of thoughts you experienced following that undesirable event. Using the following scale, rate the frequency with which you experienced the thoughts described below 101 I think about how much worse th ings could have been. If only another person (or other people) had not been so selfish, this whole mess could have been avoided. I think about how much better things would have been if I had acted differently. I feel sad when I think about how much b etter things could have been. I feel relieved when I think about how much worse things could have been. If another person (or other people) had not been so inconsiderate, things would have been better. I wish I had a time machine so I could just take ba ck something I said or did. I think about how much better things could have been. I count my blessings when I think about how much worse things could have been. If only another person (or other people) would have acted differently, this situation would have never happened. If only I had listened to my friends and/or family, things would have turned out better. I cannot stop thinking about how I wish things would have turned out. Although what happened was negative, it clearly could have been a lot worse. If only another person (or other people) had spoken up at the time, the situation would have turned out better. I think about how much better things could have been if I had not failed to take action. turned out better. FOMO Przybylski et al. (2013) Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Using the scale provided ple ase indicate how true each statement is for you. Please answer according to what really reflects your experiences rather than what you think your experiences should be. Please treat 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 iends are up to 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 imp ortant 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 FOMO Abel, Buff and Burr (2016) Please indicate how often you feel the following about y I take a positive attitude toward myself On the whole, I am satisfied with myself 102 I feel I have a number of good qualities All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure I feel I do not have much to be proud of 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 Thank you Thank you for hanging in there! Just a few more questions, and you will be done. Demographics What gender do you most identify with? Male Female None of the above Prefer not to say What is your age in years (e.g. 21)? ______ Do you consider yourself to be: Heterosexual or straight Homosexual Bisexual None of the above Prefer not to say Please, choose one race that you identify with the most: White or Caucasian Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino Mixed Prefer not to say Other ________________________________________________ What is your ethnicity? One or more categories may be selected. Mark all that apply. Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano/a P uerto Rican 103 Cuba Another Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish origin None of the above What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have received? Less than high school degree High school graduate (high school diploma or equivalent including GED) Some college but no degree Associate degree in college (2 - year) Bachelor's degree in college (4 - year) Master's degree Doctoral degree Professional degree (JD, MD) Information abo ut income is very important. Would you please give your best guess? Please indicate the answer that includes your entire family's household income before taxes (previous year). Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $1 49,999 $150,000 or more 104 Appendix 5: Survey Confirmatory analysis (Sample 2 ) Social media On which of the following social media platforms do you have an active account? Please check all that apply, (Only participants who at least used Instag ram users were retained): Facebook Instagram Twitter Snapchat Pinterest Tumblr LinkedIn Other: ________________________________________________ Quality We care about the quality of our data. In order for us to get the most accurate measures of your knowledge and opinions, it is important that you thoughtfully provide your best answers to each question in this survey. Do you commit to thoughtfully provide your best answers to each question in this survey? I will provide my best answers. I will not pro vide my best answers. Consent You are being asked to participate in a research study. The purpose of the study is to examine your perceptions of various products in online shops. You will evaluate pictures that will be shown t o you. Your participation is voluntary. You can skip any question you do not wish to answer or withdraw at any time. You must be 18 or older to participate. If you have any questions please contact Dr. Patricia Huddleston, at huddles2@msu.edu. You indicate that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study by submitting the survey. THERE WILL BE SEVERAL ATTENTION CHECKS. YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE SONA CREDITS IF YOU FAIL TO ANSWER THESE CORRECTLY. Yes, by selecting this option I hereby give my volu ntary consent to participate in this study. I do not wish to participate in this study. 105 FOMO Przybylski et al. (2013) Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Using the scale provided please indicate how true each statement is for you. Please answer according to what really reflects your experiences rather than what you think your experiences should be. Please treat for m 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 It is imp 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 Social media engagement Please indicate which of the two oppositional adjectives better describes your average Instagram usage (6 - point semantic differential) Consumer Contributor Reader Writer Observer Content creator Passive Active Taker Giver Lurker Poster Proneness to engage in the FOMO process scale Below is a collection of statements and emotional states about your everyday experience. Using the scale provided please indicate how often you experience each of the following statements or emotional states. Please answer according to what really reflects your experiences rather than what you think your experiences should be. Please treat each item separately from every other You think an opportunity not taken could derail your life. You compare your current situation to an alternative situa tion and think you are worse off. You think you are missing out on all of those fun things you could have been doing. You think of all the things you wish you would have done differently. You think your friends have more fun than you. You think your friend s have more positive experiences than you. You feel like you are behind everybody else because you are lacking information. You feel not included with your friends because your life circumstances are different. 106 You go back and think about what you could ha ve had. You are worried that some opportunities will not be available for you later. You wonder if you maybe have missed the opportunity to be with your soul mate. You wonder how your life could have been different if some circumstances would have been dif ferent. You feel jealous. You feel like you want something. You feel isolated. You feel lonely. [Further variables collected not relevant to the current work] Demographics What gender do you most identify with? Male Female None of the above Prefer not to say What is your age in years (e.g. 21)? _________ How far along are you in your college education: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Do you consider yourself to be: Heterosexual or straight Homosexual Bisexual None of the above Prefer not to say 107 Please, choose one race that you mainly identify with the most: White or Caucasian Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino Mixed Prefer not to say Other _______________________________________________ Information about income is very important. Would you please give your best guess? Please indicate the answer that includes your entire family's household income before taxes (previous year). Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more 108 Appendix 6 : Survey Confirmatory analysis (Sample 3) Quality We care about the quality of our data. In order for us to get the most accurate measures of your knowledge and opinions, it is important that you thoughtfully provide your best answers to each question in this survey. Do you commit to thoughtfully provide your best answers to each question in this survey? I will provide my best answer s I will not provide my best answers Consent The purpose of the study is to understand human social and risk - taking behavior. You will be asked to answer questions about yourself, and your everyday emotions and experiences. The n we would like to know more about how you perceive specific risks. Your participation is voluntary. You can withdraw at any time. You must be 18 or older to participate. If you have any questions please contact Dr Nancy Rhodes, at rhodesn3@msu.edu in the Department of Advertising and Public Relations at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Yes, by selecting this option I hereby give my voluntary consent to participate in this study I do not wish to participate in this study Thank you Thank you fo r your willingness to participate in this study. In the following pages, we will ask you some questions about your prior everyday experiences and feelings. Please be assured that your responses are kept completely confidential. No identifying information w ill be collected about you in this study, and there will be no way to connect your responses back to you. Therefore, please be as honest as possible. Proneness to engage in the FOMO process scale Below is a collection of statements and emotional stat es about your everyday experience. Using the scale provided please indicate how often you experience each of the following statements or emotional states. Please answer according to what really reflects your experiences rather than what you think your expe riences should be. Please treat each item separately from every other You think an opportunity not taken could derail your life. You compare your current situation to an alternative situation and think you are worse off. You think you are missing out on all of those fun things you could have been doing. You think of all the things you wish you would have done differently. You think your friends have more fun than you. 109 You think your friends have more positive ex periences than you. You feel like you are behind everybody else because you are lacking information. You feel not included with your friends because your life circumstances are different. You go back and think about what you could have had. You are worried that some opportunities will not be available for you later. You wonder if you maybe have missed the opportunity to be with your soul mate. You wonder how your life could have been different if some circumstances would have been different. You feel jealou s. You feel like you want something. You feel isolated. You feel lonely. Affiliation motivation Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Using the scale provided please indicate how true each statement is of your general exper iences. Please answer according to what really reflects your experiences rather than what you think your experiences should be. If I feel unhappy or kind of depressed, I usually try to be around other people to make me feel better. I usually have the greatest need to have other people around me when I feel upset about something. One of my greatest sources of comfort when things get rough is being with other people. When I have not done very well on something that is very important to me, I can get to feeling better simply by being around other people. During times when I have to go through something painful, I usually and that having someon e with me makes it less painful. It seems like whenever something bad or disturbing happens to me I often just want to be with a close, reliable friend. I often have a strong need to be around people who are impressed with what I am like and what I do. I mainly like to be around others who think I am an important, exciting person. I often have a strong desire to get people I am around to notice me and appreciate what I am like I mainly like people who seem strongly drawn to me and who seem infatuated with me I like to be around people when I can be the center of attention. I don't like being with people who may give me less than positive feedback about myself. I think being close to others, listening to them, and relating to them on a one - to - one level is on e of my favorite and most satisfying pastimes. Just being around others and finding out about them is one of the most interesting things I can think of doing. I feel like I have really accomplished something valuable when l am able to get close to someone . 110 One of the most enjoyable things I can think of that I like to do is just watching people and seeing what they are like. I would find it very satisfying to be able to form new friendships with whomever I liked. I seem to get satisfaction from being with others more than a lot of other people do. I think it would be satisfying if I could have very close friendships with quite a few people. The main thing I like about being around other people is the warm glow I get from contact with them. I think I get sat isfaction out of contact with others more than most people realize. When I am not certain about how well I am doing at something, I usually like to be around others so I can compare myself to them. I find that I often look to certain other people to see ho w I compare to others. If I am uncertain about what is expected of me, such as on a task or in a social situation, I usually like to be able to look to certain others for cues. I prefer to participate in activities alongside other people rather than by mys elf because I like to see how I am doing on the activity. I find that I often have the desire to be around other people who are experiencing the same thing I am when I am unsure of what is going on. PANAS This scale consists of a number of words that des cribe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word. Indicate to what extent you generally feel this way, that is, how you feel on the average). Use the following scale to record your an Interested Excited Strong Enthusiastic Proud Inspired Determined Attentive Active Afraid Distressed Upset Guilty Scared Hostile Irritable Ashamed Nervous Jittery 111 Social comparison orientation Most people compare themselves from time to time with others. For example, they may compare the way they feel, their opinions, their abilities, and/or their situation with those of other people. There is nothing particularly 'good' or 'bad' about this type of comparison, and some people do it more than others. We would like to find out how often you compare yourself with other people. To do that we would like to ask you to indicate how much you agree with each statement below, I often compare how my loved ones (boy or girlfriend, family members, etc.) are doing with how others are doing I always pay a lot of attention to how I do things compared w ith how others do things If I want to find out how well I have done something, I compare what I have done with how others have done I often compare how I am doing socially (e.g., social skills, popularity) with other people I am not the type of person who compares often with others I often compare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life I often like to ta lk with others about mutual opinions and experiences I often try to find out what others think who face similar problems as I face I always like to know what others in a similar situation would do If I want to learn more about something, I try to find o ut what others think about it I never consider my situation in life relative to that of other people Attention check It is very important to us that you are paying attention to our survey and read all questions carefully. Please answer the following qu Counterfactual thinking for negative events Please think of an event that occurred somewhat recently that had a negative impact on you. Take a few moments to vividly recall tha t experience and what it was like for you. Now, think about the types of thoughts you experienced following that undesirable event. Using the following scale, rate the frequency with which you experienced the thoughts described below I think about how much worse things could have been. If only another person (or other people) had not been so selfish, this whole mess could have been avoided. I think about how much better things would have been if I had acted differently . I feel sad when I think about how much better things could have been. I feel relieved when I think about how much worse things could have been. If another person (or other people) had not been so inconsiderate, things would have been better. I wish I had a time machine so I could just take back something I said or did. I think about how much better things could have been. 112 I count my blessings when I think about how much worse things could have been. If only another person (or other people) would have acted differently, this situation would have never happened. If only I had listened to my friends and/or family, things wou ld have turned out better. I cannot stop thinking about how I wish things would have turned out. Although what happened was negative, it clearly could have been a lot worse. If only another person (or other people) had spoken up at the time, the situation would have turned out better. I think about how much better things could have been if I had not failed to take action. k about how things could have turned out better. FOMO Przybylski et al. (2013) Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Using the scale provided please indicate how true each statement is for you. Please answer according to wh at really reflects your experiences rather than what you think your experiences should be. Please treat I fear others have more rewarding experiences t han 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 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 - to gether it bothers me When I go on vacation, I continue to keep tabs on what my friends FOMO Abel, Buff and Burr (2016) 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 I feel I do not have much to be proud of 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 113 Domain - specific risk attitudes For each of the following statements, please indicate the likelihood of engaging in each activity. Admitting that your tastes are different from those of your friends Disagreeing with your father on a major issue. A rguing with a friend about an issue on which he or she has a very different opinion. Approaching your boss to ask for a raise. Telling a friend if his or her significant other has made a pass at you. Wearing provocative or unconventional clothes on occasion. Taking a job that you enjoy over one that is prestigious but less enjoyable. Defending an unpopular issue that you believe in at a social occasion. Going camping in the wilderness, beyond the civilization of a campground. Chasing a tornado or hurricane by car to take dramatic photos. Going on a vacation in a third - world country without prearranged travel and hotel accommodations. Going down a ski r un that is beyond your ability or closed. Going whitewater rafting during rapid water flows in the spring. Periodically engaging in a dangerous sport (e.g. mountain climbing or sky diving). Trying out bungee jumping at least once. Piloting your own sma ll plane, if you could. - stake poker game. football). Buying an illegal drug for your own use. Consuming five or more servings of alcohol in a single evening. Engaging in unprotected sex. Exposing yourself to the sun without using sunscreen. Regularly eating high cholesterol foods. Not wearing a seatbelt when being a passenger in the front seat. Not wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle. Walking home alone at night in a somewhat unsafe area of town. Cheating on an exam. Cheating by a significant amount on your income tax return. Having an affair with a married man or woman. Illegally copying a piece of software. Shoplifting a small item (e.g. a lipstick or a pen). Stealing an additional TV cable connection off the one you pay for. Investing 10% of your annual income in a moderate growth mutual fund. 114 Investing 5% of your annual income in a very speculative stock. Investing 5% of your annual income in a conservative stock. Investing 10% of your annual income in government bonds (treasury bills). Thank you Thank you for hanging in there! Just a few more questions, and you will be done. Demographics What gender do you most identify with? Male Female None of the above Prefer not to say What is your age in years (e.g. 21)? ______ Do you consider yourself to be: Heterosexual or straight Homosexual Bisexual None of the above Prefer not to say Please, choose one race that you identify with the most: White or Caucasian Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino Mixed Prefer not to say Other _________ _______________________________________ What is your ethnicity? One or more categories may be selected. Mark all that apply. Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano/a Puerto Rican Cuba Another Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish origin None of the above 115 What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have received? Less than high school degree High school graduate (high school diploma or equivalent including GED) Some college but no degree Associate degree in col lege (2 - year) Bachelor's degree in college (4 - year) Master's degree Doctoral degree Professional degree (JD, MD) Information about income is very important. Would you please give your best guess? Please indicate the answer that includes your entire family 's household income before taxes (previous year). Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more 116 Appendix 7 : Survey Retest reliability analysis (Sample 4 ) Quality We care about the quality of our data. In order for us to get the most accurate measures of your knowledge and opinions, it is important that you thoughtfully provide your best answers to each question in this survey. Do you commit to thoughtfully provide your best answers to each question in this survey? I will provide my best answers I will not provide my best answers Consent The purpose of the study is to understand human social and risk - taking behavior. You will be asked to answer questions about yourself, and your everyday emotions and experiences. Then we would like to know more about how you perceive specific risks. Your participation is voluntary. You can withdraw at any time. You must be 18 or older to participate. If you have any questions please contact Dr Nancy Rhodes, at rhodesn3@msu.edu in the Department of Advertising and Public Relations at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Yes, by selecting this option I hereby give my voluntary consent to participate in this study I do not wish to participate in this study Thank you Thank you for your willingness to participate in this study. In the following pages, we will ask you some questions about your prior everyday experiences and feelings. Please be assured that your responses are kept completely confidential. No identifying information will be collected about you in this study, and there will be no way to connect your responses back to you. Therefore, please be as honest as possible. Proneness to engage in the FO MO process scale Below is a collection of statements and emotional states about your everyday experience. Using the scale provided please indicate how often you experience each of the following statements or emotional states. Please answer according to what really reflects your experiences rather than what you think your experiences should be. Please treat each item separately from every other You think an opportunity not taken could derail your life. You compare your current situation to an alternative situation and think you are worse off. You think you are missing out on all of those fun things you could have been doing. You think of all the things you wish you would have done differently. You think your friends have more fun than you. You think your friends have more positive experiences than you. 117 You feel like you are behind everybody else because you are lacking information. You feel not included with your friends because your life circumstances are different. You go back and think about what you could have had. You are worried that some opportunities will not be available for you later. You wonder if you maybe have missed the opportunity to be with your soul mate. You wonder how you r life could have been different if some circumstances would have been different. You feel jealous. You feel like you want something. You feel isolated. You feel lonely. Conformity Please use the following scale to indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each of the statements below. Try to describe yourself accurately and generally (that is, the way you are actually in most situations -- I often rely on, and act upon, the advice of others. I would be the last one to change mu opinion in a heated argument on a controversial topic. Generally, I'd rather give in and go along for the sake of peace than struggle to have my way. I tend to follow family tr adition in making political decisions. Basically, my friends are the ones who decide what we do together. A charismatic and eloquent speaker can easily influence and change my ideas. I am more independent than conforming in my ways. If someone is very persuasive, I tend to change my opinion and go along with them. I don't give in to others easily. I tend to rely on others when I have to make an important decision quickly. I prefer to make my own way in life rather than find a group I can follow. Social anxiety Please use the following scale to indicate how you feel about each of the statements below. Try to describe yourself accurately and generally (that is, the way you are actually in most situations -- not the way you would hope to be), (1 = I worry about what others say about me. I worry that others don't like me. I'm afraid that others will not like me. I worry about what others think of me. I feel that others make fun of me. I worry about being teased. I feel that peers talk about me behind my back. If I get into an argument, I worry that the other person will not like me. 118 I get nervous when I meet new people. I feel shy around people I don't know. I get nervous when I talk to peers I don't know very well. I feel nervous when I'm around certain people. I only talk to people I known really well. I worry about doing something new in front of others. It's hard for me to ask others to do things with me. I'm afraid to invite others to do things with me because they might say no. I am quiet when I'm with a group of people. I feel shy even with peers I know very well. Open ended question: Exclusion versus avoidance versus inclusion (betw een participants) Exclusion: Please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of being socially excluded by your closest friends arouses in you and jot down, as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you during this experience (min. 100 characters). Avoidance : Please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of choosing to actively avoid spending time with your closest friends arouses in you and jot down, as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you during this experience (min. 100 characters). Inclusion : Please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of a social event or get - together with your closest friends arouses in you and jot down, as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you during this experience (min. 100 characters). Discrete emotions Please indicate your response using the scale provided. While remembering the situation you to 7 Anger Wanting Dread Sad Happy Grief Rage Anxiety Desire Nervous Lonely Mad Satisfaction Empty Craving 119 Longing Worry Enjoyment Pissed off Liking Scared Terror Panic Fear Need - threats Thinking back to the situation you described earlier, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements with respect to the thoughts and emotions I f eel rejected. I feel like an outsider. I feel like I belonged. I feel good about myself. My self - esteem is high. I feel liked. I feel insecure. I feel satisfied. I feel invisible. I feel meaningless. I feel nonexistent. I feel important. I feel useful. I feel powerful. I feel like I have control. I feel like I have the ability to significantly alter events. I feel like I am unable to influence the action of others. I feel like others decided everything. Proneness to engage in the FOMO process scale Below is a collection of statements and emotional states about your everyday experience. Using the scale provided please indicate how often you experience each of the following statements or emotional states. Please answer according to what really reflects your experiences rather than what you think your experiences should be. Please treat each item separately from every other You think an opportunity not taken could derail your life. You compare your current situation to an alternative situation and think you are worse off. 120 You think you are missing out on all of those fun things you could have been doing. You think of all the things you wish you would have done differently. You think your friends have more fun than you. You think your friends have more positive experiences than you. You feel like you are behind everybody else because you are lacking information. You feel not i ncluded with your friends because your life circumstances are different. You go back and think about what you could have had. You are worried that some opportunities will not be available for you later. You wonder if you maybe have missed the opportunity t o be with your soul mate. You wonder how your life could have been different if some circumstances would have been different. You feel jealous. You feel like you want something. You feel isolated. You feel lonely. BIS/BAS Please indicate your level of ag reement or disagreement with each of the following statements (1 I worry about making mistakes. Criticism or scolding hurts me quite a bit. I feel pretty worried or upset when I think or know somebody is angry at me. Even if someth ing bad is about to happen to me, I rarely experience fear or nervousness. I feel worried when I think I have done poorly at something. I have very few fears compared to my friends. When I get something I want, I feel excited and energized. When I'm doi ng well at something, I love to keep at it. When good things happen to me, it affects me strongly. It would excite me to win a contest. When I see an opportunity for something I like, I get excited right away. When I want something, I usually go all - ou t to get it. I go out of my way to get things I want. If I see a chance to get something I want, I move on it right away. When I go after something, I use a "no holds barred" approach. 1 will often do things for no other reason than that they might be fun. I crave excitement and new sensations. I'm always willing to try something new if I think it will be fun. I often act on the spur of the moment. 121 Demographics What gender do yo u most identify with? Male Female None of the above Prefer not to say What is your age in years (e.g. 21)? ______ Do you consider yourself to be: Heterosexual or straight Homosexual Bisexual None of the above Prefer not to say Please, choose one race that you identify with the most: White or Caucasian Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino Mixed Prefer not to say Other ________________________________________________ What is your ethnicity? One or more categories may be selected. Mark all that apply. Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano/a Puerto Rican Cuba Another Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish origin None of the a bove What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have received? Less than high school degree High school graduate (high school diploma or equivalent including GED) Some college but no degree Associate degree in college (2 - year) Bachelor's degree in college (4 - year) Master's degree Doctoral degree Professional degree (JD, MD) 122 Information abo ut income is very important. Would you please give your best guess? Please indicate the answer that includes your entire family's household income before taxes (previous year). Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or mor e 123 REFERENCES 124 REFERENCES Abel, J. P., Buff, C. L., & Burr, S. A. (2016). Social Media and the Fear of Missing Out: Scale Development and Assessment. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 14 (1), 33 - 44 . doi:http s ://dx.doi.org/10.19030/jber.v14i1.9554 Adams, S. K., Williford, D. N., Vaccaro, A., Kisler, T. S., Francis, A., & Newman, B. (2017). The young and the restless: Socializing trumps sleep, fear of missing out, and technological distractions in first - year college students. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22 (3), 337 - 348. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2016.1181557 Albarracín, D., & Wyer Jr, R. S. (2000). The cognitive impact of past behavior: Influences on beliefs, attitudes, and future behavioral decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (1), 5 - 22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022 - 3514.79.1.5 Out . Computers in Human Behavio r , 49 , 111 - 119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.057 Alt, D., & Boniel - Nissim, M. (2018). Links between Adolescents' Deep and Surface Learning Approaches, Problematic Internet Use, and Fear of Missing Out (FoMO). Internet Interventions, 13 , 30 - 39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2018.05.002 Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectivenss . Oxford, UK: Jossey - Bass. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structur al equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (1), 8 - 34. doi:http s ://doi.org10.1007/s11747 - 011 - 0278 - x Bazana, P. G., & Stelmack, R. M. (2004). Stability of Personality Across the Life Span: A Meta - Analysis. In On the psychobiology of p ersonality: Essays in honor of Marvin Zuckerman. (pp. 113 - 144). New York, NY, US: Elsevier Science. Beike, D. R., Markman, K. D., & Karadogan, F. (2008). What We Regret Most Are Lost Opportunities: A Theory of Regret Intensity. Personality and Social Psych ology Bulletin, 35 (3), 385 - 397. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208328329 125 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 . doi:https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175 Facebook related stress. Compu ters in Human Behavior, 64 , 1 - 8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.083 Blackwell, D., Leaman, C., Tramposch, R., Osborne, C., & Liss, M. (2017). Extraversion, neuroticism, attachment style and fear of missing out as predictors of social media use and addiction. Personality and Individual Differences, 116 , 69 - 72. doi:https://d oi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.039 Böckenholt, U., & Lehmann, D. R. (2015). On the limits of research rigidity: the number of items in a scale. Marketing Letters, 26 (3), 257 - 260. doi:10.1007/s11002 - 015 - 9373 - y 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. Retrieved from https:// www. jstor.org/stable/20619022 Bright, L. F., & Logan, K. (2018). Is my fear of missing out (FOMO) causing fati gue? Advertising, social media fatigue, and the implications for consumers and brands. Internet Research, 28 (5), 1213 - 1227. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR - 03 - 2017 - 0112 Browne, B. L., Aruguete, M. S., McCutcheon, L. E., & Medina, A. M. (2018). Social and Emotional Correlates of the Fear of Missing Out. North American Journal of Psychology , 20 (2), 341 - 353 . Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lynn_Mccutcheon2/publication/325347912_Social_ and_emotional_correlates_of_the_fear_of_missing_out/lin ks/5b0d6f4fa6fdcc8c25396188 /Social - and - emotional - correlates - of - the - fear - of - missing - out.pdf Br unet , E ., Sarfati , Y . , Hardy - Baylé, M. - C., & Decety, J. (20 00 ). A PET Investigation of the Attribution of Intentions with a Nonverbal Task . NeuroImage, 11 (2), 157 - 166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.1999.0525 Buglass, S. L., Binder, J. F., Betts, L. R., & Underwood, J. D. M. (2017). Motivators of online vulnerability: The impact of social network site use and FOMO. Computers in Human Behavior, 66 , 248 - 255. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.055 126 Cacioppo, J. T., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology , 50 (1 ) , 191 - 214. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.191 Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2005). People Thinking About People: The Vicious Cycle of Being a Social Outcast in One's Own Mind. In The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, reject ion, and bullying. (pp. 91 - 108). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait - multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56 (2), 81 - 105. doi:http s ://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ h0046016 Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten Steps in Scale Development and Reporting: A Guide for Researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12 (1), 25 - 44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583 Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhib ition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (2), 319 - 333. doi:http s ://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022 - 3514.67.2.319 Chai, H. - Y., Niu, G. - F., Lian, S. - L., Chu, X. - W., Liu, S., & Sun, X. - J. (2019). Why social network site use fails to promote well - being? The roles of social overload and fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 100 , 85 - 92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.005 Churchill, G . A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research (pre - 1986), 16 (000001), 64. 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.2308/accr - 52625 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Second ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Coleman, N. V., Williams, P., Morales, A. C., & White, A. E. (2017). Attention, Attitudes, and Action: When and Why Incidental Fear Increases Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (2), 283 - 312. doi:https:// doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx036 127 Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39 (3), 124 - 130. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1477543 Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry an d Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (4 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (4), 349 - 354. doi:h ttps://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358 De Brigard, F., Addis, D. R., Ford, J. H., Schacter, D. L., & Giovanello, K. S. (2013). Remembering what could have happened: Neural correlates of episodic counterfactual thinking. Neuropsychologia, 51 (12), 2401 - 2414. doi:ht tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.01.015 De Brigard, F., Rodriguez, D. C., & Montañés, P. (2017). Exploring the experience of episodic past, future, and counterfactual thinking in younger and older adults: A study of a Colombian sample. Conscio usness and Cognition, 51 , 258 - 267. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.04.007 Dempsey, A. E., O'Brien, K. D., Tiamiyu, M. F., & Elhai, J. D. (2019). Fear of missing out (FoMO) and rumination mediate relations between social anxiety and problematic Fa cebook use. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 9 , 100150. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2018.100150 DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale Development - Theory and Application . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E. (2006). Persuasion and the Structure of Affect: Dual Systems and Discrete Emotions as Complementary Models. Human Communication Research, 27 (1), 38 - 68. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468 - 2958.2001.tb00775.x 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022119839145 Duclos, R., Wan, E. W., & Jiang, Y. (2012). Show Me the Honey! Effects of Soci al Exclusion on Financial Risk - Taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 122 - 135. doi:http s ://doi.org/10.1086/668900 128 Elhai, J. D., Gallinari, E. F., Rozgonjuk, D., & Yang, H. (2020). Depression, anxiety and fear of missing out as correlates of social, n on - social and problematic smartphone use. Addictive Behaviors, 105 , 106335. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106335 Elhai, J. D., Rozgonjuk, D., Liu, T., & Yang, H. (2020). Fear of missing out predicts repeated measurements of greater negative aff ect using experience sampling methodology . Journal of Affective Disorders , 262 (1) , 298 - 303 . doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.11.026 Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing out, need for touch, anxiety and depression are related to problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 63 , 509 - 516. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.079 Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4 (3), 272 - 299. doi:http s ://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082 - 989X.4.3.272 Festinger, L. ( 1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7 (2), 117 - 140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 Fischer, D. G., & Fick, C. (1993). Measuring Social Desirability: Short Forms of the Marlowe - Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Ed ucational and Psychological Measurement, 53 (2), 417 - 424. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053002011 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39 - 50. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (19 89). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (2), 212 - 228. doi:http s ://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022 - 3514.57.2.212 Gawronski, B. (2012). Back to the Future of Dissonance Theory: Cognitiv e Consistency as a Core Motive. Social Cognition , 30 (6), 652 - 668. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.652 Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journa l of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (1), 129 - 142. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022 - 3514.76.1.129 129 Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1995). The experience of regret: What, when, and why. Psychological Review, 102 (2), 379 - 395. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0 033 - 295X.102.2.379 Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16 (1), 15 - 31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151 Glaser, B ., & Strauss, A. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Good, M. C. (2019). . New Mexico State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation purchase likelihood. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice , 1 - 12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1069667 9.2020.1766359 Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18 (1), 59 - 82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 Hanlon, S. M. (2016). Managing my fear of missing out. Science, 353 (6306), 1458. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.353.6306.1458 Hayran, C., Anik, L., & Gürhan - Canli, Z. (2020 a ). A threat to loyalty: Fear of missing out (FOMO) leads to reluctance to repeat current experiences. PLoS ONE, 15 (4 ), e0232318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232318 Hayran, C., Anik, L., & Gürhan - Canli, Z. (2020 b ). Feeling of Missing Out (FOMO) and its marketing implications. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series 2016 . Working paper. Retrieved fr om https://www.msi.org/working - papers/feeling - of - missing - out - fomo - and - its - marketing - implications/ Hetz, P. R., Dawson, C. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2015). Social Media Use and the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) While Studying Abroad. Journal of Research on Technolo gy in Education , 47 (4), 259 - 272. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1080585 130 Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 58 (1), 78 - 79. doi:http s ://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003 - 066X.58.1.78 Hill, C. A. (1987). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (5), 1008 - 1018. doi:http s ://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022 - 3514.52.5.1008 Hinojosa, A. S., Gardner, W. L., Walker, H. J., Cogliser, C., & Gullifor, D. (2016). A Review of Cognitive Dissonance Theory in Management Research: Opportunities for Further Development. Journal of Management , 43 (1), 170 - 199. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063166 68236 Journal of Marketing Communications, 25 (1), 65 - 88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1234504 Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (3), 404 - 420. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2489501 Homburg, C. (1991). Cross - Validation and Information Criteria in Causal Modeling. Journal of Marketing Res earch, 28 (2), 137 - 144. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3172803 Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The Role of Cognition and Affect in the Formation of Customer Satisfaction: A Dynamic Perspective. Journal of Marketing, 70 (3), 21 - 31. Retrieved fr om www.jstor.org/stable/30162098 Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M., & Kuehnl, C. (2015). New Product Design: Concept, Measurement, and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 41 - 56. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/43784405 Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale a nd test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30 (2), 179 - 185. doi:https://doi.org10.1007/BF02289447 Hu, L. - t., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating Model Fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and A pplication . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Izard, C. E. (1977). Human Emotions . New York, NY: Plenum Press. 131 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47 (2), 263 - 291. doi:http s ://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 Kang, I., Son, J., & Koo, J. (2019). of Mi Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 31 (3), 270 - 286. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2018.1520670 Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implicati ons. Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 1 - 18. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1251866 Kross E . , Berman M . G . , Mischel W . , Smith E . E . , & Wager T . D. (2011). Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 108 (15) , 6270 - 6275. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1102693108 Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.072 Lang, A. (2000). The Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated Message Processing. Journal of Communication , 50 (1), 46 - 70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460 - 2466.2000.tb02833.x Lang, A., Sanders - Jackson, A., Wang, Z., & Rubenking, B. (2013). Motivated Message Processing: How Motivational Activation Influences Resource Allocation, Encoding, and Storage of TV Messages. Motivation a nd Emotion , 37 , 508 - 517. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031 - 012 - 9329 - y Larkin, B. A., & Fink, J. S. (2016). Fantasy Sport, FoMO, and Traditional Fandom: How Second - Screen Use of Social Media Allows Fans to Accommodate Multiple Identities. Journal of Sport Management, 30 (6), 643 - 655. doi: https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2015 - 0344 132 Luce, M. F. (1998). Choosing to avoid: Coping with negatively emotion - laden consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 409 - 433. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/209518 Malterud , K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2015). Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qualitative Health Research, 26 (13), 1753 - 1760. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444 Mandel, N. (2003). Shifting Selves and D ecision Making: The Effects of Self - Construal Priming on Consumer Risk - Taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (1), 30 - 40. doi:http s ://doi.org/10.1086/374700 Markman, K. D., Gavanski, I., Sherman, S. J., & McMullen, M. N. (1993). The Mental Simulation of B etter and Worse Possible Worlds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29 (1), 87 - 109. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1993.1005 McConnell, A. R., Niedermeier, K. E., Leibold, J. M., El - Alayli, A. G., Chin, P. P., & Kuiper, N. M. (2000). What if I fin d it cheaper someplace else?: Role of prefactual thinking and anticipated regret in consumer behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 17 (4), 281 - 298. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520 - 6793(200004)17:4<281::AID - MAR2>3.0.CO;2 - 5 McGrath, A. (2017). Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11 (12), e12362. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12362 Milyavskaya, M., Saffran, M., Hope, N., & Koestner, R. (2018). Fear of missing out: prevalence, dynam ics, and consequences of experiencing FOMO. Motivation and Emotion, 42 (5), 725 - 737. doi:http s: //dx.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. doi:h ttps://doi.org/10.2307/3150733 Nunes, C., Ayala - Nunes, L., Pechorro, P., & La Greca, A. M. (2018). Short Form of the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents among community and institutionalized Portuguese youths. International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP, 18 (3), 273 - 282. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2018.06.001 Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (Third ed.). New Yor, NY: McGraw - Hill. 133 Parasuraman, A. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing (pre - 1986), 49 (000004), 41. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1251430 Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (2), 133 - 145. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800201 Plutchik, R. (2001). The Nature of Emotions: Human emotions have deep evolutionary roots, a fact that may explain their complexity and provide tools for clinical practice. American Scientist, 89 (4), 3 44 - 350. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/27857503 https://www.adolescent.net/a/pics - or - it - didnt - happen - fomo - culture - and - fyre - festival Przybylski, A. K., Murayam a, 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014 Reagle, J. (2015). Following the Joneses: F OMO and conspicuous sociality. First Monday, 20 (10). doi:http s ://dx.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 fea r of missing out. New Media & Society, 21 (7), 1486 - 1505. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818823719 Rhodes, N. (2017). Fear - Appeal Messages: Message Processing and Affective Attitudes. Communication Research, 44 (7), 952 - 975. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0 093650214565916 Rifkin, J., Chan, C., & Kahn, B. (2015). Fomo: How the Fear of Missing Out Leads to Missing Out. In K. Diel & C. Yoon (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 43, pp. 244 - 248). Duluth, MNPages: Association for Consumer Research. Rio rdan, 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 breath alcohol concentration during orientation week. Current Psychology . doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144 - 019 - 00318 - 6 134 Roese, N. J., & Summerville, A. (2005). What We Regret Most... and Why. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (9), 1273 - 1285. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205274693 Rye, M. S., Cahoo n, 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701884996 Schaninger, C. M. (1976). Perceived Risk and Personality. Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (2), 95 - 100. doi:http s ://doi.org/10.1086/208656 Simms, L. J. (2008). Classical and Modern Methods of Psychological Scale Construction. Social and Personality Psycholog y Compass, 2 (1), 414 - 433. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751 - 9004.2007.00044.x Social Security Administration. (2019). Top Names Over the Last 100 Years. Retrieved from https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/decades/century.html Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. ( 1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow - Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28 (2), 191 - 193. doi: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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw075 Talbot, K. (2019). What the Fyre Festival Documentaries Reveal About Millenn ials. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/katetalbot/2019/01/21/what - the - fyre - festival - documentaries - revealed - about - millennials/ Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Zafar, N., & Alrasheedy, M. (2019). Why do people share fake news? Associations between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51 , 72 - 82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.026 Taylor, J. W. (1974). The Role of Risk in Consumer Behavior: A comprehensive and operational theory of risk taking in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 38 (2), 54 - 60. doi:http s ://doi.org/10.1177/002224297403800211 135 Tefertiller, A. C., Maxwell, L. C., & Morris, D. L. (2020). Social Media Goes to the Movies: Fear of Missing Out, Soc ial Capital, and Social Motivations of Cinema Attendance. Mass Communication and Society, 23 (3), 378 - 399. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2019.1653468 Thayer, R. E. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and arousal . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/209571 Walker, E., & Nowacki, A. S. (2011). Understanding equivalence and noninferiority testing. Journal of general internal medicine, 26 (2), 192 - 196. d oi:http s ://doi.org/10.1007/s11606 - 010 - 1513 - 8 Warren, C., Batra, R., Loureiro, S. M. C., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2019). Brand Coolness. Journal of Marketing, 83 (5), 36 - 56. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919857698 Watkins, M. W. (2006). Determining Parallel An alysis Criteria. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 5 (2), 344 - 346. doi:http s ://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1162354020 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022 - 3514.54.6.1063 Weber, E. U., Blais, A. - R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain - specific risk - attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behav iors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15 (4), 263 - 290. doi:http s ://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.414 Wegmann, E., Oberst, U., Stodt, B., & Brand, M. (2017). Online - specific fear of missing out and Internet - use expectancies contribute to symptoms of Internet - co mmunication disorder. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 5 , 33 - 42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2017.04.001 Weiss, L., & Kivetz, R. (2019). Opportunity Cost Overestimation. Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (3), 518 - 533. doi:http s ://doi.org/10.1177/0022243 718819474 136 Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25 (4), 41 - 78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540 - 4560.1969.tb00619.x Wolniewicz, C. A., Tiami yu, M. F., Weeks, J. W., & Elhai, J. D. (2017). Problematic Smartphone Use and Relations With Negative Affect, Fear of Missing Out, and Fear of Negative and Positive Evaluation. Psychiatry Research , 262 (September 2017), 618 - 623. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.psychres.2017.09.058 Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34 (6), 806 - 838. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127 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. Psychiat ry Research, 268 , 223 - 228. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.07.025 Yegiyan, N. S., & Lang, A. (2010). Processing Central and Peripheral Detail: How Content Arousal and Emotional Tone Influence Encoding. Media Psychology , 13 (1), 77 - 99. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1080/15213260903563014 Zeithaml, V. A., Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., Tuli, K. R., Ulaga, W., & Zaltman, G. (2020). A Theories - in - Use Approach to Building Marketing Theory. Journal of Marketing, 84 (1), 32 - 51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/00222 42919888477