Volume 40(1) p.21-36 Received: July 30, 2022 Revision received: October 28, 2022 Accepted: October 31, 2022 https://doi.org/10.54155/jbs.40.1.21-36 Personal and Social Determinants of Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) in Younger Consumers Timothy H. Reisenwitza, Jie G. Fowlerb a Corresponding author. Department of Management and Marketing, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, Georgiatreisenw@valdosta.edu b Department of Management and Marketing, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, Georgia jgfowler@valdosta.edu Abstract This study expands the exploration of a consumer behavior concept that has received considerable attention recently: the fear of missing out (FoMO). Several variables were analyzed in terms of their potential influence on FoMO: social media usage, self-concept, social identity, smartphone usage, innovativeness, and gender. The study builds upon the premise that the construct has two distinct components: a personal dimension and a social dimension. The importance of these results is discussed in terms of advancing FoMO theory as well as assisting practitioners in directing their promotional efforts. Keywords Fear of missing out (FoMO), Younger consumers, Personal dimension of FoMO, Social dimension of FoMO 1. Introduction An emerging concept in consumer behavior is the fear of missing out (FoMO). It was introduced in academia by Herman (2000) who offered it as an explanation for the success of limited-edition brands. FoMO was later introduced by the news media (Columnist, 2010; Fake, 2011). However, the concept has been present throughout his- tory in any communication form that increases a consumer’s knowledge about his or her friends, family, or even strangers. These communication forms include newspapers, letters, annual holiday newsletters, and emails (Wortham, 2011). How- ever, more recently its influence has greatly ex- panded via the context of social media market- ing. FoMO is the feeling of being “left behind” when someone sees that peers own or experience something that seems rewarding that he or she is not owning or experiencing. Researchers have provided many definitions of FoMO (see Table 1). According to Zhang et al. (2020), the construct has two components, particularly when following a self-concept approach: the private self and/or the public self or a personal and/or a social dimen- sion. FoMO is characterized as an uneasy feeling, a feeling of anxiety. So, consumers can fear miss- Funding for this research was provided by a Steele Foundation Summer Grant. This work is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. © 2023 The authors. https://doi.org/10.54155/jbs.40.1.21-36 treisenw@valdosta.edu jgfowler@valdosta.edu Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 22 ing out on experiences that other people enjoy (so- cial FoMO) and can also fear missing out on expe- riences they had wished for themselves (personal FoMO). The purpose of the study is to assess the influence of variables on the fear of missing out (FoMO). Much of the previous research on FoMO has ex- amined variables individually and how each influ- ences FoMO. This study addresses multiple vari- ables and how they influence FoMO. The study also assesses the efficacy of the two-component depiction of the FoMO construct based upon the self-concept approach introduced by Zhang et al. (2020). 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework of FoMO Past studies show that fear illustrates how so- cial power is constituted, legitimated, and com- municated through media logic with mediated formats guiding the use of technology (Altheide, 2013). Fear is an emotion resulting from perceived threats to one’s well-being (Gill & Burrow, 2018). Threats involve adverse outcomes that the indi- viduals want to terminate, escape from, or avoid (Gray, 1971). The concept of FoMO was first intro- duced by Herman (2000) as a potential explana- tion for the success of limited edition brands. He argues that when consumers feel incapable of ex- hausting all the options of products in the market- place, they become fearful about the risk of possi- bly missing desirable opportunities. Thus, FoMO increases consumers’ urgency to exhaust all avail- able offerings, especially those that are scarce. As a result, FoMO could be a powerful motivation to encourage buying (Herman, 2000). In consumer psychology, the FoMO phenomenon has been defined as a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experi- ences from which one is absent and is character- ized by the desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing (Przybylski et al., 2013). In other words, FoMO refers to the anxiety social media users feel when they perceive their peers are doing, experiencing, or possessing something rewarding while they are not (Przybylski et al., 2013). Research has explored the prevalence of FoMO and its relation to social media (Abel et al., 2016). A recent study by Alt (2015) finds a positive link between social media engagement and FoMO. In fact, social media users have grown exponentially in the past decade. In 2021, over 4.26 billion peo- ple were using social media worldwide, a number projected to increase to almost six billion in 2027 (Statista, 2022). College students are the heaviest social media users (Alt, 2015). Smartphone pen- etration is believed to be one of the dominating forcesdrivingsocialmediausage(Swar&Hameed, 2017). Research has shown that the excessive use of smartphones links to adverse outcomes, such as smartphone addiction (Aljomaa et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2014). In addition, the research examines the conceptual background of FoMO with offline consumer be- havior. Zhang et al. (2020) propose a theoretical foundation for FoMO by following a self-concept approach. They posit that consumers experience FoMO when they perceive that missing experience poses a psychological threat to the private and/or public self. The private self refers to the eval- uation of oneself (e.g., self-identify or member- ship), and the public self is the projection of others’ view of oneself (e.g., self-concept/feeling of the self). Finally, Zhang et al. (2020) indicate novelty seeking or innovativeness may be a variable as- sociated with FoMO. Recent research also shows that FoMO may be multidimensional (Zhang et al., 2020) and that FoMO involves two dimensions: a personal FoMO and a social FoMO. Accordingly, a new scale was developed, offering researchers to further test the concept of FoMO and related vari- ables. To conclude, many variables may activate FoMO. FoMO may be activated by threats to the self- concept (Zhang et al., 2020). Consumers tend to purchase goods and services that are consistent with or enhance, their self-concept. Consumers may perceive that missing out on experiences may be inconsistent with their self-concept. Further- more, higher social media engagement may acti- vate FoMO (Alt, 2015), although the construct has been found in non-online contexts as well, includ- Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 23 Table 1: Previous definitions of fear of missing out (FoMO) Author (year) Definition JWT Intelligence inPrzybylski et al.(2013) The uneasy and sometimes all-consuming feeling that you are missing out,that your peers are doing something, are in the know about, or in posses-sion of more of something better than you. Przybylski et al.(2013) A phenomenon characterized by the desire to stay continually connectedwith what others are doing and a pervasive apprehension that others mightbe having rewarding experiences from which one is absent. Gil et al. (2015) Fear of missing out is a concept that aims to describe the feeling that some-thing is happening on social networks and you are not part of it. Riordan et al. (2015) The uneasy and often all-consuming sense that “friends or others are hav-ing rewarding experiences from which one is absent.” Salem (2016) A kind of anxiety, a sense that you will be inadequate or left behind if youdon’t react. Abel et al. (2016) FOMO is comprised of irritability, anxiety, and feelings of inadequacy, withthese feelings tending to worsen when an individual logs on to social mediawebsites. (Zhang et al., 2020) ing smartphone overuse (Elhai et al., 2016). Those consumers who are considered innovators (early users) in the product adoption process may also significantly impact FoMO (Manning et al., 1995). Finally, higher degrees of social identity in con- sumers may also influence FoMO (Reed, 2002). Social Media Usage It is well-documented that those with a high de- pendence on social media also have a high level of FoMO (Argan & Tokay Argan, 2020; Asif, 2020; Classen et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2020; Przybylski et al., 2013). So, social media services such as Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Tik- Tok may be especially attractive for those who fear missing out. Furthermore, there are positive and negative consequences of this attraction. On a positive note, social media are excellent for those who are seeking social connection and may pro- vide greater social involvement. Knowing what friends and family are doing and buying is bene- ficial for connection and interaction. However, time is a scarce commodity and so the negative result is missing out on some of the ac- tivities found via social media. So, unfortunately, social media and a fear of missing out may re- sult in overall unhappiness. Feelings of irritabil- ity, anxiety (Gray, 1971), and inadequacy can im- pact the fear of missing out and these may inten- sify when individuals view social media (Abel et al., 2016). Providing the ability to see others’ updates inreal-time, socialmediaallowsconsumerstocon- stantlyseewhattheymaybemissingouton, possi- bly resulting in dissatisfaction, anxiety, and unwor- thiness (Abel et al., 2016). Elhai et al. (2016) state that FoMO can drive the overuse of social media. In sum, social media is “kerosene on FoMO’s fire” (Miller, 2012, p.2). Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 1a. Individuals exhibiting greater so- cial media usage will have a greater personal fear of missing out. Hypothesis 1b. Individuals exhibiting greater so- cial media usage will have a greater social fear of missing out. Self-Concept Sirgy (1982) first suggested that some purchase decisions can be affected by a consumer’s self- concept. He stated that self-concept is the sum Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 24 of an individual’s thoughts and feelings about him- self or herself relative to other objects. Con- sumers generally have favorable attitudes to- wards products and brands that are consistent with their self-concept and less favorable attitudes towards products and brands perceived to be in- consistent with their self-concept (Graeff, 1996). Furthermore, Zhang et al. (2020) proposed that FoMO, “is the fear an individual feels from missing out on an experience that can enhance or main- tain her/his self-concept” (p. 1630). Although they can overlap, Zhang et al. (2020) posit that there are two major types of self- concept: a private self and a public self. The private self refers to thoughts that the individual does not share with others or perhaps a small group of people. These thoughts include reflec- tions, daydreams, or fantasies that can be sat- isfied through a consumption experience, which would maintain or enhance their private self- concept. Most research dealing with FoMO has fo- cused on the public self, which is based upon what other people are doing or saying, fueled largely by social media. What people say on social media, whether discussing others or discussing events, can intensify FoMO (Zhang et al., 2020). Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 2a. Individuals with a greater self- concept will have a lower personal fear of missing out. Hypothesis 2b. Individuals with a greater self- concept will have a lower social fear of miss- ing out. Social Identity Social identity theory divides self-concept into two categories: personal identity, or how people view themselves, and social identity, or collective iden- tity, which refers to how they view their social groups (Dutot, 2020). Additionally, social iden- tity theory shows the importance of social group memberships to individuals’ self-concept (Dutot, 2020). Similarly, Duman and Ozkara (2021) state that social identity is a part of self-concept that comes from the knowledge that an individual be- longs to a social group(s) coupled with the value and emotional significance of that membership. Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 3a. Individuals exhibiting greater so- cial identity will have a greater personal fear of missing out. Hypothesis 3b. Individuals exhibiting greater so- cial identity will have a greater social fear of missing out. Smartphone Usage The mental disorders associated with excessive smartphone use have been well-documented, including depression, anxiety, sleeping issues (Demirci et al., 2015), stress, depression, and sui- cidal ideation (Kim et al., 2019). People high in FoMO overuse their smartphones in order to stay connected. Elhai et al. (2016) found that exces- sive smartphone use was associated with anxi- ety, the need for touch, and FoMO. Additionally, FoMO was the variable that was most related to excessive smartphone use on a bivariate and mul- tivariate basis. FoMO and the need for touch were significant predictors of dysfunctional smart- phone use. Furthermore, both Elhai et al. (2016) and Przybylski et al. (2013) found that FoMO is a discriminating variable between problematic and non-problematic smartphone use. Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 4a. Individuals exhibiting greater smartphone usage will have a greater per- sonal fear of missing out. Hypothesis 4b. Individuals exhibiting greater smartphone usage will have a greater social fear of missing out. Innovativeness Innovativeness is the degree to which an individ- ual adopts a new idea faster than others (Vande- casteele & Geuens, 2010). Rogers (1995) intro- duced the Diffusion of Innovations Model, which grouped adopters of innovations based on the time of adoption. The two earliest groups in the Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 25 model are Innovators and Early Adopters (Girardi & Chiagouris, 2018). Early Adopters connect the Innovators with the mass groups of adopters, the Early Majority and the Late Majority. Innovators and Early Adopters are both depicted as having a high degree of innovativeness. Clark and Goldsmith (2006) report that academi- cians contend that innovators prefer to use non- personal sources of information versus interper- sonal sources of information when making new product purchase decisions. In other words, in- novativeness has been shown to be more closely associated with opinion leadership than opinion seeking: “Innovativeness is the degree to which an individual makes innovation decisions indepen- dently of the communicated experience of others” (Midgley & Dowling, 1978, p. 235). They use non- personal sources, such as mass media versus in- terpersonal sources, such as social media. This discussion of innovativeness and the behav- ior of innovators runs counter to the concept of FoMO, in which consumers place great impor- tance on knowing what others are doing. Al- though communicating with innovators is a critical requirement for the acceptance of an innovation and its diffusion, it can be concluded based on the literature that those with a high FoMO are not part of the innovator group. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 5a. Individuals exhibiting greater in- novativeness will have less personal fear of missing out. Hypothesis 5b. Individuals exhibiting greater in- novativeness will have less social fear of missing out. Gender Knowledge involving gender differences may be useful for FoMO research in order to control potential gender effects. However, previous re- search provides mixed results regarding the rela- tionship between gender and FoMO. Przybylski et al. (2013) and Qutishat (2020) found that young males tended to have higher levels of FoMO than females. In contrast, Beyens et al. (2016) and Stead and Bibby (2017) found that females re- ported higher levels of FoMO than males. More- over, Rozgonjuk et al. (2021) found no significant gender differences in experiencing FoMO. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 6a. There are no gender differences regarding the personal fear of missing out. Hypothesis 6b. There are no gender differences regarding the social fear of missing out. 3. Method The sample consisted of undergraduate students, alumni, and non-students belonging to either Gen- eration Y or Generation Z. The questionnaire was sent via a university “student announcements” email. Any completed questionnaires that were outside of the age range of the latter two gen- erational cohorts (Generation Y, 1981-1996, and Generation Z, 1997-2012) were omitted from the sample. Although a convenience sample, these respondents are appropriate for the study since FoMO is more evident in young people (Zhang et al., 2020). Similarly, Przybylski et al. (2013) found that younger consumers had higher levels of FoMO, concurring with early industry reports that FoMO was more prevalent in younger people (JWT, 2011, 2012). Respondents were introduced to the study in the body of the email and then asked to click on the link that would take them to the Qualtrics questionnaire. The questions capture the respon- dents’ demographics (age, race, education, occu- pation, religion, etc.) and psychographic informa- tion, which focused on the variables in the hy- potheses. A pretest was conducted before the questionnaire was distributed to the main sample. The question- naire was completed by six undergraduate stu- dents who were currently enrolled in at least one class. An additional questionnaire was sent to a recent alumnus who was named “Student of the Year” for the university’s college of business. No problems were reported by anyone taking the pretest questionnaire. As a result, no changes were made to the questionnaire before its admin- istration to the main sample. Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 26 The total number of questionnaires received over a two-week period, with a one-week reminder email after the first week, was 280. Since the fo- cus of the study is younger consumers, only those respondents in Generation Y (Millennials) or Gen- eration Z were retained, leaving a total of 229 re- spondents. Next, questionnaires with a significant amount of missing data were eliminated, leaving a total of 225 for the final sample size. The final sample’s demographics were analyzed. The profile emerged that the typical respondent is described as the following: female (73%), a mem- ber of Generation Z (63%), has an income of $0- 10,000 (55%), has never married (79%), is white (Caucasian) (58%), has completed an undergradu- ate degree (45%), and is a student (59%). The com- plete demographic data is presented in Table 2. Scales Existing multiple-item scales will be used for each of the psychographic variables or constructs that may have an impact on FoMO. They will be in- cluded as independent variables in a multiple re- gression analysis with FoMO as the dependent variable. Social media usage Rapp et al. (2013) created this scale, consisting of ten, seven-point items from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” to measure how much someone uses social media to stay current with brands, re- tailers, and consumers. Three statements were removed due to their context-specificity. The last question was changed from “retail stores” to “re- tailers” to accommodate online sellers. Self-concept The six-item, seven-point semantic differential scale was created by De Angelis et al. (2012) (Bruner, 2016). It is intended to measure how one feels about himself or herself. Social identity The social identity scale was created by Nario- Redmond et al. (2004). There are eight items on a seven-point scale from “not at all important to who I am” to “extremely important to who I am.” It was reduced from a nine-point to a seven-point scale forconsistency withthe other psychographic measures in this study. Social identity was defined for the respondent as how an individual is identi- fied by his or her group memberships. Smartphone usage The smartphone usage scale was used in several studies (Cheever et al., 2014; Hoffner & Lee, 2015; Smith, 2015). The scale was expanded from six to seven points for consistency across scales in this study. It consists of 11 items on a “never” to “very often” scale. Respondents who did not own a smartphone were instructed to skip these ques- tions. Innovativeness The scale used for innovativeness was based upon the notion that a consumer’s level of innovative- ness is domain-specific, i.e., it is based upon a product category (Klink & Athaide, 2010). The other forms of consumer innovativeness are con- sumer innate innovativeness (CII) and vicarious innovativeness (VI) (Chao et al., 2012). Prior re- search shows that the relationship between con- sumer innate innovativeness and new product adoption is weak and inconsistent. And although it has been shown that mass media and word- of-mouth influence new product adoption, few researchers have used vicarious innovativeness (Chao et al., 2012). The innovativeness scale in this study was used by Shalev and Morwitz (2012). Bruner (2016) re- ported that the scale was actually developed by Shalev. It was domain-specific and used the prod- uct category of high-technology products. Shalev and Morwitz (2012) justified using the category based on the fact that younger consumers tend to be innovators of high-technology products. The scale was a ten-item, seven-point Likert “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” measure. FoMO The scale used for FoMO was developed by Zhang et al. (2020). They proposed that FoMO has two components: personal FoMO, related to the pri- vate self, and social FoMO, related to the pub- lic self. Their analysis treated FoMO as a feeling that individuals can experience not only online, especially via social media, but also offline. The scale was a seven-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” It consisted of five items to measure the personal FoMO dimension Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 27 Table 2: Descriptive information of the sample Items percent (n) Gender Male 24 (54)Female 73 (164)Non-binary/ third gender 3 (6) Birth year 1981 - 1996 37 (83)1997 - 2012 63 (142) Income 0-10k 55 (124)10,001 - 30k 20 (46)30,001 - 50k 12 (27)50,0001 - 70k 7 (15)Above 70k 5 (12) Marital status Married 18 (40)Widowed 1 (3)Divorced 1 (2)Separated 1 (2)Never Married 79 (178) Race White(Caucasian) 58 (131)Black 27 (60)Hispanic 6 (14)Asian American 3 (7)Pacific Islander 1 (2)Other 6 (13) Educ completed GED & High School 36 (81)Undergraduate 45 (101)Graduate 13 (29)Other 6 (13) Occupation Student 59 (133)Homemaker/Not Employed 2 (5)Self-Employed 1 (3)Educator 5 (11)Professional 8 (18)Work for Company/Business 22 (49)Other 3 (6) percentages may not total 100 due to missing data or may exceed 100 due to rounding Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 28 and four items to measure the social FoMO dimen- sion. 4. Results Reliability coefficients were computed for each of the scales (Table 3a and 3b). All coefficient al- phas were above the 0.70 value recommended by Nunnally (1978). In this analysis, the independent variables consisted of social media usage, self- concept, social identity, smartphone usage, and innovativeness; the dependent variable was fear of missing out (FoMO). Since the study focuses on both personal and social aspects of FoMO, FoMO was treated as two dependent variables, i.e., Fo- MOpersonal and FoMOsocial. According to the analysis, the independent vari- ables have a relationship to personal FoMO, i.e., FoMOpersonal (F = 9.746, p < 0.001) (see Table 4, Table 5). As hypothesized, social media usage has a positive influence on FoMOpersonal (β = 0.208, t = 2.713, p < 0.05) (H1a). Moreover, indi- viduals with greater self-concept are negatively as- sociated with FoMOpersonal (β = -0.39, t = -5.852, p < 0.05) (H2a). In addition, the analysis shows smartphone usage has a positive impact on Fo- MOpersonal (β = 0.174, t = 2.493, p < 0.05) (H4a). Yet, neither social identity (H3a) nor innovative- ness (H5a) are associated with FoMOpersonal (β = -0.115, t = -1.562, p > 0.05) (β = -0.118, t = -1.679, p > 0.05). Furthermore, the results show that self-concept is significant with a negative impact on FoMOsocial (β = -0.482, t = -7.503, p < 0.05) (H2b) (see Table 6, Table 7). Also, there were no gender differences in relation to FoMO (tpersonal = -0.72, p > 0.05; tsocial = 0.475, p > 0.05) (H6a), (H6b). 5. Discussion FoMO is an emerging topic in consumer psy- chology, which is a feeling of being “left behind” (Salem, 2016). It generally relates to technological advancements, such as social media and smart- phone usage. According to Zhang et al. (2020), FoMO not only refers to the fear of missing out on experiences other people may enjoy but also the feeling of missing out on experiences they had wished for themselves. Therefore, FoMO tends to be activated by psychological threats to the self- concept. It is often a result of threats to the pub- lic and/or private self. This study contributes to FoMO theory by examining the personal and so- cial aspects of FoMO. Specifically, it explores pos- sible connections between social media, smart- phone usage, innovativeness, social identity and self-concept, and FoMO. It also supports the lack of gender difference in relation to FoMO. As Przybylski et al. (2013) posit, social media can be “thought of as reducing the ‘cost of admission’ for being socially engaged” (p. 1841). Yet, it was found that the use of technology, such as social media engagement and smartphone usage, has an impact on the personal dimension of FoMO but does not have an impact on the social dimension of FoMO, indicating that technology may have a more significant effect on personal FoMO than so- cial FoMO. The non-significant results for social FoMO may indicate that ultimately consumers will engage in activities or purchase products that are right for them versus right for their social group(s). To concur with earlier research, the analysis shows that individuals with greater self-concept tend to exhibit less personal FoMO or social FoMO. Individuals with a confident “self” are less likely to be fearful. The results also reveal that innovative- ness and social identity are not related to either personal FoMO or social FoMO. Finally, there was a non-significant difference between gender and FoMO. This finding may reflect the gender roles among Generation Z. Generally speaking, Gener- ation Z favors gender role flexibility and is less in favor of the patriarchy (Lampert, 2021). Theoretical and Practical Implications This study aimed to examine the relationship be- tween the two dimensions of FoMO and the“self” andtoevaluatetherelevantliterature. Specifically, the study contributes to theory by supporting the self-concept view of FoMO proposed by Zhang et al. (2020), which differentiates the personal and Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 29 Table 3a: Reliability coefficients Items Coefficient alpha Social media usage 0.90I use social media to follow sales and promotions.I use social media to monitor events.People use social media to reach me.I use social media to improve my relationship with different brands.I use social media to communicate with retailers.I use social media to improve my relationship with retailers.My relationship with my retail stores is enhanced by social media. Self-concept 0.95Unsatisfied with yourself satisfied with yourselfNot proud of yourself proud of yourselfFeel bad about yourself feel good about yourselfFeel unsuccessful feel successfulNot confident about yourself confident about yourselfFeel worthless feel like a person of worth Social identity 0.83The similarity I share with others in my group(s)My family nationality or nationalitiesThe memberships I have in various groupsThe places where I have livedMy sense of belonging to my own racial groupMy gender groupThe color of my skinMy being a citizen of my country Smartphone usage 0.81video and voice calls (making and receiving)text/instant messaging (sending and receiving)email (sending and receiving)social networking sitesinternet/websitesgamesmusic/podcasts/radiotaking pictures or videoswatching videos/TV/moviesreading books/magazinesmaps/navigation Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 30 Table 3b: Reliability coefficients Items Coefficient alpha Innovativeness 0.95In general, I am among the first in my circle of friendsto buy a new high-tech product when it appears.If I heard that a new high-tech product was available,I would be interested enough to buy it.I am usually one of the first people to know about new high-tech products.I will buy a new high-tech product even if I haven’t tried it yet.I actively try to learn about new high-tech products.I generally keep up on high-tech products news and events.I consider myself very up-to-date when it comes to high-tech products.In general, I have a strong interest in high-tech products.High-tech products are a very important product category to me.High-tech products matter to me a lot. Personal FoMo 0.90I feel anxious when I do not experience events/opportunities.I believe I am falling behind compared with others when Imiss events/opportunities.I feel anxious because I know something important or fun must happenwhen I miss events/opportunities.I feel sad if I am not capable of participating in events due to constraintsof other things.I feel regretful of missing events/opportunities. Social FoMO 0.93I think my social groups view me as unimportant when I missevents/opportunities.I think I do not fit in social groups when I miss events/opportunities.I think I am excluded by my social groups when I miss events/opportunities.I feel ignored/forgotten by my social groups when I miss events/opportunities. Table 4: Hypothesis testing for FoMOpersonal Hypotheses Results Hypothesis 1a Individuals exhibiting greater social media usage willhave a greater personal fear of missing out. AcceptHypothesis 2a Individuals with greater self-concept will have less per-sonal fear of missing out. AcceptHypothesis 3a Individuals exhibiting greater social identity will have agreater personal fear of missing out. RejectHypothesis 4a Individuals exhibiting greater smartphone usage willhave a greater personal fear of missing out. AcceptHypothesis 5a Individuals exhibiting greater innovativeness will haveless personal fear of missing out. RejectHypothesis 6a Therearenogenderdifferencesregardingpersonalfearof missing out. Accept Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 31 Table 5: Regression analysis for FoMOpersonal β Standardized β t Sig. (Constant) 3.395 5.557 0.000Social Media Usage 0.217 0.208 2.713 0.007Self-Concept/Image -0.378 -0.390 -5.852 0.000Social Identity 0.133 0.118 1.679 0.095Smartphone Usage 0.276 0.174 2.493 0.013Innovativeness -0.122 -0.115 -1.562 0.120 Table 6: Hypothesis testing for FoMOsocial Hypotheses Results Hypothesis 1b Individuals exhibiting greater social media usage willhave a greater social fear of missing out. RejectHypothesis 2b Individuals with greater self-concept will have less socialfear of missing out. AcceptHypothesis 3b Individuals exhibiting greater social identity will have agreater social fear of missing out. RejectHypothesis 4b Individuals exhibiting greater smartphone usage willhave a greater social fear of missing out. RejectHypothesis 5b Individuals exhibiting greater innovativeness will haveless social fear of missing out. RejectHypothesis 6b There are no gender differences regarding social fear ofmissing out. Accept Table 7: Regression analysis for FoMOsocial β Standardized β t Sig. (Constant) 3.746 5.645 0.000Social Media Usage 0.169 0.144 1.945 0.053Self-Concept/Image -0.526 -0.483 -7.503 0.000Social Identity 0.133 0.118 1.679 0.095Smartphone Usage 0.276 0.174 2.493 0.013Innovativeness -0.122 -0.115 -1.562 0.120 Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 32 social aspects of FoMO. Table 5 and Table 7 report the differences in regression analysis results be- tween the personal dimension of FoMO and the social dimension of FoMO in regard to variables. The findings show that social media engagement and smartphone usage have a positive influence on the personal dimension of FoMO, whereas self- concept has a negative influence. The findings re- garding social media and smartphone usage are consistent with previous research that FoMO is re- lated to the overuse of technology (e.g. Elhai et al., 2016). In other words, for those who are afraid of missing out, social media and smartphones pro- vide means to connect with others. FoMO is an anxiety disorder that is defined as not being aware of exciting things when not be- ing looked at, or missing out on the experiences of others. Although the FoMO effect has a nega- tive meaning, businesses manage to use this con- cern to their advantage. For example, the re- sults show that social FoMO is associated with self- concept. These findings may help social media marketers to identify FoMO consumers based on the “self-concepts.” That being said, social media marketers may use selfies as an indicator of self- concept on social media, thus finding insights into FoMO consumers. Additionally, limited production, shortage of prod- ucts in stock, short-term discounts, showing the number of people interested in the same prod- uct, and promotions offered as opportunities not to be missed are among the efforts of businesses to persuade consumers through FoMO. Further- more, the call to action (e.g., do not miss out, a one-day sales event) may likely be contingent on social media usage and smartphone use. Digi- tal marketers may use these “calls to action” to leverage more effective social media marketing campaigns. In particular, digital marketers may be able to incorporate consumers’ desires or fear as a motivational tool to purchase a product or seek out information. Moreover, digital marketers may need to be aware that individuals exhibiting greater smartphone usage and more significant socialmediausehaveagreaterfearofmissingout. This finding indicates that marketers can use soft- ware to track the usage of screen time and identity a particular consumer group that is afraid of miss- ing out. Finally, the results show that gender and innovativeness have no impact on FoMO, which offers marketers insights that gender and innova- tiveness are not the variables needed to be con- sidered or focused on for market segmentation in the context of FoMO in social media advertising campaigns. In sum, the fear of missing out on something can be a powerful emotion, and it is one that many individuals struggle with, especially members of Gen Z. This idea has been studied by various re- searchers who have found evidence supporting its validity as an explanation for why consumers se- lect special editions over others (Altheide, 2013). As a result, FoMO may drive consumers to make impulsive buying decisions. Thus, consumers should be aware of FoMO in the context of social media promotion and be conscious of the conse- quences of FoMO. A similar construct to FoMO, cognitive dissonance, which has been described as post-purchase anx- iety in non-routine purchases, is an undesirable consumer behavior condition that both marketers and consumers wish to minimize or eliminate. Al- though FoMO is similar to cognitive dissonance in that it is a form of consumer anxiety, it is actually a condition that can be advantageous to the mar- keter. For the marketer who wishes to leverage FoMO as a promotional tool, a “don’t be left out” or “limited edition” approach may be prudent, specif- ically via social media and/or smartphone technol- ogy. LimitationsandDirectionsforFutureResearch This study has some limitations. First, the sample, although representative of the target of younger consumers, was a convenience sample since an email list of students, alumni, and non-students of one university was used. Second, the results regarding gender may have been compromised due to the groups being rather unbalanced, with the majority of the sample consisting of female respondents (73%). This shortcoming is often ad- dressed in studies using panels and/or offering in- centives for participation. Additionally, this study has concluded that there are no gender differ- Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 33 ences regarding FoMO, concurring with some pre- vious research. Yet, due to inconsistencies in the results found in other studies, this finding may need to be validated in future research. FoMO has often been seen as a novel phe- nomenon that emerged with the increasing pop- ularity of social media. This is perhaps the first study to simultaneously investigate multiple vari- ables, specifically, innovativeness, self-concept, and social identity with both dimensions of FoMO. Future research may investigate why technology has not had an impact on the social aspect of FoMO. It is also worthwhile to examine why so- cial identity is not related to FoMO and why most of the results for FoMOsocial were non-significant. The FoMO construct is based upon social rela- tionships, so intuitively, those results were unex- pected. Researchers may further collect a non- student sample to compare Generations Y and Z with the other generational cohorts, i.e., Matures, Baby Boomers, and Generation X. Nevertheless, Generation Y and Generation Z may be important cohorts to target since younger consumers still use technology to a greater degree than older con- sumers (Thanasrivanitchai et al., 2017). 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 (JBER), 14(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/ 10.19030/jber.v14i1.9554 Aljomaa, S. S., Al.Qudah, M. F., Albursan, I. S., Bakhiet, S. F., & Abduljabbar, A. S. (2016). Smartphone ad- diction among university students in the light of some variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.041 Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and fear of missing out. Com- puters in Human Behavior, 49, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.057 Altheide, D. L. (2013). Media logic, social control, and fear: Media logic, social control, and fear. Commu- nication Theory, 23(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12017 Argan, M., & Tokay Argan, M. (2020). Share or worry! relationship among fomo, social visibility and conspicuous sharing. Journal of Internet Applications and Management, 11(2), 63–80. Asif, S. (2020). Herd consumption behaviour of indian youth towards luxury fashion brands: The medi- ating role of fomo. Xi’an Dianzi Keji Daxue Xuebao/Journal of Xidian University, 14, 707–728. https: //doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.10/075 Beyens, I., Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2016). “I don’t want to miss a thing”: Adolescents’ fear of missing outanditsrelationshiptoadolescents’socialneeds,Facebookuse,andFacebookrelatedstress. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.083 Bruner, G. C. (2016). Marketing scales handbook. 8: Multi-item measures for consumer insight research / Gordon C. Bruner (2. edition). GCBII Productions. Chao, C.-W., Reid, M., & Mavondo, F. T. (2012). Consumer innovativeness influence on really new prod- uct adoption. Australasian Marketing Journal, 20(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj. 2012.02.001 Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Chavez, A. (2014). Out of sight is not out of mind: The impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.002 Clark, R. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2006). Interpersonal influence and consumer innovativeness. Interna- tional Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005. 00435.x Classen, B., Wood, J. K., & Davies, P. (2020). Social network sites, fear of missing out, and psychosocial correlates. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 14(3). https://doi. org/10.5817/CP2020-3-4 https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v14i1.9554 https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v14i1.9554 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.041 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.057 https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12017 https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.10/075 https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.10/075 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.083 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2012.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2012.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.002 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00435.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00435.x https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2020-3-4 https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2020-3-4 Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 34 Columnist, M. M., SF Gate. (2010). Oh my God you are so missing out. Retrieved October 28, 2022, from https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/morford/article/Oh-my-God-you-are-so-missing-out- 2536241.php De Angelis, M., Bonezzi, A., Peluso, A. M., Rucker, D. D., & Costabile, M. (2012). On braggarts and gos- sips: A self-enhancement account of word-of-mouth generation and transmission. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(4), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0136 Demirci, K., Akgönül, M., & Akpinar, A. (2015). Relationship of smartphone use severity with sleep qual- ity, depression, and anxiety in university students. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.010 Duman, H., & Ozkara, B. Y. (2021). The impact of social identity on online game addiction: The mediating role of the fear of missing out (Fomo) and the moderating role of the need to belong. Current Psychology, 40(9), 4571–4580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00392-w Dutot,V. (2020).Asocial identityperspectiveofsocialmedia’s impactonsatisfactionwithlife.Psychology & Marketing, 37(6), 759–772. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21333 Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing out, need for touch, anxiety and depression are related to problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.079 Fake, A. C. (2011). Fomo and social media. Retrieved October 28, 2022, from https://caterina.net/2011/ 03/15/fomo-and-social-media/ Gil, F., Chamarro, A., & Oberst, U. (2015). PO-14: Addiction to online social networks: A question of" fear of missing out"? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(S1), 51–52. Gill, M. J., & Burrow, R. (2018). The function of fear in institutional maintenance: Feeling frightened as an essential ingredient in haute cuisine. Organization Studies, 39(4), 445–465. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0170840617709306 Girardi, P., & Chiagouris, L. (2018). The digital marketplace: Early adopters have changed. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.33423/jmdc.v12i1.1412 Graeff, T. R. (1996). Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand and self-image on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3), 4–18. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1108 / 07363769610118921 Gray, J. A. (1971). The psychology of fear and stress. Weidenfeld; Nicolson. Herman, D. (2000). Introducing short-term brands: A new branding tool for a new consumer reality. Journal of Brand Management, 7(5), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2000.23 Hoffner, C. A., & Lee, S. (2015). Mobile phone use, emotion regulation, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(7), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0487 JWT. (2011). Jwt explores fear of missing out phenomenon: Report outlines how fomo is manifesting in the zeitgeist. https://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/5/prweb8378292.htm JWT. (2012). Jwt explores fear of missing out - report, sxsw presentation spotlight how brands can leverage fomo. https://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9265660.htm Kang, I., He, X., & Shin, M. M. (2020). Chinese consumers’ herd consumption behavior related to korean luxury cosmetics: The mediating role of fear of missing out. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00121 Kim, H.-J., Min, J.-Y., Kim, H.-J., & Min, K.-B. (2019). Association between psychological and self-assessed healthstatusandsmartphoneoveruseamongKoreancollegestudents. JournalofMentalHealth, 28(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2017.1370641 Klink, R. R., & Athaide, G. A. (2010). Consumer innovativeness and the use of new versus extended brand names for new products: Consumer innovativeness and brand names. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00697.x https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/morford/article/Oh-my-God-you-are-so-missing-out-2536241.php https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/morford/article/Oh-my-God-you-are-so-missing-out-2536241.php https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0136 https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.010 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00392-w https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21333 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.079 https://caterina.net/2011/03/15/fomo-and-social-media/ https://caterina.net/2011/03/15/fomo-and-social-media/ https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617709306 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617709306 https://doi.org/10.33423/jmdc.v12i1.1412 https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769610118921 https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769610118921 https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2000.23 https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0487 https://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/5/prweb8378292.htm https://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9265660.htm https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00121 https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2017.1370641 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00697.x Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 35 Lampert, M. (2021). Meet Gen Z: Redefining gender roles and challenging patriarchy. Retrieved October 28, 2022, from https://glocalities.com/reports/meet-gen-z Lee, Y.-K., Chang, C.-T., Lin, Y., & Cheng, Z.-H. (2014). The dark side of smartphone usage: Psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 373–383. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.047 Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O., & Madden, T. J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and the adoption pro- cess. JournalofConsumerPsychology,4(4),329–345.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0404_ 02 Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229. https://doi.org/10.1086/208701 Miller, S. (2012). Fear of missing out: Are you a slave to fomo? https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ Wellness/fear-missing-slave-fomo/story?id=16629972 Nario-Redmond, M. R., Biernat, M., Eidelman, S., & Palenske, D. J. (2004). The social and personal identities scale: A measure of the differential importance ascribed to social and personal self- categorizations. Self and Identity, 3(2), 143–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500342000103 Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2d ed). McGraw-Hill. Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behav- ioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014 Qutishat, M. G. M. (2020). Academic adjustment, emotional intelligence, and fear of missing out among undergraduate students: A descriptive correlational study. Oman Medical Journal, 35(5), e174– e174. https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2020.116 Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2013). Understanding social media effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0326-9 Reed, A. (2002). Social identity as a useful perspective for self-concept-based consumer research. Psy- chology and Marketing, 19(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10011 Riordan, B. C., Flett, J. A., Hunter, J. A., Scarf, D., & Conner, T. S. (2015). Fear of missing out (fomo): The relationship between fomo, alcohol use, and alcohol-related consequences in college students. Annals of Neuroscience and Psychology, 2(7), 1–7. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.7243/2055- 3447-2-9 Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed) [OCLC: 700853045]. Free Press. Rozgonjuk, D., Sindermann, C., Elhai, J. D., & Montag, C. (2021). Individual differences in Fear of Missing Out (Fomo): Age, gender, and the Big Five personality trait domains, facets, and items. Person- ality and Individual Differences, 171, 110546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110546 Salem, P. J. (2016). Human communication technology [OCLC: 956331419]. Sentia Publishing. Shalev, E., & Morwitz, V. G. (2012). Influence via comparison-driven self-evaluation and restoration: The case of the low-status influencer. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 964–980. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/661551 Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287. https://doi.org/10.1086/208924 Smith,A. (2015).U.S.Smartphoneusein2015.RetrievedOctober28,2022,fromhttps://www.pewresearch. org/internet/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/ Statista. (2022). Number of worldwide social network users from 2017 to 2027. https://www.statista.com/ statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ https://glocalities.com/reports/meet-gen-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.047 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.047 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0404_02 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0404_02 https://doi.org/10.1086/208701 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/fear-missing-slave-fomo/story?id=16629972 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/fear-missing-slave-fomo/story?id=16629972 https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500342000103 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014 https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2020.116 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0326-9 https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10011 https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.7243/2055-3447-2-9 https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.7243/2055-3447-2-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110546 https://doi.org/10.1086/661551 https://doi.org/10.1086/661551 https://doi.org/10.1086/208924 https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ Reisenwitz & Fowler/ Journal of Business Strategies (2023) 40:21-36 36 Stead, H., & Bibby, P. A. (2017). Personality, fear of missing out and problematic internet use and their relationship to subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 534–540. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.016 Swar, B., & Hameed, T. (2017). Fear of missing out, social media engagement, smartphone addiction and distraction: Moderating role of self-help mobile apps-based interventions in the youth: Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Tech- nologies, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.5220/0006166501390146 Thanasrivanitchai, J., Moschis, G. P., & Shannon, R. (2017). Explaining older consumers’ low use of the internet. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 11(4), 355. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJIMA.2017.087271 Vandecasteele, B., & Geuens, M. (2010). Motivated consumer innovativeness: Concept, measurement, and validation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(4), 308–318. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijresmar.2010.08.004 Wortham, J. (2011). Feel like a wallflower? Maybe it’s your facebook wall. The New York Times. Retrieved October 28, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/business/10ping.html Zhang, Z., Jiménez, F. R., & Cicala, J. E. (2020). Fear of missing out scale: A self-concept perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 37(11), 1619–1634. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21406 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.016 https://doi.org/10.5220/0006166501390146 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIMA.2017.087271 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIMA.2017.087271 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.08.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.08.004 https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/business/10ping.html https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21406 Introduction Literature Review and Theoretical Framework of FoMO Social Media Usage Self-Concept Social Identity Smartphone Usage Innovativeness Gender Method Scales Results Discussion Theoretical and Practical Implications Limitations and Directions for Future Research