Content uploaded by Sally Maeng
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sally Maeng on Sep 06, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
#THESTRUGGLEISREAL:
FEAR OF MISSING OUT (FOMO) AND NOMOPHOBIA
CAN, BUT DO NOT ALWAYS,
OCCUR TOGETHER
Sally Maeng
Dr. Kelly J. Arbeau
Trinity Western University
2
3
Prefce
Contact Information
Special Thanks
Abstract
Poster Presentation the entire study in 2 pag
Introduction & Literature Review
Statistics on Smartphones and Social Media
FOMO Fact Sheet
Nomophobia Fact Sheet
Hypotheses
Methods
Participants
Procedure
Measures
Results & Discussion
Demographic Variables with FOMO & Nomophobia
Hypothesis 1 (main points in b
Hypothesis 2 (main points in b
Hypothesis 3 (main points in b
Conclusion
Strengths & Limitations
Recommendations for Future Studies
Closing Remarks
References
Table of Contents
5
6
7
9
12
15
16
20
22
25
29
30
32
33
37
38
42
46
48
51
52
53
54
57
the entire study in 2 pages
main points in bold
main points in bold
main points in bold
Statistics
Fact Sheet
Fact Sheet
4
5
Preface
Helpful Things to know before Reading this Study
6
This document was created because I believe my research is valuable enough to be read and
enjoyed by the public.
7
For general questions about the study or magazine please contact
Sally Maeng at sallymaeng@gmail.com
This study was originally an honour’s thesis for a Bachelor’s degree program that took place
during the school year of 2017-2018. To speak with the supervisor, please contact
Dr. Kelly J. Arbeau at kelly.arbeau@twu.ca
8
9
Abstract
Overview, Quick facts & Poster Presentation
10
11
Social media and smartphones uses are ubiquitious and can be positive.
However, Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) and nomophobia (“no mobile
phone phobia”) are two negative consequences that unfortunately
promote anxiety to the user. With a sample of 235 participants, ANOVA
and regression analyses stated FOMO and nomophobia significantly
predict each other and account for 26% of each other’s scores.
Additionally, examining frequency distribution supported the hypothesis
that FOMO is often contingent on nomophobia, but nomophobia is
more likely to exist separately from FOMO. Lastly, correlation analysis
displayed that while self-determination theory is effective in explaining
FOMO, there may be other theoretical models that could better describe
the psychology behind nomophobia. Although FOMO and nomophobia
are two distinct variables, a strong relationship that exists between them.
Keywords: FOMO, nomophobia, social media, smartphone, wellbeing
• The “Fear of Missing Out”
on memorable social
events
• Stronger associations with
high social media use
DEFINITIONS
FOMO1
NOMOPHOBIA2
• “No mobile phone
phobia” - The fear of
being separated from your
phone
• Stronger associations with
high smartphone use`
WHY STUDY FOMO
& NOMOPHOBIA ?
FOMO
NOMOPHOBIA
• It is predicted that social media use on
smartphones will increase by approx. 39%
each year worldwide until 20223
• In Canada, 94% of 15- to 34-year-olds and
69% of 55- to 64-year olds reported they
owned a mobile phone in 2016.4
• Self-determination theory predicted FoMO
in past research where dissatisfaction in
psychological needs (competence, autonomy,
and relatedness) contributed to greater
FoMO1, 5, but this model has not been used to
examine nomophobia.
• There is very little to no research that studies
FoMO and nomophobia together
FoMO and nomophobia
will be positively correlated
with each other.
FoMO will be contingent
on nomophobia, but
nomophobia will exist
separately from FoMO.
Due to their similarity,
self-determination theory
can also be used to explain
nomophobia.
1.
2.
3.
HYPOTHESES
METHODS FOR DATA COLLECTION
• 235 participants
• 63.9% female, 22.8%
male, 2.1% other, and 11.2%
prefer not to answer
• Age: 18 – 61 (M = 26.49,
SD = 9.37)
• 98.1% own a smartphone
• 71.8% from Canada/US,
13.2% from other countries,
and 15% prefer not to
answer
PARTICIPANTS
• FoMO Scale1
• “I get worried when I find out my friends are having more fun without me”
• “When I miss out on a planned get-together, it bothers me”
• Nomophobia Questionnaire2
• If I could not check my smartphone for awhile, I would feel the desire to check it
• I would be annoyed if I couldn’t use my smartphone and/or its capabilities
when I wanted to do so
• Psychological Needs Satisfaction Scale5
• I feel very capable and effective (measures competence)
• I feel loved and cared about (measures relatedness)
• I feel free to be who I am (measures autonomy)
• Demographic Variables
MATERIALS
• 10-15 min online survey
• University research pool
• Various social media
platforms
• Snowball effect and word-
of-mouth
PROCEDURE
#THESTRUGGLEISREAL: FEAR OF MISSING OUT (FOMO) & NOMOPHOBIA
CAN, BUT DO NOT ALWAYS, OCCUR TOGETHER
BY SALLY MAENG, BA & KELLY J. ARBEAU, PHD
1. Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of FoMO. Computers in
Human Behavior
,
29
(4), 1841–1848. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014
2. Yildirim, C., & Correia, A.P. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire.
Computers in Human Behavior
,
49
, 130–137. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059
3. Statistics Canada. (2017, November 27). Life in the fast lane: How are Canadians managing?, 2016 [Government Statistics]. Retrieved April 9, 2018, from https://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-
quotidien/171114/dq171114a-eng.htm?HPA=1
4. Ericsson (2016).
Ericsson Mobility Report (November 2016)
. Retrieved on September 22, 2017 from: https://www.ericsson.com/assets/local/mobility-report/documents/2017/ericsson-mobility-report-
june-2017.pdf
5. La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
,
79
(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.3.367
RESULTS
Figure 1.
Regression analysis of FoMO and nomophobia
FOMO Scale Scores
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Nomophobia Questionnaire Scores
125.00
100.00
75.00
50.00
25.00
FoMO scores above one or more
SD from the mean
BOTH FoMO scores above one or more SD from the mean AND mild / severe
nomophobia scores2
Mild / severe nomophobia scores2
Figure 2.
Proportion comparison between high FoMO and nomophobia scores
Variables FoMO Nomophobia
Total psychological needs
satisfaction -0.35** -0.22**
Competence needs
satisfaction -0.38** -0.20**
Relatedness needs
satisfaction -0.17* -0.09
Autonomy needs
satisfaction -0.29** -0.27**
*
p
< 0.05, **
p
< 0.01
Table 1.
Correlation analysis of FoMO, nomophobia, and psychological needs satisfaction
HYPOTHESIS 1
Simple Linear Regression
• FoMO and nomophobia account for 26% of each other’s scores
(
R
2 = 0.26,
F
(1, 206) = 70.462,
p
<0.000).
One-way ANOVA
• The level of nomophobia severity (mild, moderate, and severe)2 can
predict total FoMO score (
F
(2, 205) = 27.73,
p
< 0.000).
• The strength of FoMO scores (scores with different SD above/below
the mean) can predict total nomophobia score (
F
(3, 204) = 21.94,
p
< 0.000).
HYPOTHESIS 2
• When looking at participants who have high
FoMO scores (1 and more SD above the mean),
61% also have moderate or severe nomophobia.
• When looking at participants who have moderate
or severe nomophobia, 83% have high FoMO.
HYPOTHESIS 3
FoMO
• In line with past studies1, FoMO is negatively correlated with
psychological needs satisfaction
Nomophobia
• Nomophobia had a weaker correlation with total psychological
needs satisfaction, competence, and autonomy, and it did not
have a significant relationship with relatedness.
• FoMO and nomophobia often occur together and can help predict each other’s intensity.
• If you have FoMO, you most likely have nomophobia. FoMO drives social media use which is often accessed through smartphones.
• It is more common to have nomophobia without FoMO. This may be because you can be attached to your phone for reasons other than to
increase connectedness with others (for ex. to exchange communication, to look up information, or to use it for convenience).
• While self-determination theory is effective in explaining FoMO, there may be other theoretical models that can better account for
nomophobia.
CONCLUSION
14
15
Introduction &
Literature Review
Introduction to this study & Exploring existing research on this topic
16
• According to Statistics Canada, 94% of 15- to 34-year-olds &
69% of 55- to 64-year old Canadians reported they owned a
mobile phone in 201649
• It is predicted that social media use on smartphones will
increase by approx. 39% each year worldwide until 202222
• Not surprisingly, Millennials, the future of today’s society, are the
highest users of mobile devices and social media42, 40, 49, 53
The benefits and harms of social media & smartphone use are
considered controversial in the literature.
• They can help individuals create new or
strengthen existing social bonds41
• They can be tools for relaxation and leisure16, 53
• They can be used to store and look up
information at any given time16, 58
• There are some associations between
smartphone use and mood disorders15, 21
• Smartphone has been linked with addictive
behaviours53
• Intensive smartphone use is related with poor
emotional stability and lower self-esteem6, 12
BENEFITS HARMS
Given these equivocal findings, it is important that we continue to study the
effects of social media & smartphones.
Mobile devices are used extensively in North America.
Statistics like these emphasizes the prominent place the combination of mobile
devices and social media has in today’s society.
17
18
are two relatively new areas of
investigation related to
social media & smartphones.
FOMO
&
NOMOPHOBIA
19
FoMO
stands for “Fear of Missing Out,” and it involves having negative thoughts and emotions
in response to the belief that one’s social circle is creating memorable events in one’s absence, leading to
anxiety or maladaptive social media use.27, 28, 42
Although FOMO is catalyzed by smartphone use, it is important to remember that FOMO is more closely related to
social media use. 1, 7-9, 42, 43
Nomophobia
or “no mobile phone phobia,” refers to anxiety about separation from
electronic devices that connect the user to the social world, such as smartphones which is what this study
focuses on.31
It can occur when individuals frequently use their smartphones whether it is for social media or for other purposes
such as for entertainment (ex: games) and informational retrieval (ex: GPS).59
Both are seen as anxiety-related consequences of connectedness. 31, 42
Both increase with the frequent use of smartphones. 11, 21, 30-32, 42, 56
Both have the tendency to occur more to younger populations more than older individuals. 42, 31, 38
Both are reported to be more widespread within the past years due to the rise of smartphones and its easy access
to social media.42, 59
Both occur cross-culturally and around the world.4, 14, 26, 29, 39, 55
Since majority of North American adults own mobile devices and seeing how social media use on cellphones are
on the rise, it is important to further analyzes FoMO and nomophobia, especially how they relate to established
psychological theories, in order to gain a sound understanding of these phenomena.
Furthermore, this study is not saying that all social media & smartphone uses are harmful. Rather, it focuses on the negative
consequences that can occur from overusing or misusing social media & smartphones.
Despite their similarities, an exclusive comparison of the two
constructs has not been made before this study.
20
FOMO occurs when individuals are anxious over the real or imagined
possibility that meaningful people in their social groups are having a
poignant experience without the individual’s presence.
This may lead to anxiety and/or an obsessive engagement with social
media. 12, 27, 28, 42 At the same time, there are evidence that social media could
be causing anxiety and jealousy because it provides a platform for social
comparison.23
FOMO
Social
Media Use
21
Psychological Theories that Best Explains FOMO
Other Existing Research on
FOMO
FOMO
Self-Determination Theory17, 35, 42
When we are hungry, we become motivated to find and eat food. Likewise, self-determination theory
states that we are motivated to act in ways to meet our psychological needs so that we can to obtain a
whole sense of self.
There are three basic needs according to self-determination theory: competence, relatedness, and
autonomy, it is considered that the lack in various amounts of these needs are what influences
FOMO.
FOMO is not new, but its prevalence recently accelerated due to high social media use on smartphones27, 28
FOMO occurs more frequently and intensely among younger cohorts such as young adults and teenagers but is not limited to the older
generation38, 39, 53
Teenagers may experience more FOMO due to stronger needs to belong and be popular9
Neuroimaging studies identified FoMO to be strongly associated with parts of the brain that induces the need to belong,36 and this anxiety can
predict intentions for heavy drinking46
While many researchers agree that FOMO increases as smartphone and social media use increase1, 7, 9, it is possible that problematic smartphone
and social media addiction, rather than general smartphone use, may better at predicting FOMO in indiviudals10, 21
FOMO impacts individuals physically and mentally - Higher levels of FoMO are related to physical symptoms such as headaches, shortness of
breath, sore throat, and chest pain, along with depression-like symptoms7, 8, 38
FoMO is related to social media addiction10
Some researchers thinks FOMO should be categorized into social FoMO (for example, social media use), new information FoMO (for example,
keeping up with current events), and commercial FoMO (for example, receiving updates on retail products)1
Competence is best summarized as your confidence to
carry out an action.
If you lack in competence needs You may engage in social
media activities to increase social skills This leads to FOMO
(similar findings: 12)
Relatedness involves feeling belonged to a group and
connected to others.
If you lack relatedness needs You may engage in social media
activities to feel more belonged This leads to FoMO (similar findings: 9, 55-57)
Autonomy evolves around desires for you to feel congruent with your actions and personal values,
and it is associated with the yearning to freely express yourself.
If you lack autonomy needs You may engage in social media activities to not miss out on memorable events participated by your social group
and/or you struggle choosing activities you feel completely at peace with This leads to FoMO (similar findings: 56)
FOMO
SDT’s competence,
relatedness, and autonomy
needs
22
Behaviours Associated with Nomophobia11, 59
feeling anxious when your phone runs out of battery
having a peace of mind when you know your phone is nearby
avoiding places that limits phone use and/or interrupts cell/wifi signal
experiencing “phantom ring tones” where you think you hear/feel your
phone ring/vibrate only to find out it didn’t
23
Intensive Studies on NOMOPHOBIA
4 Dimensions of Nomophobia58, 59
1st Dimension:
Losing Communication
Having “no mobile phone phobia” in fear of
losing access to communication including
in-depth conversations with loved ones and
practically coordinating meeting spots with
friends
(similar findings: 6, 30-32)
2nd Dimension:
Losing Connectedness
Having “no mobile phone phobia” in fear of
not being able to receive notifications, either
from actual people or social media etc.,
that signals connectedness to your social
network and society
(similar findings: 29, 44)
3rd Dimension:
Access to Information
Having “no mobile phone phobia” because
you need it to check information such as the
weather forecast, sports status, knowing
what song is playing in the building, GPS
navigation, class notes, and more
(similar findings: 16, 25)
4th Dimension:
Giving Up Convenience
Having “no mobile phone phobia” because
need it for the efficiency it adds to your daily
life such as knowing the time, using it as a
flashlight, taking a photo, avoiding feeling
restless when you are bored, and more
(similar findings: 30)
Psychological Theories that Best Explain FOMO
NOMOPHOBIA
A specific phobia that should be included in the upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders11 (however, the fifth edition
manual has yet to include nomophobia as an official disorder5)
A form of general anxiety15
A form of addiction that closely resembles Internet addiction21, 24, 45
Attachment theory where people form attachments with their phones as they would with other humans and consequently feel stressed when
separated from their phones33
Personality and demographic variables may help predict nomophobia6
Self-extended theory that states as individuals view their smartphones as an extension of themselves as they incorporate more of their identity and
memories into their devices25
Demand-control model that exemplifies nomophobia occurs when individuals experience social threat from being stressed over having low
certainty and control over when and under what conditions they can use their phone50
Simply just a problematic behaviour53
(or dependency / overuse of mobile phones)
There is debate on how to categorize nomophobia accordingly to existing empirical psychological
constructs. Unlike with FOMO, self-determination theory has not previously been used to explain
nomophobia.
24
25
Hypotheses
Predictions made in this study
26
FOMO NOMOHPOBIA
&
will be positively related to each other
As FOMO levels increase, so will nomophobia. This hypothesis was made
because both FOMO and nomophobia evolve around smartphone use.42, 59
HYPOTHESIS 1
FOMO will be contingent on
nomophobia
but
Nomo hobia will exist
separately from FOMO
HYPOTHESIS 2
FOMO
FOMO
NOMOPHOBIA
NOMOPHOBIA
It will be common for those who have FOMO to also have nomophobia
because FOMO drives social media activity,27, 28, 42 and social media activity
commonly takes place on smartphones.16 However, it will be possible for those
with nomophobia to not necessarily have FOMO because people could be
using their phones for reasons other than checking social media such as for
information retrieval and easy convinences.59
27
Self-determination theory can also be
used to explain
HYPOTHESIS 3
NOMOPHOBIA
It is possible that like FOMO, nomophobia will also be explained using self-
determination theory due to their similar characteristics.
In regard to competence needs, people might feel a sense of attachment to
their phones because it equips them with plethora of information that can be
retrieved at any given time. For example, they can Google answers, look at a
GPS if they get lost, or check for events on their social media.
Next, nomophobia may occur because individuals lack relatedness needs,
and want to remain connected to their social groups.
Phones can be used to escape anxiety32 and individuals may want to do this
in order to feel more congruent with their true selves, and thus meet their
autonomy needs. In addition, social media can provide more opportunities
for individuals to express themselves through an online identity19, 59
Nomophobia may occur because individuals lack in competence, relatedness,
and autonomy needs.
28
29
Methods
Used in collecting DATA For This study
30
PARTICIPANTS
11.2% Prefer not to
answer 22.8% Male
63.9% Female
2.1% Other
GENDER
11.2% Prefer
not to answer
87.1% Yes
1.7% No
OWNING A
SMARTPHONE
Centrality Number
Mean 26.49
Median 23
Mode 21
Range 18 to 61
Prefer not to answer 30
AGE
Participants were recruited
using the following strategies:
a western Canadian university’s
research pool that allowed
students to receive a class
credit for their involvement in
the study, various social media
platforms and the snowball
effect.
These statistics describe
the sample, that is, the
participants, that was involved
in this study.
Knowing the demographics
of participants and the
methods that was used to
recruit them provide valuable
information because they can
influence the results of the
study.
31
15.4% First year
41.1% Not
students
3.3% Prefer not to
answer
SCHOOL
15.8% Fourth+
year
5.8% Second
year
7.5% Third
year
9.1% Europe
71.8% Canada
& USA
0.8% Asia
COUNTRY OF
RESIDENCE
2.5% Australia
14.9% Prefer not to
answer
0.8% Middle
East
8.7% Seasonally or
abide by another
schedule
26.1% Not
employed
28.2% Full time
0.8% Prefer not to answer
WORK
24.9% Part
time
2.1% Prefer not to answer
17.4% Married
RELATIONSHIP
STATUS
45.6%
Single,
never
married
1.7% Single, divorced
14.5% Dating
2.1% Engaged
5.8%
Common-
law
32
PROCEDURE
The study consisted of an online survey that was approximately 10 to 15 minutes
long. Participants’ consents were asked before the start of the survey. While the
participants were informed that this study was about FoMO and nomophobia,
the exact focus and hypotheses were undisclosed until debriefing once the
survey was finished.
33
MEASURES
1. Fear of Missing Out Scale (FoMOs)42
2. Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q)59
3. Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale35
4. Mobile Device Engagement Scale42
5. Overall Life Satisfaction Questionnaire42
6. Nine-Item Version of the Emmons Mood Indicator18
7. Demographic Questions (see p. 26-27)
All of these scales were used to replicate Przybylski et al. (2013)’s study which was the first to
empirically investigate FoMO. The Nomophobia Questionnaire and different demographic
questions were uniquely added to this current study.
34
FoMO Scale (FoMOs)42
Sample Questions
• I get worried when I find out my friends are having fun without me
• 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
• Sometimes, I wonder if I spend too much time keeping up with what is going on.
Participants were asked to answer using a 5-point Likert scale
moderately
true of me
not at all
true of me
extremely
true of me
slightly
true of me
very
true of me
A total score was obtained by averaging
scores for each participant across all 10
questions (M = 2.28, SD = 0.67).
Higher scores indicate greater FoMO.
Cronbach’s alpha: 0.82
Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q)59
Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale35
Sample Questions
• If I did NOT have my smartphone with me, I would be worried because my family and/or
friends could not reach me
• If I did NOT have my smartphone with me, I would feel awkward because I could not
check my notifications for updates from my connections and online networks
• I would be annoyed if I could not look information up on my smartphone when I wanted
to do so
• Running out of battery in my smartphone would scare me
Sample Questions
• For measuring competence: I feel very capable and effective
• For measuring relatedness: I feel loved and cared about
• For measuring autonomy: I feel free to be who I am
Participants were asked to answer using a 7-point Likert scale
Participants were asked to answer using a 7-point Likert scale
neither
agree/
disagree
neither
agree/
disagree
strongly
disagree
strongly
disagree
strongly
agree
strongly
agree
moderately
disagree
moderately
disagree
moderately
agree
moderately
agree
A total score was obtained by summing
scores for each participant across all 20
questions (M = 66.92, SD = 24.82).
A total score was obtained by averaging
scores for each participant across all 9
questions (M = 4.88, SD = 1.08).
Higher scores indicate greater
nomophobia.
Higher scores indicate your psychological
needs are better met.
Cronbach’s alpha: 0.94
Cronbach’s alpha: 0.84
slightly
agree
slightly
agree
slightly
disagree
slightly
disagree
Used to see if the self-determination theory can be used to explain nomophobia.
35
Measures that are relevant to addressing the 3 hypotheses
Other measures used in this study in order
to replicate Przybylski et al.’s (2013) study
This scale measured how often participants use their phones. This is an edited version of Przybylski et al.’s
(2013) Social Media Engagement scale. It was modified for this current study to include all types of mobile
phone use, and not just social media. This is because while FoMO evolves primarily around social media
use, nomophobia can arise from all sorts of different mobile phone activities.
Sample Question
• Please reflect on how you used your mobile device (e.g., for social media, texting, games, music, Inter-
net, other apps, and etc.)
Participants were asked to reflect how many days a week they checked their phones within 15 minutes of
waking up, when eating breakfast, when eating lunch, when eating dinner, and within 15 minutes of going
to sleep.
A total score was obtained by summing scores for
each participant across all 5 questions.
(M = 14.90, SD = 7.45).
A total score was obtained by summing scores for
each participant across all 4 questions.
(M = 3.30, SD = 0.91).
A total score was obtained by averaging scores for
each participant across all 4 questions.
(M = 3.26, SD = 0.60).
A higher score indicates higher engagement with
mobile devices.
Cronbach’s alpha: 0.76
A higher score indicates higher overall life
satisfaction.
Cronbach’s alpha: 0.78
A higher score indicates higher overall life
satisfaction.
Cronbach’s alpha: 0.86
Mobile Device Engagement Questionnaire42
Overall Life Satisfaction Questionnaire42
Nine-item Version of the Emmons Mood Indicator18
Participants were asked to use a 5-point Likert scale to rate how satisfied they were with their physical
health, emotional health, personal relationships, and life as a whole.
Participants were asked to use a 5-point Likert scale to rate how often they felt each of the nine emotions
within the past 30 days.
This was used to measure how often participants use their phones.
This was used to measure participants’ overall life satisfaction.
This was used to measure participants’ general moods.
Cronbach’s alpha measures the reliability of a measure. A measure is considered more reliable the closer a score is to 1. Many researchers consider 0.70 as
acceptable although 0.80 is is preferred. All of the measures used in this study had good to excellent reliability.
36
37
Results &
Discussion
The Analysis and interpretation of the results from this research study
38
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES WITH
FOMO & NOMOPHOBIA
FOMO is more likely to occur among younger population but there is a lack of relationship between
age and nomophobia
FOMO & nomophobia are more likely to occur in women...maybe?
FOMO
FOMO
Existing Research on
Age and FoMO
Existing Research on
Age and FoMO
Existing Research on
Gender and FoMO &
FOMO
FOMO
Nomophobia
Nomophobia
Nomophobia
Nomophobia
Existing research agrees that
younger individuals are more likely
to have FoMO throughout various
sample with different averages in
age including means that represent
greater number of older adults42,
young adults7
, and teenagers9.
This may also be because FoMO is
mediated by social media activity and
younger individuals tend to be more
engaged in social media10.
There is no agreement.
It is interesting to not see a relationship between age and nomophobia because the literature disagrees
by showing that nomophobia, like FOMO, is more likely to occur among younger individuals6, 29, 60
It is possible this sample possesses a moderate correlation between age and FOMO and no relationship
with age and nomophobia because while the participants’ age ranged from 18 to 61, the mean was 24
indicating the sample consisted of mostly young adults. Therefore, having disproportionate number
of young and older adults may have prevented in detecting a significant relationship between age and
nomophobia. On the other hand, as more members of society begin to own phones,40, 49 it is possible that
older adults are becoming reliant on various tools and convenience smartphones provide. Therefore, this
study may be accurately representing that while FOMO continues to occur more frequently among young
people, but nomophobia is prevalent throughout all ages.
This current study shows that women reported higher levels of both
FOMO and nomophobia.
Some research agrees with this finding.9, 24 Others disagree and say
FOMO & nomophobia are more likely to occur in men.11, 29, 42 There are
some studies that show no relationship between gender and neither
FOMO nor nomophobia.1, 6, 39, 60
AGE
GENDER
Pearson’s correlation was used to examine this relationship. It revealed that age and FOMO are correlated with each other on moderately-weak scale
(r = 0.20, p < 0.01), but this finding is still considered meaningful in psychology.
A t-test was used to examine this relationship. It was significant for FOMO at a 0.001 level and at a 0.000 level for nomophobia.
39
p-levels, or probability
levels,
is just as its name sounds - it
states the probabilty of getting
that particular result. For example,
if there is a moderate correlation
and its p-level is less than 0.01,
that means the probability of
getting that moderate correlation
by random chance is less than 1 in
100. Since getting that moderate
correlation by random chance
is low, it is most likely that the
moderate correation occured
beacuse of the study’s design. p <
0.05 would indicate a chance of
less than 5 in 100, and p < 0.000
would indciate a chance of 1 in
1000 or less. Lower p-levels are
desirables because they indicate
greater confidence in the study’s
results.
40
41
Higher use of mobile devices correlates with stronger levels of FoMO & nomophobia.
FOMO & nomophobia are related to poor life satisfaction and negative moods
FOMO
FOMO
Existing Research on
wellbeing and FoMO &
FOMO Nomophobia
Nomophobia
Nomophobia
Other researchers agree FoMO and nomophobia decrease life
satisfaction and positive emotions7, 30-32, 38, 39, 57
While there may be advantages for having easy access to cellphones,
there are also affirmations to its downfalls.
By agreeing with existing work, these results affirm FOMO and
nomophobia manifest more intensely in younger individuals, appears to
manifest as individuals spend more time on their phones, and is either an
influencer or is influenced by poor overall wellbeing and negative mood.
PHONE USE
WELLBEING
This finding agrees with existing literature.11, 21, 30-32, 42
In this current study, the relationship with mobile device use is slightly weaker in
FOMO which makes sense because FOMO is rooted in social constructs, the fear
that you are being left out of your social group, that is enhanced by easy accessibility
of social media on smartphones.(see p. 16) Meanwhile, nomophobia is directly related to
cellphones,(see p. 18) thus explaining why it has a higher correlation with mobile device
use than FoMO.
Existing Research on
Phone Use and
&
FOMO Nomophobia
Pearson’s correlation was used to examine this relationship. It showed that phone use and FOMO were moderately correlated (r = 0.35, p < 0.01), and the
relationship between phone use and nomophobia was moderately strong (r = 0.50, p < 0.01).
Pearson’s correlation was used to examine this relationship. FOMO had a moderately weak negative correlations with both overall life satisfaction (r = -0.35,
p < 0.01) and general mood (r = -0.29, p < 0.01). This pattern was also seen when analyzing nomophobia with overall life satisfaction
(r = -0.22, p < 0.01) and general moods (r = -0.27, p < 0.01).
42
HYPOTHESIS 1
FOMO & nomophobia will be positively related to each other
The results support that
& DDDDD
have a strong relationship with each other.
FOMO NOMOPHOBIA
43
Pearson’s correlation
displayed that FOMO
& nomophobia have a
moderately strong relationship
(r = 0.51, p < 0.01).
A simple linear
regression affirmed this
connection by calculating
that FOMO & nomophobia
can predict 26% of each
others’ scores (R2 = .255, F
(1, 206) = 70.462, p <.000).
In this study, participants’
nomophobia predicted
FOMO (β = .25.233)
where participants’ levels of
nomophobia were predicted
to increase by 18.685 for
each one-point increase on
the 10-point FOMO scale.
To put this into perspective,
Yildirim and Correia’s (2015)
categorizes nomophobia
scores into mild, moderate,
and severe nomophobia using
a range of 38-40 points.
When predicting FOMO with
nomophobia, the beta was
1.330 and expected to increase by .014 for every point on the NMP-Q; FOMO scores range from 1 to 5.
FOMO Scale Scores
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Nomophobia Questionnaire Scores
125.00
100.00
75.00
50.00
25.00
Not only do they show similar correlation patterns with
other variables in this study, but
& omophobia
can also predict just over a quarter of each other’s scores.
FOMO NOMOPHOBIA
44
FOMO & can predict each other, but
only on a broad, and not on a fine, scale.
Different severity levels of one measure can predict the total score of the other.
Two sets of one-way ANOVAs were used with the Tukey’s post hoc test.
First, it was tested to see if different intensities of nomophobia could predict the total
FOMO score.
How the scores were split
into groups
Nomophobia scores were split
into three categories mild (n =
80), moderate (n = 107) and
severe (n = 21) according to
Yildirim and Correia’s (2015) cut
off points.
Results
The ANOVA test revealed that there was a significant difference in total FOMO
scores (F (2, 205) = 27.73, p < 0.000). However, the Tukey post hoc test indicated
that results were only significant between mild (M = 1.87, SD = 0.53, p < 0.05) and
moderate (M = 2.44, SD = 0.63, p <0.05), and mild and severe (M = 2.72, SD =
0.66, p < .05) nomophobia. A significant relationship did not exist between the mild
and moderate group.
mild moderate severe
FOMO NOMOPHOBIA
45
Different severity levels of one measure can predict the total score of the other.
In order to use ANOVA tests, scores had to arranged into groups.
A second one-way ANOVA was conducted by switching the place of FOMO and
nomophobia.
How the scores were split into
groups
FOMO scores were divided into
four categories according to their
position from the mean because
Przybylski et al. (2013) did not
provide categories that categorized
FoMO severity. The four groups were
as followed: one standard deviation
above the mean (n = 56), one
standard deviation below the mean
(n = 68), two and more standard
deviation above the mean (n =
38), and two and more standard
deviations below the mean (n = 45).
Results
This test also revealed a statistical significant (F (3, 204) = 21.94, p < 0.000)
indicating different severity in FOMO can predict the total nomophobia score.
Tukey post hoc test indicated significance only occurred when comparing any two
groups from either side of the mean. For example, there was a relationship when
comparing one standard deviation above the mean (M = 79.43, SD = 21.19),
p < 0.05) with one standard deviation below the mean (M = 60.55, SD = 21.29),
p < 0.05) or with more than one standard deviation below the mean (M = 50.56,
SD = 21.88), p < 0.05). Likewise, comparing more than one standard deviation
above the mean (M = 60.55, SD = 21.29), p < 0.05) was significant when
comparing with any of the two groups below the mean. Significance did not occur
when comparing groups within the same side of the mean such as examining
one standard deviation above the mean with more than one standard deviation
above the mean.
2 and more
SD above the
mean
2 and more
SD below the
mean
1
SD above the
mean
1
SD below the
mean
46
HYPOTHESIS 2
FOMO will be contingent on nomophobia, but nomophobia will exist separately from
FOMO.
The results support
Scenario A is more
common than
Scenario B
FOMO scores above one or
more SD from the mean
BOTH FOMO scores above one or more SD from the mean
AND mild / severe nomophobia scores
Mild / severe nomophobia
scores
LEGEND
SCENARIO A
If you have
FOMO
You also have
nomophobia
FOMO
NOMOPHOBIA
SCENARIO B
If you have
nomophobia
You also have
fomo
NOMOPHOBIA
FOMO
This phenomenon is possible because the anxiety created by FOMO provokes more social media use42 which can be
accessed using smartphones. However, those who are nomophobic may be attached to their phones for reasons
other than to satisfy their social needs, such as for direct communication, to access information including the Internet,
and to add efficiency and convenience to daily life .59 (see p. 19)
47
Even though FOMO and nomophobia are strongly correlated, data showed they
account for each other in different ways. Frequencies and proportion analysis was
conducted to analyze this aspect of their relationship.
First, the data was filtered to represent participants who had moderate to severe nomophobia (68.85% of total participants). From this
group, 61% of those participants had FOMO levels whose standard deviations were one and more above mean.
Nearly 40% of individuals who have high nomophobia scores experience low levels of FOMO.
The majority of participants who had high levels of FOMO also had high levels of nomophobia.
However, if you changed the places of these variables and filter the data to those who have a FOMO score one and more above the mean
(33.62% of total participants), 83% of that group were found to have moderate to severe nomophobia.
Overall, it can be assumed that while FoMO &
nomophobia are very similar to each other, they are still
distinct constructs that sometimes, but not always, exist together.
FOMO
NOMOPHOBIA
48
HYPOTHESIS 3
Nomophobia had an evident, but weak, relationship with
the psychological needs variables. Thus, the third hypothesis was
only partially supported.
Pearson’s correlation was used to study this hypothesis. Relationships are considered stronger when the ratio is closer to ±1.00. The
negative correlation shows that FOMO and nomophobia is more likely to occur when psychological needs are poorly met. The lack of asterisk
(*) indicates that there was no statistically significant relationship.
self-determination theory can also be used to explain nomophobia.
NOMOPHOBIA
Variables FOMO NOMOPHOBIA
Total psychological needs satisfaction -0.35** -0.22**
Competence needs satisfaction -0.38** -0.20**
Relatedness needs satisfaction -0.17* -0.09
Autonomy needs satisfaction -0.29** -0.27**
*
p
< 0.05, **
p
< 0.01 w
This indicates FOMO arise from the lack of competence,
autonomy, and relatedness accordingly to self-determination
theory.
FOMO
This study aimed to see if self-determination theory could explain nomophobia like how it does for FOMO. This study replicated Przybylski et
al.’s (2013) Study 2 where all the variables on the Psychological Needs Satisfaction Scale35 negatively correlates with FOMO.
49
While this theory is shown to be a great psychological theory for
FOMO , it is questionable whether is self-determination theory is
the best theoretical construct for nomophobia .
FOMO
NOMOPHOBIA
Nomophobia has low to moderate correlations with the total psychological need satisfaction score and the subcategories competence
and autonomy need satisfaction, and no statistically significant relationship with relatedness need satisfaction. This is interesting
because nomophobia has two dimensions that involves fear of not being able to communicate and losing connectedness.59 (see p. 19) This is
the first study to study self-determination theory with nomophobia. Other theories used to explain nomophobia include clinical specific
phobia,11 addiction,21, 24, 44 attachment theories,33 and personality6 and more. (see p. 19)
Seeing how self-determination theory only partially explains
nomophobia , there may be other psychological theories
that better explain its nature.
NOMOPHOBIA
50
51
Conclusion
Applications for Future Studies & Ending Remarks
52
1.) Only undergraduate-level statistics is used in this study. While that is sufficient for investigating this
study’s hypotheses, more advanced analyses, such as multiple regression, is commonly used in existing
research that observe FOMO and nomophobia. In other words, this study does not
explore mediating effects that influence FOMO and nomophobia but only supports the evident relationship
that exist between the two variables.
2.) Secondly, the findings in this study may not have represent society as a whole. Despite the wide range in age among the participants, the
mean is 26-years-old where the median between 18 and 61 is 35. Those wanting to apply findings from this study to older
generation groups should do so with caution.
3.) Lastly, This study focuses only on general wellbeing and not on clinical diagnosis. For example, it does not incorporate any clinical
measures such as the Strait-Trait Anxiety Inventory or Beck’s Depression Inventory. Therefore, this study does not have direct
clinical implications.
LIMITATIONS
1.) First to study FOMO & nomophobia side by side. This is especially valuable because this
study revealed a strong meaningful relationships between the two variables.
2.) Replicated Przybylski et al.’s (2013) findings. This strengthens not only their work, but also this current study.
3.) Provided additional insight on how technology affects wellbeing. This is important because technology continues to be
integrated in individuals’ lives, and so society should be aware of the consequences it can bring.
STRENGTHS
As it is with all
research, this
study contains
strengths &
limitations.
53
1.) Explore the mediating effects of FOMO & nomophobia side-by-side.
Since this study supports the unique relationship between FOMO & nomophobia, future research should inquire finer details to why this
phenomenon takes place.
2.) Explore other theories and models that explain FOMO & nomophobia.
While the self-determination theory is great at explaining FOMO on a psychological level, it is only adequate in disclosing nomophobia. The
existing literature continues to debate on the theory that is best for nomophobia. Future studies should investigate those existing theories side
by side either with nomophobia alone or with both FOMO & nomophobia side by side. The latter may provide additional insight to FOMO &
nomophobia’s relationship.
3. ) Explore coping for and preventative measures against FOMO & nomophobia.
It should be reminded that FOMO is the Fear of Missing Out, and nomophobia is no mobile phone phobia; these are anxiety-inducing mental
states. Furthermore, this study adds to existing literature that FOMO & nomophobia is correlated with negative wellbeing and moods.
Technology is not diminishing from society in the near future. Therefore, it is important to seek ways to help those struggling with or at-risk of
FOMO & nomophobia.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE STUDIES
54
FOMO & nomophobia are known as two rising concerns over frequent smartphone use. This
study is unique because it was the first to study FOMO & nomophobia side by side. It supports
that FOMO & nomophobia are positively related and often, but do not always, exist together.
Consequently, as social media and smartphone use are on the rise, this study contributes
valuable insight on how technology can negatively affect wellbeing. While technology can be
beneficial it is clear that with FOMO & nomophobia, the struggle is real.
55
While technology can be
beneficial, it is clear when
it comes to
FOMO
&
Nomophobia
the struggle is real.
FOMO
NOMOPHOBIA
56
57
References
Sources used in this study
58
1. Abel, J. P., Buff, C. L., & Burr, S. A. (2016). Social media and the fear of missing out: Scale development and assessment. Journal of
Business & Economics Research (Online), 14(1), 33.
2. Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior,
49, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.057
3. Alt, D. (2016). Students’ wellbeing, fear of missing out, and social media engagement for leisure in higher education learning
environments. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9496-1
4. Alt, D. (2017). Students’ social media engagement and fear of missing out (FOMO) in a diverse classroom. Journal Of Computing
In Higher Education, 29(2), 388-410. doi:10.1007/s12528-017-9149-x
5. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
6. Argumosa-Villar, L., Boada-Grau, J., & Vigil-Colet, A. (2017). Exploratory investigation of theoretical predictors of nomophobia
using the Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire (MPIQ). Journal of Adolescence, 56, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
adolescence.2017.02.003
7. Baker, Z. G., Krieger, H., & LeRoy, A. S. (2016). Fear of missing out: Relationships with depression, mindfulness, and physical
symptoms. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(3), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000075
8. Barry, C. T., Sidoti, C. L., Briggs, S. M., Reiter, S. R., & Lindsey, R. A. (2017). Adolescent social media use and mental health from
adolescent and parent perspectives. Journal of Adolescence, 61, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.08.005
9. Beyens, I., Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2016). “I don’t want to miss a thing”: Adolescents’ fear of missing out and its relationship
to adolescents’ social needs, Facebook use, and Facebook related stress. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.083
10. 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. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.039
11. Bragazzi, N., & Del Puente, G. (2014). A proposal for including nomophobia in the new DSM-V. Psychology Research and Behavior
Management, 155. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S41386
12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.055
13. Cabral, J. (2008). Is generation Y addicted to social media. Future of Children, 18, 125.
14. Calvete, E., & Londres, U. K. (2017). Adaptación al español del cuestionario Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q) en una
muestra de adolescentes. Actas Esp Psiquiatr, 45(4), 137–44.
15. 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
16. Chua, A. Y. K., Goh, D. H.-L., & Lee, C. S. (2012). Mobile content contribution and retrieval: An exploratory study using the uses
and gratifications paradigm. Information Processing & Management, 48(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2011.04.002
17. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of Self-determination Research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
18. Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47, 1005–1117.
19. Dumas, T. M., Maxwell-Smith, M., Davis, J. P., & Giulietti, P. A. (2017). Lying or longing for likes? Narcissism, peer belonging,
loneliness and normative versus deceptive like-seeking on Instagram in emerging adulthood. Computers in Human Behavior, 71,
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.037
20. English Oxford Living Dictionary. (n.d.). Smartphone. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/smartphone
21. 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
22. Ericsson (2016). Ericsson Mobility Report (November 2016). Retrieved on September 22, 2017 from: https://www.ericsson.com/
assets/local/mobility-report/documents/2017/ericsson-mobility-report-june-2017.pdf
23. Fox, J., & Moreland, J. J. (2015). The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the relational and psychological
stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2014.11.083
24. Gezgin, D. M., & Çakır, Ö. (2016). Analysis of nomofobic behaviors of adolescents regarding various factors. Journal of Human
Sciences, 13(2), 2504. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v13i2.3797
25. Han, S., Kim, K. J., & Kim, J. H. (2017). Understanding Nomophobia: Structural Equation Modeling and Semantic Network
59
Analysis of Smartphone Separation Anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(7), 419–427. https://doi.
org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0113
26. Hodkinson, C. S., & Poropat, A. E. (2014). Chinese students’ participation: The effect of cultural factors. Education & Training, 56,
430–446. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2013-0057
27. JWT (2011). Fear of Missing Out (FOMO). http://www.jwtintelligence.com/ production/FOMO_JWT_TrendReport_May2011.pdf.
28. JWT (2012). Fear of Missing Out (FOMO), March 2012. http:// www.jwtintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/F_JWT_
FOMO- update_3.21.12.pdf.
29. Kanmani, A., Bhavani, U., & Maragatham, R. (2017). Nomophobia: An insight into its psychological aspect in India. The
International Journal of Indian Psychology, 4(2). DIP: 18.01.041/20170402
30. King, A. L. S., Valenc, A. M., & Nardi, A. E. (2010). Nomophobia: The Mobile Phone in Panic disorder with Agoraphobia
Reducing Phobias or Worsening of Dependence? Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 23(1), 52–54.
31. King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., Silva, A. C. O., Baczynski, T., Carvalho, M. R., & Nardi, A. E. (2013). Nomophobia: Dependency on
virtual environments or social phobia? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 140–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.025
32. King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., Silva, A. C., Sancassiani, F., Machado, S., & Nardi, A. E. (2014). “Nomophobia”: Impact of cell
phone use interfering with symptoms and emotions of individuals with panic disorder compared with a control group. Clinical
Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health: CP & EMH, 10, 28-35.
33. Konok, V., Pogány, Á., & Miklósi, Á. (2017). Mobile attachment: Separation from the mobile phone induces physiological and
behavioural stress and attentional bias to separation-related stimuli. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 228–239. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.002
34. Kruger, D. J., & Djerf, J. M. (2016). High Ringxiety: Attachment Anxiety Predicts Experiences of Phantom Cell Phone Ringing.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(1), 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0406
35. La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A
self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.3.367
36. Lai, C., Altavilla, D., Ronconi, A., & Aceto, P. (2016). Fear of missing out (FOMO) is associated with activation of the right middle
temporal gyrus during inclusion social cue. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 516–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.072
37. Lin, L. yi, Sidani, J. E., Shensa, A., Radovic, A., Miller, E., Colditz, J. B., … Primack, B. A. (2016). Association between social media
use and depression among U.S. young adults. Depression and Anxiety, 33(4), 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22466
38. Milyavskaya, M., Saffran, M., Hope, N., & Koestner, R. (2018). Fear of missing out: prevalence, dynamics, and consequences of
experiencing FOMO. Motivation and Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9683-5
39. Oberst, U., Wegmann, E., Stodt, B., Brand, M., & Chamarro, A. (2017). Negative consequences from heavy social networking
in adolescents: The mediating role of fear of missing out. Journal of Adolescence, 55, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
adolescence.2016.12.008
40. Pew Research Center (2017). Mobile technology fact sheet. Retrieved September 22, 2017, from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-
sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/
41. Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. (Jay). (2017). Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital:
A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2017.02.041
42. Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear
of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014
43. Riordan, B. C., Cody, L., Flett, J. M., Conner, T. S., Hunter, J., & Scarf, D. (2018). The development of a single item fomo (fear of
missing out) scale. Current Psychology: A Journal For Diverse Perspectives On Diverse Psychological Issues. doi:10.1007/s12144-018-
9824-8
44. Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., & Rokkum, J. (2013). The Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes
Scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2501–2511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006
45. Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Rab, S., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Is Facebook creating “iDisorders”? The link between
clinical symptoms of psychiatric disorders and technology use, attitudes and anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3),
1243–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.012
46. Scalzo, A. C., & Martinez, J. A. (2017). Not all anxiety is the same: How different ‘types’ of anxiety uniquely associate with college
students’ drinking intentions. Journal Of College Student Development, 58(6), 943-947. doi:10.1353/csd.2017.0073
47. SecurEnvoy (2012). 66% of the population suffer from nomophobia the fear of being without their phone. Retrieved on March 30, 2018
from http://www.securenvoy.com/blog/2012/02/16/66-of-the- population-suffer-from-nomophobia-the-fear-of-being-without-
60
their-phone/
48. Sharma, N., Sharma, P., Sharma, N., & Wavare, R. (2015). Rising concern of nomophobia amongst Indian medical students.
International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 3(3), 705. https://doi.org/10.5455/2320-6012.ijrms20150333
49. Statistics Canada. (2017, November 27). Life in the fast lane: How are Canadians managing?, 2016 [Government Statistics]. Retrieved
April 9, 2018, from https://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/171114/dq171114a-eng.htm?HPA=1
50. Tams, S., Legoux, R., & Léger, P.-M. (2018). Smartphone withdrawal creates stress: A moderated mediation model of
nomophobia, social threat, and phone withdrawal context. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2017.11.026
51. Tarsha, A. A. (2016). The role of existential therapy in the prevention of social media-driven anxiety. Existential Analysis, 27(2),
382–389.
52. Thomée, S., Härenstam, A., & Hagberg, M. (2011). Mobile phone use and stress, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression
among young adults-a prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 66.
53. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Bolle, C. L., Hegner, S. M., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2015). Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone
behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039
54. Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular
Media Culture, 3(4), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000047
55. Wegmann, E., Oberst, U., Stodt, B., & Brand, M. (2017). Online-specific fear of missing out and Internet-use expectancies
contribute to symptoms of Internet-communication disorder. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 5, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
abrep.2017.04.001
56. Wang, P., Xie, X., Wang, X., Wang, X., Zhao, F., Chu, X., … Lei, L. (2018). The need to belong and adolescent authentic self-
presentation on SNSs: A moderated mediation model involving FoMO and perceived social support. Personality and Individual
Differences, 128, 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.035
57. Wolniewicz, C. A., Tiamiyu, M. F., Weeks, J. W., & Elhai, J. D. (2018). Problematic smartphone use and relations with negative
affect, fear of missing out, and fear of negative and positive evaluation. Psychiatry Research, 262, 618–623. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.09.058
58. Yildirim, C. (2014). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: Developing and validating a questionnaire using mixed methods
research. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 14005.
59. Yildirim, C., & Correia, A. P. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: Development and validation of a self-reported
questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059
60. Yildirim, C., Sumuer, E., Adnan, M., & Yildirim, S. (2016). A growing fear: Prevalence of nomophobia among Turkish college
students. Information Development, 32(5), 1322–1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915599025
All the photos were obtained from Unsplash. Thank you to the following
photographers:
Courtney Clayton (p. 40)
Derek Anies (p. 27)
Georgia De Lotz (p. 32)
Gian Cescon (p. 26)
Jacob Ufkes (p. 42)
Jari Hytonen (p. 39)
Jwlez (p. 21)
Karl J.K. Hedin (p. 23)
Hanny Naibaho (p. 44-45)
Hugh Han (p. 41)
Phuong Nguyen (p. 47)
Raw Pixel (pp. 17, 31, 40)
Robert Penaloza (p. 53)
Tom Holmesv (p. 49)
Veeterzy (p. 39)
61
The End
