4.7 Review

Fear of missing out and social networking sites use and abuse: A meta-analysis

Journal

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Volume 122, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106839

Keywords

Fear of missing out; Meta-analysis; Problematic social networking sites use; Social media addiction; Social networking site use

Ask authors/readers for more resources

FoMO is positively correlated with social media use and problematic social media use, as well as with depression, anxiety, and neuroticism, and negatively correlated with consciousness. Individual characteristics do not moderate these associations.
A growing body of research has examined the potential effects of the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) on Social Networking Site (SNS) use and Problematic SNS use (PSNSU). The aim of the current meta-analysis is to summarize findings on the relationship between FoMO levels and (i) SNS use and (ii) PSNSU. Furthermore, we metaanalyzed results on the associations between FoMO and some individual characteristics. The sample included 33 independent samples with a total of 21,473 participants. The results of the random-effects meta-analysis show a positive correlation between FoMO and SNS use and between FoMO and PSNSU, with effect sizes indicating robust associations. Age, sex, and geographic area of the samples did not moderate the associations. FoMO was positively correlated with depression, anxiety, and neuroticism and negatively correlated with consciousness. These results give robustness to the construct validity of FoMO itself, as this concept was introduced to explain why some people might be especially attracted to social media. Moreover, concerns that others might be having rewarding experiences that one is absent from seem to be a trigger for a compulsive use of social platforms, driven by the need to get in touch with others, or as tool to develop social competence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available