Why do people even check their mobile phones regularly when they are together with other people?
So, what is the reason that we have so many "phubber"?
This study shows the explanatary power of FoMO ("Fear of Missing Out") for this behaviour.
It's the fear to be left out, to miss out important things that make people almost addicted to their phones.
However, interesting differences can be found between males and females, especially in their checking behaviour when they are in company.
1. Phubbing because of FoMO?
– “Fear of Missing Out” as a predictor
for problematic mobile phone use –
when being alone and in company
C. Bosau & M. Kühn
7. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO? 7
Quelle: http://www.jwtintelligence.com
Only recently, the discussion about
this new phenomenon started
(JWT, 2011 & 2012; Przybylski,
Murayama, DeHaan & Gladwell,
2013):
Fear of Missing Out (FoMO)
„the uneasy and sometimes all-
consuming feeling that you’re
missing out — that your peers are
doing, in the know about or in
possession of more or something
better than you.” (JWT, 2011, S. 4)
FoMO: a new phenomenon?
8. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
Former results
8
What we already know:
• Mobile phones are potential addiction sources (Carbonell, Oberst & Beranuy, 2013)
• FoMO correlates highly with social media engagement in general (Przybylski, Murayama,
DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013) and Facebook usage in particular (Bosau, Aelker & Amaadachou, 2014)
• FoMO correlates with problematic mobile phone use (PMPU) and habitual
checking behaviour (Collins, 2013)
Main questions:
Do people check their mobile phones in company as much as if they are
alone?
Is FoMO the main predictor of this behaviour or do social norms play a
role, too?
9. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
The study
9
Former studies:
§ many looked at PMPU only
§ only one study measured the
influence of FoMO – but in
general
This study:
§ integrated FoMO and several
measures for PMPU
§ compared social situations (i.e.
being in company) vs. personal
situations (i.e. being alone)
Method:
• Online questionnaire (posted via Facebook, mailing-lists and personal
emails, partly snowball sampling) in 2014
• N = 101
• age: < 18y = 16%, 18-23y = 50%, 24-30y = 29%, > 30y = 5%
• male = 46%, female = 54%
10. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
The scales
10
Fear of Missing Out - FoMO
(Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013)
Frequency of checking - FoC
(Collins, 2013)
Habitual checking behaviour - HCB
(Bayer & Campbell, 2012)
The independent variable:
Problematic mobile phone use - PMPU
(Güzeller & Cosguner, 2012)
The dependent variables:
Gender
The moderator:
Measured
twice:
a) While
being
alone
b) While
being
in
company
Measured
twice:
a) While
being
alone
b) While
being
in
company
11. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
2,79%
2,80%
2,90%
2,90%
2,96%
3,11%
3,21%
3,34%
3,40%
3,89%
1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Ich$bekomme$Angst,$wenn$ich$nicht$weiß,$was$meine$Freunde$tun$
Wenn$ich$eine$gute$Zeit$habe$ist$es$wich:g$für$mich,$die$Details$online$zu$teilen$
(z.B.$Facebook$Status)$
Manchmal$frage$ich$mich,$ob$ich$zu$viel$Zeit$damit$verbringe$auf$dem$Laufenden$
zu$bleiben$was$momentan$vor$s...$
Wenn$ich$im$Urlaub$bin,$beobachte$ich$weiterhin,$was$meine$Freunde$machen$
Ich$habe$Angst,$dass$mir$nicht$nahestehende$Bekannte$tollere$Erlebnisse$
erfahren$
Ich$habe$Angst,$dass$meine$Freunde$tollere$Erlebnisse$erfahren$
Es$beunruhigt$mich,$wenn$ich$herausfinde,$dass$meine$Freunde$ohne$mich$Spaß$
haben$
Es$ist$wich:g,$dass$ich$die$"InsiderMJokes"$meiner$Freunde$verstehe$
Es$stört$mich,$wenn$ich$eine$Möglichkeit$verpasse$mich$mit$meinen$Freunden$zu$
treffen$
Es$stört$mich,$wenn$ich$ein$geplantes$Treffen$verpasse$
FoMO – Fear of Missing Out
11
Independent variable
• scale of Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell (2013)
• scale: 1 = „gilt überhaupt nicht für mich“ vs. 5 = „gilt komplett für mich“
• Cronbach’s α = .89
12. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
Problematic mobile phone use
12
Dependent variable
• scale of Güzeller & Cosguner (2012)
• scale:
1 = „stimme überhaupt nicht zu“
vs.
5 = „stimme vollkommen zu“
• Originally: ONE factor scale;
Cronbach’s α = .88
• Should be divided into two factors
(based on PCA, Varimax-rotation)
a) reachability (α = .92)
b) addiction (α = .76)
2,29$
2,42$
2,44$
2,50$
2,51$
2,54$
2,59$
2,66$
2,72$
2,77$
2,81$
2,85$
2,79$
2,97$
3,25$
3,55$
3,70$
3,73$
1$ 2$ 3$ 4$ 5$
Ich$habe$Schmerzen$in$Kopf,$Daumen$und$Hand$aufgrund$der$
Nutzung$meines$Smartphones$
Die$Nutzung$meines$Smartphones$hat$einen$Rückgang$meiner$
schulischen$Leistung$zur$Folge$
Ich$komme$oA$zu$spät$zu$Verabredungen,$weil$ich$mit$meinem$
Smartphone$beschäAigt$bin,$wenn$ich$es$eigentlich$nicht$sollte$
Ich$sage$immer$zu$mir$selbst$"nur$noch$ein$paar$Minuten",$
während$ich$mein$Smartphone$benutze$
Ich$glaube$ein$Leben$ohne$Smartphones$ist$langweilig$und$
sinnlos$
Andere$beschweren$sich$darüber,$dass$ich$mein$Smartphone$zu$
oA$benutze$
Ich$habe$versucht$die$Nutzung$meines$Smartphones$zu$
verringern,$bin$aber$daran$gescheitert$
Ich$schaffe$es$nicht,$zu$lernen$oder$meine$Hausaufgaben$zu$
machen$aufgrund$der$Nutzung$meines$Smartphones$
Wenn$ich$mein$Smartphone$nicht$nutzen$kann,$bin$ich$genervt$
Ich$kann$mich$nicht$auf$das$Lernen$konzentrieren,$weil$ich$
Nachrichten$verschicke$und$empfange$oder$Spiele$auf$meinem$
Smartphone$spiele$
Es$gibt$Momente,$in$denen$ich$lieber$mein$Smartphone$nutzen$
würde,$als$mich$um$dringlichere$Angelegenheiten$zu$kümmern$
Ich$bemerke,$dass$ich$mit$meinem$Smartphone$beschäAigt$bin,$
obwohl$ich$eigentlich$gerade$andere$Dinge$tun$sollte$und$
dadurch$Probleme$entstehen$
Ich$nutze$mein$Smartphone$so$oA$ich$kann$
Ich$gehe$sofort$an$mein$Smartphone,$wenn$es$klingelt$und$
schreibe$auch$direkt$zurück$beim$Empfang$einer$Nachricht$
Ich$bin$besorgt$über$die$Akkuladung$von$meinem$Smartphone$
Ich$kontrolliere$regelmäßig$meine$verpassten$Anrufe$und$
empfangenen$Nachrichten$
Ich$mache$tagsüber$mein$Smartphone$nie$aus$
Ich$habe$mein$Smartphone$immer$dabei$
reachability
addic9on
13. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
1,88$
2,19$
2,69$
3,25$
1$ 2$ 3$ 4$ 5$
Frequency of checking
13
Dependent variable
• scale of Collins (2013)
• scale:
1 = „niemals“
vs.
5 = „mehr als 7 mal“
• „In welcher Häufigkeit kontrollieren
Sie die folgenden Applikationen auf
ihrem Smartphone pro Tag?“
• Cronbach’s α = .63 (being alone)
Cronbach’s α = .80 (being in company)
2,97%
3,37%
3,83%
4,38%
1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
News%
E'Mail%
Social'Media%(Facebook,%
Twi6er%etc.)%
Anrufe%und%Nachrichten%
(Skype,%SMS,%WhatsApp%
etc.)%
13
alone
in
company
14. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
2,31%
2,35%
2,28%
2,37%
2,32%
2,39%
2,34%
2,48%
2,69%
2,45%
1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
3,05%
3,07%
3,18%
3,25%
3,41%
3,50%
3,59%
3,62%
3,69%
3,76%
1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
..."mir"schwer"fällt,"es"zu"
unterlassen"
..."mir"Mühe"bereiten"
würde,"es"nicht"zu"tun"
..."für"mich"sehr"typisch"ist"
..."ich"erst"realisiere,"
nachdem"ich"damit"
begonnen"habe"
..."mir"nicht"das"Bedürfnis"
gibt"darüber"
nachzudenken"
..."ich"tue"ohne"dabei"
nachzudenken"
..."ich"auch"ohne"Grund"
dazu"tue"
..."ich"tue,"ohne"mich"
bewusst"daran"erinnern"zu"
müssen"
..."zu"meiner"täglichen"
Rou@ne"gehört"
..."ich"automa@sch"tue"
Habitual checking behaviour
14
Dependent variable
• scale of Bayer & Campbell (2012)
• scale:
1 = „stimme überhaupt nicht zu“
vs.
5 = „stimme vollkommen zu“
• „Das Kontrollieren von meinem
Smartphone ist etwas, dass ...“
• Cronbach’s α = .90 (being alone)
Cronbach’s α = .89 (being in company)
alone
in
company
15. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
Influence of FoMO on PMPU total
15
Regression analysis
• corr. R2 = 66,2 %
• NO main effect of gender
• Main effect of FoMO
a) male: β = .91***
b) female: β = .66***
• Interaction effect: β = .17*
2
2,5
3
3,5
Low FoMO High FoMO
ProblematicMobilePhoneUse
Men Women
FoMO is a very strong predictor and leads to more problematic
mobile phone use.
This influence, however, is slightly higher for males than for females.
16. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
Influence of FoMO on PMPU:
addiction & reachability
16
Regression analyses
• corr. R2 = 66,7 %
• NO main effect of gender
• Main effect of FoMO
a) male: β = .86***
b) female: β = .78***
• NO interaction effect
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Low FoMO High FoMO
PMPU-addiction
Men Women
• corr. R2 = 6,9 %
• NO main effect of gender
• Main effect of FoMO
a) male: β = .52***
b) female: β = .19
• Interaction effect: β = -.32**
2,5
3
3,5
4
Low FoMO High FoMO
PMPU-reachability
Men Women
FoMO is a strong predictor,
equally for males and females
FoMO is only a predictor for
males
addic9on
reachability
17. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
Differences of checking behaviour
17
1
2
3
4
5
HCB
-‐
alone
HCB
-‐
in
company
FoC
-‐
alone
FoC
-‐
in
company
Mean
Paired t-Test
• Comparison of
a) habitual checking behaviour
alone vs. in company
b) frequency of checking
alone vs. in company
• sign. difference between the two situations
a) habitual checking behaviour
t (100) = 14,18, p < .00
b) frequency of checking
t (100) = 13,56, p < .00
Habitual checking tendency and frequency of checking are much
smaller in social situations.
Therefore, the situation and its norms do play an important role.
18. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
Influence of FoMO: comparison of alone vs. in
company
18
Bootstrap analyses
• Regression analysis (controlled for gender)
alone
in
company
FoMO
à
HCB
β
=
.72***
(95%
CI:
.59
-‐
.85)
β
=
.36***
(95%
CI:
.19
-‐
.44)
FoMO
à
FoC
β
=
.60***
(95%
CI:
.43
-‐
.69)
β
=
.23***
(95%
CI:
.06
-‐
.40)
FoMO is a very strong predictor for habitual checking tendencies and
checking frequency.
FoMO is still a significant predictor in social situations, although its
influence is significantly lower.
19. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
Influence of FoMO on HCB:
alone vs. in company
19
Regression analyses
• corr. R2 = 54,1 %
• Main effect of gender β = .22***
• Main effect of FoMO
a) male: β = .85***
b) female: β = .58***
• Interaction effect β = -.19*
• corr. R2 = 15,2 %
• Main effect of gender β = .18*
• Main effect of FoMO
a) male: β = .52***
b) female: β = .19
• Interaction effect: β = -.23*
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
Low FoMO High FoMO
Habitualcheckingbehaviour-
alone
Men Women
1,5
2
2,5
3
Low FoMO High FoMO
Habitualcheckingbehaviour-in
company
Men Women
19
FoMO is a stronger predictor
for males than for females
FoMO is only a predictor for males,
since females have HCB anyways
alone
in
company
20. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO?
Influence of FoMO on FoC:
alone vs. in company
20
Regression analyses
• corr. R2 = 34,9 %
• NO main effect of gender
• Main effect of FoMO
a) male: β = .72***
b) female: β = .48***
• NO interaction effect
• corr. R2 = 7,3 %
• NO main effect of gender
• Main effect of FoMO
a) male: β = .41***
b) female: β = .05
• Interaction effect: β = -.26*
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
Low FoMO High FoMO
frequencyofchecking-
alone
Men Women
1,5
2
2,5
3
Low FoMO High FoMO
frequencyofchecking
-incompany-
Men Women
FoMO is a strong predictor,
equally for males and females
FoMO is only a predictor for males,
since females do checking anyways
alone
in
company
21. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO? 21
Ø FoMO is a very strong predictor of problematic mobile phone use
• While it explains phone addiction for males and females equally, it triggers
reachability only for males not for females
Ø People generally show more checking behaviour when they are alone, in social situations
the habitual checking tendency and the actual checking is lower
Ø FoMO is a very strong predictor of habitual checking tendencies and frequency of
checking
• Though, the influence is lowered in social situations maybe due to social norms
• However, the influence is higher for males
• But females generally check their phones more
Conclusion
FoMO can explain why people can’t stop to use their mobile
phones, even when they are in social situations where they
meet other people in person.
22. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO? 22
• Bayer, J., & Campbell, S. (2012). Texting While Driving On Automatic: Considering the Frequency-Independent Side of
Habit. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28, 2083- 2090.
• Bosau C., Aelker, L. & Amaadachou, H. (2014). Ich darf nichts verpassen! – Kann “Fear of Missing Out (FoMO)”
Suchtverhalten in Facebook erklären? 49. congress of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs) in Bochum.
• Carbonell, X., Oberst, U. & Beranuy, M. (2013). The Cell Phone in the Twenty-First Century: A Risk for Addiction or a
Necessary Tool? Principles of Addiction. Vol. 1, pp. 901-909.
• Collins. L. (2013). FoMO and Mobile Phones: A Survey Study. Unpublished master thesis. Tilburg University, Tilburg.
• Guzeller, C., & Cosguner, T. (2012). Development of a Problematic Mobile Phone Use Scale for Turkish Adolescents.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , Vol. 15 (4), 205-211.
• JWT (2011). Fear of Missing Out (FOMO), May 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.jwtintelligence.com/production/
FOMO_JWT_TrendReport_May2011.pdf [01.09.2012].
• JWT (2012). Fear of Missing Out (FOMO), March 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.jwtintelligence.com/wp-content/
uploads/2012/03/F _JWT_FOMO- update_3.21.12.pdf [01.09.2012].
• Przybylski, A.K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C.R. & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioural
correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 1841-1848.
Literature
23. GOR 2015Bosau & Kühn: Phubbing because of FoMO? 23
Thank you very much for your
attention!
Contact details:
Rheinische Fachhochschule Köln
Prof. Dr. Christian Bosau, Dipl.-Psych. & Master of HRM & IR
Schaevenstraße 1a/b
50676 Köln
Tel.: +49 221 20302-0
e-mail: christian.bosau@rfh-koeln.de
Slideshare: cbosau
Twitter: cribocologne