phubbing because of fomo? - presentation gor 2015

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

2

Quelle: http://www.ithinkonpaper.com/fomo/

3

Quelle: http://healthmeup.com/photogallery-healthy-living/could-you-be-suffering-from-fear-of-missing-out-fomo/32443/3

4

Quelle: http://www.examiner.com/article/checking-facebook-and-twitter-all-day-scientists-say-you-may-have-fomo

5

Quelle: http://www.buzzly.fr/jq/ckeditor/plugins/doksoft_uploader/userfiles/phubbing2.jpg

Quelle: https://timenerdworld.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/phubbing.jpg?w=600

Quelle: http://www.buzzly.fr/jq/ckeditor/plugins/doksoft_uploader/userfiles/phubbing.jpeg

6

Quelle: http://blog.vodafone.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/stop-phubbing-campaign.jpg

GOR 2015 Bosau & 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?


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?


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%


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


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


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


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


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


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

Prob

lem

atic

Mob

ile P

hone

Use

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.


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

- ad

dict

ion

Men Women


a)  male: β = .52*** b)  female: β = .19

•  Interaction effect: β = -.32**

2,5

3

3,5

4

Low FoMO High FoMO

PMPU

- re

acha

bilit

y

Men Women

FoMO is a strong predictor, equally for males and females

FoMO is only a predictor for males

addic9on reachability


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.


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.


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

Hab

itual

che

ckin

g be

havi

our

- al

one

Men Women

1,5

2

2,5

3

Low FoMO High FoMO Hab

itual

che

ckin

g be

havi

our

- in

com

pany

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


Influence of FoMO on FoC: alone vs. in company

20

Regression analyses


a)  male: β = .72*** b)  female: β = .48***

•  NO interaction effect


a)  male: β = .41*** b)  female: β = .05

•  Interaction effect: β = -.26*

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

Low FoMO High FoMO

freq

uenc

y of

che

ckin

g -

alon

e

Men Women

1,5

2

2,5

3

Low FoMO High FoMO

freq

uenc

y of

che

ckin

g

- in

com

pany

-

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

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

•  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

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: [email protected] Slideshare: cbosau Twitter: cribocologne

phubbing because of fomo? - presentation gor 2015

Internet

fomo przybylski

fomo correlates

integrated fomo

influence of fomo

bosau khn

company gor

phubbingcampai gor

particular bosau