Course: Methods II, Psychology II (FIU) Source: Student research paper, "Analyzing The Fear Of Missing Out (FoMO) and Scarcity In Social Media" Difficulty: Introductory to Intermediate
Prerequisites: Basic understanding of experimental design (independent/dependent variables, conditions, between-subjects design). Familiarity with social psychology concepts is helpful but not required.
This topic sits at the intersection of social psychology and consumer behaviour. FoMO has become one of the most-studied constructs in digital wellbeing research over the past decade, and scarcity is a long-standing concept in marketing and behavioural economics. The paper examined here ties them together in a social media context, using experimental methods to measure how peer attendance cues and limited availability shape emotional responses. If you are revising research methods, this is a solid worked example of a two-study experimental design with clearly defined independent and dependent variables.
Two experiments tested whether seeing that peers plan to attend a social event triggers FoMO and frustration, and whether framing the event as scarce (limited spots) makes those feelings worse. Peer attendance cues ("All," "Some," or "None" of your friends are going) reliably increased FoMO and frustration. Scarcity ("Limited" spots) amplified FoMO in the "All attending" condition, but participants who could not attend a scarce event tended to report indifference rather than distress.
Fear of Missing Out (FoMO)
A pervasive apprehension that others are having rewarding experiences from which one is absent, often triggered or amplified by social media feeds. In simple terms, it is the anxious feeling you get when you see other people doing something fun without you.
Scarcity
In behavioural and marketing psychology, the principle that people assign greater value to opportunities, products, or events perceived as limited in availability (limited time, limited quantity). Think of it as the "only 3 tickets left" effect: the fewer there are, the more you want one.
Peer attendance cues
Information about whether friends or peers plan to attend an event, used as an independent variable in these studies. The three levels were "All" (all friends attending), "Some" (some friends attending), and "None" (no friends attending).
Independent variable (IV)
The variable the experimenter manipulates to observe its effect on behaviour or emotion. Study 1 had one IV (peer attendance: All / Some / None). Study 2 had two IVs (peer attendance and scarcity: Limited / Unlimited).
Dependent variable (DV)
The variable measured as an outcome. Here, the DVs were self-reported FoMO and frustration.
Social comparison
Festinger's (1954) theory that people evaluate their own opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others. On social media, upward social comparison (comparing yourself to someone who seems better off) is a key driver of FoMO and reduced self-esteem.
Frustration
In this study's context, the negative emotional response participants reported when they could not attend an event their peers were attending. Measured alongside FoMO as a dependent variable.
Research question
Does learning that your peers will attend a social event you cannot attend increase your FoMO and frustration, and does the number of peers attending matter?
Design
Between-subjects experimental design
One independent variable: peer attendance condition
"All" – all of the participant's friends said they would attend
"Some" – some friends said they would attend
"None" – no friends said they would attend
Two dependent variables measured via self-report: FoMO and frustration
Procedure
Participants were presented with a social media scenario describing an upcoming event (framed as "the event of the year"). They were randomly assigned to one of the three peer attendance conditions and then completed measures of FoMO and frustration.
Key findings
Participants in the "All" condition reported the highest levels of FoMO and frustration
The "Some" condition produced moderate levels
The "None" condition produced the lowest levels
The pattern was consistent: the more peers attending, the stronger the negative emotional response when you cannot go yourself
Takeaway for methods revision
Study 1 is a clean single-factor between-subjects experiment. Note how the IV has three levels (not just two), which allows the researchers to observe a gradient rather than a simple on/off comparison.
Research question
Does framing an event as scarce (limited spots available) intensify FoMO and frustration beyond what peer attendance cues alone produce?
Design
Between-subjects factorial design
Two independent variables:
Peer attendance (same three levels: All / Some / None)
Scarcity (two levels: Limited spots vs. Unlimited spots)
Same two dependent variables: FoMO and frustration
Key findings
The "All + Limited" condition (all friends attending, limited spots) produced the highest FoMO and frustration of any condition across both studies
Scarcity amplified negative emotions primarily in the "All" peer attendance condition
A counterintuitive finding: when participants were told spots were scarce and they could not attend, many reported feeling more indifferent rather than more distressed. The researchers interpreted this as a possible psychological distancing or coping mechanism
No condition produced extreme or clinically significant negative emotions; responses stayed within a moderate range
Takeaway for methods revision
Study 2 introduces a second IV, making it a factorial design. This is a common progression in experimental research: replicate the core effect (Study 1), then add a moderator to test boundary conditions (Study 2). Exam questions often ask you to identify the factorial structure and explain what an interaction effect would look like in this kind of design.
Limitations identified by the authors
Small and non-diverse sample: participants were drawn from a university population, which limits generalisability to the broader public
Limited ecological validity: scenarios were hypothetical social media posts, not real events participants had a personal stake in
Self-report measures: FoMO and frustration were measured via questionnaires, which are subject to demand characteristics and social desirability bias
What a wider study would improve
A larger, more demographically diverse sample (age, culture, socioeconomic background) would strengthen external validity. Longitudinal or field-based designs, where participants encounter real social media posts about real events, would improve ecological validity.
Real-world applications
Marketing and event promotion: brands routinely use scarcity cues ("only 50 tickets left") combined with social proof ("your friends are going") to drive ticket sales. This study suggests the combination is effective at generating urgency
Digital wellbeing: understanding that FoMO is reliably triggered by peer attendance cues could inform the design of social media platforms, for instance by offering users the option to mute event-related posts
FoMO requires social media to exist. FoMO predates social media entirely. Festinger's social comparison theory (1954) describes the same underlying mechanism. Social media amplifies and accelerates it, but the construct is not platform-dependent.
Scarcity always makes people want something more. In this study, scarcity sometimes led to indifference rather than heightened desire, particularly when participants were told they could not attend regardless. Scarcity increases wanting only when acquisition is still perceived as possible.
More peers attending always means more FoMO. The "All" condition did produce the most FoMO, but the relationship is not limitless. The study measured three discrete levels, not a continuous scale, so we cannot assume FoMO scales linearly with the exact number of peers.
FoMO and frustration are the same thing. They were measured as separate dependent variables. FoMO is the apprehension about missing an experience; frustration is the emotional irritation at being unable to attend. They correlate but are distinct constructs.
⚠️ Be able to identify the independent and dependent variables for both studies. Study 1: one IV (peer attendance, three levels). Study 2: two IVs (peer attendance x scarcity), making it a factorial design.
⚠️ Understand the difference between a single-factor design (Study 1) and a factorial design (Study 2). Exams often present a scenario and ask you to name the design type.
⚠️ The indifference finding in Study 2 is a good example of a result that contradicts the hypothesis. Be ready to explain psychological distancing or reactance as alternative explanations.
⚠️ Know the limitations. "Small, non-diverse sample" and "low ecological validity" are the two most commonly tested critique points for university-based experimental studies.
⚠️ Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) is the theoretical backbone. If asked for the theoretical framework underpinning FoMO research, this is the answer.
True or false: Study 1 used a within-subjects design.
False. It was a between-subjects design with three conditions.
Fill in the blank: The three levels of the peer attendance variable were ______, ______, and ______.
All, Some, None.
True or false: In Study 2, scarcity always increased FoMO regardless of the peer attendance condition.
False. Scarcity primarily amplified FoMO in the "All" condition, and some participants in the scarcity condition reported indifference.
What are the two dependent variables measured across both studies?
FoMO and frustration.
True or false: The study used a large, demographically diverse sample.
False. The authors acknowledged the sample was small and lacked diversity, which is a key limitation.
Q: Identify the independent and dependent variables in Study 2.
A: Study 2 had two independent variables: (1) peer attendance condition (All, Some, None) and (2) scarcity (Limited, Unlimited). The dependent variables were self-reported FoMO and frustration.
Q: Why did the researchers conduct two studies rather than one?
A: Study 1 established the basic effect of peer attendance cues on FoMO and frustration. Study 2 extended this by adding scarcity as a second independent variable to test whether it moderates the peer attendance effect. This is a standard approach in experimental psychology: replicate the core finding, then test its boundary conditions.
Q: What was unexpected about the scarcity finding in Study 2?
A: Contrary to the hypothesis that scarcity would universally increase negative emotions, some participants in the scarce condition reported indifference rather than heightened distress. This suggests that when people perceive an opportunity as both desirable and completely unavailable, they may psychologically disengage rather than feel worse.
Q: Name two limitations of these studies and explain how each could be addressed.
A: (1) Small, non-diverse sample drawn from a single university, limiting generalisability. This could be addressed by recruiting from multiple institutions and demographic groups. (2) Hypothetical social media scenarios rather than real events, reducing ecological validity. This could be addressed by conducting a field study using participants' real social media feeds and actual upcoming events.
Q: How does Festinger's social comparison theory relate to FoMO?
A: Festinger (1954) proposed that people evaluate themselves by comparing to others. FoMO is driven by upward social comparison on social media: seeing peers attend events or have experiences you are missing triggers a comparison that highlights what you lack, producing anxiety and frustration.
This material connects directly to research methods concepts covered throughout Methods II: experimental design types (between-subjects, factorial), identification of IVs and DVs, internal and external validity, and the logic of multi-study papers. If you are also studying social psychology, the FoMO construct ties into broader work on social comparison, self-esteem, and digital wellbeing.
The scarcity variable links to consumer psychology and behavioural economics. Kristofferson et al. (2017) examined how scarcity promotions can induce aggression, and Song et al. (2021) studied limited-time vs. limited-quantity framing, both of which extend the same principle into purchasing behaviour.
For digital wellbeing specifically, Hunt et al. (2018) found that limiting social media use decreased loneliness and depression, which gives the FoMO research a practical intervention angle worth knowing.
FoMO, fear of missing out, FOMO analysis, scarcity effect, scarcity psychology, social comparison theory, Festinger social comparison, peer influence social media, between-subjects design, factorial design, independent variable, dependent variable, frustration, social media wellbeing, digital wellbeing, limited availability, event marketing psychology, FIU Methods II, Psychology II FIU, experimental design psychology, upward social comparison, self-report measures, ecological validity, external validity, demand characteristics