| Literature DB >> 34534104 |
Daniela Röttinger1, Gallus Bischof1, Dominique Brandt1, Anja Bischof1, Svenja Orlowski1, Bettina Besser1, Elisa Wegmann2, Matthias Brand2, Hans-Jürgen Rumpf1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: An increasing number of people experience negative consequences from the excessive use of different Internet applications or sites (e.g., Instagram, League of Legends, YouTube). These consequences have been referred to as specific Internet Use Disorders (IUDs). The present study aims to examine the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) on rewarding experiences with respect to specific Internet activities. FoMO has been found to mediate the link between psychopathology and symptoms of Internet Communication Disorder (ICD). However, the role of FoMO in other IUDs is controversial.Entities:
Keywords: Fear of Missing Out; FoMO; I-PACE model; gaming; internet use disorder; social networking sites; structural equation modeling
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34534104 PMCID: PMC8997209 DOI: 10.1556/2006.2021.00042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Behav Addict ISSN: 2062-5871 Impact factor: 6.756
Fig. 1.The operationalized model for analyzing the suggested effects on specific IUDs
Sociodemographic characteristics of the whole sample and its subsamples of SNS users and gamers
| Total | SNS use | Gaming | |||||
|
| % |
| % |
| % | ||
| Age ( | 20.56 | 4.72 | 20.06 | 4.14 | 20.49 | 4.10 |
|
|
| |||||||
| male | 3,866 | 48.4 | 1,696 | 34.1 | 902 | 86.7 | χ2(1) = 970.79, |
| female | 4,124 | 51.6 | 3,277 | 65.9 | 138 | 13.3 | |
|
| |||||||
| Skilled occupation | 5,340 | 66.8 | 3,429 | 69.0 | 634 | 61.0 | χ2(6) = 31.67, |
| First general degree | 138 | 1.7 | 98 | 2.0 | 19 | 1.8 | |
| Intermediate degree | 594 | 7.4 | 368 | 7.4 | 96 | 9.2 | |
| Advanced technical college | 601 | 7.5 | 332 | 6.7 | 107 | 10.3 | |
| School & vocational training | 214 | 2.7 | 130 | 2.6 | 32 | 3.1 | |
| University entrance | 947 | 11.9 | 556 | 11.2 | 135 | 13.0 | |
| Retraining/further training | 156 | 2.0 | 60 | 1.2 | 17 | 1.6 | |
|
| |||||||
| Alone | 800 | 10.0 | 476 | 9.6 | 102 | 9.8 | χ2(6) = 26.04, |
| With (grand)parents | 5,557 | 69.5 | 3,532 | 71.0 | 776 | 74.6 | |
| With partner | 919 | 11.5 | 587 | 11.8 | 88 | 8.5 | |
| With partner & child | 221 | 2.8 | 114 | 2.3 | 12 | 1.2 | |
| Alone with child | 70 | 0.9 | 45 | 0.9 | 2 | 0.2 | |
| Shared flat | 399 | 5.0 | 208 | 4.2 | 59 | 5.7 | |
| Assisted living | 24 | 0.3 | 11 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.1 | |
Notes: + The sample size consists of all participants, who use SNSs, gaming, but also all other activities such as shopping or pornography.
n: valid values; M: mean; SD: standard deviation. Values in the first row show the mean age and standard deviations of the subsamples instead of group sizes and percentage values in relation to the whole sample.
aresults from an independent t-test with the two subsamples. bresults from a χ2-test with the two subsamples.
Mean sum scores (standard deviations) of the variables for the total sample and the two main activity subsamples
| Total | SNS use | Gaming | ||||||
| Overall | Male | Female | Overall | Male | Female | Multivariate analysis of variance | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| CIUS | 17.90 (9.28) | 17.67 (9.13) | 17.07 (8.98) | 17.88 (9.19) | 20.22 (9.21) | 20.32 (9.12) | 19.59 (9.79) |
|
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Trait-FoMO | 2.05 (0.85) | 2.13 (0.87) | 1.99 (0.84) | 2.20 (0.87) | 1.87 (0.79) | 1.83 (0.77) | 2.10 (0.89) |
|
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| State-FoMO | 2.25 (0.73) | 2.32 (0.75) | 2.35 (0.75) | 2.30 (0.74) | 2.20 (0.69) | 2.22 (0.69) | 2.20 (0.69) |
|
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| MHI-5 | 18.25 (2.36) | 18.10 (3.45) | 18.82 (3.27) | 17.72 (3.48) | 18.92 (3.50) | 19.22 (3.22) | 17.00 (4.49) |
|
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
+ The sample size consists of all participants, who use SNSs, gaming, but also all other activities such as shopping or pornography.
Bivariate correlations between the scores of the CIUS and the applied scales for the total sample and for the two main activity subsamples
| Trait-FoMO | State-FoMO | MHI-5 | |
|
| |||
| CIUS | 0.427** | 0.464** | −0.356** |
| Trait-FoMO | 0.465** | −0.377** | |
| State-FoMO | −0.177** | ||
|
| |||
| CIUS | 0.454** | 0.497** | −0.393** |
| Trait-FoMO | 0.486** | −0.368** | |
| State-FoMO | −0.202** | ||
|
| |||
| CIUS | 0.385** | 0.366** | −0.272** |
| Trait-FoMO | 0.366** | −0.334** | |
| State-FoMO | −0.056 | ||
*p < 0.050.
**p ≤ 0.010.
Fig. 2.Results of the SEM for the total sample with CIUS as dependent variable including factor loadings and the accompanying β-weights, p-values, and residuals
SEM coefficients for direct and indirect effects for SNS users (4a) and gamers (4b)
| a. | SNS use | |||
| β |
|
| ||
| Direct | MHI-5 – Trait-FoMO | −0.450 | 0.016 | ≤0.001 |
| MHI-5 – State-FoMO | −0.016 | 0.019 | 0.414 | |
| MHI-5 – CIUS | −0.310 | 0.017 | ≤0.001 | |
| Trait-FoMO – State-FoMO | 0.616 | 0.016 | ≤0.001 | |
| Trait-FoMO – CIUS | 0.089 | 0.021 | ≤0.001 | |
| State-FoMO – CIUS | 0.455 | 0.019 | ≤0.001 | |
| Indirect | MHI-5 – state-FoMO – CIUS | −0.007 | 0.009 | 0.413 |
| MHI-5 – trait-FoMO – CIUS | −0.040 | 0.009 | ≤0.001 | |
| MHI-5 – trait-FoMO – state-FoMO – CIUS | −0.126 | 0.008 | ≤0.001 | |
|
| Trait-FoMO – state-FoMO – CIUS | 0.280 | 0.014 | ≤0.001 |
| Trait-FoMO | ||||
Trait-FoMO R = 0.143, State-FoMO R = 0.304, CIUS R = 0.328.
SEM coefficients for direct and indirect effects for female (5a) and male (5b) SNS users
| a. | Female | |||
| β |
|
| ||
| Direct | MHI-5 – Trait-FoMO | −0.434 | 0.019 | ≤0.001 |
| MHI-5 – State-FoMO | −0.030 | 0.022 | 0.177 | |
| MHI-5 – CIUS | −0.289 | 0.019 | ≤0.001 | |
| Trait-FoMO – State-FoMO | 0.626 | 0.018 | ≤0.001 | |
| Trait-FoMO – CIUS | 0.098 | 0.025 | ≤0.001 | |
| State-FoMO – CIUS | 0.493 | 0.022 | ≤0.001 | |
| Indirect | MHI-5 – state-FoMO – CIUS | −0.015 | 0.011 | 0.175 |
| MHI-5 – trait-FoMO – CIUS | −0.043 | 0.011 | ≤0.001 | |
| MHI-5 – trait-FoMO – state-FoMO – CIUS | −0.134 | 0.010 | ≤0.001 | |
|
| Trait-FoMO – state-FoMO – CIUS | 0.309 | 0.018 | ≤0.001 |
| Trait-FoMO | ||||
Trait-FoMO R = 0.197, State-FoMO R = 0.384, CIUS R = 0.388.
SEM coefficients for direct and indirect effects for female (6a) and male (6b) gamers
| a. | Female | |||
| β |
|
| ||
| Direct | MHI-5 – Trait-FoMO | −0.256 | 0.091 | 0.005 |
| MHI-5 – State-FoMO | 0.130 | 0.095 | 0.173 | |
| MHI-5 – CIUS | −0.190 | 0.084 | 0.024 | |
| Trait-FoMO – State-FoMO | 0.657 | 0.083 | ≤0.001 | |
| Trait-FoMO – CIUS | 0.302 | 0.129 | 0.019 | |
| State-FoMO – CIUS | 0.299 | 0.131 | 0.022 | |
| Indirect | MHI-5 – state-FoMO – CIUS | 0.039 | 0.033 | 0.242 |
| MHI-5 – trait-FoMO – CIUS | −0.077 | 0.044 | 0.078 | |
| MHI-5 – trait-FoMO – state-FoMO – CIUS | −0.050 | 0.029 | 0.081 | |
|
| Trait-FoMO – state-FoMO – CIUS | 0.197 | 0.089 | 0.027 |
| Trait-FoMO | ||||
Trait-FoMO R = 0.160, State-FoMO R = 0.301, CIUS R = 0.338.