Anxiety about the social consequences of missed group experiences intensifies fear of missing out (FOMO).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 5,441), we find that FOMO occurs when people miss events involving valued social groups and is driven by the perception of missed bonding and concerns about how this may negatively affect their future relationships. People feel greater FOMO when they miss events involving valued others (vs. strangers or irrelevant social groups) and when events foster social bonding (vs. individual activity)-even when the events themselves may be unenjoyable. FOMO is further intensified when concerns about one's future social-group belonging are elevated, either stemming from situational triggers (e.g., social media photos) or one's chronic anxious attachment to their social group. Notably, these concerns are exaggerated when considering the social costs of missing an event for oneself (vs. a friend). Given the social underpinnings of FOMO, reaffirming one's social belonging by reflecting on past social connection provides temporary relief. By revealing a novel, situational antecedent of FOMO and the underlying cognitions, this research demonstrates that current well-being is informed not only by current and past feelings of belonging but also by hypothetical projections about one's future social belonging. Taken together, our findings highlight the importance of social bonding in experiential consumption, identify new determinants of FOMO, and lay the groundwork for simple interventions to mitigate FOMO and its maladaptive consequences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".