How to explain phubbing - Presentation Media Psychology Conference 2015

How to explain “phubbing”

Can “Fear of Missing Out” predict thecompulsive use of mobile phones in

social situations?

C. Bosau & M. Kühn

2

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

3

Quelle: http://healthmeup.com/phot ogal lery- healt hy-l iv ing/could-y ou-be-s uffer ing-from-fear- of-m issing-out-fomo/ 32443/3

4

Quelle: http://www.examiner.c om/ artic le/c hecking-fac ebook- and-twitter- al l- day -scientists-s ay- you-may- have-f omo

5

Quelle: http://www.buzzly.fr/jq/ckedit or/p lugins/doks oft_uploader/ us erfiles/phubbing2.jpg

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

Quelle: http://www.buzzly.fr/jq/ckedit or/p lugins/ dok soft_uploader/us erfi les/ phubbing.jpeg

6

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

Media Psychology 2015Bosau & Kühn: How to explain “phubbing” 7

Quelle: http://www.jwtintelligence.com

Only recently, the discussion aboutthis 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’remissing out — that your peers aredoing, in the know about or in possession of more or somethingbetter than you.” (JWT, 2011, S. 4)

FoMO: a new phenomenon?

Media Psychology 2015Bosau & Kühn: How to explain “phubbing”

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 arealone?

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 theinfluence of FoMO – but ingeneral

This study:§ integrated FoMO and severalmeasures for compulsivemobile phone use

§ 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 aloneb) While being in company

Measured twice:a) While being aloneb) 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

addiction


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 Haufigkeit 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 problematicmobile 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

• 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

-re

acha

bilit

y

Men Women

FoMO is a strong predictor, equally for males and females

FoMO is only a predictor formales

addiction reachability


Differences of checking behaviour

17

1

2

3

4

5

HCB -‐ alone HCB -‐ in company

FoC -‐ alone FoC -‐ in company

MeanPaired t-Test• Comparison of

a) habitual checking behaviouralone vs. in company

b) frequency of checkingalone vs. in company

• sign. difference between the two situationsa) habitual checking behaviourt (100) = 14,18, p < .00

b) frequency of checkingt (100) = 13,56, p < .00

Habitual checking tendency and frequency of checking are muchsmaller 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

FoMOà HCB β = .72*** (95% CI: .59 -‐ .85) β = .36*** (95% CI: .19 -‐ .44)

FoMOà FoC β = .60*** (95% CI: .43 -‐ .69) β = .23*** (95% CI: .06 -‐ .40)

FoMO is a very strong predictor for habitual checking tendencies andchecking frequency.FoMO is still a significant predictor in social situations, although itsinfluence 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

chec

king

beha

viou

r-al

one

Men Women

1,5

2

2,5

3

Low FoMO High FoMOHab

itual

chec

king

beh

avio

ur -

in

com

pany

Men Women

19

FoMO is a stronger predictorfor 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• 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

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 -i

n co

mpa

ny -

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


Ø FoMO is a very strong predictor of problematic mobile phone use

• While it explains phone addiction for males and females equally, it triggersreachability only for males not for females

Ø People generally show more checking behaviour when they are alone, in social situationsthe habitual checking tendency and the actual checking is lower

Ø FoMO is a very strong predictor of habitual checking tendencies and frequency ofchecking

• 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 theymeet other people in person.


• Bayer, J., & Campbell, S. (2012). TextingWhile Driving On Automatic: Considering the Frequency-Independent Side ofHabit. 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 Addictionor a Necessary Tool? Principles of Addiction. Vol. 1, pp. 901-909.

• Collins. L. (2013). FoMOand 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 TurkishAdolescents.

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


Thank you very much for yourattention!

Contact details:

Rheinische Fachhochschule KölnProf. Dr. Christian Bosau, Dipl.-Psych. & Master of HRM & IRSchaevenstraße 1a/b50676 KölnTel.: +49 221 20302-0e-mail: christian.bosau@rfh-koeln.de

Slideshare: cbosauTwitter: cribocologne

Internet

How to explain phubbing - Presentation Media Psychology Conference 2015