← Back to the blog
Social mediaDigital wellbeing

FOMO Has an Actual Definition Now: What the Research Says About the Anxiety Behind the Checking

phone screen with unread updates hero graphic

“FOMO” gets used so casually now — for skipping a party, for not seeing a movie opening weekend — that it’s easy to forget it started as a specific, testable psychological claim. In 2013, a team of researchers led by Andrew Przybylski published a study in Computers in Human Behavior that did something the internet slang never bothered to: they defined fear of missing out precisely enough to measure it, built a validated scale to score it, and then tested what actually predicts it. The findings point somewhere more specific than “people worry about missing things,” and they explain a kind of checking behavior that’s hard to talk yourself out of, because it was never really about the content on the screen.

A word that turned out to be measurable

Przybylski and colleagues defined FOMO as “a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent.” That’s a more precise claim than it sounds — it’s not just knowing you’re missing an event, it’s the specific discomfort of suspecting that somewhere, right now, other people are having a better time than you, and you’re the one not there for it.

To study it properly, they built and validated a ten-item questionnaire — statements like “I fear others have more rewarding experiences than me” — that people rate on a five-point scale. That instrument, now called the FoMO scale, is what let researchers move the concept out of casual conversation and into something with an actual score, tested for reliability across a large sample. It’s the reason FOMO shows up in academic research at all, rather than staying a piece of slang everyone half-agrees on the meaning of.

What actually predicts FOMO — and it isn’t the feed

The most useful part of the study isn’t the definition. It’s what the researchers found causes FOMO to run high in a given person, because it’s not what most people assume.

The study is grounded in self-determination theory, a well-established framework in psychology that identifies three basic psychological needs everyone has: competence (feeling capable), autonomy (feeling in control of your own choices), and relatedness (feeling connected to other people). Przybylski’s team found that people whose needs in these areas were going unmet day-to-day — feeling less competent, less autonomous, less connected — reported meaningfully higher FOMO. In other words, FOMO wasn’t best explained by how much social media someone used, or by some fixed personality trait. It was explained by a deficit somewhere else in a person’s life that the checking was, consciously or not, trying to patch.

This matters because it flips the usual story. The common assumption is that social media causes FOMO by constantly showing you things you’re missing. The research suggests something closer to the reverse relationship being at least as important: unmet needs create the susceptibility, and social media becomes the tool people reach for to try to close the gap — checking to feel more connected, more in the loop, more like they haven’t been left out of something that mattered. The feed isn’t inventing the anxiety from nothing. It’s offering a very fast, very available (and, per the same study, not especially effective) way to try to soothe an anxiety that was already there.

The behavior FOMO actually produces

The same study — and the research that followed it over the next decade — ties FOMO to a specific, recognizable set of behaviors rather than a vague sense of unease:

  • Higher social media engagement overall. People scoring higher on the FoMO scale reported using social platforms more, which tracks with FOMO functioning as a felt need to stay updated rather than idle curiosity.
  • Checking in situations where it’s clearly costly. The original study found FOMO associated with things like using a phone while driving and checking social media during class — moments where the checking isn’t really weighed against the cost, because the anxiety is doing the deciding, not a rational assessment of “is this worth it right now.”
  • Lower mood and life satisfaction. This is the part that makes FOMO worth taking seriously rather than treating as a harmless quirk: higher FOMO was correlated with lower mood and life satisfaction and lower general need satisfaction — not higher. The checking that FOMO drives doesn’t appear to resolve the anxiety it’s responding to. It’s a coping attempt that, on average, doesn’t actually cope.

That last point is the one worth sitting with. If FOMO worked the way it feels like it should — check the feed, confirm you haven’t missed anything important, feel better — it would be a minor, self-correcting habit. The research suggests it doesn’t close that loop. The checking becomes its own behavior, decoupled from whether it’s actually making anyone feel more secure.

Why “just check less” doesn’t touch the anxiety

This is where FOMO is a genuinely different animal from some of the other mechanisms behind compulsive checking that we’ve written about. The variable-ratio reward schedule behind “just one more scroll” is about an unpredictable payoff keeping you hooked once you’re already scrolling. FOMO is upstream of that — it’s often what gets you to open the app in the first place, driven by a need the app didn’t create and can’t really fill. Telling someone with high FOMO to “just check less” is a bit like telling someone who’s anxious about being unprepared to “just stop studying.” It addresses the visible behavior while leaving the actual discomfort generating it completely untouched, which is a large part of why that advice so reliably fails to stick.

This also lines up with a pattern we’ve described elsewhere on the habit-loop side: a blocked site doesn’t remove the underlying urge, it just relocates where the urge goes looking for relief. With FOMO specifically, blocking one platform while the anxiety is still active tends to just shift the checking to whatever’s left — a group chat, a news app, a different social platform entirely — because the app was never really the target. The apprehension was.

None of this means FOMO is untreatable or that the research leaves you nowhere to stand. It means the actual lever isn’t “resist the urge to check” in the moment the urge fires — by then, per the research on dopamine and anticipation we’ve covered before, the wanting is already running. The more durable lever is structural: putting a real, external stopping point on the checking so it can’t quietly consume the time the anxiety is trying to buy back, while separately working on whatever’s actually driving the unmet-needs side of the equation — which is a slower, more personal project than any browser extension can solve, but one that a forced pause at least gives you room to notice.

FAQ

Is FOMO the same thing as being addicted to social media? No, though the two overlap. FOMO is a specific emotional state — apprehension about missing rewarding experiences — that’s one documented driver of heavy or compulsive social media use, not a synonym for it. Someone can use social media heavily for reasons that have nothing to do with FOMO (habit, entertainment, work), and someone with high FOMO might act on it through channels other than social apps entirely, like group texts or news alerts.

Does deleting social media apps fix FOMO? It removes one outlet, but the research suggests the underlying apprehension is driven by unmet psychological needs, not by the existence of the app. Without addressing what’s generating the anxiety, it tends to resurface through whatever channel is left. Deleting an app can still be a genuinely useful piece of a broader fix — it just isn’t the whole fix on its own.

Is FOMO always about social media specifically? The concept predates social apps and the original research frames it more broadly, as anxiety about missing any rewarding experience — a gathering, an opportunity, a piece of news. Social platforms are simply an unusually effective trigger for it, because they constantly surface evidence of things happening without you, updated in real time and available to check at any hour.

Can a browser extension actually help with something caused by unmet psychological needs? Not by itself, and it isn’t trying to. What a tool like a hard time budget or a forced break can do is stop FOMO-driven checking from silently consuming hours it wasn’t given permission to take, which creates the room to notice the pattern and work on the underlying causes on a longer timeline. It’s a circuit breaker for the symptom, not a treatment for the cause — but a symptom left completely unchecked makes the cause much harder to work on in the meantime.

Sources: Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848.