The FoMO–JoMO Paradox in Digital Parenting: What Drives Oversharenting?

Abstract

Sharenting, the practice of parents sharing images and information about their children on social media, has become a widely debated digital parenting behavior. While some scholars emphasize its benefits, such as social support and affirmation of parenting practices, others highlight risks to children’s privacy and rights. Building on recent distinctions between oversharenting and controlled sharenting, this study explores the psychological mechanisms that may underlie these practices. Specifically, we focus on the role of fear of missing out (FoMO), joy of missing out (JoMO), and social comparison as predictors of parental sharing styles. An online survey was distributed among parents, with 299 participants completing the questionnaire. The measures included validated scales of FoMO, JoMO, social comparison, and the Sharenting Evaluation Scale. Structural equation modeling was conducted to examine the proposed mediation models linking FoMO, JoMO, and social comparison with oversharenting and controlled sharenting. The findings indicated that FoMO and JoMO were significantly associated with oversharenting, with social comparison emerging as a mediating factor. In contrast, none of the predictors were significantly related to controlled sharenting, suggesting that different psychological processes may explain more deliberate forms of parental sharing. This study extends the application of social comparison theory to the domain of digital parenting and highlights FoMO and JoMO as important drivers of oversharenting. The results contribute to a deeper understanding of sharenting as a complex practice shaped not only by social norms and digital affordances, but also by parents’ psychological experiences of connection and disconnection.

Keywords

FoMO JoMO sharenting social comparison

In recent years, sharenting, a blend of “sharing” and “parenting”, has become one of the most widely discussed practices in digital parenting research. Parents frequently share photos and stories of their children on social media, motivated by the desire to document family life, receive social validation, or strengthen social connectedness.^1–3 While some scholars emphasize the benefits of sharenting, such as access to social support and affirmation of parenting practices,^4–6 others highlight its risks, especially regarding children’s rights and privacy. Sharing children’s images creates enduring digital footprints that are accessible to large audiences and difficult to erase, raising concerns about safety and consent.⁷ This issue has become especially important in the era of artificial intelligence, where children’s digital traces may be reused, manipulated, or misappropriated in ways that parents can’t anticipate.⁸

Given these contrasting perspectives, scholars have conceptualized sharenting as a multidimensional practice shaped by different parental motivations. Some parents engage in oversharenting, characterized by frequent and sometimes excessive posting of children’s images to attract attention.⁹ Others practice controlled sharenting, where sharing occurs selectively and with awareness of potential risks. Romero-Rodríguez et al.¹⁰ developed the Sharenting Evaluation Scale (SES) to capture these distinctions, which has since been adapted and validated across multiple cultural contexts, including Turkey¹¹ and Iran.¹² Findings across countries suggest that both oversharenting and controlled sharenting may coexist as meaningful parental strategies.

Psychological Drivers of Sharenting

Although sharenting has been examined mainly in terms of parental motivations and societal risks, the psychological processes that shape these practices remain underexplored. In particular, research on digital well-being highlights three constructs that may be central to understanding why some parents overshare while others are more selective: fear of missing out (FoMO), joy of missing out (JoMO), and social comparison.

Fear of missing out

FoMO has been defined as a pervasive concern that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent, accompanied by a desire to stay continuously connected to what others are doing.¹³ Numerous studies have demonstrated that FoMO is closely linked to problematic patterns of social media engagement, such as compulsive checking, high posting frequency, and reduced capacity to disengage.^14–16 In the parenting context, FoMO may drive parents to document and post their children’s milestones excessively in order to maintain social inclusion and avoid being perceived as “less involved” than other parents. Thus, FoMO may be expected to foster oversharenting behaviors.

Joy of missing out

In contrast, JoMO reflects the ability to experience positive emotions when intentionally disconnecting from social media or choosing not to participate in online activities.^17,18 JoMO is increasingly conceptualized as a protective resource that promotes digital well-being by allowing individuals to set boundaries with technology and prioritize offline relationships, especially when doing so actively.¹⁹ For parents, JoMO may encourage a more reflective and deliberate approach to online sharing, reducing the likelihood of oversharenting while fostering controlled sharenting. JoMO reframes disconnection as an opportunity for authenticity and presence, positioning it as a counterbalance to FoMO in digital parenting contexts.

Social comparison as a central mechanism

Underlying both FoMO and JoMO is the powerful role of social comparison. Social Comparison Theory²⁰ posits that individuals evaluate themselves in relation to others, often using social media as a reference point. Prior studies have shown that FoMO is strongly associated with upward social comparison—comparing oneself to others who seem better off—while JoMO is linked with reduced reliance on such comparisons.²¹ In the sharenting domain, oversharenting may serve to present family life positively and keep up with peers, whereas controlled sharenting may reflect resistance to comparison pressures and greater digital autonomyIn the sharenting domain, parents may engage in oversharenting as a way to present their family life positively and “keep up” with peers, whereas controlled sharenting may emerge when parents resist comparison pressures and assert autonomy over their digital boundaries.

These three constructs are not independent but dynamically related. By using this information, we tested two hypothetical models (see Figure 1). Empirical findings consistently show a negative correlation between FoMO and JoMO, suggesting that individuals high in FoMO struggle to derive joy from disconnection, while those high in JoMO are less vulnerable to comparison-driven anxieties.²¹ Social comparison frequently operates as a mediator, explaining how FoMO translates into excessive online behaviors and how JoMO reduces reliance on external validation.^22,23 Applying this framework to sharenting allows us to theorize that oversharenting may be driven by FoMO and social comparison tendencies, whereas controlled sharenting may be supported by JoMO and reduced social comparison.

FIG. 1.

The hypothetical model, which indicates the links between FoMO, JoMO, social comparison, and sub-types of sharenting. FoMO, fear of missing out; JoMO, joy of missing out.

The Current Research

FoMO, JoMO, and social comparison are dynamically related constructs. Prior research shows a negative association between FoMO and JoMO, with social comparison often mediating their links to online behaviors.^21–23 Applying this framework to sharenting, we theorized that oversharenting would be driven by FoMO and social comparison, whereas controlled sharenting would be associated with JoMO and reduced comparison. Framing these variables as psychological drivers of sharenting connects digital parenting to broader mechanisms of digital well-being and guided the hypotheses tested in the proposed models.

This study makes two key theoretical contributions. First, it integrates FoMO, JoMO, and social comparison within a single framework to explain distinct parental sharing styles. Second, by empirically distinguishing between oversharenting and controlled sharenting, it demonstrates that these practices are not driven by symmetrical psychological mechanisms. In doing so, the study extends social comparison theory to the domain of digital parenting and refines our understanding of sharenting as a psychologically differentiated practice. Therefore, we tested the following hypotheses in the models: H1.

JoMO and FoMO will be negatively correlated in both models

H2.

Social comparison will be negatively correlated with JoMO and positively correlated with FoMO

H3.

JoMO will be positively correlated with controlled sharenting and negatively correlated with oversharenting

H4.

FoMO will be positively correlated with oversharenting and negatively correlated with controlled sharenting

H5.

Social comparison will mediate the relationships between JoMO, FoMO, oversharenting, and controlled sharenting

Method

Data collection

Data were collected during the winter of 2025 through an online questionnaire distributed among Israeli parents. The questionnaire was built using the Qualtrics platform and was designed to ensure the anonymity of all participants. Recruitment was conducted via social media platforms, primarily targeting parenting groups. On Facebook, permission was obtained from the administrators of several large and active parenting groups, such as “Parenting Memes” (https://www.facebook.com/groups/149902775172788) and “Sane and Rational Parents” (https://www.facebook.com/groups/rationalparenting), each comprising tens of thousands of members, both men and women. Additional outreach was conducted through various WhatsApp parenting groups. This multi-platform distribution strategy enabled access to a diverse sample of parents.

Participants

Of the 399 parents who responded to the invitation, 299 completed the questionnaire in full. Among the 299 respondents, 268 (89.6 percent) identified as women, 30 (10 percent) as men, and one participant (0.3 percent) identified as “other.” Participants ranged in age from 21 to 74 years (M = 41.03, Standard Deviation [SD] = 5.75). The number of children per respondent ranged from 1 to 6 (M = 2.45, SD = 0.97). Most participants (274; 91.6 percent) were married or in a relationship. The vast majority (292; 97.7 percent) identified as Jewish, and 229 (76.6 percent) as secular. In terms of education, 269 participants (90 percent) reported having an academic degree, and 182 (61 percent) described their socioeconomic status as medium-high to high. The Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved both the recruitment procedure and the survey.

Measures

Participants completed the following measures: 1.

The Social Media Engagement was measured using the 4-item online participation scale²⁴ (6-point frequency scale). An example item is: “I create new content on social media.” Internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.72) and the mean score was calculated. In addition, participants were asked to indicate which social media platforms they use and whether they use their smartphones during weekends. Those who reported not using their smartphones on weekends (n = 51; 17.1 percent) were prompted to explain their reason in an open-ended response box. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the social media platforms used by the participants, indicating the number of users for each platform out of a total of 299 respondents.

JoMO was measured using the 10-item JoMO scale¹⁹ (6-point Likert scale). An example item is “I sometimes place my phone aside in order to disconnect from social networks”. Internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.70). A mean score was computed.

Parental Social Comparison was measured using the 11-item adapted version of the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Scale, as modified by Bayraktar and Çelik²⁵ for use with parent populations (5-point Likert scale). An example item is “I always pay a lot of attention to how I do things compared with how other parents do things”. Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s α = 0.71). A mean score was computed.

Parenting-related FoMO was measured using an 8-item adapted version of the original FoMO Scale¹³ (5-point Likert scale). Example items are: “I fear other parents have more rewarding experiences than me.”; “When I miss out on a planned get-together it bothers me.” The scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.75).

Sharenting was assessed using the 17-item SES¹⁰ (5-point frequency scale). An example item is: “How often have you shared a photo or video of the minor in order to receive positive feedback from your contacts?” To better understand the underlying structure of the scale in our Hebrew-speaking sample, we conducted an Exploratory Factor Analysis using Varimax rotation, which yielded four orthogonal factors with an eigenvalue > 1, as presented in Table 1.

FIG. 2.

Number of participants using different social media platforms (N = 299).

Table 1.

Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Sharenting Evaluation Scale

	Component
	1	2	3	4
15. Considered that sharing a photo or video presents a risk to the minor?	0.897	−0.054	−0.159	0.053
14. Considered that the photograph or video shared may have a negative impact on the minor’s future?	0.881	0.000	−0.207	0.015
17. How often have you considered that the photographs or videos you have shared of the minor could end up on websites that promote paedophilia?	0.860	−0.034	−0.147	0.045
13. Considered that the photographs or videos you share on social media are creating a digital footprint of the minor?	0.829	−0.031	−0.123	−0.032
16. Considered that the photographs or videos you have shared of the minor could be used for identity theft on the Internet?	0.822	−0.075	−0.141	0.013
12. Consider the Child Protection Act when sharing your photo or video?	0.501	−0.225	0.215	−0.077
6. Shared photographs or videos of the minor in intimate situations (e.g., nude or seminude, in swimwear, or in situations where sensitive information is exposed)?	−0.194	0.699	0.048	0.319
3. Shared more than one photo or video per day?	0.035	0.694	0.278	−0.181
7. Shared photographs or videos that may cause frustration and/or embarrassment to the minor?	−0.168	0.656	0.071	0.359
2. Sent photographs or videos of the minor by private message to another person?	0.132	0.597	0.291	−0.243
8. Shared pictures or videos of other minors that you have received from other people (e.g., pictures of children of a family member or friend or even memes, stickers or viral videos)?	−0.099	0.576	0.025	0.153
4. Felt the need to share the minor’s photographs or videos on social media?	−0.160	0.168	0.837	0.094
1. Shared pictures or videos of the minor on your social media profile?	−0.244	0.075	0.821	0.127
5. Shared a photo or video of the minor in order to receive positive feedback from your contacts?	−0.125	0.371	0.647	0.167
10. Deleted the photo or video after sharing it on social media after receiving feedback from someone else?	−0.070	0.061	0.147	0.725
11. How often have you felt that you were invading the minor’s privacy by sharing the child’s photograph or video?	0.198	−0.035	−0.009	0.656
9. How often have people around you reproached you for sharing photos or videos of the minor?	−0.040	0.240	0.130	0.572
Eigenvalue	4.96	2.73	1.45	1.28
Percentage of variance	29.18	16.05	8.52	7.55

The bold values indicate the highest factor loading for each item.

As shown in Table 1, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) yielded four factors with eigenvalues > 1, explaining 61.3 percent of the variance. The first factor, reflecting risk awareness (29.18 percent), was used as Controlled Parenting (α = 0.89). This factor reflects evaluative awareness of potential risks rather than frequency of sharing behavior. The second (16.05 percent; α = 0.67) and third (8.52 percent; α = 0.80) factors, capturing sharenting frequency and social motivation, were combined to form Oversharenting. The fourth factor (7.55 percent) reflected external and internal criticism but showed low reliability (α = 0.43) and was excluded from further analyses.

The demographic section included age, gender, education level, family status, number of children, level of religiosity, and socioeconomic status.

Results

Before conducting the structural equation modeling, the Pearson Correlation Coefficients among the variables have been analyzed. Almost all relations were as expected (See Table 2).

Table 2.

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between the Variables in the Model

	Controlled sharenting	Oversharenting	JoMO	FoMO	Social comparison
Oversharenting	.312^*
JoMO	−.169^*	.223^*
FoMO	−.002	.243^*	.221^*
Social comparison	.057	.150^*	.148^*	.601^*
Mean (SD)	19.87 (9.77)	19.67 (6.47)	3.79 (0.72)	1.90 (0.54)	3.08 (0.62)

p < 0.001.

FoMO, fear of missing out; JoMO, joy of missing out.

In addition, we conducted two one-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) tests to examine differences in demographics, with age entered as the covariate. We first compared participants who use their smartphones during weekends with those who do not, and then compared between men and women.

Results indicated a significant effect of weekend smartphone use on JoMO, F(1, 297) = 9.17, p = 0.003, η² = .03. Participants who did not use their smartphone during weekends reported higher JoMO (M = 4.08, SD = 0.77) than those who did (M = 3.71, SD = 0.76).

We also found a significant gender difference in social comparison, F(1,297) = 6.41, p = 0.002, η² = .04, with women reporting higher levels (M = 3.08, SD = 0.77) than men (M = 2.86, SD = 0.67). There were no significant differences between populations in other variables.

Structural equation modeling results

Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the measurement model provided an excellent fit to the data, χ²(398) = 556.04, p < 0.001, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.99, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = 0.98, root-mean-squared error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.02, standardized root mean of the residual [SRMR] = 0.04. All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant (ps < 0.001), indicating strong item reliability. Composite reliability values exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70, and average variance extracted (AVE) values were above 0.50 for all constructs, demonstrating adequate convergent validity. Discriminant validity was supported, as the square root of AVE for each construct was greater than the inter-construct correlations.

The mediation model with oversharenting as the dependent variable yielded an excellent fit to the data (χ²(398) = 556.04, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.02, SRMR = 0.04). FoMO was positively associated with oversharenting (β = 0.38, Standard Error [SE ] = 06, p < 0.001), whereas JoMO was negatively associated with oversharenting (β = −0.41, SE = 0.04, p < 0.01). Social comparison was positively related to FoMO (β = 0.24, SE = 0.08 p < 0.001) and negatively to JoMO (β = −0.27, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001). Bootstrapping analysis with 5,000 resamples indicated that social comparison significantly mediated the effect of FoMO on oversharenting (indirect effect β = 0.11, 95 percent Confidence Interval [CI] [0.03, 21]) and the effect of JoMO on oversharenting (indirect effect β = 0.10, 95 percent CI [0.03, 10]). These findings supported H1–H5 for oversharenting (See Figure 3).

FIG. 3.

The model, which indicates the links between FoMO, JoMO, social comparison, and oversharenting.

The mediation model with controlled sharenting as the dependent variable showed acceptable fit to the data (χ²(398) = 785.02, p = 0.07; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.07), but none of the hypothesized paths from FoMO, JoMO, or social comparison to controlled sharenting reached statistical significance (all ps > 0.05). Similarly, the indirect paths via social comparison were nonsignificant. Thus, hypotheses concerning controlled sharenting (H3–H5) were not supported. Because the controlled sharenting model yielded no significant structural paths, a separate figure is not presented.

Discussion

This study aimed to test the mediator role of social comparison between FoMO/JoMO and Sharenting. The results indicated that the hypotheses of the study were partly supported.

First, JoMO and FoMO were negatively correlated with each other as expected. Previous research has consistently shown that these two constructs have different dynamics.^15–17 However, this doesn’t mean that JoMO and FoMO are at the opposite edges of a continuum. Digital practices can include both. That’s why it has been stressed that JoMO represents a potential counterbalance to FoMO in digital parenting contexts.

Second, the results indicated that social comparison was negatively correlated with JoMO and positively correlated with FoMO as hypothesized. The digitalized world has enhanced social comparison processes among individuals, especially on social media platforms. Thus, those who frequently use social media are generally the ones who have a motivation to compare themselves with others. On the other hand, if the individuals prefer to be on the JoMO side, this might mean that they are less willing for social comparison. Our findings confirmed these suggestions and similar results in the previous studies.¹⁹

Third, JoMO was negatively correlated with oversharenting; however, there was no association between JoMO and controlled sharenting. Similarly, there was a significant positive correlation between FoMO and oversharenting, but the link between FoMO and controlled sharenting was insignificant. At this point, it is worth reminding that the overall model related to controlled parenting didn’t work in our study. As aforementioned, sharenting is not a monolithic structure. Sharenting practices can be risky (i.e oversharenting) or under control. The model we propose worked well for the parents who show more oversharenting compared to controlled sharenting. From the Cumulative Risk Model²⁴ viewpoint, the link between oversharenting and FoMO can be an indication of multiple risks. This model stresses that the risks shouldn’t be approached solely but as cumulatively. In other words, oversharenting may not be a solo risk-taking behavior for some parents. This can be observed with other potential risks such as FoMO and social comparison. Beyond of this, there can be other risks which have not been evaluated under the current study. The future studies may take this point into account.

Fourth, social comparison mediated the relationships between JoMO, FoMO, and oversharenting but not controlled sharenting. Sharenting as a digital parenting practice has been accepted to include social comparison by default in previous studies.²³ However, the ineffective model for controlled sharenting indicated that social comparison was a potential predictor of the dark side of sharenting (i.e., oversharenting). Although social comparison has been used as a mediator in various research,^20,21 this was the first study that tested its mediator role in the sharenting literature. In addition, mothers in the present study reported higher levels of social comparison than fathers. This finding aligns with evidence showing that women experience more negative affect following social comparison than men.²⁶ Hence, the dynamics of oversharenting include both FoMO and social comparison.

For controlled sharenting, a different pattern emerged. Insignificant paths observed in the model of controlled sharenting may also be interpreted through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behavior²⁷ which conceptualizes behavior as shaped by intentions and perceived control. Controlled sharenting appears to reflect a more deliberate and cognitively regulated practice, potentially driven by intentional boundary-setting rather than comparison-based affective processes. The absence of significant predictors in the current model suggests that additional factors, such as digital literacy or normative beliefs, may better explain this form of sharing. Importantly, the absence of significant predictors underscores that controlled sharenting should not be conceptualized as simply the opposite of oversharenting. Future research should further examine these mechanisms.

Limitations

Although our study revealed new highlights to the sharenting literature, it’s not free from limitations. First, the cross-sectional design of the study didn’t allow us discussing cause-effect relationships among the variables. Longitudinal studies may enrich our understanding of changes in these dynamics. Second, the mothers have been overrepresented in our study. Therefore, the findings primarily reflect maternal perspectives on sharenting. Considering the observed gender difference in social comparison, and in light of documented gender differences in online self-presentation,²⁶ future research should examine whether the proposed model operates similarly among fathers and explore potential gender-specific pathways. Finally, our sample was mainly Jewish parents. Given the centrality of family life in Israeli²⁸ and the high penetration of social media use,^4,29 parental sharing may be more socially normative and more embedded in peer comparison processes. These contextual factors may have shaped the observed associations, and replication in other cultural settings is needed.

Implications

Our findings offer practical insights for professionals working with parents. Because social comparison is a universal, evolutionarily shaped behavior, eliminating it is unrealistic, but practitioners should recognize that upward comparisons can be harmful to parents and their families. FoMO-related processes may also drive parents to match what others share online, increasing oversharenting tendencies. Although controlled parenting did not emerge as a significant factor in our model, the results suggest that a healthier path may involve reduced FoMO and social comparison alongside greater JoMO.

Declarations

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the Faculty’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) Committee of Bar-Ilan University and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ Contributions

Both authors contributed equally to all aspects of the work and approved the final manuscript.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

1. Cino

. Beyond the surface: Sharenting as a source of family quandaries: Mapping parents’ social media dilemmas. West J Commun 2022;86(1):128–153; doi: 10.1080/10570314.2021.2020891

2. Leaver

. Intimate surveillance: Normalizing parental monitoring and mediation of infants online. Soc Media Soc 2017;3(2):2056305117707192; doi: 10.1177/2056305117707192

3. Plunkett

. Sharenthood: Why We Should Think before We Talk about Our Kids Online. MIT Press; 2019.

4. Gal

, Bronstein

, Gazit

. Navigating parenthood in the digital landscape: A study on Facebook parenting community administrators. JD 2025;81(3):638–656; doi: 10.1108/JD-09-2024-0233

5. Ong

, Fox

, Cook

, et al. Sharenting in an evolving digital world: Increasing online connection and consumer vulnerability. J Consum Aff 2022;56(3):1106–1126; doi: 10.1111/joca.12462

6. Ouvrein

, Verswijvel

. Sharenting: Parental adoration or public humiliation? A focus group study on adolescents’ experiences with sharenting against the background of their own impression management. Child Youth Serv Rev 2019;99:319–327; doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.011

7. Blum-Ross

, Livingstone

. “Sharenting,” Parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self. In: Self-(Re)Presentation Now. Routledge; 2019.

8. O’Brien

. Dignity. In: Children’s Rights and Criminal Justice in the Digital Age. ( O’Brien

. ed) Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham; 2024; pp. 171–200; doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-68930-7_7

9. Klucarova

, Hasford

. The oversharenting paradox: When frequent parental sharing negatively affects observers’ desire to affiliate with parents. Curr Psychol 2023;42(8):6419–6428; doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01986-z

10.

10. Romero-Rodríguez

J-M

, Kopecký

, García-González

, et al. Sharing images or videos of minors online: Validation of the Sharenting Evaluation Scale (SES). Child Youth Serv Rev 2022;136:106396; doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106396

11.

Bayraktar

, Ögel-Balaban

Testing the Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Adaptation of Sharenting Evaluation Scale. Pediatric Reports 2026;18(1):9; doi: 10.3390/pediatric18010009

12.

12. Peimanpak

, Abdollahi

, Allen

, et al. Validation of the online version of the sharenting evaluation scale (SES) in Iranian parents: Psychometric properties and concurrent validity. Brain Behav 2023;13(12):e3300; doi: 10.1002/brb3.3300

13.

13. Przybylski

, Murayama

, DeHaan

, et al. Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Comput Human Behav 2013;29(4):1841–1848; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014

14.

14. Burnell

, George

, Vollet

, et al. Passive social networking site use and well-being: The mediating roles of social comparison and the fear of missing out. Cyberpsychology 2019;13(3); doi: 10.5817/CP2019-3-5

15.

15. Servidio

, Soraci

, Griffiths

, et al. Fear of missing out and problematic social media use: A serial mediation model of social comparison and self-esteem. Addict Behav Rep 2024;19:100536; doi: 10.1016/j.abrep.2024.100536

16.

16. David

, Roberts

. The dual nature of social media: Examining the direction of causal flow between fear of missing out and social media use. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2023;26(12):881–885; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2023.0265

17.

17. Barry

, Smith

, Murphy

, et al. JOMO: Joy of missing out and its association with social media use, self-perception, and mental health. Telematics and Informatics Reports 2023;10:100054; doi: 10.1016/j.teler.2023.100054

18.

18. Eitan

, Gazit

. No social media for six hours? The emotional experience of Meta’s global outage according to FoMO, JoMO and internet intensity. Comput Human Behav 2023;138:107474; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107474

19.

19. Eitan

, Gazit

. The “here and now” effect: JoMO, FoMO and the well-being of social media users. OIR 2024;48(5):1002–1024; doi: 10.1108/OIR-03-2023-0111

20.

20. Festinger

. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 1954;7(2):117–140; doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202

21.

21. Tan

, Tjiptono

, Tan

. Fear more or fear no more: Examining the emotional and behavioral consequences of FOMO and JOMO. APJML 2025;37(6):1627–1648; doi: 10.1108/APJML-06-2024-0748

22.

22. Alfasi

. The grass is always greener on my Friends’ profiles: The effect of Facebook social comparison on state self-esteem and depression. Pers Individ Dif 2019;147:111–117; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.032

23.

23. Steinberger

, Kim

. Social comparison of ability and fear of missing out mediate the relationship between subjective well-being and social network site addiction. Front Psychol 2023;14:1157489; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1157489

24.

24. Bronstein

, Gazit

, Perez

, et al. An examination of the factors contributing to participation in online social platforms. AJIM 2016;68(6):793–818; doi: 10.1108/AJIM-05-2016-0059

25.

25. Bayraktar

, Çelik

. The mediating role of social comparison between parental self-efficacy and sharenting. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 2025;36:216–226; doi: 10.5080/u27387

26.

26. Fox

, Vendemia

. Selective self-presentation and social comparison through photographs on social networking sites. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2016;19(10):593–600; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0248

27.

27. Ajzen

. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991;50(2):179–211; doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

28.

28. Gazit

, Amichai-Hamburger

. Factors underlying engagement in facebook support groups of female infertility patients. Psychol Rep 2021;124(3):1150–1173; doi: 10.1177/0033294120934703

29.

29. Gal

, Gazit

, Bronstein

. The motivations of leaders to lead Facebook online groups: A case study of parenting groups. Behaviour & Information Technology 2023;42(10):1604–1616; doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2093272