Fear of Missing Out,
Information Overload,
Information Literacy,
and Digital Wellbeing
Małgorzata Kisilowska-Szurmińska
University of Warsaw, Poland
Agenda
● Introduction & theoretical background
● The research project: objectives and methodology
● Results:
○ information literacy vs. FOMO
○ digital wellbeing vs. FOMO
○ Information overload… vs. FOMO
● Conclusions
Introduction and theoretical background (1)
● The context of underdeveloped information and digital literacy and its consequences
○ problematic Internet use (PIU)
○ Fear of missing out (FOMO) as one of its manifestations
○ Information overload
● FOMO
○ a manifestation of lacking skills in information verification?
○ a limitation of full engagement in societal and civic life
● digital wellbeing as a status requiring our attention and care to decrease the scale of FOMO
Definitions
● FOMO: a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from
which one is absent (…) the desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing
(Przybylski et al., 2003)
● Information literacy: the ability to think critically and make balanced judgments about any
information we find and use. It empowers us as citizens to reach and express informed views
and to engage fully with society” (CILIP, 2018)
● Digital wellbeing: a state where subjective wellbeing is maintained in an environment
characterized by digital communication overabundance (Gui, Fasoli, & Carradore, 2017)
● Digital wellbeing skills: a set of skills needed to manage the side effects of digital
communication overabundance (Gui, Fasoli, & Carradore, 2017)
Introduction and theoretical background (2)
● Digital wellbeing vs. information literacy
● Jisc Digital Capabilities Framework: a list of 6 competency areas of
individual digital literacy:
○ Digital proficiency and productivity (functional skills)
○ Information, data and media literacies (critical use)
○ Digital creation, problem solving and innovation (creative production)
○ Digital communication, collaboration and participation (participation)
○ Digital learning and development (development)
○ Digital identity and wellbeing (self-actualising)
● digital wellbeing is either competency or an outcome of digital literacy and
can be analyzed in technical, critical thinking, and social aspects
The research project part 1 (1)
● Objective 1: to explore the relation between FOMO, information literacy, and
digital wellbeing.
● Does information literacy cover the standards and competences required for
digital wellbeing?
● Research questions:
○ RQ1: How is information literacy associated with FOMO?
○ RQ2: How is FOMO associated with digital wellbeing?
● Subquestions:
○ Are the high-FOMO people information literate?
○ Is there any relation between being information literate and problematic Internet use?
○ If so, what kind of such a relation can be observed?
The research project – methodology
● FOMO in Poland 2018-2019 (https://fomo.wdib.uw.edu.pl/):
○ two waves of the CAWI survey of Polish Internet users aged 15+
○ a nationwide probability random-quota sample of the Internet users aged 15+ (N=1060 in 2018, N=1066 in 2019) selected from
Ariadna research panel in Poland
○ The quotas on sex, age, and the size of the place of residence were based on how the population of Poland is represented among
Internet users
● partial results of both waves in regard to information literacy and digital wellbeing
● Questionnaires for both editions included the FOMO scale by A. K. Przybylski et al., other sets in separate waves:
○ different aspects of online activities, like information literacy, online self-presentation in 2018 wave
○ digital wellbeing, phubbing, nomophobia in 2019 wave
○ the analysis includes only the answers related to FOMO, information literacy, and digital wellbeing
General results
● About 26,9 mln of the Polish Internet users in 2018 (approx. 96% of Polish population)
● 2018 wave:
○ approximately 16% (~ 4,3 mln people) of the Polish Internet users 15+ appeared to be high-FOMO people
(so-called „fomers”)
○ 65% of mid-FOMO people (~ 17,5 mln)
○ 19% of low-FOMO people (~ 5,1 mln, mostly the oldest generations)
● 2019 wave:
○ high-FOMO - 14% of respondents
○ mid-FOMO - 67%
○ low-FOMO - 19%
● The age is a discriminating variable (younger respondents - aged 15-34 - reached higher FOMO indicator)
● Some differences regarding the place of living (19% of high-FOMO people lived in large cities)
FOMO vs Polish Internet users by age
20192018
FOMO vs Polish Internet users by age
20222021
Results: information literacy vs. FOMO
What forms of content do you publish on your social media profile(s)?
(N=1060, wave 2018, accumulated "often" and "always" responses)
16,7%
19,1%
1,0%
2,6%
30,2%
31,7%
4,7%
8,6%
50,8%
53,7%
21,4%
26,3%
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0%
Text
Photos/ graphics
Live transmissions
Previously recorded films
top FOMO mid FOMO low FOMO
Results: information literacy vs. FOMO
How often do you use social media for the following goals?
(N=1060, wave 2018, accumulated "often" and "always" responses)
19,7%
46,4%
46,8%
41,9%
50,2%
33,3%
27,3%
49,9%
27,7%
35,0%
52,1%
51,7%
57,5%
45,6%
40,9%
56,9%
48,9%
45,4%
71,6%
69,2%
69,8%
64,1%
64,5%
72,7%
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0%
to express my opinion
to search for opinions
for knowledge
for entertainment
for relax and rest
for inspiration
to escape from everyday life
for news
top FOMO mid FOMO low FOMO
Results: information literacy vs. FOMO
How often do you run the following activities on social media?
(N=1060, wave 2018, accumulated "often" and "always" responses)
45,0%
10,0%
48,8%
37,1%
36,5%
47,5%
60,8%
41,3%
15,8%
45,8%
40,8%
39,3%
46,1%
56,5%
52,6%
43,1%
58,3%
56,8%
56,0%
67,2%
62,8%
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0%
I observe the rules of content management in social media
I run profile(s) in SM systematically
I select content to be published in SM
I care for how I write comments
I care for how I write reviews/ opinions in SM
I care for what I "like"
I care for who I accept as a friend
top FOMO mid FOMO low FOMO
Results: digital wellbeing vs. FOMO
Do you try to keep healthy habits during ICT & Internet usage?
(N=1066, wave 2019, accumulated "often" and "always" responses)
68,0%
4,6%
27,4%
57,7%
13,0%
29,3%
58,6%
26,3%
15,0%
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0%
yes
no
I don't know
top FOMO mid FOMO low FOMO
Results: digital wellbeing vs. FOMO
What do you do to keep healthy habits during ICT & Internet usage?
(N=1066, wave 2019, accumulated "often" and "always" responses)
48,6%
43,4%
56,0%
31,1%
3,2%
2,2%
55,5%
50,9%
41,5%
33,0%
8,9%
5,5%
59,4%
38,1%
25,9%
28,9%
13,5%
20,4%
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0%
I care for my development offline
I care for interpersonal relations offline
I control the time I spend online
I impose the rules of ICT usage on myself
I learn the topic of digital wellbeing
I use online time counting apps
top FOMO mid FOMO low FOMO
Results: digital wellbeing vs. FOMO
Have you ever pointed out anybody due to his/her unhealthy habits in ICT usage?
(N=1066, wave 2019, accumulated "often" and "always" responses)
40,8%
51,7%
7,5%
39,0%
45,3%
15,7%
41,2%
42,5%
16,3%
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0%
Yes
No
I don't know
top FOMO mid FOMO low FOMO
Results: digital wellbeing vs. FOMO
What did you offer to a person, whom you pointed out due to his/her unhealthy habits
concerning ICT usage? (N=1066, wave 2019, accumulated "often" and "always" responses)
57,9%
36,3%
32,5%
27,3%
4,2%
6,4%
2,3%
57,1%
47,4%
42,9%
24,3%
10,7%
9,5%
5,4%
63,0%
42,3%
29,8%
16,9%
10,0%
9,2%
13,5%
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0%
control of time spent online
more often meetings/ spending time together
care about one's offlline development
imposing the rules of ICT and Internet usage
common usage of ICT and Internet
usage of apps measuring time spent online
support in regard of digital wellbeing
top FOMO mid FOMO low FOMO
Conclusions for part 1
● According to the respondents' declarations, the high-FOMO people are information, ICT,
and media literate people.
○ They possess knowledge, skills, and experience in publishing texts and photos/graphics, less in films and
live transmissions.
○ They care for their online behavior (on social media in particular), while commenting, liking, reviewing, or
publishing more than those from mid and low-FOMO groups.
● They (only) declare their efforts in undertaking activities for their digital wellbeing, in
particular controlling the time spent online.
● Knowledge and skills in information processing and dissemination may not be enough to
protect against FOMO and problematic Internet use.
● Digital wellbeing calls for specific attitudes.
○ Attitudes are the third aspect of competences in the qualifications framework perspective.
○ Inclusion of the digital wellbeing perspective in information literacy education component of competences,
i.e. attitudes towards the Internet as an environment of everyday information activity.
Conclusions part 1 (2)
● Digital wellbeing as the awareness of the specificity of the virtual sphere and
digital culture
● Rather positive reinforcement techniques than controlling behavior to
develop new habits, to promote self-regulation and social learning
● Information literacy and knowledge of threats do not guarantee protection
against problematic Internet use, nor its negative consequences, like
FOMO.
● Development of attitudes as potential protection against risky behavior
needs to be recognized for those living networked lives in the post-truth era.
Information overload
as a burden and a challenge:
Tips for information literacy?
Research objectives 2
● To indicate the challenges and recommendations for information literacy,
based on the results of (next) 2 waves of the national survey on information
overload
● To provide insight into different experiences, attitudes, emotions, and/or
education needs based on the specific of demographic characteristics
Background
IO DEFINITIONS
1. A situation which arises when an
individual's efficiency and effectiveness in
using information (whether for their work,
studies, citizenship, or life generally) is
hampered by the amount of relevant, and
potentially useful, information available to
them (Bawden & Robinson, 2009; 2020)
2. A distress associated with the perception
that there is too much information
(Williamson, Eaker, & Lounsbury, 2012)
CONTEXT
● COVID-19 pandemic (COVIO scales)
● Political and social situation
The tool: Information Overload Scale
(Williamson, Eaker, & Lounsbury, 2012)
1. I have to manage so much information in my daily life that it takes me a long time to complete even simple tasks.
2. I regularly feel overwhelmed by too much information these days.
3. It is sometimes hard for me to concentrate because of all the information I have to assimilate.
4. There is so much information available on topics of interest to me that I have trouble choosing what is important and
what’s not.
5. I have to process so much information that it frequently takes me too long to get things done in a timely manner.
6. I feel overwhelmed learning a new subject or topic because there is so much information.
7. I am confronted by an avalanche of email, phone and text messages each day.
8. When I search for information on a topic of interest to me, I usually get too much rather than too little information.
9. I have so much information to manage on a daily basis that it is hard for me to prioritize tasks.
10.I am stressed out by the sheer volume of information I have to manage on a daily basis.
11.It seems like the volume of information available is increasing exponentially in a relatively short period of time.
12.I feel like I can’t keep up with all the new developments in my area of expertise.
13.I sometimes feel numb and incapable of action because of all the information I have to process on a daily basis.
14.I feel like my attention span is becoming shorter and shorter because of information overload.
15.I regularly feel pressed for time because of all the information I have to deal with.
Methodology
1. Procedure: two waves of representative surveys (CAWI technique), in
cooperation with the Ariadna Panel in 2021 and 2022 subsequently
2. Sample: Polish Internet users aged 15 and older
(2021: n=1067, 2022: n=1083)
Respondents’ quotas representative for gender, age, education level, size of locality of residence
3. Questionnaire included several scales for different PIU studies
4. The responses were recoded from 5 into 3 levels (summed negative 1-2 and
positive 4-5 answers)
5. Only positive responses presented here (4 - I agree and 5 - I strongly agree)
Results
Information
overload of
Polish Internet
users 15+ 29%
40% 41% 42%
34% 35% 34%
41%
29%
31%
46%
38%
31%
34%33%
22%
33% 34% 35%
27%
32%
27%
38%
24% 25%
38%
35%
25%
30%30%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Item
1
It. 2 It. 3 It. 4 It. 5 It. 6 It. 7 It. 8 It. 9 It. 10It. 11It. 12It. 13It. 14It. 15
2021 2022
Repeated pattern of information
overload among the total sample
in both waves.
Decrease of information overload
between the first and second
waves.
Top 3 results (items 4, 8, 11) all
refer to an overwhelming quantity
of information and difficulties with
selection.
Information
overload by
gender in 2022
24%
37%
39%
38%
30%
37%
27%
40%
27% 27%
41%
38%
28%
35%
33%
19%
28%
29%
31%
23%
28%
26%
37%
20%
22%
36%
31%
23%
25%
33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Item
1
It. 2 It. 3 It. 4 It. 5 It. 6 It. 7 It. 8 It. 9 It. 10 It. 11 It. 12 It. 13 It. 14 It. 15
female male
Women suffer from IO more
than men (see: items 3, 4, 8, 11,
12)
Men most often declared IO in
the context of items 4, 8, 11, 15.
Information
overload by age
group in 2022
(1)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
It1 It2 It3 It4 It5 It6 It7 It8 It9 It10 It11 It12 It13 It14 It15
15-19 yo 20-24 yo 25-34 yo
35-44 yo 45-54 yo 55+
The youngest suffer the most (15-19
years), while the least are the oldest
(55+).
For both these groups, the
indications differ significantly
among items.
The youngest: managing
information takes too much time (1,
5); this makes them feel
overwhelmed (2, 6, 12, 13) and
stressed (10, 15), and causes
problems with concentration (3, 14)
and selection (4, 9). However, they
less often experience excessive
communication (item 7).
Information
overload by age
group in 2022
(2)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
It1 It2 It3 It4 It5 It6 It7 It8 It9 It10 It11 It12 It13 It14 It15
15-19 yo 20-24 yo 25-34 yo
35-44 yo 45-54 yo 55+
Group 55+ achieved the lowest
results for items 1-6, 9-10, and
13-15.
They are less burdened with
managing daily tasks (items 9-
10, 13).
Selection from among too much
information (item 8) is
problematic, and rapid growth
of information (item 11).
The latter is problematic for all
age groups.
FOMO vs.
Information
Overload
54%
58%
62%
66%
54% 55% 54%
60%
54%
52%
60%
65%
58%
62%
55%
29%
40% 41% 42%
34% 35% 34%
41%
29% 30%
46%
39%
31%
34%
32%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Item
1
Item
2
Item
3
Item
4
Item
5
Item
6
Item
7
Item
8
Item
9
Item
10
Item
11
Item
12
Item
13
Item
14
Item
15
High FOMO 2022 High FOMO 2021
Total respondents 2022 Total respondents 2021
Discussion
& conclusions
Discussion (1)
● This project confirms and enhances knowledge on increased information
overload specifically in the pandemic time (2021) and beyond (2022)
● The general IOS study confirmed results from COVIO scales, that people
suffered from IO in general
● A specific pattern of reactions to particular items can be observed between the
waves. Data for 2022 reveals that women are more likely to feel overwhelmed
by information, also with regard to selection of sources and concentration. The
men report similar problems, but to a lesser degree and additionally a time
pressure
● That leads to a hypothesis for future research of a specific model of information
overload, in particular, if the pattern repeats in the following survey waves.
Discussion (2)
● Information redundancy is the most difficult to deal with (highest indications),
while it influences less everyday living (lower indications).
● IO influences negatively prioritization of tasks and lack of concentration
● The results for all age groups 20+ mostly decreased, excluding the youth
(15-19), who declared significant increases (even by 32% - item 6).
● The youth and the oldest respondents differ from the other age groups (20-
54), although in almost opposite ways.
● The significant correlation of IO and gender (women) and age found by
Williamson, Eaker, and Lounsbury is confirmed on a representative national
sample
Conclusions
● Information overload is a major social problem, increasing in times of such
major problems as the pandemic
● IO negatively influences users' capacities in information verification,
selection, or concentration
● The scope and scale of IO differ depending on age and gender
● The dynamics of the social environment affect information literacy, making it
necessary to be flexible in the design of the content and forms
Recommendations for IL training
● Digital hygiene (as a part of information literacy discussion)
● Precise identification of information needs and formulation of information searching
instructions
● Advanced searching skills and tools
● Verification of information reliability and quality
● Filtering and selection of sources and information
● Prosumers' responsibility for information redundancy
○ the issue of awareness and responsibility for the co-creation of information overload.
○ A prosumer should ask him/herself if it is really necessary for him/her to make specific content public?
What purpose does it serve? Who needs it? This issue links directly to ecology of information behavior
● Further adaptation of trainings to specific needs of different social groups
● Young people and women seem to have specific needs, which can possibly depend
on age or social roles
Final conclusions
● High FOMO is related with:
○ information literacy
○ DECLARED digital wellbeing (vs. reality)
○ Information overload
● Information overload may influence negatively information literacy in terms
of selection and evaluation skills
● The lower information literacy, the higher risk of FOMO and information
overload
● What is the remedium?
○ Information literacy training, focused on attitudes and selfcare?
Thank you!
MDKISILO@UW.EDU.PL