International Journal of Current Science Research and Review

ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

The Effect of Fear of Missing Out on Buying and Post-Purchasing

Behaviour toward Indonesia’s Generation Z Online Shoppers
(Case study: E-Commerce Indonesia)

Sumayyah Amalina Nasr1, Yos Sunitiyoso2, Hasnul Suhaimi3

1
Master of Business and Administration Program, School of Business and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung – Jakarta
Campus, Jakarta 12950, Indonesia
2
School of Business and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung – Jakarta Campus, Jakarta 12950, Indonesia
3
IPMI International Business School, Jakarta 12750, Indonesia

ABSTRACT: Some things related to a person's behaviour and preferences will be linked to his behaviour as a consumer.
Technological improvements in this era, such as the internet and social media spread, have become an addiction and formed an
understanding that social life is needed. However, unfortunately, what is produced on social media does not all have good results.
One of them is the phenomenon of FoMO or Fear of Missing Out. This study aims to get a picture of Consumer Buying and Post-
Purchase Behaviour, which in this case is Generation Z shoppers on E-Commerce, as the impact of the FoMO phenomenon. This
study uses 14 variables in it, namely social self-efficacy, consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence, social media
addiction, social media self-control failure, novelty seeking, self-esteem, FoMO, the theory of planned behaviour, purchase
intention, buying behaviour, and post-purchasing behaviour. The methodology is quantitative research, with the analysis method
used being PLS-SEM with SmartPLS 4.0. Data analysis shows that all indicators and variables are valid and reliable. The
prediction accuracy of the existing models is also good. Based on the survey data, most respondents feel that FoMO has affected
their lives, with a score of 5-6 on a Likert scale of 6, indicating a high effect. Also, based on the analyzed data from questionnaire
responses, four paths have the most substantial influence, buying behaviour towards post-purchasing behaviour, fear of missing
out on subjective norms, purchase intention on buying behavior, and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence on FoMO.

KEYWORDS: Buying Behaviour, Fear of Missing Out, Generation Z, Post-Purchasing Behaviour, Social Media.

INTRODUCTION
Some things related to a person's behaviour and preferences will be related to his behaviour as a consumer. Researches have
indicated that shopping behaviour is a manifestation of the influence of various external stimuli (Parsad et al., 2019). Technological
improvements such as the spread of the internet and social media have become an addiction and formed an understanding that
social life is needed. However, unfortunately, what is produced on social media does not all have good results. One of them is the
phenomenon of FoMO or Fear of Missing Out.
Social media provides real-time information regarding events, conversations, and activities. It allows individuals to be exposed to
various kinds of new developments. Thus, Individuals are afraid of missing out because of the content shared on social media
platforms. It allows social media leads individuals to feel FoMO by continuously checking social media and updates regarding
trends and other currently discussed. Many people stay online continuously to avoid FoMO.
Argan & Argan (2019) proposed the concept of "Fonsumer" by combining the concepts of FoMo and consumer, examining them
theoretically, and associating them with consumer behaviour. They discovered that the behaviour of consumers with a FoMO
tendency differed significantly from that of traditional consumers before, during, and after decision-making.
FoMO can occur when people do not interact how they expected and wished, when they cannot engage in social interaction when
they want to, or when a feeling of need for a continuous social gathering is expected. Then, social interaction cannot be separated
from the way of social interaction between generations. According to Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia is dominated by Generation
Z (knowns as Gen Z) or the generation born in 1997-2012, 27.94% of the Indonesian population (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2022).
Generation Z members are "digital natives," highly qualified, technologically experienced, innovative, and creative individuals.
6246 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

They are expected to be the critical generation shaping e-commerce consumer behaviour in the coming years (Monaco, 2018). Not
surprisingly, entertainment is the most important for Indonesia’s Gen Z (Indonesia Gen Z Report 2022, 2022).
Several studies have revealed the relationship between FoMO and a person's buying behaviour as a result of this phenomenon
(Bekman, 2022; Munawar et al., 2021; Yaputri et al., 2022). FoMO drives people to constantly check their social media to stay
connected through social relationships. They thought it was essential to be aware of opportunities to profit and losses to avoid. It
can lead to compulsive behaviour, and people may find it difficult to resist the temptation to check their social media.
Several studies state that there are behaviours such as following trends on social media and impulsive purchasing in the form of
buying behaviour produced. If they realize they are in a worse situation, they may try to close the possession gap by purchasing
products or having experiences that others have had (Gurzki & Woisetschläger, 2017; Zheng et al., 2018). Because this decision-
making behaviour is a hasty purchase and only sees from the other person's side, without seeing one's true needs, this kind of
behaviour can result in post-behaviour regret as a result. Then, one of the stakeholders who benefit is the sellers of these goods. One
of which is e-commerce. E-commerce is also catching up to make profitable innovations that allow it to attract users to buy. Hence,
the author wants to examine the relationship between FoMO, Buying, Post-Purchase Behaviour, and Generation Z as social media
users on the E-Commerce platform.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Generation Z
Generation Z refers to today's tweens and teens born between 1997 and 2012, who are also known as the "i-Generation," "post-
millennials," or "net-generation" since they were born in an era of computer sophistication, various types of mobile and game
devices, and the internet (Pew Research Center, 2019). When Generation Z members shop for attire and clothes online, they will
interact with their social group by making product comparisons and listening to the opinions of friends and acquaintances, asking
for their advice and assistance in finding the best and most appealing explanation. They are extremely brand conscious and loyal
to brands they believe are "cool," as they do not want to sacrifice the most remarkable product compared to their social group.
This social media trend impacts new experiences in finding and using information they will use to make decisions. The connected
consumer, premiumization, and experience are three pertinent trends that have shaped Indonesian consumer behaviour today and
will define consumer behaviour in the future (Euromonitor International, 2018).
The Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) and the stimuli
Fear of Missing Out is defined as apprehension or concern about being disconnected, absent, or missing an experience that others
(i.e., peers, friends, family) may receive or enjoy (Przybylski et al., 2013). When people have FoMO, they are more likely to seek
out and acknowledge the activities of others. FoMO has an impact on consumer behaviour. Provious study shows FoMO increases
impulse buying, and impulse buying increases post-purchase regret (Çelik et al., 2019). According to Karimkhan & Chapa (2021),
FoMO has a significant impact on consumer impulsive buying behavior. Good & Hyman (2021) investigated the direct and
indirect effects of FoMO appeals on purchase likelihood and concluded that FoMO-laden appeals can influence consumers'
purchase intentions.
To analyze FoMO more deeply, several analyzes of stimuli could explain the causes of FoMO, namely social self-efficacy,
consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence, social media addiction, social media self-control failure, novelty seeking, and
self-esteem. These constructs were incorporated into the research model to test the effects FOMO has on consumer buying
behaviour.
A. Social Self-Efficacy (SSE)
Social self-efficacy describes a person's ability to engage in social interactions to build or maintain interpersonal relationships
(Smith & Betz, 2000). In other literature, this concept is also a person's social skills and self-confidence based on interpersonal
interactions (Yang et al., 2016).
Studies have provided the fact that social self-efficacy is negatively related to interpersonal relationship stress (Chiu, 2014),
internet addiction, loneliness (Gazo et al., 2020), accepting external influences, isolating oneself (Satici et al., 2013), depression
and shyness (Anderson & Betz, 2001). A negative relationship was found between self-efficacy and FoMO (Lee et al., 2020). In
the literature, no research findings directly address the relationship between social self-efficacy and FoMO. However, it can be

6247 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

argued that when individuals' social self-efficacy is high, they build and maintain more satisfying relationships with others, and
their level of FoMO will decrease.
B. Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence (CSII)
Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence refers to the tendency of people to evaluate products or services by observing
others or seeking information from others. This concept denotes the need to conform to the expectations of social groups (Bearden
et al., 1989).
Consumer behaviour research indicates that consumers highly susceptible to interpersonal influences are more influenced by
others when making consumption decisions (Schroeders, 1996). Consumers' susceptibility to interpersonal influences derives from
low satisfaction with connecting to others (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, FOMO must be related to, but distinct from, consumers'
susceptibility to interpersonal influences. This is because those who are highly susceptible to interpersonal influence are often
more concerned with social norms and fitting in with others. As a result, they may be more likely to feel left out or excluded when
they see others participating in activities or purchasing products that they are not.
C. Social Media Addiction (SMA)
Social media addiction, problematic social media use, and compulsive social media use refer to the phenomenon of maladaptive
social media use and psychological dependence on SNS to the extent that behavioral addiction symptoms occur, characterized by
addiction-like symptoms and reduced self-regulation (Cao et al., 2020; Tarafdar et al., 2020). Another definition includes the
inability to regulate one's use of social media and the interference with other activities brought on by excessive use (Ryan et al.,
2014). The phrase used most frequently in the literature is "social media addiction," which includes words like "Facebook
addiction," "SNS addiction," and "addictive SNS use."(Cao et al., 2020).
FoMO is a type of addiction that causes individuals to spend longer on social networks because they fear falling behind in
developments and failing to keep up with developments on social networking sites (Buglass et al., 2017). FoMO is reported to
increase the use of social media among young people (Alt, 2015). Previous research has shown that social media addiction is
positively related to FoMO. For example, problematic smartphone use was associated with FoMO, depression, anxiety, and the
need for touch (Elhai et al., 2016). In addition, Facebook use is positively related to FoMO. Compared to individuals who check
their Facebook account less often, those who check more often have higher levels of FoMO (Varga, 2016). In addition, excessive
use of social media is also known to lead users to high levels of FoMO (Yoo & Jeong, 2017).
D. Social Media Self-Control Failure (SMSCF)
When an individual cannot control himself over the use of social media, then he has been exposed to Social Media Self-Control
Failure, which defines as a failure to demonstrate self-control over social media use, which may result in more time spent online
(Du et al., 2018), even when it coincides with other important goals (Hameed & Irfan, 2021).
According to research by Hofmann et al. (2012), 42% of people could not control their social media usage behaviour and social
media usage failure has a generally high tendency. Research indicated that a person with a low self-control level was significantly
correlated with higher smartphone screen time. They tended to have greater difficulty putting their phones aside than those with
higher self-control (van Endert & Mohr, 2020). Thus, individuals who experience engaging in social media use and experience
self-control failure in their social media use are more likely to have higher levels of FoMO.
E. Novelty Seeking (NS)
"Novelty seeking" refers to "an emotional motivation state that facilitates the search for stimulation caused by novelty,
complexity, uncertainty, or conflict, regardless of specific questions or problems" (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). It in particular,
focuses on the desire for new and unfamiliar experiences, which can range from trying new foods or activities to exploring
different cultures or traveling to new places. Thus, the individuals who are overly focused on novelty seeking may become
restless, easily bored, or dissatisfied with routine activities or relationships. They may also be more prone to impulsivity, sensation
seeking, or risky behaviours, which can lead to negative outcomes such as addiction.
This is where FoMO comes in. For people high in novelty seeking, the desire for new experiences can exacerbate FoMO. They
may worry that if they do not stay up-to-date with the latest trends or activities, they will miss out on something exciting or
worthwhile. This can lead to a sense of pressure to constantly seek out new experiences, or to feel like they are not living up to
their full potential if they are not constantly on the go. They may worry that they are missing out on something interesting or
worthwhile if they do not stay up-to-date with the latest trends or activities.

6248 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

F. Self Esteem (SE)

According to Baumeister & Leary (1995), self-esteem is a human adaptation that measures a person's feeling of belonging or
social inclusion. It is a component of, or the basis for, an individual's thoughts, feelings, and behaviour (Branden, 1969).
According to research, increased FoMO is associated with a greater need for acceptance. As a result, lower levels of self-esteem
are associated with greater levels of FoMO (Malouf, 2022). Furthermore, longitudinal research on the relationship between self-
esteem and FoMO discovered that low self-esteem is strongly related to FoMO. Individuals with low self-esteem will experience
higher degrees of FoMO (Buglass et al., 2017). Another study also discovered that there is a negative relationship between FOMO
and self-esteem (Weaver & Swank, 2021).
Based on the Fear of Missing Out and the stimuli explanation above, the following hypotheses is proposed:
H1: Social Self-Efficacy negatively related to FoMO.
H2: CSII positively related to FoMO.
H3: Social Media Addiction positively related to FoMO.
H4: Social Media Self-Control Failure positively related to FoMO.
H5: Novelty Seeking positively related to FoMO.
H6: Self-Esteem negatively related to FoMO.

The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Attitude toward Behaviour (ATB), Subjective Norm (SN), and Perceived Behavioural
Control (PBC)
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is a theory developed from the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), which asserts that the
rational behaviour of individuals has control over themselves (Ajzen, 1991). There are three variables in the TPB, which are:
attitude toward behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control that will affect one's intentions.
Attitude toward the behaviour is defined as the strongest belief linking behaviour to achieving valuable results, either positive or
negative. Then, subjective norm is defined as the level of individual perception to do or not to do a behaviour which is influenced
by beliefs that come from the views or opinions of other people related to individuals (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2005).
Last, perceived behavioural control is a function of individual control that shows the degree to which a person feels that whether
or not a behaviour is carried out is under his control (Ajzen, 1991). This control has a perception that is divided into internal and
external control (Kraft et al., 2005).
TPB is widely used in variables related to impulsive buying research, including in impulsive buying behaviour research on e-
commerce related with the implementation of IT on technology acceptance (Azizah et al., 2022) and also in purchase intention
research related to utilitarian value and hedonic value (Chen et al., 2020). To ably understand the effect of FoMO on buying
behaviour, this research will utilize the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) framework, to identify factors that might influence
buying behaviour related to FoMO. Thus, the following hypotheses is proposed:
H7: FoMO positively related to Attitude toward Behaviour.
H8: FoMO positively related to Subjective Norm.
H9: FoMO Positively related to Perceived Behavioural Control.

Purchase Intention (PI)

According to Ajzen, I., & Fishbein (1980), intention is the most important and the best predictor of Behaviour. According to
Ajzen (2014), an individual's intention in demonstrating the behaviour is determined by their attitude toward the behaviour, their
perceptions of those around them (subjective norms), and their belief that they are able to exhibit that act (perceived behavioural
control). Generally, the more positive the attitude and moral norms people have and the higher control they perceive that they
have, the more likely the purchase intentions are to be formed. The intention is widely used in TPB research, where the TPB
variable uses intention to predict behavior. For the examples are research related to Chinese consumer purchase intention of
organic meat (Bhutto et al., 2022) and consumers’ purchase intention towards luxury fashion goods (Salem & Salem, 2018). As
a result, the following are hypotheses:
H10: Attitude toward Behaviour positively related to Purchase Intention.
H11: Subjective Norm positively related to Purchase Intention.
6249 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

H12: Perceived Behavioural Control positively related to Purchase Intention.

Buying Behaviour (BB)

Consumer behaviour is the study of individuals, groups, or organizations and the processes they use to select, secure, and dispose
of products, services, experiences, or ideas to satisfy needs, as well as the effects these processes have on the consumer and
society (Madhavan & Chandrasekar, 2015). In marketing literature, the factors influencing consumer behaviour are classified
into four categories. These factors are primarily cultural, social, personal, and psychological.
An economical person would purchase products and services based on a cost-benefit analysis, whereas most people have less
rational behaviour when making purchases. Consumers may purchase a product or service to avoid depression, to express their
identity, or simply to have fun, rather than to meet a specific need. These irrational purchasing behaviours are referred to as
impulse buying. Impulsive purchasing behaviour can be triggered by external stimuli. Thus, FoMO can encourage impulsive
purchases. This is because someone is driven to buy something after they see what is on social media, what is currently trending
on social media, and they feel that they "need" to have that item. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H13: Purchase Intention positively related to Buying Behaviour.

Post Purchasing Behaviour (PPB)

Wherever Times is specified, Times Roman or Times New Roman may be used. Consumers may regret some impulse purchases
made while under the influence of FoMO. The greater the impulsiveness of the purchase, the greater the degree of dissatisfaction
and regret. This is called as post-behaviour regret. According to Powers & Jack (2015), if consumers have doubts about whether
they needed the product or made the right decision after purchasing it, their emotions would be negatively impacted, leaving them
feeling regretful, painful, or disappointed. Thus, impulse buying is always associated with financial pains (overspending), guilt
feelings, and social disapproval. Based on it, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H14: Buying Behaviour positively related to Post-purchasing Behaviour.

The research model is shown in Figure I:

Figure 1. Research Model

Source: Author’s Analysis (2023)

6250 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

METHODOLOGY
Sample and Data Collection
This is quantitative research that is included in descriptive research which has the function to elaborate something (Malhotra et al.,
2017). The research takes primary data where the use of survey techniques through questionnaires will be carried out to the
required number of samples. The target population and sample are Indonesian citizens of Generation Z (born in 1997-2012) who
are online shoppers in the E-Commerce. For research objectivity, respondents are the ones that at least purchase in E-Commerce
once a month. The sample size in this study follows the general rule for the minimum number of samples used, which is the
number of indicators multiplied by five (Hair et al., 2010). This study uses 56 indicators, so the minimum number of respondents
required is 280. This study collected 417 respondents.
Measurement
The research used a Likert scale of 1-6 in the questionnaire. Social self-efficacy was measured by five items developed by Wright
et al. (2013), social media addiction used five items adapted by Elphinston & Noller (2011), social media self-control failure was
measured by three items developed by Du et al. (2018), social-esteem used a scale originated by Rosenberg (1979) totaled five
items, and CSII and novelty-seeking use five items each developed by Zhang et al. (2020). Then, FoMO tendency is measured
using a study by Çelik et al. (2019) of five items, and the theory of planning using a study by Peña-García et al. (2020) of three
items in each variable. Three items from Rehman et al. (2019) are used to measure purchase intention. The study by Lim et al.
(2017) was adapted to measure buying and post-purchasing behavior, three items each. Then, two items from other studies are
used to measure buying behavior, adapted from Chen et al. (2020). Items from different studies are also used to measure post-
purchasing behavior, adapted three items by Workman & Lee (2019).
Data Analysis
The research used Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) method as data analysis using SmartPLS 4.
PLS-SEM can process complex structural models with too many constructs or indicators. This study has 13 variables with 56
indicators in it. PLS-SEM also only allows structural paths between latent variable constructs to have the same direction, where
there are no casual loops in it and can estimate data that is not normally distributed (Hair et al., 2011, 2017).
The validity and reliability of the model are assessed using the measurement model. It aims to measure the accuracy of indicators
on variables and show how much variance the construct explains. The outer loadings of 0.40-0.70 and average variance extracted
(AVE) > 0.50 determined the convergent validity. Composite reliability of >0.70 and Cronbach's Alpha of 0.50-0.70 determined
the internal consistency reliability. Cross-loading was used in the discriminant validity test. The accepted cross-loading value, as
(Hair et al., 2017) advised, is when the indicators on the related variables have the most outstanding value compared to other
variables when viewed horizontally or vertically. Then, the PLS model also considers structural model analysis through
collinearity assessment.
Hypotheses Testing
An easy way to comply with the conference paper formatting requirements is to use this document as a template and simply type
your text into it. The one-tailed test used in this study's hypothesis testing, with a significance level of 10%, a t-statistic value
above 1.28, is advised (Hair et al., 2017). P value is the probability that the null hypothesis is. The cut-off p-value for this
research's relationship between constructs is below 0.10.

RESULTS
Respondent Characteristics
The respondents' characteristics in this study are shown in Table 1. The respondent characteristics table indicates that most
respondents are female and live in the Jabodetabek Area (Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi), a densely populated
city in Java, Indonesia. The most used social media by respondents is Instagram. Most respondents spend on e-commerce twice a
month, with an average expenditure of ≤ Rp250,000 in one purchase. Most respondents feel that FoMO is very influential (value:
6) and influential (value: 5) in their lives. Most respondents feel that they often (value: 5) follow existing trends, be it lifestyle,
news, etc.

6251 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

Table 1. Respondent Characteristics

Demographic Variables Categories Frequency Valid Percetage
Gender Male 192 46.04
Female 225 53.96
Domicile Jabodetabek 181 43.41
Bandung 73 17.51
Yogyakarta 55 13.19
Surabaya 71 17.03
Medan 23 5.52
Others (…........) 14 3.36
Most used Social Media Instagram 145 34.77
TikTok 138 33.09
Youtube 49 11.75
Twitter 82 19.66
Others (…......) 3 0.72
Shopping Average/Months 1 78 18.71
2 149 35.73
3 112 26.86
4 65 15.59
Others 13 3.12
Shopping Expense Average/Shop ≤ Rp250.000 199 47.72
Rp250.001 - Rp500.000 138 33.09
Rp500.001- Rp750.000 38 9.11
Rp750.001 - Rp1.000.000 24 5.76
Rp1.000.001 - Rp1.250.000 15 3.60
≥ Rp2.000.000 3 0.72
FoMO Scale 1 22 5.28
2 48 11.51
3 53 12.71
4 74 17.75
5 110 26.38
6 110 26.38
Trend Scale 1 6 1.44
2 24 5.76
3 52 12.47
4 80 19.18
5 128 30.70
6 127 30.46
Source: Author’s Analysis (2023)

Measurement Model
A. Convergent Validity and Internal Consistency Reliability
Convergent validity and internal consistency reliability stated that several indicators have outer loading <0.70, AVE <0.50,
composite reliability < 0.70, and Cronbach's alpha <0.70. Then, the researcher removes indicators on related variables with outer
loading that does not meet the criteria. However, there are still indicators <0.70 on the social self-efficacy variable, and it is
considered not to remove them more because it only has three remaining indicators. This value is still considered acceptable
because it is in the range of 0.40-0.70 and has an AVE value > 0.50. For the Cronbach alpha, although perceived behavioral
6252 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

control has not reached the cut-off limit of 0.70, it is still acceptable in the category of moderate values (0.50-0.70). Therefore, all
indicators and research variables are valid and reliable.

Table 2. Convergent Validity and Internal Reliability Test

Convergent Validity Internal Consistency Reliability
Composite
Variables Indicators Outer loadings AVE Cronbach’s Alpha
Reliability
0.40-0.70 >0.50 >0.70 0.50-0.70
SSE2 0.626
Social-self
SSE3 0.609 0.506 0.749 0.544
Efficacy (3)
SSE5 0.869
CSII1 0.800
Consumer
CSII2 0.877
Susceptibility to
CSII3 0.887 0.695 0.919 0.890
Interpersonal
CSII4 0.764
Influence (5)
CSII5 0.833
SMA1 0.882
Social Media
SMA3 0.868 0.690 0.869 0.776
Addiction (3)
SMA5 0.733
Social Media SMSCF1 0.879
Self-control SMSCF2 0.863 0.750 0.900 0.834
Failure (3) SMSCF3 0.855
NS1 0.797
NS2 0.795
Novelty Seeking
NS3 0.795 0.656 0.905 0.870
(5)
NS4 0.850
NS5 0.811
SE1 0.758
Self-esteem (3) SE3 0.823 0.665 0.856 0.753
SE4 0.862
FOMO1 0.882
FOMO2 0.923
FoMO (5) FOMO3 0.908 0.825 0.959 0.947
FOMO4 0.902
FOMO5 0.925
TPB - Attitude ATB1 0.781
toward ATB2 0.826 0.632 0.837 0.709
Behaviour (3) ATB3 0.777
SN1 0.889
TPB - Subjective
SN2 0.918 0.814 0.929 0.885
Norm (3)
SN3 0.899
TPB - Perceived PBC1 0.786
Behavioral PBC2 0.764 0.578 0.804 0.634
Control (3) PBC3 0.729

6253 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

PI1 0.853
Purchase
PI2 0.869 0.666 0.856 0.745
Intention (3)
PI3 0.718
BB1 0.872
BB2 0.901
Buying
BB3 0.912 0.767 0.943 0.924
Behaviour (5)
BB4 0.842
BB5 0.852
PPB1 0.786
PPB2 0.871
Post-purchasing PPB3 0.890
0.720 0.939 0.922
Behaviour (6) PPB4 0.867
PPB5 0.857
PPB6 0.813
Source: Author’s Analysis (2023)

B. Discriminant Validity
The discriminant validity test measures how much a construct differs from other constructs by empirical standards (Hair et al.,
2017). The discriminant validity testing method used is cross-loading. The results of the discriminant validity in Table 3 below
show that the indicators on the related variables have the greatest value compared to other variables when viewed horizontally or
vertically. Thus, the instrument can discriminate between different constructs and not "get mixed up" in measuring different
things.

Table 3. Cross-loading Test Result

ATB BB CSII FOMO NS PBC PI PPB SE SMA SMSCF SN SSE
ATB1 0.78 0.27 0.19 0.27 0.37 0.28 0.46 0.24 0.28 0.21 0.15 0.37 0.20
ATB2 0.83 0.19 0.14 0.18 0.28 0.29 0.51 0.14 0.19 0.14 0.19 0.30 0.17
ATB3 0.78 0.17 0.18 0.21 0.32 0.26 0.42 0.17 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.31 0.19
BB1 0.21 0.87 0.67 0.76 0.45 -0.15 0.33 0.69 0.33 0.62 0.53 0.55 -0.11
BB2 0.21 0.90 0.68 0.77 0.44 -0.12 0.35 0.68 0.30 0.64 0.58 0.53 -0.08
BB3 0.21 0.91 0.71 0.80 0.51 -0.15 0.35 0.71 0.30 0.63 0.56 0.56 -0.10
BB4 0.28 0.84 0.62 0.75 0.51 -0.11 0.41 0.63 0.32 0.64 0.54 0.57 -0.02
BB5 0.27 0.85 0.63 0.78 0.45 -0.07 0.40 0.67 0.24 0.62 0.57 0.56 0.00
CSII1 0.10 0.57 0.80 0.56 0.45 -0.19 0.20 0.59 0.29 0.51 0.36 0.53 -0.03
CSII2 0.12 0.64 0.88 0.64 0.49 -0.21 0.25 0.63 0.29 0.54 0.42 0.57 -0.10
CSII3 0.21 0.71 0.89 0.71 0.51 -0.19 0.33 0.67 0.29 0.61 0.53 0.61 -0.07
CSII4 0.23 0.54 0.76 0.53 0.43 -0.03 0.34 0.59 0.25 0.42 0.40 0.57 0.08
CSII5 0.21 0.67 0.83 0.69 0.46 -0.18 0.25 0.66 0.27 0.56 0.49 0.56 -0.02
FOMO1 0.20 0.80 0.66 0.88 0.44 -0.15 0.36 0.71 0.29 0.65 0.57 0.56 -0.09
FOMO2 0.28 0.82 0.75 0.92 0.53 -0.19 0.40 0.75 0.33 0.68 0.58 0.62 -0.13
FOMO3 0.29 0.81 0.69 0.91 0.50 -0.11 0.40 0.76 0.34 0.65 0.57 0.61 -0.03
FOMO4 0.19 0.77 0.64 0.90 0.47 -0.13 0.37 0.72 0.29 0.65 0.57 0.57 -0.06
FOMO5 0.29 0.80 0.69 0.93 0.52 -0.13 0.42 0.75 0.32 0.65 0.56 0.66 -0.08
NS1 0.28 0.37 0.43 0.39 0.80 0.05 0.38 0.38 0.24 0.32 0.18 0.39 0.04
NS2 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.80 0.07 0.40 0.31 0.24 0.29 0.15 0.35 0.11
NS3 0.34 0.45 0.44 0.42 0.80 0.05 0.35 0.43 0.29 0.36 0.23 0.41 0.15
NS4 0.35 0.50 0.52 0.51 0.85 -0.02 0.42 0.49 0.23 0.42 0.29 0.53 0.06
NS5 0.33 0.47 0.51 0.47 0.81 0.01 0.43 0.47 0.28 0.47 0.30 0.53 0.05

6254 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

PBC1 0.25 -0.17 -0.20 -0.20 0.02 0.79 0.17 -0.18 0.08 -0.10 -0.03 -0.06 0.36
PBC2 0.30 -0.05 -0.12 -0.04 0.04 0.76 0.24 -0.05 0.12 -0.03 0.06 0.05 0.29
PBC3 0.25 -0.09 -0.13 -0.11 0.02 0.73 0.21 -0.10 0.08 -0.09 -0.04 -0.05 0.22
PI1 0.42 0.40 0.33 0.41 0.46 0.19 0.85 0.31 0.34 0.29 0.28 0.48 0.13
PI2 0.46 0.40 0.33 0.41 0.45 0.20 0.87 0.30 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.45 0.13
PI3 0.56 0.22 0.13 0.23 0.28 0.29 0.72 0.18 0.19 0.16 0.17 0.33 0.06
PPB1 0.19 0.57 0.59 0.59 0.45 -0.05 0.26 0.79 0.28 0.46 0.38 0.57 -0.06
PPB2 0.17 0.73 0.68 0.76 0.45 -0.20 0.30 0.87 0.31 0.62 0.54 0.63 -0.10
PPB3 0.23 0.73 0.67 0.77 0.51 -0.13 0.31 0.89 0.33 0.61 0.52 0.63 -0.07
PPB4 0.18 0.63 0.62 0.70 0.40 -0.16 0.23 0.87 0.25 0.56 0.53 0.60 -0.07
PPB5 0.17 0.63 0.67 0.69 0.46 -0.14 0.26 0.86 0.31 0.52 0.47 0.58 -0.07
PPB6 0.24 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.39 -0.06 0.29 0.81 0.31 0.57 0.50 0.57 -0.02
SE1 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.19 0.23 0.76 0.17 0.09 0.28 0.05
SE3 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.31 0.29 0.82 0.21 0.18 0.32 0.11
SE4 0.29 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.28 0.10 0.33 0.32 0.86 0.19 0.16 0.35 0.04
SMA1 0.17 0.65 0.59 0.68 0.45 -0.11 0.25 0.59 0.23 0.88 0.61 0.51 -0.02
SMA3 0.16 0.66 0.57 0.64 0.41 -0.09 0.29 0.62 0.20 0.87 0.64 0.51 -0.03
SMA5 0.23 0.45 0.40 0.44 0.28 -0.02 0.20 0.43 0.12 0.73 0.58 0.36 0.07
SMSCF1 0.13 0.60 0.54 0.62 0.30 -0.03 0.24 0.59 0.21 0.67 0.88 0.48 -0.05
SMSCF2 0.20 0.52 0.41 0.50 0.22 0.00 0.26 0.44 0.13 0.58 0.86 0.33 -0.01
SMSCF3 0.21 0.52 0.42 0.49 0.23 0.03 0.30 0.45 0.10 0.65 0.86 0.42 0.00
SN1 0.38 0.56 0.59 0.56 0.49 0.01 0.48 0.57 0.34 0.49 0.43 0.89 0.10
SN2 0.37 0.57 0.62 0.61 0.51 -0.02 0.46 0.66 0.34 0.53 0.46 0.92 0.02
SN3 0.37 0.58 0.63 0.62 0.50 -0.07 0.46 0.68 0.38 0.49 0.41 0.90 -0.03
Source: Author’s Analysis (2023)

Structural Model
Collinearity Assesment
This test is carried out so that there are no collinearity problems in the research model which can bias the path coefficient. The
collinearity test in the structural model is carried out by looking at the Inner VIF (Inner Variance Inflation Factors) value. The
Table 4 below shows the results of the collinearity test on the structural model. Based on the table, all paths have an inner VIF
value of 0.20 ≤n≤ 5. It indicates that there are no collinearity problems in this study. Therefore, the independent variable strongly
correlated with the dependent variable in the model has reliable and stable predictive power.

Table 4. Collinearity Test Result

Path VIF Value Path VIF Value
SSE --> FoMO 1.03 FoMO --> SN 1.00
CSII --> FoMO 2.13 FoMO --> PBC 1.00
SMA --> FoMO 2.78 ATB --> PI 1.42
SMSCF --> FoMO 2.24 SN --> PI 1.25
NS --> FoMO 1.61 PBC --> PI 1.19
SE --> FoMO 1.16 PI --> BB 1.00
FoMO --> ATB 1.00 BB --> PPB 1.00
Source: Author’s Analysis (2023)

Hypotheses Testing
Based on the table 5 and figure 2 below, all path relationships have a significant influence with t-values >1.28 and p-values <0.10.
It can also be seen that the most substantial influence relationships are Buying Behavior on Post-purchasing behavior (β=0.772),

6255 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

Fear of Missing Out on Subjective Norm (β=0.664), Purchase Intention on Buying Behavior (β=0.421), and Consumer
Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence on FoMO (β=0.388).

Table 5. Path Coefficient with Direct Path

t-statistics p-values
Direct Path Path Coefficient
>1.28 <0.10
SSE --> FoMO -0.090 2.417 0.008
CSII --> FoMO 0.388 6.943 0.000
SMA --> FoMO 0.277 4.272 0.000
SMSCF --> FoMO 0.160 3.421 0.000
NS --> FoMO 0.126 2.888 0.002
SE --> FoMO 0.094 2.682 0.004
FoMO --> ATB 0.277 5.265 0.000
FoMO --> SN 0.664 17.013 0.000
FoMO --> PBC -0.156 2.744 0.003
ATB --> PI 0.381 5.934 0.000
SN --> PI 0.367 5.463 0.000
PBC --> PI 0.149 3.294 0.000
PI --> BB 0.421 7.636 0.000
BB --> PPB 0.772 23.823 0.000
Source: Author’s Analysis (2023)

The SmartPLS tool also gives the most significant path analysis with specific indirect effects from the 2-path analysis to the 5-
path analysis. The table below is the analysis with the highest path coefficient of the indirect effect that occurs in the model:

Figure 2. Analysis Result

Source: Author’s Analysis
6256 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

Table 6. Path Coefficient with Indirect Effect

t-statistics p-values
Indirect Path Path Coefficient
>1,28 <0,10
CSII -> FOMO -> SN -> PI -> BB -> PPB 0.031 2,785 0.003
FOMO -> SN -> PI -> BB -> PPB 0.079 3,138 0.001
TB -> PI -> BB -> PPB 0.124 5,202 0.000
PI -> BB -> PPB 0.325 7,035 0.000
Source: Author’s Analysis (2023)

The table 6 above explains the most substantial indirect effect relationship to post-purchasing behavior compared to other paths.
In the 2-path analysis, the most robust path is PI-->BB-->PPB of 0.325. Then in the 3-path analysis, the most robust path is ATB--
>PI-->BB-->PPB of 0.124. In the 4-path analysis, the most robust path is FOMO-->SN-->PI-->BB-->PPB of 0.079. Finally, the
most robust path in the comprehensive indirect path analysis is CSII-->FOMO-->SN-->PPB of 0.031.
Although all paths have a significant effect, the two paths have a relationship that is not supported because it has the opposite
effect from the hypothesis. The Self-Esteem relationship with FoMO has a path coefficient of 0.094, and the relationship between
FoMO and perceived behavioral control has a path coefficient of -0.156. The literature review shows that the proposed hypothesis
SE has a negative relationship with FoMO, but the data produces a positive relationship. Then, the proposed hypothesis shows that
the relationship between FoMO and PBC is positive, but the data shows that the relationship is negative. Therefore, the two
hypotheses were rejected by the study.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The objective of this study is to get a picture of the Consumer Buying and Post-Purchase Behaviour, which in this case is
Generation Z shoppers on the E-Commerce, as the impact of the FoMO phenomenon. The results have 12 supported proposed
hypothesis and 2 were rejected, which relationship SE on FoMO and FoMO on PBC.
In the case of the Indonesian Gen Z, the thing that causes the direction of the influence of Self-Esteem positively related to FoMO
(+) can be due to the different characteristics of the Indonesian Gen Z. People with high self-esteem may want to ensure that
others share their views about themselves. It is what allows them to seek validation and recognition from others. Buying goods or
products owned by other people can provide a sense of justification or appreciation from the social environment because they can
feel they are getting a good deal and show they can afford quality goods. People with high self-esteem allow themselves to tend to
compare themselves with others. It is because they realize that they are in a position comparable to or even better than others,
including in ownership of certain goods or products. If they see other people buying things at a discount or have something
trending, they may feel interested in jumping in on the opportunity to be on par with others or even get ahead. Therefore, if a
person's self-esteem is high, it will cause his FoMO level to be high.
Then, even if a person has the technical ability to use the Internet and shop in e-commerce, buying-related FOMO can lead to
impulsive behaviour. The urge not to miss an opportunity or an offer can replace rational considerations in making shopping
decisions, even if they have complete control over how they shop online. Likewise, buying FOMO can cause a person to feel that
they do not have enough resources to take advantage of an opportunity or offer. Control over their behaviour is altered by a fear of
losing something of value that they will later regret. Therefore, if a person's FoMO increases, the perceived behavioral control
over him will decrease.
Research Implications
High impulsive buying behaviour will cause a high post-purchasing behaviour that is regrettable. That way, Gen Z shoppers must
learn that before making a purchase, make a shopping list that is planned and based on priority needs. It will help to avoid impulse
buying and ensure that each purchase has a clear purpose. After purchasing, evaluate whether the item or product meets
expectations and needs. This evaluation will help to understand whether this buying decision was right or needs to be improved in
the future. Then, use previous buying experiences to learn and improve future buying decisions. Consider what works and what
does not, and find out how to be wiser in choosing the right product or service.

6257 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

Then, a high FoMO strongly influences a person's subjective norm, which means that when a person has a high FoMO level, she
will have views on other people's beliefs that influence whether or not to perform a behaviour, which in this case is purchase
intention. Gen Z shoppers should consider whether the product they want to buy follows personal needs and values or is just
because they are motivated to fulfil social norms or get validation from the group. Then, critically consider whether this view of
other people's beliefs is worth its impact on purchasing decisions. Shift the focus from seeking external validation to believing in
personal values and beliefs.
When a person's intention to make a purchase is high, he is more likely to make an impulsive purchase. What Gen Z shoppers
need to comprehend is to understand purchase intent. Clearly understand the purchase intention first before deciding to make a
transaction. Consider whether the product or service fits the needs. Then, consider whether the purchase is short-term or long-
term. Consider whether the product or service will provide long-term benefits. If you feel tempted to buy something impulsively,
try delaying the purchase decision. Give some time to think more rationally before finally deciding to buy.
Last, CSII measures how other people influence an individual's consumer choices. Of the five other variables proposed in the
model, CSII has the strongest relationship with FoMO. If someone feels the urge to buy from someone else or a trend that's
currently popular, be critical of the source of that influence. Consider whether the opinion is reliable and whether the consumer
knows sufficiently about the product or service being considered. If a person feels others influence the purchase intentions,
consider whether that influence is beneficial or positive to the needs and preferences. Lastly, feel free to have preferences or
purchasing decisions that are different from others. Remind yourself that each individual has unique preferences and has the right
to choose according to personal preference.
Based on the study, other suggestions are aimed at institutions related to consumer protection and e-commerce associations. In
Indonesia, there is institution called YLKI (Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia), and idea (Indonesian E-Commerce
Association). YLKI can educate about social media filters by providing more in-depth education about using filters on social
media, including their potential impact on mental health and FoMO. This education will help Generation Z manage filters wisely
and understand the consequences of overuse. Then, Utilization of Technology by way of Promoting #BelanjaBijak. YLKI could
start a hashtag campaign #BelanjaBijak to invite Gen Z to share experiences and tips on how to shop wisely and avoid FoMO on
social media. It can be a positive movement that inspires young consumers. The last one is related to Consumer Protection
Advocacy. YLKI can advocate and cooperate with the government to strengthen consumer protection against unethical marketing
practices.
idEA can prioritize consumer positions in all promotional and marketing activities. Associations are expected to commit not to
manipulate or take advantage of FoMO to direct consumers to impulse purchases that could harm their well-being. Associations
can campaign for the importance of consumer mental health and well-being. Encourage e-commerce companies to support mental
awareness and not take advantage of consumers' emotional uncertainty to trigger impulse purchases. Then idEA actively protects
Generation Z from marketing practices that trigger FoMO unethically. The Association is expected to advocate for the interests of
consumers, especially Generation Z, by ensuring that e-commerce companies and marketers act ethically and responsibly.
Institutions can propose or assist in creating codes of conduct or guidelines for e-commerce companies regarding promotion and
business practices. This code of ethics may include a commitment to transparency, accuracy of information, and ethics in
promoting to consumers. Associations can encourage e-commerce companies to be more transparent in marketing, using images,
sounds, or messages influencing consumers' subconscious minds. Companies should avoid using unethical subliminal marketing
techniques that can trigger FoMO.
In this research, the effect of FoMO on buying and post-purchase behaviour toward Indonesia's Generation Z online shoppers
applied over cities in Indonesia. However, most of the respondents came from the Jabodetabek area. Enhanced future research, it
is possible to use and apply models to specific cities in the Jabodetabek area or one of the cities in it. Then, from the data analysis,
it is stated that the biggest direct relationship to FoMO is CSII, and the biggest relationship that influences FoMO to TPB is SN.
Future research can narrow the model to consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence as the FoMO stimuli and only use
subjective norms as the TPB that enhanced FoMO's relationship to purchase intention, buying and post-purchasing behaviour.

6258 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

REFERENCES
1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–
211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2. Ajzen, I. (2014). The Theory of Planned Behaviour is Alive and Well, and Not Ready to Retire: a Commentary on
Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-soares (9th ed., Vol. 2). Healt Psychology Review.
3. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. In Englewood Cliffs. Pearson
Education.
4. Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and fear of missing out. Computers in Human
Behavior, 49, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.057
5. Anderson, S. L., & Betz, N. E. (2001). Sources of Social Self-Efficacy Expectations: Their Measurement and Relation to
Career Development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 98–117. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1753
6. Argan, M. T., & Argan, M. (2019). Toward a New Understanding of Fomo: “Fomsumerism.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337891354
7. Azizah, F. D., Nur, A. N., & Putra, A. H. P. K. (2022). Impulsive Buying Behavior: Implementation of IT on Technology
Acceptance Model on E-Commerce Purchase Decisions. Golden Ratio of Marketing and Applied Psychology of Business,
2(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.52970/grmapb.v2i1.173
8. Badan Pusat Statistik. (2022). https://www.bps.go.id/
9. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental
Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/0033-2909/95/S3.00
10. Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal
Influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1086/209186
11. Bekman, M. (2022). The Effect of FoMO (Fear of Missing Out) on Purchasing Behavior in Public Relations Practices.
Trendyol JOURNAL OF SELÇUK COMMUNICATION, 15(2), 528–557. https://doi.org/10.18094/JOSC
12. Bhutto, M. Y., Zeng, F., Khan, M. A., & Ali, W. (2022). Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intention for Organic Meat: An
Extension of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 155–174.
https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2022.27.1.7
13. Branden, N. (1969). The Psychology of Self-Esteem. WH Freeman.
14. Buglass, S. L., Binder, J. F., Betts, L. R., & Underwood, J. D. M. (2017). Motivators of Online Vulnerability: The Impact
of Social Network Site Use and FoMO. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 248–255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.055
15. Cao, X., Gong, M., Yu, L., & Dai, B. (2020). Exploring the Mechanism of Social Media Addiction: An Empirical Study
from WeChat Users. Internet Research, 30(4), 1305–1328. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-08-2019-0347
16. Çelik, I. K., Eru, O., & Cop, R. (2019). The Effects of Consumers’ FoMo Tendencies On Impulse Buying and The Effects
of Impulse Buying on Post-Purchase Regret: An Investigation on Retail Stores*. BRAIN – Broad Research in Artificial
Intelligence and Neuroscience, 10(3). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/,
17. Chen, H. S., Liang, C. H., Liao, S. Y., & Kuo, H. Y. (2020). Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions toward Food
Delivery Platform Services. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(23), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310177
18. Chiu, S. I. (2014). The Relationship Retween Life Stress and Smartphone Addiction on Taiwanese University Student: A
Mediation Model of Learning Self-Efficacy and Social Self-Efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 49–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.024
19. Du, J., van Koningsbruggen, G. M., & Kerkhof, P. (2018). A Brief Measure of Social Media Self-Control Failure.
Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.002
20. Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing out, need for touch, anxiety and depression
are related to problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 509–516.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.079

6259 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

21. Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications for romantic jealousy and
relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(11), 631–635.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0318
22. Euromonitor International. (2018). Generation Z: The Next Wave of Consumers.
https://www.euromonitor.com/generation-z-the-next-wave-of-consumers/report
23. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In The Handbook of Attitudes (pp. 173–221).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
24. Gazo, A. M., Mahasneh, A. M., Abood, M. H., & Muhediat, F. A. (2020). Social Self-Efficacy and its Relationship to
Loneliness and Internet Addiction among Hashemite University Students. International Journal of Higher Education,
9(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n2p144
25. Good, M. C., & Hyman, M. R. (2021). Direct and indirect effects of fear-of-missing-out appeals on purchase likelihood.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(3), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1885
26. Gurzki, H., & Woisetschläger, D. M. (2017). Mapping the luxury research landscape: A bibliometric citation analysis.
Journal of Business Research, 77, 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.11.009
27. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th, illustr ed.).
Pearson Education.
28. Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM) (Second Edi). SAGE Publications, Inc.
29. Hair, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
30. Hameed, I., & Irfan, B. Z. (2021). Social Media Self-Control Failure Leading to Antisocial Aggressive Behavior. Human
Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(2), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.226
31. Hofmann, W., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). What People Desire, Feel Conflicted About, and Try to Resist in
Everyday Life. Psychological Science, 23(6), 582–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612437426
32. Indonesia Gen Z Report 2022. (2022).
33. Karimkhan, F., & Chapa, S. (2021). Is Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) a Cultural Construct? Investigating FoMO from a
Marketing Perspective. Journal of Cultural Marketing Strategy, 5(2), 169–183.
34. Kraft, P., Rise, J., Sutton, S., & Røysamb, E. (2005). Perceived difficulty in the theory of planned behaviour: Perceived
behavioural control or affective attitude? British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(3), 479–496.
https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X17533
35. Lee, K. H., Lin, C. Y., Tsao, J., & Hsieh, L. F. (2020). Cross-sectional Study on Relationships among FoMO, Social
Influence, Positive Outcome Expectancy, Refusal Self-Efficacy and SNS Usage. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 17(16), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165907
36. Lim, S. H., Lee, S., & Kim, D. J. (2017). Is Online Consumers’ Impulsive Buying Beneficial for E-Commerce
Companies? An Empirical Investigation of Online Consumers’ Past Impulsive Buying Behaviors. Information Systems
Management, 34(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2017.1254458
37. Madhavan, M., & Chandrasekar, K. (2015). Consumer buying behaviour: an overview of theory and models. Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(1), 74–112.
38. Malhotra, N. K., Hunan, D., & Birks, D. F. (2017). Marketing research: An applied approach. In The Marketing Book
(Seventh Ed). Pearson.
39. Malouf, K. (2022). Does Meeting Belongingness Needs Through Social Media Impact One’s Fear of Missing Out and
Self-Esteem? Psi Beta Research Journal, 2(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.54581/XODO5493
40. Monaco, S. (2018). Tourism and the new generations: emerging trends and social implications in Italy. Journal of Tourism
Futures, 4(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-12-2017-0053
41. Munawar, S., Bashir, A., Fahim, S. M., Rehman, A., & Mukhtar, B. (2021). THE EFFECT OF FEAR-OF-MISSING-OUT
(FOMO) ON HEDONIC SERVICES PURCHASE IN COLLECTIVIST AND RESTRAINED SOCIETY: A
MODERATED-MEDIATED MODEL. Marketing Management and Strategic Planning, 20(2).

6260 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

42. Parsad, C., Prashar, S., & Vijay, T. S. (2019). Comparing between product-specific and general impulse buying tendency:
Does shoppers’ personality influence their impulse buying tendency? Asian Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 41–
61. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2019.24.2.3
43. Peña-García, N., Gil-Saura, I., Rodríguez-Orejuela, A., & Siqueira-Junior, J. R. (2020). Purchase intention and purchase
behavior online: A cross-cultural approach. Heliyon, 6(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04284
44. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification.
http://www.ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@books1/Peterson_Character_Strengths/character-strengths-and-virtues.pdf
45. Pew Research Center. (2019). Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
46. Powers, T. L., & Jack, E. P. (2015). Understanding the causes of retail product returns. International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, 43(12), 1182–1202. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-02-2014-0023
47. 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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014
48. Rehman, S. U., Bhatti, A., Mohamed, R., & Ayoup, H. (2019). The Moderating Role of Trust and Commitment Between
Consumer Purchase Intention and Online Shopping Behavior in the Context of Pakistan. Journal of Global
Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0166-2
49. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. Basic Books.
50. Ryan, T., Chester, A., Reece, J., & Xenos, S. (2014). The Uses and Abuses of fFcebook: A Review of Facebook
Addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.016
51. Salem, S. F., & Salem, S. O. (2018). Self-identity and social identity as drivers of consumers’ purchase intention towards
luxury fashion goods and willingness to pay premium price. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 161–184.
https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2018.23.2.8
52. Satici, S. A., Kayis, A. R., & Akin, A. (2013). Investigating the Predictive Role of Social Self-Efficacy on Authenticity in
Turkish University Students. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 9(3), 572–580. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v9i3.579
53. Schroeders, J. E. (1996). An Analysis of the Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence Scale. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 11(3), 585–599.
54. Smith, H. M., & Betz, N. E. (2000). Development and Validation of a Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy. Journal of
Career Assessment, 8(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907270000800306
55. Tarafdar, M., Maier, C., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2020). Explaining the Link Between Technostress and Technology
Addiction for Social Networking Sites: A Study of Distraction as a Coping Behavior. Information Systems Journal, 30(1),
96–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12253
56. van Endert, T. S., & Mohr, P. N. C. (2020). Likes and impulsivity: Investigating the relationship between actual
smartphone use and delay discounting. PloS One, 15(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0241383
57. Varga, E. (2016). Psychological Effects of Facebook Use: Links Between Intensity of Facebook Use, Envy, Loneliness and
FoMO. Dublin Business School.
58. Weaver, J. L., & Swank, J. M. (2021). An Examination of College Students’ Social Media Use, Fear of Missing Out, and
Mindful Attention. Journal of College Counseling, 24(2), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocc.12181
59. Workman, J. E., & Lee, S. H. (2019). Fashion trendsetting, attitudes toward money, and tendency to regret. International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 47(11), 1203–1222. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-03-2019-0081
60. Wright, S. L., Wright, D. A., & Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A. (2013). Development of the social efficacy and social outcome
expectations scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 46(3), 218–231.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613484042
61. Yang, S., Wang, B., & Lu, Y. (2016). Exploring the Dual Outcomes of Mobile Social Networking Service Enjoyment:
The Roles of Social Self-Efficacy and Habit. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 486–496.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.010

6261 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262
 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review
ISSN: 2581-8341
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i9-15, Impact Factor: 6.789
IJCSRR @ 2023

62. Yaputri, M. S., Dimyati, D., & Herdiansyah, H. (2022). Correlation Between Fear Of Missing Out (FoMO) Phenomenon
And Consumptive Behaviour In Millennials. Eligible : Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2), 116–124.
https://doi.org/10.53276/eligible.v1i2.24
63. Yoo, J. H., & Jeong, E. J. (2017). Psychosocial Effects of SNS Use: A Longitudinal Study Focused on the Moderation
Effect of Social Capital. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.011
64. Zhang, Z., Jiménez, F. R., & Cicala, J. E. (2020). Fear Of Missing Out Scale: A self-concept perspective. Psychology and
Marketing, 37(11), 1619–1634. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21406
65. Zheng, X., Baskin, E., & Peng, S. (2018). Feeling inferior, showing off: The effect of nonmaterial social comparisons on
conspicuous consumption. Journal of Business Research, 90, 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.041

Cite this Article: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr, Yos Sunitiyoso, Hasnul Suhaimi (2023). The Effect of Fear of Missing Out on
Buying and Post-Purchasing Behaviour toward Indonesia’s Generation Z Online Shoppers (Case study: E-Commerce
Indonesia). International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 6(9), 6246-6262

6262 *Corresponding Author: Sumayyah Amalina Nasr Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Available at: www.ijcsrr.org
Page No. 6246-6262