Third, it should be further acknowledged that alternate models
might explain the relationships in these data as well as the one
tested in this study. The cross-sectional nature of the data can prevent
definitive statements about causality. In fact, many relationships
in the model are likely reciprocal. For example, although
the analysis implies that some motivational constructs could indirectly
increase social media different engagements, it is equally
plausible that an excessive social engagement in the classroom
might disrupt college students’ learning processes and affect their
motivational outcomes.
Fourth, all of our measures were self-report. Future research
should employ diverse methods in assessing this research constructs,
including different approaches to survey measurement,
as well as experimental and qualitative techniques. A triangulating
methodological approach can lend more confidence to conclusions
about FoMO.
Despite its limitations, this study lends support to previous
work by showing the robust mediating role of FoMO in explaining
the links between motivational deficits, namely amotivation for
learning, and social media engagement over and above background
factors, such as age, gender, and ethnicity. Because amotivation
could be accompanied by feelings of incompetence and expectancies
of uncontrollability, as found in previous studies (Deci &
Ryan, 1985), it should be of interest to further investigate its links
to FoMO.