Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors have clearly put a great deal of time and effort into this work and have conducted an interesting study on a relevant topic. I commend the authors for their work. While the manuscript would benefit from some additional proofreading and revision to improve clarity and flow, the paper is generally well written and provides a strong review of the literature. That being said, I do have some foundational concerns regarding the overall contribution of this paper.

A dual mediation model can certainly offer a meaningful contribution when it helps clarify a mechanism, addresses a gap in the literature, identifies a boundary condition, or changes how we understand the topic being studied. However, in the current manuscript, I was not fully convinced that the dual mediation structure accomplishes this yet. At this stage, the model seems to bring together relationships that have largely been established in prior research, but it is not yet clear what new insight is gained by examining them together.

A related concern is that scarcity and urgency seem closely related and their connection seems highly intuitive. In particular, the relationship in which scarcity leads to urgency feels expected, as perceptions of limited availability or limited time would naturally create a sense of urgency. Because of this, I encourage the authors to more clearly distinguish these constructs and explain what is theoretically meaningful or novel about positioning urgency as a mediator between scarcity and FoMO. More interesting, though, is the role of urgency as a mediator in the relationship between social proof and FOMO. Although this pathway is described as the weaker link and seems to take a back seat in terms of the paper’s contribution, I found this relationship to be potentially more interesting. In my view, focusing more directly on this particular link could strengthen the manuscript, as it may offer a clearer and more novel way to understand when and why social proof contributes to feelings of FOMO. Yet, in the discussion section (line 728 and on), this connection is labeled as weak and seemingly unimportant, though H4 seems to have been significant. 

As I read the manuscript, I also found myself wondering whether the authors are suggesting that a sense of urgency is necessary for consumers to experience FOMO. If so, this claim would benefit from stronger theoretical support. This distinction should be made more explicit, especially if the authors believe that FOMO can exist without a sense of urgency. A related and potentially interesting question is: under what conditions does urgency fail to heighten FOMO, or under what conditions would the secondary mediator (H4) actually lead to higher FOMO through urgency? Perhaps a second study with a boundary condition can strengthen the contributions of this work.  

The manuscript can also benefit from adding a visual conceptual model of the proposed dual mediation. Given the number of constructs included, a figure could help readers understand more quickly how each construct fits within the overall model.

Finally, the literature review identifies S-O-R as the underlying theoretical framework, but this connection appears primarily at the beginning of the manuscript and is not really mentioned throughout the literature review. I recommend that the authors more consistently connect each subsection or construct back to the S-O-R framework to tie it back to the underlying theory of this work. This would help the literature review feel more integrated, rather than reading as a collection of individual constructs and theories.

One minor thing that can be addressed, on line 591, the authors write “Several reasons guided the choice of this approach.” It was unclear to me what approach they were referring to, as many things were mentioned in the previous paragraph. 

I believe the authors have an interesting study and a valuable idea to share, but it’s not there yet. To strengthen the manuscript, I encourage them to more clearly identify the paper’s main contribution and explain how it advances the existing literature. This way, the paper has the potential to make a meaningful impact.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, please see the attachment. The responses are listed under Reviewer 1 section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found the topic interesting, especially the attempt to combine scarcity, urgency, and social proof within the S-O-R framework to explain FoMO in online shopping. The idea is relevant to current digital consumer behavior, but several methodological issues need to be improved before the paper is ready for publication.

1. The paper discusses e-commerce and online shopping from the beginning, but in Section 4.2 the respondents are described as “active e-banking users” and there is mention of collaboration with a bank. This creates confusion and makes the methodology look inconsistent. Please revise this section carefully

2. The study uses SEM with 121 respondents, which is relatively limited for a mediation model. The explanation that the sample size “met the target” is still too weak from a methodological perspective. It would be better to support this with a statistical justification, such as a power analysis or references from SEM methodology literature showing that the sample is still acceptable for the proposed model. It would be better to support this with a statistical justification, such as a power analysis or anything references

3. The manuscript states that common method bias is not an issue because the first factor explained less than 60% of the variance. However, many studies use 50% as the commonly accepted cutoff. clarify the justification used, If the percentage still high, in the discussion sections or limitation would strengthen the paper

4. The HTMT value between Urgency Effect and Scarcity Effect is reported at 0.908, which indicates the two constructs are very closely related. At the moment, the explanation feels insufficient. provide it to clearer theoretical reason why respondents may perceive urgency and scarcity similarly in this context

5. Section 5 still shows “Table X” in a few places, so the table numbering needs to be updated. I also found a typo in Tables 2 and 3 where “Mised opportunities FOMO” should be written as “Missed opportunities FOMO.” A final manual check of formatting and wording would also be useful before submitting the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, please see the attachment. The responses are listed under Reviewer 2 section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the psychological mechanisms linking scarcity cues and social proof to FoMO through urgency, using the S-O-R framework. The research question is relevant, the dual mediation structure is conceptually interesting, and the null result for H5 is a genuinely informative finding. However, several issues must be addressed before this manuscript is suitable for publication.

Section 4.2 contains a passage that is internally inconsistent. The text states that the survey was distributed via Facebook and Instagram, but a subsequent paragraph refers to collaboration with a bank, e-banking users, and improved response rates through a banking partnership. No bank is mentioned anywhere else in the paper. This passage appears to have been carried over from a different study and not properly removed. The authors must correct or fully explain this paragraph, as it currently raises serious concerns about the integrity of the manuscript.

The HTMT value between the scarcity effect and the urgency effect is .908, substantially exceeding the recommended threshold of .85. This is not a peripheral measurement issue. It directly threatens the validity of H1 and H4, which are central to the paper. The authors should either provide additional evidence that these constructs are empirically distinct in this sample, for instance through a chi-square difference test comparing constrained and unconstrained models, or substantially reframe the interpretation of findings to acknowledge that the near-overlap between these constructs limits the conclusions that can be drawn about the mediation pathway.

There are multiple discrepancies between the standardized coefficients reported in Table 4 and those stated in the Results section. SE to UE is reported as .787 in Table 4 but .795 in the text. UE to SD-FoMO is reported as .557 in Table 4 but .607 in the text. UE to MO-FoMO is reported as .795 in Table 4 but .789 in the text. Indirect effects also differ between Table 4 and the text. For example, SE to SD-FoMO is listed as .438 in the table but .482 in the text, and SE to MO-FoMO is listed as .625 in the table but .627 in the text. These inconsistencies must be fully reconciled before resubmission.

 

The authors use Baron and Kenny's four-step procedure to test mediation while simultaneously applying bootstrapping following Preacher and Hayes. Baron and Kenny (1986) is widely considered methodologically outdated for mediation testing, particularly in SEM contexts. The authors should rely solely on bootstrapped confidence intervals for indirect effects and report the point estimate, standard error, and 95% confidence interval for each indirect effect. These are currently absent from Table 4 and must be added.

The two-factor FoMO structure emerges from CFA modification indices rather than from prior theory. The theoretical section treats FoMO as a unidimensional construct following Przybylski et al. (2013), while the methods section splits it empirically based on model fit. The authors must ground this distinction in existing literature before presenting the CFA results. If prior literature supports a two-dimensional FoMO structure, this should be argued and referenced in the literature review section. If it does not, the authors should be transparent that this is an exploratory finding requiring further validation.

Paragraphs at lines 127 to 133 and lines 135 to 141 convey essentially identical content regarding the dual mediation structure. One of these paragraphs should be removed. Repetition of this kind weakens the manuscript's clarity and signals insufficient editing prior to submission.

Two separate tables are both labeled Table 3 and share identical captions. One presents Fornell-Larcker criterion results and the other presents HTMT values. These must be differentiated with separate numbering, distinct labels, and clearly written captions.

Several reference inconsistencies must be corrected. Festinger's social comparison theory paper from 1954 is cited as the theoretical basis for social proof, but only Festinger (1957), which is a different work on cognitive dissonance, appears in the reference list. The 1954 paper must be added. Berger is cited as 2013 in the text but listed as 2016 in the reference list. Wellons et al. is cited as 2023 in the text but listed as 2024 in the reference list. All three of these must be reconciled.

The term missed opportunities is consistently misspelled as mised opportunities throughout the manuscript, including in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, and the abbreviations list. Additionally, Table 1 reports the female percentage as 6.3%, whereas the correct figure, consistent with the raw count of 73 out of 121 respondents, is 60.3%.

The RMSEA values of .087 and .088 slightly exceed the conventional .08 threshold. While the authors acknowledge this, a brief additional justification referencing the known sensitivity of RMSEA to sample size would strengthen the measurement section. The discussion would also benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment that the discriminant validity concern between SE and UE constrains the interpretability of the H4 mediation finding. Finally, the future research directions are currently listed at a general level. A more specific agenda, for instance proposing experimental designs that independently manipulate scarcity and social proof, would strengthen the paper's contribution to the field.

Summary

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic and contains a publishable core idea. However, the inconsistent sample description in Section 4.2, the coefficient discrepancies between the table and the text, the discriminant validity concern between SE and UE, and the post-hoc treatment of FoMO dimensionality each require substantive revision. The authors are encouraged to address these points carefully before resubmitting.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English is acceptable and the manuscript is generally readable. However, there are several areas where the language could be improved to better express the research.

First, some sentences are unnecessarily complex and would benefit from being broken into shorter, clearer units. For example, several sentences in the introduction and discussion sections carry multiple subordinate clauses that reduce readability and make the logical flow harder to follow.

Second, there are instances of awkward phrasing that suggest the text was not written by a native English speaker or was not carefully proofread before submission. Expressions such as the perceived fit between the seller and the brand in the discussion section are unclear in meaning and require revision.

Third, the introduction contains two nearly identical paragraphs that appear consecutively. This is not only a structural issue but also a language issue, as it suggests the authors did not review the manuscript for coherence and flow before submitting.

Fourth, some transitions between paragraphs and sections are abrupt. The discussion in particular moves between topics without adequate signposting, which makes it harder for the reader to follow the argumentation.

Fifth, there are minor but recurring issues with article usage, preposition choice, and subject-verb agreement in several places throughout the manuscript. While none of these individually disrupt comprehension, their cumulative effect reduces the overall polish of the manuscript.

The authors are advised to have the manuscript reviewed by a professional English language editor or a fluent English-speaking colleague before resubmission. Particular attention should be given to the introduction, the discussion, and the limitations section, where the language issues are most concentrated.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, please see the attachment. The responses are listed under Reviewer 3 section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All five comments from the previous review round have been addressed, and the manuscript is in much better shape.

On Comment 2 (sample size), the response letter invoked both Kline (2023) and Byrne (2016) to justify the use of CB-SEM, but Byrne (2016) does not appear anywhere in the revised manuscript's reference list. The authors should align the manuscript with what was stated in the response letter.

On Comment 4 (discriminant validity), the chi-square difference test (Δχ²(1) = 8.16; p < .01) is a reasonable step and I appreciate the effort. That said, there is an unresolved tension between Section 4.3, which confirms discriminant validity between SE and UE, and Section 7, which concedes that the mediation effect may partly capture a shared "limited opportunity" perception rather than two separable processes. These two positions are not necessarily contradictory, but as currently written they pull in opposite directions. The authors should clarify whether the limitation in Section 7 is about conceptual proximity or statistical indistinguishability — the distinction matters for how readers interpret the H4 mediation result.

On Comment 5, Table 3's caption still reads "Table 3. Table 3: Correlations...", a straightforward duplication that should be cleaned up.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the additional comments and constructive suggestions. Detailed responses to all comments are provided in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment

The revised manuscript has addressed most of the concerns raised in the first round, including the removal of the misplaced e-banking paragraph, correction of reference mismatches (Festinger, Berger, Wellons), elimination of the duplicate Table 3, and the typographical error in the female percentage. These corrections are appreciated and reflect a conscientious revision effort. The core research idea remains sound and publishable in principle. However, two issues of substantive concern persist and must be resolved before acceptance.

 

Remaining Concerns

Coefficient inconsistency in H5b (Major)

Table 5 reports the indirect effect of SP on MO-FOMO as β = .145 (n.s.), while the Results text reports the same coefficient as β = .124 (n.s.). These values are inconsistent. The correct figure must be identified and corrected throughout the manuscript.

Discriminant validity between SE and UE (Major)

The HTMT value for the SE–UE pair remains .908, well above the recommended .85 threshold. The authors attempt to resolve this via a chi-square difference test (Δχ²(1) = 8.16, p < .01), citing Anderson and Gerbing (1988). However, this procedure does not substitute for the HTMT criterion; the two tests address different aspects of validity. An HTMT of .908 strongly suggests that respondents may not distinguish between perceived scarcity and urgency as separate constructs. Since the mediation of scarcity on FoMO through urgency (H4) is the central empirical contribution of the paper, the near-indistinguishability of these two constructs undermines the interpretive foundation of this finding. The authors acknowledge this only briefly. A substantially more thorough discussion is required, including an explicit acknowledgment that the observed mediation effect may partly reflect a shared "limited opportunity" perception rather than two separable psychological processes.

Post-hoc two-factor FoMO structure (Minor)

The two-dimensional FoMO structure was derived from modification indices rather than a priori theory. The theoretical justification via Kaddouhah (2024) is insufficient, as that paper offers an economic definition rather than a psychometric framework. The authors should either strengthen the theoretical rationale or acknowledge more transparently that this structure is exploratory.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the additional comments and constructive suggestions. Detailed responses to all comments are provided in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions. The manuscript has improved clearly, and the authors have addressed the previous comments adequately. I find the current version clear, coherent, and suitable for publication. I have no further comments.

Author Response

Comment: 1: Thank you for the revisions. The manuscript has improved clearly, and the authors have addressed the previous comments adequately. I find the current version clear, coherent, and suitable for publication. I have no further comments.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our revised manuscript and for recognizing the improvements made in response to the comments. We greatly appreciate your constructive feedback throughout the review process and are pleased that you find the manuscript suitable for publication..