Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mmtp20

‘Fear of missing out’: antecedents and influence on

purchase likelihood

Megan C. Good & Michael R. Hyman

To cite this article: Megan C. Good & Michael R. Hyman (2020): ‘Fear of missing out’:
antecedents and influence on purchase likelihood, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, DOI:
10.1080/10696679.2020.1766359

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2020.1766359

Published online: 04 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mmtp20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING THEORY AND PRACTICE
https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2020.1766359

‘Fear of missing out’: antecedents and influence on purchase likelihood

a b
Megan C. Good and Michael R. Hyman
a
International Business and Marketing Department, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, USA; bMarketing, New Mexico
State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA

ABSTRACT
‘Fear of missing out’ (FOMO) is a recent but widely recognized phenomenon. Some emotional
antecedents of FOMO, such as anticipated elation and anticipated envy from other people, can
boost FOMO. Other emotional antecedents, such as comforting rationalizations, can decrease
FOMO. Because FOMO can influence consumers’ experience-related attitudes and behaviors
meaningfully, it behooves marketing scholars and practitioners to understand FOMO and the
potential of FOMO-laden appeals to increase sales. Although social scientists generally treat FOMO
as a personality trait, FOMO-laden appeals that extol the future experiences of close friends or
family members can induce a FOMO spike.

When close friends invite me to a concert, I get a sick health (Hetz et al., 2015; Milyavskaya et al., 2018). Both
feeling that I’ll miss out if I don’t go. I’ll do what I can of these research domains treat FOMO as a personality
to reduce that bad feeling. I feel I have to buy a ticket. trait rather than a transient emotional state. However,
(Female indicates FOMO leads to purchase)
FOMO may be induced by FOMO-laden appeals or
My sister told me she was going to a festival, and I triggers that could affect imminent experience-related
thought about being happy and excited to go with her. decisions (Hayran et al., 2016; Hodkinson, 2016).
(Female expresses ‘anticipated elation’) To explore FOMO within a marketing context, the
When I thought about this concert, I thought about
research summarized here relies on a between-subjects
how others would be jealous of my going to the con- experimental design to test the effect of a FOMO-laden
cert. I thought about their envy when they saw my appeal versus a non-FOMO-laden appeal on purchase
stories and photos I would share. (Millennial reflects intentions. Specifically, emotional antecedents of
on the influence of ‘anticipated envy from other FOMO (i.e., anticipated elation, anticipated envy from
people’)
other people, and comforting rationalizations) influ-
Something I considered about this concert was that I enced by a FOMO-laden appeal, which may alter
don’t always have to go to every event with my friends. FOMO and its effect on purchase likelihood, are exam-
I can be happy they have fun but plan other ways to ined. The exposition proceeds as follows. After sum-
have fun with them. I usually think it won’t be the only marizing the theoretical background for FOMO, a
event, so I try to resist always agreeing. (Female
posited model and four hypotheses are developed.
expresses ‘comforting rationalizations’)
Subsequently, the research method and model test
These verbatims, drawn from a qualitative study results are presented, followed by implications, limita-
conducted previously (Good, 2019), reflect an unex- tions, and future research possibilities.
plored yet common mental state known as “fear of
missing out” (FOMO). Generally, FOMO is anxiety
about not participating in friends’ activities (Dykman, Theoretical background
2012). Frequently discussed in popular media Fear of missing out (FOMO)
(Solomon, 2018), FOMO-centric scholarship has
focused on the negative psychological externalities of Consumers make purchase decisions for various rea-
social media usage (Abel et al., 2016; Alt, 2015; Baker et sons, such as enhanced status, peers’ attitudes, brand
al., 2016; Beyens et al., 2016; Elhai et al., 2016; Larkin & familiarity, and personal hedonistic motivations (Bock
Fink, 2016; Oberst et al., 2017; Przybylski et al., 2013) et al., 2014; Hamari, 2015; Parsons et al., 2014).
and adverse effects on students’ mental and physical Although the reasons vary by circumstance, collectively

CONTACT Megan C. Good mcgood@cpp.edu IBM Department, 3801 W Temple Ave, Pomona, CA 91768
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 M. C. GOOD AND M. R. HYMAN

they suggest that consumers acquire an experience FOMO-laden appeals and FOMO
because they anticipate that it will benefit them
(Diaconu, 2015). Interpersonal Closeness (IC) theory, which implies close
FOMO is “the uneasy and sometimes all-consuming sources can influence and improve consumers’ decisions to
feeling that you’re missing out – that your peers are doing, purchase an experience, suggests that FOMO-laden appeals
or are in possession of more or something better than can increase FOMO (Dubois et al., 2016; Frenzen &
you” (J. Walter Thompson [JWT], 2011). It may be Nakamoto, 1993). The theory assumes that shared infor-
described as “an emotional anxiety”, or “a pervasive mation is more influential than information acquired from
apprehension other people might be having rewarding peripheral sources because believed closeness instills a
experiences from which one is absent”, or “a desire to shared identity among people within a social network
stay continually connected with peer’s activities as a (Aral, 2011; Aron et al., 1991; Brown & Reingen, 1987).
byproduct of knowing about those activities” (Dykman, Thus, close sources inordinately influence purchase deci-
2012; Przybylski et al., 2013). Apprehension about not sions because consumers are more satisfied with product
engaging in an experience or not acquiring a product information provided by product adopters within their
extolled by other people creates the “missing out” network (Aral, 2011). Accordingly, an effective FOMO-
phenomenon. laden appeal should mention close friends or family mem-
Contrary to FOMO as a general personal tendency bers and the negative emotions associated with “missing
(Przybylski et al., 2013), consumer-centric FOMO out” on activities with them (Kreilkamp, 1984).
may change transiently in response to different People generally and social media enthusiasts espe-
types of appeals, such as commercial versus noncom- cially tend to assess their social lives by comparing
mercial or personal versus impersonal (Hodkinson, themselves to their most mentally accessible exemplars
2016). Commercial FOMO appeals, which entail pro- (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). These exemplars often
ducers’ attempts to stimulate product demand or are atypical because the social stars among a person’s
usage, may be delivered personally (via salespeople close friends or family members will spring to mind
or employees) or impersonally (via ads or webpages). more readily than the “bit actors”. Consequently, peo-
Noncommercial FOMO appeals by close friends or ple underestimate the relative quality of their social
family members may be made in-person and imper- lives, which heightens their FOMO-related concerns,
sonally via phone, text messages, e-mails, or social because readily available exemplars influence judg-
media (Hodkinson, 2016). Adapted from a taxonomy ments disproportionately (Davidai & Gilovich, 2016;
of external FOMO appeal initiation (Hodkinson, Oppenheimer, 2004; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).
2016), commercial and noncommercial appeals are Although scarcity appeals and FOMO-laden appeals
illustrated in Figure 1. attempt to stimulate action (Hodkinson, 2016), they differ
FOMO emerges when people choose among uncer- conceptually. Scarcity is a state of shortness or insuffi-
tain current and potential options. Believing that an ciency that may compel consumers to select one experi-
experience will be favorable and relevant is a necessary ence over another (Hodkinson, 2016). Advertisers use
condition for FOMO to occur. For instance, a person scarcity appeals (e.g., “this is a limited offer” or “buy
who dislikes camping will not believe he is “missing while supplies last”) to augment product desirability
out” when he or she sees a neighbor leaving for a (Jung & Kellaris, 2004). In contrast, FOMO reflects “an
weeklong camping trip (Hayran et al., 2016). inner sense of missing out on experiences discussed by
Typically, FOMO will trigger emotional responses close friends or family members”. FOMO-laden appeals
(Zeelenberg & Pieters, 2006) that should subsequently stress the lost opportunity to enjoy a consumption activity
influence purchase behavior. with close friends or family members. Although people

Types of Appeals Personal Impersonal

Commercial Salesperson (promotion of Advertisement (delivery with a

FOMO) FOMO appeal)
Non-Commercial Close Other (FOMO from Social Media (family/friend
family/friend) invite with FOMO appeal)

Figure 1. Different types of FOMO appealsa. aAdapted from taxonomy of external FOMO appeal initiation (Hodkinson, 2016)
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING THEORY AND PRACTICE 3

can dine at a favorite restaurant during its business hours, and exercising, dieting and studying (Perugini &
dinners with friends are “a special occasion not to be Bagozzi, 2001). In the subsequently summarized
missed”. Hence, the social fabric of intimate connections study, FOMO and three emotional antecedents –
makes FOMO a potent influence on purchase intentions. anticipated elation, anticipated envy from other people,
and comforting rationalizations – are related to a future
experience of predictable yet unrealized (i.e., uncertain)
Posited model quality.
Delineating the antecedents of behavioral intentions Hedonic consumption pertains to multi-sensory,
can create a comprehensive perspective on consumer fantasy, and emotive characteristics associated with
decision processes (Garbarino & Edell, 1997; product purchase and use (Hirschman & Holbrook,
Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2007; Richard et al., 1996; 1982). Anticipating positive emotions associated with
Sierra & Hyman, 2009, 2011). Accordingly, the posited hedonic consumption can please consumers and
model (see Figure 2) depicts likely emotional antece- increase their FOMO. Hearing about an upcoming
dents (Garbarino & Edell, 1997; Sierra & Hyman, 2011) event, knowing that close friends or family members
of FOMO and the direct relationship between FOMO plan to attend it, and experiencing heightened FOMO
and purchase likelihood. The model treats FOMO as a related to staying away, can boost purchase intentions.
transient emotional response rather than an inclination Hence, a FOMO-laden appeal may spur consumers to
(i.e., Przybylski et al., 2013) because the former reflects choose an experience that they might have bypassed
factors inducible by FOMO-laden appeals. otherwise.

Anticipated Elation and FOMO

Emotions
When outcomes are uncertain and absoluteness lack-
In risky or uncertain contexts, emotions that arise from ing, anticipated emotions may direct choices (Mellers et
comparing alternatives and possible outcomes may al., 1997). For example, anticipated utility drives shop-
guide consumers’ intentions (Currie, 1985; Frijda, ping motivation via the expectation of acquiring some-
1987; Roseman, 1984; Zeelenberg, 2015) about credit thing valuable (Westbrook & Black, 1985). Hence,
card use (Wiener et al., 2007), gambling (Sierra & “creating anticipation” about future consumption out-
Hyman, 2009), outlet mall purchases (Sierra & comes is a useful promotional tactic for enhancing
Hyman, 2011), shopping center visits (Hunter, 2006), users’ believed product value (Vichiengior et al., 2019).

Figure 2. Hypothesized relationships among study variables.

4 M. C. GOOD AND M. R. HYMAN

Anticipated elation, which is a euphoric emotion Consumers make decisions meant to maximize their
related to assessing the value of an imagined transac- benefits or increase their status (Yen et al., 2013). Envy
tion, can enhance willingness to select an excitement- from other people is a status component. For example,
or pleasure-enhancing alternative (Brandstatter & Kriz, attending an exclusive event may foment a jealous response
2001). It suggests that consumers derive transaction from peers. As with efforts to “keep up with the Joneses”,
value before purchase (Sierra & Hyman, 2011). People impression management efforts may heighten FOMO
can imagine the positive response they receive from (Park & Kang, 2013; Philp & Nepomuceno, 2019;
giving a gift to a friend or family member (Mellers et Pounders et al., 2016). Hence, anticipated envy from
al., 1997; Taute & Sierra, 2015). Similarly, a FOMO- other people and FOMO should relate positively. Thus,
laden appeal that creates positive expectations about
experiencing an event, and then possibly “missing H2: Consumers with greater (lesser) anticipated envy
out” on that event, should induce FOMO-related anxi- from others will be more (less) responsive to FOMO
ety and concomitant responses among consumers when purchasing an experience.
(Mandel & Nowlis, 2008).
Imagining a positive outcome encourages choice by
providing an incentive to sacrifice one entity (e.g., a Comforting Rationalizations and FOMO
day’s wages) for another entity (e.g., attending a con- “Comforting rationalizations” are assuaging justifica-
cert) (Greenleaf, 2004). FOMO-laden appeals can create tions about “not truly missing out on an important
anxiety about “missing out” on a tradeoff that could experience with close friends or family members”.
produce an elating experience recommended by friends Such rationalizations are compatible with two classic
or family members (Mandel & Nowlis, 2008). Thus, psychological theories: cognitive dissonance (Festinger,
1957) and social balance theory (Heider, 1958). Both
H1: Consumers with greater (lesser) anticipated elation theories assume that people strive for internal psycho-
will be more (less) responsive to FOMO when purchas- logical consistency – specifically, to achieve balance (i.
ing an experience. e., consistent attitudes among people and objects) and
avoid imbalance (i.e., cognitive dissonance). In a
FOMO context, comforting rationalizations would
Anticipated Envy from Other People and FOMO include “sour grapes” (i.e., adopting a negative attitude
“Keeping-up-with-the-Joneses” is an idiom that cap- to something unattainable), embracing an acceptable
tures people comparing themselves materialistically to tradeoff (e.g., “I can’t attend Concert X for Reason Y,
their friends and neighbors, and then altering their so let’s plan to attend Concert Z next month”; a parent
possessions and experiential consumption to “avoid tells a child “I can’t make tomorrow’s soccer game, but
falling behind”. However, merely judging other people I’ll make it up to you by attending the game this week-
as “better off” may instill an insufficient desire to act; end”), and discounting the experience in a cost-benefit
inducing other people’s jealousy – for example, through analysis (e.g., ‘It’ll be more fun to binge-watch Program
conspicuous consumption – also may motivate pur- X than to see Group Y in concert).
chases (Hyman et al., 2002; Van de Ven et al., 2011). Rational consumers evaluate available alternatives
Envy “occurs when a person lacks another’s superior before making purchase decisions, underscoring they
quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it are likely to consider explicit opportunity costs
or wishes that the other lacked it” (Parrott & Smith, (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Kahneman & Tversky,
1993, p. 906). It reflects a need to shrink the gap between 1981). As a result, seeking alternatives or considering
oneself and other people judged as superior (Miceli & trade-offs, consumers may delay purchase decisions
Castelfranchi, 2007; Smith & Kim, 2007). A negative (Tversky & Shafir, 1992). Comforting rationalizations
emotion that is destructive and malicious, envy mani- capture concerns about alternatives and offer a form of
fests as an overriding desire that other people have behavioral mitigation that can help consumers to bal-
nothing, and for “the destruction of pleasure in and for ance their choices and reduce their FOMO.
others, without deriving any sort of advantage from this” Comforting rationalizations and opportunity costs
(Schoeck, 1969, p. 140). A byproduct of mass advertis- are similar yet different. The latter implies that consu-
ing, consumer envy encourages a materialistic orienta- mers choose one option at the expense of other options
tion than can reduce life satisfaction and damage society (Spiller, 2011). Opportunity cost analysis tend to focus
(Belk, 1985; Pollay, 1986). However, some economists on time and money tradeoffs (Buchanan, 2008;
posit that such envy spurs economic prosperity (Corneo Chatterjee et al., 2016). In contrast, comforting ratio-
& Jeanne, 1997, 2001a, 2001b). nalizations may not represent temporal or economic
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING THEORY AND PRACTICE 5

value, but merely personal preferences (e.g., “I can Table 1. Study demographics.
choose another option”). Because consumers implicitly n = 295
evaluate the relative worth of options (Kahneman & Gender %
Female 59.3
Tversky, 1979), the posited model includes comforting Male 40.7
rationalizations instead of opportunity costs. Thus, Age
Mean = 40.77
Std. dev = 13.832
H3: Consumers with stronger (weaker) comforting Continuous split into quartiles
18–29 25.0
rationalizations will be less (more) responsive to 30–39 25.0
FOMO when purchasing an experience. 40–53 25.0
54–65 25.0
Employment
Employed full time 44.4
FOMO and Purchase Likelihood Employed part-time 9.5
The literature on regret (“what was done” as opposed to Unemployed, looking for work 11.5
Unemployed, not looking for work 9.2
“what could have been done”) implies a relationship Student 5.4
between purchase likelihood and FOMO (Loomes & Disabled 8.1
Retired 11.9
Sugden, 1982). Relative to regrets about actions, regrets Highest Education
about inactions (e.g., “missing out on” an eagerly Less than high school 3.4
High school graduate 27.5
anticipated concert or play) often are more intense, Some college 21.7
even when outcomes are unsatisfactory (e.g., attending Two-year degree 11.2
Bachelor’s degree 27.5
a disappointing concert or play) (Davidai & Gilovich, Graduate degree 8.8
2018; Morrison & Roese, 2011). Compensation for Marital status %
Never married 43.4
“missing out on a once in a lifetime experience” may Married 38.6
be unachievable. Widowed 2.4
Divorced 12.9
However, FOMO can induce actions meant to cir- Separated 2.7
Number of Children Under 18
cumvent regret from inactions (Richard et al., 1996). 0 63.7
Eluding regrets is comparable to initiating protection 1 17.6
2 9.8
motivation (Tanner et al., 1991). “[T]he protection 3 7.8
motivation concept involves any threat for which 4 1.0
Ethnicity
there is an effective recommended response that can American Indian or Alaska Native 1.0
be carried out by the individual” (Floyd et al., 2000, p. Asian 5.1
Black or African American 15.9
409). Hence, FOMO-laden appeals frequently include Hispanic or Latino 6.8
fear-arousing endorsements and advocate for purchases White 70.8
Prefer not to answer 0.3
to defend against ‘missing out.”
FOMO-laden appeals about experiences with close
friends or family members can induce a sense of “miss- TurkPrime’s naivete filter (completed 100 or more path
ing out with friends or family” as assessed by a consu- surveys) and location filter were analyzed. The prevent-
mer-centric FOMO scale (Good, 2019). Consumers can ballot-box-stuffing option kept respondents from parti-
avoid FOMO by heeding those appeals with a purchase. cipating multiple times. To ensure U.S.-only respon-
FOMO should relate positively to the likelihood of pur- dents, IP addresses and GPS coordinates provided by
chasing a recommended experience. Hence, Qualtrics were screened before participation approval.
“Attention check” errors, overly fast (less than four-
H4: Higher (lower) FOMO about an experience will minute) completion time, and incoherent or nonsensi-
increase (decrease) the likelihood of purchasing that cal responses to open-ended questions disqualified 35
experience. respondents. The demographic profile of the remaining
295 adult respondents appears in Table 1.
Empirical study
Sample profile Procedure
Respondents (n = 330) were randomly selected from Respondents were primed with a vignette about their
Amazon’s TurkPrime panel, which is considered favorite social media platform sending a notification
appropriate for scholarly consumer research about an upcoming concert by an artist in their favorite
(Goodman et al., 2013; Hulland & Miller, 2018). To music genre. To make the vignettes more relatable,
minimize inappropriate responses, only data surviving customized inserts reflected each respondent’s favorite
6 M. C. GOOD AND M. R. HYMAN

music genre (which they had previously indicated in Analyses and results
Qualtrics). To avoid decision-making based on cost, the
Respondents’ attitudes about vignette credibility
vignette indicated ticket prices were “typical”. The vign-
(seven-point scale “Not Credible” to “Credible”) (M
ette asked respondents to assume that they would prob-
Non FOMO = 5.34; M FOMO = 4.98, t (df = 293) = 1.88,
ably enjoy the concert and would need to decide
p > .05) and comprehension (seven-point scale
whether to buy a ticket. All vignettes contained the
“Difficult to Comprehend” to “Easy to Comprehend”)
same opening followed by either a FOMO-laden or
(M Non FOMO = 6.04; M FOMO = 5.88, t (df = 293) = 1.07,
non-FOMO appeal:
p > .05) did not differ between experimental conditions
Assume you like (favorite genre choice previously (i.e., non-FOMO-laden versus FOMO-laden appeal).
selected) music. Someone posted on (social media plat- Also, there was no relationship between respondents’
form the most used choice previously selected) that FOMO scores and attitudes about either vignette cred-
several artists will come to your area in a few months ibility (F (df = 1, 135) = 1.64, p > .05) or vignette com-
for several concert dates. The prices are typical of prehension (F (df = 1, 135) = 2.34, p > .05). These results
concerts in your area. You feel you would probably
enjoy going to a concert. You have to decide whether suggest the vignettes were equally credible and
or not to buy a ticket and go to a concert. comprehensible.
The mean scores on FOMO confirmed that respon-
The FOMO-laden appeal was as follows: dents assigned to the (non-) FOMO-laden appeal
scored (lower) higher on FOMO. The mean score for
Your friends just added posts on (social media plat- the non-FOMO-laden group (n = 149) was 2.95
form most used) with photos and videos about the (σ = 1.51) and for the FOMO-laden group (n = 146)
artists and how much fun the concert will be. You
think you’ll miss out if you don’t go with them. was 4.12 (σ = 1.56). A t-test comparing the two groups
was significant at the 0.01 level (t (df = 293) = −6.35).
The non-FOMO appeal was as follows: Thus, the vignettes passed the manipulation check.

Your friends haven’t mentioned this and haven’t

posted any photos or videos or shown any interest on Model analysis
(social media platform most used), so you’re not sure if
it would be fun. You don’t think you’ll miss out if you The model presented in Figure 2 was assessed using
don’t go. Amos 23 (Arbuckle, 2014). First, the scales used were
evaluated for reliability and validity. Then, the overall
After reading the vignette, respondents indicated model fit and H1 through H4 were assessed.
whether it was credible and readily understood. Next,
they responded about their resulting FOMO, their pur-
chase likelihood, and selected antecedents of FOMO Scale reliability and validity
imagined about their decision. Table 2 shows the items and Cronbach alpha for each
scale. The alphas, which range from 0.91 to 0.96, are
well above the 0.7 threshold for acceptable inter-item
reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The fit indices
Scales for a confirmatory factor analysis of the model
The four-item Anticipated Elation (AElation) scale was (CFI = 0.976, GFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.054, χ2
from Batra and Ray (1986) (α = 0.96). The four-item (df = 115) = 213.96, p = .000) provide overall evidence
Anticipate Envy From Other People (AEnvy) scale was of adequate discriminant validity.
from Lange and Crusius (2015) (α = 0.92). The three- Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and
item Comforting Rationalization (ComRat) scale was correlations between the independent variables. The
based on an earlier qualitative study that solicited correlations ranged from 0.064 (p ≥ .05) for AElation
open-ended responses to a scenario comparable to the and ComRat to 0.551 (p ≤ .01) for FOMO and AEnvy.
aforementioned FOMO-laden appeal (Good, 2019) All correlations were significant except AElation and
(α = 0.91). The eight-item Fear of Missing Out ComRat and PL and ComRat.
(FOMO) scale also is described in an earlier study
(Good, 2019, α = 0.94). Purchase Likelihood (PL) is
Structural equation model
measured with a single item that indicates the prob-
ability they would buy a ticket and attend the concert Reliability, paths, and maximum likelihood estimation
(scale 0–100% in increments of 10) (Juster, 1969). were used to estimate model parameters. The fit indices
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING THEORY AND PRACTICE 7

Table 2. Model construct items. indicates discriminant validity is sufficient (Anderson

Factor t- & Gerbing, 1988).
Scale Loading value
Table 5 shows the final coefficients and significance
FOMO (Good, 2019), alpha = 0.94
When considering this experience … indications associated with the relationships between
(1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) the five constructs (AElation, AEnvy, ComRat, FOMO
I’m afraid later I will feel sorry I didn’t go with my 0.764 16.069
friends. and PL) used to test the four hypotheses. H1 through
I will worry about what I’m missing. 0.796 17.258 H4 are supported at the p < .05 level.
I will worry my friends are doing more rewarding 0.859 23.623
things than me.
I will feel concerned that my friends are having 0.871 – – –a
more fun without me. Conclusion
I will feel left out. 0.821 18.144
I will feel sorry that I didn’t experience an event 0.788 16.868
with friends.
Given the pervasiveness of social media sharing, it is
I will feel anxious about not being with my friends. 0.839 18.918 unsurprising that people worry about “missing out” on
I will feel bothered that I missed an opportunity to 0.830 18.546
be with friends.
experiences enjoyed by close friends or family mem-
Anticipated Elation (Batra & Ray, 1986), alpha = 0.96 bers. Researchers can treat FOMO as a transient phe-
I expect I would feel elated. 0.891 7.292
I anticipate I would feel excited. 0.886 8.174 nomenon that relates meaningfully to consumers’
I would feel exhilarated. 0.868 7.976 attitudes and buying behavior. Close friends’ or family
I expect I would feel happy about going. 0.657 – – –a
Anticipated Envy by Other People (Lange & Crusius, 2015), members’ FOMO-laden appeals can increase a person’s
alpha = 0.92 FOMO, which in turn can increase the likelihood of
People close to me will be jealous I got to go. 0.869 21.538
People close to me will envy me because I got to 0.875 21.823 acquiring a recommended experience. A test of the
go. posited model with select antecedents of FOMO sup-
People who don’t go will be jealous. 0.919 – – –a
Comforting Rationalizations (new scale), alpha = 0.91 ports these relationships. Furthermore, there is a strong
I can be happy for others without going myself. 0.720 10.827 positive relationship between FOMO and purchase
I don’t have to do everything my friends do. 0.886 – – –a
I can find other ways to spend time with friends. 0.675 11.362 likelihood.
Purchase Likelihood (Juster, 1969) The posited model makes several theoretical and
On a scale of 0– 10 (where 0 indicates no chance N/A N/A
and 10 indicates certainty), what is the chance practical contributions. First, marketing scholars have
you would buy the ticket and go to the concert? argued about negative emotions’ role in shaping pur-
a
constrained to 1.0; p < .001 for each factor loading chase behavior (Bagozzi et al., 2016; Sierra & Hyman,
CFI = 0.976, GFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.054, χ2 (df = 115) = 213.96, p = .000
2011), yet anticipated elation – a positive emotion –
strongly influenced FOMO and ultimately purchase
(CFI = 0.969, GFI = 0.913, RMSEA = 0.058, χ2 likelihood. Because consumers react favorably to antici-
(df = 133) = 264.92 p < .01) indicate good model fit. pated excitement, it would behoove marketing practi-
Discriminant validity is established when the average tioners to understand what enhances consumers’ beliefs
variance extracted (AVE) is greater than both 0.5 and in positive contexts and then focus on boosting con-
the squared correlation between construct pairs sumers’ positive expectations rather than mitigating
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 4 shows all pairwise consumers’ negative expectations.
comparisons met this criterion, which indicates discri- Second, the model contributes to theory by specify-
minant validity is sufficient. Additional chi-square dif- ing how consumers’ comforting rationalizations
ferences tests were significant (p < .01), which also weaken FOMO and emotions such as elation and

Table 3. Correlations between constructs.

Anticipated Envy Comforting Purchase
FOMO Anticipated Elation By Other People Rationalizations Likelihood
Mean 3.530 5.271 3.136 5.478 4.844
Standard 1.687 1.350 1.898 1.214 3.030
Deviation
FOMO .094
Anticipated .309** 0.96
Elation
Anticipated .551** .169** 0.92
Envy by
Other People
Comforting −.269** .064 −.216** 0.91
Rationalizations
Purchase .342** .428** .278** −.076 (n/a)
Likelihood
**significant at p ≤ .01
8 M. C. GOOD AND M. R. HYMAN

Table 4. Discriminant validity.

Comp. Reliability Max. Shared Variance Conv. Validity AVE1 AVE2 Discrim-inant
Discriminant Validity CR >.7 MSV<AVE AVE >.5 r2 (AVE>r2) Validity
AE (.681) ↔ FOMO (.675) 0.894 0.119 0.681 0.117 .681.675 Estab-lished
AEnvy (.789) ↔ FOMO 0.918 0.432 0.789 0.015 .789.675 Estab-lished
ComRat (.586) ↔ FOMO 0.807 0.084 0.586 0.183 .586.675 Estab-lished
FOMO ↔ PL (.728) 0.943 0.432 0.675 0.027 .675.728 Estab-lished

Table 5. Standardized structural parameter estimates. Limitations and future research implications
Path Hypothesis Coeff. R2
AElation → FOMO H1 (+) supported 0.26*** 0.48 Study participants made a hypothetical decision based on
AEnvy → FOMO H2 (+) supported 0.61*** a brief text-only vignette rather than an actual decision,
ComRat → FOMO H3 (+) supported −0.25***
FOMO → PL H4 (+) supported 0.45*** 0.24 which may cause research artifacts like those found in
Goodness-of-fit Statistics: χ2 (df = 133) = 264.92 student cheating studies (Haswell et al., 1999). Although
p = .000
CFI = 0.969 respondents indicated the concert ticket vignette was rea-
GFI = 0.913 listic, researchers could (1) augment text-only vignettes
RMSEA = 0.058
with FOMO-laden or non-FOMO-laden appeals in video
***p < .001
and print ads, and (2) use a proxy for spending money to
make a purchase, which is a valid surrogate for an actual
purchase (Haws et al., 2012). To enhance generalizability,
envy strengthen FOMO. When comforting rationaliza- researchers could query respondents other than
tions weaken FOMO, some advertisers will rely on TurkPrime panelists about acquiring other experiences
messages meant to either induce a FOMO-mitigating (e.g., disposable versus durable; extraordinary versus
solution or discount viable alternatives and spur ordinary experiential) that close friends or family mem-
FOMO-related thoughts. Such messages could encou- bers may influence. To mitigate the effect of confounding
rage “stepping back from the fray rather than following variables, such as beliefs about experience quality, future
the crowd” or argue for why their product is superior to studies could require respondents to evaluate a series of
competing products. Also, the model underscores the FOMO-laden and non-FOMO-laden vignettes.
strategic value of managing these emotions as well as Future studies could explore personal FOMO
others that researchers may test. For example, ads that appeals made by salespeople, travel agents, or celebri-
stress the fun and excitement fans can experience at a ties (especially athletes) promoting their events and
concert can intensify concerns about missing the event. brands (Hodkinson, 2016). Also, these studies could
Third, testing the effects of FOMO-laden appeals on determine the relative efficacy of various impersonal
purchase behavior extended previous research FOMO-appeal delivery venues (e.g., websites, social
(Hodkinson, 2016). The ability of close friends or media, and e-mails). Exploring other experiences, com-
family members to induce consumption-changing anxi- paring and contrasting different FOMO-laden appeals,
ety about “missing out” follows from social comparison retesting – and if necessary, revising – the FOMO scale,
research, such as parents comparing their food choices discovering why people vary in their sensitivity to
for their children to similar choices by other parents FOMO-laden appeals and identifying counter-FOMO
(Baldassarre et al., 2016), spouses comparing their pur- appeals for counter-ads, should prove worthwhile.
chases for their partners to purchases by other couples Elaboration on potential outcomes (Nenkov et al.,
(Shweta & Dhyani, 2016), and neighbors comparing 2008, 2009; Plouffe et al., 2017; Sierra & Hyman, 2009)
their automobile purchases (Grinblatt et al., 2008). and regulatory factors such as promise and prevention
Advertisers may rely on various tactics to encourage (Haws et al., 2012) provide alternative explanations for
a consumer’s friends and family members to make how and when FOMO-laden appeals boost FOMO and
FOMO-laden appeals. To augment their messages to subsequently affect attitudes and choices. These and
consumers, advertisers can encourage FOMO-laden other theories may suggest other factors to replace or
appeals in social media postings. For example, contex- enhance the tested constructs.
tual ads placed on social networks could motivate con-
sumers to “get in on the action” after reading about Compliance with ethical standards
their friends’ and family members’ activities.
Advertisers also could offer incentives for name drop- Ethical approval
ping in photo tags or check-ins through programs like All procedures performed in studies involving human parti-
Facebook’s Sponsored Stories or Instagram posts. cipants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING THEORY AND PRACTICE 9

institutional and national research committee and with the Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the
1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or com- material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 265–
parable ethical standards. 280. https://doi.org/10.1086/208515
Beyens, I., Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2016). “I don’t want
to miss a thing”: Adolescents’ fear of missing out and its
relationship to adolescents’ social needs, Facebook use, and
Informed consent Facebook related stress. Computers in Human Behavior, 64
Informed consent was obtained from all individual partici- (November), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.
pants included in the study. 083
Bock, D. E., Eastman, J. K., & McKay, B. (2014). The impact
of economic perceptions on status consumption: An
Funding exploratory study of the moderating role of education.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(2), 111–117. https://
This study was conducted without external funding. doi.org/10.1108/JCM-10-2013-0725
Brandstatter, E., & Kriz, W. C. (2001). Hedonic intensity of
disappointment and elation. Journal of Psychology, 135(4),
368–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980109603705
ORCID Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-
Megan C. Good http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6573-2278 mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14
Michael R. Hyman http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6675-8808 (3), 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1086/209118
Buchanan, J. M. (2008). Opportunity cost. In S. N. Durlauf &
L. E. Blume (Eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of econom-
ics (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/
References 978-1-349-95121-5_1433-2
Chatterjee, S., Rai, D., & Heath, T. B. (2016). Tradeoff
Abel, J. P., Buff, C. L., & Burr, S. A. (2016). Social media and between time and money: The asymmetric consideration
the fear of missing out: Scale development and assessment. of opportunity costs. Journal of Business Research, 69(7),
Journal of Business and Economics Research, 14(1), 33–44. 2560–2566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.136
https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v14i1.9554 Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (1997, January). On Relative
Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic motivation, media wealth effects and the optimality of growth. Economics
engagement and fear of missing out. Computers in Human Letters, 54(1), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765
Behavior, 49(C), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb. (96)00940-8
2015.02.057 Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (2001a, December). On relative
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation wealth effects and long-run growth. Research in
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two- Economics, 55(4), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1006/reec.
step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. 2001.0260
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (2001b). Status, the distribution
Aral, S. (2011). Identifying social influence: A comment on of wealth, and growth. Scandinavian Journal of
opinion leadership and social contagion in new product Economics, 103(2), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/
diffusion. Marketing Science, 30(2), 217–223. https://doi. 1467-9442.00245
org/10.1287/mksc.1100.0596 Currie, L. C. (1985). Psychology of risky decisions. In G.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos 23.0 user’s guide. IBM SPSS. Wright (Ed.), Behavioral decision making (pp. 379–403).
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close Plenum Press.
relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Davidai, S., & Gilovich, T. (2016). The headwinds/tailwinds
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253. https:// asymmetry: An availability bias in assessments of barriers
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241 and blessings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Bagozzi, R., Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Flavián, C. (2016). 111(6), 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000066
The role of anticipated emotions in purchase intentions. Davidai, S., & Gilovich, T. (2018). The ideal road not taken: The
Psychology and Marketing, 33(8), 629–645. https://doi.org/ self-discrepancies involved in people’s most enduring regrets.
10.1002/mar.20905 Emotion, 18(3), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Baker, Z. G., Krieger, H., & LeRoy, A. S. (2016). Fear of emo0000326
missing out: Relationships with depression, mindfulness, Diaconu, V. I. (2015). New trends in the motivation behind
and physical symptoms. Translational Issues in buying luxury textile products. International Journal of
Psychological Science, 2(3), 275–282. https://doi.org/10. Economic Practices & Theories, 5(5), 455–461.
1037/tps0000075 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/New-Trends-in-
Baldassarre, F., Campo, R., & Falcone, A. (2016). Food for the-Motivation-behind-Buying-Luxury-Diaconu/
kids: How children influence their parents purchasing 0076995084cbc9733ed7d0a9944beeb4d1fdb4a7
decisions. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 22(5), Dubois, D. D., Bonezzi, A., & De Angelis, M. (2016). Sharing
596–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2016.1141143 with friends versus strangers: How interpersonal closeness
Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective responses mediating influences word-of-mouth valence. Journal of Marketing
acceptance of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, Research, 53(5), 712–727. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.
13(2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1086/209063 0312
10 M. C. GOOD AND M. R. HYMAN

Dykman, A. (2012, March 21). The fear of missing out. Forbes. Hetz, P. R., Dawson, C. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2015). Social
Retrieved June 28, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ media use and the fear of missing out (FoMO) while
moneybuilder/2012/03/21/the-fear-of-missing-out/ studying abroad. Journal of Research on Technology in
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Education, 47(4), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Fear of missing out, need for touch, anxiety and depression 15391523.2015.1080585
are related to problematic smartphone use. Computers in Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic con-
Human Behavior, 63(October), 509–516. https://doi.org/ sumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions.
10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.079 Journal of Marketing, 48(3), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford 1177/002224298204600314
University Press. Hodkinson, C. (2016). ‘Fear of missing out’ (FOMO) market-
Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (2000). A ing appeals: A conceptual model. Journal of Marketing
meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Communications, 25(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 407–429. 13527266.2016.1234504
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x Hulland, J., & Miller, J. (2018). Keep on ‘Turkin’? Journal of
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(5), 789–794. https://
equation models with unobservable variables and measure- doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0587-4
ment error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. Hunter, G. L. (2006). The role of anticipated emotion, desire,
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 and intention in the relationship between image and shop-
Frenzen, J., & Nakamoto, K. (1993). Structure, cooperation, ping center visits. International Journal of Retail and
and the flow of market information. Journal of Consumer Distribution Management, 34(10), 709–721. https://doi.
Research, 20(3), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1086/209355 org/10.1108/09590550610691310
Frijda, N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structure, and action Hyman, M. R., Ganesh, G., & McQuitty, S. (2002).
tendency. Cognition and Emotion, 1(2), 115–143. https:// Augmenting the household affluence construct. Journal of
doi.org/10.1080/02699938708408043 Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(3), 13–32. https://doi.
Garbarino, E. C., & Edell, J. A. (1997). Cognitive effort, affect, org/10.1080/10696679.2002.11501917
and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 147–158. J. Walter Thompson (JWT) Worldwide. (2011). FOMO: JWT
https://doi.org/10.1086/209500 explores fear of missing out phenomenon. Retrieved June
Good, M. C. (2019). Fear of missing out appeals: You can’t 2 8 , 2 0 1 6 , f r o m w w w . j w t . c o m /
always get what you want [Unpublished doctoral disserta- fomojwtexploresfearofmissingoutphenomenon/
tion]. New Mexico State University. Jung, J. M., & Kellaris, J. J. (2004). Cross-national differences
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data in proneness to scarcity effects: The moderating roles of
collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of familiarity, uncertainty avoidance, and need for cognitive
Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision closure. Psychology and Marketing, 21(9), 739–753. https://
Making, 26(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753 doi.org/10.1002/mar.20027
Greenleaf, E. A. (2004). Reserves, regret, and rejoicing in Juster, F. T. (1969). Consumer anticipations and models of
open English auctions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 durable goods demand. In J. Mincer (Ed.), Economic fore-
(2), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1086/422106 casts and expectations (pp. 167–242). National Bureau of
Grinblatt, M., Keloharju, M., & Ikäheimo, S. (2008). Social Economic Research.
influence and consumption: Evidence from the automobile Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness
purchases of neighbors. Review of Economics and Statistics, revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgement. In
90(4), 735–753. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.90.4.735 T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics
Hamari, J. (2015). Why do people buy virtual goods? Attitude and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–
toward virtual good purchases versus game enjoyment. 81). Cambridge University Press.
International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An
299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.01.007 analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–
Haswell, S., Jubb, P., & Wearing, B. (1999). Accounting 291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
students and cheating: A comparative study for Australia, Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1981). The framing of deci-
South Africa and the UK. Teaching Business Ethics, 3(3), sions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481),
211–239. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009830308143 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Haws, K. L., Bearden, W. O., & Nenkov, G. Y. (2012). Kreilkamp, T. (1984). Psychological closeness. American
Consumer spending self-control effectiveness and outcome Behavioral Scientist, 27(6), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.
elaboration prompts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing 1177/000276484027006008
Sciences, 40(5), 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747- Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015). Dispositional envy revisited:
011-0249-2 Unraveling the motivational dynamics of benign and mal-
Hayran, C., Anik, L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2016). Exploring icious envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41
the antecedents and consumer behavioral consequences of (2), 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214564959
‘feeling of missing out’ (FOMO). In P. Moreau & S. Larkin, B. A., & Fink, J. S. (2016). Fantasy sport, FoMO, and
Puntoni (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 44, traditional fandom: How second-screen use of social media
pp. 468–469). Association for Consumer Research. allows fans to accommodate multiple identities. Journal of
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Sport Management, 30(6), 643–655. https://doi.org/10.
John Wiley & Sons. 1123/jsm.2015-0344
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING THEORY AND PRACTICE 11

Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alter- British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 79–98. https://
native theory of rational choice under uncertainty. doi.org/10.1348/014466601164704
Economic Journal, 92(368), 805–824. https://doi.org/10. Philp, M., & Nepomuceno, M. V. (2019). When the frugal
2307/2232669 become wasteful: An examination into how impression
Mandel, N., & Nowlis, S. M. (2008). The effect of making a management can initiate the end-stages of consumption
prediction about the outcome of a consumption experience for frugal consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 37(2), 326–
on the enjoyment of that experience. Journal of Consumer 339. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21303
Research, 35(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1086/527339 Plouffe, C., Beuk, F., Hulland, J., & Nenkov, G. Y. (2017).
Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Elaboration on potential outcomes (EPO) and the consul-
Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the out- tative salesperson: Investigating effects on attributions and
comes of risky options. Psychological Science, 8(6), 423– performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00455.x Management, 37(2), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2007). The envious mind. 08853134.2017.1283231
Cognition and Emotion, 21(3), 449–479. https://doi.org/10. Pollay, R. W. (1986). The distorted mirror: Reflections on the
1080/02699930600814735 unintended consequences of advertising. Journal of
Milyavskaya, M., Saffran, M., Hope, N., & Koestner, R. (2018). Marketing, 50(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Fear of missing out: Prevalence, dynamics, and consequences 002224298605000202
of experiencing FOMO. Motivation and Emotion, 42(5), 1– Pounders, K., Kowalczyk, C., & Stowers, K. (2016). Insight
13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9683-5 into the motivation of selfie postings: Impression manage-
Morrison, M., & Roese, N. J. (2011). Regrets of the typical ment and self-esteem. European Journal of Marketing, 50
American: Findings from a nationally representative sam- (9/10), 1879–1892. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2015-
ple. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 576– 0502
583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611401756 Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell,
Mukhopadhyay, A., & Johar, G. V. (2007). Tempted or not? V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral corre-
The effect of recent purchase history on responses to lates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior,
affective advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 29(4), 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.
445–453. https://doi.org/10.1086/510218 014
Nenkov, G. Y., Inman, J. J., & Hulland, J. (2008). Considering Richard, R., Van der Pligt, J., & De Vries, N. (1996).
the future: The conceptualization and measurement of Anticipated affect and behavioral choice. Basic and
elaboration on potential outcomes. Journal of Consumer Applied Social Psychology, 18(2), 111–129. https://doi.org/
Research, 35(1), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1086/525504 10.1207/s15324834basp1802_1
Nenkov, G. Y., Inman, J. J., Hulland, J., & Morrin, M. (2009). The Roseman, I. J. (1984). Cognitive determinants of emotion: A
impact of outcome elaboration on susceptibility to contextual structural theory. Review of Personality and Social
and presentation biases. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), Psychology, 5, 11–36. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-
764–776. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.6.764 17263-001
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory Schoeck, H. (1969). Envy: A theory of social behavior.
(3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill, Inc. Harcourt, Brace.
Oberst, U., Wegmann, E., Stodt, B., Brand, M., & Chamarro, Shweta, & Dhyani, A. (2016). Determinants of most influen-
A. (2017). Negative consequences from heavy social net- cing reference group in buying decisions of rural consu-
working in adolescents: The mediating role of fear of mers. International Journal of Research in Commerce and
missing out. Journal of Adolescence, 55(February), 51–60. Management, 7(4), 23–27. https://ijrcm.org.in/article_info.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.008 php?article_id=6516
Oppenheimer, D. M. (2004). Spontaneous discounting of Sierra, J. J., & Hyman, M. R. (2009). In search of value: A
availability in frequency judgment tasks. Psychological model of wagering intentions. Journal of Marketing Theory
Science, 15(2), 100–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963- and Practice, 17(3), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.2753/
7214.2004.01502005.x MTP1069-6679170303
Park, S.-Y., & Kang, Y.-J. (2013). What’s going on in SNS and Sierra, J. J., & Hyman, M. R. (2011). Outlet mall shoppers’
social commerce?: Qualitative approaches to narcissism, intentions to purchase apparel: A dual-process perspective.
impression management, and e-WOM behavior of consu- Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(4), 341–347.
mers. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 23(4), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.03.002
460–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2013.820881 Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy.
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.
experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality 1037/0033-2909.133.1.46
and Social Psychology, 64(6), 906–920. https://doi.org/10. Solomon, M. R. (2018, July 16). How Amazon feeds your
1037/0022-3514.64.6.906 FOMO on Prime Day. Fortune.com. Retrieved July 24,
Parsons, A. G., Ballantine, P. W., Ali, A., & Grey, H. (2014). 2018, from http://fortune.com/2018/07/16/amazon-prime-
Deal is on! Why people buy from daily deal websites. day-2018-deals-discounts-retail/
Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 21(1), 37–42. Spiller, S. A. (2011). Opportunity cost consideration. Journal
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.07.003 of Consumer Research, 38(4), 595–610. https://doi.org/10.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and 1086/660045
anticipated emotions in goal-directed behaviors: Tanner, J. F., Jr., Hunt, J. B., & Eppright, D. R. (1991). The
Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behavior. protection motivation model: A normative model of fear
12 M. C. GOOD AND M. R. HYMAN

appeals. Journal of Marketing, 55(3), 36–45. https://doi. Westbrook, R. A., & Black, W. C. (1985). A motivation-based
org/10.1177/002224299105500304 shopper typology. Journal of Retailing, 61(1), 78–103.
Taute, H. A., & Sierra, J. J. (2015). An examination of emo- https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-10686-001
tional information management in gift giving and receipt. Wiener, R. L., Holtje, M., Winter, R. J., Cantone, J. A., Gross,
Psychology & Marketing, 32(2), 203–218. https://doi.org/ K., & Block-Lieb, S. (2007). Consumer credit card use: The
10.1002/mar.20773 roles of creditor disclosure and anticipated emotion.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(1), 32–46.
for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.13.1.32
Psychology, 5(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010- Yen, C.-H., Hsu, M.-H., & Chang, C.-M. (2013). Exploring the
0285(73)90033-9 online bidder’s repurchase intention: A cost and benefit per-
Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in spective. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 11
choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3(5), 305– (2), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-012-0201-0
309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00678.x Zeelenberg, M. (2015). Robust satisficing and non-probabil-
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2011). The istic decision making. Journal of Marketing Behavior, 1(2),
envy premium in product evaluation. Journal of Consumer 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1561/107.00000010
Research, 37(6), 984–998. https://doi.org/10.1086/657239 Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2006). Looking backward with
Vichiengior, T., Ackermann, C. L., & Palmer, A. (2019). an eye on the future: Propositions toward a theory of
Consumer anticipation: Antecedents, processes and out- regret regulation. In L. J. Sanna & E. C. Chang (Eds.),
comes. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(1/2), 130– Judgments over time: The interplay of thoughts, feelings,
159. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1574435 and behaviors (pp. 210–229). Oxford University Press.