See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341525895

'Fear of missing out’: Antecedents and influence on purchase likelihood

Article  in  The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · June 2020

DOI: 10.1080/10696679.2020.1766359

CITATIONS READS
36 5,307

2 authors:

Megan C. Good Michael R Hyman

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Institute for Marketing Futurology and Philosophy
14 PUBLICATIONS   115 CITATIONS    256 PUBLICATIONS   3,414 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advertising Processing and Copy-Testing View project

SELF-CUSTOMIZABLE ONLINE COURSES View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael R Hyman on 20 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

(Preprint: Good, Megan C. and Michael R. Hyman (2020), “‘Fear of Missing Out’: Antecedents and
Influence on Purchase Likelihood,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 28 (3), 330-341. DOI:
10.1080/10696679.2020.1766359)
‘Fear of Missing Out’: Antecedents and Influence on Purchase Likelihood
Megan C. Good, Assistant Professor, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA
Michael R. Hyman, Distinguished Achievement Professor, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
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.
Keywords: Fear of Missing Out (FOMO),
Anticipated Elation, Anticipated Envy from Other
People, Comforting Rationalizations, Purchase
Likelihood
When close friends invite me to a
concert, I get a sick feeling that I’ll miss
out if I don’t go. I’ll do what I can to reduce
that bad feeling. I feel I have to buy a
ticket. (Female indicates FOMO leads to
purchase)
My sister told me she was going to a
festival, and I thought about being happy
and excited to go with her. (Female
expresses ‘anticipated elation’)
When I thought about this concert, I
thought about how others would be
jealous of my going to the concert. I
thought about their envy when they saw
my stories and photos I would share.
(Millennial reflects on the influence of
‘anticipated envy from other people’)
Something I considered about this
concert was that I don’t always have to
go to every event with my friends. I can
be happy they have fun but plan other
ways to have fun with them. I usually
think it won’t be the only event, so I try to
resist always agreeing. (Female
expresses ‘comforting rationalizations’)
These verbatims, drawn from a qualitative study
conducted previously (Good, 2019), reflect an
unexplored yet common mental state known as
‘fear of missing out’ (FOMO). Generally, FOMO is
anxiety about not participating in friends’ activities
(Dykman, 2012). Frequently discussed in popular
media (McCuloch, 2018; Solomon, 2018),
FOMO-centric scholarship has focused on the
negative psychological externalities of social
media usage (Abel, Buff, & Burr, 2016; Alt, 2015;
Baker, Krieger, & LeRoy, 2016; Beyens Frison, &
Eggermont, 2016; Elhai, Levine, Dvorak, & Hall,
2016; Larkin & Fink, 2016; Oberst, Wegmann,
Stodt, Brand, & Chamarro, 2017 Przybylski,
Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013) and
adverse effects on students’ mental and physical
health (Hetz, Dawson, & Cullen, 2015; Milyav-
skaya, Saffran, Hope, & Koestner, 2018). Both of
these research domains treat FOMO as a
personality trait rather than a transient emotional
state. However, FOMO may be induced by
FOMO-laden appeals or triggers that could affect
imminent experience-related decisions (Hayran,
Anik, & Gürhan-Canlı, 2016; Hodkinson, 2016).
To explore FOMO within a marketing context, the
research summarized here relies on a between-
subjects experimental design to test the effect of
a FOMO-laden appeal versus a non-FOMO-
laden appeal on purchase intentions. Specifically,
emotional antecedents of FOMO (i.e., anticipated
elation, anticipated envy from other people, and
comforting rationalizations) influenced by a
FOMO-laden appeal, which may alter FOMO and
its effect on purchase likelihood, are examined.
The exposition proceeds as follows. After
summarizing the theoretical background for
FOMO, a posited model and four hypotheses are
developed. Subsequently, the research method
and model test results are presented, followed by
Page | 1
implications, limitations, and future research
possibilities.
Theoretical Background
Fear of Missing Out (FOMO)
Consumers make purchase decisions for various
reasons, such as enhanced status, peers’
attitudes, brand familiarity, and personal
hedonistic motivations (Bock, Eastman, &
McKay, 2014; Hamari, 2015; Parsons, Ballantine,
Ali, & Grey, 2014). Although the reasons vary by
circumstance, collectively they suggest that
consumers acquire an experience because they
anticipate that it will benefit them (Diaconu,
2015).
FOMO is “the uneasy and sometimes all-
consuming feeling that you’re missing out—that
your peers are doing, or are in possession of
more or something better than you” (J. Walter
Thompson, 2011). It may be described as ‘an
emotional anxiety’, or ‘a pervasive apprehension
other people might be having rewarding experi-
ences from which one is absent’, or ‘a desire to
stay continually connected with peer’s activities
as a byproduct of knowing about those activities’
(Dykman, 2012; Przybylski et al., 2013).
Apprehension about not engaging in an
experience or not acquiring a product extolled by
other people creates the ‘missing out’
phenomenon.
Contrary to FOMO as a general personal
tendency (Przybylski et al., 2013), consumer-
centric FOMO may change transiently in
response to different types of appeals, such as
commercial versus non-commercial or personal
versus impersonal (Hodkinson, 2016). Commerc-
ial FOMO appeals, which entail producers’
attempts to stimulate product demand or usage,
may be delivered personally (via salespeople or
employees) or impersonally (via ads or
webpages). Non-commercial FOMO appeals by
close friends or family members may be made in-
person and impersonally via phone, text
messages, emails, or social media (Hodkinson,
2016). Adapted from a taxonomy of external
FOMO appeal initiation (Hodkinson, 2016),
commercial and non-commercial appeals are
illustrated in Figure 1.
--------------------
Place Figure 1 about here
--------------------
FOMO emerges when people choose among
uncertain current and potential options. Believing
that an experience will be favorable and relevant
is a necessary condition for FOMO to occur. For
instance, a person who dislikes camping will not
believe he is ‘missing out’ when he or she sees a
neighbor leaving for a weeklong camping trip
(Hayran et al., 2016). Typically, FOMO will trigger
emotional responses (Zeelenberg & Pieters,
2006) that should subsequently influence
purchase behavior.
FOMO-laden Appeals and FOMO
Interpersonal Closeness (IC) theory, which
implies close sources can influence and improve
consumers’ decisions to purchase an experience,
suggests that FOMO-laden appeals can increase
FOMO (Dubois, Bonezzi, & De Angelis, 2016;
Frenzen & Nakamoto, 1993). The theory
assumes that shared information is more
influential than information acquired from
peripheral sources because believed closeness
instills a shared identity among people within a
social network (Aral, 2011; Aron, Aron, Tudor, &
Nelson, 1991; Brown & Reingen, 1987). Thus,
close sources inordinately influence purchase
decisions because consumers are more satisfied
with product information provided by product
adopters within their network (Aral, 2011).
Accordingly, an effective FOMO-laden appeal
should mention close friends or family members
and the negative emotions associated with
‘missing out’ on activities with them (Kreilkamp,
1984).
People generally and social media enthusiasts
especially tend to assess their social lives by
comparing themselves to their most mentally
accessible exemplars (Tversky & Kahneman,
1973). These exemplars often are atypical
because the social stars among a person’s close
friends or family members will spring to mind
more readily than the ‘bit actors’. Consequently,
people underestimate the relative quality of their
social lives, which heightens their FOMO-related
concerns, because readily available exemplars
influence judgments disproportionately (Davidai
& Gilovich, 2016; Oppenheimer, 2004; Tversky &
Kahneman, 1973).
Although scarcity appeals and FOMO-laden
appeals attempt to stimulate action (Hodkinson,
2016), they differ conceptually. Scarcity is a state
of shortness or insufficiency that may compel
consumers to select one experience over another
Page | 2
(Hodkinson, 2016). Advertisers use scarcity
appeals (e.g., ‘this is a limited offer’ or ‘buy while
supplies last’) to augment product desirability
(Jung & Kellaris, 2014). In contrast, FOMO
reflects ‘an inner sense of missing out on
experiences discussed by close friends or family
members’. FOMO-laden appeals stress the lost
opportunity to enjoy a consumption activity with
close friends or family members. Although people
can dine at a favorite restaurant during its
business hours, dinners with friends are ‘a special
occasion not to be missed’. Hence, the social
fabric of intimate connections makes FOMO a
potent influence on purchase intentions.
Posited Model
Delineating the antecedents of behavioral inten-
tions can create a comprehensive perspective on
consumer decision processes (Garbarino &
Edell, 1997; Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2007;
Richard, van der Pligt, & de Vries, 1996; Sierra &
Hyman, 2009, 2011). Accordingly, the posited
model (see Figure 2) depicts likely emotional
antecedents (Garbarino & Edell, 1997; Sierra &
Hyman, 2011) of FOMO and the direct relation-
ship between FOMO and purchase likelihood.
The model treats FOMO as a transient emotional
response rather than an inclination (i.e.,
Przybylski et al., 2013) because the former
reflects factors inducible by FOMO-laden
appeals.
----------- --------
Place Figure 2 about here
------------- ------
Emotions
In risky or uncertain contexts, emotions that arise
from comparing alternatives and possible
outcomes may guide consumers’ intentions
(Currie, 1985; Frijda, 1987; Roseman, 1984;
Zeelenberg, 2015) about credit card use (Wiener
et al., 2007), gambling (Sierra & Hyman, 2009),
outlet mall purchases (Sierra & Hyman, 2011),
shopping center visits (Hunter, 2006), and
exercising, dieting and studying (Perugini &
Bagozzi, 2001). In the subsequently summarized
study, FOMO and three emotional antecedents—
anticipated elation, anticipated envy from other
people, and comforting rationalizations—are
related to a future experience of predictable yet
unrealized (i.e., uncertain) quality.
Hedonic consumption pertains to multi-sensory,
fantasy, and emotive characteristics associated
with product purchase and use (Hirschman &
Holbrook, 1982). Anticipating positive emotions
associated with hedonic consumption can please
consumers and increase their FOMO. Hearing
about an upcoming event, knowing that close
friends or family members plan to attend it, and
experiencing heightened FOMO related to
staying away, can boost purchase intentions.
Hence, a FOMO-laden appeal may spur
consumers to choose an experience that they
might have bypassed otherwise.
Anticipated Elation and FOMO
When outcomes are uncertain and absoluteness
lacking, anticipated emotions may direct choices
(Mellers, Schwartz, Ho, & Ritov, 1997). For
example, anticipated utility drives shopping
motivation via the expectation of acquiring
something valuable (Westbrook & Black, 1985).
Hence, ‘creating anticipation’ about future
consumption outcomes is a useful promotional
tactic for enhancing users’ believed product value
(Vichiengior, Ackermann, & Palmer, 2019).
Anticipated elation, which is a euphoric emotion
related to assessing the value of an imagined
transaction, can enhance willingness to select an
excitement- or pleasure-enhancing alternative
(Brandstatter & Kriz, 2001). It suggests that
consumers derive transaction value before
purchase (Sierra & Hyman, 2011). People can
imagine the positive response they receive from
giving a gift to a friend or family member (Mellers,
Schwartz, Ho, & Ritov, 1997; Taute & Sierra,
2015). Similarly, a FOMO-laden appeal that
creates positive expectations about experiencing
an event, and then possibly ‘missing out’ on that
event, should induce FOMO-related anxiety and
concomitant responses among consumers
(Mandel & Nowlis, 2008).
Imagining a positive outcome encourages choice
by providing an incentive to sacrifice one entity
(e.g., a day’s wages) for another entity (e.g.,
attending a concert) (Greenleaf, 2004). FOMO-
laden appeals can create anxiety about ‘missing
out’ on a tradeoff that could produce an elating
experience recommended by friends or family
members (Mandel & Nowlis, 2008). Thus,
H1: Consumers with greater (lesser) anticipated
elation will be more (less) responsive to
FOMO when purchasing an experience.
Page | 3
Anticipated Envy from Other People and FOMO
‘Keeping-up-with-the-Joneses’ is an idiom that
captures people comparing themselves material-
istically to their friends and neighbors, and then
altering their possessions and experiential
consumption to ‘avoid falling behind’. However,
merely judging other people as ‘better off’ may
instill an insufficient desire to act; inducing other
people’s jealousy—for example, through
conspicuous consumption—also may motivate
purchases (Hyman, Ganesh, & McQuitty, 2002;
van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2011).
Envy “occurs when a person lacks another’s
superior quality, achievement, or possession and
either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it”
(Parrott & Smith 1993, p. 906). It reflects a need
to shrink the gap between oneself and other
people judged as superior (Miceli & Castelfranchi,
2007; Smith & Kim, 2007). A negative emotion
that is destructive and malicious, envy manifests
as an overriding desire that other people have
nothing, and for “the destruction of pleasure in
and for others, without deriving any sort of
advantage from this” (Schoeck, 1969, p. 140). A
byproduct of mass advertising, consumer envy
encourages a materialistic orientation than can
reduce life satisfaction and damage society (Belk,
1985; Pollay, 1986). However, some economists
posit that such envy spurs economic prosperity
(Corneo & Jeanne 1997, 2001a,b).
Consumers make decisions meant to maximize
their benefits or increase their status (Yen, Hsu,
& Chang, 2013). Envy from other people is a
status component. For example, attending an
exclusive event may foment a jealous response
from peers. As with efforts to ‘keep up with the
Joneses’, impression management efforts may
heighten FOMO (Park & Kang, 2013; Philp &
Nepomuceno, 2019; Pounders, Kowalczyk, &
Stowers, 2016). Hence, anticipated envy from
other people and FOMO should relate positively.
Thus,
H2: Consumers with greater (lesser) anticipated
envy from others will be more (less)
responsive to FOMO when purchasing an
experience.
Comforting Rationalizations and FOMO
‘Comforting rationalizations’ are assuaging justifi-
cations about ‘not truly missing out on an
important experience with close friends or family
members’. Such rationalizations are compatible
with two classic psychological theories: cognitive
dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and social balance
theory (Heider, 1958). Both theories assume that
people strive for internal psychological consis-
tency—specifically, to achieve balance (i.e.,
consistent attitudes among people and objects)
and avoid imbalance (i.e., cognitive dissonance).
In a FOMO context, comforting rationalizations
would include ‘sour grapes’ (i.e., adopting a
negative attitude to something unattainable),
embracing an acceptable tradeoff (e.g., ‘I can’t
attend Concert X for Reason Y, so let’s plan to
attend Concert Z next month’; a parent tells a
child ‘I can’t make tomorrow’s soccer game, but
I’ll make it up to you by attending the game this
weekend’), and discounting the experience in a
cost-benefit analysis (e.g., ‘It’ll be more fun to
binge-watch Program X than to see Group Y in
concert).
Rational consumers evaluate available alter-
natives before making purchase decisions,
underscoring they are likely to consider explicit
opportunity costs (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002;
Kahneman & Tversky, 1981). As a result, seeking
alternatives or considering trade-offs, consumers
may delay purchase decisions (Tversky & Shafir,
1992). Comforting rationalizations capture
concerns about alternatives and offer a form of
behavioral mitigation that can help consumers to
balance their choices and reduce their FOMO.
Comforting rationalizations and opportunity costs
are similar yet different. The latter implies that
consumers choose one option at the expense of
other options (Spiller, 2011). Opportunity cost
analyses tend to focus on time and money
tradeoffs (Buchanan, 2008; Chatterjee, Rai, &
Heath, 2016). In contrast, comforting rationali-
zations may not represent temporal or economic
value, but merely personal preferences (e.g., ‘I
can choose another option’). Because
consumers implicitly evaluate the relative worth of
options (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), the posited
model includes comforting rationalizations
instead of opportunity costs. Thus,
H3: Consumers with stronger (weaker) com-
forting rationalizations will be less (more)
responsive to FOMO when purchasing an
experience.
FOMO and Purchase Likelihood
The literature on regret (‘what was done’ as
Page | 4
opposed to ‘what could have been done’) implies
a relationship between purchase likelihood and
FOMO (Loomes & Sugden, 1982). Relative to
regrets about actions, regrets about inactions
(e.g., ‘missing out on’ an eagerly anticipated
concert or play) often are more intense, even
when outcomes are unsatisfactory (e.g.,
attending a disappointing concert or play)
(Davidai & Gilovich, 2018; Morrison & Roese,
2011). Compensation for ‘missing out on a once
in a lifetime experience’ may be unachievable.
However, FOMO can induce actions meant to
circumvent regret from inactions (Richard et al.,
1996). Eluding regrets is comparable to initiating
protection motivation (Tanner, Hunt, & Eppright,
1991). “[T]he protection motivation concept
involves any threat for which there is an effective
recommended response that can be carried out
by the individual” (Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, &
Rogers, 2000, p. 409). Hence, FOMO-laden
appeals frequently include fear-arousing
endorsements and advocate for purchases to
defend against ‘missing out.”
FOMO-laden appeals about experiences with
close friends or family members can induce a
sense of ‘missing out with friends or family’ as
assessed by a consumer-centric FOMO scale
(Good, 2019). Consumers can avoid FOMO by
heeding those appeals with a purchase. FOMO
should relate positively to the likelihood of
purchasing a recommended experience. Hence,
H4: Higher (lower) FOMO about an experience
will increase (decrease) the likelihood of
purchasing that experience.
Empirical Study
Sample Profile
Respondents (n = 330) were randomly selected
from Amazon’s TurkPrime panel, which is
considered appropriate for scholarly consumer
research (Goodman, Cryder, & Cheema, 2013;
Hulland & Miller, 2018). To minimize
inappropriate responses, only data surviving
TurkPrime’s naivete filter (completed 100 or more
path surveys) and location filter were analyzed.
The prevent-ballot-box-stuffing option kept
respondents from participating multiple times. To
ensure U.S.-only respondents, IP addresses and
GPS coordinates provided by Qualtrics were
screened before participation approval. ‘Attention
check’ errors, overly fast (less than four-minute)
completion time, and incoherent or nonsensical
responses to open-ended questions disqualified
35 respondents. The demographic profile of the
remaining 295 adult respondents appears in
Table 1.
-------------------
Place Table 1 about here
-------------------
Procedure
Respondents were primed with a vignette about
their favorite social media platform sending a
notification about an upcoming concert by an
artist in their favorite music genre. To make the
vignettes more relatable, customized inserts
reflected each respondent’s favorite music genre
(which they had previously indicated in Qualtrics).
To avoid decision-making based on cost, the
vignette indicated ticket prices were ‘typical’. The
vignette asked respondents to assume that they
would probably enjoy the concert and would need
to decide whether to buy a ticket. All vignettes
contained the same opening followed by either a
FOMO-laden or non-FOMO appeal:
Assume you like (favorite genre choice
previously selected) music. Someone posted
on (social media platform the most used
choice previously selected) that several
artists will come to your area in a few months
for several concert dates. The prices are
typical of concerts in your area. You feel you
would probably enjoy going to a concert. You
have to decide whether or not to buy a ticket
and go to a concert.
The FOMO-laden appeal was as follows:
Your friends just added posts on (social
media platform most used) with photos and
videos about the artists and how much fun
the concert will be. You think you'll miss out if
you don't go with them.
The non-FOMO appeal was as follows:
Your friends haven't mentioned this and
haven't posted any photos or videos or
shown any interest on (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 don't
go.
After reading the vignette, respondents indicated
Page | 5
whether it was credible and readily understood.
Next, they responded about their resulting
FOMO, their purchase likelihood, and selected
antecedents of FOMO imagined about their
decision.
Scales
The four-item Anticipated Elation (AElation) scale
was from Batra and Ray (1986) (α = 0.96). The
four-item Anticipate Envy From Other People
(AEnvy) scale was from Lange and Crusius
(2015) (α = 0.92). The three-item Comforting
Rationalization (ComRat) scale was based on an
earlier qualitative study that solicited open-ended
responses to a scenario comparable to the
aforementioned FOMO-laden appeal (Good,
2019) (α = 0.91). The eight-item Fear of Missing
Out (FOMO) scale also is described in an earlier
study (Good, 2019, α = 0.94). Purchase Likeli-
hood (PL) is measured with a single item that
indicates the probability they would buy a ticket
and attend the concert (scale 0-100% in
increments of 10) (Juster, 1969).
------------------------
Place Table 2 about here
------------------------
Analyses and Results
Respondents’ attitudes about vignette credibility
(seven-point scale ‘Not Credible’ to ‘Credible’) (M
Non FOMO = 5.34; M FOMO = 4.98, t (df = 293) = 1.88, p
> 0.05) and comprehension (seven-point scale
‘Difficult to Comprehend’ to ‘Easy to
Comprehend’) (M Non FOMO = 6.04; M FOMO = 5.88,
t (df = 293) = 1.07, p > 0.05) did not differ between
experimental conditions (i.e., non-FOMO-laden
versus FOMO-laden appeal). Also, there was no
relationship between respondents’ FOMO scores
and attitudes about either vignette credibility (F (df
=1, 135) = 1.64, p > 0.05) or vignette comprehension
(F (df=1, 135) = 2.34, p > 0.05). These results
suggest the vignettes were equally credible and
comprehensible.
The mean scores on FOMO confirmed that
respondents assigned to the (non-) FOMO-laden
appeal scored (lower) higher on FOMO. The
mean score for the non-FOMO-laden group (n =
149) was 2.95 (σ = 1.51) and for the FOMO-laden
group (n = 146) 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). Thus, the vignettes
passed the manipulation check.
Model Analysis
The model presented in Figure 2 was assessed
using Amos 23 (Arbuckle, 2014). First, the scales
used were evaluated for reliability and validity.
Then, the overall model fit and H1 through H4 were
assessed.
Scale Reliability and Validity
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 for a confirma-
tory factor analysis of the model (CFI = 0.976, GFI
= 0.924, RMSEA = 0.054, χ2 (df = 115) = 213.96, p =
0.000) provide overall evidence of adequate
discriminant validity.
Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations,
and correlations between the independent
variables. The correlations ranged from 0.064 (p
> 0.05) for AElation and ComRat to 0.551 (p <
0.01) for FOMO and AEnvy. All correlations were
significant except AElation and ComRat and PL
and ComRat.
-------------------
Place Table 3 about here
-------------------
Structural Equation Model
Reliability, paths, and maximum likelihood
estimation were used to estimate model
parameters. The fit indices (CFI = 0.969, GFI =
0.913, RMSEA = 0.058,  df = 133)264.92 p <
0.01) indicate good model fit.
Discriminant validity is established when the
average variance extracted (AVE) is greater than
both 0.5 and the squared correlation between
construct pairs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 4
shows all pairwise comparisons met this criterion,
which indicates discriminant validity is sufficient.
Additional chi-square differences tests were
significant (p < 0.01), which also indicates
discriminant validity is sufficient (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --
Place Table 4 about here
----------------- --
Table 5 shows the final coefficients and
Page | 6
significance indications associated with the
relationships between the five constructs
(AElation, AEnvy, ComRat, FOMO and PL) used
to test the four hypotheses. H1 through H4 are
supported at the p < 0.05 level.
-------------------
Place Table 5 about here
-------------------
Conclusion
Given the pervasiveness of social media sharing,
it is unsurprising that people worry about ‘missing
out’ on experiences enjoyed by close friends or
family members. Researchers can treat FOMO
as a transient phenomenon that relates meaning-
fully to consumers’ attitudes and buying behavior.
Close friends’ or family members’ FOMO-laden
appeals can increase a person’s FOMO, which in
turn can increase the likelihood of acquiring a
recommended experience. A test of the posited
model with select antecedents of FOMO supports
these relationships. Furthermore, there is a
strong positive relationship between FOMO and
purchase likelihood.
The posited model makes several theoretical and
practical contributions. First, marketing scholars
have argued about negative emotions’ role in
shaping purchase behavior (Bagozzi, Belanche,
Casaló, & Flavián, 2016; Sierra & Hyman, 2011),
yet anticipated elation—a positive emotion—
strongly influenced FOMO and ultimately
purchase likelihood. Because consumers react
favorably to anticipated excitement, it would
behoove marketing practitioners to understand
what enhances consumers’ beliefs in positive
contexts and then focus on boosting consumers’
positive expectations rather than mitigating
consumers’ negative expectations.
Second, the model contributes to theory by
specifying how consumers’ comforting rationali-
zations weaken FOMO and emotions such as
elation and envy strengthen FOMO. When
comforting rationalizations weaken FOMO, some
advertisers will rely on messages meant to either
induce a FOMO-mitigating solution or discount
viable alternatives and spur FOMO-related
thoughts. Such messages could encourage
‘stepping back from the fray rather than following
the crowd’ or argue for why their product is
superior to competing products. Also, the model
underscores the strategic value of managing
these emotions as well as others that researchers
may test. For example, ads that stress the fun
and excitement fans can experience at a concert
can intensify concerns about missing the event.
Third, testing the effects of FOMO-laden appeals
on purchase behavior extended previous
research (Hodkinson, 2016). The ability of close
friends or family members to induce
consumption-changing anxiety about ‘missing
out’ follows from social comparison research,
such as parents comparing their food choices for
their children to similar choices by other parents
(Baldassarre, Campo, & Falcone, 2016), spouses
comparing their purchases for their partners to
purchases by other couples (Shweta & Dhyani,
2016), and neighbors comparing their automobile
purchases (Grinblatt, Keloharju, & Ikäheimo,
2008).
Advertisers may rely on various tactics to
encourage a consumer’s friends and family
members to make FOMO-laden appeals. To
augment their messages to consumers,
advertisers can encourage FOMO-laden appeals
in social media postings. For example, contextual
ads placed on social networks could motivate
consumers to ‘get in on the action’ after reading
about their friends’ and family members’
activities. Advertisers also could offer incentives
for name dropping in photo tags or check-ins
through programs like Facebook’s Sponsored
Stories or Instagram posts.
Limitations and Future Research Implications
Study participants made a hypothetical decision
based on a brief text-only vignette rather than an
actual decision, which may cause research
artifacts like those found in student cheating
studies (Haswell, Jubb, & Wearing, 1999).
Although respondents indicated the concert ticket
vignette was realistic, researchers could (1)
augment text-only vignettes with FOMO-laden or
non-FOMO-laden appeals in video 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, Bearden, & Nenkov,
2012). To enhance generalizability, researchers
could query respondents other than TurkPrime
panelists about acquiring other experiences (e.g.,
disposable versus durable; extraordinary versus
ordinary experiential) that close friends or family
members may influence. To mitigate the effect of
confounding variables, such as beliefs about
experience quality, future studies could require
respondents to evaluate a series of FOMO-laden
Page | 7
and non-FOMO-laden vignettes.
Future studies could explore personal FOMO
appeals made by salespeople, travel agents, or
celebrities (especially athletes) promoting their
events and brands (Hodkinson, 2016). Also,
these studies could determine the relative
efficacy of various impersonal FOMO-appeal
delivery venues (e.g., websites, social media, and
emails). Exploring other experiences, comparing
and contrasting different FOMO-laden appeals,
retesting—and if necessary, revising—the FOMO
scale, discovering why people vary in their
sensitivity to FOMO-laden appeals and identify-
ing counter-FOMO appeals for counter-ads,
should prove worthwhile.
Elaboration on potential outcomes (Nenkov,
Inman, & Hulland, & Morrin, 2008; Nenkov,
Inman, & Hulland, 2009; Plouffe, Beuk, Hulland,
& Nenkov, 2017) and regulatory factors such as
promise and prevention (Haws et al., 2012)
provide alternative explanations for how and
when FOMO-laden appeals boost FOMO and
subsequently affect attitudes and choices. These
and other theories may suggest other factors to
replace or enhance the tested constructs.
References
Abel, J. P., Buff, C. L., & Burr, S. A. (2016). Social
media and the fear of missing out: Scale
development and assessment. Journal of Busi-
ness and Economics Research, 14(1), 33-44.
Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic
motivation, media engagement and fear of
missing out. Computers in Human Behavior,
49(C), 111-119.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988).
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Aral, S. (2011). Identifying social influence: A
comment on opinion leadership and social
contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing
Science, 30(2), 217-223.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos 23.0 User's Guide.
Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G.
(1991). Close relationships as including other in
the self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60(2), 241-253.
Bagozzi, R., Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., &
Flavián, C. (2016). The role of anticipated
emotions in purchase intentions. Psychology and
Marketing, 33(8), 629-645.
Baker, Z. G., Krieger, H., & LeRoy, A. S. (2016).
Fear of missing out: Relationships with depres-
sion, mindfulness, and physical symptoms.
Translational Issues in Psychological Science,
2(3), 275-282.
Baldassarre, F., Campo, R., & Falcone, A.
(2016). Food for kids: How children influence their
parents purchasing decisions. Journal of Food
Products Marketing, 22(5), 596-609.
Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective
responses mediating acceptance of advertising.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 234-248.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of
living in the material world. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(3), 265-280.
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 Facebook
related stress. Computers in Human Behavior,
64, 1-8.
Bock, D. E., Eastman, J. K., & McKay, B.
(2014). The impact of economic perceptions on
status consumption: An exploratory study of the
moderating role of education. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 31(2), 111-117.
Brandstatter, E., & Kriz, W. C. (2001). Hedonic
intensity of disappointment and elation. Journal of
Psychology, 135(4), 368-380.
Brown, J. J. & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties
and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research, 14(3), 350-362.
Buchanan, J. M. (2008). Opportunity cost. In S.
N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume (Eds.), The new
Palgrave dictionary of economics, 2nd ed. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chatterjee, S., Rai, D., & Heath, T. B. (2016).
Tradeoff between time and money: The
asymmetric consideration of opportunity costs.
Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2560-2566.
Page | 8
Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (1997). On Relative
wealth effects and the optimality of growth.
Economics Letters, 54(1), 87-92.
------, & ------ (2001a). On relative wealth effects
and long-run growth. Research in Economics,
55(December), 349-358.
------, & ------ (2001b). Status, the distribution of
wealth, and growth. Scandinavian Journal of
Economics, 103(2), 283-293.
Currie, L. C. (1985). Psychology of risky
decisions. In G. Wright (Ed.), Behavioral decision
making (pp. 379-403). New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Davidai, S., & Gilovich, T. (2016). The
headwinds/tailwinds asymmetry: An availability
bias in assessments of barriers and blessings.
Journal of Personality and Social Psycho-
logy, 111(6), 835-851.
------, & ------ (2018). The ideal road not taken:
The self-discrepancies involved in people’s most
enduring regrets. Emotion, 18(3), 439-452.
Diaconu, V. I. (2015). New trends in the
motivation behind buying luxury textile products.
International Journal of Economic Practices &
Theories, 5(5), 455-461.
Dubois, D. D., Bonezzi, A., & De Angelis, M.
(2016). Sharing with friends versus strangers:
How interpersonal closeness influences word-of-
mouth valence. Journal of Marketing Research,
53(5), 712-727.
Dykman, A. (2012). The fear of missing out.
Forbes, March 21. Retrieved June 28, 2016 from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/
03/21/the-fear-of-missing-out/.
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.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive
dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W.
(2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection
motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 30(2), 407-429.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating
structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Frenzen, J., & Nakamoto, K. (1993). Structure,
cooperation, and the flow of market information.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 360-375.
Frijda, N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structure,
and action tendency. Cognition and Emotion,
1(2), 115-143.
Garbarino, E. C., & Edell, J. A. (1997). Cognitive
effort, affect, and choice. Journal of Consumer
Research, 24(2), 147-158.
Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Vicarious
dishonesty: When psychological closeness
creates distance from one’s moral compass.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 119(9), 15-26.
Good, Megan C. (2019). Fear of missing out
appeals: You can’t always get what you want
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. New Mexico
State University.
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A.
(2013). Data collection in a flat world: The
strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk
samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
26(3), 213-224.
Greenleaf, E. A. (2004). Reserves, regret, and
rejoicing in open English auctions. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31(2), 264-273.
Grinblatt, M., Keloharju, M., & Ikäheimo, S.
(2008). Social influence and consumption:
Evidence from the automobile purchases of
neighbors. Review of Economics and Statistics,
90(4), 735-753.
Hamari, J. (2015). Why do people buy virtual
goods? Attitude toward virtual good purchases
versus game enjoyment. International Journal of
Information Management, 35(2), 299-308.
Haswell, S., Jubb, P., & Wearing, B. (1999).
Accounting students and cheating: A compara-
tive study for Australia, South Africa and the UK.
Teaching Business Ethics, 3, 211-239.
Page | 9
Haws, K. L., Bearden, W. O., & Nenkov, G. Y.
(2012). Consumer spending self-control
effectiveness and outcome elaboration prompts.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences,
40(5), 695-710.
Hayran, C., Anik, L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2016).
Exploring the antecedents and consumer
behavioral consequences of ‘feeling of missing
out’ (FOMO). In P. Moreau & S. Puntoni (Eds.),
Advances in consumer research, Volume 44 (pp.
468-469). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer
Research.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interper-
sonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., &
Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for
positive self-regard? Psychological Review,
106(4), 766-794.
Hetz, P. R., Dawson, C. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2015).
Social media use and the fear of missing out
(FoMO) while studying abroad. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 47(4),
259-272.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982).
Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing,
48(3), 92-101.
Hodkinson, C. (2016). ‘Fear of missing out’
(FOMO) marketing appeals: A conceptual model.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 25(1), 1-
24.
Hulland, J., & Miller, J. (2018). Keep on ‘Turkin’?
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
46(5), 789-794.
Hunter, G. L. (2006). The role of anticipated
emotion, desire, and intention in the relationship
between image and shopping center visits.
International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 34(10), 709-721.
Hyman, M. R., Ganesh, G., & McQuitty, S.
(2002). Augmenting the household affluence
construct. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 10(3), 13-32.
J. Walter Thompson (JWT) Worldwide. (2011).
FOMO: JWT explores fear of missing out
phenomenon. Retrieved June 28, 2016 from
www.jwt.com/fomojwtexploresfearofmissingoutp
henomenon/.
Jung, J. M., & Kellaris, J. J. (2004). Cross-
national differences in proneness to scarcity
effects: The moderating roles of familiarity,
uncertainty avoidance, and need for cognitive
closure. Psychology and Marketing, 21(9), 739-
753.
Juster, F. T. (1969). Consumer anticipations and
models of durable goods demand. In J. Mincer
(Ed.), Economic forecasts and expectations.
Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Repre-
sentativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in
intuitive judgement. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and
D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The
psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49-81).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
------, & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An
analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica,
47(2), 263-291.
------, & ------ (1981). The framing of decisions and
the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481),
453-458.
Kreilkamp, T. (1984). Psychological closeness.
American Behavioral Scientist, 27(6), 771-784.
Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015). Dispositional
envy revisited: Unraveling the motivational
dynamics of benign and malicious envy.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
41(2), 284-294.
Larkin, B. A., & Fink, J. S. (2016). Fantasy sport,
FoMO, and traditional fandom: How second-
screen use of social media allows fans to
accommodate multiple identities. Journal of Sport
Management, 30(6), 643-655.
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory:
An alternative theory of rational choice under
uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92(368), 805-
824.
Mandel, N., & Nowlis, S. M. (2008). The effect of
making a prediction about the outcome of a
consumption experience on the enjoyment of that
experience. Journal of Consumer Research,
Page | 10
35(1), 9-20.
McCuloch, M. (2018). Fear of missing out? Fomo
applies to nutrients, too. Make sure you're filling
the gaps every day. Delicious Living, 47-49.
Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I.
(1997). Decision affect theory: Emotional
reactions to the outcomes of risky options.
Psychological Science, 8(6), 423-429.
Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2007). The
envious mind. Cognition and Emotion, 21(3), 449-
479.
Milyavskaya, M., Saffran, M., Hope, N.,
& Koestner, R. (2018). Fear of missing out:
Prevalence, dynamics, and consequences of
experiencing FOMO. Motivation and Emotion,
42(5), 1-13.
Morrison, M., & Roese, N. J. (2011). Regrets of
the typical American: Findings from a nationally
representative sample. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 2(6), 576-583.
Mukhopadhyay, A., & Johar, G. V. (2007).
Tempted or not? The effect of recent purchase
history on responses to affective advertising.
Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 445-453.
Nenkov, G. Y., Inman, J. J., Hulland, J., & Morrin,
M. (2009). The impact of outcome elaboration on
susceptibility to contextual and presentation
biases. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6),
764-776.
------, ------, & ------ (2008). Considering the future:
The conceptualization and measurement of
elaboration on potential outcomes. Journal of
Consumer Research, 35(1), 126-141.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psycho-
metric theory, 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,
Inc.
Oberst, U., Wegmann, E., Stodt, B., Brand, M., &
Chamarro, A. (2017). Negative consequences
from heavy social networking in adolescents: The
mediating role of fear of missing out. Journal of
Adolescence, 55, 51-60.
Oppenheimer, D. M. (2004). Spontaneous
discounting of availability in frequency judgment
tasks. Psychological Science, 15(2), 100-105.
Park, S-Y., & Kang, Y-J. (2013). What's going on
in SNS and social commerce?: Qualitative
approaches to narcissism, impression manage-
ment, and e-WOM behavior of consumers.
Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science,
23(4), 460-472.
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993).
Distinguishing the experiences of envy and
jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64(6), 906-920.
Parsons, A. G., Ballantine, P. W., Ali, A., & Grey,
H. (2014). Deal is on! Why people buy from daily
deal websites. Journal of Retailing & Consumer
Services, 21(1), 37-42.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of
desires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed
behaviors: Broadening and deepening the theory
of planned behavior. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 40(1), 79-98.
Philp, M., & Nepomuceno, M. V. (2019). When
the frugal become wasteful: An examination into
how impression management can initiate the
end‐stages of consumption for frugal consumers.
Psychology & Marketing, 37(2), 326-339.
Plouffe, C., Beuk, F., Hulland, J., & Nenkov, G. Y.
(2017). Elaboration on potential outcomes (EPO)
and the consultative salesperson: investigating
effects on attributions and performance. Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Manage-
ment, 37(2), 113-133.
Pollay, R. W. (1986). The distorted mirror:
Reflections on the unintended consequences of
advertising. Journal of Marketing, 50(1), 18-36.
Pounders, K., Kowalczyk, C., & Stowers, K.
(2016). Insight into the motivation of selfie
postings: Impression management and self-
esteem. European Journal of Marketing,
50(9/10), 1879-1892.
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.
Richard, R., van der Pligt, J., & de Vries, N.
(1996). Anticipated affect and behavioral choice.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18(2), 111-
129.
Page | 11
Roseman, I. J. (1984). Cognitive determinants of
emotion: A structural theory. Review of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 5, 11-36.
Schoeck, H. (1969). Envy: A theory of social
behavior. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
Shweta, & Dhyani, A. (2016). Determinants of
most influencing reference group in buying
decisions of rural consumers. International
Journal of Research in Commerce and
Management, 7(4), 23-27.
Sierra, J. J., & Hyman, M. R. (2011). Outlet mall
shoppers' intentions to purchase apparel: A dual-
process perspective. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 18(4), 341-347.
------, & ------ (2009). In search of value: A model
of wagering intentions. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 17(3), 235-249.
Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007).
Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin,
133(1), 46-64.
Solomon, M. R. (2018). How Amazon feeds your
FOMO on Prime Day. Fortune.com, (July 16),
Retrieved July 24, 2018 from http://fortune.com/
2018/07/16/amazon-prime-day-2018-deals-
discounts-retail/.
Spiller, S. A. (2011). Opportunity cost consider-
ation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(4), 595-
610.
Tanner, J. F., Jr, Hunt, J. B., & Eppright, D. R.
(1991). The protection motivation model: A
normative model of fear appeals. Journal of
Marketing, 55(3), 36-45.
Taute, H.A., & Sierra, J.J. (2015). An examination
of emotional information management in gift
giving and receipt. Psychology & Marketing,
32(2), 203-218.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability:
A heuristic for judging frequency and probability.
Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
------, & Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in
choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science,
3(5), 305-309.
van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R.
(2011). The envy premium in product evaluation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 984-998.
Vichiengior, T., Ackermann, C.L. & Palmer, A.
(2019). Consumer anticipation: Antecedents,
processes and outcomes. Journal of Marketing
Management, 35(1/2), 130-159.
Westbrook, R. A., & Black, W. C. (1985). A
motivation-based shopper typology. Journal of
Retailing, 61(1), 78-103.
Wiener, R. L., Holtje, M., Winter, R. J., Cantone,
J. A., Gross, K., & Block-Lieb, S. (2007).
Consumer credit card use: The roles of creditor
disclosure and anticipated emotion. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(1), 32-46.
Yen, C-H., Hsu, M-H., & Chang, C-M. (2013).
Exploring the online bidder’s repurchase inten-
tion: A cost and benefit perspective. Information
Systems and e-Business Management, 11(2),
211-234.
Zeelenberg, M. (2015). Robust satisficing and
non-probabilistic decision making. Journal of
Marketing Behavior, 1(2), 157-166.
------, and Pieters, R (2006). Looking backward
with an eye on the future: Propositions toward a
theory of regret regulation. In L.J. Sanna and E.C.
Chang (Eds.), Judgments over time: The
interplay of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (pp.
210-229). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
------, & ------ (2007). A theory of regret regulation
1.0. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(1), 3-
18.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of
price, quality and value: A means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing,
52(3), 2-22.
Page | 12
 Table 1
Study Demographics

n = 295
Gender % Marital status %
Female 59.3 Never married 43.4
Male 40.7 Married 38.6
Age Widowed 2.4
Divorced 12.9
Mean = 40.77
Separated 2.7
Std. dev = 13.832
Continuous split into quartiles Number of Children Under 18

18-29 25.0 0 63.7

30-39 25.0 1 17.6
40-53 25.0 2 9.8
54-65 25.0 3 7.8
4 1.0
Employment
Ethnicity
Employed full time 44.4
American Indian or Alaska Native 1.0
Employed part-time 9.5
Asian 5.1
Unemployed, looking for work 11.5
Black or African American 15.9
Unemployed, not looking for work 9.2
Hispanic or Latino 6.8
Student 5.4
White 70.8
Disabled 8.1
Retired 11.9 Prefer not to answer 0.3
Highest Education
Less than high school 3.4
High school graduate 27.5
Some college 21.7
Two-year degree 11.2
Bachelor’s degree 27.5
Graduate degree 8.8

Page | 13
 Table 2
Model Construct Items

Factor
Scale t-value
Loading
FOMO (citation omitted to disguise authors), alpha = 0.94)
When considering this experience …
(1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)
I'm afraid later I will feel sorry I didn't go with my friends. 0.764 16.069
I will worry about what I'm missing. 0.796 17.258
I will worry my friends are doing more rewarding things than me. 0.859 23.623
I will feel concerned that my friends are having more fun without me. 0.871 -------- a
I will feel left out. 0.821 18.144
I will feel sorry that I didn't experience an event with friends. 0.788 16.868
I will feel anxious about not being with my friends. 0.839 18.918
I will feel bothered that I missed an opportunity to be with friends. 0.830 18.546
Anticipated Elation (Batra & Ray 1986, alpha = 0.96)
I expect I would feel elated. 0.891 7.292
I anticipate I would feel excited. 0.886 8.174
I would feel exhilarated. 0.868 7.976
I expect I would feel happy about going. 0.657 -------- a
Anticipated Envy by Other People (Lange & Crusius (2015), alpha = 0.92)
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 go. 0.875 21.823
People who don't go will be jealous. 0.919 -------- a
Comforting Rationalizations (new scale, alpha = 0.91)
I can be happy for others without going myself. 0.720 10.827
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
Purchase Likelihood (Juster, 1969)
On a scale of 0 - 10 (where 0 indicates no chance and 10 indicates
certainty), what is the chance you would buy the ticket and go to the N/A N/A
concert?

Notes:
a constrained to 1.0; p < 0.001 for each factor loading

CFI = 0.976, GFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.054, χ2 (df = 115) = 213.96, p = 0.000

Page | 14
 Table 3
Correlations between Constructs

Anticipated Anticipated Envy Comforting Purchase

FOMO
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
Envy by .551** .169** 0.92
Other People
Comforting
-.269** .064 -.216** 0.91
Rationalizations
Purchase
.342** .428** .278** -.076 (n/a)
Likelihood

Notes:
* significant at p < .05
** significant at p < .01

Table 4
Discriminant Validity

Comp. Max. Shared Conv. Discrim-

Discriminant AVE1 AVE2
Reliability Variance ValidityA r2 inant
Validity (AVE>r2)
CR > .7 MSV<AVE VE > .5 Validity
AE (.681) a ↔ 0.894 0.119 0.681 Estab-
0.117 .681 .675
FOMO (.675) lished
AEnvy (.789) ↔ 0.918 0.432 0.789 Estab-
0.015 .789 .675
FOMO lished
ComRat (.586) ↔ 0.807 0.084 0.586 Estab-
0.183 .586 .675
FOMO lished
0.943 0.432 0.675 Estab-
FOMO ↔ PL (.728) 0.027 .675 .728
lished

Page | 15
 Table 5
Standardized Structural Parameter Estimates

Path Hypothesis Coeff. R2

AElation  FOMO H1 (+) supported 0.26*** 0.48
AEnvy  FOMO H2 (+) supported 0.61***
ComRat  FOMO H3 (+) supported -0.25***
FOMO PL H4 (+) supported 0.45*** 0.24

Goodness-of-fit Statistics:  df = 133)264.92

p = .000
CFI = 0.969
GFI = 0.913
RMSEA = 0.058

Notes:
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01
***p < 0.001

Figure 1
Different Types of FOMO Appealsa

Types of Appeals In-Person Impersonal

Commercial Salesperson (promotion of FOMO) Advertisement (delivery with a

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

Note:
a Adapted from taxonomy of external FOMO appeal initiation (Hodkinson, 2016)

Page | 16
 Figure 2
Hypothesized Relationships Among Study Variables

Page | 17

View publication stats