For many consumers, the notification is familiar. A flash sale is ending in an hour, or a social media influencer is showcasing a “must-have” item that is running low in stock. The resulting anxiety that one might lose out on a rewarding experience or product is known as the Fear of Missing Out, or FOMO.
While marketers often use this psychological trigger to drive immediate sales, less is known about how customers feel once the transaction is complete. A research team investigated whether these high-pressure tactics leave consumers satisfied or regretful and how those feelings shape their future relationship with the brand. Their findings were published in the journal Business Horizons.
Investigating the Consumer Experience
The central question driving this research focused on the long-term effects of marketing strategies that exploit consumer anxiety. While previous academic discussions framed FOMO as a driver for brand switching or variety-seeking, this investigation looked at the emotional and behavioral costs carried by the buyer. The researchers sought to understand the entire sequence of events: what specific appeals trigger the fear, what kind of purchase decisions follow, and how the consumer responds cognitively and emotionally after acquiring the product.
Nada Morsi from the Arab Academy for Science, Technology, and Maritime Transport in Egypt led the study, collaborating with Elisabete Sá and Joaquim Silva from the University of Minho in Portugal. The team operated on the premise that FOMO is not just a personality trait but a state that can be activated by external marketing stimuli. They defined this state as “a transient state of anxiety induced by persuasive marketing appeals.”
To understand this phenomenon, one must grasp the concept of the “FOMO-prone consumer.” These are individuals with a higher tendency to react to social and marketing triggers. When these consumers see peers or influencers engaging with products, their desire to conform or acquire increases. The researchers hypothesized that while these appeals might successfully trigger a purchase, they could also lead to “brand transgressions.” This term refers to a violation of the implicit rules between a consumer and a brand, potentially causing the consumer to view the marketing tactic as manipulative or unethical.
Tracing the Path from Trigger to Regret
The researchers adopted a qualitative methodology to capture the nuances of consumer experiences. They utilized the Critical Incident Technique (CIT). This method asks participants to recount specific, significant events in detail, allowing the researchers to analyze real-world behaviors rather than hypothetical scenarios. The team recruited 57 participants from Egypt, a country the authors noted for its collectivist culture where interdependent self-construal is common. This cultural context often correlates with higher sensitivity to social inclusion and FOMO.
The researchers conducted semi-structured telephone interviews. They asked participants to describe a specific time they made an unplanned purchase due to a fear of missing out. The interviewers probed into three distinct stages: the pre-purchase phase (what triggered the feeling), the purchase decision itself (how they decided to buy), and the post-purchase phase (how they felt and acted afterward).
The team collected data on 87 separate incidents. They analyzed these narratives by coding the responses into categories. They looked for patterns in the type of marketing appeal used, the rationality of the decision, and the subsequent emotions. The analysis involved classifying the purchase as positive or negative based on the participant’s satisfaction. They also categorized the behavioral response, such as whether the consumer decided to buy from the brand again or warned others against it.
The Dominance of Promotional Triggers
The analysis revealed that specific marketing appeals played a significant role in triggering these events. Promotional offers, such as discounts or “buy one get one free” deals, were the most frequent triggers, accounting for more than half of the incidents. Trend appeals, driven by peer pressure or influencers, and scarcity appeals, such as limited-time offers, also played substantial roles.
When faced with these triggers, the participants overwhelmingly engaged in irrational decision-making. In over 95 percent of the reported incidents, the purchase was described as impulsive, compulsive, or driven by a need to conform. Only a small fraction of participants described their decision-making process as rational or calculated.
The Cognitive and Emotional Toll
The study found that these irrational decisions often led to negative outcomes for the consumer. In nearly 76 percent of the incidents, participants reported dissatisfaction. This cognitive response often manifested as doubt regarding their judgment or a realization that the product did not meet expectations. Participants described these purchases as unnecessary or underperforming.
The emotional responses were similarly negative. The most common emotion reported was sadness, appearing in roughly two-thirds of the incidents. This category included feelings of guilt, shame, disappointment, and regret. Participants frequently mentioned feeling that they had wasted money or exceeded their financial limits. While some participants did report positive emotions like joy or excitement, these feelings often faded quickly, replaced by disappointment as the novelty wore off.
A Taxonomy of Dissatisfied Consumers
A major component of the study was the classification of consumer behaviors following a dissatisfying FOMO experience. The researchers identified four distinct types of dissatisfied consumers based on their repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth behavior.
The Butterfly
The largest group identified in the study was the “Butterfly.” These consumers reacted to their negative experience by detaching from the brand. After realizing the purchase was a mistake, Butterflies experienced dissatisfaction and sadness. As a result, they decided to avoid future purchases from that brand and often engaged in negative word-of-mouth. They actively warned others about the product or the brand, driven by a desire to avoid repeating the negative experience.
The Devotee
In contrast to the Butterfly, the “Devotee” exhibited a high level of loyalty despite the negative outcome. These consumers experienced the same dissatisfaction and sadness regarding the specific purchase. However, they continued to recommend the brand and intended to buy from it again. The researchers suggest these consumers often blame themselves for the impulse buy rather than the brand’s marketing tactics. They separate the specific negative incident from their overall positive view of the company.
The Endorser
The “Endorser” represents a complex behavioral pattern. These consumers regretted their own purchase and decided not to buy the item again. However, they still recommended the product to others. The study indicates that Endorsers might rationalize that while the product was not right for them, it might be suitable for someone else. They engage in positive word-of-mouth despite their personal negative cognitive and emotional assessment.
The Shopaholic
The final group, the “Shopaholic,” displayed compulsive behaviors. These consumers recognized the negative outcome of their purchase and felt the associated guilt and regret. Despite this, they indicated a likelihood of falling for similar FOMO appeals from the same brand in the future. Their behavior suggests a cycle of addiction where the short-term thrill of the purchase overrides the memory of previous dissatisfaction. They continue to buy but refrain from recommending the products to others.
Unexpected Loyalty
One of the most notable findings was the resilience of the consumer-brand relationship in many cases. Contrary to the expectation that dissatisfaction leads to abandonment, nearly half of the incidents resulted in positive behavioral responses, such as repurchasing or positive referrals. This occurred even when the consumer felt regret or guilt. The authors noted that this suggests a vulnerability in FOMO-prone consumers, who may lack the awareness or ability to cope with manipulative marketing tactics.
Implications for Business and Ethics
The study presents a dilemma for businesses. While FOMO appeals effectively drive immediate sales, they frequently result in consumer dissatisfaction and psychological distress. The presence of “Butterfly” consumers warns that these tactics can lead to long-term reputational damage and the loss of customers. However, the existence of “Devotees” and “Shopaholics” suggests that brands may continue to profit from these strategies at the expense of consumer well-being.
The authors propose a shift toward “well-being marketing.” This approach prioritizes the consumer’s quality of life and ethical standards over short-term profit. They suggest that companies should consider the emotional toll of their marketing appeals. For example, brands could offer more generous return policies to mitigate post-purchase regret or avoid creating artificial scarcity that pressures vulnerable consumers.
Future Questions
This investigation opens several avenues for further research. The current study focused on commercial appeals, but future work could examine personal or social triggers that create FOMO outside of a retail context. Additionally, because the study relied on qualitative interviews about past events, future research could employ quantitative methods to measure these effects on a larger scale.
The researchers also suggest observing the consumer decision-making process in real-time through ethnographic studies rather than relying on memory. Finally, comparing these findings across different cultures could determine if the “Butterfly” or “Devotee” archetypes remain consistent globally or if they are specific to the cultural context of the participants. By understanding these dynamics, the field can move toward a clearer view of the line between persuasion and manipulation.
