Figure 1
The framework contains Advertising appeal, JOMO versus non-JOMO, Brand authenticity, Self-brand congruity, Purchase intention and Social comparison orientation. Advertising appeal connects to Brand authenticity, Self-brand congruity and Purchase intention. Brand authenticity connects to Self-brand congruity and Purchase intention. Self-brand congruity connects to Purchase intention. H 1 labels the connection from Advertising appeal to Purchase intention. H 2 appears above Self-brand congruity, and H 3 appears above Brand authenticity. Social comparison orientation is enclosed by a dashed boundary below the main paths. Dashed connections extend from Social comparison orientation towards 3 relationships, with H 4 a to c beside the dashed paths. Study 1 is placed beside Self-brand congruity and Purchase intention. Study 2 is beside Brand authenticity. Study 3 is beside Social comparison orientation. The lower theoretical framework contains Attribution theory beneath the left portion, Self-congruity theory across the middle portion and Self-determination theory across the full width. A vertical double-headed arrow on the right separates the Conceptual framework and Methodological framework above from the Theoretical framework below.Research framework
Note(s): This study adopts a matched theory configuration rather than a loose multi-theory approach in line with extant guidelines for theory selection (Hollebeek et al., 2025), whereby self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000, 2017) explains why joy of missing out (JOMO) carries motivational value, attribution theory (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967) explains how consumers infer brand motives from JOMO appeals and self-congruity theory (Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy et al., 1997) explains how those authenticity inferences translate into identity fit and purchase intention
Source: Authors’ own work