Anticipation of the Holiday (ANIH)

1. Abstract

The Anticipation of the Holiday (ANIH) scale is a concise, three-item psychometric instrument originally introduced by Tonietto and Barasch (2021) within consumer behavior and experimental psychology literature to quantify the positive hedonic state elicited prior to scheduled experiential consumption. While traditional models of consumer satisfaction and hedonic utility have historically privileged in-situ consumption experiences or retrospective evaluations, modern behavioral economics and affective science emphasize that prospective utility constitutes a substantial portion of an individual's total well-being. The ANIH scale addresses this theoretical imperative by measuring an individual’s pre-event positive anticipatory emotion—specifically operationalized through heightened excitement, forward-looking cognitive engagement, and favorable expectations of enjoyment regarding an upcoming holiday, vacation, or designated leisure event.

The scale consists of three self-report items administered on a standard 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Because the scale utilizes open event markers (e.g., [holiday/event]), it exhibits exceptional contextual modularity across diverse domains, including tourism marketing, leisure sciences, behavioral decision research, and clinical positive psychology interventions. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate that the ANIH is a unidimensional construct possessing high internal consistency (Cronbach’s $\alpha$ routinely exceeding .88 to .94; McDonald’s $\omega > .90$), robust factor determinacy, high standardized factor loadings ($> .85$), and strong convergent, discriminant, and predictive validities. This comprehensive review examines the theoretical foundations, latent structural attributes, psychometric performance, administration protocols, and empirical utilities of the ANIH scale.

2. Keywords

Anticipation of the Holiday, ANIH scale, anticipatory utility, hedonic forecasting, leisure psychology, prospective cognition, savoring, consumer experience, positive affect, time perception, Tonietto and Barasch

3. Authors

The Anticipation of the Holiday (ANIH) scale was developed and operationalized by Gabriela N. Tonietto and Alixandra Barasch in their landmark 2021 empirical research published in the Journal of Marketing.

• Gabriela N. Tonietto, Ph.D.: Associate Professor of Marketing at Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University–Newark and New Brunswick. Dr. Tonietto’s research specializes in consumer behavior, temporal perception, calendar scheduling, hedonic consumption, and the psychological mechanisms governing how individuals structure, consume, and extract utility from their discretionary leisure time. Her investigations into the trade-offs between structured versus unstructured time have been published across premier marketing and management journals, including the Journal of Consumer Research and the Journal of Marketing.
• Alixandra Barasch, Ph.D.: Associate Professor of Marketing at INSEAD (previously at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University). Dr. Barasch explores consumer psychology at the intersection of experiential consumption, technology, memory formation, visual media generation (such as photo-taking), and social communication. Her research demonstrates how modern behavioral rituals, documentation behaviors, and pre-consumption anticipatory dynamics modulate experiential enjoyment and subjective well-being.

4. Purpose

Theoretical Rationale

For decades, classical utility frameworks postulated that individuals derive utility almost exclusively during the actual realization of an experience (expected utility theory) or retrospectively via episodic memory recall. However, foundational conceptualizations advanced by behavioral economists and cognitive psychologists—most notably George Loewenstein—revealed that anticipation is an active, distinct source of utility. In many experiential domains, such as tourism, celebratory holidays, and recreational retreats, the pre-event phase yields an emotionally potent, savor-rich affective state that can equal or occasionally surpass the net hedonic value of the event itself.

The purpose of the ANIH scale is to capture this psychological baseline of positive anticipation before an experience takes place. When individuals schedule or await an upcoming experiential milestone, their cognitive apparatus initiates simulation, episodic future thinking, and affective projection. Without a calibrated, rapid-to-administer psychometric tool, researchers cannot isolate whether post-event evaluations are driven by in-situ interventions, baseline anticipatory excitement, or the fulfillment of affective forecasts.

Research Applications

Within experimental marketing and consumer psychology, the ANIH scale serves several pivotal methodological functions:

• Pre-Treatment Equivalency and Covariate Control: In randomized controlled trials investigating experiential enjoyment, researchers administer the ANIH to verify baseline equivalency across conditions, ensuring that post-manipulation differences in enjoyment, engagement, or time perception are not artifacts of divergent pre-existing enthusiasm.
• Moderator and Mediator Modeling: The instrument allows investigators to test whether positive anticipation amplifies or buffers against subsequent consumption frictions. For instance, high anticipation may either heighten resilience to minor service failures or, conversely, exacerbate dissatisfaction through unmet contrastive expectations.
• Experiential Architecture and Pre-Event Marketing: Tourism boards, event organizers, and hospitality enterprises utilize the scale to evaluate the efficacy of pre-trip touchpoints (e.g., countdown applications, immersive promotional previews, itinerary personalization) in cultivating anticipatory savoring.

Clinical and Well-Being Applications

Beyond consumer behavior, the ANIH scale holds profound utility for clinical psychology and subjective well-being science:

• Behavioral Activation for Depressive Symptomatology: Major depressive disorder and mood disruptions are frequently characterized by anhedonia, particularly deficits in anticipatory pleasure (the inability to look forward to future rewarding events) rather than consummatory pleasure alone. The ANIH provides a micro-level measure to track a patient’s capacity to regenerate prospective hedonic imagery during behavioral activation therapies.
• Savoring Interventions: In positive psychology interventions targeting temporal savoring (Bryant & Veroff, 2007), the scale serves as a standardized pre-intervention and post-intervention metric to assess whether cognitive training protocols successfully enhance an individual’s ability to extract positive emotion from impending life milestones.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the Anticipation of the Holiday (ANIH) scale is positive anticipatory hedonic emotion. This construct reflects an individual’s current, conscious emotional experience of pleasure, enthusiasm, and cognitive projection directed toward a scheduled, future-oriented experiential event. Although expressed across three succinct manifest items, the construct synthesizes three tightly integrated psychological sub-facets:

1. Prospective Cognitive Engagement (“Looking Forward”)

Item 1 (“I am really looking forward to [holiday/event]”) reflects the cognitive orientation toward a future temporal point. In psychological literature, looking forward involves prospective mental time travel (prospective cognition). Rather than operating as an abstract calendar marker, the upcoming event occupies focal awareness. This dimension assesses the motivational intentionality and subjective proximity of the upcoming event within the respondent’s mental landscape.

2. High-Arousal Anticipatory Affect (“Excitement”)

Item 2 (“I am excited for [holiday/event]”) captures the somatic and high-arousal emotional dimension of anticipation. As mapped onto the affective circumplex model (Russell, 1980), anticipation can vary from low-arousal pleasant contemplation to high-arousal energetic activation. The inclusion of excitement directly indexes appetitive approach motivation, sympathetic nervous system mobilization, and the dopaminergic reward-seeking system described in neurobiological theories of expectation.

3. Affective Hedonic Forecasting (“Expected Enjoyment”)

Item 3 (“I expect to enjoy [holiday/event] very much”) taps the evaluative hedonic forecast. Grounded in affective forecasting theory (Wilson & Gilbert, 2005), this facet captures the probabilistic judgment of prospective positive valence. It represents the conscious, cognitive appraisal that the future event possesses sufficient hedonic resources to induce personal satisfaction, pleasure, and experiential value.

Construct Demarcation

To avoid conceptual conflation, positive anticipatory hedonic emotion must be differentiated from adjacent psychological constructs:

• Versus Trait Optimism: While dispositional optimism (Life Orientation Test-Revised; Scheier et al., 1994) represents a global, stable personality trait asserting that good things will generally happen in life, the ANIH construct is state-specific, highly localized, and tied intrinsically to a designated experiential stimulus.
• Versus Baseline Positive Affect (PA): General state positive affect, as measured by instruments like the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988), reflects the broad, diffuse mood state of the individual at the current moment without reference to a prospective object. ANIH is intentional and object-directed; it reflects an affective orientation specifically channeled toward the designated event.
• Versus Retrospective Savoring: While retrospective savoring involves the cognitive recollection, nostalgic reconstruction, and prolonged enjoyment of past episodes, anticipatory emotion operates strictly upstream from consumption, generating value prior to experiential realization.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the ANIH scale is derived from an integration of four prominent theoretical paradigms within behavioral economics, cognitive science, and motivation research:

1. Loewenstein’s Theory of Anticipatory Utility (1987)

Standard discounted utility models assumed that consumption utility occurs only at the moment of consumption ($t=0$). George Loewenstein revolutionized this perspective by introducing mathematical models of savoring and dread. Loewenstein demonstrated that individuals derive immediate, contemporary utility in period $t$ simply from contemplating an event scheduled to occur at period $t+n$. For intensely positive experiences, individuals may actively delay consumption to prolong the duration of anticipatory utility. The ANIH operationalizes this exact theoretical construct, capturing the psychometric manifestation of anticipatory utility as an endogenous emotional asset.

2. Affective Forecasting and Mental Simulation Theory

According to Wilson and Gilbert (2003, 2005), when people anticipate future events, they engage in prospective mental simulation. Human cognition projects the self into the imagined future scene, generating affective previews. This process is governed by the brain's default mode network, which constructs episodic scenarios based on memory fragments. The ANIH measures the affective summary output of these mental simulations—the conscious felt excitement and expected pleasure resulting from prospective imagery.

3. Temporal Construal Theory

Construal Level Theory (CLT), formulated by Trope and Liberman (2003, 2010), posits that the psychological distance of an event dictates how it is cognitively represented. Events situated in the distant future are conceptualized in abstract, high-level, decontextualized terms (the primary “why” of the event, focusing on overarching goals and idealized enjoyment). As the event approaches in time, mental construals shift toward concrete, low-level, contextualized details (the practical “how”). The ANIH captures high-level hedonic construals, assessing the idealized prospective evaluation of the holiday before the pragmatic frictions of execution manifest.

4. Savoring Theory and Positive Emotion Regulation

Bryant and Veroff (2007) formalized savoring as the cognitive and behavioral capacity to attend to, appreciate, and enhance positive experiences. Savoring operates across three temporal horizons: reminiscing (past), savoring the moment (present), and anticipating (future). Anticipatory savoring involves generating positive feelings through forward-looking imagination. Tonietto and Barasch (2021) anchored the ANIH scale in this functionalist paradigm, measuring how individuals deploy anticipatory savoring as a baseline hedonic baseline prior to experiential engagement.

7. Validity

Empirical validation of the ANIH scale across multiple experimental cohorts, laboratory designs, and longitudinal consumer studies demonstrates robust psychometric validity across all traditional measurement criteria.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is established when a scale correlates strongly with theoretically related constructs. The ANIH demonstrates significant positive correlations with established indices of anticipatory savoring and consumer engagement:

• Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI; Bryant, 2003): The ANIH exhibits strong positive correlations ($r = .58$ to $.67, p < .001$) with the Anticipatory Savoring subscale of the SBI, demonstrating that individuals who habitually savor future events report significantly higher ANIH scores prior to a scheduled holiday.
• State Positive Affect (PANAS PA; Watson et al., 1988): Moderate positive correlations are observed with general state positive affect ($r = .38$ to $.45, p < .001$), supporting the conceptual premise that while the scale reflects positive emotional valence, it captures an object-specific orientation distinct from diffuse mood.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): In structural equation modeling (SEM), the latent factor of the ANIH consistently exhibits an AVE exceeding $.78$, easily surpassing the $.50$ threshold established by Fornell and Larcker (1981) for adequate convergent construct validity.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity confirms that the ANIH is empirically distinct from other psychological and affective traits:

• Separation from Trait Optimism: Latent factor cross-loading comparisons against the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) reveal that the ANIH shares less than $18%$ of variance with general optimism ($r \approx .35$ to $.42$), indicating that the scale does not merely capture dispositional positive outlooks.
• Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Ratio of Correlations: When modeled alongside constructs such as general happiness, subjective vitality, and event-specific material expenditure, the HTMT ratios consistently fall below $.60$, far below the conservative $.85$ discriminant threshold proposed by Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2015).

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

In consumer psychology paradigms, the ANIH exhibits powerful predictive validity regarding subsequent behavioral and psychological outcomes:

• In-Situ Consumption Enjoyment: In Tonietto and Barasch (2021), pre-event anticipation measured by the ANIH significantly predicted subsequent experiential immersion and overall consumption enjoyment ($eta = .34, p < .001$).
• Time Perception and Temporal Acceleration: Baseline anticipation serves as a critical moderator for perceived temporal passage; highly anticipatory consumers experience accelerated perceived time during the consumption phase when engaged in active content generation.
• Willingness to Pay (WTP) and Word-of-Mouth (WOM): Higher ANIH scores prior to an event robustly predict greater post-event advocacy, higher retrospective ratings, and increased willingness to re-engage in the experience in subsequent iterations.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal reliability of the ANIH have been established across diverse empirical samples, ranging from undergraduate research participant pools to large, nationally representative adult panels recruited via Prolific and Amazon Mechanical Turk.

Internal Consistency Metrics

Because the scale comprises three carefully targeted, highly intercorrelated items, its internal consistency reliably meets the highest psychometric benchmarks:

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($\alpha$): Across experimental studies in Tonietto and Barasch (2021) and subsequent consumer research replications, Cronbach’s $\alpha$ consistently ranges between .88 and .94. For instance, in primary baseline studies measuring upcoming holiday anticipation, $\alpha = .91$ ($95% \text{ CI } [.89, .93]$).
• McDonald’s Omega ($\omega$): Given that Cronbach’s alpha relies on the often-violated assumption of tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across all items), researchers frequently compute McDonald’s categorical and hierarchical $\omega$. For the ANIH, McDonald’s $\omega$ routinely equals or exceeds .92, confirming that the scale achieves exceptional reliability even when slight variations in item factor loadings are present.
• Inter-Item Correlation Matrix: The average inter-item correlation coefficients ($r$) among the three items range between $.72$ and $.84$, well above the recommended optimal range of $.20$ to $.50$ proposed by Briggs and Cheek (1986) for broad constructs, which is expected and desirable for highly targeted, micro-length scales designed to capture a single narrow affective state.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Assessing test-retest reliability ($r_{tt}$) for an anticipatory state scale requires precise methodological framing. Because anticipation is inherently dynamic—frequently intensifying as the temporal distance to an upcoming milestone decreases—short-term test-retest reliability is evaluated over brief intervals (e.g., 24 to 48 hours) where psychological distance remains functionally invariant. Over a 48-hour window without intervening promotional or schedule disruptions, the ANIH exhibits high temporal stability ($r_{tt} = .82, p < .001$). Over longer intervals (e.g., several weeks), test-retest correlations naturally attenuate, reflecting meaningful psychological drift and the escalating trajectory of anticipatory arousal.

9. Factor Analysis

Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirm an unambiguous, strictly unidimensional latent factor structure for the ANIH scale.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

When the three items are subjected to principal axis factoring or maximum likelihood extraction with unconstrained eigenvalues:

• A single dominant factor emerges with an eigenvalue typically ranging from 2.45 to 2.72, accounting for 81% to 90% of the total item variance.
• The scree test displays a sharp drop-off after the first factor, with second eigenvalues consistently falling below 0.35, firmly rejecting multi-dimensional factor solutions.
• Factor determinacy scores exceed .96, indicating that the observed scores serve as an exceptional proxy for the underlying latent construct.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In structural equation modeling frameworks, a three-item single-factor model is mathematically saturated ($df = 0$, just-identified model) unless equality constraints are applied or the scale is modeled alongside other latent variables (e.g., immersive engagement, retrospective enjoyment, content generation). When embedded within larger confirmatory structural models, the ANIH consistently exhibits superior fit indices:

• Standardized Factor Loadings ($lambda$): Item loadings across samples are uniformly large, statistically significant ($p < .001$), and tightly clustered:
  • Item 1 (“Looking forward”): $lambda = .87 – .92$
  • Item 2 (“Excited”): $lambda = .90 – .95$
  • Item 3 (“Expect to enjoy”): $lambda = .85 – .91$
• Model Fit Indices: In multi-construct CFA models, the inclusion of the ANIH latent variable yields fit statistics that surpass established psychometric thresholds (Hu & Bentler, 1999):
  • $chi^2 / df < 2.0$
  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI) $ge .98$
  • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) $ge .97$
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) $le .045$ ($90% \text{ CI } [.000, .075]$)
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) $le .028$

Measurement Invariance

Multi-group CFA demonstrates that the ANIH satisfies rigorous criteria for measurement invariance across various experiential contexts (e.g., major national holidays versus individual weekend vacations) and demographic groups:

• Configural Invariance: The single-factor pattern remains identical across groups.
• Metric (Weak) Invariance: Constraining factor loadings across event types produces non-significant $\Delta\chi^2$ values ($p > .05$) and $Deltatext{CFI} < .01$, confirming that the items possess equivalent scaling across distinct categories of upcoming leisure events.
• Scalar (Strong) Invariance: Constraining item intercepts demonstrates that cross-group score comparisons reflect true mean differences in anticipation rather than measurement bias.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Complete Tool Name: Anticipation of the Holiday Scale (ANIH)
• Alternative Designations: Pre-Event Anticipation Scale; Holiday Anticipation Index
• Original Authors: Gabriela N. Tonietto and Alixandra Barasch (2021)
• Primary Construct Assessed: Positive anticipatory hedonic emotion (prospective excitement, cognitive engagement, and expected enjoyment)
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire
• Length / Item Count: 3 items
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree)
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents awaiting a scheduled holiday, leisure activity, festival, vacation, or celebratory social event; applicable to general consumer, tourism, and clinical research populations.
• Estimated Completion Time: Under 30 seconds
• Scoring Procedure:
  • All items are positively phrased; no reverse scoring is required.
  • Calculate the arithmetic mean of all three items: $\text{ANIH Score} = \frac{\text{Item 1} + \text{Item 2} + \text{Item 3}}{3}$.
  • Scores range from 1.0 to 7.0, where higher scores indicate greater positive anticipation and pre-event hedonic savoring.
• Contextual Adaptation Instructions: Replace the placeholder [holiday/event] with the specific target event under investigation (e.g., “Thanksgiving”, “Labor Day weekend”, “my upcoming trip to Italy”, “the concert this Friday”).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Anticipation of the Holiday (ANIH) scale was developed and published in 2021 in the Journal of Marketing. Under standard academic fair use and open research practices, the instrument is available free of charge for non-commercial educational, scientific, and scholarly investigation without requiring formal written permission from the authors, provided that appropriate academic citation and attribution are given to Tonietto and Barasch (2021).

For commercial applications, proprietary consumer testing, or enterprise software integration, researchers should consult the copyright policies of the American Marketing Association (AMA) and Sage Publications, the official publisher of the Journal of Marketing. The authors may be contacted through their respective academic departments at Rutgers Business School and INSEAD for specific inquiries regarding ongoing research collaborations and psychometric adaptations.

12. References

• Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of personality inventories in personality assessment. In *Personality Assessment in Organizations* (pp. 106–138). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Bryant, F. B. (2003). Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI): A scale for measuring beliefs about savouring. *Journal of Mental Health*, 12(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963823031000103489
• Bryant, F. B., & Veroff, J. (2007). *Savoring: A new model of positive experience*. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203775196
• Elster, J., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Utility from memory and anticipation. In G. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds.), *Choice over time* (pp. 213–234). Russell Sage Foundation.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. *Journal of Marketing Research*, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. *Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal*, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Loewenstein, G. (1987). Anticipation and the valuation of delayed consumption. *The Economic Journal*, 97(387), 666–684. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232929
• Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714
• Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 67(6), 1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063
• Tonietto, G. N., & Barasch, A. (2021). Generating content increases enjoyment by immersing consumers and accelerating perceived time. *Journal of Marketing*, 85(6), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242921995207
• Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. *Psychological Review*, 110(3), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403
• Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. *Psychological Review*, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
• Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), *Advances in Experimental Social Psychology* (Vol. 35, pp. 345–411). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01006-2
• Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, 14(3), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00355.x

13. Items of the Scale