Give a piece of you: Gifts that reflect givers promote closeness

Abstract

People prefer giving gifts that reflect a receiver's interests and passions. • People prefer receiving gifts that reflect their own interests and passions. • Gifts that reflect the giver promote greater closeness for givers and receivers. • Giving gifts that reflect the giver may be an underutilized way to boost closeness. a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o Gift giving is an ancient, ubiquitous and familiar behavior often thought to build and foster social connections, but what types of gifts are most effective in increasing closeness between the giver and the recipient? In six studies we explore both the perceptions and relational outcomes of gifts that reflect the giver (giver-centric gifts) and gifts that reflect the recipient (recipient-centric gifts). Across studies, we find a strong and consistent preference for giving and receiving recipient-centric gifts. Surprisingly, however, in the gift-giving contexts examined in these studies, both givers and receivers report greater feelings of closeness to their gift partner when the gift reflects the giver.

Full text

Give a piece of you: Gifts that reflect givers promote closeness
Lara B. Aknin
a,
⁎, Lauren J. Human
b
a
Simon FraserUniversity, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
b
University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94143, United States
HIGHLIGHTS
•People prefer giving gifts that reflect a receiver's interests and passions.
•People prefer receiving gifts that reflect their own interests and passions.
•Gifts that reflect the giver promote greater closeness for givers and receivers.
•Giving gifts that reflect the giver may be an underutilized way to boost closeness.
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 12 December 2014
Revised 24 April 2015
Accepted 24 April 2015
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Gift giving
Relationships
Closeness
Gift givingis an ancient, ubiquitous and familiarbehavior often thought to build andfoster social connections, but
what types of gifts are most effective in increasing closeness between the giver and the recipient? In six studies
we exploreboth the perceptions and relational outcomes of giftsthat reflect the giver (giver-centricgifts) and gifts
that reflectthe recipient (recipient-centric gifts).Across studies, we finda strong andconsistent preference for giv-
ing and receiving recipient-centric gifts. Surprisingly, however, in the gift-giving contexts examined in these
studies, both givers and receivers report greater feelings of closeness to their gift partner when the gift reflects
the giver.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
It's that time of year again —Valentine's Day, which means that you
need to decide whether to give your partner tickets to the Motown
music reunion tour (a gift that perfectly captures your knowledge of
his deep-seated love for soul sounds and funky, pop beats) or tickets
to see the new play you have been gushing about for weeks (a gift
that reveals your passions and interests). This seemingly simple spend-
ing decision reflects a familiar conundrum: What types of gifts should
we provide when trying to foster connection with those we care
about? This question can have costly consequences too. The average
American spends hundreds of dollars annually on gifts for other people
(Consumer Expenditure Survey,2012), meaning hundreds of dollars are
wasted if gifts are underappreciated orunderutilized (Waldfogel,1993).
Although gift giving can be traced back through the centuries
(Morris, 1986), this behavior has received relatively little attention
from psychology (Dunn, Huntsinger, Lun, & Sinclair, 2008). Neighboring
fields, such as anthropology, sociology and marketing posit that gift
giving is motivated by social exchange, reciprocity, and self-expression
(Betteridge, 1985; Homans, 1961; Sherry, 1983). Psychology, in con-
trast, has focused more on what gifts may communicate and what mo-
tivations drive gift-giving behavior, such as the desire to build or
strengthen relationships (e.g., Belk, 1979). Indeed, social ties have
been described as a basic human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995),
which may help explain why spending money on others leads to emo-
tional rewards for the giver (Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008, 2014). But
what types of gifts bring givers and recipients closer together —gifts
that reflect the gift giver or those that reflect the gift recipient?
Although no research appears to have directly compared whether
gifts that reflect the giver (giver-centric gifts) or gifts that reflect the re-
cipient (recipient-centric gifts) are more effective in fostering closeness,
past research by Zhang and Epley (2012) has explored when the
“thought”behind a gift is appreciated by both parties. Findings suggest
that gift receivers are unlikely to recognize or appreciate the effort
investedin thoughtful (vs. thoughtless) gifts unless triggeredby contex-
tual cues, but givers feel closer to recipients after giving thoughtfulgifts.
Given that many gifts offered to increase relationship closeness are pre-
sumably thoughtful in nature, our investigation focuses on another crit-
ical but unstudied distinction: What kinds of gifts bring givers and
receivers closer together —those that reflect the giver or those that re-
flect the recipient?
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60 (2015) 8–16
⁎Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, 8888
University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.
E-mail addresses: laknin@sfu.ca (L.B. Aknin), lauren.human@ucsf.edu (L.J. Human).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.006
0022-1031/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

Intuitively, it may seem that gifts that reflect the recipient would be
most beneficial —indeed, the gift is, after all, intended for the recipient,
and should therefore ideally be of interest or use to the recipient. This
may be best achieved by giving a gift that reflects the recipient's inter-
ests or passions. Furthermore, research on self-verification theory sug-
gests that giving gifts that reflect the recipient would be beneficial for
social relationships. People enjoy receiving information that is consis-
tent with their own self-views, or self-verifying (Swann, 1987; Swann,
Pelham, & Krull, 1989). In romantic relationships, receiving self-
verifying information is associated with greater intimacy (Swann, De
La Ronde, & Hixon, 1994) and promotes relationship satisfaction
(Lackenbauer, Campbell, Rubin, Fletcher, & Troister, 2010). Similarly,
in close relationships, receiving partner-verifying information –infor-
mation that confirms one's expectations about the close other –is also
associated with greater intimacy (Swann et al., 1994), suggesting that
the gift giver may also enjoy giving a gift that accurately reflects the
recipient's self. Indeed, people tend to prefer individuals whom they
more accurately perceive and who perceive them more accurately
(Human, Sandstrom, Biesanz, & Dunn, 2013), and greater accuracy in
romantic relationships is associated with higher relationship quality
and outcomes (Neff & Karney, 2005; Luo & Snider, 2009). Thus, if givers
areabletogivegiftsthatreflect the recipient, thereby fostering self- and
partner-verification, it is possible that the giver and receiver may come
to feel closer to one another.
It is important to note, however, that giving a recipient-centric gift
may only carry these benefits if the gift does indeed accurately reflect
the recipient, which may not always be an easy task. Indeed, close
others do tendto agree with one another regarding each other's person-
ality traits, but agreement is far from perfect (e.g., Funder & Colvin,
1997; Vazire, 2010). As such, there is plenty of room for error when
attempting to select a gift that reflects a close other. In contrast, it may
be much easier to select a gift that accurately reflects the giver's self,
as self-information, particularly regarding one's inner thoughts and
feelings, tends to be more readily accessible to individuals (Robins &
John, 1997; Vazire, 2010).
Interestingly, giving a giver-centric gift may not only be somewhat
easier but it may also carry its own positive relationship consequences
and increase feelings of closeness. This may be because acts of self-
disclosure are inherently rewarding (Tamir & Mitchell, 2012) and can
have positive relational consequences (Jourard, 1964). Thus, gifts
allowing the giver to engage in self-disclosure could be beneficial for
the giver. Moreover, self-disclosure promotes intimacyin romantic rela-
tionships (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998) and liking in a
reciprocal manner, such that people prefer those they disclose to and
those who disclose to them (for review see Collins & Miller, 1994). As
such, gifts that reflect the giver may promote closeness for the receiver
too. Thus, giving a gift that discloses something personal about the giver
could promote closeness on behalf of both givers and receivers.
Overall, then, giving gifts that reflect the recipient may intuitively
seem highly beneficial to relationships. Yet the difficulties that may
come along with effectively selecting recipient-centric gifts (ones that
accurately reflect recipient's unique interests and passions) may make
this strategy less beneficial than predicted. Further, this emphasis on
recipient-centric gifts may lead people to overlook the benefits of
giver-centric gifts, which could be highly beneficial for relationship de-
velopment by facilitating self-disclosure.
2. Overview
In six studies we explore both the perceptions and relational out-
comes of gifts that reflect the giver (giver-centric gifts)andgiftsthatre-
flect the recipient (recipient-centric gifts). Given that individuals often
lack insight into what decisionswill be most rewarding psychologically
and affectively (Ariely, 2008; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008; Wilson & Dunn,
2004), including decisions related to spending (Dunn, Aknin, et al.,
2008; Dunn, Huntsinger, et al., 2008), it is important to examine and
compare both perceptions and actual outcomes. In Studies 1 and 2, we
focus on perceptions of these gifts, examining what types of gifts people
believe that they and others prefer. In Studies 3 and 4, we investigate
whether givers report greater gains in relationship closeness after
reflecting upon a time they gave a giver- (vs. recipient-) centric gift. In
Study 5, we examine how close givers feel to recipients after offering a
giver- or receiver-centric gift in the present. Finally, in Study 6, we ex-
plore the relational impact of giver- vs. recipient- centric gifts for both
parties. Given the firm customs surrounding gift giving as a recipient fo-
cused act, we hypothesized that most people would report a preference
for giving and receiving recipient-centric gifts. However, in light of the
research outlined above –indicating that giver-centric gifts would be
associated with relational benefits for givers and receivers –we hypoth-
esized that giver-centric gifts might promote greater relational close-
ness than recipient-centric gifts.
3. Study 1: nationally representative survey
3.1. Participants and procedure
As part of a larger survey, a nationally representative sample of five-
hundred twenty eight Americans (M
age
= 47.2, SD = 13.8, 63.4% fe-
male) were asked about their intuitions regarding gift giving
1
.Specifi-
cally, participants were asked, “in general as a gift giver, would you
rather give a gift that reflects your true self or your knowledge of the re-
cipient.”Similarly, participants were asked “in general as a gift receiver,
would you rather receive a gift that reflects your interests and passions
or the giver's interests and passions.”Participants were asked to select
one of the two options for each question.
2
Responses favoring gifts
that reflected therecipientwere coded as recipient-centric gifts while re-
sponses favoring gifts that reflectthegiverwerecodedasgiver-centric
gifts. Sample size was determined beforehand based on budget restric-
tions and power analyses to investigate an unrelated research question
(achieved power for chi-square analyses = .91 using phi = .35 at http://
statpages.org/postpowr.html).
3.2. Results and discussion
Responses revealed a strong preference for recipient-centric gifts.
When asked what type of gift they prefer giving, a significant majority
(n = 356) stated that they generally prefer to give gifts that reflect
their knowledge of the recipient, X
2
(1) = 64.12, pb.001, ϕ=.35,
over gifts that reflect their true self (n = 172). Similarly, when asked
what type of gift they prefer receiving, a significant majority (n =
418) stated that they generally prefer receiving gifts that reflect their
own interests and passions, X
2
(1) = 179.67, pb.001, ϕ=.58,over
gifts that reflect the interests and passions of the giver (n = 110).
4. Study 2: Valentine's Day gifts
Study 1 reveals that most people prefer to give and receive gifts that
reflect the receiver. But do gift-giving preferences remain recipient-
centric during real, high-stakes gift exchanges? To find out, we surveyed
gift giving intuitions and behavior around Valentine's Day. We predict-
ed that most participants would report a preference for recipient-
centric gifts and that this preference would be reflected in actual giving
behavior.
1
Study 1 contained several questions about social mobility and well-beingfor an unre-
lated investigation.Studies 2–6includedseveralfiller items such as questionsprobing par-
ticipants' feelings of alertness, self esteem, and monthly spendi ng estimates; th ese
variables did not influence the effects reported here.
2
As required by the ethics board, all questions in Studies 1–6 were voluntary and par-
ticipants were able to opt out of answering any item(s) they choose. As such, responses
and analyses presented in Studies 1–6reflects all the data provided by participants. Any
and all exclusions are noted in text when applicable.
9L.B. Aknin, L.J. Human / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60 (2015) 8–16

4.1. Participants and procedure
Forty individuals (M
age
=21.3,SD = 3.00, 50% female) who stated
that they would be giving a gift on Valentine's Day were recruited on
a university campus two days before the holiday. This sample size re-
flects the maximum number of participants we could recruit given
time restrictions (achieved power for chi-square = .91 using phi =
.58 at http://statpages.org/postpowr.html).
Participants completed a questionnaire that asked about their most
recent gift giving and receiving experiences as well as their intuitions
about gift giving in general. Specifically, participants were asked to re-
spond to the following items: (1) “Thinking back to the last gift you
gave, what did the gift reveal? Your true self (e.g., your interests, pas-
sions) or your knowledge of the recipient (e.g., the recipient's interests,
passions)”,(2)“Thinking back to the last gift you received, what did the
gift reveal? The giver's knowledge of you (e.g., your interests, passions)
or the giver's true self (e.g., the giver's interests, passions)”,(3)“As a gift
giver, would you rather give a gift that reflects: Your true self or your
knowledge of the recipient”, and (4) “As a gift receiver, would you rath-
er receive a gift that reflects: Your interests and passions or the giver's
interests and passions”. As in Study 1, participants were asked to select
one of the two options for each question and responses favoring gifts
that reflected the recipient were c oded as recipient-centric gifts while re-
sponses favoring gifts that reflect the giver were coded as giver-centric
gifts. Finally, participants indicated whether we could contact them
after Valentine's Day with another survey.
Participants who agreed to complete a follow-up survey were
contacted by phone 1–2 days after Valentine's Day. Follow-up phone
calls were made by research assistants that had not spoken with partic-
ipants and who were not aware of their Valentine's Day gift giving be-
haviors. Participants were asked to classify whether their Valentine's
Day gift reflected either their true self (e.g., their own interests and pas-
sions), their knowledge of the recipient (e.g., the recipient's interests
and passions), or both.
4.2. Results and discussion
Consistent with theresults of Study 1, pre-Valentine's Day survey re-
sponses revealed a strong preference for recipient-centric gifts. When
asked about the last gift they gave, a significant majority of participants
(n = 30) stated that their gift revealed their knowledge of the recipient,
X
2
(1) = 11.31, pb.001, ϕ= .53, rather than their true self (n = 9). In
addition, a significant majority reported that they generally prefer to
give gifts that reflect their knowledge of the recipient (n = 36), X
2
(1) = 27.92, pb.001, ϕ= .84, rather than gifts that reflect their own
true self (n = 3). Similarly, when asked about the last gift they received,
participants stated that the gift reflected the giver's knowledge of them
(n = 31), X
2
(1) = 15.16,pb.001, ϕ= .62, as opposed to the giver's true
self (n = 7) and a general preference for receiving gifts that reflect their
own interests and passions (n = 32), X
2
(1) = 17.79, pb.001, ϕ=.68,
rather than the giver's interests and passions (n = 6).
The preference for giving recipient-centric gifts was visible in
Valentine's Day giving behaviors. Of the eighteen participants who
responded to the post-Valentine's Day survey (M
age
=21.6,SD = 3.1,
56% female), fifteen stated that their gifts reflected the recipient's inter-
ests and passions, two stated that the gifts reflected their own true self,
and one stated that his/her gift reflected both his/her own and the
recipient's interests and passions, X
2
(2) = 20.33, pb.001, ϕ= .75.
5. Study 3: recollections
Study 2 replicates a preference for recipient-centric gifts. Consistent
with reports from a large,nationally representative sample, mostpartic-
ipants reported a strong preference for giving and receiving recipient-
centric gifts, both in general as well as when reflecting upon their
most recent gift giving and receiving experience. Moreover, actual gift
giving behavior on Valentine's Day reflected these intuitions. The ques-
tion remains, however, as to which type of gift –giver- or recipient-
centric –brings people closest together. To find out, in Studies 3 and 4
we randomly assigned participants to recall giving a giver- or recipi-
ent-centric gift and assessed change in perceived closeness with the
recipient.
5.1. Participants
Three-hundred and three individuals (M
age
=31.8,SD = 11.1, 51%
female) completed an online survey through Amazon's Mechanical
Turk system in exchange for a small monetary payment. Sample size
was determined beforehand based on power analyses and budget re-
strictions (achieved power = .93 calculated using G*Power; Faul,
Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).
5.2. Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two online question-
naires asking them to recall and describe the last time they gave a gift
that either revealed their true self (giver-centric gift) or their knowledge
of the recipient (recipient-centric gift). Specifically, participants were
told to “think back to and describe –in as much detail as possible –
the last time you bought a gift for someone else that revealed your
true self (your knowledge of the recipient). That is, please describe a
time you bought a gift for someone that showed your true character, in-
terests, or passions (your knowledge of the recipient's character, inter-
ests, or passions). Your description should explain what you bought
and why the item reflected your true self (the recipient).”To assess
the relationship consequences of giver and recipient centric gifts, we
asked participants to report their feelings of closeness toward the gift
recipient before and after gift giving using the Inclusion of Other in
Self Scale (IOS; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). The IOS scale assesses feel-
ings of closeness with another person using a one-item pictorial mea-
sure by asking respondents to select an image of two circles that
represent their closeness with an identified target on a 7-point Likert
scale ranging from close but separate (two side-by-side circles, rated
as 1 on scale) to almost completely overlapping circles (rated as 7 on
scale). Closeness is defined here, as it is by Aron et al. (1992), as a feeling
of interconnectedness with another person. Afterward, we assessed the
broader concept of relationship satisfaction byasking participants to re-
port their satisfaction with the relationship on a 7-point Likert scale
(1—not at all satisfied to 7—very satisfied) and their current emotion
on the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark,
& Tellegen, 1988).
3
Finally, we asked participants about their most re-
cent gift giving and receiving experiences, as well as their intuitions
about gift giving in general using the same four items as Study 2.
5.3. Results and discussion
As observed in Studies 1 and 2, participants reported a strong prefer-
ence for recipient-centric gifts. When asked about the last gift they gave,
asignificant majority of participants stated that their gift revealed their
knowledge of the recipient (n = 211), X
2
(1) = 53.64, pb.001, ϕ=.43,
as opposed to their true self (n = 85) and that they generally prefer to
give gifts that reflect their knowledge of the recipient (n = 238), X
2
(1) = 112.67, pb.001, ϕ= .62, rather than their true self (n = 56). Sim-
ilarly, when asked about the last gift they received, participants stated
that the gift reflected the giver's knowledge of them (n = 207), X
2
3
As a proxy for relationship satisfaction, participants also reported the extent to which
they discussed ten topics with the gift recipient (e.g., personal habits, what makes them
proud, etc.). As expected and consistent with relationship satisfaction reports, the extent
to which participants reported discussing the ten topics did not differby condition (aver-
age ratings for eac h condition M
giver-centric
=2.42,SD =1.34;M
giver-centric
=2.32,
SD =1.34,F(1, 179) = .30, p=.588,d=.07).
10 L.B. Aknin, L.J. Human / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60 (2015) 8–16

(1) = 46.09, pb.001, ϕ= .39, rather than the giver's true self (n = 90).
Participants also reported a general preference for receiving gifts that
reflect their own interests and passions (n = 242), X
2
(1) = 117.74,
pb.001, ϕ= .63, rather than the giver's interest and passions (n = 55).
We next explored whether participants assigned to recall giving a
giver-centric gift reported experiencing greater gains in relationship
closeness than participants assigned to recall giving a recipient-centric
gift. To do so, we calculated a change in closeness score from before to
after giving, such that higher scores represent greater gains in closeness.
Analyzing the change in closeness reported by gift givers with a one-
way ANOVA, we found that givers offering giver-centric gifts (n =
162) reported greater gains of closeness (M=0.61,SD =.91)than
givers offering recipient-centric gifts (n = 141, M= 0.27, SD = .68),
F(1, 290) = 11.99, pb.005, d=.41.
4
Importantly, adding positive affect ratings as a covariate to the anal-
ysis left the main effect of condition unchanged, F(1, 262) = 10.83,
pb.005, d= .42, helping to rule out the alternative explanation that
participants recalling giver-centric gifts felt happier and thus reported
higher feelings of closeness to their gift recipient. Interestingly, gift
type did not significantly influence the more stable construct of rela-
tionship satisfaction. Givers who recalled offering giver-centric gifts
did not report higher levels of relationship satisfaction (M=6.06,
SD = 1.24) than givers who recalled offering recipient centric-gifts
(M= 5.95, SD = 1.21), F(1, 296) = .55, p=.458,d= .09.
6. Study 4
Study 3 provides a look at real spending preferences and outcomes
with a large sample and experimental design. As with Studies 1 and 2,
our results suggest that people have strong preferences for giving and
receiving recipient-centric gifts. However, giving gifts that reflect givers
was associated with greater gains in relationship closeness with the re-
cipient. In attempt to replicate the closeness benefits of giver-centric
gifts for givers, we conducted an additional experiment (Study 4) in
which participants were again asked to recall giving a giver- or
recipient-centric gift and then report their perceived closeness with
the recipient. To extend upon Study 3, we also expanded the giver-
centric gift options in an effort to explore what components of giver-
centric gifts may be most relevant to perceived closeness. For example,
does a giver-centric gift promote perceived closeness because one has
shared a piece of their true self or because they have shared something
that they enjoy? Alternatively, perhaps giver-centric gifts promote
closeness because they are more likely to enhance how much time
you spend with the recipient. In Study 4, we examined how recalling
giving each of these potentially giver-centric gifts versus recalling giving
a recipient-centric gift predicted gains in perceived closeness with the
recipient. In addition, it is possible that relationship duration or type
may moderate the relational benefits of giving giver- or recipient-cen-
tric gifts, such that giver-centric gifts are especially advantageous
among new or longstanding relationships, or for some relationship
types over others (romantic relationships vs. friendships). We explored
this possibility by asking participants how long they have known the re-
cipient and by coding relationship type from the gift giving descriptions,
where possible.
6.1. Participants
Four-hundred thirty-four individuals (M
age
=30.3,SD = 10.2, 39%
female) completed an online survey through Amazon's Mechanical
Turk system in exchange for a small monetary payment. Sample size
was determined beforehand based on power analyses and budget re-
strictions (achieved power = .87 calculated using G*Power; Faul et al.,
2007).
6.2. Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four online question-
naires asking them to “Please think back to and describe –in as much de-
tail as possible –the last time you bought a gift for someone else that…
(a) shared a pieced of your true self with the recipient, (b) involved giving
something you enjoy to the recipient, (c) encouraged you to spend time
with the recipient, or (d) revealed your knowledge of the recipient.”To
encourage a detailed account, participants were told that that their de-
scription should explain what they bought and why this met the criterion.
To assess the relationship consequences of these gift types, we asked par-
ticipants to report their feelings of closeness toward the gift recipient be-
fore and after gift giving using the IOS scale (Aron et al., 1992), allowing us
to calculate the same change in relationship closeness score used in Study
3. Afterward, participants reported their current happiness on a one-item
measure (“how happy are you feeling right now? 1—very slightly or not at
all to 5—extremely”) and relationship satisfaction using the same 7-point
Likert scale used in Study 3. In addition, participants were asked how long
they had known the gift recipient on a 9-point Likert scale with options
ranging from 1–6 months to 20+ years. Finally, we asked participants
about their most recent gift giving and receiving experiences, as well as
their intuitions about gift giving in general using the same items as
Study 2.
6.3. Results and discussion
6.3.1. Example gift descriptions
Most participants in all four conditions were able to provide detailed
descriptions of their gift giving experience. For instance, a participant
assigned to recall giving a gift that shared a piece of themselves with
the recipient described an occasion in which they gave a book of their
“absolute favorite”poems to a dear friend because the content “speaks
to me and of me.”Meanwhile, a participant assigned to recall giving
something they enjoy to a recipient described a time they gave a CD
from a band they enjoy to a friend hoping they would like it too. A par-
ticipant assigned to recall giving a gift that encouraged time spent with
the recipient described buying a case of California craft beer for their
friend in New York and delivering the gift in person so they could
spend hours reminiscing about shared experiences. Finally, a participant
assigned to recall giving a recipient-centric gift described an occasion in
which they gave their colleague the Big Lebowski because she frequent-
ly talks about and quotes the movie.
6.3.2. Gift preferences
Once again, we found that participants reported a strong preference
for recipient-centric gifts. When asked about the last gift they gave, a
significant majority of participants stated that their gift revealed their
knowledge of the recipient (n = 304), X
2
(1) = 78.80, pb.001, ϕ=
.43, rather than their own true self (n = 121), and that they generally
prefer to give gifts that reflect their knowledge of the recipient (n =
352), X
2
(1) = 183.16, pb.001, ϕ= .66, as opposed to gifts that reflect
their own true self (n = 73). Similarly, when asked about the last gift
they received, participants stated that the gift reflected the giver's
knowledge of them (n = 267), X
2
(1) = 29.13, ϕ=.26,pb.001, rather
than the giver's true self (n = 156). Participants also reported a general
preference for receiving gifts that reflect their own interests and pas-
sions (n = 349), X
2
(1) = 177.07, pb.001, ϕ= .65, as opposed to
gifts that reflect the giver's interests and passions (n = 75).
6.3.3. Perceived closeness
Next, we explored what types of gifts led to the greatest gains in per-
ceived closeness. Submitting the change in closeness scores to a
4
These results remain unchanged when post-giving reports of closeness are compared
with pre-giving closeness entered as a covariate, F(1, 289) = 11.09, p= .00 1, partial
η
2
= .04. Neither gender, F(1, 286) = 1.11, p= .293, partial η
2
=.004norage,F(1,
214) = 0.74, p= .837, partial η
2
= .09 moderated the effect of giver-centric gifts on rela-
tionship closeness in Study 3.
11L.B. Aknin, L.J. Human / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60 (2015) 8–16

between-subjects ANOVA we detected a significant main effect of con-
dition, F(3, 416) = 4.25, pb.01, partial η
2
= .03. Exploring this further,
we used Least Significant Differences (LSD) post-hoc comparisonsto ex-
amine what types of gifts led to thegreatest gains in relationship close-
ness. Analyses revealed that gifts involving the giver sharing a piece of
their true self with recipient (n = 166, pb.005, d= .39), the giver giv-
ing something they enjoy (n = 84,p=.058,d= .28), or gifts encourag-
ing time spent with the receiver (n = 81, pb.005, d= .43) all led to
greater gains in relationship closeness than giving a gift that revealed
knowledge of the recipient (n = 89). Thus, giving a recipient-centric
gift was associated with the smallest gains in perceived closeness, akin
to Study 3. Once again, adding happiness as a covariate to the analysis
left the main effect of condition unchanged, F(3, 414) = 4.05, pb.01,
partial η
2
= .03, suggesting that recalling an instance of offering a
giver-centric gift does not lead to greater feelings of closeness with
the recipient than recalling giving a recipient-centric gift simply be-
cause of higher levels of happiness. Of course, given that happiness
was assessed with a one-item measure, this result should be interpreted
with caution.
Relationship duration did not moderate the relational benefits of
various gift types. When relationship duration was added as another
between-subjects variable, the interaction was non-significant, F(24,
384) = 1.22, p= .220, partial η
2
= .07 and the main effect of condition
was weakened but remained marginal, F(3, 384) = 2.61, p=.051,par-
tial η
2
= .02.
To determine whether relationship type moderated the relational
benefits of giver-centric gifts, we coded the target of each gift (when
possible) from each spending description. Of the four-hundred thirty-
four participants, a spending target could be identified in three-
hundred twenty-six descriptions. Targets were coded with the follow-
ing values: romantic partner (1), friend (2), family (3), and colleague
(4).
5
Across conditions, friends were the most frequent spending target
(n = 145, 44.5%),followed by family (n = 97, 29.8%), romantic partners
(n = 79, 24.2%) and colleagues (n = 5, 1.2%). When change in relation-
ship closeness ratings were analyzed with a 4 (recall condition)× 4 (re-
lationship type) ANOVA there was a marginal interaction, F(8, 310) =
1.84, p= .07, partial η
2
= .05, indicating that giver-centric gifts led to
larger gains in perceived relational closeness than recipient-centric
gifts in relationships typically considered close in nature and relatively
smaller gains in relationships typically considered more distant in na-
ture. For instance, post-hoc LSD comparisons revealed that within ro-
mantic relationships gifts sharing a piece of the giver led to greater
gains in relationship closeness than recipient-centric gifts, pb.005,
d= .76. Similarly, within romantic relationships, gifts that offer time
with the recipient, pb.03, d= .69, or something the giver enjoys,
p=.15,d= .45, led to greater gains in relationship closeness than
recipient-centric gifts as well. However, we refrain from inferring too
much from these findings for at least two reasons. First, relationship
type may not be a true proxy of relationship strength (i.e., people may
feel high or low levels of relational closeness with family members).
Second, some gift targets, namely colleagues, are only represented
with a small sample size (n = 5). Nonetheless, the data reveal a general
trend indicating that the relational benefits of giver-centric gifts are
greatest among relationship types that are typically close in nature.
Once again, gift type did not significantly influence relationship satis-
faction. An ANOVA examining ratings of relationship satisfaction revealed
no significant differences across the four conditions, F(3, 416) = 1.47, p=
.223, partial η
2
= .01.
7. Study 5: Mother's Day cards
Study 4 provides a closer look at the outcomes of various giver- and
recipient-centric gifts with another large sample and experimental
design. Once again, people report a strong preference for giving and re-
ceiving recipient-centric gifts yet giving gifts that reflect givers leads to
the greatest perceived relational benefits. Furthermore, in this study we
saw that each of the different components of giver-centric gifts that we
examined, whether they shared a piece of one's true self, something one
enjoys, or promoted spending time with the recipient, all had similar,
positive relational benefits. However, our examination thus far has
only demonstrated the benefits of giver-centric gifts in a recollection
type design. Therefore we next explored whether giving giver-centric
gifts leads to greater feelings of perceived closeness than recipient-
centric gifts in the present.
7.1. Participants
Seventy-eight individuals (M
age
=35.3,SD = 16.6, 54% female) re-
cruited in malls and public spaces around Greater Vancouver the week
preceding Mother's Day participated in this study in exchange for a
full sized chocolate bar. Sample size was determined by the number of
people we could recruit in the week leading up to the holiday (achieved
power = .59 calculated using G*Power; Faul et al., 2007).
7.2. Procedure
After completing an initial questionnaire with filler items (e.g., how
alert are you right now?), participants were randomly assigned to one
of two conditions in which theywere asked to buy a card for their moth-
er for Mother's Day. Specifically, participants were asked to browse
through a nearby card store or a selection of cards present and select a
card for their mother. Participants in the giver-centric gift condition
(n = 38) were asked to pick a card that “reveals your true self. That is,
please select a card that reveals your true preferences, character, inter-
ests, or passions.”Participants in the recipient-centric gift condition
(n = 40) were asked to pick a card that “reveals your knowledge of the
recipient. That is, please select a card that reveals your knowledge of
your mom's preferences, character, interests, or passions.”Cards were
paid for in advance by the research team.
After selecting a card, participants were asked to explain their selec-
tion and invited to include a personal message, if desired. Finally, partici-
pants rated how close they felt to their mother (or the intended recipient
ofthecard)usingtheIOSscale(Aron et al., 1992) and indicated whether
we could contact them after Mother's Day with a brief survey.
Participants who agreed to complete a follow-up survey were
contacted by phone 1–2 days after Mother's Day. Phone calls were
made by research assistants who had not spoken with participants
during the initial round of data collection. Participants were asked to
identify who they had given the card to and how close they felt to the
recipient on a 7-point Likert scale designed to mimic the IOS scale
(Aron et al., 1992) with anchors labeled 1—not at all close to 7—very
close as well as their relationship satisfaction using the same scale as
Studies 3 and 4. Given that we wanted to minimize participant burden
in this field study, we did not ask participants to report their intuitions
on gift giving behavior.
7.3. Results and discussion
As predicted, participants assigned to give a card to their moth-
er that reflected their own interests and passions reported higher
feelings of closeness immediately after selecting the card (M=
5.95, SD = 1.41) than participants assigned to give a card that
reflected their mother's interests and passions (M=5.13,SD =
1.86), t(76) = 2.19, pb.04, d= .50. This difference weakened to
a non-significant level after Mother's Day among the twenty-four
participants we were able to contact with our follow-up survey
(M
giver-centric
= 6.57, SD =.76,n=14;M
recipient-centric
=5.30,SD =
1.89, n= 10), t(11.08) = 2.02, p=.069,d= .88. Gift type did not sig-
nificantly influence relationship satisfaction; participants offering
5
Gift target could not be identified in a number of cases, such as when theparticipant
identified the recipient by their initials and not by their relationship status.
12 L.B. Aknin, L.J. Human / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60 (2015) 8–16

giver-centric cards did not report significantly higher levels of relation-
ship satisfaction (M= 6.43, SD = .76) than givers offering recipient-
centric cards (M=5.50,SD = 1.84), F(1, 22) = 2.91, p=.10,d=
.66. These findings suggest that giver-centric gifts lead to greater feel-
ings of perceived closeness in the present than recipient-centric gifts.
Importantly, however, the larger and more stable construct of relation-
ship closeness does not appear to vary as a function of giver- and
recipient-centric giving.
8. Study 6: iTunes
Thus far our examination has explored the relationship benefits givers
feel after offering giver-centric gifts, but do recipients experience greater
feelings of closeness as well? We explored this question in Study 6 by
conducting a lab experiment in which participants were randomly
assigned to give a low-cost gift –an iTunes song –to a recipient that either
reflected their own interests or the interests of the recipient. Afterward,
we asked recipients to report their feelings of closeness to the gift giver
so that we could examine the relational consequences of receiving these
types of gifts. We also asked recipients to indicate how much they liked
and enjoyed their gift so we could probe whether more positive evalua-
tions of the gift were necessary to experience the benefits of giver-
centric gifts. In addition, recipients reported how well the gift reflected
the self, so we could begin to explore whether recipient-centric gifts are
more beneficial if they do accurately reflect the recipient.
8.1. Participants
One-hundred twenty-two university students (M
age
= 20.1, SD =
4.4, 61% female) participated in this study in exchange for course credit
or a chocolate bar. Four participants indicated that they did not follow
their assigned spending directions and were excluded from analyses.
An additional participant was excluded due to technical difficulties
with the gift giving paradigm
6
, leaving a final sample of one-hundred
seventeen participants (M
age
= 20.2, SD = 4.5, 61% female). Sample
size was determined based on power analyses (achieved power = .70
calculated using G*Power; Faul et al., 2007).
8.2. Procedure
8.2.1. Gift givers
Participants were seated at a computer and told that they would
be taking part in a study on gift giving behaviors. After providing
consent, participants were randomly assigned to one of two condi-
tions and learned that they would have the opportunity to purchase
an iTunes song as a gift for a friend, family member or romantic part-
ner that either reflected their true self or their knowledge of the re-
cipient. Specifically, participants were asked to browse the iTunes
library, select a song, and send it as a gift to a recipient by email. Par-
ticipants in the giver-centric gift condition (n = 58) were asked to
pick a song that “reveals your true self. That is, please select a song
that reveals your true character, interests, or passions.”Participants
in the recipient-centric gift condition (n = 59) were asked to pick
a song that “reveals your knowledge of the recipient. That is, please se-
lect a song that reveals your knowledge of the recipient's character,
interests, or passions.”Participants were able to include a personal
message to the recipient if desired.
After the gift was sent, participants were asked to rate how close
they felt to the recipient using the IOS scale (Aron et al., 1992), how
much they enjoyed giving the gift (“how much did you enjoy giving
this gift?”1—notatallto 10 —extremely), and their relationship
satisfaction using the same 7-point Likert scale (1—not at all satisfied
to 7—very satisfied). Finally, participants were asked about their most
recent gift giving and receiving experiences, as well as their intuitions
about gift giving in general using the same four items in Studies 2–4.
8.2.2. Gift recipients
During the first wave of data collection, participants were recruited
independently and all served as gift givers. When gift givers left the
lab, an email was sent to their gift recipient asking them to complete a
brief online survey. If the recipient agreed, they followed a link to a
questionnaire asking them to indicate (a) whether they received an
iTunes song as a gift (yes or no), (b) from whom, (c) their perceived
closeness to the sender on the IOS scale (Aron et al., 1992), (d) how
much they liked and enjoyed receiving the gift (how much did you
like/enjoy receiving this gift? 1—notatallto 10 —extremely),
(e) their relationship satisfaction (1—not at all satisfied to 7—very sat-
isfied), and (f) to what extent the gift reflected their true self (1—not at
all to 10 —extremely).
During the second wave of data collection,participants were recruit-
ed in pairs to enhance recipient participation. After recruitment, gift
roles (giver vs. recipient) were randomly assigned. Recipients were
seated at their own computer, facing away from the giver, and were
asked to wear noise-canceling headphones to ensure they did not
hear the gift giving manipulation. All recipients responded to the same
survey, indicating (a) whether they received an iTunes song as a gift,
(b) from whom, (c) their perceived closeness to the sender on the IOS
scale (Aron et al., 1992), (d) how much they liked and enjoyed receiving
the gift (how much did you like/enjoy receiving this gift? 1—not at all to
10 —extremely), (e) their relationship satisfaction (1—not at all satisfied
to 7—very satisfied), and (f) to what extent the gift reflected their true
self (1—not at all to 10 —extremely). Both the sender and recipient were
aware that the iTunes song was a gift.
8.3. Results and discussion
Consistent with earlier results, participants expressed a strong pref-
erence for recipient-centric gift giving. Again, we found that when par-
ticipants were asked about the last gift they gave, a significant majority
stated that their gift revealed their knowledge of the recipient (n = 87),
X
2
(1) = 29.00, pb.001, ϕ= .50, rather than their own true self (n =
29) and that they generally prefer to give gifts that reflect their knowl-
edge of the recipient (n = 107), X
2
(1) = 82.79, pb.001, ϕ=.84,asop-
posed to their own true self (n = 9). Similarly, when asked about the
last gift they received, participants stated that the gift reflected the
giver's knowledge of them (n = 93), X
2
(1) = 43.84, pb.001, ϕ=
.62, rather than the giver's true self (n = 22). Participants also reported
a general preference for receiving gifts that reflect their own interests
and passions (n = 102), X
2
(1) = 66.76, pb.001, ϕ= .76, than gifts
that reflect the giver's interests and passions (n = 14).
Givers alsoreported how close they felt to the recipient after sending
the gift. In contrast to the above studies, givers offering giver-centric
gifts did not report significantly higher feelings of closeness (M=
5.28, SD = 1.60) than givers offering recipient-centric gifts (M=5.17,
SD =1.43),t(114) = 0.37, p=.714,d= .07. It is possible that the rela-
tional benefits of offering giver centric gifts were not significant because
givers felt that offering such a low cost item ($ 2.29 or less) in a lab con-
text would have little impact. In addition, giver- and recipient-centric
gifts were equally enjoyable to give (M
giver-centric
= 7.42, SD = 2.16;
M
recipient-centric
= 7.60, SD = 2.33), t(114) = .45 p= .652, d= .08. Final-
ly, consistent with previous findings, relationship satisfaction did not
differ across conditions; givers offering giver-centric gifts did not report
significantly higher levels of relationship satisfaction (M=5.94,SD =
1.02) than givers who recalled offering recipient centric-gifts (M=
5.95, SD =1.02),t(114) = .09, p= .928, d=.01.
6
The iTunes program showed significant delay in sending the selected song to the gift
recipient and appearedto send a different song thanselected by the giver.This was detect-
ed by mismatching artist and song title information reported by bothparties. Inclusionof
this one gift giver and recipient pair does not alter the conclusions reported in Study 6.
13L.B. Aknin, L.J. Human / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60 (2015) 8–16

8.3.1. Recipient responses
To investigate the relational impact of receiving giver vs. recipient
centric gifts, we examined responses from the seventy recipients
(M
age
= 21.13, SD = 4.92, 66% female) who completed our online ques-
tionnaire outside the lab (wave 1; n = 18) or in the lab (wave 2; n =
52).
7
Specifically, we compared reports of self-other overlap reported
by recipients receiving giver (n = 34) vs. recipient (n = 36) focused
gifts. Analyses revealed a main effect of condition, t(68) = 2.49,
pb.02, d= .60, whereby receivers given a gift reflecting the giver's in-
terests and passions felt closer to the giver (M=5.59,SD = 1.52) than
receivers given a gift reflecting the giver's knowledge of the receiver's
interests and passions (M= 4.58, SD = 1.83).
8
Importantly, positive
evaluations of the gift, as captured by recipient reports of liking and en-
joyment, did not explain closeness ratings. When ratings of liking were
added to the above analysis, the main effect of condition remained
significant, F(1, 68) = 8.65, pb.005, partial η
2
= .11. Similarly, when
ratings ofenjoyment in receiving the gift were added to the key analysis,
the main effect of condition also remained significant, F(1, 68) = 8.48,
pb.01, partial η
2
=.11.Thesefindingssuggestthatthebenefits of
giver-centric (vs. recipient-centric) gifts emerge above and beyond per-
ceptions of the gift itself. Interestingly in this study gift type also influ-
enced relationship satisfaction; recipients who received giver-centric
gifts reported higher levels of relationship satisfaction (M=6.03,
SD = .92) than recipients who received recipient centric-gifts (M=
5.66, SD =1.37),t(59.61) = .2.30, pb.03, d= .32.
One reason giver-centric gifts may increase closeness more than
recipient-centric gifts is because selecting a gift that accurately reflects
the recipient's true self may be more difficult for the giver and may at
times reveal a lack of knowledge that could be detrimental to relation-
ship closeness. Interestingly, however, recipients given recipient-
centric gifts reported that their gifts were relatively accurate in
reflecting their true selves, as demonstrated by the average self reflec-
tion ratings (M= 6.81, SD = 2.83) falling above the mid-point of the
scale, t(35) = 3.83, pb.005, d= .64. In contrast, recipients given
giver-centric gifts reported that their gifts did not especially capture
their true selves, as demonstrated by the average self reflection ratings
(M= 5.92, SD = 2.95) not differing from the mid-point of the scale,
t(33) = 1.80, p= .08, d= .31. Thus, it seems that givers were reason-
ably able to select gifts that reflected a recipient's true self when asked
to do so and the potential difficulty in offering such gifts does not fully
explain the relational benefits of giving giver-centric gifts. Nevertheless,
for recipients receiving recipient-centric gifts, there was a positive rela-
tionship between the extent to which gifts revealed their true selves
and their reported relationship closeness, r(36) = .44, pb.01. This find-
ing suggests that recipient-centric gifts possibly lead to increased feel-
ings of closeness when givers offer gifts that accurately capture the
recipient, even if feelings of relational closeness are generally higher
when receiving giver-centric gifts.
Together these findings suggest that although people may strongly
endorse a preference for gifts that reflect the interests and passions of
the recipient, giving giver-centric gifts –those that reflect the interests
and passions of the giver –appear to also have positive relational out-
comes for recipients.
9. General discussion
When giving a gift, people frequently try to find a gift that reflects
the recipient's interests and passions. Indeed, our studiesshow an over-
whelming preference for giving and receiving a gift that reflects the re-
cipient. Despite these preferences, giving a gift that reflects the giver's
true self actually led both givers and receivers to feel closer to one an-
other. Looking at both relatively high-stakes and everyday expendi-
tures, we find that offering giver-centric gifts are associated with
greater feelings of self-other overlap with the recipient. Furthermore,
these relational benefits are experienced by recipients as well: recipi-
ents gifted an iTunes song reported higher feelings of closeness with
the giver and greater relationship satisfaction after receiving a song
that reflected the sender rather than themselves. Together, these results
suggest that giving giver-centric gifts may be an underutilized resource
for fostering social connections.
It may seem surprising that people prefer to give and receive
recipient-centric (vs. giver-centric) gifts but report greater feelings of
relational closeness after giving and receiving giver-centric (vs.
recipient-centric) gifts. One reason this may be the case is that givers
feel uncomfortable or guilty when offering giver-centric gifts and there-
fore justify their action by reporting greater feelings of relational close-
ness to the receiver. While this type of demand characteristic response
is possible, we argue that it is unlikely given the between-subjects de-
sign of Studies 3–6; participants were assigned to recall or engage in
only one of the two types of gift giving (giver or recipient-centric) be-
fore reporting their feelings of closeness with the recipient. As such, it
would be difficult for participants engaging in giver-centric gift giving
to intentionally inflate their perceived closeness ratings above those of
participants engaging in recipient-centric gift giving because they
were not made aware of the alternative condition, let alone the scores
reported in that condition. Further, the finding that recipients also re-
ported greater relational closeness after receiving a giver-centric gift
suggests that these effects are unlikely to be driven by such a demand
characteristic alone —the recipient would have no reason to feel guilty
about receiving a giver-centric gift. Instead,we argue that the incongru-
ence between peoples' predictions andoutcomes of gift-giving is consis-
tent with a larger literature demonstrating that people sometimes lack
self knowledge and insight into the most effective or rewarding judg-
ments (e.g., Ariely, 2008; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008; Wilson & Dunn,
2004).
These data have both practical and theoretical implications. On a prac-
tical level, these findings suggest that people may be well advised to offer
more self-reflective gifts if building stronger social connections is the un-
derlying goal. Theoretically, these data are consistent with early views on
gift giving, which identify gift giving as an act of self-expression and bond-
ing (Betteridge, 1985). Further, these findings are consistent with the hy-
pothesis that giving a giver-centric gift may serve as an act of self-
disclosure, which tends to foster closeness and liking for both the disclos-
er and the recipient of the disclosure (Collins & Miller, 1994).
In contrast, these findings are less consistent with the idea that giv-
ing a recipient-centric gift could foster closeness through self- and
partner-verification, allowing the giver to demonstrate their knowledge
of the recipient's interests and passions. However, there was some evi-
dence suggesting that recipient-centric gifts can foster relationship
closeness when the gift does more accurately reflect the recipient.
Specifically, in Study 6, the more a recipient-centric gift was perceived
as accurately reflecting the recipient's true self, the more strongly did
that gift promote relational closeness. Thus, one reason recipient-
centric gifts may have weaker relational benefits compared with
giver-centric gifts is that they may be difficult to execute successfully.
As such, should a giver be able to select a gift that accurately reflects
the recipient, recipient-centric gifts could be quite beneficial. This
7
To examine whether data collection wave influenced the self-other overlap ratings of
giver (vs.recipient) centric gifts, we submittedIOS ratings to a 2 (Gifttype: giver vs. recip-
ient centric) × 2 (Data collection wave: 1 vs. 2) ANOVA. Although the main effect of data
collection wave was significant, F(1,66) = 8.77, pb.005, partial η
2
= .12, indicating that
recipients in wave 1 feltcloser to theirgift givers than recipients in wave 2, the Gift Type X
Data Collection Wave interaction was not significant, F(1 , 66) = .08, p= .774, partial
η
2
= .001. This suggests that relative relational benefits of giver-centric gifts did not vary
across data collection waves and testing contexts.
8
Once again, we examined whether gender or age moderated the effect of gift type on
relationship closeness. Age did not moderate th e effect of gift type, F(7, 48) = 1.05,
p= .411 partial η
2
= .13. Interestingly, however, recipient gender did interact with gift
type in Study 6 to predict closeness ratings, F(1, 65) = 4.87, pb.04, partial η
2
=.07;the
interaction reveals that men reported the largest differences in closeness as a function of
gift type, while women reported relatively high levels of closeness regardless of gift type.
However,given that we only observe this interaction in Study 6, we cautionagainst draw-
ing large conclusions.
14 L.B. Aknin, L.J. Human / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60 (2015) 8–16

possibility may suggest one practical route through whichaccurate per-
ceptions of close others come to promote positive relationship out-
comes (e.g., Neff & Karney, 2005; Luo & Snider, 2009).
The present work also begins toshed light on whether the relational
benefits ofgiver-centric gifts may depend on type ofthe relationshipbe-
tween a giver and recipient (e.g., Joy, 2001; Otnes, Lowrey, & Kim, 1993;
Ruth, Otnes, & Brunel, 1999). In particular, our findings suggest that the
benefits of giver-centric gifts emerge across various relationship con-
texts. From romantic partners to parents, giver-centric gifts lead to
greater gains in relationship closeness than recipient-centric gifts.
Importantly, however, this strategy may be most advantageous when
relationships have already been established. Across most of our studies,
perceived closeness was rated as relatively high before a gift was
exchanged, suggesting that prior levels of relationship closeness may
be an important boundary condition for the relational benefits of
giver-centric gifts to materialize. Furthermore, coding of gift-giving de-
scriptions in Study 4 provided initial evidence that these effects may be
stronger for closer relationships, such as romantic relationships. Further
examination of the generalizability of these findings across relationship
contexts is warranted in future research.
It is important to note that differences in gift characteristics, such as
monetary value and experiential vs. material nature, are unlikely to ex-
plain the benefits of giver-centric gifts because these dimensions were
held constant in several studies and giver-centric gifts led to higher
levels of perceived closeness in each context. For instance, all partici-
pants in Study 5 were required to select a giver- or recipient-centric
paper card to give in honor of Mother's Day. Similarly, all participants
in Study 6 were required to send an iTunes song valued at less than
$2.50 to a recipient by email. In both studies, the cost and material/ex-
periential nature of the gift were held constant, yet giver-centric gifts
led to higher levels of perceived closeness. Thus, while giver- and
recipient-centric gifts may differ in cost and experiential/materialistic
qualities, these differences do not appear to account for the benefits of
giver-centric gifts.
It is possible that offering recipient-centric gifts may lead to lower
levels of relationship closeness for givers when they feel they are offer-
ing an item they themselves do not like. This explanation is supported
by some of the data in Study 4, mainly that givers report high levels of
relational closeness after giving something they enjoy to the recipient.
Importantly, however, other forms of giver-centric gift giving (i.e., giv-
ing something that shares a piece of you and giving something that en-
courages time spent with the recipient) also lead to higher levels of
relational closeness. Thus, our data are somewhat consistent with this
explanation but (dis)liking the gift one is offering does not appear to
fully explain the relational benefits of giver-centric gifts.
It is also noteworthy that some of our studies had low statistical
power (e.g., Study 2) and used brief measures of potential confounds
(e.g., 1-item measure of happiness used in Study 4). While recognizing
that these limitations are not ideal, we are reassured that results con-
verge across multiple studies. Nonetheless, future work attempting to
replicate and build upon these initial findings may wish to address
these limitations by recruiting larger samples and using longer, validat-
ed measures.
These results add to the growing body of research examining the
positive consequences of prosocial behavior. While previous work has
investigated whether engaging in generous behavior has positive emo-
tional and relational consequences (Dunn, Aknin, et al., 2008), this re-
search explores what types of giving have the greatest impact. Future
research could extend this investigation in various ways. For instance,
although we examined a range of different gifts (e.g., cards, songs) in
these studies, most of the gifts were relatively low-cost, making it un-
clear whether these findings would apply to more financially costly
gifts. In addition, although we looked at the relational consequences of
one isolated gift, it is possible that offering repeated giver-centric gifts
may backfire because it could signal self-obsession or narcissism. In-
deed, long-term investigations may reveal a pattern akin to the early
fondness of people high in narcissism, which later sours (Paulhus,
1998). Further, our findings appear to be limited to perceptions of rela-
tionship closeness, which we measured with the IOS scale across stud-
ies. Perhaps not surprisingly, the broader and more stable construct of
relationship satisfaction was generally not influenced by gift type, at
least for givers. In contrast, receiving giver-centric gifts was associated
with greater relationship satisfaction for recipients in Study 6, suggest-
ing giver centric gifts may have broader relational outcomes for recipi-
ents. However, this finding needs to be replicated and future work
would benefit from examining the impact of giver- and recipient-cen-
tric gifts on other measures and constructs, such as intimacy.
Overall, the present results suggest that, contrary to most peoples'
intuitions, giver-centric gifts can have stronger relational benefits than
recipient-centric gifts. Note, however, that giving recipient-centric
gifts are not necessarily detrimental to relationships and may in fact
be quite beneficial when they do successfully reflect the recipient. Yet
in light of the benefits of giver-centric gifts, giving a gift that reflects
the self appears to be an effective and underutilized strategy for foster-
ing social connection. Thus, next Valentine's Day, you may want to give
a pair of tickets to your favorite play if you want to feel closer to your
partner, and to have your partner feel closer to you.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the research assistants who contributed to this
project and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) for
funding this research.
References
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational. New York: Harper Collins.
Aron, A., Aron, E.N., & Smollan, D.(1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the struc-
ture of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Per sonality and Soci al Psychology,63,
596–612.
Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: desirefor interpersonalattach-
ments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,117,497–529.
Belk, R.W. (1979). Gift-giving behavior. Research in Marketing,2,95–126.
Betteridge, A.H. (1985). Gift exchange in Iran: the locus of self-identity in social interac-
tion. Anthropological Quarterly,58,190–202.
Collins, N.L., & Miller , L.C. (1994). Self-di sclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin,116,457–475.
Consumer Expenditure Survey (2012). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/cex/#tables
Dunn, E.W., Aknin, L.B., & Norton, M.I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes hap-
piness. Science,319,1687–1688.
Dunn, E.W., Aknin, L.B., & Norton, M.I. (2014). Prosocial spending and happiness: using
money to benefitotherspaysoff.Current Directions in PsychologicalScience,23,41–47.
Dunn, E.W.,Huntsinger, J., Lun, J., & Sinclair, S. (2008). The gift of similarity: howgood and
bad gifts influence relationships. Social Cognition,26,469–481.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. -G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible statistical
power analysis program for the soci al, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.
Behavior Research Methods,39,175–191.
Funder, D.C., & Colvin, C.R. (1997). Congruence of others' and self-judgments of personal-
ity. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology.San
Diego, CA: Academic.
Homans, G.C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World.
Human, L.J., Sandstrom, G.M., Biesanz, J.C., & Dunn, E.W. (2013). Accurate first impres-
sions leave a lasting impression: the long-term effects of accuracy on relationship de-
velopment. Social Psychological and Personality Science,4,395–402.
Jourard, S.M. (1 964). The Transparent Self: Self-disclosur e and Well-being (No. 17).
Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Joy, A. (2001). Gi ft giving in Hong Kong and the continuum of social ties. Journal of
Consumer Research,28,239–256.
Lackenbauer, S.D., Campbell, L., Rubin, H., Fletcher, G.J.O., & Troister, T. (2010).Th e unique
and combined bene fits of accuracy a nd positive bias in relationsh ips. Personal
Relationships,17,475–493.
Laurenceau, J. -P., Barrett, L.F., & Pietromonaco, P.R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal
process: the importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner
responsivenes s in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personal ity and Social
Psychology,74,1238–1251.
Luo, S., & Snider, A. (2009). Accuracy and biases in newlyweds' perceptions of each other:
not mutually exclusive but mutually beneficial. Psychological Science,20,1332–1339.
Morris, I. (1986). Gift and commodity in archaic Greece. Man,1–17.
Neff, L.A.,& Karney, B.R. (2005). To know you is to love you:the implications of global ad-
oration andspecific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,88,480–497.
15L.B. Aknin, L.J. Human / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60 (2015) 8–16

Otnes, C.,Lowrey, T.M., & Kim,Y.C. (1993). Gift selection for easy and difficultrecipients: a
social roles interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research,20,229–244.
Paulhus, D.L. (1 998). Interper sonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-
enhancement: a mixed blessing? Journal of Perso nality and Socia l Psychology,74,
1197–1208.
Robins, R.W., & John, O.P. (1997). The quest for self-insight: theory and research on accu-
racy and bias in self-perception. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook
of Personality Psychology (pp. 649–678). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Ruth, J.A., Otnes, C., & Brunel, F.F. (1999). Gift recipient and the reformulation of interper-
sonal relationships. Journal of Consumer Research,25,385–402.
Sherry, J.F. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Jo urnal of Consume r
Research,10,157–168.
Swann, W.B. (1987). Identity negotiation: where two roads meet. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,53, 1038–1051.
Swann, W.B., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J.G. (1994). Authenticity and positivitystrivings in
marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66,857–869.
Swann, W.B., Pelham, B.W., & Krull, D.S. (1989). Agreeable fancy or disagreeable truth?
Reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,57,782–791.
Tamir, D.I., & Mitchell, J.P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically re-
warding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,109, 8038–8043.
Thaler, R.H., & Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge. Yale University Press.
Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymme-
try (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,98,281–300http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037/a0013314.
Waldfogel, J. (1993). The deadweight loss of Christmas. The American Economic Review,
83(5), 1328–1336.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief mea-
sures of positive and negative affect : the PANAS scales. Journal of Personal ity and
Social Psychology,54, 1063–1070.
Wilson, T.D., & Dunn, E.W. (2004). Self-knowledge: its limits, value, and potential for im-
provement. Annual Review of Psychology,54,493–518.
Zhang, Y., & Epley, N. (2012). Exaggerated, mispredicted and misplaced: when it's “the
thought that counts”in gift exchanges. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
141,667–681.
16 L.B. Aknin, L.J. Human / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60 (2015) 8–16