No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Picking Gifts for Picky People
Abstract
Shoppers report that 39% of their holiday gift-purchases are for someone “picky.” However, despite the ubiquity of shopping for picky people, little research has examined how people choose gifts for picky people. In the present research, we define the “picky gift recipient” as someone perceived to have narrow and unpredictable preferences, and we show how shopping for someone picky alters gift giving behavior. We find that although gift giving norms prescribe that gift givers spend effort, time, and money on gifts to strengthen their social ties, an exception to this rule occurs when a gift recipient is picky. When shopping for someone picky, givers believe that increasing their resources on a gift will not result in greater recipient-satisfaction with the gift itself—a lay belief that ultimately demotivates givers, causing them to spend fewer resources on picky people (even picky friends). That said, we find that consumers are more willing to spend money on superficial gift-features for picky people, such as professional wrapping, to “dress up” their gifts. Based on this preference, we developed and tested a novel promotion strategy that retailers could implement to recoup some of the lost spending by consumers who are shopping for picky people. In all, this research contributes to the literature on gift giving dynamics, and provides insights more broadly into how shoppers negotiate the burden of shopping for someone whom they anticipate will not like their choice.
... People often select gifts for various individuals on signi cant and special occasions, such as Valentine's Day, Christmas, Father's Day, and Mother's Day. In the U.S. alone, gift-related consumption accounts for almost 5% of the GDP, with consumers dedicating approximately 15 hours each year to picking gifts (Cheng et al., 2021). However, in fact, selecting the right gifts presents a signi cant challenge to givers (Cheng et al., 2021), and givers frequently fail to select gifts that can be satis ed by recipients (Branco-Illodo et al., 2020), the event called "gift failure" (Branco-Illodo et al., 2020). ...
... In the U.S. alone, gift-related consumption accounts for almost 5% of the GDP, with consumers dedicating approximately 15 hours each year to picking gifts (Cheng et al., 2021). However, in fact, selecting the right gifts presents a signi cant challenge to givers (Cheng et al., 2021), and givers frequently fail to select gifts that can be satis ed by recipients (Branco-Illodo et al., 2020), the event called "gift failure" (Branco-Illodo et al., 2020). In fact, over 75% of recipients have received unwanted gifts (Rucker et al., 1992), a trend re ected in more recent ndings, with approximately 36% of people in the UK receiving at least one unwanted gift during Christmas 2017 (Branco-Illodo et al., 2020). ...
... Gift failures occur when gifts from givers fail to please recipients and do not contribute to improving their relationships (Branco-Illodo et al., 2020; Roster, 2006). Factors like givers' limited knowledge of recipients' preferences (Schiffman & Cohn, 2009) and recipient pickiness (Cheng et al., 2021) often contribute to these failures. In such cases, recipients often feel negative emotions like anger, annoyance, or disappointment (Branco-Illodo et al., 2020) and perceive that givers have not put su cient effort into gift selection (Ruth et al., 1999;Sherry, 1983). ...
In gift-giving, it violates social norms for recipients to explicitly deliver negative evaluations of gifts, potentially causing emotional or psychological harm to givers, which raises ethical concerns. However, recent research indicates that this behavior is surprisingly common among young adults. While substantial research has focused on instances where recipients are dissatisfied with gifts, little attention has been given to the unique emotional harm experienced by givers and the underlying psychological processes involved. This study addresses this gap from the perspective of social exclusion and examines how givers’ feelings of social exclusion differ between close and distant relationships. We argue that givers tend to devote more effort to selecting gifts for close (vs. distant) recipients, leading them to hold higher expectations of gifting success in close relationships. Instead, when givers get negative feedback from close recipients, they perceive a higher level of expectancy violation, which, in turn, backfires on their perceived threats to the relationship and arouses stronger feelings of social exclusion than in distant relationships. Results from three experiments substantiate our theoretical claims based on the expectancy-violation theory. Further, we apply neuroscience technology (event-related potentials, ERPs) to capture the cognitive characteristics of givers’ emotional experiences, offering additional evidence and insights into givers’ feelings of social exclusion. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the emotional harm givers experience when their gifts are unappreciated, highlighting the ethical aspect of gift-giving.
... Our research documents an exception to this rule-a case where gift giving steers givers' moral compass off course, changing how they behave in their relationship with a gift recipient. To be sure, previous work has documented a variety of negative effects related to gift giving: giving gifts is a source of anxiety or uncertainty for givers (Wooten, 2000), it generates an aversive feeling of indebtedness (Joy, 2001), it prompts oneupmanship between gift givers and receivers (Givi & Galak, 2019), and it can suppress people's motivation for satisfying others, especially picky others (Cheng et al., 2020) Second, our research examines the effects of decision making on interpersonal and romantic relationships. Considering that many choices are made for others (Polman & Wu, 2020), it is surprising that little research has studied the effects of making choices on relationships, with a few notable exceptions, such as Cavanaugh (2016) and Joel et al. (2013). ...
... At the macrolevel, such gifts create deadweight losses in the economy (Waldfogel, 1993) and reinforce outdated social norms (Sherry, 1983). At the individual level, research has likewise illuminated a less rosy view of gift giving (Sherry et al., 1993), demonstrating that givers sometimes feel negative emotions when choosing gifts (Cheng et al., 2020;De Hooge, 2014, 2017Givi & Galak, 2017;Wooten, 2000) and possess conflicting preferences, mindsets, or motives compared to recipients' own (Aknin & Human, 2015;Baskin et al., 2014;Cavanaugh et al., 2015;Chan & Mogilner, 2017;Gino & Flynn, 2011;Givi & Galak, 2017;Goodman & Lim, 2018;Paolacci et al., 2015;Polman & Emich, 2011;Steffel & LeBoeuf, 2014;Ward & Broniarczyk, 2016;Yang & Urminsky, 2018; for a review, see Galak et al., 2016). In complement to these findings, our studies point to a unique case whereby giving even a "good" gift can have negative consequences for an interpersonal relationship. ...
How people choose gifts is a widely studied topic, but what happens next is largely understudied. In two preregistered studies, one field experiment, and an analysis of secondary data, we show that giving gifts has a dark side, as it can negatively affect subsequent interpersonal behavior between givers and receivers. In Study 1, we found that giving a gift to one's romantic partner changes givers' interpretation of which behaviors constitute infidelity. Specifically, we found that givers (vs. nongivers) classified their questionable behaviors (e.g., sending a flirtatious text to someone other than their partner) less as a form of cheating on their partner. In Study 2, we examined how politely participants behave when delivering bad news to a friend. We found that givers (vs. nongivers) wrote significantly less polite messages to their friend. In Study 3, we tested real gifts that people give to friends and found givers (vs. nongivers) subsequently made more selfish decisions at their friends' expense. In all, our research refines the oft‐cited axiomatic assumption that gift giving strengthens relationships and illuminates the potential for future research to examine how decision making can alter interpersonal, romantic relationships.
... However, the role of individual differences in gift giving remains relatively unexplored. Forays have been made into how emotional understanding influences gift spending (Ganesh-Pillai and Krishnakumar 2019), interpersonal orientation affects giver behavior (De Hooge 2017), envy influences gift choices (Givi and Galak 2019), and a recipient's level of pickiness impacts on givers' decision making (Cheng, Meloy, and Polman 2021). Communal motivations, defined as motivations to engage in behaviors that foster intimacy, warmth, and closeness (Back et al. 2013;Sauls and Zeigler-Hill 2020), are also well established as key for gift giving (Cavanaugh, Gino, and Fitzsimons 2015;De Hooge 2017;Hyun, Park, and Park 2016). ...
Objective
We examined the roles of Narcissistic Admiration and Narcissistic Rivalry in gift giving. We hypothesized that Admirative and Rivalrous individuals diverge in their likelihood of giving gifts.
Method
Across six studies (Σ N = 2198), we used correlational and experimental methodology and capitalized on both scenarios and actual gift giving.
Results
Narcissistic Admiration was positively, but Narcissistic Rivalry was negatively, associated with gift‐giving likelihood (Studies 1–2). These findings were explained by diverging communal motivations for gift giving (Study 3). Consistent with the notion that Rivalrous individuals are less likely to give gifts for communal reasons because they feel threatened by social closeness, the negative association between Narcissistic Rivalry and gift‐giving likelihood was attenuated when the gift recipient was more socially distant (vs. close; Study 4). Further, gifts that are recipient‐centric (e.g., customized with a recipient's name) are less focused on attributes of the giver and less likely to foster social closeness. Therefore, consistent with Admirative individuals' use of gift giving to promote themselves as a superior communal relationship partner, the positive association between Narcissistic Admiration and gift‐giving likelihood was attenuated for gifts that were recipient‐centric (Study 5). Socially desirable responding, self‐esteem, and fear of failure (Study SM1) did not account for the findings.
... This hypothesis is based on previous research findings suggesting that attractive packaging can increase gift recipient satisfaction and reinforce the sentimental value associated with the product. The studies of (Cheng, 2021) and (Harwani, 2020) provide empirical support for this hypothesis by showing that attractive packaging design can increase gift recipient satisfaction. This suggests that attractive packaging not only affects consumers' perceptions of the product but can also trigger positive emotional experiences (Mailani, 2024). ...
This research was conducted because of the importance of understanding the factors that influence gift-giving behavior in toys, especially in a competitive market. This study aims to determine and analyze the effect of product quality, packaging, and brand image on gift-giving behavior through the sentimental value of Pretty Missy brand toys. This research is included in the type of quantitative research. The population in the study were customers who made transactions at TK Retail and domiciled in the Greater Jakarta area, known in the period May - October 2023 totaling 844,022 customers, with a total minimum sample required of 204 samples where the sampling technique used was purposive sampling technique. The data analysis method uses the Structural Equation Model-Partial Least Square (SEM-PLS). The results of this study indicate that product quality, packaging, and brand image, have a positive effect on sentimental value in Pretty Missy brand toys. Sentimental value and product quality have a positive effect on gift-giving behavior on Pretty Missy brand toys. Packaging has a positive but insignificant effect on gift-giving behavior on Pretty Missy brand toys. Brand image has a positive but insignificant effect on gift-giving behavior on Pretty Missy brand toys. Product quality has a positive and significant effect on gift-giving behavior through sentimental value. Packaging has a positive and significant effect on gift-giving behavior through sentimental value. Brand image has a positive and significant effect on gift-giving behavior through sentimental value. The advice that can be given is that Pretty Missy should focus on increasing the comfort level of its products and conduct product testing with children and parents to provide better input. The advice that can be given is that Pretty Missy should focus on increasing the comfort level of its products and conduct product testing with children and parents to provide better input.
... Theoretical framework Previous research demonstrates that consumer spending on gifts varies as a function of multiple factors. For example, givers spend more on recipients who are socially or genetically close (vs distant; Caplow, 1982Caplow, , 1984Dyble et al., 2015;Saad and Gill, 2003) and who are less picky (vs more picky; Cheng et al., 2021). In addition, givers spend more when they believe (or fear) that others at the gift exchange will be giving top-notch gifts (Givi et al., 2021;Wooten, 2000). ...
Purpose
This study aims to add to the gift giving literature by examining how the wealth of a recipient impacts giver spending. The authors tested the hypotheses that givers spend more on wealthy (vs unwealthy) recipients, partially because givers anticipate a greater difference in gift-liking across expensive and cheap gifts when the recipient is wealthy, and partially because givers are more motivated to signal that they are of high financial status when the recipient is wealthy. The authors also tested whether givers’ tendency to spend more on wealthy (vs unwealthy) recipients attenuates when the recipient is someone with whom the giver has a negative (vs positive) relationship.
Design/methodology/approach
Eight experimental studies tested the hypotheses. These studies had participants act as givers, consider giving a gift to either a wealthy or unwealthy recipient and indicate how much money they would spend on the gift. Some studies included additional measures to test potential mediators, while another included an additional manipulation to test a potential boundary condition.
Findings
Gift givers spend more on gifts for wealthy (vs unwealthy) recipients, for two main reasons. On the one hand, givers are influenced by an other-oriented motive – they wish for their gift to be well-liked by the recipient and anticipate a greater difference in recipient gift-liking across expensive and cheap gifts when the recipient is wealthy. On the other hand, givers are influenced by a self-oriented motive – they wish to signal to the recipient that they are of high financial status, but this desire is stronger when the recipient is wealthy. Critically, givers are relatively unlikely to spend more on wealthy (vs unwealthy) recipients when they have a negative (vs positive) relationship with the recipient.
Research limitations/implications
The authors studied how the wealth of the gift recipient influences givers’ gift expenditure, but they did not examine the recipient’s perspective. Future research could address this by exploring whether recipients’ gift preferences vary based on their wealth.
Practical implications
Gift purchases account for a significant portion of worldwide consumer spending, making gift giving an important topic for consumers and marketers alike. The present research sheds light on a factor that has a notable impact on how much consumers spend on a gift when faced with a gift giving decision.
Originality/value
This manuscript contributes to the gift giving literature by exploring an important aspect that influences consumer gift expenditure (the wealth of the recipient), demonstrating a novel gift giving phenomenon [that givers spend more when giving to relatively wealthy (vs unwealthy) recipients], and shedding new light on the psychology of consumers in gift giving contexts (namely, how givers’ perceptions of recipient gift-liking, their desire to send signals of high financial status and their relationship with the recipient can influence their gifting decisions).
... Consumers spend considerable money and time on gifts each year, e.g. Americans spent more than $1,000 on gifts per family and 15 h on average on gift selection in 2019 (Cheng et al., 2020). The choice conflicts between self-and gift-purchases are mostly common issues consumers face in daily consumption. ...
Purpose
This paper aims to explore when and why consumers hold inconsistent and consistent choices between self- and gift-purchases.
Design/methodology/approach
Across three paper-based questionnaire experiments, the authors examine how consumers’ preferences for desirability and feasibility vary with purchase types (self- vs gift-purchases) based on the functional theories of attitudes. The authors examine consumers’ attitude functions and their self-monitoring closely associated with chronic attitude functions.
Findings
The findings show that the social adjustive function moderates whether consumers hold consistent or inconsistent preferences across the two purchases. Specifically, consumers generally rely more on desirability in gift-purchases than self-purchases, whereas this inconsistent preference only exists when the social adjustive function is comparable or advantaged to the utilitarian function. When the social adjustive function is significantly disadvantaged relative to the utilitarian function, consumers consistently prefer feasibility irrespective of self- or gift-purchases.
Research limitations/implications
The research contributes to the familiar topic of consumers’ choice trade-offs between self- and gift-purchases. It documents the moderating role of the social adjustive function of consumers’ attitudes in whether they hold consistent or inconsistent choices across the two purchases. This extends the extensive research on self-other decisions.
Practical implications
The findings strongly suggest retailers identify or manipulate consumers’ attitude functions to make the attitude functions align with the purchase type when recommending products.
Originality/value
Most relevant literature focuses on exploring choice differences between self- and gift-purchases. This research not only explores the choice differences but also attempts to find the condition under which people’s choices do not differ between the two purchases.
... Beyond mere demographic characteristics, differences related to personality and beliefs, such as dispositional envy (e.g., Givi & Galak, 2019) and power distance belief (e.g., Ding et al., 2020), also influence gift-giving choices and outcomes. Lastly, some differences can make the entire gift-giving process more challenging, such as the degree to which the giver is a perfectionist (Wooten, 2000), the pickiness of the recipient (e.g., Cheng et al., 2021), and the extent to which the recipient is "difficult" (e.g., Otnes et al., 1993). ...
In recent decades, scholars across all areas of marketing have studied consumer gift‐giving behavior. Despite the growing popularity of this research topic, no extensive review of the gift‐giving literature exists. To that end, this paper offers an expansive review of research on consumer gift‐giving, focusing primarily on work coming from within the marketing discipline, but also drawing on foundational pieces from other fields. We review extant scholarship on five of gift‐giving’s most important aspects—givers’ motivations, givers’ inputs, giver‐recipient mismatches, value creation/reduction, and the greater gift‐giving context. In doing so, we illuminate the literature’s key agreements and disagreements, shed light on themes that traverse ostensibly disparate gift‐giving findings, and develop deeper conceptualizations of gifting constructs. Moreover, we identify opportunities for improvement in the gift‐giving literature and use them to create key agendas for future gift‐giving research. In sum, this paper offers a single point of reference for gift‐giving scholars, improves academia’s current understanding of gift‐giving, offers several theoretical contributions, and generates multiple paths for future research.
... We expect that the chooser's gender may be of lesser importance in these situations; instead -the receiver's preferences and the symbolic meaning of gifting a surprise (vs. a certain) offering may guide choice. For example, when choosing for "picky" others ( Cheng, Meloy, and Polman 2020 ) or for occasions that involve the expectation of surprising the recipient (e.g., birthday gifts; Vanhamme and de Bont 2008 ), consumers might favor surprise offerings, regardless of gender. ...
In the last few years, retailers have introduced numerous products that intentionally conceal some information from the consumer at the time of decision making. While prior research has identified contexts in which customers are attracted to such offerings in the aggregate, heterogeneity in customer proclivities is not well-understood. In the present paper, we examine the effect of gender on choice of surprise (vs. certain) offerings at the point of purchase. We propose and find that, on average, men are less likely to opt for a surprise offering compared to women. We examine multiple mechanisms that could explain this effect – emotionality, desire for exploration, and desire for control – and find the strongest support for the latter, demonstrating that it is men's stronger desire for control over the purchase outcome that drives their preference for certain (vs. surprise) offerings. Consequently, contexts or product categories that make it acceptable for men to let go of control attenuate the observed gender difference. We present data from a travel services firm, an online product catalog, and both field and lab studies, providing robust support for this theory across multiple product categories and participant populations. This work concludes with a discussion of the potential boundary effects of the observed gender difference, a managerial roadmap that delineates the ways in which marketers can offer surprise offerings more fruitfully to both men and women, and recommendations for future research.
... Future studies can also consider more in-depth how the constructs' relationship and the use of apps are affected by the characteristics of the receivers. For example, it is not worthwhile to invest too much time and effort when buying gifts for people who are picky (Cheng et al. 2020). Hence, the use of such apps might be a way to cope with the challenge of buying gifts for picky people. ...
Service sector companies, like cafes and convenience stores, have introduced applications (apps) that permit customers (givers) to gift beverages to their acquaintances (receivers), who redeem the gift at a convenient outlet. Using social capital theory, affective forecasting theory, and hedonic-utilitarian duality, this study investigates adoption and (continual) use of gift-giving apps. The partial least squares analysis on 223 giver-users and 335 giver-non-users showed that bonding and bridging social capital encourage giver-non-users to use the apps. Bonding social capital encourages giver-users to continue using the apps. Additionally, giver-non-users and giver-users view the apps as hedonic and utilitarian, respectively.
... For example, picky recipients are thought to have narrow and unpredictable preferences. Recent research found that givers are more willing to please them by spending on auxiliary gift features such as wrapping or decorating the gift box (Cheng, Meloy, & Polman, 2020). Researchers may explore how picky recipients would react on SNSs toward the fancy wrapping. ...
For romantic couples, posting romantic gift pictures on social network sites has become a tool for public declarations of love. This research investigates how self-construal influences recipients’ romantic gift-posting behavior across three popular social network sites (Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) at the country and individual levels. In the first two of three studies, we demonstrate that interdependent self-construal participants are more likely to post romantic gift pictures on Facebook and Instagram, but not on Twitter, than independent self-construal participants because the former group feels that the gifts represent themselves (on Facebook) and they want to flaunt their status (on Instagram). The third study reveals the moderating effects of gift types (experiential vs. material) on the romantic gift-posting behavior between independent and interdependent self-construals across SNSs. This research highlights the need to develop a better understanding of information sharing behavior on social network sites among romantic couples from different cultures as well as those within a culture. Theoretical and managerial implications are also discussed.
Growing inequality continues to impact consumers’ lives, further widening the gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged. The present work examines how these inequalities impact consumer pickiness, defined as the latitude of acceptance around idiosyncratic ideal points. Across eight studies, including an analysis of consumer panel data, a study in the field at a local food pantry, and six preregistered experiments, we find that a sense of disadvantage leads consumers to be less picky, while a sense of advantage leads consumers to be pickier. We find evidence that this process is driven by differences in psychological entitlement: A sense of disadvantage leads consumers to feel less entitled, and a sense of advantage leads consumers to feel more entitled, driving subsequent pickiness. Importantly, while some might think that those who are advantaged might be pickier because they have more resources or access to products, we find these differences in the absence of resource or other external constraints, further speaking to entitlement as an important psychological mechanism. We find that the effects are moderated by social dominance orientation. The impact of disadvantage versus advantage on entitlement and subsequent pickiness is attenuated for individuals who do not endorse existing inequalities.
The development and validation of any scale measuring reciprocation anxiety induced from gift reciprocation contexts are yet to be addressed for intimate relationships. To this end, the present study aimed to develop and validate the gift reciprocation anxiety scale (GRAS) using modern psychometric methods for Bangladeshi youths and adults engaged in informal romantic and formal marital relationships. A total of 763 Bangladeshi youths of different public universities and adults in different professions with the ages ranged from 17 to 36 years were the study participants recruited through convenient sampling technique. Firstly, items were generated, and the content validity coefficients were determined through appropriate procedure to finalize the 7-item GRAS for administering on a large sample (n = 763). Next, the adequacy of the data for factor analysis was checked and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was done, extracting a single factor structure which was confirmed through the same factor retention using parallel analysis (PA). Model fit indices of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) validated the unifactorial solution of GRAS. In addition, the item response theory (IRT) analyses confirmed that the items of the GRAS had high discriminative power, satisfactory threshold parameters, and covered a wide range of the latent trait. Mean inter-item correlations, corrected item-total correlations, and internal consistency reliabilities of the newly developed GRAS fall within the suggested limits. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) revealed that the GRAS can invariably be applied across gender, age, and marital status. A moderately positive association of GRAS with reciprocity anxiety, depression, and anxiety indicated the convergent validity of the scale. Altogether, GRAS has been found to be a psychometrically sound tool to objectively measure gift reciprocation anxiety in close relationships, implicating gift reciprocation less as an obligation and more as signs of trust, commitment, security, and care for ensuring better intimate relationships.
Purpose
Consumer researchers have studied a number of asymmetries between gift-givers and gift-recipients. However, one unexplored potential asymmetry concerns gift-givers’ and gift-recipients’ perceptions of the importance of selecting a good (vs. bad) gift. This paper aims to study this uninvestigated facet of gift-giving.
Design/methodology/approach
Five experimental studies tested the hypotheses. In each study, participants assumed the role of giver or recipient and read a gifting scenario. Study 1 explored participants’ views on the importance of selecting a good gift by asking them directly. Studies 2-4 instead operationalized the importance of selecting a good gift through participants’ choices between gifts. Studies 1-4 also examined our proposed mechanism pertaining to givers overestimating the negative implications of giving a bad gift. Study 5 examined a theoretically relevant boundary condition: the nature of the giver-recipient relationship.
Findings
Givers regard it as more important than recipients that a good gift be selected. Critically, this mismatch can manifest as givers making choices that do not align with recipients’ preferences. Drawing on contextualized self-enhancement theory, this study shows that this asymmetry is driven primarily by givers overestimating the negative implications of giving a bad gift as opposed to overestimating the positive implications of giving a good one. Consistent with this account, the effect attenuates when the giver and recipient have a negative (vs positive) relationship and thus givers are not concerned with the negative implications of giving a poor gift.
Research limitations/implications
The findings enrich the field’s understanding of gift-giving psychology by introducing contextualized self-enhancement theory to the gift-giving literature and demonstrating that givers worry more than they should about the negative implications of giving a bad gift. This study also sheds light on the important role that the nature of the giver–recipient relationship plays in gift-giving phenomena. Limitations of this work are that there are some potential boundary conditions and control variables that the authors did not explore, such as potential cultural differences and the income levels of the giver and recipient.
Practical implications
This research suggests that gift-givers should not worry as much as they do about the negative implications of giving a bad gift. In many cases, things may not turn out as bad as givers anticipate when they deliver a less-than-ideal gift. This study also shows that givers sometimes make choices that do not match recipients’ preferences, out of a fear of the negative implications that may arise from giving a bad gift.
Originality/value
This research adds to the gift-giving literature by studying a new facet of gift-giving: whether it is more important to givers or recipients that a good gift be selected. In addition, this work introduces contextualized self-enhancement theory to the gift-giving literature and documents two new asymmetries between givers and recipients: first, givers put more importance on the selection of a good gift than recipients; second, givers overestimate the negative implications of giving a bad gift.
ÖZET: Tüketicilerin sahip oldukları bireysel özellikler ve tüketim alışkanlıkları onların satın alma davranışları üzerinde önemli bir etkiye sahiptir. Pazarlamacılar için de tüketicilerin bu özelliklerinin bilinmesi, onlara uygun pazarlama karmasının geliştirilmesi açısından önem arz etmektedir. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmada Cheng, Baumgartner ve Meloy (2021a) tarafından geliştirilen ve 10 ifadeden oluşan Kıl Müşteri Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve geçerlilik ile güvenirliğinin test edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla 1-30 Mayıs 2022 tarihlerinde kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle belirlenmiş, 18 yaşından büyük toplam 237 kişiden online anket tekniği ile veriler toplanmıştır. Verilere ilk olarak SPSS programı aracılığıyla frekans analizi yapılmış ve katılımcıların demografik özellikleri ortaya konulmuştur. Daha sonra SPSS programı ile Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi yapılmış ve ölçeğin beşer ifadeden oluşan “Kabul Ederek Seçicilik” ve “Reddederek Seçicilik” adlı iki faktörlü yapısı ortaya konulmuştur. AFA sonucunda ölçekte binişi madde ve düşük yük değerli madde olmadığı görülmüştür ve diğer analizler 10 maddelik ölçek üzerinden gerçekleştirilmiştir. Daha sonra AMOS programıyla Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi yapılmış ve uyum iyiliği değerleri , X2/df: 1,975 ; GFI=0,949 ; IFI=0,956 ; CFI=0,955 ; RMSEA=0,064 ve RMR=0,061 şeklinde bulunmuş ve ölçeğin verilerle mükemmel derecede iyi uyum gösterdiği ortaya konulmuştur. Son aşamada ise ölçeğe ve faktörlere ait AVE, CR ve Cronbach α katsayılarının istenen aralıklarda skorlara sahip olduğu ortaya konulmuş ve Türkçeye uyarlanan ölçeğin uyum geçerliliği ile ayrışma geçerliliğini sağladığı ve güvenilir olduğu kanıtlanmıştır.
ANAHTAR KELİMELER: Seçicilik, AFA, DFA, Titiz Müşteri Ölçeği /////
ABSTRACT: The individual characteristics and consumption habits of consumers have a significant impact on their purchasing behavior. For marketers, knowing these characteristics of consumers is important in terms of developing the appropriate marketing mix for them. Therefore, in this study, it was aimed to adapt the Hair Customer Scale, which consists of 10 statements and developed by Cheng, Baumgartner, and Meloy (2021a), into Turkish and to test its validity and reliability. For this purpose, data were collected by online survey technique from 237 people over 18 years of age, who were determined by convenience sampling method on 1-30 May 2022. Frequency analysis was first performed on the data through the SPSS program and the demographic characteristics of the participants were revealed. Then, Explanatory Factor Analysis was performed with the SPSS program, and the two-factor structure of the scale, "Selectivity by Accepting" and "Selectivity by Rejecting", consisting of five statements each, was revealed. As a result of EFA, it was observed that there was no overlapping item and low-load item in the scale, and other analyzes were carried out on a 10-item scale. Then, Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed with the AMOS program and the goodness of fit values were X2/df: 1,975 ; GFI=0,949 ; IFI=0,956 ; CFI=0,955 ; RMSEA=0,064 and RMR=0,061 it was revealed that the scale fits perfectly well with the data. At the last stage, it was revealed that the AVE, CR and Cronbach α coefficients of the scale and the factors had scores in the desired ranges, and it was proven that the scale adapted to Turkish provided concordance validity and discriminant validity and was reliable.
KEYWORDS: Choosiness, Picky Shopper Scale, AFA, CFA
Gift decisions are challenging. Consumers need to gauge their recipients' preferences—a task that could be especially tough when the recipients are picky. In addition, gift decisions involve consideration of many gift attributes, such as whether the gifts also support worthy causes (i.e., socially responsible gifts). In this research, we examine how givers' decision to give socially responsible gifts is impacted by how picky the recipients are. Five studies provide convergent evidence that gift‐givers are less likely to choose socially responsible gifts for picky recipients because they are perceived as lower in interpersonal warmth. Supporting our theory, the effect attenuates for gift‐givers attend less to interpersonal warmth (i.e., high in social dominance orientation) and when cues indicating recipient warmth are salient. We conclude by discussing the contributions to the gift‐giving and consumer pickiness literature and the practical implications for marketers promoting socially responsible gifts.
Extant literature on the dark side of gift-giving has predominantly focused on the dark side of generalised or balanced reciprocity, and not on negative reciprocity or unequal exchange of goods and services for personal gains. However, by emphasising the negativities around generalised or balanced reciprocity, understandings of an exploitative relationship are limited. Drawing on textual data from various online sources on the topic of ‘son preference’, this article explores the dark side of gift-giving in terms of unequal exchange and how it can generate a vicious cycle of affective and social destructions in the lived experience of the exploited giver. Crucially, I illuminate how certain aspects of pre-exchange socialisation, gift-receipt disqualification, and gift-giving indebtedness unfold in the service of perpetuating a range of subject positions that foster sustained exploitation within the family consumption system.
Purpose
This research focuses on the role of product acquisition cues in positive word-of-mouth (PWOM) content on social media, comparing the characteristics of different sources of product acquisition (purchased vs. gifted) and exploring whether and how they affect consumers' reliance on word-of-mouth (WOM).
Design/methodology/approach
The research model was developed based on the mental imagery theory. Two offline experiments and two online experiments were used to test the proposed hypotheses.
Findings
The results show that, compared to the purchased source, the gifted source evokes more positive mental imagery and greater emotional attachment to the product, resulting in greater consumer reliance on PWOM. In addition, the effect of the source of product acquisition on reliance on PWOM was stronger for experiential (vs. material) products and for consumers with higher interdependent (vs. independent) self-construal.
Originality/value
This research highlights the role of product acquisition cues in PWOM in influencing consumers' evaluation of WOM, while also revealing the processes inherent in how consumers process information through mental imagery. The findings provide a more comprehensive understanding of the antecedents of reliance on WOM and offer new insights and recommendations for management practitioners.
Due to the proliferation of choices and brands, accessibility to information, and new communication mediums, consumer behavior, particularly decision-making processes, has been altered by the spending power of various segments. In the Indian environment, although product appearance has been identified as a significant factor in influencing customer behavior, its effect on decision making when combined with other factors such as cost, features, and intrinsic psychological factors has not been studied thoroughly. This study aims to highlight consumers' perspective on a curated gift-box service in Sikkim. Focusing on gifting during special occasions, impulse buying, and self-gift opportunities, this study stands on the possibility that there is a need for such service in the market.
Consumers often set budgets with the goal to minimize their spending. Contrary to this traditional interpretation, our research suggests that budgets can take on a different psychological meaning depending on whether the budget is for a personal or gift purchase. Across 11 studies, we find that consumers aim to spend below their budgets for personal purchases (budget minimizing) but aim to spend the entirety of their budgets for gift purchases (budget maximizing). We differentiate budget maximizing from spending maximizing, showing that gift purchasers are more likely to prefer “at-budget” than “above-budget” purchases. We also show that gift purchasers have weaker savings goals than personal purchasers—a difference that mediates the effect on their budget-minimizing and -maximizing tendencies. We explore multiple reasons that could explain why savings goals are less prevalent among gift purchasers and find an upstream role for price consciousness, guilt, and perceived specialness. Finally, we find that consumers’ preference for spending the entirety of their budgets on gifts was moderated by two separate factors: consumers’ budget slack and salience. Our research adds to the literatures on mental budgeting, gift giving, and self-other decisions.
Purpose
This research paper aims to understand how givers characterise and manage their gift giving networks by drawing on attachment theory (AT). This responds to the need to illuminate the givers–receivers’ networks beyond traditional role-based taxonomies and explore their changing dynamics.
Design/methodology/approach
A multi-method, qualitative approach was used involving 158 gift experiences captured in online diaries and 27 follow-up interviews.
Findings
Results show that givers organise receivers into gifting networks that are grounded in a contextual understanding of their relationships. The identification of direct, surrogate and mediated bonds reflects three different dimensions that inform gift-giving networks of support, care or belongingness rooted in AT. The relative position of gift receivers in this network influences the nature of support, the type of social influences and relationship stability in the network.
Research limitations/implications
This study illustrates the complexity of relationships based on the data collected over two specific periods of time; thus, there might be further types of receivers within a giver’s network that the data did not capture. This limitation was minimised by asking about other possible receivers in interviews.
Practical implications
The findings set a foundation for gift retailers to assist gift givers in finding gifts that match their perceived relations to the receivers by adapting communication messages and offering advice aligned with specific relationship contexts.
Originality/value
This study illuminates gift-giving networks by proposing a taxonomy of gifting networks underpinned by AT that can be applied to study different relationship contexts from the perspective of the giver. This conceptualisation captures different levels of emotional support, social influences and relationship stability, which have an impact on the receivers’ roles within the giver’s network. Importantly, results reveal that the gift receiver is not always the target of gift-giving. The target can be someone whom the giver wants to please or an acquaintance they share with the receiver with whom they wish to reinforce bonds.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of popularity appeals (appearance popularity and media popularity) on online experiential gift purchase intention based on different types of givers (close or distant givers) and different gift attributes (conspicuous or inconspicuous gifts), a novel research consideration.
Design/methodology/approach
This study was conducted with two experiments and examined four hypotheses. These hypotheses were examined using a 2 × 2 between-subjects design, and a two-factorial variance analysis was conducted.
Findings
This study found that for close givers, appearance popularity appeals created a greater purchase intention than media popularity appeals. That is, gift-givers faced appearance popularity rather than media popularity, driving them to face a strong feeling of excitement for their idol worship. This finding implies that the human brand theory works.
Practical implications
The empirical results can shed light on brand or product managers in raising the ratio of appearance popularity appeals to marketing in online experiential gift-giving. Gift marketers should accurately understand the current trends and social preferences using a database and big data analysis tools.
Originality/value
This study is the first to investigate whether the two types of popularity appeals affect gift purchase intention in online experiential gifts.
Gift cards account for a $200 billion market in the US, yet little is known about consumers’ preferences and valuations of different gift cards. We examine how average US consumers feel about exchanging luxury brand gift cards (LGCs) versus non-luxury brand gift cards (NLGCs). Using secondary data analyses, surveys, and experiments, we demonstrate two asymmetries: between valuations of LGCs versus NLGCs and between valuations of gift cards by givers versus recipients. We show that LGCs are valued less than NLGCs with identical price tags. LGCs are more likely to be swapped or sold. Resellers demand and buyers pay lower prices for LGCs. These effects are mediated by the perceived utility of the gift cards as gifts and moderated by a person's role in the gifting process. Gift givers value and prefer to give LGCs more, whereas recipients prefer and value NLGCs more.
Two forms of thinking about the future are distinguished: expectations versus fantasies. Positive expectations (judging a desired future as likely) predicted high effort and successful performance, but the reverse was true for positive fantasies (experiencing one's thoughts and mental images about a desired future positively). Participants were graduates looking for a job (Study 1), students with a crush on a peer of the opposite sex (Study 2), undergraduates anticipating an exam (Study 3), and patients undergoing hip-replacement surgery (Study 4). Effort and performance were measured weeks or months (up to 2 years) after expectations and fantasies had been assessed. Implications for the self-regulation of effort and performance are discussed.
Digital goods are, in many cases, substantive innovations relative to their physical counterparts. Yet, in five experiments, people ascribed less value to digital than to physical versions of the same good. Research participants paid more for, were willing to pay more for, and were more likely to purchase physical goods than equivalent digital goods, including souvenir photographs, books (fiction and nonfiction), and films. Participants valued physical goods more than digital goods whether their value was elicited in an incentive compatible pay-what-you-want paradigm, with willingness to pay, or purchase intention. Greater capacity for physical than digital goods to garner an association with the self (i.e., psychological ownership), underlies the greater value ascribed to physical goods. Differences in psychological ownership for physical and digital goods mediated the difference in their value. Experimentally manipulating antecedents and consequents of psychological ownership (i.e., expected ownership, identity-relevance, perceived control) bounded this effect, and moderated the mediating role of psychological ownership. The findings show how features of objects influence their capacity to garner psychological ownership before they are acquired, and provide theoretical and practical insights for the marketing, psychology, and economics of digital and physical goods.
Sentimental value is the value derived from an emotionally-laden item's associations with significant others, or special events or times in one's life. The present research demonstrates that when faced with the choice between sentimentally valuable gifts and gifts with superficial attributes that match the preferences of the recipient, givers give the latter much more often than recipients would prefer to receive such gifts. This asymmetry appears to be driven by givers feeling relatively certain that preference-matching gifts will be well-liked by recipients, but relatively uncertain that the same is true for sentimentally valuable gifts. Three studies demonstrate this gift-giving mismatch and validate the proposed mechanism across a variety of gift-giving occasions and giver-receiver relationship types. The contribution of these findings to the gift-giving literature, as well as directions for future research, are discussed.
We propose that many giver-recipient discrepancies in the gift-giving literature can be explained, at least partially, by the notion that when evaluating the quality of a gift, givers primarily focus on the moment of exchange, whereas recipients primarily focus on how valuable a gift will be once owned. In this review, we summarize the variety of errors givers make and, more critically, position these errors within our newly developed framework. We hope this framework will provide a single point of reference for those interested in gift giving and spur novel predictions about the causes and consequences of miscalibrated gift choice.
Background
One presentation of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) is characterized by picky eating, i.e., selective eating based on the sensory properties of food. The present study has two aims. The first is to describe distress and impairment in individuals with ARFID secondary to picky eating. The second is to determine whether eating behaviors hypothesized to be specific to picky eating can differentiate picky eaters with and without ARFID from typical eaters (e.g., individuals not reporting picky or disordered eating) and individuals who strongly endorse attitudes associated with anorexia and bulimia (eating disordered attitudes).
Methods
Participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (N = 325) and an online support group for adult picky eaters (N = 81). Participants were grouped based on endorsement of picky eating, ARFID symptoms, and elevated eating disordered attitudes on the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26). The resulting four eating behavior groups were compared on measures of distress and impairment (e.g., anxiety/depression and, obsessive compulsive disorder symptoms, eating-related quality of life) and on measures of eating behaviors associated with picky eating (e.g., food neophobia, inflexibility about preparation and presentation of preferred foods, sensitivity to sensory stimuli, and eating from a very narrow range of foods). The groups were compared using one way ANOVA with post-hoc Tamhane’s T2 tests.
Results
On measures of distress and impairment, participants with ARFID reported higher scores than both typical eaters and picky eaters without ARFID, and comparable scores to those with disordered eating attitudes. Three of four measures of picky eating behavior, eating inflexibility, food neophobia, and eating from a range of 20 or fewer foods, distinguished picky eaters with and without ARFID form typical eaters and those with disordered eating attitudes. Picky eaters with ARFID reported greater food neophobia and eating inflexibility, and were more likely to eat from a narrow range of foods, compared to picky eaters without ARFID.
Conclusions
Adult picky eaters can be differentiated from those with symptoms of anorexia and bulimia by their stronger endorsement of food neophobia and inflexible eating behaviors, and by eating from a very narrow range of foods. Picky eaters with ARFID symptoms can be differentiated from picky eaters without these symptoms on the basis of these three eating behaviors, and by their higher endorsement of internalizing distress, OCD symptoms, and eating-related quality of life impairment. This study provides evidence that ARFID symptoms exist independently of symptoms of other eating disorders and are characterized by several distinct eating behaviors. In a clinical analogue sample of disordered eaters, ARFID symptoms were associated with distress and impairment at levels comparable to symptoms of anorexia and bulimia.
People often assume that costlier means lead to better outcomes, even in the absence of an objective relationship in the specific context. Such cost-benefit heuristics in goal pursuit have been observed across several domains but their antecedents have not been fully explored. In this research, we propose that a person's tendency to use cost-benefit heuristics depends on the extent to which that person subscribes to the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE), an influential concept originally introduced to explain the rise of capitalism. The Protestant Work Ethic is a core value predicated on the work-specific belief that hard work leads to success, but people who subscribe strongly to it tend to over-generalize and align other work-unrelated cognitions to be consistent. Across ten studies (N=1,917) measuring and manipulating PWE, we robustly find that people who are high (vs. low) in PWE are more likely to use cost-benefit heuristics, and are more likely to choose costlier means in pursuit of superior outcomes. We ...
This article looks at the trade-offs that gift givers and gift receivers make between
desirability and feasibility using construal level theory as a framework. Focusing
on the asymmetric distance from a gift that exists within giver-receiver dyads, the
authors propose that, unlike receivers, givers construe gifts abstractly and therefore
weight desirability attributes more than feasibility attributes. Support for this proposition
emerges in studies examining giver and receiver mind-sets, as well as giver
and receiver evaluations of gifts. Furthermore, givers do not choose gifts that
maximize receiver happiness or other relationship goals even though givers believe
they are doing so. Finally, the authors demonstrate that while givers are sensitive
to their distance from the receiver, receivers are not sensitive to this distance.
There is a widespread belief that women are better at selecting gifts than men; however, this claim has not been assessed on the basis of objective criteria. The current studies do exactly that and show that women do indeed make better gift selections for others, regardless of the gender of the receiver and the type of relationship between the giver and receiver. We investigate the mediating role of different aspects of interpersonal sensitivity and reveal that differences in interpersonal interest (measured with an autism questionnaire), but not differences in interpersonal reactivity, explain gender differences in gift selection quality. The current studies thus present the first objective evidence for the claim that women are better in selecting gifts for others and also give an indication of why this is the case.
We document the existence of an inference strategy based on a no-pain, no-gain lay theory, showing that consumers infer pharmaceutical products to be more efficacious when they are associated with a detrimental side effect or attribute. Study 1 finds that consumers high in need for cognition infer a bad-tasting cough syrup to be more effective than a good-tasting one. However, taste does not impact efficacy beliefs of consumers low in need for cognition. A second study conceptually replicates these results, showing that consumers who take allergy medications (i.e., those high in issue involvement) infer an allergy medication with common side effects to be more effective than one with rare side effects. Our final study builds on these findings by demonstrating that consumers high in need for cognition believe a pain killer with common side effects to be more effective than one with rare side effects. Demonstrating a boundary condition of this inference strategy, the effect is observed only when the pain killer has been on the market for a relatively long period of time.
This meta-analysis integrates the correlations of 77 studies on V. H. Vroom's (1964) original expectancy models and work-related criteria. Correlations referring to predictions with the models and the single components—valence, instrumentality, and expectancy—were included in relation to 5 types of criterion variables: performance, effort, intention, preference, and choice. Within-subjects correlations and between-subjects correlations were included separately. Overall, the average correlations were somewhat lower than reported in previous narrative reviews. In certain categories, moderators pertaining to the measurement of the concepts were analyzed with a hierarchical linear model, but these moderators did not explain heterogeneity. The results show a differentiated overview: the use of the correlational material for the validity of expectancy theory is discussed.
Gift-giving involves both the objective value of a gift and the symbolic meaning of the exchange. The objective value is sometimes considered of secondary importance as when people claim, "It's the thought that counts." We evaluated when and how mental state inferences count in gift exchanges. Because considering another's thoughts requires motivation and deliberation, we predicted gift givers' thoughts would increase receivers' appreciation only when triggered to consider a giver's thoughts, such as when a friend gives a bad gift. Because gift givers do not experience this trigger, we expected they would mispredict when their thoughts count and when they do not. Three experiments support these predictions. A final experiment demonstrated that thoughts "count" for givers by increasing social connection to the receiver. These results suggest that mental state inferences are not automatic in social interactions and that inferences about how much thoughts count are systematically miscalibrated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
A growing stream of research is investigating how choices people make for themselves are different from choices people make for others. In this paper, I propose that these choices vary according to regulatory focus, such that people who make choices for themselves are prevention focused, whereas people who make choices for others are promotion focused. Drawing on regulatory focus theory, in particular work on errors of omission and commission, I hypothesize that people who make choices for others experience a reversal of the choice overload effect. In 6 studies, including a field study, I found that people who make choices for themselves are less satisfied after selecting among many options compared to few options, yet, people who make choices for others are more satisfied after selecting among many options compared to few options. Implications and suggestions for other differences in self-other decision making are discussed.
This article explores gift-giving practices using data collected through interviews in Hong Kong. I argue that Chinese culture promotes the familial over the private self and that the attainment of family-oriented goals represents an important measure of self-realization and self-fulfillment. Although each individual also has a private or inner self (chi), it is also subject to the collective will. This idea is in keeping with Confucian ideals that encourage the individual to focus on developing internal moral constraints and conquering selfishness in the pursuit of social propriety. Furthermore, the boundaries of the familial self are permeable and may include others, such as important romantic partners and, occasionally, close friends who become "like family." In family and like-family contexts, reciprocity is discouraged, and there is no need to build relationships through gift giving. Our research also suggests, however, that there are various gradations of intimacy in gift relationships against the backdrop of important cultural rules such as reciprocity, sentiment, and face. Using the categories provided by our participants, the gift continuum includes "close friends," "good friends," "just friends"/"hi-bye friends," and the "romantic other." Copyright 2001 by the University of Chicago.
Previous investigations of interpersonal gift giving have uncovered feelings of anxiety among gift givers. The anxious moments that givers often experience stand in stark contrast to the festive atmospheres and joyous celebrations that surround many gift occasions. Why is gift-giving such a torturous endeavor for so many people? What conditions coincide with the anxious moments that givers often experience? What factors drive this anxiety? These questions are explored in this article, which develops a model based on a self-presentational theory and two sets of qualitative data. The results show that givers become anxious when they are highly motivated to elicit desired reactions from their recipients but are pessimistic about their prospects of success. This article identifies characteristics of recipients, givers, and gift situations that appear to precipitate these anxious moments. Copyright 2000 by the University of Chicago.
Sherry (1983) defines reformulation as the final stage of gift exchange, during which a newly presented gift can impact the relationship between giver and recipient. To date no one has examined exactly how gifts can affect relationships or what aspects of gift exchange contribute to realignment of the giver/recipient relationship. Using depth interviews and critical-incident surveys, our study explores how the recipient's perceptions of the existing relationship, the gift, the ritual context, and his or her emotional reactions converge to affect relationship realignment. We identify six relational effects of gift-receipt experiences. Further, we examine gift-receipt experiences that have a consistent impact in the short and long term, and those where the meanings and relational effects appear to change over time. Implications for future research are also discussed. Copyright 1999 by the University of Chicago.
The social sciences are dominated by a paradigm that views human behavior as instrumental exchange. It is not surprising that consumer research on gift giving has also been dominated by this exchange paradigm. The present research on dating gift giving among American college students finds support for two variants of this paradigm, but it also reveals an alternative paradigm of gift giving as an expression of agapic love. It is suggested that agapic expressiveness is a needed addition to exchange instrumentalism for understanding gift giving and perhaps for understanding consumer behavior in general.
Using interpretive techniques, we explore the meaning underlying Christmas shoppers' description of some recipients as "easy" or "difficult," in terms of gift selection. We argue that recipients are described as such because they either help or hinder givers' attempts to express specific social roles through exchange. We identify six such roles that givers express alone or in combination to each recipient on their gift lists. These are the pleaser, the provider, the compensator, the socializer, the acknowledger, and the avoider. We discuss the implications of our findings and suggest areas worthy of further research. Copyright 1993 by the University of Chicago.
Through a field study of 229 men and women, the effect of gender-related variables on Christmas-gift-shopping patterns was explored. Survey results suggest that women are more involved than men in the activity. However, men are likely to be more involved if they hold egalitarian gender-role attitudes. Overall, the study indicates that, while Christmas shopping may be a "labor of love" to some, it is most widely construed as "women's work." Copyright 1990 by the University of Chicago.
Many brands spend considerable resources to optimize the consumer’s online path to purchase only to have their products arrive unceremoniously on the consumer’s doorstep a few days later in a battered cardboard box. In this article, I argue that many firms are foregoing an opportunity to both strengthen their brand and decrease return rates when they ignore the potential of a product’s delivery package to create a brand-building experience. Why are investments in doorstep branding effective and which firms stand to benefit the most from them? The goal of this article is to raise these questions, offer a framework to address them, and provide preliminary evidence in a proof-of-concept study demonstrating that branding experiences can travel directly to the consumer’s front door.
While gift‐givers typically wrap gifts prior to presenting them, little is known about the effect of how the gift is wrapped on recipients’ expectations and attitudes toward the gift inside. We propose that when recipients open a gift from a friend, they like it less when the giver has wrapped it neatly as opposed to sloppily and we draw on expectation disconfirmation theory to explain the effect. Specifically, recipients set higher (lower) expectations for neatly (sloppily)‐wrapped gifts, making it harder (easier) for the gifts to meet these expectations, resulting in contrast effects that lead to less (more) positive attitudes toward the gifts once unwrapped. However, when the gift‐giver is an acquaintance, there is ambiguity in the relationship status and wrapping neatness serves as a cue about the relationship rather than the gift itself. This leads to assimilation effects where the recipient likes the gift more when neatly wrapped. We assess these effects across three studies and find that they hold for desirable, neutral, and undesirable gifts, as well as with both hypothetical and real gifts.
Are choices for others riskier than choices people make for themselves? This question has been asked by economists, psychologists, and other researchers in the social sciences – which has generated a diversity of research accounts and results. For example, a number of studies have found strong instances of a risky shift in choices for others, while other studies have found no such effect or have found that choices for others instead generate a cautious shift. In a meta-analysis of 128 effects from 71 published and unpublished papers (totaling 14,443 observations), we found a significant though small effect size (d = 0.105) in favor of a risky shift when people choose for others. Moreover, we found considerable variance between studies (Q = 1106.25), suggesting that the net effect is susceptible to moderating factors or study characteristics, which we identify and discuss as well (viz. choice recipient, decision frame, decision reciprocity, theoretical perspective, study design). Thus, we document not only whether decisions for others are riskier, but when (and when such decisions are less risky). We further discuss what is distinctly unique about decision making for others – how such choices are not just different in degree from personal choices but different in kind.
Although most research on consumers’ choices, and resulting insights, have focused on choices that consumers make solely for themselves, consumers often make choices for others, and there is a growing literature examining such choices. Theoretically, how can this growing literature be integrated, and what gaps remain? Practically, why should marketers, consumers, and policymakers care when choices are made for others, and what should they do differently? A 2 × 2 framework of consumers’ choices for others addresses these questions. This framework has two fundamental dimensions: the chooser’s social focus (relationship vs. recipient oriented) and the chooser’s consideration of consumption preferences (highlight the recipient’s preferences vs. the balance recipient’s preferences with the chooser’s preferences). These dimensions generate four cells that represent prototypical choosing-for-others contexts: gift-giving (relationship focus, highlighting recipient’s preferences), joint consumption (relationship focus, balancing recipient’s and chooser’s preferences), everyday favors/pick-ups (recipient focus, highlighting recipient’s preferences), and care-giving (recipient focus, balancing recipient’s and chooser’s preferences). This framework captures most choosing-for-others situations, and each cell involves a distinct profile of motives, ultimately affecting choices. This framework integrates the choosing-for-others literature, which we hope will guide future research, and it also offers practical implications for marketers, consumers, and policymakers.
Two consumer choice experiments reveal distortion of product information. When relatively equivocal information about two hypothetical brands is acquired one attribute at a time, the evaluation of a subsequent attribute is distorted to support the brand that emerges as the leader. This distortion in favor of the leading brand occurs in the absence of any prior brand preference and even when no choice is required. In the latter case, brand preference is formed spontaneously and privately. The magnitude of this predecisional information distortion is roughly double the well-known postdecisional distortion due to cognitive dissonance. A second study shows that, even when the product information is diagnostic, substantial distortion remains. Furthermore, when the diagnostic information leads to a reversal of the currently preferred brand, distortion reappears in support of the new leading brand. The implications of predecisional distortion of product information are discussed for the presentation order of brands, the presentation format of product attributes, and the potential bias in preference assessment techniques, such as conjoint measurement, that rely on pairwise choices.
This study examines gift giving at Israeli weddings. In accordance with kin selection theory, we hypothesized that wedding guests possessing greater genetic relatedness to the newlyweds would offer greater sums of money as wedding gifts. We also hypothesized that family members stemming from the maternal side (where the genetic lineage has higher kinship certainty) would offer the newlyweds more money than those stemming from the paternal side. Data on the monetary gift sums of the wedding guests from 30 weddings were collapsed according to two criteria: (a) genetic relatedness (0%, 6.25%, 12.5%, 25%, and 50%) and (b) kinship certainty (maternal or paternal lineage). Both hypotheses were supported. We discuss the implications of these data in understanding family dynamics, as well as practical applications associated with the marketing of gifts.
We investigated a type of mere similarity that describes owning the same item as someone else. Moreover, we examined this mere similarity in a gift-giving context, whereby givers gift something that they also buy for themselves (a behavior we call "companionizing"). Using a Heiderian account of balancing unit-sentiment relations, we tested whether gift recipients like gifts more when gifts are companionized. Akin to mere ownership, which describes people liking their possessions more merely because they own them, we tested a complementary prediction: whether people like their possessions more merely because others own them too. Thus, in a departure from previous work, we examined a type of similarity based on two people sharing the same material item. We find that this type of sharing causes gift recipients to like their gifts more, and feel closer to gift givers.
In the online retailing context, we explore the impact of the consumption target on the relative effectiveness of scarcity versus popularity cues. Purchasing for oneself often triggers a need for uniqueness while purchasing for someone else is more uncertain and risky. We propose that the consumption target moderates the relative effectiveness of scarcity versus popularity cues in marketing promotions. Specifically, we predict that when purchasing for oneself, scarcity cues outperform popularity cues in eliciting purchase intentions, whereas when purchasing for someone else, popularity cues are more effective. In addition, we propose the serial mediation effect of perceived product uniqueness → perceived product value to explain the “scarcity for me” effect and the serial mediation effect of perceived consumption risk → perceived product value to explain the “popularity for others” effect. Further, we propose self-other overlap as a moderator of the “popularity for others” effect. Last but not least, we examine price level as a moderating factor of the proposed theory. Evidence from Google Trends analysis and four experimental studies across a variety of scenarios confirm the theorization. Based on our findings, we discuss theoretical contributions and managerial implications and suggest directions for future research.
Past research has shown that people tend to feel depleted by their decisions. In contrast, we found people report that making decisions for others (vs. the self) is less depleting because it is more enjoyable. Our investigation thus replicated a prior finding (that decision-making is depleting), moderated it by target of decision (self vs. other), and demonstrated mediation (enjoyment). We further measured chronic focus on self or others (self-construal) and established a full process model that marries prior findings with the current ones: Choosing for others is more enjoyable and less depleting to the extent that decision makers are independent, and less enjoyable and more depleting to the extent that decision makers are interdependent. That a mismatch between chronic and state orientation leads to the better outcomes for self-control indicates a special link between self-construal and decision-making.
Gift givers balance their goal to please recipients with gifts that match recipient preferences against their own goal to signal relational closeness with gifts that demonstrate their knowledge of the recipient. Five studies in a gift registry context show that when close (vs. distant) givers receive attribution for the gifts they choose, they are more likely to diverge from the registry to choose items that signal their close relationships. The authors find that close givers' divergence from the registry is not the result of their altruistic search for a "better" gift but is a strategic effort to express relational signals: it occurs only when givers will receive attribution for their choice. They show that close givers reconcile their goal conflict by engaging in motivated reasoning, which results in their perceptual distortion of the gift options in favor of relational-signaling gifts. Ironically, distant givers are more likely to choose gifts from the registry, resulting in the selection of items that better match recipient preferences.
Introduction Attempts to explain human behavior date back to the dawn of time. Questions relating to motives, motivation, and volition, as discussed in Chapter 1, have been addressed from various perspectives under different labels, and have prompted a variety of explanatory models. What is common to all these attempts is that they seek to establish the reasons for actions, their individual differences, and for the activation, control, and persistence of goal-oriented behavior. It would go beyond the scope of this chapter to review the intricate and involved history of this endeavor (see Bolles, 1975, for such a review). What Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850–1909) supposedly said about psychology, namely that it has a long past but a short history, applies equally to the study of motivation. Once psychology became scientific, i.e., experimental, questions relating to motivation began to emerge in quite different contexts. Labels and definitions differed, reflecting the changing perspectives on the issues. The connotative content of concepts also changed with the biases and assumptions that dominated a particular era, however, increasing or decreasing their popularity. The nomenclature at the beginning of the last century is a case in point. At that time, the battle was between “motives” and “reasons” as directing the choice between alternative courses of behavior or as governing the emergence of a decision to do or not to do something. It was then that volition or “will” took effect to insure that an intention, once formed, would be followed up by the active pursuit of a goal.
Consumers readily indicate that they like options that appear dissimilar- for example, enjoying both rustic lake vacations and chic city vacations, or liking both scholarly documentary films and action-packed thrillers. However, when predicting other consumers' tastes for the same items, people believe that a preference for one precludes enjoyment of the dissimilar other. Five studies show that people sensibly expect others to like similar products, but erroneously expect others to dislike dissimilar ones. While people readily select dissimilar items for themselves (particularly if the dissimilar item is of higher quality than a similar one), they fail to predict this choice for others-even when monetary rewards are at stake. The tendency to infer dislike from dissimilarity is driven by a belief that others have narrow and homogeneous ranges of preferences.
The process of exchange is almost continual in human interactions, and appears to have characteristics peculiar to itself, and to generate affect, motivation, and behavior that cannot be predicted unless exchange processes are understood. This chapter describes two major concepts relating to the perception of justice and injustice; the concept of relative deprivation and the complementary concept of relative gratification. All dissatisfaction and low morale are related to a person's suffering injustice in social exchanges. However, a significant portion of cases can be usefully explained by invoking injustice as an explanatory concept. In the theory of inequity, both the antecedents and consequences of perceived injustice have been stated in terms that permit quite specific predictions to be made about the behavior of persons entering social exchanges. Relative deprivation and distributive justice, as theoretical concepts, specify some of the conditions that arouse perceptions of injustice and complementarily, the conditions that lead men to feel that their relations with others are just. The need for much additional research notwithstanding, the theoretical analyses that have been made of injustice in social exchanges should result not only in a better general understanding of the phenomenon, but should lead to a degree of social control not previously possible. The experience of injustice need not be an accepted fact of life.
This research examines how the social context in which gifts are selected influences gift choices. Six experiments show that, when givers select gifts for multiple recipients, they tend to pass up gifts that would be better liked by one or more recipients in favor of giving different gifts to each recipient, even when recipients will not compare gifts. This overindividuation does not seem to arise because givers perceive recipients' preferences differently when they consider them together versus separately: although givers' gift selections differ between a one-recipient and multiple-recipient context, their perceptions of which gifts would be better liked do not. Rather, overindividuation seems to arise because givers try to be thoughtful by treating each recipient as unique. Consistent with this, givers are more likely to overindividuate when they are encouraged to be thoughtful. Focusing givers on recipients' preferences reduces overindividuation and can help givers select better-liked gifts.
Children who are very picky in eating frequently refuse the intake of foods. This rejection is not only based on the evaluation of taste, but also on tactile qualities of foods. It matters whether food is crispy or slimy, consistent, or with bits and pips. It is hypothesized that children who are more sensitive to touch and dislike the feel of various tactile stimuli in general, are also more dismissive of tactile stimulation in their mouth and therefore more selective in their eating. In the present study, 44 children between 4 and 10 were asked to feel different tactile stimuli with their hands and to taste different foods. Results showed a significant positive correlation between the evaluations of the two modalities, especially for the younger subjects. This suggests that tactile sensitivity might play a role in acceptance of food. Future research could explore if training children to tolerate more tactile stimuli would also increase their appreciation of wider variety of foods.
In three studies, we examine the mental accounting rules that govern how gift cards are used. We predicted that their identity as gift cards would shift consumption from utilitarian to hedonic goods even in contexts where both types of goods are available and the consumer's needs are unchanged. In Study 1a, participants were asked to imagine that they had both a gift card and a specified amount of cash and needed to purchase both a hedonic item and a utilitarian item. When asked which currency they would use to buy which item, respondents were significantly more likely to say they would use the gift card to buy the hedonic item. Study 1b replicated this result and found that it was tied to participants' beliefs how different types of money should be used. In Study 2, we found that participants who were required to spend a certain amount of their compensation in a laboratory store spent more on hedonic goods if their payment was in the form of a gift card. In Study 3, we analyzed transactions at a campus bookstore and found that shoppers tended to spend disproportionately on hedonic goods when using their gift cards than when making credit card purchases. Taken together, these studies indicate that people tend to assign the monetary value of a gift card to a hedonic mental account and spend it accordingly. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
In eight studies, we tested the prediction that making choices for others involves less loss aversion than making choices for the self. We found that loss aversion is significantly lessened among people choosing for others in scenarios describing riskless choice (Study 1), gambling (Studies 2 and 3), and social aspects of life, such as likeably and status (Studies 4a–e). Moreover, we found this pattern in relatively realistic conditions where people are rewarded for making desirable (i.e., profitable) choices for others (Study 2), when the other for whom a choice is made is physically present (Study 3), and when real money is at stake (Studies 2 and 3). Finally, we found loss aversion is moderated when factors associated with self–other differences in decision making are taken into account, such as decision makers’ construal level (Study 4a), regulatory focus (Study 4b), degree of information seeking (Study 4c), omission bias (Study 4d), and power (Study 4e).
We explore the phenomenon of gift registry as a specific ritual within a larger set of wedding rituals to understand interactions between consumers and retailers. We find that roles for retailers in family based rituals are expanding, given how consumers employ brands to negotiate meaning, experiences of identity, and the dispersion of social systems. These changes allow retailers, as ritual orchestrators, an opportunity to participate more fully in the gift registry ritual by shaping the experience for each type of ritual participant—bride, groom, and gift-giver. Our research contributes an interpretation of how consumers negotiate brand meaning within a temporary gift system, as they perform gift giving rituals situated squarely within the marketplace. We explore the implications these rituals have for the construction of identity, consumer-to-consumer and consumer-to-brand relationships. We provide suggestions for managers and directions for future research.
In both organizational and social arenas, individuals make decisions for themselves and for other individuals. But research in decision making has provided little input into whether or how these decisions are psychologically different. In this paper, I propose that decisions—depending on whom they are for—vary according to the extent of information distortion, such that, individuals who choose for themselves demonstrate more postdecisional distortion, yet less predecisional distortion than individuals who choose on behalf of others. To test this hypothesis, participants in an experiment made a decision between two restaurants. Attributes about each restaurant were presented sequentially, and preferences were measured following each attribute. As expected, participants who chose for themselves experienced more postdecisional distortion. However, among participants who chose on behalf of others, greater distortion of predecisional attribute information was observed. These findings shed light on the differences in self-other decision making, as well as on research concerning information distortion.
The theoretical precision and research related to equity theory, as it is conceived by Adams, are reviewed. While equity theory is a significant step forward, the theory itself needs further specification. The research supports equity predictions in the area of underpayment, but the overpayment effects have not been satisfactorily demonstrated. Elaborations of the theory are presented in the areas of (1) determinants of inequity, (2) dissatisfaction resulting from inequity, and (3) responses to dissatisfaction.
As part of a much larger study of social change in Middletown (Muncie, Ind.), a random sample of adult residents was interviewed early in 1979 about celebrations of the previous Christmas. This paper describes the unwirtten and largely unrecognized rules that regulate Christmas gift giving and associated rituals in this community and the effective enforcement of those rules without visible means. A theoretical explanation is proposed.
Surprise gifts offer more business opportunities than gifts suggested by recipients, because a larger part of the selection and purchase processes can be molded, and such gifts are especially valued by recipients. Yet the extant gift-giving literature explicitly takes into account neither the giver's intention to surprise nor the consequences for the gift selection and purchase processes. The present study investigates surprise gifts from the giver's point of view and disentangles the selection and purchase processes of surprise gifts and gifts that are not meant as surprises. The hypotheses emerge as a consequence of the enhanced pleasure and experiential motivation underlying surprise gifts, as well as their greater inherent perceived risk. According to panel data, design and money-back guarantees are more important for the purchase of surprise gifts (compared with non-surprise gifts), whereas good deals appear less important, and brand name does not seem to matter any more than it does for gifts not intended as a surprise. Also, surprise gifts more often are bought on the spot than non-surprise gifts, without extended information search (similar to impulse purchases), by women alone, and for someone within the household. Finally, the giver usually has a poorer idea of what he or she wants to buy before entering the shop and visits fewer stores to purchase surprise gifts. However, the last three results apply only to appliances which often serve as gifts. These insights lead to significant managerial implications for retailers and manufacturers.
We tested the hypothesis that gifts act as markers of interpersonal simi-larity for both acquaintances and close relationship partners. Participants were led to believe that a new opposite sex acquaintance (Experiment 1) or romantic partner (Experiment 2) had selected either a desirable or un-desirable gift for them. In Experiment 1, men viewed themselves as less similar to their new acquaintance after receiving a bad versus good gift from her, whereas women's perceived similarity ratings were unaffected by gift quality. In Experiment 2, men reported decreased similarity to their romantic partner after receiving a bad gift, whereas women responded to the bad gift more positively; perceived similarity, in turn, had an impact on participants' evaluations of the relationship's future potential. This research highlights the need for more experimental work on gift-giving, which has been largely overlooked by mainstream social psychologists despite its economic and interpersonal significance. Gift-giving is central to many social occasions, including Christmas, birthdays, and graduations. Americans spend almost 13 bil-lion (Waldfogel, 1993).
With evolutionary psychology used as the theoretical framework, two aspects of gift giving among young adults are investigated: (a) sex differences in motives for giving gifts to a romantic partner, and (b) the allocation of gift expenditures among various relations, including romantic partners, close friends, close kin, and distant kin members. As per the evolved sex differences in mating strategies, it is proposed and found that men report tactical motives for giving gifts to their romantic partners more frequently than women. Also, there are no sex differences in situational motives for giving gifts. In addition, women are aware that men use tactical motives more often; whereas men think that these motives are employed equally by both sexes. With regard to gift expenditures it is found that, for kin members, the amount spent on gifts increases with the genetic relatedness (r value) of the particular kin. When all relations (kin and nonkin members) are included, the allocation of gift expenditures were the highest to romantic partners, followed by those to close kin members and then to close friends. The latter finding is explained via the importance attached to the evolved psychological mechanisms linked to each of the above relations, namely, reproductive fitness (for partners), nonreproductive fitness (for close kin members), and reciprocal altruism (for close friends). © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Probing of the semiotic significance of gift exchange behaviors has recently been resumed. The symbolic exchange value of the gift is especially amenable to investigation via ethnographic methods and projective techniques. In this paper, negativity and ambivalence in gift exchange, a theme derived from a comparative ethnographic study of two midwestern American gift stores, are refined and elaborated through projective analysis. What emerges is a more balanced and comprehensive account of gift giving than presently available in the literature of consumer-object relations. Gift giving and receiving engender high levels of anxiety among consumers. Gifts create and exacerbate interpersonal conflict. They are frequently used as weapons, and consumers' responses to them are carefully canalized. The ways in which negativity is managed by donors and recipients are examined. Consumers, victims of sentiment and symbolism, are found to be entrapped in rituals and enjoined by cultural ideology from expressing discontent in most ways except fantasy. The impact of such fantasy on gift giving, and its relevance for marketers, is explored in this article.
The research presented here suggests that effort is used as a heuristic for quality. Participants rating a poem (Experiment 1), a painting (Experiment 2), or a suit of armor (Experiment 3) provided higher ratings of quality, value, and liking for the work the more time and effort they thought it took to produce. Experiment 3 showed that the use of the effort heuristic, as with all heuristics, is moderated by ambiguity: Participants were more influenced by effort when the quality of the object being evaluated was difficult to ascertain. Discussion centers on the implications of the effort heuristic for everyday judgment and decision-making.
This study uses Markowitz mean-variance portfolio theory with forecasted data for the years 2005 to 2035 to determine efficient electricity generating technology mixes for Switzerland. The SURE procedure has been applied to filter out the systematic components of the covariance matrix. Results indicate that risk-averse electricity users in 2035 gain in terms of higher expected return, less risk, more security of supply and a higher return-to-risk ratio compared to 2000 by adopting a feasible minimum variance (MV) technology mix containing 28 percent Gas, 20 percent Run of river, 13 percent Storage hydro, 9 percent Nuclear, and 5 percent each of Solar, Smallhydro, Wind, Biomass, Incineration, and Biogas respectively. However, this mix comes at the cost of higher CO2 emissions.
Picky eating is a common disorder during childhood often causing considerable parental anxiety. This study examined the incidence, point prevalence, persistence and characteristics of picky eating in a prospective study of 120 children and their parents followed from 2 to 11 years. At any given age between 13% and 22% of the children were reported to be picky eaters. Incidence declined over time whereas point prevalence increased indicating that picky eating is often a chronic problem with 40% having a duration of more than 2 years. Those with longer duration differed from those with short duration having more strong likes and dislikes of food and not accepting new foods. Parents of picky eaters were more likely to report that their children consumed a limited variety of foods, required food prepared in specific ways, expressed stronger likes and dislikes for food, and threw tantrums when denied foods. They were also more likely to report struggles over feeding, preparing special meals, and commenting on their child's eating. Hence, picky eating is a prevalent concern of parents and may remain so through childhood. It appears to be a relatively stable trait reflecting an individual eating style. However no significant effects on growth were observed.
This paper discusses the structure and function of the trait of perfectionism within the obsessive personality, and how it dovetails with other features of that style. The author proposes a nuclear adaptive/defensive "myth of perfection" and delineates the phenomenology and clinical presentations of four problematic aspects of perfectionism: inhibitions, over concern with thoroughness and details, difficulty with decisions and commitments, and pickiness. The paper also discusses how several aspects of the obsessive style can present typical difficulties in doing therapy with perfectionists.