do we like gifts more when they match the giver or the ... · gifts that matched with the...
TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITEIT GENT
FACULTEIT ECONOMIE EN BEDRIJFSKUNDE
ACADEMIEJAAR 2015 – 2016
Do we like gifts more when they match the giver or the recipient? And when?
Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van
Master of Science in de Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen
Lowie Mijten
onder leiding van
Promotor: Prof. Pandelaere Mario
Co-promotor: Ziano Ignazio
Deze pagina is niet beschikbaar omdat ze persoonsgegevens bevat.Universiteitsbibliotheek Gent, 2021.
This page is not available because it contains personal information.Ghent University, Library, 2021.
I
Abstract
Previous research on gift giving showed that recipients had a higher appreciation for
gifts thatmatchedwith the characteristicsof thedonorcompared togifts thathadno
connectionwiththedonor. Inthecontextofamasterthesis, itwasexaminedwhether
giver-matchedgiftswouldstillbepreferredwhencomparedtogiftsthatmatchedwith
the characteristics of the recipient. To investigate this research question, an online
surveywasconductedamong103maleand129femalerespondents,between16and65
yearsold.Theresultsindicatedasassumedthatreceiver-matchedgiftswerepreferred.
The reason behind it was a higher perceived effort made by the giver for receiver-
matched gifts. The study was however not able to conclude if this preference was
affectedbytheimportanceofthegift-givingoccasionwhichleavesanopportunityopen
forfurtherresearch.
II
III
Foreword
Intheachievementofthismasterthesis,Iwouldliketoexpressmygratitudeforthe
followingpeoplewhohelpedrealizingthishardwork.
Inthefirstplace,Iwouldliketothankmyco-promoterIgnazio.Beingonanexchangein
Portugalmadeitnotalwayseasytocommunicatewitheachother.Butwiththeobtained
result,Ireallywanttothankhimforallthededication,patienceandcontributionstomy
work.
Furthermore, Iwould like to speakawordof gratitude for the supportofmyparents
whowerealwaystheretomotivateandencouragemetopersevereonmywork.
Finally,Iwouldalsoliketothankallthepeoplewhoparticipatedinthestudyandtook
thetimetoanswermysurvey.
Enjoyreading,
Obrigado,
Bedankt,
Thankyou,
LowieMijten
Lisbon,10-05-2016
IV
V
INDEX
1. Introduction 01
2. Literaturereview 03
2.1 Giftgiving 03
2.2 Economicexchange&modelsingiftgiving 04
2.3 Psychologicalmeaningofgiftgiving 07
2.4 Socialmeaningofgiftgiving 10
2.5 Giftgivinginconsumerbehaviour 13
2.5.1 Giver-orreceiver-matchedgifts 13
2.5.2 Perceptionofeffort 16
2.5.3 Importanceofoccasion 17
2.5.4 Relationships 18
2.5.5 Objectivesofthisstudy 19
3. Method 22
3.1Design 22
3.2Participants 24
4. Results 26
4.1 Manipulations 26
4.2 Giver-orreceiver-matched 27
4.3 Mediation 27
4.4 Moderation 30
5. Discussion 32
5.1Briefsummaryoftheresults 32
5.2Theoreticalimplications 32
5.3Limitationsandsuggestionsforfurtherresearch 34
5.4Generalconclusion 38
6. Bibliography VII
6.1 Literature VII
6.2 Internetsources XII
6.3 Pressrelease XII
VI
7. Appendices XIII
7.1 Survey XIII
7.2 Outputmodel4(Mediation) XVIII
7.3 Outputmodel4withcovariate(Mediation) XX
7.4 Outputmodel14(Moderatedmediation) XXII
7.5 Outputindependent-samplesT-test(Covariate) XXIV
TABLESANDFIGURES
Table1.Characteristicsoftherespondentsperscenario 25
Figure1.Mediation(model4) 29
Figure2.Moderatedmediation(model14) 31
1
1. Introduction
Finding the appropriate gift for someone else is a challenge we have all been facing
countlesstimes.Weknowwhatwewouldliketoreceive,butwhataboutothers?Which
gift will make them happy? Of all the different types of gifts, which ones should be
selectedtoincreasethesatisfactionoftherecipient?Inthismasterthesiswewilltryto
findananswer to thisquestion,orat least try to improve theselectionstrategywhen
facingallthepossibilities.
Toobtainacleardistinctionbetweenthetwotypesofgiftsthatwillbediscussedfurther
oninthisstudy,let’sfirsttakealookatthefollowingstories.
WhenJesuswasborninBethlehemofJudeainthedaysofHerodtheking,wisemenof
the East came over to honor Him.When they arrived at the stable, they offered His
motherandfathergold,frankincenseandmyrrh,whichwererepresentingtheirorigins
(Matt.2:1-11NewInternationalVersion).Thesegiftscanbeconsideredasexamplesof
‘giver-matched’gifts.
Asecondstoryworthmentioningis‘ThegiftoftheMagi’,originallywrittenbyO.Henry
in1905.Thisstorytellsthetragedyofamanandawomanlookingforapresentforeach
other. Since they don’t have a lot of money, the woman decides to cut her hair and
exchangeitformoney.Sheusesthemoneytobuyachainforherhusband’swatch.The
manontheotherhand,decidestosellhiswatchandusesthereceivedmoneytobuyan
assortmentofexpensivehairaccessories.At theendof theday, theybothcomehome
withaverylovelypresentfortheirpartnerbutunfortunatelycompletelyuseless.More
importanthoweveristhatboththemanandthewomendidagreatefforttofindagift
that was ‘receiver-matched’. For this kind of gifts, the characteristics of the gift are
relatedtothepersonalitythatissupposedtoreceivethepresent.
Thecliché“it’sthethoughtthatcounts”,isclearlyapplicabletothislaststory.Butinthe
firststoryaswell, therecanbeassumedthatthegiftsweren’treallyofpracticalusage
fortheparentsofthenewbornchild.Agiftmightbevaluedmoreforwhatitrepresents
2
thanfortheconcretematerialbenefitsexchanged(Wolfinbarger,1990).Theeffortand
sacrifice symbolize the commitment to the relationship. According to Sherry (1967),
giftscanbeusedtotransmittheimageotherhaveofusintheirmind.
Numbers show that gift givinghasbecomeabilliondollar industry over the years. In
2015, 19 billion U.S. dollars were spent on Valentine’s gifts. Fifty-five percent of the
Americansspentanaverageofalmost97dollarsfortheirbelovedones(NationalRetail
FederationandBIGinsight,2016).DuringtheChristmasholidays,thenumbersareeven
bigger.American citizensplanned to spendon average830dollarsduring thisperiod
and 30 percent of them intended to spend at least 1000 dollars (Gallup, 2015). The
months ofNovember andDecember generated in 2015 about 630.5 billiondollars on
retailsales,agrowthof57.81%comparedto15yearsago(NationalRetailFederation,
2015).
As illustratedby thenumbers,we’redealingwithhugeamountsofmoney.Therefore,
peoplebetterensurethattheirmoneyisspentontherightgift.Withawidevarietyof
potential gifts, it’s not easy today to find the appropriate one. Robben & Verhallen
(1994) even stated in their research that for the same gifts there could be different
evaluations based on the relationship between the characteristics of the donor and
thoseofthegift.Inthismasterthesis,wewillexamineifthepersonalcharacteristicsof
therecipientalsohavetheirinfluenceonthesatisfactionwiththegift.
3
2. Literaturereview
2.1Giftgiving
Gift giving canbedefinedas theexchangeprocess inwhichonepartybuysagoodor
service and voluntarily provides it to another party (Belk, 1977). The exchange often
happens through some sort of ritual presentation and because we want to exclude
statutoryobligationasareasonbehindgiftgiving,weassumethatthisprocesshappens
unforced(Belk&Coon,1993).
AccordingtoBelk(1977),thegift-givingprocessisdeterminedbyfourelements,namely
thegift, thegiver, therecipientandtheconditionsunderwhichtheexchangeistaking
place. It will be the interaction between those four factors that will create the
uniquenessofaparticulargiftexchange(Mayet&Pine,2010).
Thegiftistheobjectoftheexchangebetweenthedifferentparties.TheannualDeloitte
Christmas survey (2015) revealed that Europeans prefer to receive money, books,
journeys,clothingandcosmeticsduringtheChristmasholidays.Inthistop5list,three
giftscanbefoundthatwouldbedescribedasmaterialgiftsaccordingtoGoodman&Lim
(2015) namely clothes, cosmetics and books. These gifts can be touched and kept in
possession. They are often defined as tangible gifts, which could convey a symbolic
meaning (e.g.,Belk,1996b).A tripon theotherhand is anexampleof anexperiential
gift,onethatgetsconsumedandhasalimitedlifetime.Peoplereceiveanexperience.
It ismore difficult to categorizemoney as a tangible or intangible gift. Themoney is
actuallynotreallythepresent.Therealpresentisthefreedomforthereceivertospend
theamountonwhateverhewants.Dependingonwhathedecidestobuy,thefinalgift
willbetangibleorintangible.Givingmoneyasapresentcouldbeasafesolutionifyou
don’tknowtheexpectationsoftherecipient.
Camerer(1988)howeverarguedthatgivingmoneyasapresentisagainstthespiritof
giftgiving.Agifthastosymbolizethelevelofintimacybetweenthegiverandreceiver
andmoneywasfoundtolackthismeaningfulinformation(Burgoyne&Routh,1991).On
4
the other hand, receiving money can be a way for children (and even for adults) to
obtainlargerandmoreexpensivegifts.What’stooexpensivetobegivenbyoneperson
canbeboughtselfwhenreceivingmoneyfromdifferentparties.
Ineverygift-givingsituation therehave tobe twoparties.One thatoffers thegiftand
anotheronethatisreceivingit.Theformerpartyisreferredtoasthegiverordonorand
thelatterasthereceiverorrecipientofthegift.Bothpartiescanconsistoutofasingle
individualoragroup,recognizedandempoweredtoactasasingleunit(Sherry,1983,p.
160). Such groups can represent families or organizations (Belk, 1977). The
characteristicsandbelievesoftheindividualswillinfluencethegift-givingsituationand
determinewhichintentionsandmotivationsareinvolved.Forthismasterthesis,there
willbefocusedonlyongift-givingsituationswheredonorandrecipientarerepresented
byindividualpersons.
The last factor believed to determine the gift giving process, is the circumstances in
whichtheexchangeistakingplace(Belk,1977).Doestheexchangehappeninpublicor
in private? Is it a formal gift-giving occasion or are the gifts presented spontaneously
andunexpectedly?Doestherecipientknowfromwhomthegift iscoming?What’s the
kind of relationship between the parties and are their certain emotions involved like
guiltorlove?Itwillbethecircumstanceswhichtransformtheobjectexchangedfroma
resourcetoagift(Sherry,1983).
Inthenextparagraphs,researchdoneintheeconomic,psychologicalandsocialsection
ofthegift-givingliteraturewillbereviewed.Theattemptsofresearcherstomodelgift
givingwillbediscussedfirst.
2.2Economicexchange&modelsingiftgiving
AccordingtoGarner&Wagner(1991),thepotentialcontributionofeconomicstocreate
gift-givingmodelsislimited.Theassumptionsoftraditionaleconomictheoriesarebased
onmarketexchangewhereasgiftgivinghastobeseenasaformofsocialexchange.
5
The distinction between a market exchange or trade and a social exchange like gift
giving,isdeterminedbyhowthepartieslookatandrecognizetheevent,inadditionto
their intentionsabout it.Amarketexchangecanhappenbetweenpeoplewhohaveno
relationshipatallandhavenevermetbefore.Twostrangerscanexchangeanykindof
resourceandleaveafterwardswithouteverneedingtoseetheotherpartyotheragain
(Belk& Coon, 1993).Normally, both parties benefit from this transaction as they are
transferringgoodsorservicesofthesamevalue.
The difference with gift giving, is the creation of a bond of goodwill and social
indebtedness between the parties (Belk & Coon, 1993). Here, the resources are
exchangedwiththepurposeofmakingtherecipienthappywithoutanybenefitforthe
giver (Katz, 1976; Tournier, 1963). Research has shownhowever that these so-called
‘puregifts’ (Parry,1986),whichareunselfishandgivenwithnoexpectationofreturn,
are actually an utopia. Different studies (e.g. Gouldner, 1960; Mauss, 1954; Sahlins,
1972)haveshownthatinreality,reciprocityplaysaroleingift-givingsituations.Onthe
concept of reciprocity will be elaborated more in detail when describing the
psychologicalmeaningofgiftgiving.
Whilemostpeopletakepartingift-givingactivities,othersmaynot(Firth,2013).When
householdsdecidetoparticipate,theyalsohavetodeterminehowmuchmoneytheyare
willingtospendongifts.It’sassumedthatthisdecisionisrelatedtohouseholdincome
(Garner&Wagner,1991).Ingift-givingresearch,therehasbeenadistinctionbetween
twoareasofgiftgiving,i.e.charitablegivingandinterpersonalgiftgiving.
Inpreviousresearch, therehasbeenextensiveattentionandmanyattempts, trying to
model charitable giving behaviour. In charitable giving, people are givingmost of the
timemoneytofundanorganisation,whichenablesthelattertobuybasicnecessitiesfor
peopleinneed.Researchshowedthattheseexpendituresarepositivelycorrelatedwith
incomeandnegativelywith familysize (Lamale&Clorety Jr.,1959). Theseedmoney
level and refund policy were also found significant for the average gift size (List &
Lucking-Reiley, 2002). Reece (1979) concluded that when household members were
gettingolder,anincreaseofcontributionstocharitableandreligiousorganizationswas
found.Wewillassumethatthistypeofgivingisdrivenbythemotivationofdoinggood
6
forsocietyandpersonalsatisfaction.InlinewithSherry(1983)whosuggestedthatthe
most common type of gift giving is the exchange between individuals, we will not
elaboratefurtheroncharitablegivingasatypeofgiftexchange.
When looking at interpersonal gift giving on the other hand, research by Garner &
Wagner(1991)showedthatincome,numberoffemaleadultsinthehouseholdandthe
stageinfamilylifecycleareinfluencingvariables.
Garner&Wagner(1991)indicatedapositivecorrelationforincomewiththeprobability
ofgivingextrahouseholdgifts.Furthermore, incomewasalsopositivelyrelatedto the
expectedamountspentonthosegifts.Garner&Wagner(1991)concludedaswellthat
extrahouseholdgiftsarealuxurygood,whichisinlinewithoneofthesixprinciplesof
theperfectgift(Belk,1996b)(giftshavetobealuxury).Fromtheelasticitycalculatedin
their research they found that when income changed, the proportional change in
expenditures was even higher. The relationship between the quantity of a good
purchasedandhouseholdincomeiscalledtheEngelcurveineconomictheory.
Theprobabilityofspendingongiftswasalsofoundpositivelyrelatedtothenumberof
female adults in the household. This confirms the conviction that the primary
responsibility for exchanging gifts lies with women (Caplow, 1982; Cheal, 1986; Di
Leonardo, 1987; Fischer&Arnold, 1990). Davis et al. (1955) found thatmost of the
shopping,decoratingandgift-wrappingwasdonebywomen.
Finally, as supposed by Sherry (1983), gift-giving behaviour differed according to the
currentstageinthefamilylifecycle.Garner&Wagner'sresearch(1991)pointedouta
negative relation betweenboth the probability and themagnitude of extra household
giftsexpendituresand family size.As familiesexpand, thechanceof spendingand the
amountspentongiftsdecreases.Researchdiscoveredthatlargefamiliesspentmostof
theirbudgetforgiftsonmembersoftheimmediatefamily.Thisimmediatefamilyisn’t
only themost frequent receiving party but is also receiving themost expensive gifts
(Garner&Wagner,1991).
7
2.3Psychologicalmeaningofgiftgiving
Whyarepeopleexchanginggifts?Inpersonalconsumption,peopletrytomaximizetheir
personalsatisfactionwhereastheobjectiveofgivinggiftsistomaximizethesatisfaction
andwell-beingofothers(Garner&Wagner,1991,p.369).AccordingtoSherry(1983)
however,thisisnotalwaysthecase.Heassumedthatmotivesforgiftgivingrangefrom
altruistictoagonistic.
Thealtruisticmotive,inlinewithGarner&Wagner(1991),hastheaimtomaximizethe
pleasureof theexchangepartner.Theagonisticmotiveon theotherhandattempts to
maximizethedonor’spersonalsatisfactionandtheexchangecanbeconsideredasatool
forself-aggrandizement. In theend,Sherry(1983)concluded thatgiftexchangeswere
actually driven bymultiplemotives located on amotivation continuumwith altruism
andagonisticatthedifferentpolesofthespectrum.
Research done by Wolfinbarger (1990) assumed that for altruism two more specific
motivescouldbeidentified.Reparationoflossexperiencedbytherecipientasafirstone
andaltruismofthereceiverasasecondone.Ahusbandwhogavehiswifeavacationas
acompensationforhislongabsencewasgivenasanexamplefortheformer.Aspouse
whoboughtgiftstocompensatethathiswifealmostneverboughtsomethingforherself,
wasanillustrationofthesecondconcept.
Furthermore,Wolfinbarger(1990)describedtheagonisticbelieveasthe‘self-interested
giving’motive. For him, the self-interested giver tries to obtain receiver indebtedness
althoughhealsopointedout that inrelationshipswithrelatives,giversareunlikely to
havethecreationofobligationasaprimarymotive(Wolfinbarger,1990,p.702).
AccordingtoSalomon(1992),motivescanbedividedintoutilitarianandhedonicones.
Whileutilitarianmotivesarerelatedtotheachievementoffunctionalbenefits,hedonic
motives are reflecting emotional and subjective rewards.Wolfînbarger& Yale (1993)
exploredtheresearchfromSherry(1983)furtherandcameupwith3motivationsfor
giftgiving insteadof the twoconsideredbySherry.Theypresentedanexperientialor
positive,apracticalandanobligatedattitudetowardsgiftgiving.
8
Theexperientialattitudecanbecategorisedasahedonicmotive.Donorsmotivatedby
this attitudebelieve that gifts are awayof showing love and friendship to recipients.
They enjoy choosing gifts and don’t mind spending a great deal of effort to the gift
selection.
Providing the recipient with practical assistance on the other hand, symbolizes the
practical attitude. Therefore this attitude can be labelled as a utilitarian motive. The
giverperceivesfunctionalgiftsasthebesttoofferalthoughliteratureadvisestonotgive
practicalgifts.Amangivinghiswifekitchenequipmentisthestereotypicalexampleof
this(Browning,1990).
Finally, theobligatedattitudetogive is inspiredbytheconformitytobe inorderwith
thesocialnormofgiving.Here,giversaremotivatedtooffergiftsbecausetheywantto
avoidfeelingguilty,whichindicatesahedonicmotive,orbecausetheywanttoobligate
someoneelse,suggestingautilitarianmotive.
In linewith the ‘self-interested giving’motive (Wolfinbarger, 1990) and the obligated
attitude to give (Wolfînbarger & Yale, 1993), it’s worth mentioning reciprocity as a
socialnormwhichhasbeendiscussedextensivelyingift-givingresearch.
Likealreadystatedwhendiscussingtheeconomicmodel,reciprocityplaysanimportant
roleingiftgiving.ForGouldner(1960),reciprocityistheunderlyingsocialnormofgift
giving. For Mauss (1954) reciprocity was even the biggest motivation for gift giving.
Reciprocity is the feeling that you have to return the other party a gift of the same
economicorsymbolicvalue,dependingonwhichmodelyou follow(Ekeh,1974).This
canhappenatthesametimeorinthenot-specifiedfuture.Thisfeelingnotonlyplaysby
thereceiverbutbythegiveraswell.Thelattercangivesomethingwiththepurposeof
receiving something back simultaneously or in anticipation of future returns. It’s also
possiblethatheis‘repaying’hissocialdebtforpreviouslyreceivedgiftswhenbeingin
theroleofrecipient(Belk&Coon,1993)
9
However,thisdoesn’tmeanthatreciprocityhastohappenwithasimilargiftoroneof
the same economic value. A grandparent could give an expensive present to its
grandchild,whichwillprobablybereciprocatedwithlove.Anintangiblegiftoflittlecash
value,butofgreatsocialmeaning(Garner&Wagner,1991).
Reciprocity occurs for the perceived or experienced value of the gift. Distinction
betweentheeconomicandthesocialmodeltovaluegiftsdeterminesifthereciprocity
hastohappenwithgiftsofthesameeconomicorsocialvalue(Ekeh,1974).
Asanexample,hypothesizethattwogiftsareoffered,thefirstablenderworth20euros
and the second a bouquet of flowers worth 10 euros. Assuming that both gifts are
equally desirable, recipients prefer the first gift according to the economic model
because it’s worth more money. In addition to this, the recipient would feel himself
obliged to return something to the giver of the same financial value. Flynn & Adams
(2009) reported thatgiftgivers reasonaccording to thismodel.Giftgiversexpecteda
positive correlationbetween theamountofmoney spenton thegift and theextentof
appreciation.Thegift receiverson theotherhandreported that theydidn’tbase their
appreciationonthefinancialcost.Mostlikely,theyfollowthesocialmodelthatassumes
that thepreference foroneof thegiftsdependson thesymbolicvalue. It’s imaginable
thatinthisscenariotheflowershaveahighersymbolicvalueandwillbepreferredover
theblender.Followingthismodel,therecipientwillfeelobligedtorespondwithagiftof
comparable symbolicvalue.Thisdepends to someextenton the sharedhistoryof the
twoparties.
Furthermore,Belk(1979)assumedthatthenatureandextentofreciprocitymightdiffer
by age, financial resources or status. Sahlins (1972)presented amodel for describing
threetypesofreciprocity.Asreportedinhisresearch,reciprocitydifferedaccordingto
the expectations of return, the time horizon and in line with Joy (2001), the kind of
relationships.Exchangeswithoutorwith lowobligationtoreciprocateweredescribed
as generalized reciprocity. Balanced reciprocity implied that reciprocation occurred
almost immediately whereas negative reciprocity was found in transactions between
strangerswith a profitmaking purpose. The obligation to reciprocate finally tends to
10
increaseandthetimeperiodforreciprocatingtoshrinkwhenpeoplewhoareinvolved
intheexchangearelesscloselyrelated(Sahlins,1972;Osteen,2002).
Closingourelaborationonreciprocityasasocialnorm, theroleofgiftgiving insocial
interactionswillbediscussednext.
2.4Socialmeaningofgiftgiving
Inmostofthecases,giftgivingoccursbetweenfamilymembers,butaccordingtoBelk
(1977), one-third of the gift recipients are unrelated individuals and families. This
makesgiftgivingevenmoreasocialevent.Therearedifferentparties involved in the
exchangewho are sensitive for shared believes and traditionswhen it comes to gift-
givingsituations.
AccordingtoSherry(1983),thevitalroleofgiftgivingwastocreateandmaintainsocial
relationships.Themutualexchangeofgiftscouldhelptoestablish,defineandclarifythis
relationship(Belk,1977).Sherry(1983)presentedamodelinwhichgiftgivingoccurred
in three stages. After the gestation and prestation stage inwhich the gift is searched,
purchasedandexchanged,thereisthereformulationstage.Inthisfinalstagethesocial
bond between the donor and the recipient was evaluated. The social bond could be
strengthened,affirmed,attenuatedorsevered.
In contrast to Sherry (1983), Ruth, Otnes, & Brunel (1999) found six instead of four
possibleoutcomesafteragift exchange.The relationshipcouldbe strengthenedwhen
feelingsofconnectionandbondingwerereinforced. Ifhowevertheexchangerevealed
that therelationship lacked these feelings, thebondcouldbeweakened.Furthermore,
the exchange could validate the positive (affirmation) or negative (negative
confirmation)qualityoftherelationshipbetweenthedonorandtherecipient.Finally,it
was also possible that there was only a minimal effect on the perception of the
relationship (negligibleeffect) or that the relationshipwas harmed to such an extent,
leadingtotheterminationofit.
11
Gifts could serve as ‘signals’ of a person’s intentions about future investment in the
relationship(Camerer,1988,p.180).CouplesgivingeachotherpresentonValentine’s
Day are showing that they still love eachother andbelieve in the continuationof the
relationship.Whenamanoffersaringtohispartnerandaskshertomarryhim,thering
issymbolizingthecommitmenthewantstoshowher.AccordingtoShurmer(1971),the
changingnatureoftherelationshipgoeshandinhandwiththechangeofthevalueofthe
gift,assumingthatthevalueisreflectingtheweightoftherelationship.
Moreover,giftscouldfulfilthesocialfunctiontomarkanewlifecycleorstatuschange
(Belk,1977;Sherry,1983).Inmostofthecases,it’slinkedwithsomesortofformalor
ceremonialcelebration.Whenpeoplemakepromotionintheirprofessionalcareerthey
receive small presents representing congratulations for their achievement. When
students graduate, parents oftenmark this realizationwith some kind of celebration.
Switching from a role as a son becoming a father (or a grandfather) also often goes
together with presents, marking this life-changing happening. The gifts express the
importanceofsuchaturningpointinlifeandsupportthenewacquiredstatus(Sherry,
1983).
Furthermore, since gift giving can be seen as a social event, it has created certain
expectations and norms in gift-giving situations.When being invited for a dinner, it’s
consideredbasicetiquettetoreciprocatethegenerosityoftheotherparty.Oftenpeople
bringabottleofwineasrecognitionoftheirgratitude.Forbirthdays,it’sconventionalto
send a card with your birthday wishes. The same goes for Christmas and New Year.
These conventions, as Camerer (1988) describes them, are general rules which are
sociallyaccepted,facilitatepeople’sbehaviourandcoordinatehowpeopleshouldtreat
each other. Gentlemen who buy flowers on a first date to be perceived as well
intentioned,wasgivenasanexample.Althoughwomenperhapspreferanothergifton
theirfirstdate,mostmenstillgiveflowersbecauseitallowsthemtocommunicateina
common language. In this way, their message is clear and there is no chance of
misinterpretationonthesideoftherecipients.
Social conventions (Camerer, 1988) or fitness rules as Caplow (1984) defines them,
indicate which kind of gifts are appropriate for which kind of occasions. When not
12
respectingtheserules,itcouldhappenthatcertaingiftsareperceivedasinappropriate
for specific situations (Sherry, 1983). Someone could for example buy lingerie as a
present for his or her beloved one, but buying this present for anyone elsewould be
perceived as rather strange. Giftsmeant as a joke on a bachelor party, are better not
presentedontheweddingday.Asalreadymentionedbefore,thecircumstancesinwhich
a certain type of gift is presented could be important. They could provide a possible
explanation for how the gift should be interpreted, but even than there could arise
situationsofdiscomfortormisunderstanding.
Besides the social expectations and norms in general, research also found gender
expectationstowardsgiftgivingbychildren(Sherry,1983).Boysandgirls,especiallyat
ayoungerage, receivegifts that confirm their future (expected) roles in life.Boysare
expectedtoreceivecarsandothertoysthatareconsideredmasculine.Girlsontheother
hand,receiveveryoftendollsandothertoyswithafemaletouch.
At a youngage, childrenaremuchmore sensitive for this socialization.Receivedgifts
fromrespectedadultsareaverypowerfulcommunicationtooltoshowtheappropriate
sexrole identity.Giftscanbeseenasrewards forgoodbehaviour(Camerer,1988). In
thisway, it affects thechildren’s identityand formationofvalues.Furthermore, it can
help children to discoverwhat society is expecting from them.Belk (1977) described
thisasthesex-rolesocializationfunctionofgiftsforpre-schoolchildren.Fortheroleof
giftsassocializerofbehaviour, the inventionofSantaClauscannotbeunderestimated
(Schwartz,1967).Whereparentsfallshort,Santa’sgiftscancorrectchildren’sbehaviour
becauseheknowslikenooneelseiftheyhavebeengoodornot.
Many studies have shown that gift giving is linked to emotions. Love (Belk & Coon,
1993),guilt(Mick&Faure,1998;Valentin&Allred,2012),ambivalence(Sherry,Levy,&
McGrath, 1993), happiness, pride and confidence (Mick & Faure, 1998) have been
discussedtohavetheireffectonthegiverandreceiverinvolvedinthegiftexchange.As
anextensionofthesefindings,giftshavebeenshowntobeamediumtosaywhatcannot
be said inwords. They allow people to express their emotionswhen speaking is too
difficultorpainful (Belk&Coon,1991;Belk&Coon,1993;Belk,1996a). Insituations
whereit isdifficulttoadmitthatyouwerewrongorhavetoapologize,giftscanmake
13
theprocessofexcusingeasier.Alongwiththis,therearemanysituationsinwhichthis
couldresultinmiscommunication.Thegiftscouldfailtodeliverthemessagetheywere
supposed tocommunicateandgiveawrong impressionofpeople’s intentions(Belk&
Coon, 1993).When a teacherwould receive a gift froma student of the opposite sex,
peoplecouldassumethattherearedifferentmotivesafterthismove.Insuchsituations,
wrongconclusionscouldeasilybedrawn.
After the conclusion that gifts can say something more or can carry a message with
them,wewillnowproceedtothelastpartofourliteraturereview.There,giftgivingwill
bediscussedintheconsumerbehaviourfieldandtheobjectivesofthisresearchwillbe
outlined.
2.5Giftgivinginconsumerbehaviour
2.5.1Giver-orreceiver-matchedgifts
In the introduction of this study, two stories were presented in which two different
typesofgiftscouldbeidentified.IntheBiblestory,thewisemenofferedgiftsthatwere
representing theiroriginsand thereforehadcharacteristicsof theirown.Therewasa
link with the donors but not really with the receivers of the gift. These gifts will be
labeledas‘giver-matched’.
In ‘The gift of the Magi’ on the other hand, the gifts were associated with the
characteristics of the receiver. Theywere compatiblewithwhat the recipient already
had. In this situation, the giftwas linkedwith the receiver insteadof the giver. These
giftswillbelabeledas‘receiver-matched’.
Asmentionedbefore,giftscouldbeusedtocommunicatebecausetheyareabletosay
somethingaboutthegiverorreceiverandtheirintentions.Forthegiveritcouldbeused
todemonstrateaparticularself-traitlikegenerositywhenofferinganexpensivegiftor
creativity when the gift is self-designed. It could also be a medium for the giver to
14
express his personal tastes and traits. For the recipient the gift could be a symbol of
whichtypeofpersonpeoplethinkyouareorshouldbe(Belk,1977).
Imaginethatanindividualwantstogiveapresentthatdemonstrateshisgenerosity.He
couldbuyafestivalticket,abottleofwineoraphotoframe,allofthemworththesame
amount ofmoney, namely 50 euros. All these gifts represent the samewillingness of
moneyspent.But,althoughtheyrepresentthesamelevelofgenerosity,thesegiftssignal
somethingmore (Camerer,1988).Presenting the recipienta festival ticket shows that
you supporthis interests and recognizeshis tasteofmusic.Thebottleofwineon the
otherhandcouldindicatethatyouwerelisteningcarefullywhentherecipientexpressed
hispreferenceforaparticularwine.ThephotoframefinallycouldshowtheRamblasin
Barcelona,which the two individualsvisited together lastyear. In thisparticularcase,
thegiftcouldexpressthefriendshipbetweenthetwo.
Lookingattheconsumptionpatronofindividuals,buyingitemsfortheirselvesinstead
ofreceivingthemasagift,itwasnoticedinthemarketplacethatconsumerspreferthose
products that say who they are and represent the communities they belong to. The
products express the buyer’s identity (Belk, 1988; Berger & Heath, 2007; Escalas &
Bettman, 2003). According to Wattanasuwan (2005, p.179), our preference in
consumptionisnotonlydrivenbythecreationandmaintenanceoftheselfbutalsoby
theintentiontolocateusinsociety.
In addition to this, research on gift giving claimed that this identity congruence
behaviour also occurs in gift-giving situations (Paolacci, Straeter, & de Hooge, 2015).
Gifts can be seen as tool for the giver to express his identity. According to Schwartz
(1967) and Wolfinbarger (1990), self-presentation might be the most important
symbolicfunctionofgiftgiving.
When people accept such a gift, they are actually accepting the other person. They
recognizethegiver’sidentityandshowtheyappreciatehimthewayheis.Researchin
datingshowedthatacceptingagiftfromadatecreatesabondwiththatperson(Belk&
Coon,1993).Therecipientshowsthatheisinterestedandfascinatedtogettoknowthe
giverbetter.Theoppositegoesforrefusingagift,whichmeansasmuchasnointerestin
15
gettingtoknowtheotherpersonbetter.
Those gifts that are representing the identityof the giverhavebeendefinedas giver-
matchedgifts.Theyaresymbolizing thecharachteristicsof thegiver. In literature it is
assumedthatoneofthefunctionsofagiftcouldbetoactasamemorycueofthegiver
(Paolaccietal.,2015).Thegiftcouldremindtherecipientaboutthegiver,theeventon
whichhereceiveditorthefeelingsinvolved.Itcouldbeatangibletooltolinkmemories,
intimacyandsharedexperienceto(Baxter,1987).Thefunctionofgiftsasremindersof
thegiverhasbeendiscussedinpreviousresearch(Areni,Kiecker,&Palan,1998;Belk,
Wallendorf, & Sherry, Jr., 1989) and could be a possible explanation why recipients
prefergiver-matchedgiftsover receiver-matchedones (Paolacci et al., 2015).Agiver-
matched gift could however also be perceived as show-off or finding yourself very
interestingandtryingtoconvincetherecipientofthis.
Research done by Paolacci et al. (2015) showed that recipients have a higher
appreciationforgiftsthatmatchwiththecharacteristicsofthegiverthanforgiftsthat
don’tmatchwiththegiver.Theexplanationwouldbethatrecipientsperceivesuchgifts
asmorecongruentwiththeidentityofthegiver.Theyconcludedthatthematchneeded
toconcernacorecharacteristicinordertobeattractivetotherecipient.
Ontheotherhand,giftscouldbeapossiblethreatfortheself-conceptofthegiverwhen
they are contradictory to his own identity (Ward & Broniarczyk, 2011). Sometimes
peoplebuycertaingiftsbecausetheyknowtherecipientwillappreciatethemalthough
thesegiftsarenotinlinewiththeirownbeliefs.Anexamplewouldbetogiveashooting
game on the computer while being against (promoting) violence or buying a box of
cigarswhenconsideringsmokingaserioushealthhazard.Nevertheless,peoplestillbuy
those gifts when it comes to close friends because those relationships are of great
importancefortheindividual’ssenseofself.
AnotherexamplecouldbefoundintheTVmovie‘TheHomecoming:AChristmasStory’
(1971)wheretheoldestsonofthefamilywantstobecomeawriterinsteadofafarmer
likehis father.OnChristmasEve the father giveshis son the simple gift of paper and
pencils. The gifts symbolize the father’s acceptance of his son’s choice. The father
16
recognizes that his son wants something else than was expected from him and
encourageshimtosucceedinitbyofferingthisgift.
Inthisstory,agiver-matchedgiftwouldbesomethingrelatedtofarming.Butinsteadof
givingsuchgift,thefatherchoosestogivesomethingrelatedtotheson’sinterests.The
paperandpencilsareinthiscasereceiver-matchedgifts.Theysymbolizetheacceptance
oftherecipient’schoice.Thereceiver-matchedgiftcanbeseenasaconfirmationofthe
recipient’sidentity,acceptinghimasheisandrecognizinghispersonality.
Receiver-matchedgifts couldalso indicate that thegiver showsaffection for theother
party. It could demonstrate that he knows where the recipient is interested in or
passionateabout.Researchassumesthatrecipientsdesiregifts thatdemonstrate their
uniqueness(Berg&McQuinn,1986;Ehman,1989;Katz,1976).Thosegiftscanconfirm
who theyare.Receiver-matchedgifts couldshow that thegiver recognizes theunique
characteristicsoftherecipient.People(wantto)believethattheyarelovedbecauseof
this uniqueness (Belk & Coon, 1993). Through receiver-matched gifts, people could
receive recognition forwhatmakes them stand out of the crowd and confirmation of
theiridentity.
2.5.2Perceptionofeffort
According to the six principles of the perfect gift, a gift should illustrate true giver’s
sacrifice (Belk, 1996b). This sacrifice consists out of three components: themonetary
sacrifice,thelaboursacrifice(referredtoaseffort)andtemporalsacrifice(Cheal,1987;
Wooten,2000).Thisconditionofsacrificewas illustratedquiteclear in thestoryofO.
Henry ‘The gift of theMagi’ (Belk& Coon, 1993). Although the giftswere completely
useless,theywerestillappreciatedalotbecauseoftheeffortshownbytheotherparty.
Thetimespentonsearchingandpurchasingtheappropriategift,mightbeperceivedby
therecipientastherealgift(Pandya&Venkatesh,1992).Itsymbolizestheinvestment
andefforttomaintaintherelationshipwithoutbeingexplicit.
17
Asalreadymentioned,agiftmightbevaluedmore forwhat it represents than for the
concrete material benefits exchanged (Wolfinbarger, 1990).Because recipients often
don’thaveaclearideaofthetimeandmoneyspent,inotherwordstheeffortmadeby
thegiver,itwillprobablyinvolvetheimpressionofeffortthataffectsthepreferencefor
acertaingift.ResearchbyRobben&Verhallen(1994)confirmedthattheevaluationof
giftsisaffectedbytheperceptionofcostincurred.Inthiscontext,costhadtobeseenas
time, mental and physical effort performed by the giver. Their findings showed that
higherperceivedcostsresultedinpreferenceforthatspecificgift.Therelationshipwith
thedonor,thegiftoccasionandfinancialcostswerenotinfluencingthispreference.The
conclusionsofRobben&Verhallen(1994)areinlinewiththeprinciplesoftheperfect
gift(Belk,1996b),assumingthatgiftswillleadtohigherappreciationiftheysucceedin
fulfillingtheprincipleofsacrificethaniftheywouldnot.
2.5.3Importanceofoccasion
In addition, the appreciation for a certain gift could perhaps differ according to the
situationinwhichthegift-givingexchangeistakingplace.Wouldtherebeadifference
between important occasions and less important occasions? Examples of the former
wouldbe:awedding,abirthday,Valentine’sDay,mother’s-father’sdayorgraduation.
ResearchdonebyBelk(1982)showedthatweddingandbirthdaygiftsforaclosefriend
were perceived as more involving than thank-you gifts. Other research by Chase
(Wolfinbarger, 1990) confirmed that some birthdays were indeed recognized as
importantgift-givingevents.Therefore,wewillassume in thisstudythat theseevents
are perceived as more important. For the less important occasions, moments like a
housewarmingevent,goingfordinnerwithafriend,athank-youdinnerorvisitingyour
parents,couldserveasexamples.
Chase(Wolfinbarger,1990)hypothesizedthattheimportanceandtheperiodicityofthe
gift-givingeventinfluencedtheamountofmoneyspentongifts.Themoreimportantthe
eventswere and the less frequently they occurred, the higher the amount spent. For
weddings,peopleoftenlookformoreexpensivegiftsbecauseweddingsareconsidered
importantandoccurveryrarely.
18
In their research,Robben&Verhallen (1994)mentioned thebehavioural cost theory.
This theory assumes that the importance of the occasion influences the behavioural
costs(time,psychicandphysicalbudget)allocatedtocertainbehaviour,heregiftgiving.
Theyfoundintheirresearchthatthegiftoccasionwasnotrelevantfortheestimationof
theperceivedcostsanddidn’tinfluencethepreferenceforacertaingift.
Literaturehasshownthattheoccasionsoftheexchangecouldhaveaninfluenceonthe
extent towhich a gift is experienced as personalized. For recipients of the same sex,
Christmas giftsweremore personal than birthday gifts,whereas for recipients of the
oppositesex,birthdaygiftsweremorepersonalthanChristmasgifts(Belk,1977,p.20).
Giftsbeinggiver-orreceiver-matchedcanbeconsideredasadegreeofpersonalisation.
Basedon these insights frompreviousresearch, thepossible interactionsbetween the
gift occasion, perception of personalisation (giver- or receiver-matched), perceived
effortandtheappreciationforcertaintypeofgifts,willbeexaminedinthisstudy.
2.5.4Relationships
Onecouldaskhowever,ifduringlessimportantoccasions,peoplearealwaysexpecting
agift.Bringinganunexpectedgiftwithyoucouldsymbolizemoreefforttotherecipient,
leadingtohigherappreciationthanifyouwouldbringthesamegiftduringanimportant
occasionwhere gifts are actually expected. The relationship between the two parties
couldpotentiallybeinfluentialhere.
Incloserelationshipswherepeopleknoweachother’sdesiresandtastes,theperfectgift
might be one that the other party likes without realizing they did (Camerer, 1988).
Among all relationships people have, close friends could distinguish themselves from
casual friends by giving the recipient something he really likes or that really show
knowledgeoftherecipient’scharacteristics(Camerer,1988,p.193).ResearchbyWard
&Broniarczyk(2011),showedthatpeopleevenwouldbuygiftsthatarecontradictory
totheirself-conceptifitcomestoclosefriends.ResearchfrombyPaolaccietal.(2015)
concludedthatrecipientsappreciateagiftmorewhenitmatchesthegiverthanwhenit
didnotmatch thegiver,but that thiseffecthoweverwasnotconditionalon liking the
giverornot.ResearchbyMayet&Pine(2010),showedneverthelessthatthenatureof
19
therelationship influences therecipient’s interpretationsof thegift.Different levelsof
intimacy in therelationshipalso lead todifferentkindsof reciprocityaccording to Joy
(2001).Caplow(1982)finally,assumedthatgreaterriskoffailurewasassociatedwith
givingwithinthefamilyconsideringthemthemostimportantsocialrelationships.
Different types of relationships leading to different types of strategies and emotions
involved in gift-giving situations will result in the fact that the factor ‘closeness of
relationship’willbeconsideredasacovariateinourresearch.Theextentofclosenessis
believedtohaveapotentialinfluenceonthegift-givingexchange.
Besidesthepreviouslymentionedfactorsguidingthepreferenceinacertaindirection,
it’s considered that the durability of the gift also could play a role. If a gift is not
sustainable and gets consumed, it has a limited lifetime. Gifts that are durable on the
otherhand, stay longer in thephysical presence of the recipient and couldbe able to
fulfill theremembering functioneasier than theconsumedones.Whichcharacteristics
wouldweprefer in such a situation?Goodman&Lim (2015) showed that people are
happierwhenreceivingexperientialgiftsinsteadofmaterialgifts.Receivingawonderful
experiencecouldalsoberememberedverylongwithoutbeingphysicalaround.
In addition to this, usefulness of the gift could be a potential factor for guiding the
preferenceinacertaindirection.ResearchbyTeigen,Olsen,&Solås(2005)concluded
that recipients prefer to receive practical gifts that can be used on a regular basis
whereas theprovidersof thegift believedexclusiveoneswouldbeappreciatedmore.
Accordingtothesefindings,itwouldbebettertofocusonpracticalgiftsifyouwantto
increasetheotherparty’ssatisfaction.Interestingtoknowwouldbe,ifthegiftwouldbe
used regularly, about what do people want to be remembered? The passions and
characteristicsfromthepersonwhogaveittothem,orthoseoftheirown?
2.5.5Objectivesofthisstudy
As previouslymentioned, Paolacci et al. (2015) showed that recipients have a higher
appreciation for giver-matched gifts. However, they did not examine if giver-matched
presentswouldbepreferredoverreceiver-matchedones.Thisleavesaninterestingand
20
importantresearchquestionopenforfurtherresearch.Inthisthesis,wehavetheaimto
answer this question by looking at our collected data and evaluating our hypotheses,
formulatedfurtheron.
‘Dowelikegiftsmorewhentheymatchthegiverortherecipient?’
Itisimportanttomentionthattheappreciationforthegiftwillbeinvestigatedfromthe
pointofviewofthereceiver.Literaturehasalreadyshownthatgiversoftenmisjudgeor
overestimate the appreciation of the recipient (Flynn & Adams, 2009; Gino & Flynn,
2011; Goodman& Lim, 2015). It has also been proven that there exists asymmetries
betweenwhat the giver thinks the receiver wants andwhat he actually really wants
(Teigenet al., 2005).Giver and receiverwere also shown tonot always evaluate gifts
basedonthesamefactors(Robben&Verhallen,1994).
InlinewithGino&Flynn(2011)andOtnes,Lowrey,&Kim(1993),wewillfocusonthe
motive that gift giving is enacted primarily with the purpose of increasing the other
person’shappiness.Wewanttoknowwhetherthecharacteristicsofagift,beinggiver-
orreceiver-matched, influencethehappinessorappreciationfromtherecipient. Ifwe
would discoverwhich type of gifts people prefer, wewould knowwhich one to pick
whenbeinginasituationofbuyingapresent.
Basedontheresearchwereviewedabove,weformulateourfirsthypothesis.
H1: Recipients have a higher appreciation for receiver-matched gifts than for
giver-matchedgifts.
Assumingthattheperceptionofeffortcouldguidethepreferenceforacertaintypeof
gift inaspecificdirection,wearenowwonderingwhichofthetwo,giver-orreceiver-
matched gifts, communicates the highest amount of effort spent. We assume that
receiver-matched gifts will contribute most to this perception of effort. To give a
receiver-matched gift, you need to know the recipient. You have to know his
characteristics, his interests, passions, likes anddislikes and take these inmindwhen
purchasingthepresent.Ittakesmoreefforttofindanappropriategiftthatexpressesthe
21
uniquenessand thespecific characteristicsof therecipientwhereas forgiver-matched
gifts,thisisnotthecase.Likealreadymentioned,theyareapresentationoftheidentity
of the giver. It takes probably less time to find such a gift expressing their own
characteristics.
Based on these ideas, we come up with the second hypothesis. We expect the
characteristicsofthegift,beinggiver-orreceiver-matched,toinfluencetheperceptionof
effortputinthegiftsindifferentways,resultingintodifferentlevelsofappreciationby
therecipient.
H2:Receiver-matchedgiftscausetheimpressionthatmoreeffortisputinthegift,
leadingtoahigherappreciationforthem.
Asmentionedbefore,Chase(Wolfinbarger,1990)hypothesizedthattheoccasionofgift
givingaffectstheamountofmoneyspentongifts.Moreover,theoccasionwasprovento
have its influence on the extent towhich gifts were perceived as personalized (Belk,
1977).Asaconclusion,weexpectthattheoccasionof thegiftexchangecouldhavean
effect on the relationship between the impression of effort put in gift and the
appreciationforit.AlthoughRobben&Verhallen(1994) foundintheirresearchthatit
wasn’trelevant,wewillformulateourthirdhypothesisassumingthatduringimportant
occasionstheeffectofperceivedeffortwillplaytoamoredistinctlevel.
H3:Receiver-matchedgiftscausetheimpressionthatmoreeffortisputinthegift,
leading to higher appreciation for them during important gift-giving occasions.
Duringa less importantoccasionhowever,giver-andreceiver-matchedgiftsare
expectedtobeequallypreferred.
22
3. Method
3.1Design
Tofindananswertotheresearchquestionandto investigatewhichhypothesescould
beconfirmed,anonlinescenario-basedsurveywasorganised.
In our study, a 2x2 between subjects designwas used. Four different scenarioswere
created based on two different independent variables, which could take both two
different values. The first independent variable was related to the gift, matching the
giver or matching the receiver of the present. The second independent variable was
associatedwith theoccasionof gift giving, being importantor less important. Further
on, their effect on the dependant variable, being the appreciation for the gift, was
examined.
The survey started with a short introduction text ensuring the respondents that all
informationwouldbekeptcompletelyanonymousand indicating the timetheywould
spendon answering the questions.Next, the respondentswere exposed to one of the
four scenarios,which described first an important (birthday party) or less important
(dinner)occasionofgiftgiving.Thecharacteristicsofthegiver(passionateaboutAsia)
and receiver (passionate about Latin America)were described in the next paragraph
andwerekeptconstantacrossalldifferentscenarios. Intheend, thecharacteristicsof
thegift itself(bookwithinformationandpicturesfromthecontinent)weredescribed,
matching the giver or receiver. Further on, the respondents were presented ten
questions of which the last three were related to their own personal socio-
demographics. After answering all the questions, the respondents were thanked for
theirparticipation.
It’s important to emphasize that the surveywas taken from the point of view of the
receiver.Aselaboratedon in the literatureoverview, this can lead todifferent results
than if it would have been taken from the point of view of the giver. Because the
appreciationforthegiftisthedependentvariable,thereceiver-basedviewwasbelieved
tofitbetterwiththepurposeofthisresearch.
23
To measure the appreciation of the gift, two questions were used, extracted from
previous research by Goodman & Lim (2015) who based it on Nicolao, Irwin, &
Goodman (2009) and Van Boven& Gilovich (2003) (“Whenyou thinkof thisgift, how
happydoes itmakeyou?”and “Towhatextentdoyouthinkthemoneyspentonthisgift
would have been better spent on something else - some other type of gift that would
(could) havemade this person happier?”).Furthermore, one question was added (“To
whichextentwouldyouliketoreceivethisgift?”),sotheaverageofthosethreequestions
could be used to determine the overall appreciation for the gift. Two questionswere
formulatedpositiveandonewasformulatednegative.Allthreequestionswerelabelled
on a 7-point Likert-scale with the negative formulated question having a reversed
coding.
Tobeabletoverifyifthemanipulationsachievedtheintendedeffect,twomanipulation
checkswere included in thesurvey.Therespondentswereasked to indicate towhich
extenttheyrecognisedthegiftasmatchingthegiver’sorreceiver’scharacteristicsona
7-point Likert-scale (1=completely the giver, 4=both, 7=completely the receiver). For
thesecondmanipulationcheck,theywereaskedtoratetheimportanceoftheoccasion
as well on a 7-point Likert-scale (1=not important at all, 4=neither important nor
unimportant,7=veryimportant).
Finally,because theperceptionofeffortwasbelieved tobeapossiblemediatorof the
studiedeffect,theparticipantswereaskedtoindicateona7-pointLikert-scaletowhich
extent thegiverhadputeffort in thegift.Furthermore,assumingthat therelationship
between the donor and recipient could have an influence, the respondentswere also
askedtoindicatehowclosetheybelievedtherelationshipwasbetweenthetwoparties.
This question was included in our survey as a possible covariate for the analysis.
Important,bothTheeffortputinthegiftandTherelationshipbetweentheparties,were
not described in the scenario. So here, it was completely the perception of the
participantstothegivenscenario.
24
3.2Participants
Through socialmedia and email, participantswere invited to take part in the survey.
When closing the surveyafter twoandahalfmonths, answers from301 respondents
werecollected.Itwasdecidedtoexclude69ofthemsincetheyonlystartedthesurvey
butdidn’tfinishit.Theremaining232respondentswithvalidanswerswereusedforthe
analysis.
Theaverageageoftherespondentswas27.9years,withtheyoungestrespondentbeing
16 and the oldest 65 years old. More than half of our respondents (56,9%)were 23
yearsor younger, indicating that our surveywasmostly filled inby students.Women
wereslightlyoverrepresented(55,6%)inthesamplecomparedtomenandBelgiumwas
indicatedascurrentplaceoflivinginthemajorityofcases(81%).Therespondentswere
randomlyassigned tooneof the four scenarios, answering the surveyvoluntarily and
beingunawareoftheresearchpurposesofthestudy.
Aone-wayANOVAwasusedtocheckiftheagewassignificantlydifferentbetweenthe
fourscenarios,whichwasfoundnottobethecase(F(3,228)=2.30,p=.078).Tocheck
for gender and distribution of place of living, two association tests were used. Both
variableswerefoundnottodiffersignificantlyacrossscenarios(Gender:χ2(3)=.17,p=
.982,Placeofliving:χ2(6)=7.51,p=.277).Basedontheseresultsandthefactthatthe
respondentswererandomlyassigned tooneof thescenarios, itwasassumed that the
respondentsweresimilaracrossthefourscenarios.
25
Table1.Characteristicsoftherespondentsperscenario
Occasion/Matching Giver Receiver
Important
Scenario1A
N=57
Mage=28.14
F-M1:57,9%-42,1%
B-P&O2:86%-14%
Scenario1B
N=56
Mage=26.66
F-M:55,4%-44,6%
B-P&O:82,1%-17,9%
LessImportant
Scenario2A
N=55
Mage=31.13
F-M:54,5%-45,5%
B-P&O:74,5%-25,5%
Scenario2B
N=64
Mage=26.00
F-M:54,7%-45,3%
B-P&O:81,3%-18,7%1Female-Male(gender)2Belgium-Portugal&Other(placeofliving)
26
4. Results
4.1Manipulations
Beforeanalysing thedataandexaminingwhichof thehypothesescouldbeconfirmed,
themanipulationswerefirstcontrolledtoverifyiftheyobtainedtheintendedeffect.In
thesurvey,twoquestionswereincludedwheretherespondentshadtoindicateona7-
pointLikert-scaletowhichextendtheyrecognisedthegiftasmatchingoneof thetwo
partiesandconsideredthegiftoccasionasimportant.
Tocheckiftherespondentsperceivedthegiftasmatchingthegiverorreceiver,atwo-
wayANOVAwasexecutedfirst.Asdependentvariable,thevariable“Wouldyousaythe
giftismorematchingthereceiver’sormatchingthegiver’scharacteristics?”wasusedand
thevariablesMatching(Giver-Receiver)andImportance(Important-Lessimportant)as
fixed factors.Afterrunning this test, itwas foundthat therespondentsrecognised the
gifts appropriately in the corresponding scenarios (F(1,228) = 210.81, p < .001,
MGiver=2.40 andMReceiver=5.36). The importance of occasion (F(1,228) = 1.50, p=.222)
andtheinteractioneffect(F(1,228)=1.15,p=.286)werefoundnottobesignificant.
The second manipulation was related to the importance of the gift-giving occasion.
Again,atwo-wayANOVAwasexecuted,thistimewith“Towhichextentdoyourecognize
thisgiftgivingsituationasimportant”asdependantvariableandthesamefixedfactors,
beingMatching(Giver-Receiver)andImportance(Important-Lessimportant).
The interaction effectwas found not to be significant (F(1,228) = .001, p=.954)while
bothfixedfactorsImportance(F(1,228)=4.15,p=.043)andMatching(F(1,228)=34.10,
p <.001) were significant. The respondents recognised the intended important gift-
giving scenarios (M=4.38) as more important than the intended less important ones
(M=4.03) (F(1,228) = 4.15, p = .043). Furthermore, it was found that the receiver-
matched scenarios scored higher (M=4.74) in comparison to the giver-matched
scenarios(M=3.63)(F(1,228)=34.10,p<.001).
1F(1,228)=.003
27
Finally,thethreequestionsrelatedtothesatisfactionwiththegiftwerealsocontrolled.
First, the answers from the negative formulated question were inversed (“To what
extent do you think the money spent on this gift would have been better spent on
something else - some other type of gift that would (could) have made this person
happier?”)andthentheKMOandBarlett’sTest(p< .001)andcorrelationmatrixwere
inspected. From the latter, itwas concluded that the three questionswere positively
relatedtoeachother(r=.539;p<.001,r=.587;p<.001andr=.546;p<.001).Based
on the Cronbach’s alfa (𝛼=.785), it was decided to take the average of these three
questionsasameasureoftheoverallsatisfactionwiththegift.Themeanandstandard
deviationofthisnewvariablewererespectively4.48and1.37.
4.2Giver-orreceiver-matched
Firstofall, itwasexaminedwhichtypeofgift(giver-orreceiver-matched)resultedin
the highest appreciation by the recipient. To find an answer to this question, an
independent samples T-test was performed. For this test, the newly created variable
Overallsatisfactionwasusedas testvariablewhileweusedMatching(Giver-Receiver)
asgroupingvariable.Asaconclusion,thereceiver-matchedgifts(M=5.27)wereclearly
preferredovergiver-matchedgifts(M=3.63)(t(230)=-11.39,p<.001),whichconfirmed
ourfirsthypothesis.
4.3Mediation
In a second stage, an examination was conducted to find an explanation for this
preference. In the survey, a question was included to measure the respondent’s
perceptionoftheeffortputinthegiftbythegiver.Asstatedinoursecondhypothesis,it
was assumed that this perception could be an explanation for the preference for
receiver-matched gifts. To checkwhether this could be confirmed, a two-wayANOVA
wasperformedfirst.
28
Torunthetest,“Howmuchefforthasthegiverputinthisgift?”wasusedasdependent
variable in combinationwith thepreviouslyusedvariables,Matching(Giver-Receiver)
andImportance(Important-Lessimportant),asfixedfactors.BothMatching(F(1,228)=
35.83,p< .001)andImportance(F(1,228)=4.01,p=.046)werefoundtobesignificant
while the interaction effect was not (F(1,228) = 2.61, p=.107). Furthermore, the
receiver-matched scenario (M=4.91) resulted in ahigherperceptionof effort than the
giver-matchedone(M=3.81).
Afterwards,astatisticalmacrocreatedbyHayes(2013)(model4)wasusedtoexamine
if this perception could serve as a mediator in our model. The variable Overall
satisfactionwasusedastheoutcomevariablewhileMatching(Giver-Receiver)wasused
asindependentvariable.“Howmuchefforthasthegiverputinthisgift?”wasusedasthe
Mvariableforthistest.
A significant positive effect of the gift being receiver-matched on the recipients’
satisfaction was found (B = 1.64, SE = .14, t(230) = 11.39, p < .001). To test if the
perceptionofeffortcouldserveasamediator,bias-correctedbootstrappingwasusedto
generate a 95% confidence interval around this indirect effect. According to Hayes
(2013), the confidence interval should exclude zero to have a significant mediation
effect.
The analysis (5,000 bootstrap samples; bias-corrected confidence intervals estimated
andreported)revealedasignificantindirecteffect(ab=.22,SE=.08;95%LLCI:=.08,
95%ULCI=.39).Asformulatedinoursecondhypothesis,giftsthatmatchedthereceiver
increased the perception of effort, which subsequently increased the participants’
satisfactionwiththegift.
Moreover, it was investigated if a covariate could be incorporated in this model. As
stated in the literature, it was believed that different types of relationships lead to
differenttypesofstrategiesandemotionsinvolvedingift-givingsituations.Sincethere
could exist a link between the perception of effort and the emotions or perceived
relationshipbetweenthedonorandrecipient,thevariablethatmeasuredthisperceived
closenessintherelationshipwastestedascovariate.
29
When running an independent-samples T-test with “To which extent would you
describetherelationshipbetweenthetwopartiesasclose?”astestvariableandMatching
(Giver-Receiver) as grouping variable, there was found that receiver-matched gifts
(M=5.38)resultedinthebelievethattherelationshipbetweenthepartiesinvolvedwas
closer than in the giver-matched scenario (M=3.60) (t(215.312)= -10.44, p < .001).
Furthermore,atwo-wayANOVAwasperformedtocheckforaninteractioneffect,which
was found not to be significant (F(1,228) = .168, p=.682). For this test, we used as
dependentvariable“Towhichextentwouldyoudescribetherelationshipbetweenthetwo
parties as close?” and Matching (Giver-Receiver) and Importance (Important-Less
important)asfixedfactors.
When including the covariate in the analysis, the conclusions for the total, direct and
indirecteffectremainedthesame(B=.97,SE=.16,t(230)=6.18,p<.001andab=.05,
SE=.04;95%LLCI:=.003,95%ULCI=.16).Fromtheratiosindirecteffecttototaleffect,
itwasconcludedthat thepercentageof thetotaleffect thatwasmediatedthroughthe
perceptionofeffortdroppedfrom13.1%to5.5%.
Figure1.Mediation(model4)2Equalvariancesnotassumed–SeeappendixXXIV3LLCI:=.002,significantindirecteffect–SeeappendixXX-XXI
30
4.4Moderation
Finally, for our third hypothesis, an analysis was performed to check for moderated
mediation in our model. The indirect effect of mediation was controlled in order to
determine if it was moderated by the importance of the gift-giving occasion. It was
tested whether the effect of the perception of effort on the satisfaction for the gift,
differed according to the importance of the gift-giving occasion. Again, a statistical
macrodevelopedbyHayes(2013)(model14)wasused.
The indirect effect was checked onmoderation for the b-path (see figure 2). For the
outcome and independent variable,Overall satisfactionandMatching (Giver-Receiver)
were used. TheM variablewas again “Howmuchefforthas thegiverput in this gift?”
whileImportance(Important-Lessimportant)wasselectedasmoderator.
The performed analysis (5,000 bootstraps; 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals)
provedthedirecteffectofmatchingontheappreciationforthegifttobesignificant(B=
1.39,SE=.15,t(230)=9.22,p<.001).Inthismodel,themediationwasonlysignificant
for the less important scenario (ab= .31, SE= .09,95%LLCI:= .16,95%ULCI= .52),
whileitwasnotsignificantfortheimportantone(ab=.129,SE=.11,95%LLCI:=-.08,
95%ULCI=.35).Themoderatedmediationindexontheotherhand,wasfoundnottobe
significant(ab=.18,SE=.12,95%LLCI:=-.04,95%ULCI=.44).Since0wasincludedin
theconfidenceintervaloftheindex,wedon’tfindsupportformoderatedmediationin
ourmodel.
Regarding our third hypothesis, we can conclude that receiver-matched gifts indeed
causetheimpressionthatmoreeffortisputinthegiftandthatthisimpressionleadsto
anincreaseinoverallsatisfactionbutthatthereisnoproofthatthiseffectsignificantly
differsbetweenanimportantandlessimportantoccasion.
31
Figure2.Moderatedmediation(model14)
32
5. Discussion
5.1Briefsummaryoftheresults
In this study, itwas investigatedwhetherpeopleprefer to receive a gift thatmatches
withthecharacteristicsofthegiveroronethatmatcheswiththecharacteristicsofthe
receiver. The results provided strong support for our first and second hypothesis.
Receiver-matched gifts were preferred significantly over giver-matched gifts
(hypothesis 1) and this preference resulted from a higher perception of effort in the
receiver-matchedscenario(hypothesis2).
Thethirdhypothesiscouldn’tbeconfirmedwiththedatafromthisstudy.Respondents
indicatedahigherappreciationforreceiver-matchedgifts,whichwasexplainedbytheir
perception of effort, but therewas foundno significant difference between important
andlessimportantgift-givingoccasionsforthiseffect.
Regardingour researchquestion, the conclusioncanbedrawn thatgiftsmatching the
receiverresultinhigherappreciationbasedonourfirsttwohypotheses.
5.2Theoreticalimplications
Therespondentsindicatedasexpectedahigherappreciationforreceiver-matchedgifts.
Previous research from Paolacci et al. (2015) on the other hand showed that giver-
matched gifts would be preferred, but in their study the matching issue concerned
references to the giver’s characteristics or no references at all to any of the
characteristics of the two parties involved. It seems reasonable that respondents
indicate a higher appreciation for matching gifts in comparison to gifts without any
match. By placing giver- and receiver-matched gifts in relation to each other, it was
possibletoconcludewhosecharacteristicsagiftshouldmatchinordertoincreasethe
appreciationoftherecipient.
33
Furthermore, since this study proved that receiver-matched gifts are preferred over
giver-matched ones and the latter were found in previous research (Paolacci et al.,
2015) tobe favoredovergiftswithoutanymatch, it could, according to the transitive
property of inequalities theory4 , be assumed that receiver-matched gifts will be
preferred over gifts that don’tmatch any of the parties involved in the gift exchange.
However,it’simportanttopointoutthepossibledangerofformulatingsuchconclusions
insocialsciencessuchasconsumerbehaviour.
With the confirmation of our second hypothesis, the conclusions from Robben &
Verhallen (1994) are reinforced. In their study, they found significant proof for the
influenceofperceivedeffortontheevaluationofgifts.Withtheresultsofourstudy,it
canbestatedthattheperceptionofeffortisindeedanimportantfactortokeepinmind
when studying gift evaluation. In contrast to Robben & Verhallen's (1994) research,
where they described precisely in which circumstances and with which level of
involvementthegiftwasacquiredbythedonor,ourscenariosdidn’tmentionanydetail
aboutit.Inourstudy,itwascompletelythementalperceptionoftherespondentsthat
guidedthisbelieveofeffortperformedbythegiverinacertaindirection.
Themeasuredperceptionofclosenessintherelationshipbetweenthepartieswasfound
tobeasignificantcovariateinthisstudy.PreviousresearchbyPaolaccietal.(2015)and
Robben&Verhallen(1994)statedthattherelationshipbetweenthegiverandreceiver
ortheextenttowhichtheylikedeachother,didn’tinfluencethepreferenceforacertain
typeofgift.Inthecaseofthegiver-matchedgifts,thisseemstomakesense,becauseto
receive a gift that matches with the characteristics of someone else, the relationship
doesn’thastobesoclosebetweentheexchangingpartners.
When focusing on receiver-matched gifts on the other hand, it could be that these
relationships take an influencing role. As formulated by Camerer (1988), gifts that
match with the receiver are able to demonstrate knowledge of the other person’s
characteristics. Only people who know each other better understand each other’s
passions,likesandinterests.Forthereceiver-matchedgifts,itcanbeassumedthatthe
relationshipplays toadifferentextent than in thecaseof thegiver-matchedscenario.
4Ifa>bandb>c,thena>c
34
Our study showed that receiver-matched gifts result in the impression of a closer
relationshipbutfurtherresearchcouldfocusinmoredetailonthepossibleinteractions
betweentherelationshipofthepartiesandtheappreciationforreceiver-matchedgifts.
In contrast to what was hypothesized, there was found no support for moderated
mediationinourmodel.Betweenimportantandlessimportantgift-givingoccasionsno
significantdifferenceswerefoundforthestudiedeffect.Ourresultscontributedagainto
the conclusions fromresearchdonebyRobben&Verhallen (1994).Basedon the two
studies,itcouldbeconcludedthatthelinkbetweenperceptionofeffortandtheoccasion
of gift exchange is perhaps not relevant. In our study, both occasions were found
significantly different in importance but the scores were close to each other. It was
believedthatthedinnerwithsomepeoplewasnotrecognisedenoughaslessimportant
thanthebirthdayparty.Maybeabettersolutionforthelessimportantscenariowould
havebeenaquickvisitofsomeonewhopassedbytosayhello.
5.3Limitationsandsuggestionsforfurtherresearch
Whenelaboratingontheperformedstudy,it’sworthhighlightingsomeshortcomingsin
addition to suggestions for future research. Furthermore, we will briefly discuss a
practicalapplicationbasedontheobtainedinsightsfromthisresearch.
It was believed to be a good idea to organize the survey shortly after the Christmas
holidays. In this period, most of the gift exchanges take place and in the first weeks
afterwards,thereceivedgiftvouchersareused.However,sincethesurveytooktwoand
ahalfmonthstoreachasufficientnumberofrespondents,itcouldbethatfortheones
whofilledinthequestionsinJanuarytheproximityofeventsinfluencedtheiranswers.
For the ones that answered the question in February or the beginning of March,
probably thememoriesof lastChristmas are already further away.Thishistory effect
might have had an influence on theway the respondents answered the questions. To
overcome this shortcoming, it might be better to organize the survey in a more
concentratedtimeframeorinamoreneutralperiodoftheyear.
35
Another possible shortcoming could arise from the fact that it was an online survey
where there is little control over the attention given to the scenario andquestions. A
potentialriskcouldbethatthescenariowasn’treadcarefullyenoughandthequestions,
as a result, were filled in without taking inmind the circumstances described in the
scenario. This could be a possible explanation for deviations from our formulated
hypotheses.Asolutioncouldbetoorganizethesurveythroughpersonalinterviewsover
thephoneorfacetoface.
Furthermorewenoticedthatmorethanhalfofourrespondents(56,9%)were23years
old or younger. This also might influence the obtained results. These adolescents or
teenagers are rather limited in their gift-givingexperiences compared toolderpeople
whoalreadyhavechildrenoramoreadvancedjob.Whenhavingapartner,relativesand
children, thegift-givingactivitiesaremoreextensive than in the teenageryears,when
people justbuyandreceivepresents fromfriendsanddirect family.Olderpeoplealso
havemorefinancialbacking,whichenablesthemtoexperiencegiftgivingandreceiving
inanotherwaythanwhentheywereyounger.Takingtheseconsiderationsinmind,age
probably could have an impact on the way people rated the perception of effort,
recognized the importance of the gift-giving occasion and were satisfied with the
receivedgifts.Theimpactofageongift-givingexperiencesmightbeatopicforfurther
research.
Apartfromtheirinfluenceontherecognizedimportanceofthegift-givingoccasion,the
choicesforbirthdaypartyanddinnerwerebelievedtohavetheirimpactaswellonthe
perception of closeness in the relationship between the giver and receiver. It’s
reasonable to assume that a birthday party is organised for friends, which are
considered to have a close relationship with the person who is being celebrated. A
dinneron theotherhand, can involvepeoplewhoare less close to thepersonwho is
organizingthegathering.
Sincethemoderatedmediationdidn’texerttheintendedresults, futureresearchcould
re-examinethepotentialeffectofoccasionimportanceontherelationshipbetweenthe
perceptionofeffortandappreciationforthegift.Besidesreconsideringthisrelation,our
36
modelcouldalsobeinvestigatedforarelationshipbetweenmatchingofthegiftandthe
perceptionofeffort.InlinewithBelk's(1977)assumptionthattheoccasioncanhavean
influenceon theextent towhichagift is experiencedaspersonalized, future research
could investigate if the occasion has an influence on the extent to which a gift is
recognized as matching one of the parties or on the extent to which the matching
contributestotheperceptionofeffort.
Furthermore,itcouldbeinvestigatedwhichtypeofcharacteristicsshouldbematchedin
ordertoincreasetheappreciationforthegift.Paolaccietal.(2015)demonstratedthat
forgiver-matchedgiftsithadtoconcernacorecharacteristic,butitwouldbeinteresting
to know if it was the same for receiver-matched ones. In this study, a book with
panoramicpictureswaschosentomatchwiththepassionsforacertaincontinent,but
onecouldaskhimselfifthesameresultswouldbefoundifgiftswereselectedmatching
musictasteorhobbies.
Asageneralimplication,itcanbestatedthattheresultsofourresearchprovideinsights
for people looking for a gift and for a vast range of businesses offering them (i.e.
souvenir shops, florists, bookstores, et al). Basedonour findings,bothof themcould
consideradaptingtheirstrategyinordertoincreasethesatisfactionoftherecipient.
Importanttomentionhereisthat,asshownbyRobben&Verhallen(1994)andTeigen
et al. (2005), gift givers valuepresentsdifferently fromgift receivers. To increase the
successoftheirgifts,giftgiversshouldthereforefirstchangetheirpointofviewtothat
of the receiver and moreover keep in mind that the gift should match with the
characteristicsoftherecipientandsymbolizehigh-performedeffort.
For shops, it could also be important to consider our results. If they are able to offer
successful gifts that result in higher satisfaction, the customerswill bemore likely to
returntotheirshopwhenlookingforgiftsnexttime.
To incorporate theperceivedeffort aspect, shops couldofferanextensive selectionof
wrapping paper and decorations to embellish the gift. Furthermore, they could adapt
their communication strategy and include slogans like “Madewith love” or “Carefully
37
chosen”.When thosesloganswouldreturnon thepackagingpaperof thegift, it could
influence the recipient’sperceptionof performedeffort. Further researchwill have to
determinewhetherthoseactionsactuallyresultinanincreaseofperceivedeffortbythe
receiver.
When focussing on the aspect that the gift shouldmatchwith the receiver, the shops
couldemphasizethefactthattheyofferhelptotheircustomerstofindtheappropriate
gift that perfectly suits the recipient. With the unlimited opportunities of today to
customizeproductsonline,therearelotsofpossibilitiestomatchthegifttooneofthe
manycharacteristicsoftherecipient.
A practical application based on the insights of this study, can be found in use of
weddinglists.Couples,whodecidetogetmarried,canprovidealistofgiftsfromwhich
theguestsoftheweddingpartycouldchooseinordertopresentthemsomethingthey
actually want. This invention already rules out gifts that could have been known in
advancetobecompletelyundesirablebythecouple.Accordingtoourfindings,itcould
beagoodideatoincludeashortdescriptionofthecouplewhenprovidingsuchalist.In
thisway,peopleattendingtheweddingthatarerelatedbutdon’tknowthecouplethat
good,couldbasetheirchoiceforpresentsonthedescriptionandcustomizethemtothe
characteristicsofthecouple.Basedonourfindings,thisshouldresultinamoresatisfied
brideandgroom.
Finally,itcouldbeconcludedthatbigonlineretailcompanieslikeAmazonareusingthe
right sales strategy at this moment. When customers visit the website of those
companies, they receive all kind of suggestions for products that match with their
characteristics based on the companies’ understanding of the customers’ profile. This
offer of receiver-matched items should according to our study result in higher
satisfactionbythecustomerscomparedtooffersofrandomlyselecteditems.
38
5.4Generalconclusion
When people are in the situation where they have to find an appropriate gift, the
findingsofourresearchsuggestselectingagiftthatmatcheswiththecharacteristicsof
thepersonwho’sreceivingthepresent.Theexplanationwhythisreceiver-matchedgift
resultsinahigherappreciationcanbefoundinthehigherperceivedeffortputinthegift
by the giver from the point of view of the receiver.
VII
6. Bibliography
6.1Literature
Areni, C. S., Kiecker, P., & Palan, K. M. (1998). Is it better to give than to receive?
Exploring gender differences in the meaning of memorable gifts. Psychology and
Marketing, 15(1), 81–109. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-
6793(199801)15:1<81::AID-MAR6>3.3.CO;2-N
Baxter,L.A.(1987).Symbolsofrelationshipidentityinrelationshipcultures.Journalof
SocialandPersonalRelationships,4(3),261–280.
Belk, R. W. (1977). Gift-giving behavior. Part A. Igarss 2014, (1), 1–5.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Belk, R. W. (1979). Gift-giving behavior. Research in Marketing, ed. Jagdish Sheth,
Greenwich,CT:JAI,95-126
Belk, R. W. (1982). Effects of Gift-Giving Involvement on Gift Selection Strategies.
Advances in Consumer Research, 9(1979), 408–412. Retrieved from
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6036
Belk, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of ConsumerResearch,
15(2),139.http://doi.org/10.1086/209154
Belk,R.W.(1996a).TheMeaningofGiftsandGreetings,42(2003).
Belk,R.W.(1996b).Theperfectgift.GiftGiving:AResearchAnthology,59–84.
Belk,R.W.,&Coon,G.S.(1991).Can’tbuymelove:dating,money,andgifts.Advancesin
ConsumerResearch,18(1),521–528.
Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1993). Gift Giving as Agapic Love: An Alternative to the
Exchange Paradigm Based on Dating Experiences. Journal of Consumer Research,
20(3),393.http://doi.org/10.1086/209357
Belk, R.W.,Wallendorf, M., & Sherry, Jr., J. F. (1989). The Sacred and the Profane in
ConsumerBehavior:TheodicyontheOdyssey.JournalofConsumerResearch,16(1),
1.http://doi.org/10.1086/209191
Berg, J. H., & McQuinn, R. D. (1986). Attraction and exchange in continuing and
noncontinuingdatingrelationships.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology.US:
AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.942
VIII
Berger, J. H., & Heath, C. (2007). Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity
Signaling and Product Domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121–134.
http://doi.org/10.1086/519142
Browning,G. (1990).What’sHotandWhat'sNoWay'WhenIt'sTimetoGiveaGift.Los
AngelesTimes(OrangeCountyEdition),December,21,E2.
Burgoyne, C. B., & Routh, D. A. (1991). Constraints on the use of money as a gift at
Christmas: theroleofstatusand intimacy*. JournalofEconomicPsychology,12(1),
47–69.http://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(91)90043-S
Camerer,C. (1988).Gifts asEconomicSignals andSocial Symbols.AmericanJournalof
Sociology,94(1988),S180–S214.http://doi.org/10.1086/228946
Caplow, T. (1982). ChristmasGifts andKinNetworksAuthors ( s ): Theodore Caplow
Source :AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.47,No.3(Jun.,1982),pp.383-392
Published by : American Sociological Association Stable URL :
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094994Acces,47(3),383–392.
Caplow, T. (1984). Rule EnforcementWithout VisibleMeans: Christmas Gift Giving in
Middletown. American Journal of Sociology, 89(6), 1306.
http://doi.org/10.1086/228017
Cheal,D.J.(1986).Thesocialdimensionsofgiftbehaviour.JournalofSocialandPersonal
Relationships,3(4),423–439.
Cheal, D.J. (1987). ‘Showing them you love them”: gift giving and the dialectic of
intimacy.TheSociologicalReview,35(1),150–169.
Davis, G. F., Diekmann,K. A., Tinsley, C.H., Davis, G. F., Diekmann,K. A.,&Tinsley,H.
(1955).AmericanSociologicalReview,.AmericanSociologicalReview,20(1),28–33.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412444721
DiLeonardo,M.(1987).TheFemaleWorldofCardsandHolidays :Women ,Families ,
and the Work of Kinship Authors ( s ): Micaela di Leonardo Published by : The
University of Chicago Press Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174331
REFERENCESLinkedreferencesareavailab,12(3),440–453.
Ehman,R.R.(1989).PersonalLove.Eros,Agape,andPhilia:ReadingsinthePhilosophyof
Love,Ed.AlanSoble,NewYork:ParagonHouse,254–272.
Ekeh,P.P.(1974).Socialexchangetheory:Thetwotraditions.HeinemannLondon.
IX
Escalas,J.E.,&Bettman,J.R.(2003).YouAreWhatTheyEat:TheInfluenceofReference
Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
13(3),339–348.http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_14
Firth,R.(2013).Themesineconomicanthropology.Routledge.
Fischer, E., & Arnold, S. J. (1990). More Than a Labor of Love : Gender Roles and
Christmas Gift Shopping Authors ( s ): Eileen Fischer and Stephen J . Arnold
Published by : Oxford University Press Stable URL :
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626799 REFERENCES Linked references are
availableon,17(3),333–345.
Flynn,F. J.,&Adams,G.S.(2009).Moneycan’tbuylove:Asymmetricbeliefsaboutgift
priceandfeelingsofappreciation.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,45(2),
404–409.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.11.003
Garner,T.I.,&Wagner,J.(1991).EconomicDimensionsofHouseholdGiftGiving.Journal
ofConsumerResearch,18(3),368.http://doi.org/10.1086/209266
Gino,F.,&Flynn,F.J.(2011).Givethemwhattheywant:Thebenefitsofexplicitnessin
gift exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 915–922.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.015
Goodman, J. K., & Lim, S. (2015). Giving Happiness: Consumers Should Give More
Experiences but Choose Material Gifts Instead. The Effects of Brief Mindfulness
Intervention on Acute Pain Experience: An Examination of Individual Difference,
1(May),1689–1699.http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Gouldner,A.W.(1960).TheNormofReciprocity :APreliminaryStatement,25(2),161–
178.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis:Aregression-basedapproach.GuilfordPress.
Henry,O.(1983).Thegiftofthemagi.PioneerDramaService,Inc.
Joy, A. (2001). Gift giving in Hong Kong and the continuum of social ties. Journal of
ConsumerResearch,28(2),239–256.
Katz,J.M.(1976).Howdoyouloveme?Letmecounttheways(Thephenomenologyof
beingloved).SociologicalInquiry,46(1),17–22.
Lamale,H.H.,&CloretyJr.,J.A.(1959).CityFamiliesasGivers,1.
X
List, J. a., & Lucking-Reiley, D. (2002). The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on
Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign.
JournalofPoliticalEconomy,110(1),215–233.http://doi.org/10.1086/324392
Mauss, M. (1954). The Gift: forms and functions in archaic societies. Great Britain:
Routledge.
Mayet, C., & Pine, K. (2010). The Psychology of Gift Exchange. Karenpine.Com, 1–9.
Retrieved from http://karenpine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/The-
Psychology-of-Gift-Exchange.pdf
Mick,D.G.,&Faure,C.(1998).Consumerself-giftsinachievementcontexts:Theroleof
outcomes, attributions, emotions, and deservingness. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 15(4), 293–307. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
8116(98)00006-8
Nicolao, L., Irwin, J. R., & Goodman, J. K. (2009). Happiness for Sale: Do Experiential
PurchasesMakeConsumersHappierthanMaterialPurchases?JournalofConsumer
Research,36(2),188–198.http://doi.org/10.1086/597049
Osteen,M. (2002). Introduction: Questions of the gift. TheQuestion of theGift: Essays
acrossDisciplines.NewYork:Routledge.
Otnes, C., Lowrey, T. M., & Kim, Y. C. (1993). Gift Selection for Easy and Difficult
Recipients :ASocialRolesInterpretationAuthors(s):CeleOtnes,TinaM.Lowrey
and Young Chan Kim Published by : Oxford University Press Stable URL :
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489271Accessed :27-03-20161,20(2),229–244.
Pandya,A.,&Venkatesh,A.(1992).Symboliccommunicationamongconsumersinself-
consumptionandgift-giving:Asemioticapproach.AdvancesinConsumerResearch.
Paolacci,G., Straeter, L.M.,&deHooge, I. E. (2015).Givemeyour self:Gifts are liked
morewhentheymatchthegiver’scharacteristics. JournalofConsumerPsychology,
25(3),487–494.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.01.006
Parry,J.(1986).TheGift,theIndianGiftandthe’IndianGift',21(3),453–473.
Reece,W. S. (1979). Charitable Contributions : NewEvidence onHousehold Behavior,
69(1),142–151.
XI
Robben,H.S. J.,&Verhallen,T.M.M. (1994).Behavioralcostsasdeterminantsofcost
perceptionandpreferenceformationforgiftstoreceiveandgiftstogive.Journalof
Economic Psychology, 15(2), 333–350. http://doi.org/10.1016/0167-
4870(94)90008-6
Ruth, J. A., Otnes, C. C., & Brunel, F. F. (1999). Gift Receipt and the Reformulation of
Interpersonal Relationships. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 385–402.
http://doi.org/10.1086/209546
Sahlins,M.(1972).StoneAgeEconomics,Chicago:Aldin,Atherton.Inc.
Salomon,M.R.(1992).Consumerbehavior:buying,having,andbeing.AllynandBacon.
Schwartz,B.(1967).Thesocialpsychologyofthegift.AmericanJournalofSociology,1–
11.
Sherry, J. F. (1983). Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research,10(2),157–168.
Sherry, J. F., Levy, S. J., & McGrath, M. A. (1993). The dark side of the gift. Anglican
TheologicalReview,95(2),325–333.
Shurmer,P.(1971).GIFTGAME.NewSociety,18(482),1242–1244.
Teigen, K.H., Olsen,M. V. G., & Solås, O. E. (2005). Giver-receiver asymmetries in gift
preferences. The British Journal of Social Psychology / the British Psychological
Society,44(Pt1),125–144.http://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X23428
Tournier,P.(1963).TheMeaningofGifts,trans.JohnS.Gilmour,Richmond,VA.
Valentin,E.K.,&Allred,A.T.(2012).Givingandgettinggiftcards.JournalofConsumer
Marketing,29(4),271–279.http://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211237344
VanBoven,L.,&Gilovich,T.(2003).ToDoortoHave?ThatIstheQuestion. Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,85(6),1193–1202.http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.85.6.1193
Ward,M.K.,&Broniarczyk,S.M.(2011). It’sNotMe, It’sYou:HowGiftGivingCreates
Giver Identity Threat as a Function of Social Closeness. Journal of Consumer
Research,38(1),164–181.http://doi.org/10.1086/658166
Wattanasuwan, K. (2005). The Self and Sysbolic consumption. Journal of American
AcademyofBusiness.
Wolfinbarger,M.F.(1990).Motivationsandsymbolismingift-givingbehavior.Advances
inConsumerResearch,17,699–706.
XII
Wolfînbarger,M.F.,&Yale,L.J.(1993).ThreeMotivationsforInterpersonalGiftGiving :
Experiental ,Obligated andPracticalMotivations.Advances inConsumerResearch,
20(Belk1979),520–526.Retrievedfromhttp://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-
conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7507
6.2Internetsources
Statistadatabase(http://www.statista.com)
Gallup (2015). Roughly how much money do you think you personally will spend on
Christmasgiftsthisyear?)[Datafile].
Retrieved fromhttp://fesrvsd.fe.unl.pt:2104/statistics/246963/christmas-spending-in-
the-us-during-november/
NationalRetailFederation(2015).HolidayretailsalesintheUnitedStatesfrom2000to
2015(inbillionU.S.dollars)[Datafile].
Retrievedfromhttp://fesrvsd.fe.unl.pt:2104/statistics/243439/holiday-retail-sales-in-
the-united-states/
National Retail Federation and BIGinsight (2016). How much money do you plan on
spendingonValentine'sDaygiftsforyourspouse/significantother?(inU.S.dollars)[Data
file].
Retrieved from http://fesrvsd.fe.unl.pt:2104/statistics/217826/money-spending-for-
valentines-day-gifts-for-spouses/
Gallupdatabase(http://www.gallup.com)
Gallup(2015).AmericansPlanonSpendingaLotMoreThisChristmas[Datafile].
Retrievedfromhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/186620/americans-plan-spending-lot-
christmas.aspx
6.3Pressrelease
De Meyer, S. (16 November 2015). Deloitte kerstenquête 2015. Press release, p. 2
XIII
7. Appendices
7.1Survey
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
7.2Outputmodel4(Mediation)
Run MATRIX procedure: ************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.15 ************* Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3 ******************************************************************** Model = 4 Y = TotSas5 X = Matching M = Effort Sample size 232 ******************************************************************** Outcome: Effort Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,362 ,131 2,005 34,704 1,000 230,000 ,000 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 2,717 ,297 9,142 ,000 2,131 3,302 Matching 1,096 ,186 5,891 ,000 ,729 1,462 ******************************************************************** Outcome: TotSas Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,634 ,402 1,127 76,832 2,000 229,000 ,000 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 1,464 ,260 5,626 ,000 ,951 1,976 Effort ,196 ,049 3,962 ,000 ,098 ,293 Matching 1,424 ,150 9,515 ,000 1,129 1,718 ************************** TOTAL EFFECT MODEL ********************** Outcome: TotSas Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,600 ,361 1,199 129,683 1,000 230,000 ,000
5ThevariableOverallsatisfactionwasrelabelledasTotsassincethistestdoesn’tallowvariableswithmorethan8characters.
XIX
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 1,996 ,230 8,684 ,000 1,543 2,448 Matching 1,638 ,144 11,388 ,000 1,355 1,922 ***************** TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ************** Total effect of X on Y Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI 1,638 ,144 11,388 ,000 1,355 1,922 Direct effect of X on Y Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI 1,424 ,150 9,515 ,000 1,129 1,718 Indirect effect of X on Y Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,215 ,077 ,083 ,385 Partially standardized indirect effect of X on Y Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,157 ,056 ,060 ,278 Completely standardized indirect effect of X on Y Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,079 ,028 ,030 ,139 Ratio of indirect to total effect of X on Y Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,131 ,048 ,051 ,238 Ratio of indirect to direct effect of X on Y Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,151 ,066 ,054 ,313 R-squared mediation effect size (R-sq_med) Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,124 ,036 ,061 ,202 Preacher and Kelley (2011) Kappa-squared Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,094 ,031 ,038 ,159 ******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS ******************* Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals: 5000 Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95,00 ------ END MATRIX -----
XX
7.3Outputmodel4withcovariate(Mediation) Run MATRIX procedure: ************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.15 ************* Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3 ******************************************************************** Model = 4 Y = TotSas6 X = Matching M = Effort Statistical Controls: CONTROL= Cov_Rel Sample size 232 ******************************************************************** Outcome: Effort Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,456 ,208 1,835 30,070 2,000 229,000 ,000 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 2,121 ,311 6,816 ,000 1,508 2,734 Matching ,514 ,217 2,376 ,018 ,088 ,941 Cov_Rel ,327 ,069 4,715 ,000 ,190 ,464 ******************************************************************** Outcome: TotSas Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,703 ,495 ,956 74,442 3,000 228,000 ,000 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 1,094 ,246 4,442 ,000 ,609 1,579 Effort ,104 ,048 2,178 ,030 ,010 ,198 Matching ,920 ,158 5,816 ,000 ,608 1,232 Cov_Rel ,340 ,052 6,488 ,000 ,237 ,444
6ThevariableOverallsatisfactionwasrelabelledasTotsassincethistestdoesn’tallowvariableswithmorethan8characters.
XXI
************************** TOTAL EFFECT MODEL ********************** Outcome: TotSas Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,696 ,484 ,971 107,533 2,000 229,000 ,000 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 1,314 ,226 5,805 ,000 ,868 1,760 Matching ,973 ,158 6,179 ,000 ,663 1,284 Cov_Rel ,374 ,050 7,413 ,000 ,275 ,474 ***************** TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ************** Total effect of X on Y Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI ,973 ,158 6,179 ,000 ,663 1,284 Direct effect of X on Y Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI ,920 ,158 5,816 ,000 ,608 1,232 Indirect effect of X on Y Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,053 ,037 ,002 ,159 Partially standardized indirect effect of X on Y Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,050 ,035 ,002 ,150 Completely standardized indirect effect of X on Y Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,021 ,015 ,001 ,062 Ratio of indirect to total effect of X on Y Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,055 ,040 ,001 ,170 Ratio of indirect to direct effect of X on Y Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,058 ,047 ,001 ,205 ******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS ******************* Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals: 5000 Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95,00 ------ END MATRIX -----
XXII
7.4Outputmodel14(Moderatedmediation)
Run MATRIX procedure: ************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.15 ************* Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3 ******************************************************************** Model = 14 Y = TotSas7 X = Matching M = Effort V = Import8 Sample size 232 ******************************************************************** Outcome: Effort Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,362 ,131 2,005 34,704 1,000 230,000 ,000 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 2,717 ,297 9,142 ,000 2,131 3,302 Matching 1,096 ,186 5,891 ,000 ,729 1,462 ******************************************************************** Outcome: TotSas Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,640 ,410 1,121 39,426 4,000 227,000 ,000 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 2,636 ,716 3,681 ,000 1,225 4,048 Effort -,048 ,145 -,330 ,742 -,333 ,238 Matching 1,393 ,151 9,221 ,000 1,095 1,690 Import -,756 ,430 -1,758 ,080 -1,604 ,091 int_1 ,166 ,093 1,779 ,077 -,018 ,349
7ThevariableOverallsatisfactionwasrelabelledasTotsassincethistestdoesn’tallowvariableswithmorethan8characters.8ThevariableImportancewasrelabelledasImportsincethistestdoesn’tallowvariableswithmorethan8characters.
XXIII
Product terms key: int_1 Effort X Import ******************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ******************* Direct effect of X on Y Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI 1,393 ,151 9,221 ,000 1,095 1,690 Conditional indirect effect(s) of X on Y at values of the moderator(s): Mediator Import Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effort 1,000 ,129 ,107 -,077 ,350 Effort 2,000 ,311 ,089 ,159 ,516 ******************** INDEX OF MODERATED MEDIATION ************************ Mediator Index SE(Boot) BootLLCI BootULCI Effort ,182 ,123 -,038 ,440 When the moderator is dichotomous, this is a test of equality of the conditional indirect effects in the two groups. ******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS ******************* Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals: 1000 Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95,00 ------ END MATRIX -----
XXIV
7.5Outputindependent-samplesT-test(Covariate)