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)