We investigated a type of mere similarity that describes owning the same item as someone else. Moreover, we examined this mere similarity in a gift-giving context, whereby givers gift something that they also buy for themselves (a behavior we call “companionizing”). Using a Heiderian account of balancing unit-sentiment relations, we tested whether gift recipients like gifts more when gifts are companionized. Akin to mere ownership, which describes people liking their possessions more merely because they own them, we tested a complementary prediction: whether people like their possessions more merely because others own them too. Thus, in a departure from previous work, we examined a type of similarity based on two people sharing the same material item. We find that this type of sharing causes gift recipients to like their gifts more, and feel closer to gift givers.
AdamsG. S.FlynnF. J.NortonM. I. (2012). The gifts we keep on giving: Documenting and destigmatizing the regifting taboo. Psychological Science, 23, 1145-1150.
2.
AkninL. B.HumanL. J. (2015). Give a piece of you: Gifts that reflect givers promote closeness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 8-16.
3.
ArkinR. M.BurgerJ. M. (1980). Effects of unit relation tendencies on interpersonal attraction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 380-391.
4.
AschS. E.CerasoJ.HeimerW. (1960). Perceptual conditions of association. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 74(3), 1-48.
5.
BaskinE.WakslakC. J.TropeY.NovemskyN. (2014). Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers than to givers: A construal-level approach to gift giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 169-182.
6.
BegganJ. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229-237.
7.
BelkR. W. (1979). Gift-giving behavior. In ShethJ. N. (Ed.), Research in marketing (pp. 95-126). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
8.
BelkR. W. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 715-734.
9.
BurgerJ. M.MessianN.PatelS.del PradoA.AndersonC. (2004). What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 35-43.
10.
CavanaughL. A.GinoF.FitzsimonsG. J. (2015). When doing good is bad in gift giving: Mis-predicting appreciation of socially responsible gifts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131, 178-189.
11.
ChanC.MogilnerC. (2016). Experiential gifts foster stronger social relationships than material gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 913-931.
12.
ChandlerJ.GriffinT. M.SorensenN. (2008). In the “I” of the storm: Shared initials increase disaster donations. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 404-410.
13.
CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.
DuanW.GuB.WhinstonA. B. (2008). Do online reviews matter? An empirical investigation of panel data. Decision Support Systems, 45, 1007-1016.
16.
DunnE. W.HuntsingerJ.LunJ.SinclairS. (2008). The gift of similarity: How good and bad gifts influence relationships. Social Cognition, 26, 469-481.
17.
FieldA. P.GillettR. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665-694.
18.
FinchJ. F.CialdiniR. B. (1989). Another indirect tactic of (self-) image management boosting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 222-232.
19.
FlynnF. J.AdamsG. S. (2009). Money can’t buy love: Asymmetric beliefs about gift price and feelings of appreciation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 404-409.
20.
FontenelleG. A.PhillipsA. P.LaneD. M. (1985). Generalizing across stimuli as well as subjects: A neglected aspect of external validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 101-107.
21.
GalakJ.GiviJ.WilliamsE. F. (2016). Why certain gifts are great to give but not to get: A framework for understanding errors in gift giving. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 380-385.
22.
GinoF.FlynnF. J. (2011). Give them what they want: The benefits of explicitness in gift exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 915-922.
23.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
25.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Henry Holt.
26.
JiangL.HoeggJ.DahlD. W.ChattopadhyayA. (2010). The persuasive role of incidental similarity on attitudes and purchase intentions in a sales context. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 778-791.
27.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54-69.
28.
KocanS. E.CurtisG. J. (2009). Close encounters of the initial kind: Implicit self-esteem, name-letter similarity, and social distance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 17-23.
29.
KühbergerA.Schulte-MecklenbeckM.PernerJ. (2002). Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1162-1175.
30.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863.
31.
MillerD. T.DownsJ. S.PrenticeD. A. (1998). Minimal conditions for the creation of a unit relationship: The social bond between birthdaymates. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 475-481.
NelsonL. D.SimmonsJ. P. (2007). Moniker maladies when names sabotage success. Psychological Science, 18, 1106-1112.
34.
PelhamB.MauricioC. (2015). When Tex and Tess Carpenter build houses in Texas: Moderators of implicit egotism. Self and Identity, 14, 692-723.
35.
PinelE. C.LongA. E. (2012). When I’s meet: Sharing subjective experience with someone from the outgroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 296-307.
36.
PinelE. C.LongA. E.LandauM. J.AlexanderK.PyszczynskiT. (2006). Seeing I to I: A pathway to interpersonal connectedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 243-257.
37.
PinelE. C.LongA. E.LandauM.PyszczynskiT. (2004). I-sharing and the problem of existential isolation. In GreenbergJ.KooleS.PyszczynskiT. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 352-368). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
38.
PollmannM. M.van BeestI. (2013). Women are better at selecting gifts than men. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e81643.
39.
PolmanE.EmichK. J. (2011). Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 492-501.
40.
PolmanE.KimS. H. (2013). Effects of anger, disgust, and sadness on sharing with others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12), 1683-1692.
41.
PolmanE.PollmannM. M.PoehlmanT. A. (2013). The name-letter-effect in groups: Sharing initials with group members increases the quality of group work. PloS ONE, 8(11), e79039.
42.
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173-220.
43.
SaadG.GillT. (2003). An evolutionary psychology perspective on gift giving among young adults. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 765-784.
44.
SherifM. (1961). The robbers cave experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
45.
ShteynbergG. (2015). Shared attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 579-590.
SnyderC. R.LassegardM.FordC. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 382-388.
48.
SteffelM.Le BoeufR. A. (2014). Overindividuation in gift giving: Shopping for multiple recipients leads givers to choose unique but less preferred gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 1167-1180.
49.
TutenT. L.KieckerP. (2009). The perfect gift card: An exploration of teenagers’ gift card associations. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 67-90.
50.
TylerT. R.SearsD. O. (1977). Coming to like obnoxious people when we must live with them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 200-211.
51.
Van BovenL.GilovichT. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1193-1202.
52.
WaldfogelJ. (1993). The deadweight loss of Christmas. The American Economic Review, 83, 1328-1336.
53.
WaltonG. M.CohenG. L.CwirD.SpencerS. J. (2012). Mere belonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 513-532.
54.
WootenD. B. (2000). Qualitative steps toward an expanded model of anxiety in gift-giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 84-95.
55.
ZhangY.EpleyN. (2012). Exaggerated, mispredicted, and misplaced: When “it’s the thought that counts” in gift exchanges. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 667-681.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
