Gift-giving is a common form of social exchange but little research has examined how different gift types affect the psychological distance between giver and recipient. We examined how two types of gifts influence recipients’ perceived psychological distance to the giver. Specifically, we compared desirable gifts focused on the quality of the gift with feasible gifts focused on the gift’s practicality or ease of use. We found that feasible (vs. desirable) gifts led recipients to feel psychologically closer to givers (Studies 1-4). Further clarifying the process by which receiving a desirable versus feasible gift affects perceived distance, when recipients were told that the giver focused on the gift’s practicality or ease of use (vs. the gift’s overall quality), while holding the specific features of the gifts constant, they felt closer to the gift-giver (Study 5). These results shed light on how different gifts can influence interpersonal relationships.
AkninL. B.HumanL. J. (2015). Gifts that reflect the givers promote closeness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 8-16.
2.
AllenV. L.WilderD. A. (1975). Categorization, belief similarity, and intergroup discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 971-977.
3.
AmodioD. M.ShowersC. J. (2005). “Similarity breeds liking” revisited: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 817-836.
4.
BaskinE.WakslakC.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.
5.
BelkR. (1979). Gift-giving behavior. In ShethJ. (Ed.), Research in marketing (Vol. 2, pp. 95-126). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
6.
BilligM.TajfelH. (1973). Social categorization and similarity of intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27-52.
7.
BornsteinR. F.D’AgostinoP. A. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545-552.
8.
BradnerE.MarkG. (2002). Why distance matters: Effects on cooperation, persuasion, and deception. In ChurchillE.McCarthyJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 226-235). New Orleans LA: ACM Press.
9.
ByrneD. (1961a). The influence of propinquity and opportunities for interaction on classroom relationships. Human Relations, 14, 63-69.
10.
ByrneD. (1961b). Interpersonal attraction as a function of affiliation need and attitude similarity. Human Relations, 14, 283-289.
11.
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.
12.
ChanC.MogilnerC. (2017). Experiential gifts foster stronger social connections than material gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 913-931.
13.
ChealD. (1987). Showing them you love them: Gift giving and the dialectic of intimacy. Sociological Review, 35, 150-169.
14.
DunlapW. P.CortinaJ. M.VaslowJ. B.BurkeM. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1, 170-177.
15.
DunnE. W.HuntsingerJ.LunJ.SinclairS. (2008). The gift of similarity: How good and bad gifts influence relationships. Social Cognition, 26, 469-481.
16.
FiedlerK.SchottM.MeiserT. (2011). What mediation can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1231-1236.
17.
FlynnJ. F.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.
18.
FujitaK.HendersonM. D.EngJ.TropeY.LibermanN. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17, 278-282.
19.
GinoF.FlynnF. J. (2011). Give them what they want: The benefits of explicitness in gift exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 915-922.
20.
JoshiP. D.WakslakC. J.RajM.TropeY. (2015). Communicating with distant others: The functional use of abstraction. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 7, 37-44.
21.
KalksteinD. A.KleimanT.WakslakC. J.LibermanN.TropeY. (2016). Social learning across psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 1-19.
22.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-12.
23.
LedgerwoodA.TropeY.LibermanN. (2015). Construal level theory and regulatory scope. In ScottR.KosslynS. (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1-10). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
24.
LibermanN.TropeY. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18.
25.
LibermanN.TropeY.McCreaS.ShermanS. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 143-149.
26.
LiviatanI.TropeY.LibermanN. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perceptions of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256-1269.
27.
LuttrellA.PettyR. E.BriñolP.WagnerB. C. (2016). Making it moral: Merely labeling an attitude as moral increases its strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 82-93.
28.
MalinowskiB. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea. New York, NY: E.P. Dutton.
29.
MaussM. (1925). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies (CunnisonI. Trans.) New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
30.
MaxwellS. E.DelaneyH. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
McShaneB. B.BöckenholtU. (2017). Single paper meta-analysis: Benefits for study summary, theory-testing, and replicability. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 1048-1063.
32.
NahemowL.LawtonM. P. (1975). Similarity and propinquity in friendship formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 205-213.
33.
NortonM. I.FrostJ. H.ArielyD. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97-105.
34.
OlejnikS.AlginaJ. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 241-286.
35.
OppenheimerD.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867-872.
36.
ReisH. T.ManiaciM. R.CaprarielloP. A.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557-570.
37.
RimS.HansenJ.TropeY. (2013). What happens why: Psychological distance and focusing on causes versus consequences of events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 457-472.
38.
SherryJ. F. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 157-168.
39.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366.
40.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.FongG. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845-851.
41.
StephanE.LibermanN.TropeY. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 268-280.
42.
StephanE.LibermanN.TropeY. (2011). The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 397-402.
43.
TajfelH.BilligM. G.BundyR. P.FlamentC. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.
44.
TateC. U. (2015). On the misuse and overuse of mediation analysis: It may be a matter of timing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 235-246.
45.
TidwellN. D.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed-dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20, 199-215.
46.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.
47.
WakslakC. J. (2012). The when and where of likely and unlikely events. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 150-157.
48.
WakslakC. J.TropeY.LibermanN.AlonyR. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 641-653.
49.
WardM. K.BroniarczykS. M. (2016). Ask and you shall (not) receive: Close friends prioritize relational signaling over recipient preferences in their gift choices. Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 1001-1018.
50.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1-27.
51.
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.
