People making decisions for others often do not choose what their recipients most want. Prior research has generally explained such preference mismatches as decision makers mispredicting recipients’ satisfaction. We proposed that a “smile-seeking” motive is a distinct cause for these mismatches in the context of gift giving. After examining common gift options for which gift givers expect a difference between the recipients’ affective reaction (e.g., a smile when receiving the gift) and overall satisfaction, we found that givers often chose to forgo satisfaction-maximizing gifts and instead favor reaction-maximizing gifts. This reaction-maximizing preference was mitigated when givers anticipated not giving the gift in person. Results from six studies suggest that anticipated affective reactions powerfully shape gift givers’ choices and giving experiences, independently of (and even in spite of) anticipated recipient satisfaction. These findings reveal a dominant yet overlooked role that the display of affective reactions plays in motivating and rewarding gift-giving behaviors and shed new light on interpersonal decision making.
AndradeE. B.HoT. H. (2009). Gaming emotions in social interactions. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 539–552. doi:10.1086/599221
2.
BargerP. B.GrandeyA. A. (2006). Service with a smile and encounter satisfaction: Emotional contagion and appraisal mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1229–1238.
3.
BatsonC. D.PowellA. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In MillonT.LernerM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 463–484). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei0519
4.
BerridgeK.WinkielmanP. (2003). What is an unconscious emotion? (The case for unconscious “liking”). Cognition & Emotion, 17, 181–211. doi:10.1080/02699930302289
5.
CacioppoJ. T.PatrickW. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
6.
EisenbergN.SpinradT. L.SadovskyA. (2006). Empathy-related responding in children. In KillenM.SmetanaJ. G. (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 517–549). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
EkmanP.FriesenW. V.O’SullivanM.ChanA.Diacoyanni-TarlatzisI.HeiderK.TzavarasA. (1987). Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 712–717. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.712
8.
EvansJ. S. B.StanovichK. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241.
9.
FagerlinA.DittoP. H.DanksJ. H.HoutsR. M.SmuckerW. D. (2001). Projection in surrogate decisions about life-sustaining medical treatments. Health Psychology, 20, 166–175.
10.
FamaE. F.JensenM. C. (1983). Agency problems and residual claims. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 327–349. doi:10.1086/467038
11.
FrijdaN. H. (1986). The emotions: Studies in emotion and social interaction. Paris, France: Maison de Sciences de l’Homme.
12.
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. doi:10.1177/0963721416656937
GinoF.FlynnF. J. (2011). Give them what they want: The benefits of explicitness in gift exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 915–922. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.015
15.
Haviland-JonesJ.RosarioH. H.WilsonP.McGuireT. R. (2005). An environmental approach to positive emotion: Flowers. Evolutionary Psychology, 3(1), 104–132. doi:10.1177/147470490500300109
16.
IzardC. E. (1994). Innate and universal facial expressions: Evidence from developmental and cross-cultural research. Psychology Bulletin, 115, 288–299. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.288
17.
KlinnertM. D.CamposJ. J.SorceJ. F.EmdeR. N.SvejdaM. J. (1983). Emotions as behavior regulators: Social referencing in infancy. In PlutchikR.KellermanH. (Eds.), Emotions in early development (pp. 57–86). New York, NY: Academic Press.
18.
KnappM. L.HallJ. A.HorganT. G. (2013). Nonverbal communication in human interaction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
19.
KruegerJ. I. (2008). From social projection to social behaviour. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1–35.
20.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
21.
LazarusR. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American Psychologist, 37, 1019–1024. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.9.1019
22.
MaretteS.LuskJ. L.NorwoodF. B. (2016). Choosing for others. Applied Economics, 48, 2093–2111. doi:10.1080/00036846.2015.1114577
23.
MarshA. A.AmbadyN.KleckR. E. (2005). The effects of fear and anger facial expressions on approach- and avoidance-related behaviors. Emotion, 5, 119–124. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.119
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.
27.
ProninE.OlivolaC. Y.KennedyK. A. (2008). Doing unto future selves as you would do unto others: Psychological distance and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 224–236.
28.
RosemanI. J.SmithC. A. (2001). Appraisal theory. In SchererK. R.SchorrA.JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 3–19). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
29.
SchererK. R. (1982). Emotion as a process: Function, origin and regulation. Social Science Information, 21, 555–570.
30.
ShalowitzD. I.Garrett-MayerE.WendlerD. (2006). The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: A systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166, 493–497. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.5.493
31.
SherryJ. F.Jr.McGrathM. A.LevyS. J. (1992). The disposition of the gift and many unhappy returns. Journal of Retailing, 68, 40–65.
32.
SorceJ. F.EmdeR. N.CamposJ. J.KlinnertM. D. (1985). Maternal emotional signaling: Its effect on the visual cliff behavior of 1-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 21, 195–200. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.1.195
33.
SuhlJ.SimonsP.ReedyT.GarrickT. (1994). Myth of substituted judgment: Surrogate decision making regarding life support is unreliable. Archives of Internal Medicine, 154, 90–96.
34.
TosiH. L.BrownleeA. L.SilvaP.KatzJ. P. (2003). An empirical exploration of decision-making under agency controls and stewardship structure. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 2053–2071. doi:10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00411.x/full
35.
TsukiuraT.CabezaR. (2008). Orbitofrontal and hippocampal contributions to memory for face–name associations: The rewarding power of a smile. Neuropsychologia, 46, 2310–2319. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.03.013
36.
TuscheA.BöcklerA.KanskeP.TrautweinF. M.SingerT. (2016). Decoding the charitable brain: Empathy, perspective taking, and attention shifts differentially predict altruistic giving. Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 4719–4732. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3392-15.2016
37.
Van KleefG. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184–188.
38.
van KleefG. A.De DreuC. K. W.MansteadA. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 57–76. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.57
39.
WaldfogelJ. (1993). The deadweight loss of Christmas. The American Economic Review, 83, 1328–1336.
40.
ZajoncR. B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In ForgasJ. P. (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 31–58). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
ZhangY.EpleyN. (2009). Self-centered social exchange: Differential use of costs versus benefits in prosocial reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 796–810.
42.
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.
