Gift givers balance their goal to please recipients with gifts that match recipient preferences against their own goal to signal relational closeness with gifts that demonstrate their knowledge of the recipient. Five studies in a gift registry context show that when close (vs. distant) givers receive attribution for the gifts they choose, they are more likely to diverge from the registry to choose items that signal their close relationships. The authors find that close givers’ divergence from the registry is not the result of their altruistic search for a “better” gift but is a strategic effort to express relational signals: it occurs only when givers will receive attribution for their choice. They show that close givers reconcile their goal conflict by engaging in motivated reasoning, which results in their perceptual distortion of the gift options in favor of relational-signaling gifts. Ironically, distant givers are more likely to choose gifts from the registry, resulting in the selection of items that better match recipient preferences.
AronArthur and AronElaine N. (1986), Love and the Expansion of Self: Understanding Attraction and Satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere.
2.
AronArthur, AronElaine N., TudorMichael, and NelsonGreg (1991), “Close Relationships as Including Other in the Self,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–53.
3.
BalcetisEmily and DunningDavid (2006), “See What You Want to See: Motivational Influences on Visual Perception,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (4), 612–25.
4.
BelkRussell W. (1976), “It's the Thought That Counts: A Signed Digraph Analysis of Gift-Giving,”Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (3), 155–62.
5.
BelkRussell W. (1979), Gift Giving Behavior, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
6.
BelkRussell W. (1982), “Effects of Gift-Giving Involvement on Gift Selection Strategies,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, MitchellAndrew, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 408–12.
7.
BelkRussell W. (1996), “The Perfect Gift,” in Gift Giving: A Research Anthology, Vol. 5, OtnesCele and BeltraminiRichard E., eds. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 59–83.
8.
BelkRussell W. and CoonGregory S. (1993), “Gift Giving as Agapic Love: An Alternative to the Exchange Paradigm Based on Dating Experiences,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (3), 393–417.
9.
BergJohn H. and McQuinnRonald D. (1986), “Attraction and Exchange in Continuing and Noncontinuing Dating Relationships,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (5), 942–52.
10.
BradfordTonya Williams and SherryJohn F.Jr. (2013), “Orchestrating Rituals Through Retailers: An Examination of Gift Registry,”Journal of Retailing, 89 (2), 158–75.
11.
BurnhamT.C. (2003), “Engineering Altruism: A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Anonymity and Gift Giving,”Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 50 (1), 133–44.
12.
CamererColin (1988), “Gifts as Economic Signals and Social Symbols,”American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement), S180–214.
13.
DunningDavid (2001), “On the Motives Underlying Social Cognition,” in Intraindividual Processes, Vol. 1 of Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology, SchwarzN. and TesserA., eds. New York: Blackwell, 348–74.
14.
GershoffAndrew D. and JoharGita V. (2006), “Do You Know Me? Consumer Calibration of Friends’ Knowledge,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), 496–503.
15.
GinoFrancesca and FlynnFrancis J. (2011), “Give Them What They Want: The Benefits of Explicitness in Gift Exchange,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47 (5), 915–22.
16.
GoodwinCathy, SmithKelly L., and SpiggleSusan (1990), “Gift Giving: Consumer Motivation and the Gift Purchase Process,”Advances in Consumer Behavior, 17 (1), 690–98.
17.
HarbaughWilliam T. (1998), “The Prestige Motive for Making Charitable Transfers,”American Economic Review, 88 (2), 277–82.
18.
HoffmanElizabeth, McCabeKevin, ShachatKeith, and SmithVernon (1994), “Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games,”Games and Economic Behavior, 7 (3), 346–80.
19.
JoyAnnamma (2001), “Gift Giving in Hong Kong and the Continuum of Social Ties,”Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (28), 239–56.
20.
KomterAafke and VolleberghWilma (1997), “Gift Giving and the Emotional Significance of Family and Friends,”Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59 (3), 747–57.
21.
KruglanskiArie W. (1990), “Motivations for Judging and Knowing: Implications for Causal Attribution,” in Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Vol. 2, HigginsTory E. and SorrentinoRichard M., eds. New York: Guilford Press, 333–68.
22.
KruglanskiArie W. and KlarYechiel (1987), “A View from a Bridge: Synthesizing the Consistency and Attribution Paradigms from a Lay Epistemic Perspective,”European Journal of Social Psychology, 17 (2), 211–41.
23.
KundaZiva (1990), “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,”Psychological Bulletin, 108 (3), 480–98.
24.
LerougeDavy and WarlopLuc (2006), “Why It Is So Hard to Predict Our Partner's Product Preferences: The Effect of Target Familiarity on Prediction Accuracy,”Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (3), 393–402.
25.
LowesB., TurnerJ., and WillsGordon (1971), “Patterns of Gift-Giving,” in Explorations in Marketing Thought, Gordon Wills, ed. London: Bradford University Press, 82–102.
OtnesCele, LowreyTina M., and KimYoung Chan (1993), “Gift Selection for Easy and Difficult Recipients: A Social Roles Interpretation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (2), 229–44.
28.
PrendergastCandice and StoleLars (2001), “The Non-Monetary Nature of Gifts,”European Economic Review, 45 (10), 1793–810.
RussoJ. Edward, MeloyMargaret G., and MedvecVictoria Husted (1998), “Predecisional Distortion of Product Information,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 438–52.
31.
RuthJulie A., OtnesCele C., and BrunelFrederic F. (1999), “Gift Receipt and the Reformulation of Interpersonal Relationships,”Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (4), 385–402.
32.
SchriftRom, NetzerOded, and KivetzRan (2011), “Complicating Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (April), 308–26.
33.
SchwartzBarry (1967), “The Social Psychology of the Gift,”American Journal of Sociology, 73 (1), 1–11.
34.
SherryJohn F.Jr. (1983), “Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (2), 157–68.
35.
SherryJohn F.Jr., McGrathMary Ann, and LevySidney J. (1993), “The Dark Side of the Gift,”Journal of Business Research, 28 (3), 225–44.
36.
SpillerStephen A., FitzsimonsGavan J., LynchJohn G.Jr., and McClellandGary H. (2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression,”Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (April), 277–88.
37.
SteffelMary and LeBoeufRobyn A. (2014), “Social Comparison in Decisions for Others: Considering Multiple Gift Recipients Leads to Over-Individuated and Less Liked Gifts,”Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1167–80.
38.
WaldfogelJoel (1993), “The Deadweight Loss of Christmas,”American Economic Review, 83 (5), 1328–36.
39.
WardMorgan and BroniarczykSusan M. (2011), “It's Not Me, It's You: How Gift Giving Creates Giver Identity Threat as a Function of Social Closeness,”Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (1), 164–81.
40.
WolfinbargerMary Finley (1990), “Motivations and Symbolism in Gift-Giving Behavior,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, GoldbergMarvin E., GornGerald, and PollayRichard W., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 699–706.
41.
WootenDavid B. (2000), “Qualitative Steps Toward an Expanded Model of Anxiety in Gift Giving,”Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 84–95.
42.
ZhangYing, Szu‐chiHuang, and BroniarczykSusan M. (2010), “Counteractive Construal in Consumer Goal Pursuit,”Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (1), 129–42.
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.
