Gift giving generates high revenues for retailers. It is also marked with significant welfare, or deadweight, loss in that givers tend to pay more than the receivers’ valuation. Previous research has attributed this discrepancy to givers’ inaccurate predictions of the receivers’ preferences. This research demonstrates that reduced price sensitivity is another important source of the deadweight loss: givers use gift prices to signal the importance of their relationship with the receiver. In order to demonstrate this mechanism, the authors develop a new Bayesian gift-choice model that captures both preference predictions as well as the signaling value of price. The model is estimated on two choice-based conjoint studies for gift giving that allow for the manipulation of the giver's uncertainty about the receiver's preferences. Both studies show the strong signaling value of price, especially when givers are uncertain about receivers’ preferences. Decomposition of the deadweight loss shows that the signaling value of price is an important source of welfare loss, especially in markets with heterogeneous prices. These findings have key implications for the gift industry.
AntónCarmen, CamareroCarmen, and GilFernando (2014), “The Culture of Gift Giving: What Do Consumers Expect from Commercial and Personal Contexts?”Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13 (1), 31–41.
2.
AribargAnocha, AroraNeeraj, and KangMoon Young (2010), “Predicting Joint Choice Using Individual Data,”Marketing Science, 29 (1), 139–57.
3.
AshworthLaurence, DarkePeter R., and SchallerMark (2005), “No One Wants to Look Cheap: Trade-Offs Between Social Disincentives and the Economic and Psychological Incentives to Redeem Coupons,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (4), 295–306.
4.
AustinCaroline Graham, and HuangLei (2012), “First Choice? Last Resort? Social Risks and Gift Card Selection,”Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20 (3), 293–306.
5.
BaraszKate, KimTami, and JohnLeslie K. (2016), “The Role of (Dis)similarity in (Mis)predicting Others’ Preferences,”Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (4), 597–607.
6.
BaskinErnest, WakslakCheryl J., TropeYaacov, and NovemskyNathan (2014), “Why Feasibility Matters More to Gift Receivers Than to Givers: A Construal-Level Approach to Gift Giving,”Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 169–82.
7.
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.
8.
CamererColin (1988), “Gifts as Economic Signals and Social Symbols,”American Journal of Sociology, 94, S180–214.
9.
CarareOctavian (2012), “The Impact of Bestseller Rank on Demand: Evidence from the App Market,”International Economic Review, 53 (3), 717–42.
10.
ChealDavid (1987), “‘Showing Them You Love Them’: Gift Giving and the Dialectic of Intimacy,”Sociological Review, 35 (1), 150–69.
11.
ChibSiddhartha, and JeliazkovIvan (2001), “Marginal Likelihood from the Metropolis–Hastings Output,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96 (453), 270–81.
12.
DavisHarry L., HochStephen J., and RagsdaleE.K. Easton (1986), “An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Spousal Predictions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (1), 25–37.
13.
DeGrootMorris H. (2005), Optimal Statistical Decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
14.
ErdemTülin, SwaitJoffre, and LouviereJordan (2002), “The Impact of Brand Credibility on Consumer Price Sensitivity,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (1), 1–19.
15.
EricksonGary M., and JohanssonJohny K. (1985), “The Role of Price in Multi-Attribute Product Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (2), 195–99.
16.
FlynnFrancis J., and AdamsGabrielle S. (2009), “Money Can't Buy Love: Asymmetric Beliefs About Gift Price and Feelings of Appreciation,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (2), 404–09.
17.
GoodmanJoseph K., BroniarczykSusan M., GriffinJill, and McAlisterLeigh (2013), “Help or Hinder? When Recommendation Signage Expands Consideration Sets and Heightens Decision Difficulty,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (2), 165–74.
18.
GoodwinCathy, SmithKelly L., and SpiggleSusan (1990), “Gift Giving: Consumer Motivation and the Gift Purchase Process,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, GoldbergM.E., GornG., and PollayR.W., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 690–98.
19.
KanetkarVinay, WeinbergCharles B., and WeissDoyle L. (1992), “Price Sensitivity and Television Advertising Exposures: Some Empirical Findings,”Marketing Science, 11 (4), 359–71.
20.
KaulAnil, and WittinkDick R. (1995), “Empirical Generalizations About the Impact of Advertising on Price Sensitivity and Price,”Marketing Science, 14 (3 suppl.), G151–60.
21.
KrishnamurthiLakshman, and WittinkDick R. (1991), “The Value of Idiosyncratic Functional Forms in Conjoint Analysis,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8 (4), 301–13.
22.
LerougeDavy, and WarlopLuk (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.
23.
ListJohn A., and ShogrenJason F. (1998), “The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Comment,”American Economic Review, 88 (5), 1350–55.
24.
ManskiCharles F. (2000), “Economic Analysis of Social Interactions,”Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (3), 115–36.
25.
McCullochRobert, and RossiPeter E. (1994), “An Exact Likelihood Analysis of the Multinomial Probit Model,”Journal of Econometrics, 64 (1), 207–40.
26.
MilkmanKatherine L., and BergerJonah (2014), “The Science of Sharing and the Sharing of Science,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (Supplement 4), 13642–49.
MontinariNatalia, and RancanMichaela (2013), “Social Preferences Under Risk: the Role of Social Distance,”Jena Economic Research Papers, No. 2013-050.
29.
NarayanVishal, RaoVithala R., and SaundersCarolyne (2011), “How Peer Influence Affects Attribute Preferences: A Bayesian Updating Mechanism,”Marketing Science, 30 (2), 368–84.
30.
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.
31.
PaolacciGabriele, StraeterLaura M., and de HoogeIlona E. (2015), “Give Me Your Self: Gifts Are Liked More When They Match the Giver's Characteristics,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3 (25), 487–94.
32.
PietersRik G.M., and RobbenHenry S.J. (1998), “Beyond the Hone's Mouth: Exploring Acquisition and Exchange Utility in Gift Evaluation,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, AlbaJoseph W. and Wesley HutchinsonJ., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 163–69.
33.
PrelecDrazen, and SimesterDuncan (2001), “Always Leave Home Without It: A Further Investigation of the Credit-Card Effect on Willingness to Pay,”Marketing Letters, 12 (1), 5–12.
34.
PrincipeKristine E., and EisenhauerJoseph G. (2009), “Gift-Giving and Deadweight Loss,”Journal of Socio-Economics, 38 (2), 215–20.
35.
RaoAkshay R., and MonroeKent B. (1989), “The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (3), 351–57.
36.
SalisburyLinda Court, and FeinbergFred M. (2010), “Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test,”Marketing Science, 29 (1), 1–17.
37.
SherryJohn F. (1983), “Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (2), 157–68.
38.
TrainKenneth E. (2009), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
VanhammeJoëlle, and de BontCees J.P.M. (2008), “‘Surprise Gift’ Purchases: Customer Insights from the Small Electrical Appliances Market,”Journal of Retailing, 84 (3), 354–69.
42.
WaldfogelJoel (1993), “The Deadweight Loss of Christmas,”American Economic Review, 83 (5), 1328–36.
43.
WaldfogelJoel (1996), “The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Reply,”American Economic Review, 86 (5), 1306–08.
44.
WaldfogelJoel (2002), “Gifts, Cash, and Stigma,”Economic Inquiry, 40 (3), 415–27.
45.
WangJing, AribargAnocha, and AtchadéYves F. (2013), “Modeling Choice Interdependence in a Social Network,”Marketing Science, 32 (6), 977–97.
46.
YangLiu, ToubiaOlivier, and De JongMartijn G. (2015), “A Bounded Rationality Model of Information Search and Choice in Preference Measurement,”Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (2), 166–83.
47.
YangSha, and AllenbyGreg M. (2003), “Modeling Interdependent Consumer Preferences,”Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (3), 282–94.
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.
