>The Effect of Donor-Recipient Involvement on Consumer Gift Decisions | ACR (2024)

Citation:

Janet Wagner, Richard Ettenson, and Sherri Verrier (1990) ,"The Effect of Donor-Recipient Involvement on Consumer Gift Decisions", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 17, eds. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 683-689.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 17, 1990 Pages 683-689

THE EFFECT OF DONOR-RECIPIENT INVOLVEMENT ON CONSUMER GIFT DECISIONS

Janet Wagner, University of Maryland

Richard Ettenson, University of Maryland

Sherri Verrier, University of Maryland

The Sherry (1983) model suggests that gift-giving decisions vary by the level of involvement in the donor-recipient relationship. A conjoint task involving a gift purchase was administered to consumers in two conditions: 1) a gift for a new neighbor, and 2) a gift for a best friend. The results showed that the use of expressive and utilitarian attributes, as well as price, differed between the two gift-giving conditions. It was concluded that the results lend support to the Sherry model by demonstrating that level of involvement affects the gift purchase decision.

INTRODUCTION

Gift-giving is a phenomenon of economic and social importance, which has been the focus of a growing body of conceptual and empirical work in consumer behavior. In the economic realm, expenditures for gifts represent more than 3% of the annual budget of the average household (Garner and Wagner 1987). In the social sphere, gifts serve as important symbols in creating and maintaining relationships and in acknowledging important life cycle events (Belk 1979; Sherry 1983).

Conceptual Framework

Sherry (1983) proposed a multidisciplinary model of consumer gift-giving based on a typology with three major components -- the gift, the relationship between donor and recipient, and situational factors. According to this model, the gift-giving process has three stages -- gestation, prestation, and reformulation. Gestation resembles traditional consumer decision-making models (e.g. Engel, Blackwell and Miniard 1986), and may be of the most interest to marketers, because it culminates in a purchase.

Gestation begins with a precipitating condition, which is the donor's recognition of a gift-giving situation. During this stage, decision-making is affected both by the gift-giving motives of the donor and by hints from the recipient about his or her needs and wants. The donor evaluates alternative gifts in terms of their attributes and what those attributes communicate to the recipient. Finally, a purchase decision is reached.

According to Sherry (1983), the effect of product attributes on the choice of a gift may vary according to the level of involvement between the donor and the recipient. Expressive gifts are more likely to be given in close relationships, while utilitarian gifts are more likely to be given in distant relationships. Attributes such as price and quality may also be used to define level of involvement. More costly, higher quality gifts are usually given in closer relationships.

One major function of gift-giving is communication (Banks 1979; Belk 1979; Sherry 1983). Because gifts communicate information not only about the recipient, but also about the donor, consumers may engage in "impression management" (Sherry 1983). This suggests that gift-giving decisions are likely to be influenced by social norms.

Previous Research on Gift-Giving

Warshaw (1980) studied the relationship between social norms and perceived expense in the purchase of gifts by college students. The influence of social norms appeared to decrease as the perceived expense of a gift increased. Conversely, the influence of social norms appeared to increase as perceived expense decreased.

Belk (1982) studied the effect of involvement on the gift-giving strategies of adult women. Eighty-seven gift attributes were rated with respect to their importance. Price, quality, and convenience were hypothesized to differ by level of involvement. Subjects were assigned to three experimental conditions in which involvement was manipulated by intimacy of the relationship (close friend, casual friend, close relative) and gift-giving occasion (birthday or wedding). The results of analyses of variance (ANOVA's) showed that high involvement was associated with the importance of price and quality. The effect of the occasion on gift-giving was studied by Devere, Scott and Shulby (1983). Undergraduates rated the importance of 48 attributes of birthday and wedding gifts. In both situations, the most important gift attributes were those related to style, quality, usefulness, performance, and price. Style was more important in the birthday gift, and quality and performance were more important in the wedding gift.

Any resource -- a good, a service, or money - may be used as a gift. Perhaps the most popular gift is clothing (Belk 1979; Caplow 1982; Jolibert and Fernandez-Moreno 1983). Because clothing conveys information about sex, age, status, and personality (Sproles 1979), a gift of clothing may be one of the most effective ways for a donor to communicate his or her perception of the recipient and the gift-giving relationship. Horne and Winakor (1988) studied gifts of clothing exchanged within families at Christmas, and found that subjects reported style, color, fiber content, and cost to be the most important attributes. Rucker, Boynton, and Park (1986) compared attributes used in gift and nongift purchases of children's clothing, and found that "embellishment" was more important in gifts. Andrus, Silver and Johnson (1986) studied the effect of brand on purchases of clothing gifts, and found that consumers were willing to pay 20% more for a gift in order to purchase a status brand.

Much of the research on gift-giving has been based on methods in which subjects are asked to report or rate the importance of a set of product attributes (e.g. Andrus, Silver and Johnson 1986; Belk 1979; Devere, Scott and Shulby 1983; Horne and Winakor 1988). The results of such studies provide insight into consumer gift-giving behavior and are useful in generating list of attributes that may affect gift-giving decisions. The results must be interpreted with caution, however, for two reasons. First, self-reports are often poor surrogates for the decision-making process (Achenbaum 1966; Bettman 1979; Nisbett and Wilson 1977). Gift-giving involves social interaction, so subjects may have given socially desirable responses. Second, subjects have rated attributes one-at-a-time, in isolation from the bundle of attributes which typically define a product. Consequently, the results give little information about the psychological trade-offs which consumers are likely to make among product attributes in purchasing gifts.

In this research, conjoint analysis was used to compare gift-giving decisions in two situations, which were varied by level of involvement in the donor-recipient relationship: 1) a gift to a best friend, and 2) a gift to a new neighbor. Use of the conjoint approach was predicated on the assumption that the decision to purchase a gift, like the decision to purchase a product for personal use, involves evaluating and integrating information on multiple product attributes. Because the gift to a best friend was assumed to be more involving than the gift for a new neighbor, it was expected that price, quality, and expressive attributes would be more important in the best friend condition. It was also expected that utilitarian attributes would be more important in the new neighbor condition.

METHOD

Participants

One-hundred mothers were systematically sampled from the P.T.A. membership list (N=197) of a public elementary school in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area in the Mid-Atlantic region. Adult females were used as subjects for two reasons. First, most donors are female. As the "unpaid social directors" and "chief gift-givers" of American society (Schnudson 1986), women purchase 84% of all gifts (Caplow 1982). Second, the decision-making task upon which this study was based involved a gift for a baby shower. Consequently, the use of adult females ensured that the subjects were familiar with the gift-giving situation. Permission to recruit the mothers was obtained from the P.T.A.'s executive board at its meeting in the month prior to administration of the research. To encourage participation, the P.T.A. was promised a $5 donation for every completed instrument returned to the researchers.

The Gift-Decision Task

Participants were given a set of instructions in which they were told that they had been invited to a baby shower and that the guest of honor had hinted that she wanted one-piece jumpsuits for her new baby boy. An infant's jumpsuit was defined as a one-piece garment, with feet, to be worn while the baby was either awake or asleep. Half of the 100 mothers sampled were told to assume that the guest of honor was a best friend, and the other half were told to assume that the guest of honor was a new neighbor.

The research instrument consisted of a set of decision-making tasks, based on a 2 x 28 mixed 1/16 fractional factorial design, with full replication (Hahn and Shapiro 1966; Plan 7b). The two main factors were: 1) the relationship between the donor and the recipient (a between-subject variable) at two levels: best friend or new neighbor; and 2) eight product attributes (within-subject variables) at two levels each. Attributes were borrowed from the Sproles (1979) model of fashion-oriented consumer behavior, and levels were selected through a focus group of mothers with demographic profiles similar to those of participants. The eight product attributes and their corresponding levels were: price ($15.00 vs. $8.00), color (mint green vs. blue), brand (Carter vs. LACOSTE), fiber (100% cotton vs. 100% polyester), size (6 months vs. newborn), fabric (t-shirt knit vs. terry cloth knit), quality (good vs. very good) and style (classic vs. fashion). In the instrument, all attributes except for style were presented in written descriptions of infant jumpsuits. Style was presented in accompanying sketches. The instrument was pretested with a group of 10 mothers of elementary school children. The results indicated that the two levels of price initially chosen, $5 and $20, were perceived to be unrealistically low and high. The levels were adjusted accordingly.

The experimental design involved 16 cases in which infant sleepers were described. This made it possible to analyze main effects for the eight product attributes as well as six two-way interactions. Each of the 16 cases was fully replicated. By replicating the cases, it was possible to estimate both experimental error in the individual-subject ANOVA's and within-subject consistency. Eight "filler" cases were also included, so each participant made a total of 40 decisions. For each case, participants were asked to evaluate the likelihood of purchase by placing a slash along a 100 millimeter continuum, with ends marked "Not Very Likely" and "Very Likely," which appeared at the bottom of the page. The decision-making task was followed by a post-experiment questionnaire, in which socioeconomic and demographic information was collected.

Procedure

A packet of research materials was mailed to participating mothers in November, 1988. Included were: a cover letter from the researchers, a letter of endorsem*nt from the president of the P.T.A., the research instrument, and a stamped, pre-addressed envelope for return of the completed instrument. The participants were asked to return the instrument within 2 weeks. Reminder letters were sent to those who did not comply. Of the 100 instruments mailed, 69 were completed and returned by the first deadline. An additional eight were received after the reminder, yielding a response rate of 77%. Completed instruments were received for 35 mothers in the new neighbor condition and 42 mothers in the best friend condition.

TABLE 1

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MOTHERS

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics for the 77 participating mothers are presented in Table 1. For the most part, the mothers were older, better educated, more likely to be working, and more likely to be married than one would expect of mothers of elementary school children. The majority reported having given a shower gift in the last year.

Use of Attributes

An individual-subject analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the fractional design was performed on the gift purchase decisions. This made it possible to identify which attributes affected the gift purchase decisions of each participant. The results are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 shows that the attributes--which most often affected the decisions of the 35 mothers in the new neighbor condition were size, fiber content, and price. Table 2 also shows that fiber content and size were the attributes which most often affected the decisions of the 42 mothers in the best friend condition. Compared to the mothers in the new neighbor condition, price seemed to affect the decisions of fewer mothers purchasing gifts for a best friend. Few significant two-way interactions were found between attributes in either the new neighbor or the best friend condition.

Relative Importance of the Attributes

Hays' (1973) omega-squared (w2) was used to evaluate the relative importance of the attributes in the decision-making of individual subjects. The average w2 values for the mothers in each experimental condition are presented graphically in the Figure. It appears that the gift purchase decisions of mothers in both conditions were dominated by fiber content, size, and price. Style and quality seem to represent a second-tier of effects, and fabric. color. and brand a third tier.

TABLE 2

PERCENTAGE OF SIGNIFICANT (P<.05) EFFECTS FOR GIFT ATTRIBUTES: NEW NEIGHBOR AND BEST FRIEND

Differences In Decision Making by Level of Involvement

A two (level of involvement) x eight (attribute) ANOVA was performed on the w2 values to determine whether or not the gift purchasing strategies differed by intimacy of the relationship. The result showed a significant effect for attributes (F [7,525] = 16.45, p< 05) and no effect for level of involvement (F [1, 76] = 2.92, p>.05). There was, however, a significant level of involvement x attribute interaction (F [7,525] = 2.84, p<.05). The results of a post-hoc Scheffe' test demonstrated that there were differences in the use of the three dominant attributes -- fiber, size, and price. While fiber had more of an effect on the decisions of mothers purchasing gifts for a best friend (w2=.32 vs. .18, p<.05), size had a stronger effect on the decisions of mothers purchasing gifts for a new neighbor (.20 vs. .10, p<.05). Price appears to have been more important to mothers purchasing a gift for a new neighbor (.15 vs. .08); that difference was, however, only marginally significant (p<.10).

DISCUSSION

The results of this research provide insight into the tradeoffs among product attributes that consumers may be willing to make in gift purchase decisions. More important, the results lend support to the Sherry (1983) model of consumer gift-giving, by demonstrating that gift-giving strategies may differ by level of involvement in the donor-recipient relationship.

Tradeoffs Among Product Attributes In Gift Decisions

The gift purchase decisions of the mothers were dominated by fiber, size, and price. Fiber content was the most important attribute. This may reflect both expressive and utilitarian qualities. Fiber content may be expressive because it is subject to fashion change, which is, in turn, associated with status. Examination of the marginal utilities for fiber content showed that all but one of the mothers whose decisions were affected by that attribute favored the 100% cotton garment. Because cotton is more fashionable than polyester (Rowland 1987), consumers may believe that it communicates a desirable impression of the status of the donor as well as the recipient. This suggests that, in making their decisions, the mothers engaged in what Sherry (1983) termed "impression management." Cotton also has utilitarian properties, such as comfort and absorbency, which may have affected the gift purchase decisions.

The dominance of fiber content may reflect the relationship between social norms and perceived expense observed by Warshaw (1980). Fashion is a social norm, so preference for, cotton, the more fashionable fiber, may have been related to the perceived expense of the jumpsuit. Had a more expensive gift been involved, the effect of fiber content might have been weaker. The importance of fiber is consistent with the results of Home and Winakor's (1988) study on Christmas gift-giving.

FIGURE

AVERAGE W2 VALUES FOR EACH GIFT ATTRIBUTE: NEW NEIGHBOR AND BEST FRIEND

Size, which might be interpreted as a utilitarian attribute, was the next most important influence on the gift-giving decisions. This finding lends credence to Sherry's (1983) contention that utilitarian considerations may affect gift-giving, and to the results of Devere, Scott and Shulby (1983), who reported that the usefulness of an item is likely to be an important consideration in purchasing a gift. The marginal utilities showed that, among the mothers with a significant effect for size, all but two favored the six-month over the newborn. Given that newborns usually grow quickly, the mothers may have perceived the larger size to be useful for a longer period of time than the smaller size. Mehrabian (1972) suggests an alternative explanation. If size is associated with status, then giving a larger size may be one way of conferring status upon the recipient.

The importance of price is consistent with the results of previous research in which price was reported to be an important attribute in purchasing a gift (e.g. Belk 1979; Devere, Scott and Shulby 1983; Heeler, Francis and Okechuku 1979; Home and Winakor 1988). It appears, however, that consumers may be less concerned with price than with either the status communicated by an item or its usefulness.

Quality and style appeared to be attributes of secondary importance. Quality was reported by both Belk (1979) and Devere, Scott, and Shulby (1983) to be an attribute of importance in purchasing gifts. The results of this study support their finding, but with the qualification that, compared to other attributes, quality seems to have a smaller effect. Both Devere, Scott and Shulby (1983) and Horne and Winakor (1988) reported that style affects gift-giving decisions. The results of this research indicate that, relative to other attributes, the effect of style is not large. This may be related, however, to the situational context, in that participants were told that the shower was being held for the mother of a baby boy. Although one function of gift-giving is socialization, sex-role socialization may not begin in earnest until a child is older. Consequently, style may be of less importance than other attributes in gifts of clothing to infants. The marginal utilities showed that all but one of the mothers who had a significant effect for style preferred the classic jumpsuit. This may reflect the fact that fashion continues to have less effect on the clothing of males than the clothing of females (Hyde 1988).

Color, brand, and fabric appeared to be the least important of the gift-giving attributes. In Home and Winakor's (1988) study, color was reported to be important in gifts of clothing. The results of the conjoint analysis suggest, however, that compared to other attributes, the effect of color is small.

Andrus, Silver and Johnson (1986) reported that consumers are willing to pay a higher price in order to purchase a status brand as a gift. The results of this research indicate that, compared to other product attributes, brand may have little effect on gifts of clothing. The importance of fiber, relative to brand, suggests that physical attributes of a product may communicate more about status than does brand. The price x brand interaction was tested, and 16 (21%) significant interactions were observed across the two experimental conditions. In most cases, the mothers preferred to pay less for LaCoste, the higher status brand. The w2 value for this interaction was, however, negligible. Although the Sproles (1979) model suggests that fabric is one of the "critical characteristics" in purchases of clothing, this attribute had little effect on the gift purchase decisions of the mothers in the sample.

Comparison of Gift Decisions by Intimacy of Relationship

Differences were observed in the relative importance of fiber, size, and price in the best friend and new neighbor conditions. Mothers giving a gift to a best friend were more likely to use fiber, and less likely to use either size or price, than were mothers giving a gift to a new neighbor. This lends support to the Sherry (1983) model, which suggests that gift-giving decisions differ by the closeness of the donor-recipient relationship.

According to Sherry (1983), gifts may be either expressive or utilitarian. Expressive gifts are more likely to be given in close relationships, and utilitarian gifts more likely to be given in distant relationships. The use of the gift attributes by the mothers in the two conditions appear to reflect this. Fiber might be considered the more expressive of the two attributes, because it may communicate information on the status of both donor and recipient. Since natural fibers (e.g. cotton) are perceived to be more fashionable than synthetic fibers (Rowland 1987), a gift of a natural fiber garment might be seen as one way of communicating the importance of a relationship. Size might be considered the more utilitarian of the two attributes. Consequently, the decisions of mothers in the new neighbor condition, in which the relationship was distant, were more strongly affected by size.

An alternative explanation for the importance of fiber in the best friend condition might be that consumers make purchases for close friends in much the same way that they make purchases for personal use. Ettenson, Wagner, and Gaeth (1988) found fiber content to be a dominant attribute in decisions involving purchases of clothing for personal use. Heeler, Francis and Okechuku (1979) reported that, in making purchases of gifts for close friends and purchases for personal use, consumers access similar types of information. This interpretation is consistent with the anchoring and adjustment model developed by Davis, Hoch and Ragsdale (1986), in which both husbands and wives were found to anchor their predictions of spousal preferences on their own preferences.

Although the difference was marginal, price appeared to be less important to mothers purchasing gifts for best friends than to mothers purchasing for a new neighbor. Both Sherry (1983) and Caplow (1983) suggest that the value of a gift may reflect the importance of the relationship. This implies that a more expensive gift might be preferred in a closer relationship. However, the less expensive jumpsuit was favored by all of the mothers with a significant effect for price, regardless of level of intimacy. Low cost of the jumpsuit was, however, of more importance to the mothers purchasing a gift for a new neighbor than to mothers purchasing a gift for a best friend. In light of the importance of fiber content, it appears that for some gifts, there may be attributes more effective than price in communicating the importance of a relationship. The difference in the importance of price between the best friend and new neighbor conditions lends support to the work of Belk (1982), who reported that the amount of money spent on gifts-is likely to vary by level of involvement.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The results of this research contribute to development of the Sherry (1983) model and suggest directions for future decision-making research in a gift-giving context. Gift purchase decisions were studied in the context of a shower gift to be given to either a best friend or a new neighbor. The results demonstrated that the use of product attributes by the participants differed in the two situations. Thus, it appears that the gift-giving decisions of consumers differ by level of involvement in the donor-recipient relationship.

Four directions for future research are suggested. This study was limited in terms of sample size and range of products. Consequently, the most obvious extension of this research is to a larger, more representative sample of consumers and a wider range of products. A second extension of this research might involve using the conjoint method to compare gift-giving decisions to decisions involving purchases of goods for personal use. Given that gift-giving tends to be seasonal in nature, such information might be useful to the marketing establishment in planning seasonally-appropriate promotional strategies. A third avenue of research might be based on the anchoring and adjustment model of evaluative judgment (Tversky and Kahneman 1974). Davis, Hoch and Ragsdale (1986) used this approach to study spousal preferences. In that research, both husbands and wives were found to be not very accurate in their predictions of spousal preferences. It would be interesting to explore the accuracy of donor predictions of recipient gift preferences, by level of involvement. Finally, given the burgeoning of interest in family decision-making, the study of gift-giving decisions within the family, not only between husbands and wives, but also between parents and children, presents intriguing possibilities.

REFERENCES

Achenbaum, Alvin (1966), "Knowledge is a Thing Called Measurement," in Attitude Research at Sea, eds. Lee Adler and Irving Crespi, Chicago, IL. Attitude Research Committee, American Marketing Association.

Andrus, David, Edward Silver and Dallas Johnson (1986), "Status Brand Management and Gift Purchase: A Discriminate Analysis," The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3 (Winter) 5-13.

Banks, Sharon (1979), "Gift-Giving: A Review and an Interactive Paradigm,: in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, ed. William Wilkie, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 319-324.

Belk, Russell (1979), "Gift-Giving Behavior," Research in Marketing, Volume 2, ed. Jagdish Sheth, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 95-126.

Belk, Russell (1982), "Effects of Gift-Giving Involvement on Gift-Giving Strategies," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, ed. Andrew Mitchell, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 531-536

Caplow, Theodore (1982), "Christmas Gifts and Kin Networks," American Sociological Review, 47 (3), 383-392.

Davis, Harry L., Stephen J. Hoch and E.K. Easton Ragsdale (1986), "An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Spousal Predictions," Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 25-37.

Devere, Stephen P., Clifford D. Scott and William L. Shulby (1983), "Consumer Perceptions of Gift-Giving Occasions: Attribute Saliency and Structure," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, eds. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 185 -190.

Engel, James F., Roger D. Blackwell and Paul W. Miniard (1986), Consumer Behavior, 5th ed., New York: The Dryden Press.

Ettenson, Richard, Janet Wagner, and Gary Gaeth (1988), "Evaluating the Effect of Country of Origin and the 'Made in the USA" Campaign: A Conjoint Approach," Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 85-100.

Garner, Thesia and Janet Wagner (1987), "Gift-Giving: An Economic Perspective," paper presented at the Allied Social Sciences Association Annual Meeting, Chicago: IL.

Hahn, G. and S. Shapiro (1966), "A Catalog and Computer Program for the Design and Analysis of Orthogonal Symmetric and Asymmetric Fractional Factorial Designs," Report No. 66-C165, General Electric Corporation, Schenectady, NY.

Hays, W.L. (1973), Statistics for Psychologists, New York: Holt. Rinehart, and Winston.

Heeler, Roger, June Francis and Chike Okechuku (1979), "Gift Versus Personal Use Brand Selection," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, ed. William Wilkie, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 325-328.

Horne, Lena and Geitel Winakor (1988), "Exchange of Clothing Gifts in Families -- A Pilot Study," in ACPTC Proceedings: Combined Central, Eastern, and Western Regional Meetings, ed.

Cherilyn Nelson, Monument, CO: Association of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing, 65.

Hyde, Nina (1988), "Fashion Notes: Basically the Same," The Washington Post, (January 10), H3.

Jolibert, Alain. J.P. and Carlos Fernandez-Moreno (1983), " A Comparison of French and Mexican Gift-Giving," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, ed. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 191-196.

Mehrabian, Albert (1972), Nonverbal Communication, New York: Aldine-Atherton.

Rowland, Mary (1987), "Back to Natural Fibers," Working Woman (November), 101-105.

Rucker, Margaret H., Linda Boynton and Mee Young Park (1986), "Gift versus Regular Purchases: The Children's Market," in Proceedings of the Annual Convention, Division of Consumer Psychology, American Psychology Association, ed. Joel Faigert, Northridge, CA: American Psychology Association.

Schnudson, Michael (1986), Psychology Today, (December), 26-29.

Sherry, John F., Jr. (1983), "Gift-Giving in Anthropological Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 (September) 157168.

Sproles, George (1979), Fashion: Consumer Behavior Toward Dress, Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing Company.

Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1974) "Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," Science, 185, 1124-1131.

Warshaw, Paul (1980), "Buying a Gift: Product Price Moderation of Social Normative Influences on Gift Purchase Intentions," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6 (1), 143-148.

----------------------------------------

>The Effect of Donor-Recipient Involvement on Consumer Gift Decisions | ACR (2024)

FAQs

How gift-giving can affect relations between the giver and the recipient? ›

Because gift giving influences the relationship between giver and recipient, the giver's emotions toward the recipient make a difference to the giver's decisionmaking process. Therefore, gifts may or may not correctly reflect givers' intentions.

What is the effect of giving a gift? ›

Giving a gift is a universal way to show interest, appreciation, and gratitude, as well as strengthen bonds with others, sources say. “There is the whole act — determining what needs to be given and making sure it fits with the person,” says Devin A.

What is the psychology behind gift-giving? ›

Empathy is one of the pillars of the psychology of gift-giving. When you're giving a gift, you want to delight the recipient – whether it's a lovely surprise or some well-needed support. Looking for a present implies trying to understand that person. In this, gift and psychology go hand in hand.

What are the three stages of gift-giving? ›

According to this model, the gift-giving process has three stages -- gestation, prestation, and reformulation.

What is the importance of giving and receiving gifts? ›

We often give gifts to re-confirm or establish our connection with others, which means that they're a reflection of both the giver and the receiver, as well as their unique relationship. Giving a gift to someone we care about allows us to communicate our feelings and appreciation for them.

Does Gift of the Givers have a positive impact? ›

Gift of the Givers strives to uplift the most vulnerable and marginalised communities through various humanitarian initiatives. Your contribution goes a long way in helping us to benefit mankind and give back for the greater good.

Why is gift giving inefficient? ›

Buying gifts typically destroys value and can only, in the unlikely best special case, be as good as giving cash.” Waldfogel's conclusion: “We value items we receive as gifts 20 percent less, per dollar spent, than items we buy for ourselves.”

How does receiving gifts make you feel? ›

Releases Endorphins

We tend to feel a greater sense of happiness when we see the recipient gleam with joy as they open our gift. This releases endorphins into our brain which gives us the same euphoric feelings we experience when we are falling for someone or achieving something great.

What is the importance of giving gifts in business? ›

Corporate gifting is equally important externally because it helps build brand recognition and encourages loyalty in your clientele. Business gifts can incentivize new clients to begin working with your company and help to open a dialogue and establish a budding relationship.

Is gift-giving an ethical dilemma? ›

Gift giving is generally well-intentioned and graciously accepted to healthcare professionals but it is also one of the concerns that cause an ethical dilemma in health care.

Why do gifts create conflict of interest? ›

Offering or accepting personal gifts may influence an individual's decisions and thus may constitute a conflict of interest. Employees and covered individuals are deemed to have received a “gift” when an item of value is given to them personally, to their designee or to their family member for their benefit.

What happens in your brain when you give a gift? ›

Giving is scientifically proven to reap more personal happiness than receiving. The act of gift giving releases endorphins and dopamine within your brain. These natural chemicals are part of the body's reward system, and are designed specifically to make you feel good.

What are the essential elements of gift? ›

There are the following five essentials of a valid gift:
  • Transfer of ownership.
  • Existing property.
  • Transfer without consideration.
  • Voluntary transfer with free consent.
  • Acceptance of the gift.
26 Aug 2020

What is a gifting strategy? ›

Gifting strategies provide your clients a way to minimize future estate taxes, while ensuring that their assets pass to the people and organizations that mean the most to them. Each individual can transfer a certain amount of assets either during life or at death without paying either gift or estate taxes.

What is the gift principle? ›

A principal gift is one that the organization defines as large. Commonly, nonprofits consider this to be a gift of at least $1 million in value. Often, this gift is given in an asset other than cash, such as through property. A principal gift can be harder and rarer to get.

Why giving is more important than receiving? ›

Money may not buy you love but it might buy you happiness if you spend it in the right way, US researchers say. In studies they found that the old adage "it's better to give than to receive" is correct: spending money on others or giving to charity puts a bigger smile on your face than buying things for yourself.

Is gift giving important for economy of a country? ›

Gift giving is not as awful as some scholars think. Indeed, exchanging presents may even have virtuous effects on the economy, but many of them show up outside of quarterly measures of Gross Domestic Product.

What are two challenges that Gift of the Givers has experienced? ›

Answer: Disaster relief organisation, Gift of Givers says in spite of the mounting challenges in the face of no rain and limited functional water treatment plants, as a matter of principle, they can no longer offer their services in Makhanda.

What are the six key roles of the Gift of the Givers? ›

What We do
  • Fast and Active Disaster Response: ...
  • A Passion for Hunger Alleviation: ...
  • Committed to the Provision of Water: ...
  • Promoting Human Development: ...
  • Creating an Environment Conducive to Education: ...
  • We have in place:
  • Contributing to the Healthcare of Communities:

How can Gift of the Givers improve their support to the community? ›

The organisation provides disaster intervention resources such as blankets, food, medicine, and tents. In addition to that, Gift of the Givers has a dedicated volunteer team who can assist no matter where a disaster may strike.

Why is buying gifts so stressful? ›

"But many factors help make the holidays so stressful: fatigue, unrealistic expectations, commercialization, financial constraints, and the inability to be with one's family and friends." Wrapped up in shiny paper with each one of these factors is the act of gift giving.

Why can't customers accept gifts? ›

The new code states: 1.12 Giving and Receiving Gifts – Because the exchange of gifts can invite conflicts of interest and multiple relationships, behavior analysts do not give gifts to or accept gifts from clients, stakeholders, supervisees, or trainees with a monetary value of more than $10 U.S. dollars (or the ...

Why is receiving gifts so hard? ›

Blocks to receiving may reflect protection from being in someone's debt. We may suspect their motives, wondering “What do they want from me?” Presuming that compliments or gifts are attempts to control or manipulate us, we pre-emptively defend ourselves from any sense of obligation or indebtedness.

When receiving a gift it is good etiquette to? ›

Show Appreciation

If you receive a gift, even if you don't give one in return, always show your appreciation, regardless of whether you like the gift or not. If you are presented with the gift in person, smile and thank the gift giver.

Why does receiving gifts make me anxious? ›

Receiving gifts

Commonly people will become very anxious about the amount of money the other person may have spent on them, whether they might already have the gift, how they will still show appreciation despite not wanting a gift and if they don't like the present then how they will return it.

Why do customers like to receive gifts from companies? ›

Not only do they make us feel special, but they also make us happier. And in most cases, giving or receiving gifts or free content has also been associated with gaining compliance, as well as creating long-term bonds between the giver and the recipient. Gifting in a business also works on the same principles.

What is gift giving in business ethics? ›

A gift is something of value given without the expectation of return; a bribe is the same thing given in the hope of influence or benefit.

Is it ethical to give gifts to clients? ›

The client may feel a sense of pride and satisfaction from being able to thank the worker with a gift. However, if the client feels exploited or manipulated—or if the client receives inappropriate services as a result of gift-giving—then encouraging or accepting the gift would be unethical.

Is gift giving a corruption? ›

Giving or receiving a gift is legal. Bribery, on the other hand, is almost universally condemned, and its practice is considered undesirable, harmful and destructive. A bribe is associated with immorality and is considered illegal.

Is accepting gifts conflict of interest? ›

Whenever a public employee is offered or receives anything of value, even if it is not of substantial value, the conflict of interest law is still implicated. A public employee who receives a gift with a value of less than $50 may have to file a disclosure.

Can gifts be manipulative? ›

There are two kinds of giving: one is manipulative, the other is freeing. The manipulative giver is one who believes that giving is a way to get what s/he wants or needs. This is truly selfish giving. Manipulative givers expect something in return for their gifts.

Is it unethical to accept gifts from vendors? ›

Granted, the Anti-Kickback Statute requires a “bad intent” and is dependent on the facts and circ*mstances surrounding the particular conduct rather than a bright-line ban on the conduct. However, the safest way to avoid prosecution is not to accept anything of value from a vendor or supplier.

Why do the receiving of gifts from clients create conflicts of interest on the job? ›

Conclusion. Gifts cause a conflict of interest when they threaten to corrupt an employee's judgment on business matters related to the interests of the person or organization providing the gift. Sometimes gifts are given with that intention, sometimes not.

Does receiving gifts release dopamine? ›

According to Mark, we get a release of dopamine when giving and receiving gifts – which means gift-giving creates pleasure. “That dopamine interacts with our memory centres,” he adds. A good gift can reinforce a positive impression of the giver, creating a stronger bond in the long run.

What hormone is released when you get a gift? ›

The results showed that an individual's oxytocin levels rise when they receive a gift. Oxytocin is more commonly known as the 'love hormone. '

What are the three requirements for an effective gift? ›

To make an effective gift inter vivos or causa mortis, the law imposes three requirements: (1) the donor must deliver a deed or object to the donee; (2) the donor must actually intend to make a gift, and (3) the donee must accept (see Figure 36.1 "Gift Requirements").

What are the three elements needed to make an effective gift? ›

Both types of gifts share three elements which must be met in order for the gift to be legally effective: donative intent (the intention of the donor to give the gift to the donee), the delivery of the gift to the donee, and the acceptance of the gift.

What are the 12 tasks in the ultimate gift? ›

For his reckless and selfish grandson Jason Stevens, who hated him, Red assigns twelve apparently simple tasks called "gifts" - of work, money, friends, learning, problems, family, laughter, dreams, giving, gratitude, a day and love - challenging the playboy Jason to a journey of discoveries.

What is consumer gifting behavior? ›

Consumers can communicate their personal impressions of attitudes and self-esteem through self-gifting purchases. For example, self-gifts of clothing and jewelry communicate to others the self-concept of the buyer.

How do free gifts attract customers? ›

Interestingly, research in consumer psychology indicates that people prefer to get more rather than spend less. A free gift might have higher perceived value since it gives them more. Of course, this only applies if you're actually telling customers that you're giving them a gift.

What is the 5 gift rule? ›

In the 5 Gift Rule, the first four gifts are the same - something they want, something they need, something to wear and something to read. But the 5th? The 5th is the real winner. It's something they need or want but don't really know it.

What is the 4 gift rule? ›

Are the days of rampant spending on children at Christmas coming to an end? A trend which has gained traction over the past few years on social media is the "four gift rule". Parents pledge to give their offspring just four presents: Something they want, something they need, something to wear and something to read.

What is the 7 gift rule? ›

What is the 7-gift rule? It is the concept of buying only a set number of gifts for each individual, with each gift falling into a specific category. As you may have to guess, the specific number of gifts for this rule is 7. You buy one gift to fit in each category and by the end; you have 7 gifts to give.

How do gifts affect relationships? ›

The act of giving a gift should help two people become much closer, which can make them happier in the overall relationship. This could mean that people will be able to enhance the relationship over time with gifts. As such, it can be much less of a minor task than many people may believe.

How does giving benefit both The Giver and the receiver? ›

Giving makes us feel happy and good

For example, sending a box of favorite cookies to your mom or partner can make their day. It's an inexpensive way to make someone you love happy. One of the most obvious benefits of giving is that it evokes the feeling of happiness with both receiver and the giver.

What is the connection between giving and receiving? ›

Giving and receiving is similar – they work together. In order to give, there must be a receiver. Giving is about outflow and receiving is about inflow. The most important thing about giving and receiving is your intention behind it.

How gifts affect a therapeutic relationship? ›

Although gifts may seem appropriate between a person in therapy and their therapist, receiving and giving gifts can be a source of stress for the therapeutic relationship. It can hurt therapeutic progress, and it can have serious consequences.

Why do gifts create conflicts of interest? ›

Why do gifts create conflicts of interest? (or would it be a conflict of interest to accept this gift) Giving gifts create conflict(s) of interest because it, either explicitly or implicitly, encourages the recipient of the gift to 'return the favor.

Why is it sometimes difficult to buy or choose a gift for someone? ›

We found that the biggest obstacle when it comes to finding gifts for others is time. We all have busy lives and every second is precious. More often than not, our busy lives can stray us away from the ones closest to us in our lives. Our work and commitments take up most of the day.

What are the 5 qualities a receiver must have in The Giver? ›

When considering Jonas, there were no such "dreams of uncertainty." The Chief Elder goes on to explain the qualities that a Receiver of Memory must possess. These qualities include intelligence, integrity, courage, wisdom, and the Capacity to See Beyond.

Is receiving gifts more satisfying than giving? ›

Receiving gifts is a great feeling but is mostly short-lived. Our lives are fulfilling when we give and share, and that great inner joy comes from helping others to better their lives. Giving provides an intrinsic reward that is far more valuable than the gift we receive.

Is it better to give or receive gifts? ›

If you've ever felt like that, then you know it's true: it really is better to give than to receive. There's just a simple joy from giving freely of your time and talents to loved ones. This old saying has ancient roots in many religions. The Bible, the Torah, and the Quran all encourage helping others.

What does the Bible say about giving and receiving gifts? ›

Acts 20:32-35

You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.

What are the ethical considerations of gift giving? ›

The client may feel a sense of pride and satisfaction from being able to thank the worker with a gift. However, if the client feels exploited or manipulated—or if the client receives inappropriate services as a result of gift-giving—then encouraging or accepting the gift would be unethical.

Why does accepting gifts from clients constitute a conflict of interest? ›

Offering or accepting personal gifts may influence an individual's decisions and thus may constitute a conflict of interest. Employees and covered individuals are deemed to have received a “gift” when an item of value is given to them personally, to their designee or to their family member for their benefit.

Is it ethical to accept gifts from patients? ›

A small gift such as baked goods is probably fine. But an extremely valuable gift should be declined, especially if it is likely to cause a financial hardship for the patient or the patient's family.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Prof. An Powlowski

Last Updated:

Views: 5953

Rating: 4.3 / 5 (44 voted)

Reviews: 91% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Prof. An Powlowski

Birthday: 1992-09-29

Address: Apt. 994 8891 Orval Hill, Brittnyburgh, AZ 41023-0398

Phone: +26417467956738

Job: District Marketing Strategist

Hobby: Embroidery, Bodybuilding, Motor sports, Amateur radio, Wood carving, Whittling, Air sports

Introduction: My name is Prof. An Powlowski, I am a charming, helpful, attractive, good, graceful, thoughtful, vast person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.