Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RISK PERCEPTION AND RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES
TOWARDS GIFT GIVING
Liew Cheng Siang ψ
KDU College, Malaysia
Abstract
This study examines gender differences in risk perception and risk reduction strategies towards gift
giving. A self administered questionnaire was adopted for this research study and a total of 300 surveys
were given out. The study showed significant difference on risk reduction strategies adopted between
men and women. The findings confirmed that men are perceived risk at higher degree as compare to
women. Out of 11 risk reduction strategies used in this study, only 3 shown significant differences
towards the engagement of risk reduction strategy between men and women.
Keywords: Gift giving; Perceived risk; Risk reduction.
JEL Classification Codes: J16; M52.
1. Introduction
Gift giving has been extensively researched from various disciplines like sociology (Gouldner, 1960),
economic (Belshaw, 1965) and even anthropology (Mauss, 1954). Only the past two decades gift
giving has received much attention in the area of marketing (Webster & Nottingham, 2000). This never
come a surprise as in USA alone, over $78 billion spend on expenditure annually comes from extra
household gift purchases (Garner & Wagner, 1991). This accounts for almost 4% of American total
household budget. From this point it can be argued that more comprehensive researches are necessary
to further understand the ritual of gift giving and receiving.
During the past two decades marketing scholars have researched into various gift giving topics.
Previous researchers have been looking into brand choice when purchasing gift (Parsons, 2002); how
cultural values affecting choice of gift for recipients (Wang et al., 2007); analyze the effect of the
socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of household towards expenditure for extra household
gifts (Wagner & Garner, 1993); motivations in gift giving (Wolfinbarger & Yale, 1993; Othman et. al,
2005) and measuring involvement in gift giving (Clarke, 2006).
Although marketing scholars had conducted many researches in the context of gift giving but little
study had been conducted to understand gender differences towards gift giving. The aim of this
research is to understand the types of risk experienced by male and female consumer when purchasing
gifts and to explore any differences exist between these two groups. The next aim for this study is to
understand what kind of risk reduction strategies male and female consumers used when purchasing
gifts and to further understand the differences that exits between them.
This paper is divided into 4 sections. The first section covers the introduction and objectives of this
research. Section 2 provides a critical review of gift giving literature, purchase perceived risk and risk
reduction strategy literature. Further hypotheses will be developed in this section to understand the
relationship of males and females in risk and risk reduction strategy towards gift giving. Section 3 shall
discuss the research methodology applied for testing the hypotheses. Section 4 uses the survey research
to triangulate reliable and convincing findings by engaging upon statistical analysis tests further
discussion and interpretation of the survey and Section 5 is the conclusion and discussion of the
research implications.
ψ
Corresponding author. Liew Cheng Siang. Address: 25 Jalan BU4/11, Bandar Utama, 47800 Petaling
Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Email: [email protected]
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
2. Literature Review
Gift giving
Gift giving rituals are evident from every part of the world (Cowley et al, 2004; Gehrt & Shim, 2002;
Park, 1998). Although this ritual has been practised all around the world yet up until now not much
research are being conducted in this area (Durgee & Sego, 2001). This is unacceptable given the size of
the gift industry and the amount of money each year consumers spend on gifts for every gift giving
occasion (Garner & Wagner, 1991). Previous researches conducted in the area of gift giving failed to
understand the process of gift giving or even examine the underlying behaviour of gifts in their
researches (Sherry, 1983). A further study is essential to better understand of the process and
underlying behaviour of gift giving on a wider perspective.
Gift giving is simply defined as exchanging of goods between giver and receiver in order to promote
ties and bonding (Joy, 2001). This gift giving activity is highly ego involving where gifts are often
selected for the purpose of fulfilling certain values an individual have (Beatty, 1991). More than often
gift giving is more than just a physical objects being exchanged between the giver and receiver. Factors
such as receiver taste or giver- recipient relationship can affect this gift giving process (Belk, 1976).
This reveals that gift giving is not merely just the physical objects but the experience felt by the giver
and receiver throughout this exchange process. A research defined this gift giving experience into 4
dimensions such as: economic, functional, social and expressive value (Larsen & Watson, 2001).
Why an individual involve themselves in a gift giving process? A research identified that there are
three motivations for gift giving, experiential/ positive, obligated and practicality (Wolfinbarger, 1993).
Experiential or positive motivation explained that the giver enjoying choosing gifts and put a lot of
thoughts and efforts towards selecting gifts. Furthermore this type of motivation feels that exercising
gift giving ritual is mainly to show love and friendship to the recipient. While experiential/ positive
motivation enjoys the whole process of gift giving, obligated motivation gift giving is the opposite of
it. This type of motivation felt that gift giving is compliance with the social norm of gift giving. This is
because an individual will feel guilty they if they don’t give or other people expecting them to perform
this ritual. Other than that it can also be due to recipient feeling they must reciprocate when they
received gift from someone. Lastly practicality is one of the motivation that primarily providing
practical assistance to receivers. Practicality gift giving motivation often uses various rites of passage
gift giving to support the recipient through gifts. Previous research found that types of motivation will
affect variety of consumer behaviours (Goodwin, et al, 1990). This is because types of motivation will
drive the giver towards buying what the types of gifts for the recipient.
Gender differences behaviour in gift giving
Previous research has found that there are gender effects when it comes to gift giving (Cheal, 1987;
McGrath, 1995; Caplow, 1982). According to Otnes et al. (1993) men in general are not interested and
pressured when it comes to gift giving. Due to the fact that men are not interested in gift giving
activity, men often buy fewer gifts and often conduct last minute shopping for gifts (Laroche et al.,
2000). Although men buy lesser gifts compare to women however in average the gifts that are bought
by men are more expensive (Mortelmans & Sinardet, 2004). Usually men feel obliged to purchase gifts
for someone that they are close with (Fischer & Arnold, 1990). But they will try to avoid gift giving
activity with person they are not close with. Previous research found that men only involve in gift
giving activity to avoid recipient being disappointed and to show recipient that they care for them
(Otnes et al., 1994).
In contrast women put more thoughts and experience a pleasant emotion in comparison to men
(Webster &Nottingham, 2000). This is because women are socializes to be gift givers at an early age
and gift giving has always been seen as a women’s job (Otnes & McGrath, 1994; Caplow, 1982;
McGrath, 1995). Furthermore women are more attentive to the receiver needs when it comes to gift
giving (Goodwin et al., 1990). Where women will shop around and carefully choose a gift that able to
meet the needs of the recipient. But in general women often spend less money on gift in comparison to
men (Belk and Coon, 1991).
Perceived Risk
The concept of perceived risk is defined as the probability of loss and the subjective feeling of
unfavourable consequences towards purchasing a product or services (Cunningham, 1967). Ever since
Bauer introduced this concept of perceived risk, many researches have been applying this concept in a
181
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
wide range of area (Cunningham et al., 2005; McCorkle 1990; Mieres et al., 2005). This concept
received much attention from researchers, due to its power towards explaining consumers’ choice
behaviour as compared to other concepts (Mitchell, 1999). Majority researches conducted previously
shown low involvement in product or nature, where little or no risk is evident. There should be more
research emphasizing on perceived risk with high involvement in product or nature where it is seems to
be most theoretically valid and practically meaningful (Mitchell & Vassos, 1997).
The concept of perceived risk is often measured in a multidimensional construct- financial,
performance, psychological, social, physical and time risk (Roselius, 1971; Jacoby & Kaplan, 1972;
Peter & Tarpey, 1972). Financial risk is viewed as monetary loss from choosing an unfamiliar product
or brand. Besides that financial risk also includes monetary loss from hidden cost and maintenance
cause if in any case is spoilt. Performance risk is viewed as the risk of goods failing to meet the
performance that have been promised prior purchasing the product. Physical risk is viewed as the
probability of the product an individual purchased that may cause injury or physical harm.
Physiological risk is viewed as purchase of a product that may result in purchase inconsistent with the
personal or self image of the purchaser. Social risk is viewed as the product an individual purchased
will cause others thinking of the individual less favourably. Lastly time risk is viewed as an individual
purchase will result to time loss in delivery or even repair.
The amount of risk consumer perceived when purchasing a product can be affected by many factors.
(Bettman, 1973; Spence et al., 1970; Mieres et al., 2005; Cunningham et al., 2005). These factors can
be grouped into three distinctive groups; personal, product and situational. Personal factors are related
to characteristic of an individual towards affecting risk perception for example emotion (Chaudhuri,
1997) and gender (Garbarino & Strahilevitz, 2002). Product factors are related to the characteristics of
the product for example brand name (Huang, et al., 2004) and intangibility (Laroche, et al., 2003). As
for situational it is related to environment factors for example purchases using mail order or retail store
(Spence et al., 1970).
Risk Reduction Strategy
Every purchase decision a consumer made will have some degree of risks accompanying it. Consumers
often find ways to reduce these uncertainties. Up to date risk reduction strategies concept have been
given very little attention among the researchers (Mitchell & McGoldrick, 1996). Due to this,
practitioners now facing dilemma towards understanding and facilitating consumers towards reducing
consumers’ risks in purchase decision.
A research conducted by Roselius (1971) identified 11 different types of risk reduction strategies
consumers used towards reducing various types of risks. These risk reductions are endorsement, brand
loyalty, major brand image, private testing, store image, free sample, money back guarantee,
government testing, shopping, expensive model and word of mouth. It is found that risk reliever
strategies that often used by consumers varied across products (Mitchell & Vassos, 1997; Poel &
Leunis, 1996). Although there are differences towards risk reduction strategies across products but
according to a research from Mitchell & Goldrick (1996) reviewing more than 30 different type of risk
reduction strategies found that word of mouth and buying expensive brand are strategies most often
used by consumer towards reducing risk in purchase decision.
Hence, in the light of the literatures discussed above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: There are gender differences in perceived risk when purchasing gift.
H2: There is gender differences in Risk Reduction Strategies used when purchasing gift.
3. Methodology
Data Collection
Due to the amount of occasions for gift giving, this research is focusing on Valentine’s Day.
Valentine’s Day was chosen because this occasion is a day in which individuals express their love and
affection towards each others through gift giving (Wooten, 2000). Furthermore previous researches
found that type of occasions may influence a consumers’ involvement towards gift giving (Rugimbana
et al, 2002). The fact that Valentine’s Day is an occasion for relationship development purposes,
consumers’ involvement level in gift giving for this occasion will be higher in comparison to other
occasions.
182
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
This research adopted self administered questionnaire method for data collection. 300 surveys were
given out to college students in one of the premier college in Malaysia. Ensuring validity and reliability
of data collected some data collection strategies were employed. First, the data collection period lasted
for five days to ensure that the gift purchase experiences are still fresh in the respondent’s memory.
Secondly, qualifying questions such as: are they currently involve in a relationship or have they bought
any gifts for their partners were asked and if the answer is yes for both questions, respondents will only
be allow to participate in this research.
While previous research has raised a lot of concern in research using students as surrogate consumers
(Cunningham et. al., 2005), but this research is deemed to be appropriate. This is because the students
that participated in this research are actually involved in the gift giving process during the occasion.
Instrument Development and Measurement
Questionnaire for this research are divided into 3 sections. The first section of the questionnaire is to
collect the demographic profile of the respondents. Second section of the questionnaire was designed to
measure the risks perceived by the consumer (functional, financial, social, physical, psychological and
time risk) when purchasing gift. This measurement was adopted from Stone & Gronhaug (1993). The
respondents were asked to indicate the level of agreement of each of the statement from 1 “Strongly
Agree” to 7 “Strongly Disagree” for each of the item. The third section of the questionnaire is to
measure the risk reduction strategies respondents used when purchasing gifts. The measurement was
adopted from Roselius (1971) where respondents were asked to indicate the level of helpfulness of
each of the statement from 1 “Almost Always Helpful to 7 “Always Never Helpful”.
4. Findings
A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed out. Out of the all the questionnaires that were be
distributed, 33 of them were rejected due to incomplete answers. As a result a total of 267 final
questionnaires were used for analysis. Although this research are looking into gender differences but
the sample consisted of slightly more female respondents (55%) as compared to male respondents
(45%). The data was split into two groups based on gender and T-test was conducted to examine are
there any differences in risk perception and risk reduction between men and women.
Risk perception towards gift purchase
The risk perception towards gift giving between men and women were analyzed using t-tests. Mean
values of the two groups were compared. The results are presented in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, male respondents perceived higher risk towards purchasing gift in comparison to
female respondents in general. The result showed that male perceived higher performance, physical,
financial and time risk as compared to women. The reason for male perceived higher risk as compared
to women is because in general men are not interested and are pressured when it comes to gift giving
purchase decision (Otnes et al., 193). Furthermore men often avoid gift giving activity if it is possible
(Fischer & Arnold, 1990).
When the differences between two genders group with respect to the types of risk perceived towards
gift giving were examined, the study found that only financial risk (p ≤ 0.05) and social risk (p ≤ 0.05)
were the only risk that drawn significant result. Other type of risks did not show any significance
difference among men and women. Thus H1 are partially supported since only two types of risk
perception men and women differed significantly.
Variable
Table 1: Consumer risk perception among men and women
MeanSD Women Mean- SD Men t- value Significance level
Women
Men
Psychological Risk
11.05
3.711
10.65
3.743
1.507
.132
Performance Risk
14.03
3.187
14.06
3.433
-.121
.904
Physical Risk
Financial Risk
Time Risk
Social Risk
Note: * p ≤ 0.05
13.09
12.28
12.23
12.17
3.700
3.811
3.590
3.622
13.36
13.10
12.38
11.64
3.879
3.910
3.196
3.495
-1.009
-2.970
-.606
2.068
.313
.003*
.545
.039*
183
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Risk reduction strategies towards gift purchase
Table 2 shows the risk reduction strategies used by men and women towards reducing the risk
perception. From the mean score it is found that risk reduction strategies men and women used to
reduce risk are different. Where women tend to use free trials to reduce risk while for men, they tend to
buy the most expensive model. This finding was never a surprise since women often play a dominant
role in shopping activity in comparison to men (Laroche, et al., 2000; McGrath, 1995). From this point
it can be justified that the differences of risk reduction strategies used between men and women
towards gift shopping.
Again the data was split into two groups and t-test was conducted to examine differences of risk
reduction strategies used by men as compared to women. Research found that men are significantly
buying expensive model as the way to reduce risk when purchasing gift in comparison to women (p ≤
0.05). Furthermore it is also found out that women are significantly to shop around and compare
product features on several brands in several stores as the way to reduce their risk perception in
comparison with men (p ≤ 0.001). Furthermore, female significantly will buy brands that have been
used before or have been satisfied with in the past before as the way to reduce risk perception in
comparison of men (p ≤ 0.05). From the finding it can be concluded that there are differences in risk
reduction strategies used among men and women towards gift giving. Of all the 11 risk reduction
strategies being examined it was found that only 3 types of risk reduction strategies shown significance
difference between men and women. Thus H2 is partially supported.
Variable
Table 2: Consumer Risk Reduction Strategy used among men and women
MeanSD Women Mean- SD Men t- value Significance level
Women
Men
Endorsement
2.98
Brand loyal
2.63
Brand image
2.70
Testing
3.02
Store image
2.86
Free Sample
3.04
Money back guarantee
2.89
Government test
3.04
Shopping
2.64
Expensive Model
2.97
WOM
2.53
Note: * p ≤ 0.05 and ** p ≤ 0.001
1.129
1.177
1.130
1.110
1.059
1.193
1.290
1.241
1.265
1.176
1.148
3.06 2
2.19
2.49
2.86
2.63
2.85
2.99
2.99
2.13
3.34
2.40
1.012
1.141
1.071
1.095
1.096
1.250
1.276
1.215
1.170
1.085
1.028
-.653
3.067
1.601
1.183
1.729
1.275
-.594
.364
3.392
-2.641
.937
.515
.002*
.111
.238
.085
.203
.553
.716
.001**
.009*
.350
5. Conclusion
The findings of the study revealed that in general men perceived higher risk as compared to women
towards gift giving. Further analysis conducted to examine the differences, found that financial risk and
social risk are the only two types of risk to be significantly different between men and women.
The results for types of risk reduction strategies used by both men and women again found to be
different based on their mean scores. Men prefer to buy expensive model as the way to reduce their risk
perception. While for the women, they tend to use free trial. Further analysis was conducted and found
that only expensive model, shopping and brand loyalty are risk reduction strategies shown significant
differences.
This research concludes that, there are differences in risk perception and risk reduction adopted by men
and women. This information will be valuable especially for the marketers towards the understanding
of men and women behaviour in gift giving.
Limitation and future research
The sample population for current research are only drawn from Klang Valley which is the most
advanced cities in Malaysia. Future research study samples should include other major cities as it may
have different risk perception and risk reduction strategies used by both men and women.
Another limitation of this research, it is only focusing into one occasion of gift giving. Future research
study should include more occasions of gift giving. This is because different gift giving occasion might
184
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
vary the risk or risk reduction strategies used. For example buying a gift for a teacher during Teacher’s
Day the risk and risk reduction used will be somehow different as compared to buying a gift for the
love ones during Valentine’s Day.
References
Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R. and Homer, P. (1991) Personal values and gift giving behaviors: A study
across culture. Journal of Business Research, 22, 149-157.
Belk, R. W. (1976) It’s the thought that counts: A signed diagraph analysis of gift giving. Journal of
Consumer Research, 3, 155-162.
Belk, R. W. &Coon, G. S. (1991) Can’t buy me love: Dating, money and gifts. Advances in Consumer
Research, 18, 521-527.
Belshaw, C.S. (1965) Traditional Exchange in Modern Markets, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bettman, J. R. (1973) Perceived Risk and its components- A model and empirical test. Journal of
Marketing Research, 10, 184-190.
Caplow, T. (1982) Christmas gifts and kin networks. American Sociological Review, 47, 383-392
Chaudhuri, A. (1997) Consumption emotion and perceived risk: A macro analytic approach. Journal of
Business Research, 39, 81-92.
Cheal, D. (1987) Showing them you love them: Gift giving and the dialectic of intimacy. Sociological
Review, 35, 1,151-169.
Clarke, P. (2006) Christmas gift giving involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23, 283-291.
Close, A. & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006) A holiday loved and loathed: A consumer perspective of
Valentine’s Day. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 356-265.
Cowley, E. T., Paterson, J. and Williams, Maynard. (2004) Traditional gift giving among pacific
families in New Zealand. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25, 3, 431-444.
Cunningham, L. F., Gerlach, J. H. and Harper, M. D. (2005) Perceived risk and the consumer buying
process: Internet airline reservations. International Journal of Service Industry Management,
16, 357-372
Cunningham, L. F., Gerlach, J. H., Harper, M. D. & Young, C. E. (2005) Perceived risk and the
consumer buying process: Internet airline reservations. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 16, 4, 357-372.
Durgee, J. F. and Sego, T. (2001) Gift-giving as a metaphor for understanding new products that
delight. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 64-69.
Fischer, E. & Arnold, S. J. (1990) More than a labor of love: gender roles and Christmas gift shopping.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 333-345.
Garbarino, E. & Strahilevitz, M. (2004) Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and
the effects of receiving a site recommendation. Journal of Business Research, 57, 768-775.
Garner, T. I., and Wagner, J. (1991) Economic dimensions of household gift giving. Journal of
consumer Research, 17, 368-379.
Gehrt, K. C., and Shim, S. (2002) Situational influence in the international marketplace: An
examination of Japanese gift giving. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10, 1, 11- 22.
Goodwin, C., Smith, K. L. and Spiggle, S. (1990) Gift giving: consumer motivation and the gift
purchase process. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 690-698.
Gouldner, A. (1960) The norm of reciprocity. American Sociology Review, 25, 4, 161-78.
Huang, W. Y., Schrank, H. & Dubinsky, A. J. (2004) Effect of brand name on consumers’ risk
perception of online shopping. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4, 1, 40-50.
Joy, A. (2001) Gift giving in Hong Kong and the continuum of social ties. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28, 239-256.
Laroche, M., Saad, G., Cleveland, M. & Browne, E. (2000) Gender differences in information search
strategies for a Christmas gift. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17, 6, 500-524.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. & Goutaland, C. (2003) How intangibility affects perceived risk : The
moderating role of knowledge and involvement. Journal of Services Marketing, 17, 2, 122140.
Mauss, M. (1954) The Gift, Cohen and West, London.
McCorkle, D.E. (1990), The role of perceived risk in mail order catalogue shopping. Journal of Direct
Marketing, 4, 26-35.
McGrath, M.A. (1995) Gender differences in gift exchange: New directions and projections.
Psychology & Marketing, 12, 5, 371-393.
Mieres, C. G., Martin, A. M. D. & Gutierrez, J. A. T. (2005) Antecedents of the differences in
perceived risk between store brand and national brand. European Journal of Marketing, 40,
1/2, 61-82.
185
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Mitchell, V. W. & McGoldrick (1996) Consumers’ risk reduction strategies: A review and synthesis.
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research , 6, 1, 1-33.
Mitchell, V. W. & Vassos, V. (1997) Perceived risk and risk reduction in Holiday purchases: A cross
cultural and gender analysis. Journal of Euro-Marketing, 6, 3, 47-79.
Mitchell, V. W. (1999) Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualization and models. European Journal of
Marketing, 33, 1/2, 163-195.
Mortelmans, D. & Sinardet, D. (2004) The role of gender in gift buying in Belgium. Journal of Family
and Consumer Sciences, 96, 2, 34-39.
Othman, M. N., Ong, F. S. and Teng, A. T. M. (2005) Occasions and motivations of gift giving: A
comparative study of Malay and Chinese consumers in urban Malaysia. Asia Pacific
Management Review, 10, 197-204
Otnes, C. & McGrath, M. A., (1994) Ritual socialization and the children birthday party: The early
emergence of gender differences. Journal of Ritual Studies, 8, 73-93.
Otnes, C., Ruth, J. A. & Milbourne, C. C. (1994) The pleasure and pain being close: Men’s mixed
feelings about participation in Valentine’s Day gift exchange. Advances in Consumer
Research, 21, 159-164.
Park, S-Y. (1998) A comparison of Korean and American gift giving behaviors. Psychology &
Marketing, 15, 6, 577-593.
Parsons, A. G. (2002) Brand choice in gift giving: recipient influence. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 11, 237-248.
Peter, J. P. & Tarpey, L. X. (1975) A comparative analysis of three consumer decision strategies.
Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 29-37.
Poel, D. V. D. & Leunis, J. (1996) Perceived risk and risk reduction strategies in mail order versus
retail store buying. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research,
6, 10, 351-371.
Roselius, E. (1971) Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Maketing, 35, 56-61
Rucker, M, Leckliter, L., Kivel, S., Dinkel, M., Freitas, T., Wynes, M., & Prato, H. (1991) When the
thoughts count: Friendship, love, gift exchanges and gift returns. Advances in Consumer
Research, 18, 528-531.
Rugimbana, R., Donahay, B. and Polonsky, M. J. (2002) The role of social power relations in gift
giving on Valentine’s Day. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3, 1, 63-73.
Sherry, J. F. (1983) Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10,
157-168.
Spence, H. E., Engel, J. F. & Blackwell, R. D. (1970) Perceived risk in mail order and retail store
buying. Journal of Market Research, 7, 364-369.
Stone, R. N. and Gronhaug, K. (1993) Perceived risk: Further considerations for the marketing
discipline. European Journal of Marketing, 27, 39-50.
Wagner, J and Garner, T. (1993) Extrahousehold giving in popular gift categories: A socioeconomic
and demographic analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, 20,515-519.
Wang, Q., Razzaque, M. A. and Kau, A. K. (2007) Chinese cultural values and gift giving behaviour.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24, 214-228.
Webster, C. and Nottingham, L. (2000) Gender differences in the motivations for gift giving. American
Marketing Association, Conference Proceedings, 11, 272-278.
Wolfinbarger, M. F. and Yale, L. J. (1993) Three motivations for interpersonal gift giving: Experential,
obligated and practical. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 520-526.
Wooten, D. B. (2000) Qualitative steps towards an expanded model of anxiety in gift-giving. Journal
of Consumer Research, 27, 1, 84-95.
186