1
Ask and You Shall (Not) Receive:
Close Friends Prioritize Relational Signaling Over Recipient Preferences in Their Gift Choices
MORGAN K. WARD
SUSAN M. BRONIARCZYK*
Working Paper
October 2013
Morgan K. Ward is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Cox School of Business, Southern
Methodist University, 6212 Bishop Blvd. Dallas, Texas 75275, ([email protected]). Susan
M. Broniarczyk is the Sam Barshop Centennial Professor of Marketing at the McCombs School
of Business at The University of Texas at Austin, 2110 Speedway Stop B6700, Austin, TX,
78712-1275, ([email protected]).
2
Abstract
Gift givers balance their goal to please recipients with a preference matching gift against
their goal to signal relational closeness with a gift that indicates the giver’s knowledge of the
recipient. Five studies in a gift registry context show that when choosing for a close (vs. distant)
recipient, givers experience more goal conflict and consequently are more likely to distort their
perceptions of the gift options, reject the recipients’ explicit preferences (i.e. a registry gift) and
satisfy their relationally signaling gifting goal. Moreover, we show that close givers’ divergence
from the registry is a strategic relational signal rather than the consequence of conflation of their
preferences with those of the recipient or an attempt to choose a better gift.
3
Imagine your birthday is approaching and a friend asks you what you want as a birthday
gift. You consider for a moment, then tell your friend exactly what you want. When your
birthday arrives, does your friend present you with the gift you suggested or an alternative item
that s/he has chosen especially for you? This familiar scenario brings to light the persistent
tension in communal relationships between an individual’s desire to satisfy his/her relationship
partner’s expressed needs versus to signal the relationship between the giver and him/herself
(Batson 1987; Clark and Mills 1979, 1993; Hoffman 1975). In the context of gift gifting, givers
may select gifts that match the recipient’s expressed preferences, or conversely, choose an item
that allows him/her to demonstrate his/her knowledge of the recipient, thereby signaling the
relationship.
We will examine the explicit goal tradeoffs that gift givers make in the context of gift
registries, a retail mechanism used by more than two thirds of the population to select gifts
(Mintel 2013). Gift registries have received surprisingly little attention in consumer research
despite generating more than $5 BN annually for retailers in the U.S. (Mintel 2010). Registries
have become increasingly popular as recipients attempt to deal with givers’ mis-prediction of
their preferences and resulting receipt of undesirable gifts (Gino and Flynn 2011).
We will show that the social closeness between the gift giver and recipient affects how
givers resolve their gift conflict. Close givers are especially invested in their friends’ happiness
and as such, are particularly motivated to satisfy their friends by selecting a gift that pleases the
recipient. However, close givers experience the conflict about what gift to choose more acutely
than distant friends, as they are also strongly motivated to signal the intimacy of the relationship
with their chosen gift. We find that despite their stated primary intention to please their intended
4
recipients, close (vs. distant) givers ultimately are more likely to ignore recipients’ explicit gift
preferences on the registry and instead strike out on their own to freely choose a gift.
Furthermore, we demonstrate that the rejection of the gift registry is due to close givers
resolving their goal conflict by engaging in motivated reasoning, whereby they distort their
perceptions (Balcetis and Dunning 2006; Dunning 2001; Kunda 1990) of the gift options. Such
distortion results in givers perceiving gifts that send the recipient a relational signal, as a better
match to recipients’ preferences than the items they select for themselves and add to the registry.
Importantly, we reveal that close givers’ divergence from the registry is not the result of their
altruistic search for a ‘better’ gift, but is strategic and occurs only when they receive attribution
for the gift and can therefore receive credit for relational signal. In contrast, we find that distant
friends who feel less conflict and spend less time choosing, are more likely to choose on registry,
thereby ironically selecting gifts that match the recipient’s preferences.
Givers Strive to Meet Primary Goal Using Gift Registry Context
We examine these tradeoffs in the context of gift registries as they are an important retail
setting in which givers are forced to make the tradeoff between their two central gifting goals to:
1) present the recipient with a gift that matches his/her preferences, and 2) select an item that
signals the relationship between the giver and recipient.
In order to confirm the relative importance of the different gift objectives for close and
distant givers, we conducted a pretest in which participants rated their gifting goals. We
conducted a between-subjects online survey with 119 respondents (average age of 33 years) in
which participants rated a comprehensive set of gift goals on their importance (1 = very
unimportant/ 7 = very important) in the context of a gift choice for either a close or distant
friend. Interestingly, both close and distant participants indicated that their top goal was to
5
“choose something that the recipient would like” (MClose Friend = 6.66 and M Distant Friend = 5.83) and
their second goal was to “choose something that acknowledges or expresses the relationship you
have” (MClose Friend = 5.85 and M Distant Friend = 4.91). Further, both close and distant friends agreed
that choosing a gift that matched recipient’s preference was significantly more important than
their secondary goal of relationally signaling (MClose Friend = 4.16, p < .0001 and MDistant Friend
=3.81, p < .0003) as well as the other goals they rated (M Recipient Liking =6.24 vs. M Other Goals =
4.27, t=16.73; p < .0001). Notably, though, close friends reported these two top gifting goals
were more important than distant friends (M Close Friend Top Two Goals = 6.25 vs. M Distant Friend Top Two
Goals
= 5.37, F=21.67; p < .0001). Furthermore, close friends’ second goal of relationship
signaling was equal in importance to distant friends’ top goal of matching recipient preferences
(M Close Friend 2nd Goal to Relational Signal = 5.85 vs. M Distant Friend 1st goal to Match Preferences = 5.83, F=.32; p
>.20.) indicating that close friends are more strongly motivated to signal the relationship and
consequently likely to experience significantly more conflict when choosing a gift than distant
friends.
Insert table 1 about here
Given that givers endorse their goal of giving a gift that the recipient likes as being most
important to them, gift registries are a useful gifting mechanism to study this phenomenon as
they enable givers to choose a gift that exactly matches the recipient’s explicit preferences.
Furthermore, from the recipients’ perspective, both close and distant friends should take
advantage of registries in order to select the most appreciated gift 1.
1
In pilot study of 42 respondents who had recently created a gift registry, participants were asked to indicate the
different gift givers they hoped would purchase from the registries they had created. Participants indicated that their
registries were intended as much for close friends (78%) and family members (87%) as for distant friends,
acquaintances, and colleagues (87%).
6
However, a registry also restricts the giver from expressing relational sentiments by
designating the gift s/he should choose rather than allowing him/her to freely choose a gift.
Accepting explicit suggestions for gift purchases from the intended recipient could be interpreted
as a sign that the giver does not know the recipient well enough to identify a meaningful gift, or
does not wish to spend the time and effort needed to figure out what such a gift might look like
(Belk 1996; Camerer 1988). Thus, selecting an item designated on a gift registry may inhibit the
giver’s goal to relationally signal. Consequently, the way in which a giver prioritizes his/her two
gift motives is likely to determine whether or not s/he purchases from the registry or rejects it in
favor of a freely chosen gift.
Gino and Flynn (2011) were the first to examine givers’ inclination to diverge from gift
registries. The authors showed that givers are mis-calibrated as to what gifts recipients find most
appealing: recipients perceived registry gifts as most thoughtful whereas givers perceived
registry and non-registry gifts as equally thoughtful. Consequently, givers who diverged from the
registry tended to select items that their intended recipients appreciated less. The fact that givers
did not perceive a difference between how recipients would perceive registry and non-registry
gifts is surprising and the authors call for future research that considers how givers’ ‘familiarity’
with their intended recipients might impact their decisions to choose or diverge from the registry.
We answer this call for research by examining how close versus distant givers differentially
manage their opposing gifting motivations. Contrary to Gino and Flynn, our findings reveal that
when the variable of social closeness between the giver and recipient is taken into consideration,
there is a notable difference in how close givers anticipate non-registry gifts will be perceived by
recipients. Indeed, we show that close givers distort their own perceptions of the gift options and
project that relationally signaling gifts will in fact, be most liked by recipients.
7
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Gift Giving and Social Closeness
The gift giving literature supports the notion that givers’ primary motive is to choose an
item that is well liked by the recipient (Sherry 1983; Steffel and LeBoeuf forthcoming). And, in
an effort to find a gift reflective of the recipient’s needs and desires, givers strive to think only of
pleasing the recipient and often sacrifice their own needs to accomplish this goal when making a
selection (Belk 1996; Belk and Coon 1993). Otnes et al. (1993) documented the often timeconsuming and arduous strategies that givers employ to find gifts that ‘please’ or match
recipients’ preferences. Although directly asking recipients what they would like is frowned
upon, givers often bait gift recipients into expressing their gift preferences and observe their
daily activities to look for what products they want. Givers also report traveling great distances,
performing extended searches (Joy 2001; Otnes et al. 1993, Steffel and LeBoeuf, forthcoming)
investing time and effort (Belk 1976; Sherry 1983), employing complex selection strategies and
making large monetary expenditures (Caplow 1982; Flynn and Adams 2009) all in an effort to
find the “perfect gift” (Belk 1996). Ward and Broniarczyk (2011) showed that in an effort to
please the recipient, close givers may even select gifts that are odds with their own internal
motivations or values, often resulting in an identity threat for the giver. Thus, it is not surprising
that close givers feel stressed when selecting gifts as they are faced with making choices that
require a large investment of resources and may be personally uncomfortable (Otnes et al 1993).
Furthermore, there are substantial interpersonal repercussions of offering gifts that are
incompatible with recipients’ preferences or that are deemed insensitive by recipients, such as
potentially undermining close relationships (Sherry et al 1993).
8
Yet, despite the inherent risks of choosing a disliked gift, prior research also shows that
close givers are oftentimes more motivated to choose items that properly signal the closeness of
the relationship between givers and recipients (Belk 1979; Belk and Coon 1993; Sherry 1983;
Wolfinbager 1990) than one that matches recipients’ expressed preferences. In many cases, close
givers strive to select an object that reminds the recipient of their past shared experiences (Baxter
1987) and demonstrates that they can “infer the fondest desires of the recipient without needing
to be told” (Belk 1996; Camerer 1988; Prendergast and Stole 2001). Prior work in gifting has
discussed this motive as driving givers to select items that demonstrate the depth of knowledge
that giver has about the recipient (Belk 1979; Belk and Coon 1993; Prendergast and Stole 2001;
Sherry 1983; Wolfinbager 1990), teaches the recipient something (Otnes et al.1993) or reminds
the recipient of the giver (Weitman 1998). For instance, although giving cash could be viewed as
a highly altruistic gift enabling the recipient to purchase whatever s/he desires, close gift givers
tend to reject giving monetary gifts as it does not express relational sentiments to the recipient
(Prendergast and Stole 2001).
In contrast, distant friends tend to have limited knowledge of recipients’ preferences,
making it difficult for them to identify a gift that fits the recipients’ needs and desires. Further,
the greater the emotional distance between the giver and recipient, the less present are feelings of
personal investment, sympathy, or involvement (Komter and Vollerberg 1997). Indeed, while
prior research in social psychology contends that close friends are perceived as part of self,
distant friends are seen as separate and distinct from oneself (Aron and Aron 1986; Aron et al
1991) and consequently distant givers tend to have less emotional engagement in their gift
decisions. For instance, Belk (1982) underscores the disparity in the importance of the signal that
gifts carry on close versus distant relationships when he contrasts the selection of a first
9
anniversary gift for a spouse with the selection of an obligatory graduation present for a distant
relative. While the former may be a defining event in the relationship, the latter carries much less
relational significance for both parties.
Given that in the context of a distant relationship, individuals seek positive social
exchanges, and avoid uncomfortable interactions, distant friends are unlikely to risk selecting
potentially disliked gifts and instead are predicted to defer to decisions aids such as gift
registries. Conversely, although close givers endorse wanting to please the recipient with their
chosen gift, they are likely to face an internal conflict when faced with a tradeoff between giving
something that is certain to be well-liked at the cost of signaling relational intimacy to the
recipient. Consequently, we predict that despite their explicit goal to choose the most liked gift,
this internal conflict will increase close friends’ likelihood to defer from the registry and select
their own freely chosen gift.
Close Givers Resolve their Gifting Conflict
The literature on goal conflict provides two potential strategies for close givers who are
experiencing goal conflict: prolong search and motivated reasoning. One strategy close givers
may employ when faced with goal conflict is to prolong their search (Luce et al. 1997; Shafir and
Tversky1992). Specifically, close givers may feel reluctant to make a gift choice and tradeoff
their important goals and consequently, prolong the search in an effort to find just the right gift
or signal the effort that went into the gift selection. The decision to defer or prolong search in the
face of conflict is consistent with the goal conflict literature which contends that when
individuals encounter a decision between two desirable choices, they are likely to defer making a
selection rather than experience the pain of rejecting an appealing option (Anderson 2003).
10
However, ultimately givers will need to make a gift choice. If the gift set does not
resolve their gifting goal conflict, givers may engage in a second strategy of motivated reasoning
and perception. Prior research has shown that under circumstances in which individuals must
make a decision, but are conflicted about the available choices, they may change their
perspective on, or distort their perceptions of the options in order to resolve their internal discord
(Balcetis and Dunning 2006; Kunda 1990; Schrift et al. 2011).
Notably, distortion occurs only in the context of choice (versus during alternative
evaluation) indicating that it is a strategy individuals use when they are facing a difficult tradeoff
and are seeking a clear dominant choice, rather than when they are simply observing or assessing
differences between choices. Balcetis and Dunning (2006) convincingly demonstrate this process
by showing that people are likely to interpret a perceived ambiguous figure in the direction of
their goals. Furthermore, Zhang, Huang and Broniarczyk (2010) show that one’s cognitions and
judgments are heavily influenced by his/her motivational state, and thus when one’s goals are in
opposition with one another, s/he may be motivated to alter his/her assessment of the options as a
method of resolving the conflict. This influence was also demonstrated by Schrift and colleagues
(2011) in studies showing that when individuals made a difficult choice between several doctors
that possessed different desirable qualities (e.g. office hours, waiting time, home visits), they
distorted the attributes’ importance in favor of their tentatively preferred doctor.
In the context of giving, we predict that close givers, who experience more conflict when
making a gift choice, will be most prone to distorting gift choices in favor of a gift that satisfies
their own gifting goals. Specifically, we suggest that close givers are likely to distort their
perceptions of the desirability of a relationally signaling gift to the recipient in an effort to justify
choosing a non-registry gift.
11
Furthermore, we deconstruct the processes underlying close givers’ choice to reject the
registry in favor of a freely chosen gift to isolate the mechanism as relational signaling. In doing
so, we rule out the alternative explanation that givers conflate their own preferences with those
of the recipient (Gershoff and Johar 2006; Lerouge and Warlop 2006) or are mis-calibrated on
what their intended recipients’ would, in fact, like (Gino and Flynn 2011). Further, we rule out
that close givers are altruistically aiming to select the ‘perfect gift’ by manipulating gift
attribution. If gifting is truly altruistic, gift attribution should not influence the decision.
However, when given anonymously, the gift will not reliably function as a relational signal and
thus we expect close givers will be less likely to experience gifting goal conflict and
consequently less likely to diverge from the registry. This line of reasoning is supported by
research on giving anonymously which finds that, even when the givers have a relationship with
the recipients, they are less concerned with social signaling and as such, give less generous gifts
(Hoffman et al 1994; Burnham 2003).
Hypotheses and Study Overview
In summary, our central thesis is that both close and distant givers must manage their two
central goals, to choose a gift that matches the recipient’s preferences versus one that signals the
relationship. In the context of gift registry we will show that as the closeness between givers and
recipients increases, the likelihood of favoring relational signaling over matching the recipient’s
preferences will increase. Accordingly, we predict that when choosing for a close (vs. distant)
recipient, givers who receive attribution for the gifts they choose will experience more goal
conflict and consequently be more likely to distort their perceptions of the gift options, reject the
recipient’s explicit preferences (i.e. the gift denoted on registry) and instead satisfy his/her
gifting goal and freely choose a gift. Moreover, we will show that such divergence from the
12
registry is a strategic relational signal rather than the consequence of the close giver conflating
his/her preferences with those of the recipient or an effort to choose a better gift.
Five studies examine these hypotheses. In our first study, using giver-recipient dyads, we
find that close (vs. distant) friends are less likely to choose recipients’ explicitly preferred item,
resulting in less satisfactory gifts. In Study 2A we examine why givers make these misguided
gift choices and find that close (vs. distant) friends diverge from the registry in order to
relationally signal rather than because they conflate their own preferences with those of the
recipient. Next, in Study 2B, we add an additional product category to the gift registry and
observe that rather than increasing close friends’ propensity to choose from the registry, it
increases their likelihood of choosing a relationally signaling, non-registry gift. In our final
studies will look specifically at giving in the context of close friendships. In Study 3, we examine
the mental processes that lead close givers to diverge from the gift registry and find that close
friends engage in motivated reasoning in order to manage their conflicting goals. Finally, in
Study 4 we manipulate whether givers receive gift attribution from recipients and find that close
givers choose a non-registry gift because it enables them to signal relational sentiments rather
than because they are making a genuine attempt to better match the recipient’s preferences.
STUDY 1
In our first study we examine givers’ two opposing goals of choosing a gift that matches
the recipient’s expressed preferences versus making a non-registry gift that allows the giver to
relationally signal. Ironically, while it may appear that choosing a non-registry gift reflects the
giver’s selfless desire to purchase an item that is a better match with the recipient’s preferences
13
than the item s/he chose for herself, it is doubtful that the giver would have better access to the
recipient’s preferences or more insight into what the recipient might like than s/he has about
him/herself. Thus, from the perspective of the giver, freely choosing a non-registry gift is a risky
gift strategy, as it adds variance in the likelihood that the gift will be liked by the recipient. On
one hand, it is possible that the giver will diverge to a gift that the recipient wanted but did not
ask for, did not know existed, or did not realize would be so appealing to him/her. In these cases,
the recipient may like the gift more than the items s/he designated on the registry. However,
given the almost infinite items to choose from, the more likely outcome of divergence from the
registry is that the giver will miss the mark and choose a gift that is less appealing to the
recipient than the ones s/he specifically requested (Gino and Flynn 2011).
Using giver-recipient dyads, we simulate a realistic registry choice in which recipients
create their own individual registries, which reveal their true preferences to the giver. After the
giver makes his/her gift choice, we investigate recipients’ assessments of the gift choices they
receive from their friends. Despite their expressed concern about matching recipients’
preferences, we predict that close (vs. distant) givers are more likely to reject the preference
matching gift, thus ignoring their friend’s explicit preferences in favor of making a freely chosen
gift to relationally signal; the consequence we predict is that close (vs. distant) givers will be
more likely to choose gifts that are less satisfactory to recipients.
Design and Procedure
Eighty-eight undergraduate students from six different campus-based student groups
participated in this experiment in return for a donation to their group. In this 2 (social closeness:
close vs. distant friend) x 2 (participant role: giver vs. recipient) experimental design we
14
designated half the participants as gift givers and the other half as gift recipients. One week prior
to conducting the experiment, we asked each recipient to identify his or her three closest friends
in the group. We used this information to manipulate social closeness by matching half the
recipients with givers who were among their three closest friends and the other half with givers
who were not among the recipients’ three closest friends. Thus, relationship closeness between
giver and recipient varied based on the recipient’s assessment of their relationship.
The experimental scenario instructed all of the recipients to imagine that they were
creating a gift registry which would include three product categories for their upcoming birthday
party. They then were presented with five products from three different product categories
(clocks, lamps and frames) and told to rate each product in the category on a 1 – 10 Likert scale
(1 = strongly dislike/ 10 = strongly like). Recipients then were instructed to circle their most
preferred product in each category, which would be added to their registry.
After a 24-hour time period, the givers were sent an email and told to imagine that they
were shopping for the birthday party of the recipient with whom s/he had been matched. Each
giver was informed that the recipient had created a gift registry for him/herself and received
information only about the lamp category. (See appendix A). Givers were told the name of the
lamp that the recipient had registered for and instructed to go to an online shopping page which
displayed five lamp choices, one of which was indicated to be the lamp registered for by the
recipient. The givers chose one of the lamps as a gift for the recipient and filled out an
assessment of their social closeness to the recipient on a (1 = very distant/ 10 = very close) Likert
scale.
Finally, we contacted the recipients and alerted them as to which item the giver chose for
their hypothetical birthday party. We asked them to imagine actually receiving the gift and to
15
assess their satisfaction with the gift on a 1 – 7 Likert scale (1 = not at all/ 7 = very much), as
well as assess social closeness to the giver on the same scale as above.
Results:
Confirming our manipulations, we found that those in the close friend condition indicated
having a closer relationship than those in the distant friend condition by both givers (M Close friend
= 6.8 vs. M Distant friend =4.2, F (1, 41) = 3.3, p < .002) and recipients (M Close friend = 7.0 vs. M Distant
friend
=5.2, F (1, 45) = 2.21, p < .03). The results show that givers choosing for a close (vs.
distant) recipient were more likely to diverge from recipients’ explicit preferences and instead
opt for a freely chosen lamp. Supporting our prediction, a logistic regression reveals a main
effect of social closeness on givers’ likelihood to choose one of the non-registry lamps (χ2 = 5.9,
p < .01) such that 61% of close friends versus 23% of the distant friends chose a non-registry
gift.
Next we examine recipients’ satisfaction with the gifts they received. The results reveal a
main effect of gift choice on satisfaction such that recipients indicate that they are more satisfied
by gifts chosen from the registry (vs. non-registry gifts) (M Registry choice = 8.4 vs. M Non-registry=6.6,
F (1, 45) = 3.3, p < .002. Notably, this main effect is qualified by a marginal interaction of social
closeness (F(1, 45) = 1.85, p < .07) indicating that those in the close friend condition were less
satisfied by a non-registry gift than those in the distant friend condition. Specifically, recipients
are significantly happier with their close friends’ gifts when the giver chose the registry item (M
= 9.25) than when s/he selected a non-registry gift (M = 6.36, F (1, 45) = 12.8, p < .001),
whereas recipients were equally satisfied with distant friends’ gifts when they came from the
registry (M = 7.93) as when they chose a non-registry item (M= 7.20, F (1, 45) = .29, p < .59).
16
These results support our contention that when close friends diverge from the registry, they are
more likely to purchase a gift that is the less preferred by the recipient.
Insert figures 1A and 1B about here
Discussion
This study provides evidence that givers in close relationships with their intended
recipients are more likely to reject choosing from the registry (which denotes the recipients’
explicit preferences), in favor of selecting a freely chosen gift and fulfilling their relational
signaling goals. This finding contributes to our understanding of givers’ priorities when making a
gift selection by showing that close givers often ignore recipients’ explicit preferences leading to
less liked gift choices. While givers choosing for a close friend may feel that by rejecting the
registry gift and making their own choice they are expressing the intimacy they feel with the
recipient, we find evidence that these gift choices are not looked upon positively by recipients.
While Study 1 offers compelling support for our predictions that givers are motivated by
different goals when choosing for close (vs. distant) friends, it remains unclear what drives
givers to diverge from the registry. Our hypothesis is that close friends diverge because they are
more motivated to signal the relationship by displaying their knowledge of the recipient’s tastes
than to choose something the recipient would be assured of liking. Conversely, distant friends
simply strive to match the preferences of the recipient so they can be assured the gift will please
the recipient thus securing the relationship. Despite the explicit preference information provided,
an alternative explanation is that givers conflate their own preferences with the recipient’s tastes
and choose accordingly (Aron et al. 1991; Davis, Hoch and Ragsdale 1986; Gershoff and Johar
2006; Lerouge and Warlop 2006). For instance, spouses choosing items for one another have
been shown to use their own tastes as a proxy for those of their spouse, even when provided
17
explicit information indicating that their spouses’ preferences differ from their own (Lerouge and
Warlop 2006). Study 2A seeks to provide more direct evidence of relational signaling and rule
out conflation as the mechanism underlying registry divergence by close givers.
STUDY 2A
In Study 2A we manipulated the social distance between the givers and recipients using
a prime, and specifically designed the gift choice stimuli so that each gift choice corresponds to
one of the giver’s gifting motivations. This design allows us to observe how social closeness
between the giver and recipient influences which gift giving goal givers pursue.
Design and Procedure
One hundred and fifty-three participants took part in a single factor design experiment in
which we varied the social closeness between the giver and recipient (close vs. distant) and
examined how the social closeness between givers and recipients guides givers’ choice
strategies. First, we primed the social closeness of the relationship between the giver and
recipient using a word search task in which givers looked for words that related to close friends
(e.g. companion, dearest, intimate) or distant friends (e.g. stranger, associate, unknown).
After completing the word search, participants moved on to an ostensibly unrelated study
in which they read a scenario directing them to choose a gift for a friend who was having a
housewarming party. Givers also were told several pieces of personal and preference information
(e.g. extracurricular activities, interests, aesthetic tastes). Embedded in this personal information,
participants were told that the recipient went through “a long search for the apartment and was
happy s/he found a historic apartment with lots of classic details that fit her/his tastes.” Thus, the
information in the scenario implies that the recipient has classic tastes. Participants then were
18
told to imagine going to shop for a gift for this individual at a local store where the recipient had
created a gift registry.
Dependent Measure
Participants were faced with a gift choice between three lamps (see appendix B), each of
which represented a different aesthetic style: modern, classic and a registry lamp. This choice set
was designed to disentangle the motivations of the giver. Specifically, the registry lamp was
moderately liked by the participants (i.e. the givers) but did not match the recipient’s implied
preference for classically designed products. Choosing this gift allowed the giver to select a gift
that she could be assured the recipient would like the item, but would not allow him/her to signal
the close relationship by showing his/her knowledge of the recipient’s tastes. The classic lamp
was the least liked by gift givers, but matched the recipient’s implied “classic” tastes, enabling
the giver to signal social closeness with this gift choice. In order to test whether givers diverge
from the registry because they conflate their own preferences with those of the recipient, we also
included a modern lamp which, according to pre-tests, was most preferred by gift givers, but
clearly at odds with the recipient’s taste for classic design.
Pretest of Lamp Stimuli
A pretest of 49 participants confirmed that the modern lamp was more preferred by givers
(M=5.20) than the registry lamp (M=3.50), (M Modern Lamp vs. M Registry Lamp t(49) = 4.25, p <
.0001), which was significantly more preferred than the classic lamp (M=2.82), (M Registry Lamp vs.
M Classic Lamp , t(49) = 3.67, p < .0006). Preference ratings were not moderated by gender. The
lamp match to recipients’ classic tastes exhibited the opposite pattern, with the classic lamp
(M=4.80) perceived by givers as being a significantly better match to the recipient’s tastes than
19
the registry lamp (M= 3.70), (M Classic Lamp vs. M Registry Lamp, t(49) = 5.87, p < .0001), which was
judged as a significantly better match than the modern lamp (M=2.00) (M Registry Lamp vs. M Modern
Lamp,
t(49) = -8.17, p < .0001). Thus, the registry lamp was moderately liked by the givers and a
moderate match to recipients’ tastes, whereas the classic lamp was a strong match with
recipients’ tastes but disliked by the givers, and the modern lamp, which was a poor match to
recipient tastes, was most liked by givers.
Results
First we confirmed our prime was successful by comparing participants’ perceived social
closeness to the recipient on 1 – 7 Likert scales (1 = very distant / 7 = very close) in each of the
prime conditions. Participants exposed to the distant prime indicated that their social closeness to
the recipient was significantly lower (M = 5.0) than those in the close prime condition (M =5.7,
F (1, 152) = 5.49, p < .02).
We used a logistic regression to test our hypothesis that givers differ in their propensity
to choose from the registry when selecting a gift for a close (vs. distant) friend. We found the
predicted interaction between givers’ lamp choices and the social closeness between giver and
recipient to be significant X² (2, N = 153) = 29.66, p > .0001). Supporting our hypothesis, close
friends (36%) are less likely to choose the registry item than distant friends (61%), X² (2, N =
153) = 20.55, p > .0001).
2
Next, we ran separate analyses for each social closeness condition using the spotlight
technique to assess the differential giving motivations of close vs. distant friends. In the close
2
Further, to investigate our relational signaling prediction, we also created a contrast code that pit the registry lamp
against the classic lamp and found an interaction between social closeness and giver gift motivation (social
closeness x registry lamp vs. classic lamp) on gift choice X²(1, N =153) = 20.55, p < .0001) with close friends being
more likely to reject the registry in favor of the classic lamp (48%) than distant friends (9%).
20
friend condition we find givers equally likely to choose the classic lamp (48%) as the registry
lamp (36%), X²(1, N = 153) = 1.23, p = .27), and few opted for their own preferred gift of the
modern lamp (14%), X²(1, N = 153) = 6.90, p = .009). That is, close givers were equally inclined
to make a gift choice of the classic lamp, which indicates their knowledge of the recipient’s
tastes, as to choose the registry gift, which was explicitly chosen by the recipient. Few close
givers exhibited preference conflation for the modern lamp.
In contrast, in the distant-friend condition, the predominant gift choice was the registry
lamp (61%), with givers exhibiting significantly greater likelihood of choosing this lamp than
diverging to the classic lamp (9%), X²(1, N = 153) = 21.53, p < .0001) or the modern lamp
(32%), X²(1, N = 153) = 6.3, p < .01). Corroborating Study 1 results, the majority of distant
givers chose the registry lamp. When distant givers did diverge, they were more likely to use
their own preferences for the modern lamp (32%) than choose the classic lamp (9%),
X²(1, N =153) = 6.68, p < .0001). This data leads us to believe that those in the distant friend
condition are less motivated to choose a relationally signaling lamp that reveals their knowledge
of the recipient.
Insert figure 2 about here
Discussion
Corroborating our first study, we again find that close (vs. distant) givers are more likely
to diverge from the registry and, in pursuit of their relational goals, to choose a free-choice gift.
In fact, close friends are equally likely to choose a relationally signaling gift as a registry gift.
Further, the data indicates that when close givers choose non-registry gifts, they do not conflate
their own preferences with recipients’, but rather choose a gift that they infer to be aligned with
recipients’ preferences. On the other hand, distant friends are shown to be strongly motivated to
21
choose a gift from the registry, but when they do diverge, rely on their own preferences to guide
them.
These findings that close (vs. distant) givers are more likely to defer from the registry and
choose a relationally signaling gift rather than one that matches recipients’ expressed preferences
underscore how sensitive givers are to the fact that recipients appreciate a gift both for its
objective match to their preferences as well as its value as a signal. However, the data suggest
that givers choosing for a close friend may feel that the relational signal embedded in the gift is
at least as important to the success of the gift as the assurance of the match between the gift and
the recipient’s preferences.
Although their choice to defer from the registry suggests that close givers are less
concerned with recipients’ preferences than are distant givers, we contend that in fact, close
givers are more conflicted when they make this choice. We find empirical evidence to support
this contention in a separate study in which 75 participants were directed to the same procedure
described in Study 2A. After completing their gift choice, participants were asked to envision
choosing between the registry and classic lamps and rate how conflicted, how difficult and how
hard it was to choose on 1 – 7 Likert scales (1 = not at all / 7 = very much). The three measures
were combined to form a decision-conflict index (Cronbach’s alpha= .90). The data confirmed
that close givers felt significantly higher decision conflict than distant givers in deciding between
these two gift options (MClose Givers= 4.03 vs. MDistant Givers= 2.93, t(75) = 6.38, p < .01).
In the next study, we will examine the nature of this conflict. Specifically, in Study 2B,
we will investigate close (vs. distant) givers’ propensity to persist in searching to resolve the goal
conflict and whether having an additional registry item diminishes or exacerbates close givers’
likelihood of choosing a relationally signaling gift.
22
STUDY 2B
In Study 2B we expand the experimental design described in Study 2A and allow gift
givers to consider gift options from two product categories (i.e. lamps and clocks), each of which
included a registry item. Prior research has shown that when consumers face a goal conflict, they
are likely to prolong their search in hopes of finding a better alternative (Luce et al. 1997; Shafir
and Tversky 1992). Thus, this design allows us to observe whether close (vs. distant) givers
experience more conflict when considering the first registry gift and continue their search for
something else. One might predict that adding an additional registry item will increase givers’
likelihood to choose from the registry, as they have two registry options and, thus, additional
information about the recipient’s expressed preferences, as well as a greater opportunity to
satisfy both gifting goals with a single item. On the other hand, the addition of a second registry
item which does not allow them to choose a gift that signals the relationship and may in fact,
strengthen close givers’ resolve to diverge from the registry to a freely chosen, non-registry gift
that will enable them to relationally signal.
Design and Procedure
One hundred fifty-six participants participated in a single-factor design experiment in
which we varied the social closeness between the giver and recipient (close vs. distant friend)
and examined how social closeness guides givers’ choice strategies. First, we asked givers to
think of a close (vs. distant) friend and record his/her initials. After thinking of a friend,
participants read a scenario identical to the one described in Studies 2A wherein they are asked
to imagine purchasing a gift for friend who has classic tastes and had created a gift registry.
23
Dependent Measure
Participants were faced with the identical choice set of three lamps from Study 2A. After
looking at the three lamps, participants were asked if they would like to choose one of the lamps
as a gift for the recipient or continue looking at an additional product category which includes
another item that the recipient had put on his/her registry. This question was intended to gauge
the conflict that participants experienced as they attempted to make the choice between the gift
they were certain would satisfy the giver (the registry lamp) and the gift that enables relationship
signaling (the classic lamp). We expected close (vs. distant) friends to feel more conflicted by
the gift alternatives available and be more likely to persist in looking at additional gift options
that they hope will satisfy both of their objectives.
Givers who decided to choose from the existing options then selected the lamp of their
choice as a gift for the recipient. Those who elected to persist in their search were taken to a
second screen of gift choices, which included all of the lamps from the prior choice as well as
three additional items in a new product category (clocks), one of which was designated to be on
the gift registry (see Appendix C). Thus, givers had six choices, two of which were designated as
registry choices. We purposely matched the styles of the two registry gifts such that the clock
registry gift mimicked the style of the first registry gift (lamp) in style and its match to both
giver’s and recipient’s preferences, so that givers would receive an unambiguous message that
the recipient had an explicit preference for simple, conventional home accessories.
Clock Pretest:
The three clocks included as the second gift choice were pretested with 40 participants to
confirm that they mimicked the lamps in terms of how each satisfied the givers’ gifting goals.
24
Specifically, the pretest confirmed that the modern clock was marginally more preferred
(M=5.31) by givers than the registry clock (M=4.54, F( 3.44), p < .06), which was significantly
more preferred to the classic clock (M=3.79, F (1, 39) = 17.60, p < .0001). The clock match to
recipients’ classic tastes exhibited the opposite pattern with the classic clock (M=5.77) perceived
by givers as a significantly better match to the recipient’s tastes than the registry clock (M= 3.64,
F (1, 39) = 38.16, p < .0001), which was judged a significantly better match than the modern
clock (M=2.38, F(1, 39) = 35.09, p < .0001). Thus, the registry clock was moderately liked by
the giver and a moderate match to recipient’s tastes, whereas the classic clock was a strong
match with recipients’ tastes but disliked by the giver, and the modern clock, which was a poor
match to recipient tastes, was most liked by givers. Preference ratings were not moderated by
gender and there was no significant difference in participants’ perception of how expensive each
clock was.
Results
First we confirmed our social closeness manipulation was successful utilizing the same
three-item measure as Study 3. The average of these three social closeness measures (Cronbach’s
Alpha =.88) confirmed that participants who were asked to think of a close friend indicated their
social closeness to the recipient was significantly higher (M = 6.37) than those who imagined a
distant friend (M =4.36, F (1, 155) = 125.84, p < .0001).
Next, we analyzed the individuals’ gift choices and found the predicted interaction
between givers’ choices strategies and the social closeness between giver and recipient to be
significant, X² (5, N = 156) = 44.37, p > .0001) indicating that social closeness between giver and
recipient influences givers’ choice strategies. Next, to test our prediction that givers differ in
their level of conflict when choosing from a gift registry, we employed a logistic regression to
25
measure their propensity to choose from the initial lamp gift registry versus looking at additional
clock items when selecting a gift for a close (vs. distant) friend. Confirming our prediction, 84%
of close friends opted to look at additional gift options, whereas only 63% of distant friends
chose to do so, X² (1, N = 156) = 8.16, p > .0043) suggesting that close friends are more
conflicted by the choice and endeavor to look for additional options as a way of choosing a gift
that satisfies their conflicting motives.
Next we examine the differences in distant and close friends’ gift strategies. Within the
close friend condition, givers were more likely to choose the relationally signaling classic gifts
(60%) than registry gifts (22.5%) (1, N=156), t = -4.11, p>.0001). Notably, more close givers
chose the classic clock (41.25%) (after persisting in their search) than chose the classic lamp
(18.75%) (1, N=156), t = -2.77, p>.008). Conversely, in the distant friend condition, givers were
far more likely to choose registry items (68.4%) than make a relationally signaling classic choice
(11.84%) (1, N=156), t = 7.69, p>.0001) across both choice sets. Moreover, a significantly larger
number of distant friends chose the lamp registry (44.74%) versus the clock registry (23.68%) (1,
N=156), t = 2.3, p>.02).
Insert figure 3 about here
Discussion
The results of this study highlight the conflict givers face when choosing from a registry.
The data reveals that close (vs. distant) givers manage their competing goals to please the
recipient versus to signal social closeness by being more likely to persist in their search in the
hopes of finding a gift that achieves both objectives. Perhaps by doing more “work,” close givers
also may be satisfying their desire to relationally signal vis-a-vis the effort they devoted to the
choice. Nonetheless, we show that when givers are presented with multiple registry options
26
which corroborate the recipients’ expressed preferences, rather than encouraging a choice of a
product that match recipients’ expressed preferences, close (vs. distant) givers are more likely to
diverge to a free-choice gift that appeases their relational goals.
Finally, in the last two studies we look specifically at close friends and endeavor to
understand how they manage their conflict. First in Study 3 we examine whether they change
their gifting priorities or their perceptions of how well each gift fits with their gifting objectives
in order to justify their choice of relationally signaling gifts. Next, in Study 4, we show a
boundary condition of receiving attribution for these effects and reveal how it drives close
friends to choose relationally signaling gifts.
STUDY 3
In our pilot study, both close and distant gift givers maintain that when selecting a gift,
their highest priority is to choose an item that the recipient will like above their goal to choose a
gift that signals the relationship between the giver and recipient. Yet, across two studies we
observe that close givers are in fact, equally, if not more likely to choose a relationally signaling
gift as a registry item (presumably the most-liked gift, as the recipient has chosen it for himself),
calling into question their professed goal ordering. In this study, we examine why close givers
often choose gifts that appear to be at odds with their stated primary goal of matching recipients’
preferences.
Prior research has demonstrated that an individual’s goals may impact his/her judgments,
insofar as they may cause him/her to screen or distort the information s/he uses to interpret
available options in support of his/her specific motives (Balcetis and Dunning 2006; Dunning
2001; Kruglanski and Klar 1987; Kunda 1990; Zhang, Huang and Broniarczyk 2010).
Furthermore, the way in which the individual makes the decision also may impact his/her
27
perception of the information presented. Specifically, individuals are likely to see options
differently when they are judging versus choosing between them (Schrift et al. 2011). Research
by Schrift et al. (2011) found that when participants only assessed products (without choosing
from among them), their perceptions were more objective than when they assessed products prior
to or after a choice. In fact, in the choice conditions, they were more likely to distort their
judgments in the direction of their probable choice.
Building on this research, in our next experiment we examine how close friends’
perceptions of the degree to which each of the three gift options fulfill their gifting goals change
depending on whether the giver is tasked with assessing the item versus choosing it for a
recipient. We predict that when close givers are simply assessing the gift (without any intention
of making a choice), they can be more objective about which gift truly would be most liked by
the recipient. However, we propose that when close givers actually have to make a choice, they
are encumbered with their own concerns about how the gift will behave as a signal for the
relationship to the recipient. In order to deal with this goal conflict, we predict that close givers
faced with making a gift choice will perceive the relationally signaling gift as more liked by the
recipient. By interpreting the relational signaling gift as the most liked by the recipient, the close
giver may resolve the goal conflict and choose this gift without sacrificing his/her important goal
to choose the recipient’s most liked item.
Design and Procedure
This experiment examined the close friend condition only. First we instructed all 108
participants to think of a close friend and record his/her initials. After thinking of an actual friend
and recording his/her initials, participants read a scenario identical to the one described in Study
2A describing a friend who is having an upcoming housewarming party. The participants were
28
told some information about the friend’s classic tastes and that the friend has created a gift
registry for the upcoming party. After reading the scenario, participants were told to imagine
looking at the gift options at a local store where the recipient had created a gift registry.
Participants then were shown the same three gift options presented in Study 2A (i.e. the classic,
modern and registry lamp).
We utilized one between-subjects factor: 3 (measurement mode: Assess Only vs. PreChoice vs. Post-Choice) and two within subjects factors: 3 (lamp assessed: Classic vs. Modern
vs. Registry) x 2 (gift goal assessed: recipient’s probable liking vs. relational signal value) to test
our predictions. Following the paradigm of Shrift et al. (2011) we manipulate at what stage in the
choice process participants assess how much the recipient will like the item and how well the
item would serve as a relational signal. Specifically, participants assessed each of the three gift
options in one of three conditions: 1) in the absence of choice (Assess Only condition), 2) prior
to making their gift choice (Assess Before Choice) or 3) after they made their gift choice (Assess
After Choice).
In the Assess Only condition, participants were told to look at each lamp and indicate the
extent to which they agreed with the following statements ‘You think your friend will like this
lamp,’ and ‘Choosing this lamp as a gift would indicate the relationship you have with your
friend’ on 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/7=strongly agree). There was no mention of
making a gift choice in this condition. In the two choice conditions, participants were told they
would be making a gift selection. In the Assess Before Choice condition, participants answered
the two questions before making their gift selection. In the Assess After Choice condition,
participants first made their gift selection first and were subsequently told to think of the lamps
they chose from and answer the two questions.
29
Results
We confirmed our social closeness manipulation was successful by comparing
participants’ perceived social closeness to the recipient on three 1 – 7 Likert scales (1 = not at all
/ 7 = very much): “our relationship is very important to me,” “we know each other very well,”
and “we are very distant friends” (reverse-coded).” The average of these three social closeness
measures (Cronbach’s Alpha =.91) confirmed that participants who were asked to think of a
close friend indicated that their social closeness to the recipient was significantly higher (M =
6.37) than the mid-point of the scale (M =4.00, t (1, 107) = 28.1, p < .0001).
In order to determine the overall effect of condition on participants’ assessments of each
lamp, we conducted a repeated-measures analysis of gift goals assessed for all lamps as a
function of the three conditions of assessment mode. Results showed that the degree to which
participants thought that each gift fit with the recipient’s preferences and reflected the
relationship between the giver and recipient depended on the mode in which s/he assessed each
gift (F (4, 104) = 2.70, p > .03). Next, using planned contrasts, we analyzed how individuals’
perceptions of how well each lamp fulfilled their gifting goals varied for the Assess Only
condition versus the two Choice conditions (Assess Before Choice and Assess After Choice).
First, we examined how participants’ assessments of how much the recipient would like the
registry lamp differed by condition. The data reveal that those in the Assess Only condition were
significantly more likely to think the registry lamp would be liked by the recipient (M= 5.08)
than those who were in the Choice conditions (M =4.18, (F (1, 107) = 13.40, p < .01). This is a
notable difference, given that those who are assessing only, make more objective judgments as
they do not have to justify a choice. Furthermore, it lends support to our contention that those
who are choosing are prone to distorting their options in the direction of their dominant goal.
30
Conversely, when we examine the classic lamp, the data show the opposite pattern of results
such that those in the choice conditions thought that the recipient would like the classic lamp
significantly more (M =4.74) than those who were in the Assess Only condition (M=3.31, F (1,
107) = 5.34, p > .02). There were no significant differences between the two Choice conditions.
Next we considered participants’ assessment of how well each lamp would function as a
signal of the relationship if chosen as a gift. The data follow a similar pattern as described above
and reveal that those in the Assess Only condition thought that the registry lamp would be a
significantly better relational signal (M =4.94) than those who were in the Choice conditions
(M=3.78, F (1, 107) = 34.21, p > .0001). Conversely, the data show the opposite pattern of
results for the classic lamp with those that were in the Choice conditions (M =4.51) being
significantly more likely to think the classic lamp would be an appropriate relational signal if
chosen as a gift than those in the Assess Only condition (M= 2.17), (F (1, 107) = 17.25, p >
.0001). Again, there were no significant differences between the two Choice conditions.
Insert figure 4 about here
Discussion
The results of this study corroborate our prediction that close friends exhibit motivated
reasoning in order to manage their conflicting goals of choosing the most liked gift versus one
that will signal their close friendship to the recipient. Indeed, the data demonstrate how close
friends justify their relationally signaling gift choices. The data reveals that when close givers are
faced with a situation in which the gift they choose will send an important relational signal, they
perceive the gift that is most capable of sending this signal as the best match to the recipient’s
preferences. In doing so, the giver resolves a goal conflict and feels secure in giving a gift that
s/he perceives to fulfill both of his/her important motives.
31
In our final study, we will reveal how (not) receiving attribution for the gift may mitigate givers’
goal conflict by eliminating the benefits of relationship signaling.
STUDY 4
The objective of this study is to further investigate the motive of the giver when s/he
diverges from the registry by manipulating whether the giver receives attribution from the
recipient for the gift that s/he chooses. If a giver’s motivation is genuinely to choose the
perceived best gift for the recipient, then his/her gift choice should be unaffected by whether the
gift is attributed to him/her. However, if consistent with our prediction, close givers choose nonregistry gifts as a way of fulfilling their goal to signal the relationship, they should only do so
when they receive attribution for the gift. By this logic, close givers who do not receive
attribution are expected to behave more like distant friends and be less likely to make nonregistry choices as they cannot achieve their relational-signaling goal when they give
anonymously.
Design and Procedure
Eighty-three participants completed a single-factor design experiment in which we varied
whether givers disclosed their identities (identity reveal vs. identity anonymous) to a close friend
who lives far away for whom they had purchased a gift. Because we are particularly interested in
the nature of relational signaling, we told all participants that they were choosing a gift for a
close friend. However, we varied givers’ ability to relationally signal by explaining to half the
participants that their identity would be revealed (vs. remain anonymous) to the recipient after
the gift exchange. Specifically, participants were informed that they would use a “Secret Santa”
32
website (Elfster.com) that automates the Secret Santa process by assigning each friend his/her
“Secret Santa,” communicating recipients’ gift preference and delivering the gift.
In the Identity Reveal condition, participants were told that after the gifts they chose for
the recipient were opened, Elfster.com would disclose their identity to the recipient. Our
objective in telling the giver this information was to make it explicit to the giver that s/he would
receive attribution from the recipient for the gift s/he chose. Conversely, participants in the
Anonymous condition were told that Elfster.com would keep their identity a secret from the
recipient. By providing this information to the givers, we made it salient that they would not
receive attribution for the gift from the recipient and there was no mechanism for the giver to
signal relational intimacy via the gift. After reading about Elfster.com, all of the participants
were given the same information about the gift recipient in Studies 2 and 3, as well as the same
set of lamp gift choices.
Results
We performed a logistic regression to determine whether close givers differ in their
propensity to choose from the registry as a function of giver identity disclosure. We found the
interaction between these givers’ lamp choices and identity disclosure to be significant X²(2, N =
82) = 7.2 p < .03), indicating that close givers chose differently when their identity was going to
be revealed to the recipient (vs. remain anonymous). Next, using a planned contrast to isolate
choice of the registry versus the classic lamp, we found that the revelation of the giver’s identity
to the recipient significantly predicted the giver’s decision to choose the registry lamp or reject it
in favor of a relationship signaling classic lamp X²(1, N = 83) = 4.04, p < .04). Close givers were
33
significantly more likely to choose the classic lamp when their identity was revealed (40%)
versus remained anonymous (15%), (1, N = 83) = 6.17, p <.01.
Using the spotlight technique, we looked at each of the close giver identity disclosure
conditions in more detail. In the Identity Revealed condition, we see that givers show no
difference in their likelihood to choose the registry lamp (55%) versus the relationally signaling
classic lamp (40%), X²(1, N = 83) = .10, p <.74), indicating that close givers are at least as
inclined to choose an item that matches the recipients’ percieved tastes as one that matches the
giver’s explicit preferences. Further, sigificantly fewer close givers (5%) chose their own
preferred modern lamp over the other lamps X²(1, N = 83) = 32.40, p <.0001). This pattern of
results replicates our findings in Studies 2 and 3 and confirms that close givers are equally likely
to signal to the recipient by choosing a gift that indicates their knowledge of the recipient’s tastes
as to choose an item that the recipient has selected for him/herself and thus is likely a better
match to his/her preferences.
Next, we examined the Identity Anonymous condition and found that close givers who
were unable to reveal their identity to the recipient selected the registry lamp (72%) significantly
more than the classic lamp (15%), X² (1, N = 83) = 14.85, p < .0001) and the modern lamp (13%)
X² (1, N = 83) = 6.40, p < .01). This finding supports our prediction that when close givers do not
receive credit for their chosen item, they are no longer motivated to seek a gift that reflects the
recipient’s inferred tastes, as doing so will not enable the giver to signal the relationship to the
recipient.
Insert figure 5 about here
Discussion
34
In sum, the fact that close givers are more likely to choose the classic lamp when their
identity is revealed to the recipient confirms that close givers are strategically signaling the
relationship rather than simply choosing a gift that appears to be a better match to the recipient’s
implied classic preferences without regard for how this choice will reflect on them. This finding
supports our contention that when close givers choose a non-registry (vs. registry) gift, they are
motivated to fulfill their relational signaling goal to indicate to the recipient that they have an
intimate knowledge of his/her preferences and, thus, a close relationship. In this registry context
where recipient preferences are explicitly provided, we again observed limited evidence of
preference conflation. Furthermore, close givers who remained anonymous had no incentive to
relationally signal and instead make the choice to defer to the registry gift.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
In five studies, we explore how close versus distant gift givers manage their purported
focal motivation to choose a gift item that matches recipients’ against their desire to signal their
relational intimacy via the gift chosen. First, in Study 1, using registries created by individuals in
close (vs. distant) relationships, we find that close (vs. distant) givers are more likely to diverge
from the registry. Furthermore, we observe that the result of such a free choice is that close
givers are more likely to give less liked gifts to their most important friends. In Study 2A, we
examine givers’ motivation to make choose a non-registry item and find that givers choosing for
close (vs. distant) friends are more likely to diverge from the registry in order to choose a gift
that allows them to fulfill their motive to relationally signal rather than because they conflate
their preferences with the recipient’s. Next in Study 2B, we loosen the constraints of the registry
by adding an additional product category and allow givers to persist in their search. We show
35
that although close givers manage their own internal conflict by searching for additional options,
they ultimately persist in opting for the relationally signaling gift despite multiple registry items
indicating recipients’ explicit preferences. Corroborating our prior studies, distant givers are
once again shown to be more inclined to select the registry item. In Study 3, we examine the
mental processes that lead close givers to diverge from the gift registry. The data reveal that
close friends engage in motivated reasoning in order to manage their conflicting goals.
Specifically, we find that when faced with a choice (rather than simply making an assessment)
close givers construe relational signaling gifts as being most pleasing to the recipient as a way of
justifying the purchase of this item. Finally, in Study 4, we rule out the competing hypothesis
that close givers selflessly opt for a free-choice gift because they perceive them to be a better
match with the recipient’s preferences. Instead, we show that close givers are more likely to
select free-choice gifts only when they are certain they will receive attribution for the item from
the recipient and, as such, the choice is a strategic relational signal rather than an attempt to
altruistically choose an item that is a better match with recipients’ preferences. Additionally, our
results show that close (vs. distant) givers being more likely to reject preference matching gifts
in favor of relationally signaling ones, were robust across both genders in all our studies.
We contribute to the literature on gifting in several ways. First, we determine givers’ two
central gifting goals, and reveal how the social closeness between giver and recipient moderates
these goals when they are in conflict. Additionally, we introduce the context of the gift registry
as both a mechanism that enables givers to achieve their goal of matching the preferences of the
recipient and a barrier to their desires to signal the intimacy between the giver and recipient.
While prior literature discusses the importance givers place on choosing the right gift for a close
friend (Belk 1996; Wooten 2000), we show that givers are most successful in choosing gifts for
36
their distant friends, as they do not let their personal agenda of relational signaling supersede
their objective to buy a gift that is aligned with the recipient’s preferences.
The results of the current studies indicate that the taste information that givers have
about the recipient may influence what signal they are motivated to express with the gift. Close
others, who naturally have greater knowledge of recipient’s tastes than distant others, are
inclined to exhibit their relational intimacy by choosing a gift that embodies this knowledge.
Study 1 supports this contention, as we found that close givers (i.e. those who possessed preexisting relationships with the recipients), were more likely to diverge than distant givers.
However, it is not simply that the giver possess the relevant information, it is that they are
motivated to use this information to signal the relationship. Indeed, in Studies 2A, 2B and 4, in
which all givers were informed of the recipient’s taste information (i.e. that s/he had classic
tastes), close givers continued to diverge significantly more often than distant givers and our
results indicate that they diverged using different choice strategies. Close givers rejected the
registry gift in favor of an item that embodied those tastes and Study 4 shows that they only
diverged when given gift attribution. On the other hand, the small percentage of distant friends in
Study 2A who diverged from the registry did not choose a gift that reflected their knowledge of
the recipient’s preferences, but instead chose the gift that they personally preferred. These
findings underscore the fact that close givers diverge from prescribed gifts on a registry not only
because they have a more intimate understanding of their friends’ preferences, but also because
they are motivated use this knowledge about the recipient to choose a gift that serves as a
relational signal.
Limitations and Extensions
37
We acknowledge that the studies presented may have potential limitations. Since givers
were constrained to choose from a fixed set of potential gifts, they may have had less ability to
choose a personally expressive gift and thus were possibly less likely to exhibit conflation. Also,
the product categories (i.e. lamps and wall clocks) that the givers chose from are lowinvolvement product domains in which the participants were unlikely to have pre-established
preferences. Although we believe that this resulted in a conservative test of our hypotheses, as
givers likely would be less inclined to relationally signal in this product domain, generalizing to
other products would be worthwhile for future research.
The findings of the studies in this research provide additional direction for future inquiry.
Given the differences in givers’ intentions and recipients’ assessments of the gift received, it
might be interesting to see how receiving a freely chosen gift impacts the recipient’s selfperception and perception of the giver. Schwartz (1967) noted that the characteristics of the gift
itself act as a powerful statement of the giver's perception of the recipient. He also suggested that
acceptance of a particular gift “constitutes an acknowledgment and acceptance of the identity
that gift is seen to imply.” Given this contention, it might be interesting to explore whether
receiving a less liked or less identity-reflective gift may cause the recipient to question his/her
own tastes or, alternatively, the closeness of the relationship with the giver. A second avenue for
future research is how the recipient’s registry items influence the giver’s subsequent choices. It
would be interesting to investigate how making this choice would influence the giver’s choices
for him/herself. Perhaps the giver would feel inclined to choose something similar for
him/herself as one’s close friends’ tastes often influence one’s own tastes (Argo, Dahl and
Morales 2006; Leibenstein 1950; Bernheim 1994). Conversely, such a choice may impel the
38
giver to differentiate and express his/her own preferences in their subsequent choices as a way to
maintain his/her uniqueness (Berger and Heath 2007; Ward and Broniarczyk 2011).
Finally, future research might investigate how aware or conscious givers are of their goal
ordering and why they often diverge from recipients’ expressed preferences. In order to gain
some understanding of this, we asked 33 online respondents to describe a time when they were
presented with the option of choosing from a registry, but instead chose a non-registry gift.
Corroborating our findings, the date revealed that the majority of respondents (54%) expressed
that they were primarily motivated to find a better gift with fewer expressing insight into
relational signaling (15%). Further, recipients were asked to predict recipients’ liking for the gift
they chose, compared to the registry items on a 7-point scale (1=much less/4=equal to/7=much
more). Contrary to our findings in Study 1, respondents believed that recipients liked the freely
chosen gifts more than the gift registry items (M=5.42 vs. M=4.00, F(1,32)=44.62, p> .0001).
Thus, gift givers who diverge appear to lack insight into the role that relational signaling plays
and instead incorrectly believe that their gift is a better match to recipients' preferences.
Gift giving is a unique domain of consumer choice, as givers and recipients have
experience in both roles of the gifting dyad (i.e. both as the giver and the recipient) throughout
their lives. Our research extends the work of Gino and Flynn (2011) by examining the
moderating role of social closeness on recipients’ dissatisfaction with non-registry gifts; we find
in Study 1 that close friends are more unhappy than distant friends with non-registry gifts.
However, despite their firsthand knowledge of the disappointment that can result when one
receives a gift that does not reflect his or her expressed preferences, close givers persist in
choosing gifts that fit their own agenda of relationally signaling. Perhaps it is difficult to translate
one’s experiences as a disappointed recipient and correct these misguided choices when one is
39
playing the role of giver. Compounding this problem, recipients rarely give diagnostic feedback
about the true nature of their feelings about receiving a disliked gift, as strong cultural norms
exist which demand that recipients express thanks and gratitude for any gift they receive. For
instance, the proverb “don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” expresses the culturally imbued
sentiment that when given a present, one should be grateful for his/her good fortune and should
avoid assessing its match with one’s specific preferences. In short, gifts should be received in the
spirit they are given – as a symbol of friendship rather than an object of worth. However, this
falsely positive feedback may propagate close givers’ notions that ignoring recipients’ expressed
preferences results in better gifts.
This research has important implications for retail practice. Our results show that close
gift givers are more inclined to ignore registry items and choose products that are less appealing
to recipients. In order to curtail receipt of these unappealing gifts, Amazon.com recently patented
a mechanism that “converts” an unwanted gift into an item the recipient has registered for. As
soon as a giver places an order for an item that is not on the gift registry, Amazon.com will send
the recipient a gift of the same value from his/her registry or a gift certificate instead. This way,
recipients no longer must suffer through opening countless items they do not want.
Rather than restricting givers’ freedom when purchasing a gift, retailers may change the
consumers to whom they market gift registries. Given that distant friends appear to gravitate
toward the ease and assurance of the gift registry and close friends and relations are less likely to
use a registry when shopping for a gift, retailers might focus their marketing efforts on distant
friends looking for the right gift. Also, the insight that givers choosing a gift for a friend are
looking for a product to signal social closeness might guide gift recipients to be cognizant of the
items they include on registries. Recipients may have a higher chance of receiving a product they
40
registered for if the item carries a relational signal. For instance, close givers appear to want to
choose items that mark a significant element of the relationship. To capitalize on their
preferences, givers might include personal items (e.g. a favorite book, products related to a
favorite activity) in addition to functional items that may seem impersonal (e.g. housewares,
kitchen products) on their registries.
Gift givers balance their dominant goal to please recipients with a gift that matches the
recipient’s explicit preferences, against their desire to signal relational closeness with a gift that
expresses the giver’s knowledge of the recipient. The findings of these studies imply that while
gift registries are a growing venue from which to purchase gifts, this growth may be coming at
the cost of relational intimacy as close (vs. distant) givers are more likely to diverge to a nonregistry gift. Moreover, the findings speak to the nature of relationships in general, that is,
despite our best intentions to please those closest to us, we often behave in ways that ultimately
satisfy our own interpersonal goals rather than those of our close relationship partners.
41
TABLE
TABLE 1: PILOT STUDY EXAMINING GIVERS’ GIFTING PRIORITIES ON 1 – 7 LIKERT
SCALE (1 = VERY UNIMPORTANT/ 7 = VERY IMPORTANT)
Gift Goal
Overall
Close Friend
Distant Friend
a. The recipient will like
the gift
6.24 bcdefgh
6.66 bcdefgh
5.83 bcdefgh
b. Signals the relationship
you have with the recipient
5.38acdefgh
5.85 acdefgh
4.91 acdefgh
c. Reminds the recipient of
you
4.86 abdefgh
5.12 abdefgh
4.60 adefgh
d. Enables recipient to
have something they
wouldn't normally have
access to
4.47 abcefgh
5.00 abcefgh
3.93 abcefgh
e. Makes up for a lost item
3.94 abcd
4.29 abcdgh
3.59 abcdg
f. Fulfills a need of the
recipient
3.87abcd
4.12 abcdg
3.62 abcdeg
g. Fulfills a social
obligation
3.87 abcd
3.12 abcdef
4.62 abcdefh
h. Teaches the recipient
3.59 abcd
3.69 abcde
3.48 abcdeg
A respective letter denotes significant difference at p < .05
42
FIGURES
FIGURE 1A: CHOICE SHARE OF NON-REGISTRY GIFTS WHEN CHOOSING FOR
CLOSE (VS. DISTANT) FRIENDS (STUDY 1)
FIGURE 1B: RECIPIENTS’ SATISFACTION WITH REGISTRY (VS. NON-REGISTRY)
GIFT FROM CLOSE (VS. DISTANT) FRIEND (STUDY 1)
43
FIGURE 2: CLOSE (VS. DISTANT) FRIEND CONDITION: GIVERS’ CHOICE OF
RECIPIENT’S REGISTRY GIFT VS. RELATIONALLY SIGNALING GIFT (STUDY 2A)
44
FIGURE 3: CHOICE SHARE OF GIFTS WHEN CHOOSING FOR CLOSE (VS. DISTANT)
FRIENDS WHEN FACED WITH ADDITIONAL PRODUCT CATEGORY (STUDY 2B)
45
FIGURE 4: CLOSE GIVERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GIFTS AS A FUNCTION OF MODE OF
ASSESSMENT (STUDY 3)
46
FIGURE 5: CHOICE SHARE OF GIFTS FOR CLOSE FRIEND WHEN GIVER’S IDENTITY
IS REVEALED (VS IDENTITY ANONYMOUS) (STUDY 4)
47
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: GIVERS’ AND RECIPIENTS’ LAMP CHOICES (STUDY 1)
48
APPENDIX B: LAMPS’ CORRESPONDANCE TO GIFT MOTIVATIONS
(STUDIES 2- 5)
49
APPENDIX C: CLOCK CHOICES MIMIC LAMP CHOICES AND REFLECT GIVER’S
THREE MOTIVATIONS (STUDY 3)
Choice Set 1:
Choice Set 2:
50
REFERENCES
Anderson, Christopher, J. (2003), “The Psychology of Doing Nothing: Forms of Decision
Avoidance Result From Reason and Emotion,” Psychological Bulletin, 129 (1) 139 – 47.
Argo, Jennifer J., Darren W. Dahl and Andrea C. Morales (2006), “Consumer Contamination:
how Consumers React to Products Touched by Others,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (2), 8194.
Aron, Arthur and Elain N. Aron, E. (1986), Love and the Expansion of Self: Understanding
Attraction and Satisfaction, New York: Hemisphere.
Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, Michael Tudor, and Greg Nelson (1991), "Close Relationships as
Including Other in the Self," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–53.
Balcetis, Emily, and David Dunning (2006) "See What You Want to See: Motivational
Influences on Visual Perception," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
(4) 612-25.
Batson, C. Daniel( 1987), “Prosocial Motivation: Is it Ever Truly Altruistic?” In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 65– 122. New York:
Academic Press.
Baxter, Leslie A (1987), “Symbols of Relationship Identity in Relationship Culture,” Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 4: 261 – 80.
Belk, Russell W. (1976), "It's the Thought That Counts: A Signed Digraph Analysis of GiftGiving," Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (3), 155-62.
_______., ed. (1979), Gift Giving Behavior, Vol. 2, Greenwich: JAI Press.
_______ (1982), "Effects OF Gift-Giving Involvement on Gift Selection Strategies,”
51
in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 09, eds. Andrew Mitchell, Ann Arbor :
Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 408-412.
_______ (1996), “The Perfect Gift” in Otnes, Cele, and Richard E. Beltramini (eds)
(1996),
Gift Giving: A Research Anthology, Vol. 5, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Belk, Russell W., and Gregory S. Coon (1993), "Gift giving as Agapic Love: An Alternative to
the Exchange Paradigm Based on Dating Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research
20, 393-417.
Berger, Jonah and Chip Heath (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity
Signaling and Product Domains,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 121-134.
Bernheim, Douglas B. (1994), “A Theory of Conformity,” Journal of Political Economy, 102
(5), 841-877.
Burnham, T.C., 2003. Engineering altruism: a theoretical and experimental investigation
of anonymity and gift giving. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50, 133–
144
Camerer, Colin (1988), "Gifts as Economic Signals and Social Symbols," The American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S180-S214.
Caplow, Theodore (1982), "Christmas Gifts and Kin Networks," American Sociological Review
47 (3), 383-92.
Clark, Margaret S., and Judson Mills (1979), “Interpersonal Attraction in Exchange and
Communal Relationships," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (1), 12-24.
_______ (1993), "The Difference Between Communal and Exchange Relationships: What it is
and is Not," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (6), 684-91.
Davis, Harry L., Stephen J. Hoch and E.K. Easton Ragsdale (1986), “An Anchoring and
52
Adjustment Model of Spousal Predictions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 25-37.
Dunning, David ( 2001), “On the Motives Underlying Social Cognition,” In N. Schwarz & A.
Tesser (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Vol. 1. Intraindividual
Processes, 348–74. New York: Blackwell.
Flynn, Frances J. and Gabriel S. Adams (2009),“Money Can’t Buy Love: Asymmetric beliefs
About Gift Price and Feelings of Appreciation,” Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 404-409.
Gershoff, Andrew D. and Gita V. Johar (2006), “Do You Know Me? Consumer Calibration of
Friends’ Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (March), 496–503.
Gino, Francesca and Francis J. Flynn (2011), “Give Them What They Want: The Benefits of
Explicitness in Gift Exchange,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47 (5) 91522.
Hoffman, Martin L. (1975), “Moral Internalization, Parental Power, and the Nature of ParentChild Interaction,” Developmental Psychology, 11, 228-39.
__________ (1981), “Is Altruism Part of Human Nature?” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, January, 121 – 37.
Hoffman, Elizabeth, Kevin McCabe, Keith Shachat, and Vernon Smith (1994), “Preferences,
Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games,” Games and Economic Behaviour
7, 346–80.
Joy, Annamma (2001), "Gift Giving in Hong Kong and the Continuum of Social Ties,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (28), 239-56.
Komter, Aafke, and Wilma Vollebergh (1997), "Gift giving and the Emotional Significance of
Family and Friends." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 747-757.
53
Kruglanski, Arie W., and Yechiel Klar (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.
Kunda, Ziva (1990), "The Case for Motivated Reasoning," Psychological Bulletin, 108 (3)
480 - 98.
Leibenstein, Harvey (1950). “Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects in the Theory of Consumer
Demand,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64 (2), 183-207.
Lerouge, Davy and Luc Warlop (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.
Levi-Strauss (1949/69), “The Elementary Structures of Kinship,” Beacon Press: USA.
Luce, Mary Frances, James R. Bettman, and John W. Payne (1997), "Choice Processing in
Emotionally Difficult Decisions," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 23 (2) 384-405.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922/1961), Argonauts of the Western Pacific, New York: Dutton.
Mintel. (2010, May). Gift Registries - US. Retrieved from http://academic.mintel.com/.
Mintel. (2013, May). Gift Registries - US. Retrieved from http://academic.mintel.com/.
Otnes, Cele, Tina M. Lowrey, and Young Chan Kim (1993), "Gift Selection for Easy and
Difficult Recipients: A Social Roles Interpretation," Journal of Consumer Research, 20
(2) 229-44.
Prendergast, Candice and Lars Stole (2001), "The Non-Monetary Nature of Gifts,"
European Economic Review, 45 (10), 1793-810.
54
Schrift, Rom, Oded Netzer, and Ran Kivetz (2011), "Complicating choice," Journal of
Marketing Research, 48 (2) 308-26.
Schwartz, Barry (1967), "The Social Psychology of the Gift," The American Journal of
Sociology, 73 (1), 1-11.
Sherry Jr, John F. (1983), "Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective," Journal of
Consumer Research, 10 (2), 157-68.
Sherry, John F., Mary Ann McGrath, and Sidney J. Levy (1993), "The Dark Side of the Gift"
Journal of Business Research, 28 (3) 225-44.
Shafir, Eldar, and Amos Tversky (1992) "Thinking through Uncertainty: Nonconsequential
Reasoning and Choice," Cognitive Psychology, 24 (4) 449-74.
Sahlins, Marshall (1972), Stone Age Economics, Rontledge: New York.
Steffel, Mary and Robyn A. LeBoeuf (forthcoming), “Social Comparison in Decisions for
Others: Considering Multiple Gift Recipients Leads to Over-Individuated and Less Liked
Gifts, Journal of Consumer Research.
Ward, Morgan and Susan M. Broniarczyk (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.
Weitman, Sasha (1998), "On the Elementary Forms of the Socioerotic Life," Theory, Culture
and Society, 15 (3), 71-110.
Wolfinbarger, Mary Finley (1990), "Motivations and Symbolism in Gift-Giving Behavior,"
Advances in Consumer Research, 17 (1), 699-706.
Wooten, David B. (2000), "Qualitative Steps toward and Expanded Model of Anxiety in GiftGiving," Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 84-95.
55
Zhang, Ying, Szu‐chi Huang, and Susan M. Broniarczyk (2010), "Counteractive Construal in
Consumer Goal Pursuit," Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (1) 129-42.