Overindividuation in Gift Giving: Shopping for Multiple Recipients Leads Givers to Choose Unique but Less Preferred Gifts

Steffel, Mary; Boeuf, Robyn A. Le

doi:10.1086/674199

Cited by 77 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gifts can be given for any number of different reasons: with the intention initiating a relationship, jumpstarting a stalled relationship, or repairing a fractured relationship. Of relevance for psychological distance, givers select gifts for others at varying degrees of social distance, and the social distance from recipients changes how givers select gifts (Goodman & Lim, ; Steffel & Le Boeuf, ). While a relationship can be characterized by a given amount of social distance, gifts can reconfigure the distance in a relationship.…”

Section: Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological distance in consumer psychology: Consequences and antecedents

Maglio

2019

Consumer Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wherever consumers envision faraway locations, remember the past, predict the future, consider the perspective of others, or entertain remote possibilities, their minds extrapolate beyond what lies in front of them to something psychologically distant.Conjuring and considering that which is psychologically distant thus lies at the heart of how most people spend a substantial portion of their lives. As integrated here, seeing something as psychologically distant causes people to think about and act on it in systematically different ways than the same thing seen as psychologically close. Recent advances in these consequences suggest that the effects of psychological distance on consumer decision-making continue to grow increasingly nuanced.Consumer outcomes thus at times benefit from seeing things as near and, at other times, benefit from seeing things as far. Accordingly, this review thereafter summarizes the antecedents that lead people to see things as psychologically distant or psychologically close. It closes in considering how future considerations might expand the conceptualization and application of psychological distance. K E Y W O R D Sprobability, psychological distance, social distance, space, time

show abstract

Section: Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological distance in consumer psychology: Consequences and antecedents

Maglio

2019

Consumer Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our findings may not apply to strictly utilitarian domains, in which objective quality and price are the primary evaluation criteria and variety‐seeking plays a lesser role (Ratner, Kahn, & Kahneman, ), or to specific domains where diversification is considered objectively superior (e.g., investment) or a social norm (Steffel & Le Boeuf, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Variety‐Seeking and Perceived Expertise

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often infer expertise from the choice of unique, rare, or sophisticated options. But might mere variety‐seeking also serve as a signal of expertise, and if so, how? Six studies show that the relationship between variety‐seeking and perceived expertise is not unidirectional and depends on the perceiver's own level of expertise. Category experts perceive lower variety‐seeking as indicative of discernment, which in turn increases perceived expertise in that category. Consequently, experts choose less variety to portray themselves as experts. In contrast, novices perceive high variety‐seeking as indicative of category breadth knowledge, which in turn increases their perception of category expertise. Consequently, novices choose more variety to portray themselves as experts. The findings make novel theoretical contributions to research on variety‐seeking, consumer expertise, and social perception, as well as practical contributions for marketers of product assortments and bundles.

show abstract

“…Accordingly, gift giving is a prominent topic in marketing (Hwang and Chu, 2019;Ruth, Otnes, and Brunel, 1999;Saad and Gill, 2003;Steffel and LeBoeuf, 2014), as well as in anthropology (Lévi-Strauss, 1965;Mauss, 1990), economics (Ruffle, 1999), philosophy (Schrag and Paradiso-Michau 2014), psychology (Zhang and Epley, 2012), and sociology (Sinardet and Mortelmans, 2009). Sherry (1983) offers a multidisciplinary model and a comprehensive view of gift giving.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The paradox of surprise: empirical evidence about surprising gifts received and given by close relations

Vanhamme

Lindgreen

Beverland

2020

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to explore surprising gifts received and given by close relations to identify the variables involved in creating surprising gifts. The analysis of the viewpoints of the giver and the recipient, reflecting their profiles, leads to recommendations for retailers. Design/methodology/approach An exploratory, small-scale, open-ended questionnaire (48 respondents) produces 43 (38) accounts of surprising gifts given (received), informed further by in-depth interviews (eight informants, both givers and recipients of surprising gifts). Findings This study identifies and elaborates on the variables (why, when, what, where, who and how, and their combinations) that define surprising gift giving, from both giver and recipient perspectives. The findings indicate a paradox: even if givers or recipients prefer a surprising gift, they might give or wish for an unsurprising gift to avoid disappointment. Research limitations/implications Further research should confirm the findings using representative samples. Moreover, gender differences in surprising gift giving should be investigated further. Finally, the exact characteristics and properties that make common objects potential candidates for successful surprising gifts should be studied further. Practical implications The discussion has relevant implications for manufacturers and retailers. For example, if recipients are surprised, happy and satisfied, they likely exhibit higher brand recall. The recipient’s (happy versus not happy) emotions also have spillover effects on the giver’s. Thus, retailers should provide assistance in the store and advertise their salespeople as experts who can offer advice about selecting appropriate gifts. The exact characteristics and properties that make common objects potential candidates for successful surprising gifts should be studied further. Originality/value The systematic account of all six variables, not previously analyzed in the literature, provides rich insights into surprising gift giving. The discussion of the study of givers and recipients supplements these insights.

show abstract

Overindividuation in Gift Giving: Shopping for Multiple Recipients Leads Givers to Choose Unique but Less Preferred Gifts

Cited by 77 publications

References 43 publications

Psychological distance in consumer psychology: Consequences and antecedents

Psychological distance in consumer psychology: Consequences and antecedents

Variety‐Seeking and Perceived Expertise

The paradox of surprise: empirical evidence about surprising gifts received and given by close relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About