Gift-giving behavior

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Gift-giving behavior a closer analysis of exchange partner relationships and the perceived importance of the gift occasion
Physical Description:
vi, 160 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Demoss, Michelle A
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Gifts -- Research   ( lcsh )
Consumer behavior   ( lcsh )
Marketing thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Marketing -- UF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1993.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 156-159).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Michelle A. Demoss.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001923472
oclc - 30541240
notis - AJZ9306
System ID:
AA00002074:00001

Full Text















GIFT-GIVING BEHAVIOR: A CLOSER ANALYSIS OF EXCHANGE
PARTNER RELATIONSHIPS AND THE PERCEIVED
IMPORTANCE OF THE GIFT OCCASION


MICHELLE


A DI
OF THE


DEMOSS


SSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


would


first


like


to thank


express


sincere


appreciation


to Dr. David


Mick


dedication


research


to the


successful


completion


my degree


to Dr.


Rich


Lut z


his guidance


support


throughout


college


career.


would


also


like


to thank


my colleagues


Stetson


Robert


University


Boozer


statistical


knowledge


their


John


with


encouragement,


Rasp,


espe


sharing


me and


Greg


cially


time


McCann


words


of wisdom


compassion.


Last,


would


like


to thank


my parents,


Kathy


Carl,


their


emotional


financial


support


well


their


confidence


me.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS


CHAPTERS


Framework ... .. ... .. .. .. ...
Donor/Recipient Relationship................
Situational Condition ................ .. ...


Gift-Giving Studies........ .........
Gift Giving as a Purchase Variable.
Gift Context Studies...............
Donor/Recipient Relationship.........
Se lf-Gifts.. ... ... .. ..... ..
Extended Self ... .. . . ..
Situational Condition................


Information Search Hypotheses.........
Price Range Hypotheses................
Product Attributes Hypothesis........
Donor's Ideal Self-Concept Hypotheses.


*. . ..
. ..* *. .
*. .. a. *. a. .
*.. . 0
. . . *
. ..* . S
. . . 3


3 S S l S S


Sample and Data Collection.................
Instrument .................. .......... .......


General Analysis..... .. .r. ...e .......
Hypotheses Regarding Information Search.......


Daae


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .


ABSTRACT .


INTRODUCTION ................... ...............


L I TE RATURIE REVIEW .


HYPOTHESES .


METHOD .


RESULTS .













Discussion of Results..................
Donor/Recipient Relationships........
Perceived Importance of the Occasion.
Limitations. .. .. .. .. .. . .
Future Research. .. .. ..


* S S *
*.. . .S
*. .. .*


APPENDIX


REFERENCES .. .. .. .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.. .. .. .. .. .. ..


CONCLUSION,


QUESTIONNAIRES... .....................~~















Abstract


of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate


University of Florida


in Partial


Fulfillment


School
of the


Requirements


for the


Degree of Doctor


of Philosophy


GIFT-GIVING BEHAVIOR:


A CLOSER ANALYSIS OF


EXCHANGE


PARTNER RELATIONSHIPS AND


THE PERCEIVED


IMPORTANCE OF THE GIFT OCCASION

By


Michelle A.

August


DeMoss

1993


Chairperson:


David G.


Mick


Major


Department


Past


: Marketing


research has examined the effect


of purchase


context


(e.g.,


buying a


gift


someone


versus a purchase


for personal


use)


and various gift-giving


dimensions


(e.g.,


gift


for Christmas versus birthday)


on differences


in amount


of information


search,


existence of


a price


range,


applicability


of various product


qualities.


Unfortunately,


many


of these studies


have


reported


conflicting


findings.


author


suggest s


that by


further


differentiating purchase


context


and by


controlling


for or measuring each of the gift-


giving


dimensions,


many


of these


inconsistencies may be


resolved.


Specifically,


author posits


that


in order to


better understand gift-giving behavior,


inclusion


personal


use as a purchase context


should be


separated into


r








In addition,


types


will


states that


of donor/recipient


advance


further


distinction between


relationships and gift


understanding


occasions


of gift-giving behavior as


well.


This


study used a


survey which asked respondents


questions about


a previous purchase decision


they


had made


involving either


a gift


a close other,


a gift


distant


other,


a gift


self,


or a purchase


self


acquired strictly out


of need.


survey


contained specific


questions


concerning the donor,


purchased product,


purchase occasion,


the amount


information


search


individuals engaged in before


purchasing the product,


and the


existence of


a price


range.


results of this study


show that


further


differentiation


of the


personal


use


context


donor/recipient


relationship


influences the amount


information


search


individuals engage


in before


purchasing


product,


the existence


of a price range before beginning


their

sought


information


that


search,


search.


and the


The most


types of product


significant


qualities


differences were


found for


individuals buying


self


strictly


of need as


compared to the gift-giving


contexts.


Additional


differences


were


reported for


several


comparisons between


the three gift-


giving


contexts.


Alternative explanations of


results


are
















CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


Gift


giving


been


said


many


to be


an intriguing,


ubiquitous


behavior


which


been


inadequately


explored


consumer


researcher


s (e


.g.,


Banks,


1979;


Belk,


1979;


Sherry,


1983) .


gift

(Bel


And


account


shaw


, 1965,


has

10%

50)


been


conservatively


of retail

A large


sales


portion


estimated


that


North America

of past research


gift


giving


information


attempted


on the


to either


phenomenon


of gift


provide


giving


descriptive


or to


distingui


sh gift


giving


from


other


types


consumer


behavior,


such


as purchase


pers


onal


use.


Unfortunately,


some


this


research


provided


inconsistent


findings


concerning


gift


giving


behavior.


Specifically,


mixed


results


have


been


reported


separate


studies


examining


differences


expenditures


time


and/or


money


individuals


buying


a gift


someone


versus


individuals


buying


Gronhaug,


Ryans,


Vincent


an item


1972;


1977;


personal


Heeler,


Scammon,


Zikmund,


use


Francis,


Shaw,


1976) .


(Clarke


Belk,


Okechuku


Bamossy,


In addition,


1979;


Reid,


1979;


Shapiro,


little


research


1970;


h has


hpen


fl~~rfflrm~~~~ul tn, ri0r -anar:r


n rovnami n


np r f n rmp rt


n~nnn


n










(Lutz,


1979;


Sherry,


1983) .


Thus,


research


much


needed


to help


resolve


these


inconsistencies


further


knowledge


consumer


gift-giving


practices.


A model


of the


gift


exc


change


process


been


attempted


both


Banks


1979)


Sherry


(1983)


Banks


(1979)


developed


describes


an interactive


behavior


paradigm


of both


of gift


donor


giving


recipient


which


through


four-stage


process,


including


purchase,


interaction,


consumption,


communication.


While


Sherry


(1983)


acknowledged


strived


Bank


to provide


s important


contribution


a comprehensive


picture


that

the


she

gift-


giving


process,


he proposed


to improve


upon


Bank


s model


developing


a more


articulate


model


that


depicts


gift-


giving


process


in three


stages


gestation,


prestation,


reformulation.


Both


these


models


incorporate


four


dimensions


gift


giving


described


Belk


(1979)


Belk


states


that


variations


gift-giving


process


can


occur


dependent


upon


dimensions


involved:


specifically,


donor,


rec


ipient,


gift,


situational


conditions.


Donors


can


individual


or groups


of individuals


families


organizations)


Recipients


can


individuals


or groups


individuals


well.


Further,


donors


rec


ipients


*- -


same


individual


or group


(Levy,


1982;


Mick


DeMoss,


e


.










body


organs.


Lastly,


situational


conditions


depend


upon


such


things


gift-giving


occasion


and


when


gift


presented.


limited


amount


past


gift-giving


research


which


been


done


in marketing


typically


measured


manipulated


order


only


to examine


or three


differences


gift-giving


dimensions


gift-exchange


process


such


variations


information


search


gift


selection.


In order


to understand


complexities


of gift


giving-


behavior


, researchers


need


to study


each


of the


gift-giving


dimensions


as well


differentiations


along


each


dimension.


purpose


of this


paper


propose


discuss


factors


are


believed


to be able


to resolve


some


inconsistencies


factors


past


concern


gift-giving


the gift-giving


findings.


These


dimensions


are


referred


donor/rec


ipient


relationship


nature


occasion.


A literature


review


of gift-giving


research


will


be presented


which


will


show


that


these


dimensions


have


been


sufficiently


handled


past


studies.


examination


believed


of these


that


dimensions,


further

a more


refinement


comprehensive


view


gift-giving


process


be attained.


this


chapter,


a framework


- ~ ,~ a ~


qift-crivina


.









discussed.


relevant


framework


In the


past


second


gift-giving


discussed


chapter,


research


Chapter


a literature


presented.


each


study


review


Using


evaluate


upon


consideration


of each


of the


gift-giving


dimensions.


Based


upon


this


discussion,


several


reasons


are


postulated


to explain


some


of the


past


inconsistencies


in gift


-giving


findings


exist.


Next,


each


of the


dimensions


or aspects


of the


dimensions


which


have


been


inadequately


handled


past


research


will


be analyzed


through


a detailed


review


of relevant


literature.


next


chapters,


several


hypotheses


will


be proposed


based


upon


previous


review


of the relevant


literature


along


with


a research


design


to examine


these


hypothe


ses.


last


chapters


will


present


study's


results


conclusions


as well


suggestions


concerning


future


research


ideas.


Framework


Gift


giving


fascinating,


universal


behavior


that


several


variations


depending


upon


donor


rec


ipient,


gift,


situational


conditions


involved.


In order


to understand


variations


gift-


giving


behavior,


each


of these


dimensions


or components


gift


giving


must


taken


into


account.


Yet,


past


research


failed


to recognize


certain


aspects


or entire


dimen s i nn.s









donor/recipient


relationship and/or the


situational


condition.


Donor/Recioient


Relat ions bin


way that


past


studies have examined gift-giving


behavior has been to view gift


giving as


one type of


purchase


situation and


contrasted


it with another type of


purchase


situation,


namely,


personal


use.


Typically,


these


studies will


specify


gift-giving


situation who


gift


will be given


and sometimes,


they will


also


specify


precipitating condition


In the personal


use


scenario,


individuals are


simply told


they are acquiring the


item for


personal


use.


For these


particular


studies,


this


type of


experimental


design


presents


a problem.


stated earlier,


a donor


and a


recipient


may be


the same


individual.


Several


researchers


have


suggested this possibility


(Levy,


1982;


Schwartz,


1967;


Sherry,


1983),


and past


research has provided evidence of


this


phenomenon


(Mick


DeMoss,


1990a,


1990b).


In fact,


giving


gifts to oneself


or acquiring


self-gifts


appears


be a fairly


common behavior,


least


Americans.


Although self-gifts


section,


will be discussed in


will briefly define


depth


self-gifts as


in a


symbol


later

c self-


communication


which are considered special


indulgences


that


tend


to be


premeditated and


context bound


(Mick


DeMoss.










Because


individuals


introduced


these


give


studies


gifts


a confound


recognize


to themselves,


their


design.


fact


they


There


that


have


no way


knowing


whether


individuals


personal


use


situation


thought


purchase


as a gift


to themselves


or not.


Although


different


goal


purchase


of these


studies


situations,


they


was


to contrast


could


have


two


potentially


analyzed


the difference


between


a gift


-giving


situation


a mixture


of self-gift-giving


nongift


-giving


situations.


Future


between


research


buying


needs


a gift


to make


distinction


someone


buying


only


item


personal


use


also


between


buying


a self


-gift


buying


a nonself-gift


see


Figure


Past


research


also


focused


on different


versions


dyadic


gift


giving


behavior


. Typically,


these


studies


have


manipulated


examine

studies,


part


gift


differences


occasion


in gift


donor/recipient


individuals


' gift-giv


or the


purchase


recipient


strategies


relationship p

ing strategies


lays

but


order


these


an important


always


recognized


as doing


so.


Specifically,


recipient


in a dyadic


gift-giving


situation


may


cons


idered


distant


relative


or friend


or he/she


be considered


close


relative


or friend


donor.


However,


many


studies


do not


specify


or measure


particular


__I_ _


















PURCHASE


ITEM


FOR


GIFT


SOMEONE


Figure 1.
recipient


Conceptual
in gift giv


framework


role


ing.


CLOSE
EXTENDED
SELF


DISTANT









is believed that


individuals buying gifts


close


others or


others who are


incorporated into what


Belk


(1986)


defines as


one's


extended self may exhibit


significantly


different


purchase behaviors


than


those


individuals buying


gifts


distant


others.


Specifically,


giving


gifts


individuals


giving


in one's extended


gifts to oneself,


self may be


whereas giving


seen


gifts


as similar to

to distant


others may be


seen as


dissimilar to giving gifts


to oneself


(please note


that


these effects will be discussed more


thoroughly


in a


later


section)


Only


a few of


the dyadic


gift-giving stu

donor/recipient


dies have


investigated the effects


relationship on


gift-giving behavior,


the

and


each


one has


suggested evidence of


such effects


(Goodwin,


Smith,


Spiggle,


1990;


Heeler,


Francis,


Okechuku,


Reid,


1979;


Ryans,


1977) .


Future gift-giving research needs


make


the distinction between


a donor buying a


self-gift,


gift


to a


close other,


and a


gift


to a


distant


other


(see


Figure


Situational


Condition


Last,


the nature of the


situation has been a


gift-


giving


component


which has not


always been measured or


manipulated properly


in past


gift-giving


studies.


some


studies,


situational


condition


(e.g.,


specifically the


gift


occasion)


is not


specified at


all,


-


d in other










experiment.


measure


different


ces


gift


giving


behavior


adequately,


situational


condition


such


gift


occasion


to be either


manipulated


or control


ed for


researcher.


Past


studies


have


shown


that


type


occasion


does


have


an effect


on the


amount


money


individual


will


spend


on a gift


type


of gift


individual


will


purchase


elk,


1979;


DeVere,


Scott,


Shulby,


1975) .


Future


research


needs


to take


into


account


effect


that


different


aspects


of the


situation


have


donor's


purchase


strategy


behavior.
















CHAPTER


LITERATURE


REVIEW


following


discussion


will


be divided


into


three


basic


sections.


first


section


will


review


relevant


gift-giving


literature


focusing


on gift


context


studies


studies


examining


gift


giving


as a purchase


variable.


following


sections


will


review


literature


pertaining


gift-giving


dimensions


discussed


earlier,


namely,


role


recipient


situational


condition.


These


sections


are


included


in order


examine


their


important


role


in understanding


complexities


of gift-


giving


behavior.


Gift-Givina


Studies


Gift


Givina


as a Purchase


Variable


Typically,


past


research


which


attempted


distinguish


gift


giving


from


other


types


consumer


behavior


presented


individuals


with


scenarios


specifying


product


recipient


of the


purchased


product


(i.e.,


self


versus


other).


some


instances,


occasion


giving a product

recipient to the


to another


donor

1 1


and/or


is described


relationship


or measured


as well.


n,1-~~_ f4r- *I -


1 ~t 1


... I 1


Fr


mr


_ 1


r*










product


selection


within a


specific purchase


situation


(i.e.,


personal


use


versus gift)


results


of these


studies have provided inconsistent findings concerning

differences between gift-giving behavior and consumption


behavior for personal


use.


Specifically,


some


studies


have


found that


when a product


is to be


presented


as a gift


entails a


greater expenditure of


effort and/or money than


when


same product


to be


used by the buyer


(Clarke &


Belk,


1979;


Gronhaug,


1972;


Sharpiro


1970) .


However,


other


studies have


reported


findings


which


contradict


this


conclusion


(Heeler et


al.,


1979;


Ryans,


1977;


Scammon


al.,


1982).


Gronhaug


(1972


asked housewives


about


their most


recent


purchase of


tableware


examined how buying purpose


and prior


results of his


experience affected information


study provided evidence


search.


suggesting that


individuals

different t


advice


who bought


ypes


from friends


tableware as


of tableware,


a gift


considered


studied brochures,


and dealers more


so than


and sought


individuals


bought ta

tableware


bleware


for their own


for personal


use


use.


Individuals buying


with no previous


experience


studied price more


than


individuals buying tableware as


gift.


With previous experience,


there


was


no difference


price


comparisons.


In addition,


thP1rs


- -


no difference


W;I ~










However,


with


previous


experience,


number


individuals


visited


more


than


one


shop


before


buying


tableware


was


much


higher


than


those


buying


as a gift


versus


personal


use.


Although


Gronhaug


s results


suggest


that


individuals


will


seek


more


information


when


shopping


a gift


someone


versus


when


shopping


a personal


use


item,


can


be considered


very


strong


evidence


this


occurrence.


First,


forcing


respondents


to select


between


only


reasons


their


tableware


purchase


i.e.,


bought


as a gift


someone


personal


use),


impossible


discern


if the


tableware


purchased


personal


use


was


considered


a self-gift


or simply


needed


as a replacement,


example.


For


those


bought


tableware


as gifts,


one


does


know


whether


gift-giving


relationship


was


close


or distant


wedding,


or what


housewarming)


gift-giving


Thus,


occasion


was


difficult


.g.-


to conclude


exactly


what


effects


were


being


means


ured


in this


study


A study


Clarke


Belk


1979)


assessed


effects


of product


involvement


task


involvement


on anticipated


consumer


purchase


effort.


They


hypothesized


that


greater


product


task


involvement,


which


are


determinants


purchase


importance,


should


cause


consumers


to expend


more


effort.


-.


their


study,


they


manipulated


produce


\r










involvement.


Task


involvement


was


manipulated


informing


subjects


that


product


was


to be purchased


personal


use


(low


task


involvement


or as a gift


a good


friend


(high


task


involvement).


Subjects


were


randomly


assigned


treatment


conditions


with


each


subject


receiving


both


task


conditions


different


products.


Purchase


effort


was


estimated


measures


assess


real


relative


amount


money,


time,


stores


visited


each


scenario.


results


of their


study


suggest


that


involvement


products,


subjects


were


willing


spend


more


time


money


visit


more


stores


when


buying


the product


a gift


involvement


time,


than


personal


products,


effort,


use.


subjects


stores


In contrast,


reported


equal


visited


high


amounts


levels


of task


involvement.


Clarke


Belk


explain


later


finding


a ceiling


effect


on overall


involvement


They


state


that


sele


already


action


as high


of a product


would


like


normally


jeans,


involvement


reach,


gift


condition


could


raise


this


level


no higher.


Based


upon


their


results,


Clarke


Belk


1979


suggested


that


overall


effect


task


involvement


was


increase


amount


of anticipated


effort


involvement


products


not


high


involvement


products.


However,


neither


nipulation


was


checked


within


rla


v v










hard to conclude


what


exactly was being manipulated.


There


no way


of knowing


if subjects


personal


use


condition


could have been anticipating purchase


effort


needed to acquire a


gift


self


or purchase effort


needed


to acquire a nonself-gift.


In addition,


since


they did not


specify either the


recipient


or the gift


occasion,


these


factors


were


left


free


to vary across


subjects.


Therefore,


study's


results


cannot be generalized across


recipients


or gift


occasions.


possible


interpretation


of the


results


could be


that

have


subjects

viewed a


the high product


involvement


record album and a pair of


jeans


condition may

as more


likely to


be products


bought


as gifts


self,


and,


thus,


they


anticipated expending a


similar


amount


search


effort


both


personal


use and


gift


conditions.


Lastly,


one


wonders how realistic a


task


was


college


students to


imagine giving gifts


such as


blankets and bubble gum.


Given


this


is an


uncommon occurrence


among


college


students,


other


motives


besides


gift


giving may


have been


operating


high


task/low product


involvement


condition.


Vincent


and Zikmund


(1976)


conducted an


exploratory


study to determine


the effects of


different buying


situations


on several


dimensions of perceived risk.


They


manipulated


the buvina


situation bhv askina respondents


L- .-


L










eac


h buying


situation


were


eight


questions


concerning


four


different

social,


risk


physical


producing

i. and fi


dimen


sions


nancial)


(i.e.,


types


performance,


risk


measures


were


required


each


type


of risk


The


respondents


were


asked


indicate


on a


7-point


scale


their


impressions


of the


likelihood


occurrence


how


important


would


to avoid


consequences


ass


ociated


with


each


of the


four


risk producing


dimensions,


within


given


situation


context.


Vincent


Zikmund


conclude


that


significantly


less


social


risk


involved


considering


purchase


electric


product


knife


home


as a wedding


usage


gift


than


i.e.,


in considering


likelihood


same


that


others


would


think


less


your


were


to buy


this


product


importance


occurrence)


of the


However,


consequences


respondents


associated


were


with


this


significantly


more


concerned


with


financial


risk


involved


purchasing


electric


knife


home


usage


than


in purchasing


same


product


as a wedding


gift


.e.


, the


likelihood


that


this


product


costs


too


much


importance


of the


consequences


associated


with


this


occurrence)


Vincent


Zikmund


suggest


that


buying


a more


expensive


model


wedding


present


than


they


would


have


considered


t hnm $1


UP Q mu 1 ri I


th4%z


, nit-nrnv-ca1-ar


a o ^ i Q1C


tfP C


r


rnrll


rg.










two purchase


situations


for physical


and performance


risk.


As with Clarke and Belk's


study,


no manipulation


checks


were


performed to determine


if subjects did respond to


questions


if they were buying the


product


for personal


use


or as a gift


a close


friend's


wedding.


Although


they reported


systematic differences across


conditions,


is hard to define exactly what


is causing


these effects.


Given


that


respondents were


housewives,


is possible that


they


considered


the electric knife as a


gift


to themselves over and above


just buying


it for


personal


use.


In addition,


study


involves


only one


product


category,


one


type of


recipient,


and one occasion


which


leaves


little


to generalize about


the observed results


over gift


occasions,


Shapiro


(1970)


gift


recipients,


asked over


and products.


respondents


took part


in a shopping experiment


to evaluate actual


items


five


product


categories


and reclining


chair)


(stockings,


on a


cologne,


variety of


carpeting,


attributes


sweater,


such as


quality,


worth


the money,


likelihood of purchase


personal


use,


likelihood


of purchase


for gift


giving.


Shapiro


found that


although


the differences


were not


large,


every


case,


the quality variable had a


larger


correlation


in all but


one case:


the rice


attitude had a


smaller


^4-L AVj










that


respondents buying the product


as a


gift


viewed the


quality of


the product


as more


important


and the


price as


less


important


than when buying the product


for personal


use.


Although


Shapiro


(1970)


did not


describe


his measures


detail


measures were


serious questions


cannot


to understand them fully,

all single-item scales w


regarding their


be determined if


it appears


whichh


reliability.


respondents


that


leaves


In addition,


interpreted personal


use


as a gift


to oneself


or not.


The differences between


purchase si

of personal


tuations may

use been ex


have been


plicitly


greater


specified.


had the definition

Neither the


recipient


nor the type


of gift


occasion was


specified


either


leaving these


factors


to vary freely across


subjects.


Ryans


(1977)


found that


individuals


shopping for


personal


use took


significantly more


time


to make


their


purchases


than


individuals


shopping


outhome


gifts


(giver


recipient


However,


are members of


found no significant


different households).


differences between


personal


use buyers and inhome gift


buyers


giver and


recipient


are members


of the


same household)


amount


purchase

recent D


time.


purchase of


He questioned respondents


a small


about


appliance and asked


their most

them to


sDecifv whether this purchase was


for Personal


use, an


in enough










before


gift


beginning


personal


search


use


process


purchasers.


as compared


Ryans


inhome


reported


significant


differences


between


inhome


gift


purchasers


personal


use


purchasers.


As with


each


of the


previous


studies


discussed,


Ryans


(1977)


does


not


make


distinction


between


buying


item


cannot


oneself


as a gift


be determined


what


versus


motives


a nongift.


subjects


Thus,


personal


use


context


were


assuming.


In addition,


nature


occas


was


specified


so that


this


was


also


allowed


vary


across


subjects.


However,


Ryans


examine


role


recipient


in the


gift-giving


situation


found


some


interesting


results.


one


assumes


that


recipients


inhome


gifts


were


considered


a part


donor


s extended


self,


then


Ryans'


results


suggest


poss


ibility


that


individuals


purchasing


gifts


close


others


may


exhibit


some


same


purchase


behaviors


individuals


purchasing


gifts


oneself.


results


also


suggest


that


individuals


on certain


purchasing


purchasing


purchase


gifts


In conflict


with


gifts


behaviors


close


both


distant


when


others


others


compared


or for


Gronhaug


differ


to individuals


self.


1972)


Clarke


Belk


1979),


Heeler,


Francis


, Okechuku,


Reid


1979)


fniind


that


when


hini xinr


Pa a-i ft


hr I,~rl~n


"frin rJn


" 1PS~


n










buying decision.


However,


Heeler et


also examined


differences


in shopping behavior when


the gift


was


for a


close


friend versus


for personal


use and


found no difference


in the amount


information


accessed or time


spent


making the


purchase decision.


They measured amount


information search by an


information


display board


(1DB)


which


the attributes of the product


class


under


study


are


displayed down


left-hand


column and the brands are


displayed across


so that


information


the brands


is provided in matrix


form.


Different


products


were


used in


wedding/personal


use and


close


friend/personal


use


contrasts:


a blender


and a


watch,


respectively.


Each


subject


was assigned to one of


four


groups


was told to


access


as much


or as


little


information as


necessary to


choose a brand.


Heeler et


also


reported price


most


accessed attribute


individuals


selecting


a blender


for their


own


use


in comparison


to brand name being the most


accessed attribute


individuals


deciding on


a gift


friend's


wedding.


However,


the most


frequently


accessed


attributes


individuals buying a


watch


for personal


use


were


same as


individuals


buying a


watch


a close


friend.


These attributes


were brand name,


price,


and watch


design.


fam1aVf 1 J*t V r rn a


r~t : nn 31 ~ ~F


Uanlhr


hC


I' nn


tnr










neither this manipulation nor the manipulation


"close"


gift-giving


situation


were checked


to determine


if subjects


responded as


such.


hard to understand their rationale


for using


an occasion


to manipulate


"distant"


gift


situation


without a recipient


specified and using a


recipient


to manipulate a


"close"


gift


situation


without an


occasion


specified.


Since personal


use


was not


defined explicitly to


subjects


as a self-gift


or nonself-gift,


one


possible


interpretation may be


that


college


students anticipating the


purchase of


a blender were more


likely to


view the purchase


a nongift


item,


whereas


students


anticipating the


purchase of


a watch


were more


likely to


interpret


watch


self-gift.


Thus,


similarities


search behavior


appear between


whereas


conditions


differences


for the


appear between


purchase of


conditions


watch,


for the


purchase of


the blender.


Although


would be convenient


to be able


to state


that


results of Heeler


et al.


provide


support


for the


idea


that


self-gifts and gifts to close others


share more


similar purchase


characteristics


than gifts to distant


others,


each


they used only


comparison.


one product


cannot be


category and one occasion


determined whether the


rc~llCi 11- mmii 1'vtr rnrrrnra Fn 4- -hA


~nU


~C t~ n *rr *r u rr ~.. nC


Y










have


even


been


considered


past


gift


situations


sample


employed.


In addition,


questionable


assume


that


is an accurate

information in


measure


a real


of how

shopping


individuals


would


environment.


search


Given


that


for

time


effort


have


to be


expe


nded


in the


real


world


when


searching


information,


one


feels


uneasy


about


drawing


conclusions


about


search


behavior


when


is measured


how


many


attributes


are


turned


over


read


on an


information


board.


Last,


Scammon,


Shaw,


Bamossy


1982)


analyzed


reasons


purchasing


flowers


grouping


them


into


personal


uses,


obligatory


events,


gift


occasions.


They


defined


obligatory


events


functioning


both


as a form


communicating


feelings


recipient


as a method


fair


social/economic


exchange.


Examples


of occasions


grouped


into


obligatory


events


are


"for


a patient


in the


hospital,

occasions


" "for

were


a wedding,


defined


or "for


primarily


a funeral


as a means


Gift


of communication


either


recipient


or about


donor


in which


notion


fair


exchange


only


a minimal


role.


Gifts


anniversary"


a birthday"


are


examples


of gift


occasions.


Lastly,


examples


of personal


use


occas


ions


are


"iust


because.


" and


personall


hnme


nr nffii r


nri


0 "










Subjects also


responded to questions about


toward flower purchases


in general


their attitudes


as well as providing


demographic and socioeconomic data.


Scammon et


performed a


discriminant


analysis


of purchaser


characteristics and

differences between


purchasing behaviors


to identify


three groups.


results of their analysis


indicated significant


differences between


groups.


Scammon et al.


report


that


dat a


clearly


identify


individuals


who buy


flowers


personal


use by their positive attitudes toward


flowers


by their


future buying


intentions.


Personal


use


individuals


exhibited a

only persona


occasions


greater 1

1 use but

well. I


ikelihood


of purchasing flowers


future obligatory


n addition,


for not


events and gift


they paid the most


flowers,


were most


likely to


include


flowers as


part


their normal budget,


opposed


and to buy flowers


to planning purchases


"just


special


on impulse"


occasions)


These


respondents tended to


come


from younger,


professional/


executive


families.


Flower purchases made


for obligatory events were made


simply,


most


often being


charged,


ordered by phone,


store delivered.


Individuals


this group


intended only to


flowers


in the


future


for other


obligatory


events.


They


n rP ltf l na+ t 1 7 fFma 10 inri T.TOrO


r nmnr- ooc4 nf rh rl v-i oot


WPra










For those


individuals buying


flowers


gift


occasions,

personal u


they were


ise or


least


likely to buy flowers


obligatory events.


This group


was most


likely to plan


their flower purchases


special


occasions


and,


generally,


to pay


in cash and deliver their gift


person.


They also were more


likely to pay the


least


their


flower purchases.


Individuals grouped into gift


occasions


were the


youngest


of the


respondents


and were


likely to be


students


or housewives.


There exist


several


points


of contention


in the


study


by Scammon


et al.


of these points


lies


the manner


which


they define


several


concepts.


One of


these


concepts


the obligatory/voluntary


distinction.


do not believe


that


this


distinction


can be made by the


occasion


for which


the gift


is given as Scammon


et al.


have


done.


Rather,


is believed that

by both obligator


a specific act

y and voluntary


of giving may be motivated

reasons.


Another point


lies


fact


that


Scammon


et al.


group


individuals


who bought


flowers


for personal


home or


office


use,


"just


because,


" "other


special


day,


" and


"other"


into


personal


use


category.


From this author's


point


view,


seems possible


that


some of


individuals


purchased flowers


"other


special


day,


" "just because,


n-r 0'rron ~~mmx hm~r nhrrnQr I IIP f1 'C -r -4 'C QP f


"rd-ho ,l 1


4.. C -


fl nvaorr


| r I


c~p]f-


nr p~lpn


j*J V


&- U fY










themselves


(Mick


& DeMoss,


1990a) .


These


self-gift


motivations


could be considered as


"special


day"


"just


because"


occasions.


In addition,


Scammon


et al.


(1982)


hypothesized that


younger,


professional


people


would have a


more


positive attitude


towards


flowers.


They state


that


"these


people enjoy purchasing for


themselves


as a reward or


'pick


themselves


I II


They


were,


found that


in fact,


people


younger,


who bought


professional


flowers


families


with


positive attitudes


toward


flowers


and who bought


flowers


for a


variety


of occasions.


A last


point


deals


with


the measures


taken


study.


Although


the measures


used were not


described


detail,


seems


that


least


some,


all,


of them


were


single-item measures which


leaves


serious


questions


about


their


reliability.


From the above discussion and evaluation,


impossible


to try to


resolve


inconsistencies between


these


studies'


findings


(Clarke


Belk,


1979;


Gronhaug,


1972;


Heeler et


al.


1979;


Ryans,


1977;


Scammon


et al.,


1982;


Shapiro,


1970;


Vincent


Zikmund,


1976) .


Almost


every


study used different


instructions


in order to manipulate


purchase


situations,


as well


as using


different


task


environments


and different


dependent measures.


There


were


1 on Crt'Oo+ ~~~ t~~flO ran n A~ AP mn n In04 xr r 4n -


Irl


a r\


aClr~; bE


nt~ aat nnb


n_


nt tn










nonself-gifts


personal


use


situations


most


studies


situation


failed


was


to specify


a close


whether


or distant


recipient


other.


gift


In addition,


nature


occasion


was


rarely


accounted


most


the

Gift


purchase

Context


situations.

Studies


Gift


context


studies


examine


gift


giving


as the


primary


variable


interest.


These


studies


have


examined


such


areas


of gift


giving


as gift


selection,


information


search,


and,


instances


motivation


gift


purchase.


However,


there


been


extensive


published


research


gift


giving


within


a marketing


context.


There


have


been


several


studies


which


have


produced


some


interesting


results.


Belk

findings


1982


in the


attempts


literature


to resolve

concerning


inconsistent


differences


gift/personal


use


dichotomy.


He states


that


while


gift


giving


a more


involving


purchase


situation


compared


incons


to personal


istent


use,


showing


research


that


products


to date


presented


been

as gifts


entail


a greater


expenditure


of time


money


than


when


same


product


to be used


buyer.


Belk


hypothesized


that


the inconsistencies


findings


could


be due


to the


- F r ~ ff ront -ncr a, +* ii~ 4 nfl o fl Ta trno riar hl',


ri if far~nt


f~ rt


that


n: ~t I Fl; ~~ ~ nn


e: t rr~t : nn *


okn r.r









differences


in involvement


directly


influence


the amount


effort


devoted to purchase


selection.


Belk


(1982)


manipulated involvement


levels


solely


within gift-giving


that


situations.


have asked people to


He reasoned that


imagine choosing the


studies


same product


a gift


for others


or as


a purchase


self,


it may be


highly


artificial


to ask someone to


imagine giving a


particular product


such as


bubble bath as a


gift.


Thus,


subjects


were


randomly assigned to gift-giving


scenarios


differing


characteristics


involvement


and asked for their evaluation


of appropriate gifts


rather than


specific product.


study


contained four treatment


conditions:


birthday


gift


repay favor


close


for a


casual


female


female


friend,


friend,


thank


birthday


gift


gift


a casual


female


friend who


older than


you,


wedding gift


for a


close


young female


relative.


Conditions


represented high


involvement


gift-giving


situations


while


conditions


represented low


involvement


gift-giving


situations.


Subjects were asked to


rate


the desirability


gift


characteristics


in which were embedded six characteristics


of interest


for the


study.


These


six gift


characteristics


measured rice.


aual ity.


anPd Piqs nF nirrh T a










should a gift


to this


person


on this occasion be?"


To add


to the


name


task's


and age of


realism,


subjects were asked to give a


someone they


knew who


first


the scenario


description,


they were asked not


to think


terms of


particular prior gift


to this person.


Belk hypothesized that


desirable


characteristics of


gifts purchased


situations


involvement


would be


lower priced,


lower quality,


and more easily purchased than


gifts


purchased


for high


involvement


situations.


results


situations


high


indicated that


were most


involvement


responses


often


situation


two


similar,


involvement


responses


were seldom similar.


Two of the


three


ratings of


price


were highest


for the


high


involvement


for the


situations


conditions.


wedding


scenario only


resulted in


third price

Both high


the highest


ratings


rating was highest

involvement


"high


quality.


Lastly,


ratings measuring ease of


purchase


indicated that


was


undesirable


for the


wedding


gift


to be


"quick and


convenient"


or a


"spur-of-the-moment"


purchase but


that


these


characteristics


were not


undesirable


in a birthday gift


a close


friend.


Belk


explained


inability


involvement


to account


variations


in purchasing


strategies between


a, I- ii~+ ,r nn ht ho k


-ih~r mt


F Ca rant


nvna~tst:hn~


r o-










apparently


enough


to balance


involvement


levels,


they


have


been


enough


to negate


normative


expectations


about


appropriate


wedding


birthday


gift


characteristics


across


situations.


In his


occas


study,


and


consider


Belk


specifies


recipient


effect


each


nature


both


nature


scenario,


of the


occasion


he does


on gift


selection


until,


as he


notes,


after


he analyzes


res


ults.


In addition,


not


clear


that


manipulat ion


check


measured


level


donors'


involvement.


could


imagine


a high


involvement


gift


occasion


that


may


not


cons


idered


special


a donor


such


as a business


dinner


one


s boss


highly


s house.


artificial


Subjects


task


in which


were a

h they


Iso


presented


rated


with


desirability


relevant


dependent


measures


along


with


enormous


amount


of other


gift


characteristic


A study


DeVere,


Clifford,


Shulby


(1975


also


attempted

sought or


assess


avoided


various


Magnitude

gift at


with


which


tributes


respondents


under


different


gift-giving


occasions.


gift-giving


Birthdays


occasions


to be


weddings


varied


were


in order


chosen


to reduce


potential


variance


induced


different


social


meanings


that


holiday


such


as Christmas


Mother's


kiln~h 1 tt' h~7 o aa -


,- .f+-


-k 4- 4- a


cs.


i" n h3~1b


r~u


IiiE l \


~l~nn


r,










evaluative criteria


potentially used by


consumers


their gift


choice process and,


thus,


ultimately


represented


psychological


(perceived)


Subjects were told to


situation.


think


of a specific person


whom


they might


purchase a


gift


in the near


future.


They


were asked to

initials, and


involvement


responded


supply the potential


relationship to


on the part


to 48 gift


recipient's


subjects


respondent.


attributes and


age,


to increase


Each subject


was assigned to only one


condition.


The r

attributes


resultss of their


are highly


study


salient


indicated that


to the gift-givin(


certain gift

g decision


regardless


the gift-giving occasion.


Attributes


highly


sought


by the


respondents


regardless


of the experimental


condition were receiver's

enjoyability, durability,


need for the gift,


performance,


usefulness


uniqueness,

, and


innovativeness


gift.


Gift


attributes


found to be


highly avoided by


respondents


regardless


occasion


included


lack


recipient's


desire


for the gift,


unreliable,


impersonal,


and gaudy


gifts,


and gifts


that


lack


brand status,


function,


and style.


DeVere et


(1975)


also


found several attributes


that


were


rated


significantly different


for the


two occasions.


1'in n.E *ho


r~t~f


r, ~~~~~F a,. r, A 4- a a emr A &


~ttr: krrCnn


r*n~l. L r..L










consumer tests and presence of warranty.


DeVere et al.


reported that

properties of


(1977)


these gift

a product


study


attributes


which


are


risk-reducing


were employed by


of perceived risk.


They


Roselius


stated that


was


informally hypothesized


that


risk-reducing properties of


a gift


would be more


salient


to subjects


in the


wedding


condition


to the


reduced


frequency


occurrence and the


high


social


visibility


associated


with gift-giving behavior.


Five


related gift attributes were


significantly more


the birthday


found to be


condition


sought


than


wedding


condition.


These gift


attributes--innovativeness,


imaginativeness,


novelty,


handmade,


and spontaneity--were


labeled as


collative properties.


DeVere


et al.


(1975)


suggest


that


these attributes are similar to each


other


that


they


imply


arousal


potential


for the donor.


DeVere et al.


state


that


the goal


of their


research


was


assess


consumer


attitudes


towards


two gift-giving


occasions,


attitudes


seems


towards gift


they were assessing


attributes


consumer


in two gift-giving


occasions.


If this assumption


is true,


then


type of


recipient


would also affect


consumer attitudes


toward


gift


selection


However,


since


respondents


were asked to


think


of a specific person


for whom they might


purchase a


gift


r n -.


C -.- -


4-I1-


I-I r I III I0 rs -a I rrt- fl 1 Lr rnr flr nr rn ty nflr ,-'t 4- Ita .-..


I_.--~.! _


r


~ nr.r C ~ n


C (Ih~ AC










unlikely possibility that


the person


they


had in mind would


be given a


In a


gift


study


for the occasion


of 219 gift-giving


they were assigned


instances by


Philadelphia area residents,


Belk


(1979)


provides


some


descriptive


information on


the pro


cess


of gift


selection.


He found that


the most


frequent


gift-giving


occasions


were


birthdays and Christmas,


recipients most


often given


gifts were


friends,


parents,


and children,


respectively.


Several


other


findings


were


that


only


of the


respondents


found gift


giving an


unpleasureable


experience,


approximately two-thirds of


respondents took


less


than


one hour to shop


for gifts,


and cost


of the gift


was more


clearly determined by the occasion


rather than by the


type


of recipient


(e.g.,


friend versus


relative)


four most


frequent


occasions


in which


the gift


cost


$10 or more


were


weddings, an

graduations.


iniversaries,


Belk


Christmas/Hanukkah,


also examined gift


and


characteristics


occasions


and found that birthday gifts were


uniquely


personal and


compared


to Christmas


and wedding


gifts and


were also


judged


to be


lower


quality,


less


expensive,


less


prestigious,


and less


lasting.


Belk


conducted a


final


analysis


comparing the


similarities between

r'hz=rntanr+ r4c- 4 rc n nc


the giver's perception


aoaA~ t tha *ha cr r 4


t ~ ~ r nor rr t










self-concept


was more


highly


correlated with


the choice of


gift


than


was


giver's


actual


self-concept


perceptions


of the


recipient,


although


later two were


found to be


significant


factors.


In his analysis,


Belh


did not


examine what


effect


type


of recipient might have


the givers'


perception


had on


of the gift


the similarities between

characteristics and their


perceptions of their


ideal


self-concept,


actual


self-


concept,


and the


recipient.


There may be


significant


differences between


similarities


of the giver's


various


perceptions


giver's


when


extended self


recipient


as compared


incorporated


to when


into the


recipient


distant


relation.


Belk also


took the average of


correlations


between


their perceptions


self-concept,

occasions. T


and the


therefore ,


subjects'


their


recipient

the effect


gift


actual


perception


self-concept,


for three

t of the


different

type of oc


ratings


ideal

gift


casion


could not


be examined as well.


Looking


at gift


giving


from a


different


perspective,


Warshaw


(1980)


examined correlations


of attitudinal and


social normative


variables with intentions to purchase gift


items


varying


in price.


Warshaw used Fishbein's


behavioral


intentions model


which posits


that


-I -


U LI Ir fl nb.


rr.-










subjective


social norm.


Perceptual


expense of the product


was manipulated by the


type


of product


subjects


rated


Aact,


and BI.


From a


pretest,


Warshaw


included


in his


study the


two most


frequently noted expensive gifts


necklace and a sweater)


two most


frequently noted


inexpensive gifts


Valentine card and a box of


chocolates)

attributes


The

(e.g.,


study's


findings


is good for me


suggested that evaluative

to buy Product X for


someone")


rather than norms


(e.g.,


"Others who are


important


to me


think


*~I)


influenced intentions


to purchase


expensive gifts,


while


evaluative attitudes and norms


were


equally correlated with intentions


to purchase


inexpensive


gifts.


Similar to previous


studies,


Warshaw allowed both


type


of recipient


the gift


occasion


to vary


freely


across


subjects.


Thus,


one


cannot


generalize the observed


results


over


recipients or gift


situations.


However,


expensive


gifts are more personal and may be appropriate


only


special


people under


special


circumstances.


Perhaps,


some


subjects


were


involved with


appropriate


recipients.


Similarly,


expensive gifts may


have


been


unaffordable


some of


subjects.


studies


have examined


consumers'


motivations


I 2 JL _. 2 -t. L.-


~CL


1--1 1-










Smith,


and Spiggle


(1990)


conducted a


study proposing that


the extent


to which gift


givers are motivated by primarily


voluntary


or obligatory motives


shapes the


gift


selection,


acquisition,


and postpurchase process.


Their definition


obligatory


and voluntary gift


giving


differs


from the


definition


of Scammon


et al.


1982) .


Goodwin et


(1990)


state

motive


that


voluntary motives


which is


self-serving


encompass both


(the wife


seeking t


agonistic

o regain


affection


from an alienated husband)


and the altruistic


motive which is


child)


selfless


the other


(the


hand,


father expressing


they


esteem for


identify the obligatory


motive


as encompassing


both reciprocity and ritual.


Reciprocity


is represented as giving a


gift


as part


mutual


exchange


exchange)


(which does


return


have to be


another


gift.


a tangible


Goodwin


(1990)


do not


feel


that


the obligatory/voluntary distinction


can be made by the occasion


for which


the gift


is given.


They


state


that


a specific act


of giving may


have elements


of ritual


(Valentine's


Day),


reciprocity


expect


give me a


Valentine's


gift),


and symbolic communication


enjoy


expressing my affection


you)


Subjects were asked to


identify


a recent


gift-giving


experience


followed by


a series


of open-ended questions


.nrn v- A In, 4 .


- -


*


i. I ,


I r


I










return.


versions


Subjects were asked to respond to one


the questionnaire.


of the


version asked subjects


identify


a gift


experience


which


felt


obligated"


the other version asked subject


to identify a


gift


experience


which


felt


no obligation


to give a


gift.


Goodwin et


(1990)


found several


interesting


insights concerning donors'


motives and the gift-giving


process.


One of their


findings


suggested that


recipients of


voluntary


gifts


were mainly


close


friends


and family,


whereas


recipients of


obligatory gifts


included


casual


friends as


well.


In addition,


their


results


indicate


that


while gifts


to casual


friends


were meant


to communicate


feelings,


simply mark an event,


indicate


"nothing"


all,


gifts


to close


friends


and family were almost all meant


to communicate emotional


states and relational


qualities


Although both


types of


gift-giving


exchanges were given


express


giver's own


relationship


feelings


importance


("giver's


("expression of


giver's


sentiment")


sentiment"),


voluntary


recipient


gifts were more


s need/characteristic


likely to be given due


("needed cheering up,


"because


more


he's a nice person"),


likely to be given


and obligatory


in celebration of


gifts


were


an occasion.


When


selecting


a gift,


voluntary


donors


were more


concerned with


ror; n-i ant- a


,'~ a AI ~% 04 -4A-t a '- *- -


.4- fl~lV *IC 4


naa~cc


; n nnnCr~nC










return.


In addition,


two-thirds


of obligatory


and only one-


third of


voluntary


donors


felt


time


and money was not


issue when


selecting their gift.


Goodwin


et al.


suggest


that


since


obligatory


gifts may be given


to less


familiar


recipients,


more


time


and money may


be required


to select


appropriate gift.


Lastly,


when asked,


"what


did


expect


return,


" voluntary


donors


indicated only emotion and


gratitude


whereas obligatory


donors


expressed tangible gifts


well


as gratitude


in return


for their


gift


However,


obligatory


donors


stated they would be more


likely to


resist


reciprocity than


voluntary


donors.


study


by Goodwin et


provides


some


initial


insights


into obligatory


and voluntary motives


involving


gift-giving behavior.


Since


they argue


that


the obligatory/


voluntary


distinction


cannot


be made based on


type of


gift


occasion,


it would have


been


useful


to provide evidence


of this


the gift


argument by asking


experience they


subjects


identified.


to list


occasion


In addition,


dependent


measures


and coding procedures


(Goodwin


et al.,


1990


were


described in


enough detail


to understand them fully.


Therefore,


was


impossible


assess


their


reliability


validity


Wolfinbarger


(1990)


studied gift-giving motivations as


tJOl 1 hn+t


, nc?+-otnz


no, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C l 0 a A rnn-aa 4 Ian. n '


~Alrl~bd~ 1)11 nth


rr h nn Ckn










were married at


least


years)


and asked them to discuss


their feelings about

detailed story about


gift

their


giving in general

favorite gift fr


well


om their


as a

spouse.


Wolfinbarger


framework


interpreted her


findings through


of three different motivations


for giving


the

SShe


stated that


the most


dominate motivation


spouses perceived


when


they


received their favorite gift


was the desire


show


love


(an altruistic motive)


In addition,


most


of the


favorite gifts


often


cost


the giver much sacrifice either


money,


effort,


time,


or thought


that


went


into buying the


gift.


Two additional


altruistic motives


expressed by


subjects'


favorite gift


experienced by the


stories


receiver


(not


included reparations

caused by the donor)


loss


altruism of


receiver.


Wolfinbarger


reports


that


one


spouse


said


that


favorite gift


was a


wedding


ring her


husband purchased after


had lost her


first


ring.


In her


study,


Wolfinbarger


also asked subjects


consider the


possibility


of not


giving


gifts


at Christmas to


investigate


the motivation of


gift


giving


as a norm.


reported only


actually


contemplated the notion along with


expressing their feelings that

friends would feel forgotten a


relatives,


children,


nd unappreciated.


and

went


to state


that


gift-giving norms


are


a way


of marking


ry 1 ,^ nn ^roh o AT 1 4 CP arTra +- o


nnnnnn: S


,-.- 4-c r' n -00- a


r: tnn


F










volunteer organization


order to commemorate one


respondent 's


term as


head of


an organization.


A third motivation


which


Wolfinbarger examined


was


self-interested giving.


She concluded from her


analysis


that


relationships


with relatives,


givers are


unlikely to


have


as a


primary motive


creation of


obligation,


conclusion


which


supported by Goodwin


et al's


(1990)


analysis


of recipients


of obligatory and voluntary gifts.


suggests that a


study of


"least


favorite gifts"


may be


more


enlightening


investigating the extent


self-


interested giving.


In addition,


Wolfinbarger analyzed the


symbolism of


subjects'


favorite gifts


in relation


to whether the gift


communicated aspects of the giver and/or


recipient.


states


that


of all


the gift


s symbolic


functions,


presentation of


self


(donor)


and other


(recipient


most


obvious


(Belk,


1979)


found evidence


of both


giver's


self


giver's perception


receiver


subjects'


favorite gift


stories.


related how one


wife


expressed


"her


inability to choose gifts


husband really


liked,


have,


saying that


rather than


she bought


gifts


items


he really wanted.


really wanted him to


the other


hand,


when


asked why


a particular gift


was


chosen


for their


- I --


., -


a I


Qr~flhl en TA~e~ if 4 rrra r ra ;I ttn fnlf l Irt nnr\ Inf l%" C f


rxm lf~nh~rnar


,1,, 1


~n r\rr ca


c










Lastly,


suggested


that


poor


choices are often


result


a poor


fit between


the gift


receiver.


mentioned one couple who each


wife had received a


told her of


frilly blouse


incident


from her


where


husband that


did not


like at


all.


When asked why


she did not


like


the blouse,


husband replied,


think


represented to


a woman she


felt


wasn't.


Wolfinbarger's


study provides an


exploratory


look


into


gift-giving motivations which are communicated throughout


symbolic aspects of the gift.


touches


upon


idea


that


perceptions


reflected


of the donor


in the gift


and the


selection.


Yet,


recipient


in examining what


states


three major motivations


for gift


giving,


focuses


on the


recipients'


perceptions


the donors'


motivation


for giving.


is entirely possible


that


recipients


' perceptions


of the donors'


motives


could be


incorrect.


From the analysis


evaluation


these


studies,


is evident


that


behaviors


a thorough


not been


understanding


reached.


In order to


of gift-giving


reach this


understanding,


nature


the effects of the


of the occasion must


role of


be considered.


recipient


Each


these


studies


failed to account


such


effects.


CAA 4-


a nC,4


a C 4.., 1- ~ f -


- ~ L. -










concerns


when


conducting


future


gift-giving


research.


next


two


sections


address


conceptual


areas


of gift


giving


which


have


been


neglected


past


studies.


Donor/Recipient


Relationship


Self-Gifts


of the


more


important


concepts


which


been


considered


in previous


studies


idea


that


individual


can


be both


donor


and


recipient


gift.


(Mick


This


concept,


DeMoss,


1990a,


which


been


1990b) ,


identified


have


been


as self-gifts


a confound


past


studies


examining


differences


between


gift-giving


personal


use


purchase


behavior.


Just


as dyadic


gift


giving


context


bound


(Belk,


1979;


Sherry,


1983


purchase


gifts


oneself


(Mick


DeMoss,


1990a,


1990b).


Since


occas


of the


ion,


studies


almost


specified


impossible


both


recipient


to determine


whether


individuals


were


responding


to the


personal


use


scenarios


a purchase


of a gift


self


or not.


Although


little


empirical


research


been


done


this


type


of gift-giving


behavior,


several


researcher


have


mentioned


idea


giving


gifts


to self


(Levy,


Mick,


1986;


Schwartz,


1967;


Sherry,


1983)


Schwartz


(1967


noted


important


role


self-concept


plays


in gift


I
('~tit !7I lr


'r n. n r no n


t r-Ft-


c C afnan


4 r~an4 4 ~


r^


r


r^%


n rno


n-










engaged in


such activities


"self-gratifiers.


felt


that


those who


tended to self-indulge were a


result


a non-


intimate


community where


they were


without


affectional


bonds.


Schwartz


stated that


these


people created their


own


emotional

material


"nutrition"


to survive by


demonstrations of


recognit I


supplying their own

on in order to develop a


source of


pleasure


through


self)


In a


review of


Scammon


et al.'s


(1982)


paper,


Levy


mentions

oneself


considering the possibility of


as a way


giving


flowers


as gifts


of providing a deeper understanding


symbolism of


flowers.


of gift


suggests that


buying


oneself


flowers


as gifts may


form of


self-


communication


saying--"'I


owe


to myself


subject


reward me as object"


(1982,


542)


Sherry and McGrath


(1989)


found some of


first


empirical


evidence of


gift


giving to oneself.


They


performed an


ethnography


of gift


stores


and conducted


interviews


with


gift


store customers.


One woman


told


interviewers


that


an expensive piece of


jewelry was


present


from me


to me,


" while another


said about a


doll


was


considering purchasing,


"I've decided


that


nobody


worthy of


this but me.


I'm giving


to myself.


Mick and DeMoss


(1990a)


examined


what


they term self-


c-r ft Q


-iranr t 1 X7* hrr.,,nk an 'nh r rn+ a....


nr.4,. ,. .n f


a -~ a n A a A


A










technique


was used requesting respondents to recall


last


time


they


had acquired a


gift


for themselves.


Specifically,


subjects


were asked to describe


situation


that


led to


self-gift


purchase and any additional


circumstances and


motivations


for their


own self-gift


behavior


which


they


had engaged.


A content


analysis


circumstances and motivations


was


performed.


The dominant


self-gift


circumstances


identified


in the


study are


times of


accomplishment,


when


feeling


when


down,


there


when a holiday


is extra money to


arrives

spend,


when


and whe


feeling

n the i


stressed,


tem may be


especially needed.


The most


frequent motivations


cited were


to reward,


to be nice


to oneself,


to cheer up,


to fulfill


need,


to celebrate,


and to


relieve


stress.


Given that


over


circumstances and motivations


that


were


reported


subjects


DeMoss


fell


concluded


into one of


that


these


self-gifts


categories,


appeared


Mick and


to be acquired


within a


relatively


confined set


of circumstances and


motivations.


They determined that


self-gifts


can be


partly


differentiated from other personal


acquisitions


by these


circumstances


and motivations.


However,


while


some


respondents mentioned need as a motivation


acquiring a


self-gift,


others openly


stated that


self-gifts


are non-


''Nlr ni-iA flrmh~r er,


o Q!rna1f


4-


rr nnnlr~~~ Ctr~L


,,1L I~L










The analysis of the


stories also revealed self-gifts


be characterized


variable and flexible


in nature as


opposed to being


constrained by the


self-gift


occasion.


Many


different


types


of products and services


were acquired


self-gifts


for each of the circumstances and motivations,


some


self-gifts


were


found in multiple


circumstances


motivations.


Lastly,


Mick and DeMoss


(1990a)


state


that


self-


gift


stories


revealed a


definite


role of the


self-concept


self-gift


behavior.


Specifically,


stories


suggest


complimentary


relationship between


individual' s


sense of


worth and


self-esteem and his/her self-gift behavior


as can


seen


in a


quote


from one


of their


subjects,


"A self-gift


tells


that


I'm worthy person


and I


should be appreciated.


second of


their


studies on self-gifts,


Mick


DeMoss


(1990b)


undertook a more extensive


look


self-


gifts.


Based on


their


earlier


study which


identified some


of the major motivations


circumstances,


they


continued


their


analysis of


self-gifts


by examining


detailed stories


self-gift


asked to recall


experiences


four


and describe


contexts.


in detail


Respondents


last


time


were


they


acquired a


two of


product,


four possible


service, c

contexts.


)r experience


for themselves


The possible contexts


in n A Fn nrn r nf ,-r I rhn


were

1 1 4- I


3 rb G13 rrl ~nr


nn~l


*- l_










Mick and DeMoss


(1990b)


performed a


content


interpretive analysis


of the


stories and discovered six


underlying


self-gift


themes


which were


present


in the


self-


gift


stories:


perfect


thing,


deserving,


discovery,


identity,


thing


self-esteem,


is described as


and escape.

the ability of


theme of perfect


self-gifts


to maximize


consumption


satisfaction or pleasure due


to the


fact


that


giver


and receiver


share perfect knowledge about


receiver's


needs


and wants.


The deserving theme


revealed


individual's


strong belief


that


he/she had


earned the


self-gift.


Mick and DeMoss


found in


their


analysis


that


individuals


who held a


certain


fantasy or


felt


a bit


mystery


discovery


in their


in their


lives


tended to


self-gift


indicate


stories.


Both


theme of


identity


self-esteem themes


revealed the tactical


self-influence of


self-gift


on the


self by maintaining or


directing


one's


self-definition and self-worth.


Lastly,


the theme of


escape


showed


self-gifts


' effect


on mood stated by way


their


ability to alter


one's mood or mindset as a


type of


coping


strategy to deal


with


life's


ups and downs.


Their


analysis


indicated


existence of these


themes across all


four


contexts


with some


themes


displaying greater dominance


some


contexts


than others.


Mick and DeMoss


(1990b)


also


- -- 5- 1- 4- --- -- -- ---- I --. I


r


.,L L1, L


ncin r










which


they


described for


a particular context


was a self-


gift


before


they actually acquired it.


In Mick and DeMoss's


conclusion,


they


offer a


definition of


self-gift based on prior writings


empirical


work of


self-gift behavior.


They define


self-


gifts


"(1)


personally


symbolic


self-communication


through


special


indulgences that


tend to be


premeditated and


highly


context bound"


(1990b,


328)


Element


one


stresses


fact


that


an integral


feature of


the meanings


of self-gifts


their


arbitrary,


person-specific


connotations.


some


degree all


self-gifts


serve as


symbolic communication


messages


primarily with oneself


concerning either affective


conveying


self-regard and/or


self-definition.


Element


oneself.


stresses the


Self-gifts are


specialness of


special acquisitions


a gift


for they


provide extra meaning


for the


individual


and/or they


are


out-of-the-ordinary acquisitions.


Mick and DeMoss


state


that


self-gifts are among the


purchases


to be


least


involvement,


likely


routine


of self-directed


consumer behaviors.


However,


since private psychological


processes are employed


individuals


in determining what


self-acquisitions


will be


considered gifts


to self,


any product


or service


can be


r,,lC I


* r~n~ rn c Ft~n~a I-,n-fll










intentionally.


Individuals


who buy


self-gifts


are aware


some


sense


that


the acquisition


obtained as


a gift


self before


"self-gift"


bring about


Lastly,


they acquire


comes to mind,


thoughts of


self-gifts


It may not be


self-gift


specialness


are highly


that


purchases


and personal


context bound.


term


will


symbolism.


Just as


dyadic gift


giving,


the giving of


gifts to


self


in part,


determined by the

the perfume bought


surrounding


circumstances.


as a replacement


For example,


can be converted


from


nonself-gift


to self-gift


when


the basis


for buying


replaced by such


settings as


rewarding an accomplishment


celebrating


a birthday.


In a


third study of


examined product


differences


self-gifts,


between


Mick and DeMoss


self-gift


(1992a)


contexts


relationship between


several


socioeconomic variables


the propensity to engage


in self-gift behavior.


study was


divided into


two sections


with


each section


employing


a survey.


In the


first


survey,


subjects were


asked


to relate a product,


service,


or experience


that


they


had acquired for


one of two conditions:


to cheer themselves


up because


they were


feeling


down


or to


reward themselves


having


accomplished a


personal


goal.


In addition,


subjects


were asked to


rate a


series of


adjectives


regarding


L- 1 V


aualities


of self-aifts+


that


they, nerne ived tn be mn.









From the results of the


first


study,


Mick and DeMoss


(1992a)


discovered that


certain products


seemed to be more


generally


acquired self-gifts overall,


while


some


were


significantly more


likely to be acquired


in specific


contexts.

clothing,


The most

fast-food,


frequently cited self-gifts

nonfast-food restaurants,


were

music,


personal


care


services,


recreational


products,


electronic equipme

cheer up context,


Comparing the


reward self-gifts


reward context


were more


to the


likely to be


clothing,

and travel


nonfast-food

and less li


restaurants,


kely to be mus


recreational products,

ic, fast-food, personal


care


services


and entertainment


outside


the home.


In addition,


Mick and DeMoss


(1992a)


reported


their


first


study that


certain product


qualities


were


shared among


self-gift


contexts.


contexts


Specifically,


while


they


some qualities


found that


varied among the


four self-gift


contexts


shared the product


qualities of


exciting,


fun,


satisfying.


They


stated that


this


finding provides


further


evidence of


individual's


perceived


indulgence and


specialness of


self-gifts.


However,


they also


reported


several


qualities


that


varied across


four


contexts.


Compared


to the other three


reward self-gifts


as more


contexts,


inspiring,


individual

memorable,


rated


and lasting


- - --


1A l


mt.. 1 .


-'---4


;4I1 r1 FC 'lC'.. 1 llC Znr 1~ FI rrl 'Y11 Inr~ 1n IT 1 1 J nl i y '


I11 J I t










prestigious,


memorable,


elegant,


perfect,


irresistible,


lasting were seen as


less applicable to therapeutic self-


gifts


compared to


the other


contexts


Birthday


self-gifts


were


perceived to be more memorable,


fashionable,


thoughtful,


perfect,


and lasting and less


likely to be


inexpensive or relaxing.


Last,


comparison,


the qualities


of inexpensive,


practical,


and irresistible


were


viewed as


more


applicable


to the


extra money


context,


whereas


inspiring,


memorable,


magical,


and warm were considered less


applicable


to this


context.


second study


employed a


telephone


survey


concerning


which


types


consumers were more


inclined to engage


varied self-gift behaviors.


Specifically,


respondents were


asked how often


they


acquired products,


services,


experiences


for themselves


in eight


different


contexts


being


to reward,


holiday,

goal, tc


to cheer up,


to provide an


Sbe nice


to relieve


incentive


to yourself,


stress,


reaching


to celebrate


to celebrate a


a personal

r birthday,


you


and because


you had extra money to


spend.


survey


also


measured several


socioeconomic variables


which


were believed


to be


related to


the propensity to engage


in self-gift


behaviors.


results of Mick and DeMoss's


(1992a)


second


survey


indi rated


*Ir 'E.- 1ik01fhnnc np '3r va T rfl ClC c.


Ck~C


I | II "


,,,,,!,,


c- ri


; n anlF,~c: FC


Ir


~ rr I n n










with

were


each

less


self-gift

inclined


propensity.


engage


Thus,


older


in self-gift


individuals


behavior.


Current


financial


condition


was


itively


related


every


self-


gift


propensity.


That


individuals


perceived


thems


elves


to be better


financially


were


more


inclined


engage


in self-gift


behavior


within


each


given


contexts.


Mick


DeMoss


also found


that


females


were


more


to acquire


self-gifts


in cheer-up


and


nice-to-self


contexts,


whereas


males


were


more


likely


acquire


self-


gifts


incentives


to reaching


a personal


goal.


sum,


results


from


Mick


DeMoss


(1992a)


surveys


provide


further


evidence


self-gift


behaviors.


They


tell


us which


self-gifts


are


preferred


overall


and,


between


prevalent


self-gift


contexts,


which


qualities


are


applicable


to self-gifts


four


of the


major


context s


types


consumers


more


likely


to exhibit


different


self-gift


behaviors.


In addition,


overall


results


describe


support


a purchase


belief


context


that


can


using


result


personal


use


several


different


interpretations


individuals.


In conclusion,


past


research


concerning


gift-giving


behavior


only


recently


begun


to examine


idea


giving


gifts


to oneself


g.,


Mick


DeMoss,


1990a,


1990b,


- A


I fllfl~ WA.! ar na R-~finr f I~1)L~ e I..


Inn Fl,


rn! ,1.


.


1 I1I1'1L. nL.


L.


m AiL


e~


U










practices


arising


from


relationship


differences


between


recipient


Ryan


donor


1977) .


(Belk,


cons


1982;


idering


Goodwin


that


people


et al.,

do give


1990;

gifts


themselves


as a possible


donor/recipient


relationship,


complexities


of gift-giving


behavior


be examined


more


fully.

between


behaviors,


differences


Specifically

individuals


there


revealed


one


in a close


some


between


looks


at gift-giving


relationship


important


these


behaviors


self-gift


similarities


donor/recipient


relationships.


Similarly,


examining


gift


giving


to oneself


as compared


to gift


giving


to distant


others


should


reveal


some


interesting


differences


in individual


s behaviors.


Extended


Self


basis


of the


extended


of the

self


above

(Belk,


argument

1988) .


come

Belk


from


states


the

that


concept

the


sense


of self,


part,


comes


from,


intentionally


unintentionally,


possessions


one


perceives


as owning


argues


that


self-concept


fragile


in need


support


that


this


support


is achieved


through


what


one


possesses.


Belk


states


that


possessions


can


such


things


as goods,


whether


handmade


or bought,


body


parts


heart,


or public


hands),


monuments.


friends


one


family,


views


landmarks,


friends


places,


family


av -a 4 ,t n c.


n*. ...l r%


4- a -4- in A -1 a 2


r *r r


g


nF nnlF


C~nn


..L? ,L










Belk


(1988)


provides evidence of


other people being


viewed as


extensions of


self


and explains the


in which


they


are


incorporated


into


self-concept.


In his


discussion


of other people as


a part


the extended self,


Belk


states,


"Clearly,


our


laws allow us


to regard our


children,


biological


or adopted,


as possessions"


(1988,


156)


There are examples of this


concerning abortion,


divorce proceedings,


and invitro


fertilization.


Children


grandchildren are


seen


ways


of extending mortality of


ourself.


People


also


report


experiencing a sense of


self-


loss


when


they become


separated from another due


to divorce


or death


of a loved one.


Belk


(1987


conducted an empirical


study examining the


extended self.


He asked subjects to perform a


card-sorting


task


in which


the cards


represented people


(e.g.,


mother,


father),

(e.g., a


places


automobile,


(e.g.,


vacation


jewelry).


destination),


This


task


and things


effectively rated


the objects on a


4-point


scale of


selfness.


found


that


mother,


father,


and spouse


were within


seven most


frequently


chosen


objects


to describe


self


(sister,


brother,


friend


were


within


objects


out


of a total


of the


ways


of incorporating possessions


into the


4- r'A aA a1 C 4 r it. 1 fll 1. 44- C -


: ~ 1, h


h ~~C n n~h~ n nl F


nll.


LAA r( A ~IL










general


motivation


to have


an intimate


knowledge


of the


obje


sexual


or otherwise.


But,


Belk


goes


on to explain,


such


knowing


cannot


be passionless


aloof


object


to become


a part


of the


extended


self.


This


provides


of understanding


describing


difference


close


distant


relationships


between


gift


donors


gift


recipients.


Belk


also


sees


giving


possessions


to others


as a means


of extending


self.


Belk


states


that


a gift


continues


to be


associated


with


giver


so that


giver


s identity


extended


to include


rec


ipient"


(1988,


150) .


In fact,


gift


giving


seen


not


only


as a way


of extending


self


supporting


extended


self.


making


significant


others


happy


through


gift-giving,


makes


that


part


extended


self


that


includes


those


others


happy


well.


Thus,


if giving


to others


in one's


extended


self


like


relation


giving


ships


to oneself,


share


both


specific


types


of donor/recipient


gift-giving


characteristics


that


would


not


be present


casual


donor/recipient


relationships.


However,


differences


should


also


exist


between


self-gifts


gifts


given


to individuals


one


extended


individual


self,


only


working


under


in a self-gift


perfect


situation


knowledge


I I


--s .. U










Situational


Condition


second dimension which has not


been adequately


considered


in previous


gift-giving


studies


situation,


namely the gift


giving


occasion.


Sherry


(1983)


states


that


gift-giving occasions


can be


formal


structural


events marked


ceremony and ritual,


case of


ceremonial


dates


rites


event

gift


s,


of passage,


or they may be emergent,


such as an expression of


selection along with relative


intimacy.


effort


transient


any case,


terms of


decision making


gift


and shopping may often be mediated by the


occasion.


In his


study,


Belk


(1979)


acknowledged the


fact


that


one


of the


possible


factor


s which may


have modified the


effect


of gift-giving


involvement


was the expectations which


were attached to the

(1982) stated that,


specific occasion.


intuitively,


Scammon


et al.


would seem that


there


should be


a relationship between the occasion


for giving and


function of the gift.


Both Belk


(1979)


and DeVere


(1975)


found


evidence of this by


showing that


desirability of


certain


gift


characteristics differed across


several


addition,


gift


giving occasions


Chase


(1984)


(ignoring


hypothesized that


recipient)


scale


event


(importance


varies directly


and the periodicity


4-ha a~ran*


I~~ 1 C.. a U-a


ann.. ,-n


IH: S


I a a i. j. 1 I.&t










frequently


acquire expensive


gifts


their wedding


this


event


is a


large-scale,


low-periodicity


occasion.


Throughout


donor/recipient


this paper,


it has been stressed that both


relationship and the nature


of the


occasion have a


strong


effect


the gift


giving process.


Yet,


stated earlier,


most


of the


research


concerning gift


giving


these


failed to manipulate or


factors.


is unrealisti


account

c for a


for one or both

single study to


sample adequately each of


researchers'


domains


the gift-giving


dimensions,


responsibility to acknowledge


and be aware of how these domains


these


could potentially


affect


different


aspects


their


study.


Only when


they


are


adequately


and appropriately


sampled


will


there exist


acceptable descriptive


information


upon


which


to build a


basis


for truly understanding


gift-giving behavior


(Lutz


1979)
















CHAPTER


HYPOTHESES


From


preceding


literature


review,


apparent


that


there


exist


some


commonalities


in the


findings


as well


some


discrepancies


A portion


of this


research


found


that,


when


a product


presented


as a gift,


entails


greater


expenditure


time,


effort,


money


than


when


same


product


to be


used


buyer


.g.,


Clark


Belk,


1979;


Gronhaug,


1972;


Shapiro,


1975) .


Yet,


other


researchers


have


reported


opposite


effect


expenditu


res


time,


effort,


money


Heeler


al.,


1979;


Ryans,


1977;


Scammon


al..


1982


As mentioned


earlier,


Belk


tried


to resolve


inconsistency


in these


findings


situations


introducing


show


idea


considerably


that


different


different


gift-giving


levels


giver


involvement


and,


thus,


affect


giver's


purchase


strategy


a given


situation.


Unfortunately,


from


results


study,


Belk


concluded


that


concept


involvement


was


unable


to account


these


differences


itself.


stated


that


although


appears


that


gift-giving


situations


do differ


in involvement


that


this


affects


amount


g










hypotheses


are proposed that


incorporate


the effects


some


these other


factors


on gift


giving behavior,


namely,


donor/recipient


relationship and the gift


occasion.


These


hypotheses


are meant


to address the


discrepant


findings


discussed


the earlier


literature


review as


well


as to


refine our understanding of


the donor/recipient


relationship's and occasion's


role


the donor's


gift-


giving behavior.

Information Search Hypotheses


Past


research on


gift


giving


examined


the effect


variety


of variables


concerning


information search


on gift


selection


Most


of these variables


deal


with


the amount


advice


sought,


the number


stores


visited,


the amount


information


collected,


desirability of


occasions.


certain


Gronhaug


the amount


gift


(1972)


of time


spent,


characteristic within

found that more advice


different

was


sought


gift


purchases


than


purchases


for personal


use.


Belk


(1979)


cited that


two-thirds


of respondents


in his


study


said


they


asked


the advice of


others


when


selecting a


gift.


Thus,


seeking


advice


could be


a reflection of


amount


of knowledge


the donor


has about


recipient's


wants


and/or needs


Gronhaug


(1972)


also


reported


that


greater number of


individuals


purchasing


gifts


visited more


I 1


.9-n p., C r -a~ nn -~ A 4- .


,,,,~ s


L1\


,,.-,,,,1










said


they


would


visit


more


stores


spend


more


time


when


purchasing


product s


than


individuals


buying


same


products


personal


use.


However,


when


deciding


jeans


or a record


album


as a gift


a close


friend


versus


personal


use,


there


was


no purchase


difference


concerning


time


spent


or stores


visited.


Whereas


Clarke


Belk


feel


that


more


involving


gift


purchases


will


demand


more


effort,


Ryans


1977)


argues


that


since


needs


of others


are


less


clearly


defined


than


one


s own,


is probably


easier


find


a brand


that


fills


others


' needs


once


product


class


been


selected.


He provides


evidence


of his


assumptions


stating


time


that


to make


outhome

their D


gift


purchase


purchasers


than


took


people


significantly


less


shopping


personal


use.


However,


he reported


that


inhome


gift


purchasers


significantly


differ


from


sonal


use


purcha


sers


on the


amount


of purchase


time.


Last,


Heeler


1979)


reported


no difference


in the


amount


information

a personal


sought

friend


out


versus


individuals

individuals


purchasing

purchasing


a watch

a watch


for

for


personal


use.


They


find


that


individuals


purchasing


blender


information


friend's


in their


wedding


decis


employed


than


significantly


individuals


more


purchase


blender


personal


use.


-r - 'A- J I A- L~ -r t.L.....


...rr. -A- -


/.~,_1., ?_, L


f L1


T -\


-A- 1- -


ru










closeness


of the


relationship between


the donor


recipient


decreases.


However,


the donor's


concern about


gift's


greater


ability to communicate


close donor/recipient


intended message


relationships


should be


than


distant


donor/recipient


relationships.


In order to buy the


"right"


gift


a close other,


donors


will be more


likely


to visit more


stores,


seek advice


from more


salespeople,


consider more alternatives,


and take more


time


in making


their purchases


as compared to buying


a gift


for a


distant


other.


Therefore,


the amount


information search should


be greater


for dyadic gift


purchases


close


relationships


as compared to dyadic


gift


purchases


distant


relationships


Yet,


when buying for very


important


occasions


(e.g.,


weddings


, perceived social


risk may


high


(DeVere et


al.


1975;


Vincent


Zikmund,


1975) .


Thus,


information


increase


search by


important


donors


purchase


of distant


situations


relationships


it may


will


be seen


as a way to reduce


Past


perceived social


risk.


research examining differences


between personal


use


and close


friends


found no significant


differences


between


personal


use purchases and purchases of


gifts


close


friends.


Individuals


may possess


enough


knowledge of


gift


recipients


within


their


extended selves


so that


2 --- 1 I -


.2 -*


i


I


L. ,r


r


A A










important


occasions


should heighten


the amount


information


gift


search


close


in both purchase


friend/relation).


situations


There


(self-gift


is no basis


hypothesizing a


difference


the amount


of information


search between


self-gift and nonself-gift


purchases.


Therefore,


H1A:


The amount


of information


search


(i.e.,


number of


stores
amount


visited,


amount


of time spent,


considered)


gifts


will be


close


compared to gift
relationships.


of salesperson's assistance,


number of product


greater


donor/recipien
s for distant


for purchases


s and brands


self


t relationships
donor/recipient


H1B:


The amount o
close others


amount


>f information
will not sig
formation sea


The greater the
recipient attach


greater the donor's


donor/recipient


importance
es to the


search


for purcha


nificantly differ


rch


for purchases


ses


from the


self.

the
the


donor perceives


purchase


information


situation,


search


for all


relationships.


Price Rance


Hypotheses


Several


studies


have examined the desirability


different


gift


characteristics


under


different


conditions.


the more


common


of these characteristics


has been


price.


Gronhaug


(1972)


reported that


individuals


studied


price more


so when buying


for personal


use


than


when buying


a gift.


Heeler


et al.


1979)


found


that


information


price


was


accessed more by


individuals when purchasing


blender


for personal


use


than


when buying


one


a friend's










personal


use


as compared


to purchasing


a watch


a close


friend.


Vincent


Zikmund


1975)


reported


that


individuals


buying


perceived


an electric


financial


knife


risk


personal


than


use


individuals


indicated


buying


a higher


same


product


as a wedding


present


to a close


friend.


Goodwin


1990)


showed


that


individuals


reporting


about


obligatory


gift


purchases


stated


that


money


was


less


of a constraint


gift


selection


voluntary


gift


compared to individuals

purchases. In contrast,


reporting


common


about

et al.


1982


showed


that


individuals


buying


personal


use


spent


most


on flower


purchases


individuals


giving


voluntary


gifts


spent


least.


should


be noted


though,


that


these


studies


are


directly


comparable


given


their


definitions


of voluntary


obligatory


purchases.


Belk


(1982


reported


mixed


results


of price


on gift


selection.


separately

occasion.


an earlier


at gift price

He stated that


article


categories

a clearer


1979) ,


he looked


type


determinant


recipient an

of the cost


the gift


appears


to be


nature


of the


occasion


Focusing


only


on Christmas


gift


giving,


Cheal


1986)


found


that


majority


of valuable


gifts


was


given


primary


kin,


with


gift


giving


between


husband


wife


being


inn e 1- nnrt if'z I


mn ct










buying a


product


as a


gift.


Yet,


is not


clear whether


personal


use


these


studies


includes giving to oneself.


If it


is assumed


that


giving


gifts


to others


one's


extended self


similar to giving


importance of price


in gift


gifts


selection


to oneself,


should be


then


similar


for the


two contexts.


However,


individuals buying a


product


for themselves


that


is not


a self-gift


will


consider price


as more of


a constraint


on product


selection


for there will


not


be an


element


indulgence on


self


in the


decision


process.


Likewise,


gift


selection


for distant


recipients


will be more constrained by price because


purchase of


gift


will be more


of obligation


to give


(Goodwin


1990


Given


that


price


considered as


less


restriction


when


giving to


self


or to a


close other,


individuals


in these


contexts will


less


likely to


approximate


price range before beginning the search for


product


as compared


individuals


who are


purchasing


nonself-gift


or a gift


for a


distant


other.


However,


more


important


selection


occasions price


for distant


restrictions on


recipients may be


relaxed.


gift


Thus,


approximate


price


range


individuals before beginning


search


for gifts


for distant


others


will


widen.


Individuals may buy a more expensive gift


someone


they


- 4--. -% %1-A t~ l 4


1-fA an a n I a


).n At.


AC










constraint


of price on


the purchase


selection


of a nonself-


gift.


Individuals


these


situations


will begin the


search


for nonself-gifts


with a


wider price


range


in mind before


beginning their


search.


fact,


this assumption may be


applied to any


of the donor/recipient


purchase


situations


which a price range exists before


Individuals buying products
friends/relations or as non


likely to set
beginning the
buying gifts


search begins.


as gifts


Thus,


distant


self-gifts will be more


an approximate price
search for a product


close


range before
than individuals


friends/relations


or for


The greater the


recipient
i


approximate


importance


attaches to


price


r


purchasing products


the donor perceives


the occasion,


ange
for


that
all


the wider the


set by


C


relationships.

Product Attributes


individuals


ionor/recipient


Hypothesis


One of


functions


of gift


giving


ability to


serve


as symbolic communication between the giver and the


recipient.


case


of dyadic gift


giving,


the gift


selection


can


define


the degree of


recipient


importance


the giver


well as


help to


portray a more complete


picture


the giver's perception of


the recipient


and the giver's


self-perception


(Belk,


1979;


Schwartz,


1967) .


Belk states


that


although


there are gifts


which are selected because


they are considered relatively


safe through


traditional


acceptance


(e.g.,


a toaster


as a


wedding present),


there


are


self.











selection


of a gift


cannot merely be


reflection


of the


giver's


taste.


With self-gifts the giver


and the


recipient


are


same,


gift


selection may still


serve as


form


of self-definition.

characteristics and


The selection


of a gift's


i the degree to which


the gift


communicates the giver's


impression


of the


recipient


and/or


giver


should be affected by the nature of


the donor/


recipient


relationship.


desirability


of several


gift


characteristics


besides price have been


examined within different


gift-


giving


occasions


(Belk,


1979;


DeVere et al.,


1975) .


Belk


reported that birthday


gifts


were


seen as


less


prestigious,


less

gifts


lasting,


and lower quality than


Christmas


were also seen as more personal


or wedding


and fun.


Similar


findings


were discovered by


DeVere et al.


(1975)


birthday


wedding


occasions.


However,


past


research has


investigated


the desirability of


different


attributes


across


gift


occasions


for different


types


of recipients.


seems one would find differences


well


similarities


in the desirability ratings


of attributes


given


to a


loved


one


versus


given


to a


distant


relative,


for example.


Although


there


is no basis


for what


these


similar


dissimilar


attributes might be between


recipients,


L a '4- 4-L..J ---- 11


r ^ -


r .,


^


1 r.


*


--


1- I


~1


L.










others.


There


is no basis


for hypothesizing a


difference


between nonself-gifts


and the other three contexts.


Thus,


Gifts


to close


friends/relations


desirable attributes


with


gifts to distant


in common with


will have more


gifts


to self


than


friends/relations.


Donor's


Ideal


Self-Concent


Hypotheses


The message the gift


communicates


about


recipient


and/or giver has


also been


investigated by


several


researchers


(Belk,


1979;


Wolfinbarger,


1990) .


Ignoring both


recipient


and occasion,


Belk


found that


the giver's


ideal


self-concept


was most


reflected by the gift


selected.


Wolfinbarger reported evidence of both perceived recipient'


self-concept


of gift


and giver's


selection.


determined in


what


self-concept


stated that


situations


respondents'


it remains


the giver's


method


to be


self-concept may


be more or


individual's


less


important


self-gift


choosing


stories


gifts.


contained


Many


the theme of


self-


identity which revealed beliefs


linking the giver's


self-


concept


Assuming that


self-gift


close


qualities


(Mick


relationships are


DeMoss,


included


in a


1990b)


giver's


extended self,


both


the giver's


self-concept


and the


perceived


gift


recipient 's


selection across


self-concept


gift


should be represented in


occasions.


On the other


hand,


1 rv i n j Ir n i h ^ / J j It -^ l


in distant


relationships,


donors


Y\~FF~F~


'L i, --...


^- l h-










discern


if his/her needs or


desires are


similar to those of


recipient.


Therefore,


neither the perceived recipient's


self-concept


or the giver's


self-concept


should be


significantly represented in


the selection


of the gift.


Instead,


gift


selection may be guided more by external


definitions of


appropriateness given


nature


of the


recipient


and the occasion.


This


should be especially true


in occasions


which are


perceived to


be high


social


risk.


Moving


of the gift-giving realm,


purchases made


oneself


strictly


possess qualities


of need should be


that


are perceived


less


to be


likely to


linked


self-concept.


Although purchased for oneself,


they are more


likely to


serve a


functional


purpose


rather than a


symbolic


one.


Given that


Belk


(1979)


found


that


the donor's


ideal


self-concept


was most


significantly


correlated


with


the gift


selected,


is proposed that


Donor's


ideal


correlated with


for
made


In a


ideal
with


a cl


ose


self-concept


the qualities


will be


of a


friend/relation as


for oneself


distant


strictly


donor/recipient


self-concept


will not be


significantly more
self-gift and a gift


compared to a
to necessity.


relationship,
significantly


the qualities of the gift.


purchase


donor's
v correlated
















CHAPTER
METHOD


Sample


Data


Collection


A total


questionnaires


was


distributed


to and


collected


from


individuals


in social


civic


organizations


a small


university


southeastern


United


States


ratio


of undergraduates


to nonstudent


adults


was


92:169,


radio


of males


to females


was


:150.


range


nonstudent


adults


was


to 77,


their


modal


household


income


category


was


$50,000


or above.


Participation


was


strictly


voluntary,


respondents


were


not


compensated


their


participation.


questionnaires


were


personally


distributed


designated


individuals


time


that


was


convenient


to the


particular


group.


questionnaire


was


administered


groups


of approximately


to 15


individuals


one


time.


In addition,


researcher


waited


designated


location


until


questionnaires


were


completed,


questionnaires


were


collected


that


time.


This


allowed


respondents


' questions


to be answered


while


they


were


filling


questionnaire


as well


ensure


a higher










Instrument


A survey was employed in


this


study


because


could be


administered to a broad range of


respondents and because of


flexibility


in asking different


types


of questions.


survey,


respondents


were asked


to respond to both


quantitative and qualitative questions.


Respondents


were


informed on


cover page


that


survey dealt


with


consumer purchase behaviors


and that


researcher was


interested in how consumers make different


types


of purchase


decisions


in everyday


life.


survey


began


with a


"critical


incident" technique


in which respondents


were asked to


recall


and describe


detail


last


time


they acquired a product


in one of


four


possible conditions within


previous


3 months


that


was


under


$100.


Respondents


were given a


description


purchase decision


involving


either


a gift


for a


"close"


other,


a gift


"distant"


other,


a gift


self,


or a


purchase


self


acquired strictly


out


of necessity.


Respondents were


then asked


to write an account


of the


last


time


they purchased a


durable product


within


purchase


condition


just


described.


In writing their


accounts,


respondents


were


asked


to state


what


product


was


and the


circumstances


surrounding the purchase of


the product


and to


A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~L r.~ r.~rr~ .4AC--4 %a r -a4 .-a4 % a.-r4 a


~,,,,:~,


in ~nL rrl


. q **


L k A nC A ur n


1~


II L










between


time


they


realized


they


needed


or wanted


to make


a purchase


Boundaries


time


on the


they


price


actually


purchased


durability


of the


a product.


product


were


specified


in order


to reduce


variation


in the


types


of products


reported.


redu


cing


variation


types


of purchases


described,


would


less


likely


that


this


factor


would


affect


dependent


measures.


purpose


using


critical


incident


technique


was


to aid


specific


respondents


past


purchase


in activating


in hopes


their


improving


memory

g the


about


accuracy


with


which


they


would


respond


to later


questions


regarding


that


purchase.


Respondents


' accounts


were


also used


to code


product


that


was


purchased


gift


occasion.


After


writing


their


account,


respondents


were


asked


respond


focused


to several


structured


specifically


ting


questions.


These


Hypothese s


questions


through


which


dealt


with


amount


information


search


existence


of a price


range.


These


questions


were


developed


based


on the


researcher


s prior


knowledge


of gift-giving


behavior


past


gift-giving


research.


Specifically,


questions


asked


respondents


about


number


of products


brands


they


considered


while


making


their


purchase


decision,


number


stores


they


visited


while


shopping


nr% r.rn A .r.4


IN h~ta I~ CA.'I S


SI J1


I I


Ck


rl<


A1










amount


of money they


spent


on their purchase,


whether they


had a


specific price


for the product,


range


and,


in mind before


what


they went


was the approximate


shopping

e price


range


that


they


had in mind.


Several


questions


were


included which asked respondents about


variables


that might


possibly be correlated


with both


the dependent


and the


independent


variables


stated


in the hypotheses


and,


unless


controlled for,


could


confound


results.


variables


that


were


included were amount


of product


knowledge,


purchase experience with


product


category,


and personal


income.

donor's


Next,


a question


perception of


was


included to measure


importance of


the gift


the

occasion


recipient.


Last,


several


questions were added to check


if individuals


responded correctly to the


purchase


scenario


described


critical


incident


section.


Respondents


were


asked


the approximate date of


purchase


to ensure


purchase


took


place within


past


3 months.


Respondents


in the dyadic gift-giving


situation


were


asked


to state


their

gift


relationship with

and approximately


the

how


person to whom they

long they had known


gave

that


the

person.


These


two questions


recipient


Respondents


had a


were used to


close or distant


who described a


verify that


the gift


relationship to


purchase


the giver.


oneself were


asked


4- 4


--4-, A


4-I ---- I


-. .I- -


- -1


l-L i.. E.










last


of structured questions were


developed to


test


Hypotheses


5 and


6 which dealt


with


qualities


purchased product and the donor's


Specifically,


ideal


respondents were asked to


self-concept.


judge


applicability


a set


of qualities


of products


for their


given


gift


rec


ipient


and occasion


(7-point


scale,


from


"Does


not


apply


at all"


"Applies


very


strongly").


qualities


were


represented as adjectives


which


were


taken


from past


gift


giving


research


(Belk,


1979;


Mic,


DeMoss,


1990;


DeVere et


1975)


Several


adjectives


that


were


used


include


inexpensive,


satisfying,


exciting,


fun,


thoughtful,


prestigious,


and perfect.


following two


pages,


respondents were asked


to rate


their


ideal


self-


concept


on a


series of


40 adjectives


(7-point


scale,


from


"Seldom would I


like


this


to be me"


"Most


time


would


like


this


to be me")


This


ideal


self-concept


measure


version of


the Bills et


(1951)


Index of


Adjustment


Values


that


was modified and used by


Belk


(1976,


1979).


The questionnaire was pretested on a


subset


target


population before


survey was


administered.


After


finishing the questionnaire,


had any


respondents


difficulty understanding the


were asked if they


instructions and/or


answering any


questions.


Specific attention


was


paid to


4~A4 ...4 A


In -1 I t I 1*


.q


r ...










purchases.


Based on


the results of


the pretest,


minor


revisions


were made


to the questionnaire before


was


administered to the designated sample.
















CHAPTER 5
RESULTS

General Analysis


critical


incidents


were


content


analyzed


according to the


type of product and occasion.


This


analysis was


completed by two business undergraduate


students using a


preestablished list


of potential


types of


products and occasions.

included individuals wh


lo did


category of

not respond


unable

to the


to code

critical


incident


technique or those


failed


to report


occasion and/or the product.


Coding agreements


occurred


cases,


and disagreements


were


resolved by


a third


judge.


Table


occasion


provides


for the


the percentages


four purchase


of each


situations.


type of


three most


reported self-gift


occasions


were


to be nice


to oneself,


celebrate an accomplishment,


and to cheer


oneself


up and add


to a


collection


tying


for third place.


These


results are


very


similar to


results


provided by Mick and DeMoss


(1990)


with personal


accomplishment


and feeling


down being


cited


as the two most


frequently reported self-gift










Table


Type of Occasion Reported by


Purchase Situation


Self-


Type of
Occasio


Gift


Close
Other


Distant


Other


NonSelf-


Gift


Anniversary


Wedding


Birthday


Going Away


Thank


Housewarming

Celebrate
Accomplishment


Just Because/


To Be Nice


To Cheer


Secretary'


Easter


Father


Mother


s Day


s Day


Add to Collection/
Hobby

Shower
(Wedding/Baby)

Extra Money
ty* 2 -










Table


1--continued.


Type of
Occasion


Self-
Gift


Close
Other


Distant


Other


NonSelf-


Gift


Recognition of
New Need


Recognition of
Replacement Need

Other


Unable


to Code


TOTALS


100%


100%


100%


100%


someone,


or for Mother's


Day were cited the most


frequently.


Weddings


were


reported


to be


the most


frequent


gift-giving occasions


involving distant


others


with


birthdays


celebrating accomplishments


tying


second.


should be noted


that


in eight


of nine cases,


gifts


given


as a celebration


of accomplishment


were given


distant


others


as a


graduation present.


However,


this


apply to any


self-gift


stories.


third most


frequently


cited distant


other occasion


was gifts


given


going


away present,


typically to a


coworker.


There


were


major occasions


cited most


frequently


for nonself-gifts.


These


two occasions


were


recognition


of a new need and


-- ~ ~ ~ -L-- 2 t -- ------------------------I- In t -2 .1


L


1


mi I r











scenario


description


asking


individuals


to report


purchase


made


strictly


out


of need.


results


listed


of the


Table


reported


three


product


products


frequencies


purchased


are


as a


gift


to oneself


or a close


other


were


clothes,


shoes,


jewelry.


others


most


were


clothes


frequently

, flowers,


purchased gifts

appliances, and


to distant

household


items.


Last,


clothes,


household


items,


and


appliances


were


three


most


frequently


cited


products


purchases


self


made


strictly


of need.


In order


nonself-gift


purchase


ensure


contexts


situation,


individuals


were


in the


responding


a cross-tabulation


was


self-gift


correct


constructed


measure


reflecting


degree


to which


purchase


was


perceived


to be a self-gift


in relation


to the


purchase


contexts.


measure


consisted


9-point


scale


with


being


very


much


a self-gift


being


a self-


gift.


In order


to analyze


this


sca


response


frequencies


average


ratings


self-gift


nonself-gift


contexts


were


analyzed.


Response


frequencies


were


examined


dividing


scale


into


three


sections


with


each


section


containing


scale


containing


points.


extreme


scale


comparing


points,


two


of the


sections


respondents


4- b ~ 1 C j 4.---'a..- -- 5 3 1- -


A i i


,~.,,,,1


''


,...-,I


,,,s,,.l


-- A


Ck


1S,1L LL


L L1










Table


Type of Product


by Purchase


Situation


Types of
Products


Self-


Gift


Close
Other


Distant
Other


NonSelf-
Gift


Clothes


Flowers/Plant


Jewelry


Music

Book(s)


Shoes


Alcohol


Appliance


Part


Tools


Household


Sports E

Personal

Photo Al

Vase/Fig


Item


equipment

Care


bum/Frame

urine


Handbag

Sunglasses

Other










rating was


6 or


above)


Similarly,


of the


respondents


the nonself-gift


context


strongly


felt


that


the purchase


was


a self-gift,


whereas only


strongly


felt


that


purchase was a self-gift.


In addition,


the mean


self-gift


rating


individuals


in the


self-gift


context


equalled


.02,


whereas the mean


self-gift


rating


individuals


nonself-gift


context


equalled 5


.09.


Comparison of


these


two means


revealed a significant


difference


(t=6.31,


p<.0001).


Two additional


cross-tabulations were constructed for


the measures


reflecting the


length and type of


recipient


relationship


in relation


to two of


the purchase


contexts:


gifts


to close others and gifts to distant


others.


cross-tabulation


length


relationship


by purchase


context


revealed


that


the donor


knew the


recipient an


average of


18-1/2


years


with a range of


months


to 82


years


the close other


context.


However,


the distant


other


context,


donors


reported to


have


known


recipient


average of


years and


9 months with a


range of


month


years.


1Although these


results


indicate


that


requests


describe a
generally


specific purcha


successful,


some


in a


given


respondents


a


context
did not


were


follow the
















Table


provides


results


for the cross-tabulation


type of


relationship by purchase context.


Close


others


tended to be


friends or


individuals


in respondent's nuclear


family whereas distant


others


tended to be acquaintances,


friends,


or friends-of-a-friend.


cited with a high

unlikely that the


two conditions.


frequency


definition


Although


friends were


in both situations,


of a friend would be


In conclusion,


results


highly


similar


of these


cross-tabulations provide evidence


that


individuals were


responding to


their


assigned purchase condition.


Hypotheses


Rerardinacr


Information Search


hypotheses


relating to


information


search are


H1A:


amount


information search


(i.e.,


number


stores
amount


visited,


considered


for
gift


time
) wil


amount
spent,


of salesperson's


number


be greater


close donor/recipient


s


distant


of product
for purchase


relationships


donor/recipient


assistance,
s and brands


self


as compared to


relationships.


: The amount


of information


search for purchases


close others will not


significantly


differ


from the


amount


of information


search


for purchases


self.


The greater the


recipient


importance


attaches


greater the donor's


donor/recipient


the donor perceives


the purchase


situation,


the
the


information search


relationships.


Factor analysis


was


used


identify a


common


dimension (s)


among the


five


information


search


variables.


These


five


variables


were number


of products


considered,


niimhio r


rif hrnrc (nfl ai darn1 V' ~ Tr no r. r mv 4r~rac tv4 o4+-


~f hr~n~~


~a ra~


.._I


T"Ii ^


r~ nr










Table


Type
Gift


of Recipient
s to Distant


Reported*


for Gifts


to Close Others


Others


Type of
Recipient Close Other Distant Other


Grandparent


Parent

Child


Spouse

Sibling

Cousin

In-law


Friend


Spouse's/Parent's


Friend's


Friend


Spouse/Child


Neighbor


Coworker


Acquaintance


TOTALS


100%


100%


*Note


that


exclusive.


the
For


recipient
example,


categories
a neighbor


are not mutually


could also be


classified


as a coworker.


factor matrix indicated that


independent


factors


were










with


remaining


four


information


search variables.


Table


provides


results of a


varimax


rotation


factor


matrix underlying the


four


information search


variables.


independent


factors with


eigenvalues


greater than


one


were extracted from the data.


A cutoff


.60 was used for


item-scale


selection.


two variables,


amount


of stores


visited and salesperson's assistance,


loaded highly


on the


first


factor.


This makes


intuitive


sense given


that


more


likely that


the more stores one visits,


the more


salespersons


will assist him or her.


This


factor was


interpreted as the number of


separate pieces


of information


individuals


collected


when making a


purchase decision.


variables


that had high


factor


loadings


second


factor were number of


products


considered and number


brands


considered.


number


of alternative


factor was

es individu


interpreted as re

als considered in


fleeting

their


purchase decision.


Aggregate measures


were then


created for


each


dimension of


information


search by


summing the


raw


scores


for the


items


loading


on each of


representative


factors.


internal


reliability of the


information


search


subscales


was


assessed using


coefficient


alpha


(Cronbach


1960) .


The alpha


coefficient


for the number


of pieces


I S nr~t:h


I cmrnnnr IOn


a\ -


- a -


n rr~ n n ~I 1 n


n nr


.L-


LL










Table


Factor Analysis


of Information Search


Variables


Derived Factors


Information


Search


Variables


STORE/SP


ALTERNATIVES


Products


.2382


Brands


.7185)

.8444)


.0764


Stores


(0.7789) a


-0.1399


Salespeople


.8348)


Eigenvalues


-0.0022


1.5366


1.0844


= Loadings above


in parentheses.


In order to examine Hypotheses


1A and IB,


three one-way


ANOVAs


were performed on


the two


information search


subscales


(i.e.,


ALTERNATIVES,


STORE/SP)


and time


spent


purchase decision


to detect


differences


between


four purchase situations.


The effect


the perceived


importance of the purchase


situation


was


analyzed by


computing


correlations


between


this


variable and the three


information search


variables


within


each of the


four


purchase contexts.


This analysis was executed


in order to


'i-i 04-T4l nn* hac C r:C


t a c! t


I










search


with respect


the number of the


stores


visited and


number of


salespeople


that assisted


them


(STORE/SP;


.36,


.01)


These differences


are,


for the most


part


predicted direction according to Hypotheses


1A and lB.


average,


the amount


stores


visited and salesperson's


assistance equalled


for themselves that


individuals buying gifts


individuals purchasing products


were considered necessities


close others,


individuals


buying


self-gifts,


and 2.3


for those buying


gifts


distant


others.


However,


the only


significant


differences


concerning


average amount


stores


visited and


salespersons'


assistance between the purchase contexts


were


found when

necessity


comparing purchases


and the


self mad


remaining three purchase


e out of

situations:


self-gift


<.02) ,


= -2.96,


distant


p <.00),


other


close other


= -3.50,


= -2.28,


p <.00).


In contrast,


situation


results


did not affect


indicated


individuals'


that


the purchase


information


search


regarding the number of


products and brands


considered


(ALTERNATIVES;


= 0.29


p <.83)


or time


spent


on the


purchase


deci


sion


.34,


p <.80).


Table


between

4 1- ,fl


provides


the perceived


-' CA a~ -n &2


results


importance of


SL *j-,


of the


correlations


the occasion and


a -










Table


Correlations between


Information Search


Variables


Importance of Occasion by Purchase Context


Information


Search


Self-
Gift


Variables


Close
Other


Distant
Other


NonSelf-
Gift


Alternatives


.09)


Store/SP


-.04


.31)


-.23


(.05)

.11


.06)

.07
.28)


Time


-.04
(.37)


-.19
(.06)


-.03


.08)


.41)


importance of


the occasion and number of


alternatives


considered


is marginally


significant.


The number of


salespeople and stores


and time


spent


are not


significantly


related to perceived importance of


these


two occasions.


However,


as donors perceive


the occasion


to be


important


close


others,


they visit more


stores and ask


for more


salespeople's assistance.


In addition,


relationship


between


time spent


the decision


and perceived importance


of the occasion


is marginally


significant.


That


donors


' perception of


the occasion's


importance


increased,


donors


increased


time


spent


on the


purchase decision.


For gifts


purchased for distant


others,


the number of










to distant


others,


they considered more products


and brands


when making their purchase decision.


In addition,


relationship between time


perceived


spent


importance of the occasion


the decision


was marginally


significant.


Donors purchasing


a gift


for distant


others


spent more


time on


the decision


when


they perceived the


occasion


to very


important


to the


recipient.


From these


results,


was


found that


Hypothesis


was only partially


supported.


Three


covariates


were


included in


each of


the one-way


ANOVAs


in order to remove any


extraneous


variation


information


included were


search


variables.


the amount


spent


covariates that


on the purchase,


were


past


experience


with


the product


category,


and product


knowledge.


However,


results


indicated that


inclusion


these


covariates


had no significant


effect


on information search


within


each of


the purchase


situations.


Hypotheses


Regarding


Price Range


hypotheses


relating to price


Individuals buying products


friends/relations or


range are


as gift s


for distant


as nonself-gifts will be more


likely to


an approximate


price


range before


beginning the search


for a product


than


individuals


buying gifts


close


friends/relations


or for


self.


The greater the


importance


the donor perceives


recipient a
? n l vr a / r' n, '* 4 a


ttaches to


nI w.h t,


occas


* -I n a


. C,


ion,
nfl4


the wider the


.- Y V


r~14*t.4,J,.-


CknC











In order to test


Hypothesis


a Chi-Square


test


was


performed


individuals


in order to detect


a price


whether


significantly more


range before beginning their


search


a gift


for a


distant


other or a nonself-gift


as compared


to those who were


searching for a


gift


to a close other or


self.


A Pearson Product Moment


correlation between


donor's perception of the occasion's


importance


to the


recipient


and the width of


the price


range


by the donor


was


computed


each


of the


purchase


situations


in order to


test


Hypothesis


This analysis


was performed


in order to


examine


strength of the


relationship between


these


variables


within


each


of the


purchase contexts.


Table


6 provides


results


that


support


Hypothesis


.97,


p <.04)


Eighty-one


percent


individuals


buying necessities


for themselves or gifts


distant


others


started their


search


with a


price


range


in mind,


whereas only


individuals


buying


self-gifts


gifts to close others


set a


price


range before beginning


their


search.


Thus,


the purchase


situation


does


affect


likelihood


that


individuals


will


a range on


the price


they


are


willing to


spend before beginning their


search


product.


One might


speculate


that


the existence of


a price


range










Table


Cross-Tabulation


of Purchase Context by


Existence of Price


Rang&


Before Search


Existence


of Price Range


Yes No Totals


Self-Gift/ 98 41 139
Close Other (70%) (30%)

Purchase
Context

Distant Other/ 99 23 122
Nonself-Gift (81%) (19%)

Totals 197 64 261


.97,


between


these


variables.


The results


indicated that


relationship between


these


two variables


was


not


significant


in any of the


four purchase


contexts.


results of the Pearson


correlations


indicate


that


significant

range and t


relationship between


he occasion's perceive


the existence of

d importance doe


a price


s exists


nonself-gifts


.69,


p <.00005)


and gifts


to close


others


.23,


p <.06).


Specifically,


as the donor


perceived the purchase


situation


to become more


important










variables


for self-gifts


- -. 03,


p <.41)


and gifts to


distant


others


.05,


p <.38)


are not


significant.


Thus,


the data provide only partial


Hypothesis Regarding


support


Product


Hypothesis


Oualities


The hypothesis concerning product


Gifts to close


qualities


friends/relations will have more


desirable attributes


in common


with


gifts


to self than


with


gifts


to distant


friends/relations.


In order to determine


varied according to


whether the


products purchased


12 qualities across the


four


different


purchase contexts,


a series


of analyses


were


performed.


First,


interaction


of qualities


contexts was


tested and found to be highly


significant


8.68,


.0001)


contexts were


Then,


tested


simple main


for the


12 qualities


effects


and all


four


were


statistically


significant


(p's


<.001),


with the exception


four


qualities


(lasting,


inexpensive,


prestigious,


and high


quality)


Table


7 provides


results


of Tukey pairwise


comparisons performed on the


remaining eight


qualities


test


significant


differences between


purchase


contexts.


Two of the eight


qualities


were


rated similarly


self-gift


and gifts


for close others and had significantly


dissimilar


ratings


for gifts


for distant


others as well as










Table


Mean Ratings of Oualities of Products Applicable in Four
Contexts


Product Self- Close Distant NonSelf-
Qualities Gift Other Other Gift




Practical 3. 6d 3 5d 4.2 5. la,b

Satisfying 5.1cd 5.0c,d 4.3a,b 4 4a,b

Memorable 3.3b,d 4,4a,d 3.7d 1 8a,b,c

Exciting 3 3d 3.3d 2.7d 1. 7a,b,c

Fun 3 7b,c,d 2.9a.d 2. 6a 1.9a,b

Thoughtful 2.4b,c,d 4 9a,d 4,3a,d 1, 4a,b,c

Unusual 2. id 2.5d 1.7 1.2a, b

Personal 4.0c,d 4.3c,d 2.9a,b 2.4ab


7-point-scale:
highly


0=does


apply at


all;


7=applies


very


a= significantly


different


from self-gift


context,


same


row


b= significantly


same


different


p<.05


from close other


context,


row


c= significantly


context,


same


different


p<.05


from distant


other


row


d= significantly


different


p<.05


from nonself-gift


context,


in same


row


of gifts to close others


supports


idea


of the


recipient


of the gift being


included in


one


extended self.


In self-


ry fC 4-,- A1 4C~r i ir s.. 4 Enlr.r A


*I, at kn1 14+i )n1


n; ft c!










close others


were


seen


as more


satisfying purchases provides


evidence of the


specialness


of giving gifts to


individuals


within one's extended self.


Purchases made


for distant


others or


self


of need were not


perceived


to be as


satisfying because


the donors may have


felt


obligated


to buy


product


for one


reason


or another.


Self-gifts and gifts to close others were


also


rated


similarly


differ


on unusual and practical.


significantly from gifts


These


two contexts


to distant


others


unusual


or practical mean


ratings


they did


differ


significantly


from nonself-gift's mean ratings


on these


qualities.


Nonself-gifts


were considered most


practical


least


unusual.


In fact,


nonself-gifts


scored the


lowest


mean


ratings on all


the attributes


except


practical.


None


the gift-giving


contexts differed


significantly


the mean rating for exciting.


Thus,


the giving of


gifts


some degree


of excitement no matter


intimate


donor/recipient


relationship


other


hand,


purchase of


a nonself-gift


is perceived as being


significantly


less exciting than any


of the


three gift-


giving


contexts.


However,


self-gifts and gifts


to close others were


perceived


to be


significantly


different


on several


*- -r-1-- I 1


1?L!,-


n r


I










considered


to be more


thoughtful


than


self-gifts which could


mean


that


respondents


find it hard to be


thoughtful


oneself


as compared to being thoughtful


Nonself-gifts were again


self-gifts


rated significa


and gifts to close others


to another person.

ntly lower than


on thoughtful,


memorable,


and fun.


In addition,


thoughtful and memorable


were


seen as


significantly


less applicable


for nonself-gifts


as compared to gifts to distant


others.


Overall,


were


results


indicated that


perceived as possessing many


similar


gifts


to oneself


qualities


as gifts


to close others.


However,


they


also shared some of the


same


qualities


with gifts to distant


others.


The most


prevalent


differences


though


were between nonself-gifts and gifts.


For all


qualities,


nonself-gifts


were


rated as


significantly


different


from self-gifts and gifts


to close others.


for three of


the nine


qualities,


nonself-gifts


were seen as


significantly different


from gifts


to distant


others as


well.


Hypotheses


Regarding Donor's


Ideal


Self-Concept


The hypotheses


relating to donor's


ideal


self-concept


are


Donor'
correl


s ideal
ated wit


self-concept w
h the qualities


ill


significantly more
self-gift and a gift


a close


friend/relation


as compared to a


purchase


made


oneself


strictly due


to necessity.










In order to test Hypothesis


canonical


correlations


were


computed to


test


for the


relationship between


ideal


self-concept


ratings


as a set


of predictor variables and the


gift


quality


ratings as


a set


of criterion


variables


each


of the


three purchase


situations


specified,


specifically,


self-gift,


close other,


and nonself-gift


contexts.


The strength of the association


in this


study


between


the predictor variable


(ideal


self-concept


ratings)


and the


criterion


variable


(gift


quality


ratings)


was


assessed by


inspecting the magnitudes of both


canonical


correlation


coefficients and the


redundancy


index


each pair of


linear


composites


derived


from the


data.


a rough


inspecting the


estimate of


canonical


the strength of


correlation


coefficients,


relationship


between


each


of variables


canonical


coefficient


was derived.


indicates


Specifically,


correlation between


canonical

(Green, 1


scores


978)


for each linear

An analysis of t


combination of


canonical


variables


correlation


coefficient


does


not,


however,


reveal


amount


of variance


shared by the


two sets


variables.


Consequently,


necessitates


inspection of


the magnitude


of the


redundancy


index,


one


an asymmetric


variables


index measuring how much


shared by the


variance


variability


I-. 4~ *L-~ a -~ 4- t ('J.~ r r *~ nrn I a S


nLIrnH nl*L


C


- -


I


~L ~..-., L t


'1 nrn










variable's correlation


with


the canonical


score for the


other


of variables.


These


statistics


computed for the


most


significant


linear composite


provided a basis


subset


interpretation.


Table


shows the


results


of correlating the 40


ideal


self-concept


items


with


12 product


quality


items


for the


three purchase

which approach


situations. T

s significance


he only


canonical


in the


self-gift


correlation


context


.87,


.14) .


redundancy


index


for the


canonical


function


self-concept


indicates that


items


of the


accounted for


variance


by the


ideal


variability


product


quality


items


Thus,


Hypothesis


6 was only


weakly


supported by the data.


An examination of the


structural


coefficients


for the


canonical


function


concerning the


self-gift


context


indicates


that


the composite


score


for the product


quality


items


significantly


related to three of the


ideal


self-


concept


items


dimensions


(the cross-loading values


exceed the


level


for both


suggested by


conflict


Lambert


Durand


(1975)


as an acceptable minimum loading value)


Specifically,


the composite


product


quality


score


negatively

self-concep


related to competitive and fault-finding


t


items and positively related


ideal


the merry self-


-


--











Table


Canonical
Recipient


Analysis


Ideal


Product


Self-Concert


Attributes


versus


Perceived


Ratings


Canonical Cross-Loadings by Purchase Situation



Self-Gift Close Other NonSelf-Gift


Ideal


Self-Concept


Ratings


-.27


Adventurous
Appreciative
Artistic
Attractive
Broad-minded


Busy
Calm


Clever
Competitive
Confident
Considerate
Cruel
Dependable
Emotional
Energetic
Fashionable
Fault-Finding
Friendly
Fun-Loving
Generous
Helpful
Imaginative
Informal
Intelligent


Interes


-.13
-.34


.00
.07
-.20
-.09


-.31
.11
.22
.18
.00
-.06


-.10
-.18
-.10


- .22
-.03
-.05


-.03


-.16
-.10
-.01
-.01


ting


Kind


Mature
Merry


-.11


-.01


Orderly
Outgoing
Poised
Reckless
Sarcastic


Selfish


e4 rn rnf


-.15


-.17
-.09
17


-.10
-.04
-.19
fA


-.18
-.03
-.14
-.06
- <\'


-.02











Table


8--continued.


Canonical Cross-Loadings by Purchase Situation



Self-Gift Close Other NonSelf-Gift


Product Practical .54 .13 -.00
Attribute Satisfying .36 .55 .25
Ratings Memorable .09 .11 .04
Lasting .44 .34 .43
Exciting .19 .34 .14
Fun .17 .03 .03
Thoughtful .35 .66 -.13
Inexpensive .12 .01 .40
Prestigious .46 .41 .13
Unusual -.05 -.03 -.38
Personal .50 .21 .18
High Quality -.08 .33 .25

Canonical R .87 .90 .90
Significance .14 .38 .35
Redundancy .13 .08 .02


quality


items,


those


being


practical,


satisfying,


lasting,


thoughtful,


prestigious,


personal.


In order


correlation

relationship


to test


analysis

between


Hypothesis


performed

predictor


, an additional


to test


ideal


canonical


the

self-concept


ratings


and


stant


criterion


other


purchase


(product


context.


quality


results


ratings


of this


analysis


revealed


that


there


was


a perfect


correlation


between


variable


sets.


Being


skeptical


of a perfect


rnrr ol~t n i n *1a-raa,1 t* --1% an---


a C t.tn n n


, ,--


r


r-n


nrr t ,.rn


Lk *I L


i*