Giver‐receiver discrepancy in decisions between probabilistic and regular gifts

Peiru Peng, Jianmin Zeng
{"title":"Giver‐receiver discrepancy in decisions between probabilistic and regular gifts","authors":"Peiru Peng, Jianmin Zeng","doi":"10.1002/mar.22060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous research has identified discrepancies between gift givers and receivers in their attitudes towards certain types of gifts, such as self‐improvement gifts. However, it remains unexplored whether there are divergent preferences between givers and receivers regarding probabilistic gifts (i.e., gifts involving probabilistic goods), despite the growing popularity of such goods. To address this gap, we conducted five studies. Study 1 revealed that when presented with a choice between probabilistic gifts and regular gifts, givers were less likely than receivers to select probabilistic gifts. This discrepancy was replicated in two contexts: vertical outcomes of probabilistic gifts (e.g., travel packages with varying prices) in Study 2, and horizontal outcomes of probabilistic gifts (e.g., T‐shirts with different patterns) in Study 3. Study 4 identified that this asymmetrical preference occurred due to different regulatory focus and perceptions of norm violations among individuals when engaging in gift giving. Givers exhibited a higher inclination towards prevention‐focused strategies, whereas receivers displayed a stronger preference for promotion‐focused strategies. Moreover, givers tend to significantly overestimate the extent to which receivers perceive probabilistic gifts as violating gifting norms. These disparities resulted in an asymmetrical preference for probabilistic gifts between givers and receivers. In Study 5, we found that consideration of creativity in gifting moderated the giver‐receiver asymmetrical preference for probabilistic gifts. Specifically, givers with heightened consideration of creativity were more likely to choose probabilistic gifts. These findings imply that gift givers could give greater consideration to probabilistic gifts, and marketers can capitalize on this by promoting probabilistic goods as viable gift options.","PeriodicalId":188459,"journal":{"name":"Psychology & Marketing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology & Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous research has identified discrepancies between gift givers and receivers in their attitudes towards certain types of gifts, such as self‐improvement gifts. However, it remains unexplored whether there are divergent preferences between givers and receivers regarding probabilistic gifts (i.e., gifts involving probabilistic goods), despite the growing popularity of such goods. To address this gap, we conducted five studies. Study 1 revealed that when presented with a choice between probabilistic gifts and regular gifts, givers were less likely than receivers to select probabilistic gifts. This discrepancy was replicated in two contexts: vertical outcomes of probabilistic gifts (e.g., travel packages with varying prices) in Study 2, and horizontal outcomes of probabilistic gifts (e.g., T‐shirts with different patterns) in Study 3. Study 4 identified that this asymmetrical preference occurred due to different regulatory focus and perceptions of norm violations among individuals when engaging in gift giving. Givers exhibited a higher inclination towards prevention‐focused strategies, whereas receivers displayed a stronger preference for promotion‐focused strategies. Moreover, givers tend to significantly overestimate the extent to which receivers perceive probabilistic gifts as violating gifting norms. These disparities resulted in an asymmetrical preference for probabilistic gifts between givers and receivers. In Study 5, we found that consideration of creativity in gifting moderated the giver‐receiver asymmetrical preference for probabilistic gifts. Specifically, givers with heightened consideration of creativity were more likely to choose probabilistic gifts. These findings imply that gift givers could give greater consideration to probabilistic gifts, and marketers can capitalize on this by promoting probabilistic goods as viable gift options.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
送礼者和收礼者在决定概率性礼物和常规礼物时的差异
以往的研究发现,送礼者和收礼者对某些类型礼物(如自我提升礼物)的态度存在差异。然而,尽管概率性礼品(即涉及概率性商品的礼品)越来越受欢迎,但送礼者和收礼者对这类礼品是否存在偏好差异仍未得到探讨。为了填补这一空白,我们进行了五项研究。研究 1 显示,在概率礼物和普通礼物之间进行选择时,送礼者比收礼者更少可能选择概率礼物。这种差异在两个情境中得到了验证:研究 2 中的概率性礼物的纵向结果(如不同价格的旅游套餐)和研究 3 中的概率性礼物的横向结果(如不同图案的 T 恤衫)。研究 4 发现,这种不对称偏好的出现是由于个人在送礼时的监管重点和对违反规范的看法不同。送礼者更倾向于以预防为重点的策略,而收礼者则更倾向于以促销为重点的策略。此外,送礼者往往会高估收礼者认为概率性礼物违反送礼规范的程度。这些差异导致送礼者和受礼者对概率性礼物的偏好不对称。在研究 5 中,我们发现送礼时对创意的考虑调节了送礼者和受礼者对概率性礼物的非对称偏好。具体来说,更注重创意的送礼者更倾向于选择概率性礼物。这些发现意味着,送礼者可以更多地考虑概率性礼品,而营销人员则可以利用这一点,将概率性商品作为可行的礼品选择加以推广。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The double‐edged sword of generative artificial intelligence in digitalization: An affordances and constraints perspective Social comparison theory: A review and future directions The double‐edged sword of generative artificial intelligence in digitalization: An affordances and constraints perspective Social comparison theory: A review and future directions Bayesian inference and consumer behavioral theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1