Half a Gift Is Not Half-Hearted: A Giver–Receiver Asymmetry in the Thoughtfulness of Partial Gifts

Abstract

Four studies document an asymmetry in givers' and receivers' evaluations of gifts: Givers underestimate the extent to which receivers perceive partial (but more desirable) gifts to be thoughtful, valuable, and worthy of appreciation. Study 1 documents this asymmetry and suggests that givers underestimate the extent to which partial gifts signal thoughtfulness to receivers. Study 2 replicates this asymmetry in the context of a real gift exchange among friends. Study 3 shows that this asymmetry arises because givers believe that purchasing partial gifts is a greater violation of gift-giving norms than do receivers, leading givers to expect that partial gifts will damage receivers' perceptions of a gift's value. Study 4 offers an intervention that induces givers to select the (partial) gifts that receivers prefer more than givers expect: framing a gift's separate components as complete units.

Why Certain Gifts Are Great to Give but Not to Get

“…Existing findings. Givers frequently choose gifts that can be enjoyed as soon as they are opened, choosing, for instance, a smaller bouquet of roses in bloom over a larger bouquet of buds (Yang & Urminsky, 2015) or a less expensive but fully paid blender over an equal-value deposit toward a top-of-the-line blender (Kupor, Flynn, & Norton, 2016). Recipients, however, are willing to wait for the higher-quality gift.…”

“…Recipients, however, are willing to wait for the higher-quality gift. This may occur because givers perceive complete gifts as more thoughtful, whereas recipients think better-quality gifts are more thoughtful (even when incomplete; Kupor et al., 2016).…”

Sentimental value and gift giving: Givers' fears of getting it wrong prevents them from getting it right

“…In sum, we predict that givers do not give sentimentally valuable gifts as often as recipients would prefer, and that this (Chan & Mogilner, 2016;Goodman & Lim, 2015) 42.17 (3.72) bc Unrequested vs. requested (Gino & Flynn, 2011;Ward & Broniarczyk, 2016) 41.87 (3.79) abcd Immediate vs. delayed (Yang & Urminsky, 2015) 33.70 (3.38) cd Complete vs. partial (Kupor, Flynn, & Norton, 2016) 32.12 (3.96) d…”

Where Do You Want to Go for Dinner? A Preference Expression Asymmetry in Joint Consumption

“…For the two mediators, we administered four items in random order. Drawing on research examining preference asymmetries between distinct roles in the gift giving context (Kupor, Flynn, and Norton 2017), we adapted the mediation items for each role. Two items measured a focus on what would mitigate the requestor's decision burden: "I was thinking about what would help (requestor condition: me; responder condition: [friend's initials]) make a decision more easily" and "I was thinking about what would help (requestor condition: me; responder condition: [friend's initials]) make a decision more quickly" (1 ¼ "not at all," and 7 ¼ "very much so;" r ¼ .77, p < .001).…”