Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Possessions for Me, Experiences for Others: Preferred Gift Type in Gift-giving Behavior for Self or Others and a Moderate Effect of Emotional Disconnection Level

나를 위한 소유, 타인을 위한 경험: 나 vs 타인을 위한 선물 유형의 차이와 감정적 단절의 조절 효과

  • 임혜빈 (광운대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 김승환 (광운대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 도은영 (광운대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 이병관 (광운대학교 산업심리학과)
  • Received : 2020.04.27
  • Accepted : 2020.06.08
  • Published : 2020.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Consumers purchase gifts for themselves and for others. This research examined whether one's preferred purchase type (material or experiential) would depend on the gift recipient (self or others). A total of 200 participants took part in online studies via Amazon Mechanical-Turk. Based on the construal-level theory, people will focus on concrete product attributes for psychologically close objects; however, for psychologically distant objects, people will concentrate on abstract product attributes. Study 1 demonstrated that participants preferred material over experiential purchases in self-gifting situations, while they preferred experiential compared to material gifts for others. In Study 2, it was found that individual differences in emotional disconnection moderated the effect of gift recipient on preferred gift type. Specifically, the differences in preferred gift type increased as one's emotional disconnection level increased. The results of this research have theoretical implications in terms of extending construal-level theory to gift-purchasing behaviors. Furthermore, this research has practical implications for marketers and advertisers. Limitations and possible future research directions were also discussed.

본 연구는 자신을 위한 선물 구매 상황과 타인을 위한 선물 구매 상황에서 선호하는 재화 유형(물질재 또는 경험재)의 차이를 탐색하고, 이 차이에 대한 개인의 감정적 단절 수준의 조절 효과를 검증하기 위하여 실시되었다. 이를 위해 Amazon Mechanical Turk를 통해 온라인 설문 방식으로 연구 1과 연구 2를 수행하였으며 각각의 연구에 성인 100명이 참가하였다. 해석수준 이론을 바탕으로 할 때, 심리적 거리가 가까운 대상에 대한 의사결정 상황에서는 제품의 구체적 속성에 초점을 맞추고, 심리적 거리가 먼 대상에 대해서는 제품의 추상적 속성에 주목한다. 연구 1에서 자신을 위한 선물로는 추상적인 경험재에 비해 구체적인 물질재를 선호하고, 타인을 위한 선물로는 물질재에 비해 경험재를 선호할 것이라는 가설 1을 확인하였다. 이어 연구 2에서는 감정적 단절 수준의 조절적 역할을 확인하였다. 가설 2와 일치하게, 감정적 단절 수준이 높을수록 자신을 위한 선물로는 물질재를, 타인을 위한 선물로는 경험재를 선호하는 경향성이 강해졌다. 본 연구는 선물을 받는 대상에게 느끼는 심리적 거리가 선호하는 선물 재화의 유형에 영향을 끼친다는 사실을 제안함으로써 선물 구매 행동에 대한 이론적, 실무적 의의를 갖는다. 본 연구에 대한 추가적인 논의와 한계, 가능한 추후 연구도 함께 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). The urge to splurge: A terror management account of materialism and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 198-212. DOI: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_2
  2. Baskin, E., Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., & Novemsky, N. (2014). Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers than to givers: A construal-level approach to gift giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 169-182. DOI: 10.1086/675737
  3. Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55(1), 19-39. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00426.x
  4. Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1993). Gift giving as agapic love: An alternative to the exchange paradigm based on dating experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 393-417. DOI: 10.1086/209357
  5. Bhattacharjee, A., & Mogilner, C. (2014). Happiness from ordinary and extraordinary experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 1-17. DOI: 10.1086/674724
  6. Caille, A. (2000). Gift and association: Review of the Gifts and Interests. DOI: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2000.2.12.fred1-0012
  7. Carre, A., Stefaniak, N., D'ambrosio, F., Bensalah, L., & Besche-Richard, C. (2013). The Basic Empathy Scale in Adults (BES-A): Factor structure of a revised form. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 679-691. DOI: 10.1037/a0032297
  8. Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 146-159. DOI: 10.1037/a0017145
  9. Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2012). I am what I do, not what I have: The differential centrality of experiential and material purchases to the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1304-1317. DOI: 10.1037/a0027407
  10. Chan, C., & Mogilner, C. (2017). Experiential gifts foster stronger social relationships than material gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 913-931. DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucw067
  11. Clarke, K., & Belk, R. W. (1979). The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort. ACR North American Advances.
  12. Clarke, P. D., & Mortimer, G. (2013). Self-gifting guilt: an examination of self-gifting motivations and post-purchase regret. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(6), 472-483. DOI: 10.1108/JCM-05-2013-0566
  13. Decety, J. (2011). The neuroevolution of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1231(1), 35-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06027.x
  14. Derbaix, C., & Pham, M. T. (1991). Affective reactions to consumption situations: A pilot investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12(2), 325-355. DOI: 10.1016/0167-4870(91)90019-P
  15. eMFORCE datalab (2019, September 2). Trend analysis of Chu-seok(Korean Thanksgiving Day) gift market. eMFORCE datalab. Retrived from http://m.emforce.co.kr/resources/upload/emKnowhow/20190902_015329_431420428843309_2019.09.pdf
  16. Etzioni, O., Tuchinda, R., Knoblock, C. A., & Yates, A. (2003). To buy or not to buy: mining airfare data to minimize ticket purchase price. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 119-128. DOI: 10.1145/956750.956767
  17. Gilovich, T., Kumar, A., & Jampol, L. (2015). The beach, the bikini, and the best buy: Replies to Dunn and Weidman, and to Schmitt, Brakus, and Zarantonello. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 179-184. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.09.002
  18. Goodman, J. K., & Lim, S. (2018). When consumers prefer to give material gifts instead of experiences: The role of social distance. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(2), 365-382. DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucy010
  19. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regressionbased approach. Guilford publications.
  20. Heath, M. T., Tynan, C., & Ennew, C. T. (2011). Self-gift giving: Understanding consumers and exploring brand messages. Journal of Marketing Communications, 17(02), 127-144. DOI: 10.1080/13527260903236898
  21. Hong, J. (2019, August 8). Kakao Q2 operating profit 47% up...Kakaotalk advertisement and shopping. Yonhapnews. Retrieved from https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20190808020252017
  22. Howland, P. (2010). Self-gifting and the metro-rural idyll: an illusio of ideal reflexive individualism. New Zealand Sociology, 25(1), 53-74.
  23. Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy: effects of perspectivetaking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(1), 42-58. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.42
  24. Lee, E. (2017). The Effects of Role and Intimacy on Satisfaction in Gifticon-giving Situations. Science of Emotion and Sensibility, 20(3), 131-140. DOI: 10.14695/KJSOS.2017.20.3.131
  25. Lee, S. H, & Yi, Y. J. (2013). Gift for myself: A qualitative study of self-gift behavior in Korea. Consumer Studies, 24(3), 123-155. UCI: G704-000210.2013.24.3.007
  26. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5
  27. Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 523-534. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00535-8
  28. Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256-1269. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.007
  29. Lu, J., Liu, Z., & Fang, Z. (2016). Hedonic products for you, utilitarian products for me. Judgment & Decision Making, 11(4). 332-341. DOI: 10.1037/e722292011-059
  30. Lu, J., Xie, X., & Xu, J. (2013). Desirability or feasibility: Self-other decision-making differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 144-155. DOI: 10.1177/0146167212470146
  31. Luomala, H. T. (1998). A mood-alleviative perspective on self-gift behaviours: Stimulating consumer behaviour theory development. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(1-3), 109-132. DOI: 10.1362/026725798784959318
  32. Luomala, H. T., & Laaksonen, M. (1999). A qualitative exploration of mood-regulatory self-gift behaviors. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(2), 147-182. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-4870(99)00003-3
  33. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
  34. Mauss, M. (2002). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies: Review of the Routledge. DOI: 10.2307/2804090
  35. Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychological Science, 8(6), 423-429. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00455.x
  36. Mick, D. G., & Faure, C. (1998). Consumer self-gifts in achievement contexts: The role of outcomes, attributions, emotions, and deservingness. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(4), 293-307. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8116(98)00006-8
  37. Mogilner, C., Kamvar, S. D., & Aaker, J. (2011). The shifting meaning of happiness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(4), 395-402. DOI: 10.1177/1948550610393987
  38. Mortimer, G., Bougoure, U. S., Fazal-E-Hasan, S. (2015). Development and validation of the self gifting consumer behaviour scale. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3), 165-179. DOI: 10.1002/cb.1506
  39. Mouakhar-Klouz, D., d'Astous, A., & Darpy, D. (2016). I'm worth it or I need it? Self-gift giving and consumers' self-regulatory mindset. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(6), 447-457. DOI: 10.1108/JCM-05-2015-1417
  40. Nicolao, L., Irwin, J. R., & Goodman, J. K. (2009). Happiness for sale: Do experiential purchases make consumers happier than material purchases?. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 188-198. DOI: 10.1086/597049
  41. Park, Y. (2019, December 25). US 'Super Saturday' 40 trillion won shopping jackpot...beyond Black Friday. ChosunBiz. Retrieved from https://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2019/12/25/2019122500710html?utm_source=naver&utm_medium=originalandutm_campaign=biz
  42. Pollmann, M. M., Potters, J., & Trautmann, S. T. (2014). Risk taking by agents: The role of ex-ante and expost accountability. Economics Letters, 123(3), 387-390. DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2014.04.004
  43. Polman, E. (2012). Self-other decision making and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(2), 141-150. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.005
  44. Polman, E., & Emich, K. J. (2011). Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 492-501. DOI: 10.1177/0146167211398362
  45. Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 127-146. DOI: 10.1086/209499
  46. Rosenzweig, E., & Gilovich, T. (2012). Buyer's remorse or missed opportunity? Differential regrets for material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 215-223. DOI: 10.1037/a0024999
  47. Schwartz, B. (1967). The social psychology of the gift. American Journal of Sociology, 73(1), 1-11. DOI: 10.1086/224432
  48. Seddon, F. A., Hazenberg, R., & Denny, S. (2014). Empathic social enterprise: the role of empathy and shared intentionality. In International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR) 11th International Conference: Civil Society and the Citizen, 22-25
  49. Sherry Jr, J. F. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 157-168. DOI: 10.1086/208956
  50. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. DOI: 10.1037/a0020319
  51. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83-95. DOI: 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X
  52. Tynan, C., Teresa Pereira Heath, M., Ennew, C., Wang, F., & Sun, L. (2010). Self-gift giving in China and the UK: Collectivist versus individualist orientations. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(11-12), 1112-1128. DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2010.508981
  53. Van Boven, L. (2005). Experientialism, materialism, and the pursuit of happiness. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 132-142. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.132
  54. Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1193-1202. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1193
  55. Warshaw, P. R. (1980). Buying a gift: Product price moderation of social normative influences on gift purchase intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(1), 143-147. DOI: 10.1177/014616728061022
  56. Weidman, A. C., & Dunn, E. W. (2016). The unsung benefits of material things: Material purchases provide more frequent momentary happiness than experiential purchases. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(4), 390-399. DOI: 10.1177/1948550615619761
  57. Wong, N. Y., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2005). Emotional intensity as a function of psychological distance and cultural orientation. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 533-542. DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00144-9