Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cultural differences in giving experiential (vs. material) gifts

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this research, we propose that consumers’ degree of independence (not consumers’ degree of interdependence) predicts their preference for giving experiential (vs. material) gifts. Across four studies, we find that consumers from the U.S. (vs. India), consumers with independent (vs. interdependent) self-construal, consumers with a high (vs. low) level of independence, and Whites (vs. Asians) prefer giving experiential (vs. material) gifts. Furthermore, we demonstrate that promotion focus underlies this effect, ruling out alternative explanations (i.e., reliance on feelings and the need for unique products). This research makes theoretical contributions and provides actionable managerial implications for marketers by identifying who would prefer giving experiential (vs. material) gifts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bae, S., Liu, X., & Ng, S. (2022). We are more tolerant than I: Self-construal and consumer responses toward deceptive advertising. Marketing Letters, 33(2), 277–291.

  • Belk, R. W. (2005). Exchange taboos from an interpretive perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 16–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briley, D. A., & Aaker, J. L. (2006). When does culture matter? Effects of personal knowledge on the correction of culture-based judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 146–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C., & Mogilner, C. (2017). Experiential gifts foster stronger social relationships than material gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 913–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. H., & Pham, M. T. (2013). Affect as a decision-making system of the present. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 42–63.

  • Cheal, D. (1987). ‘Showing them you love them’: Gift giving and the dialectic of intimacy. The Sociological Review, 35(1), 150–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D., & Brock, T. C. (1975). Use of first person pronouns as a function of increased objective self-awareness and performance feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(4), 381–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escalas, J., & Bettman, J. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, F. J., & Adams, G. S. (2009). Money can’t buy love: Asymmetric beliefs about gift price and feelings of appreciation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 404–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. (2021). Nearly 1 in 3 Americans expect to take on debt this holiday season. How to not be one of them. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/20/how-to-make-a-budget-and-avoid-debt-this-holiday-season.html. Accessed Dec 2021.

  • Goodman, J. (2014). Giving happiness: Do experiential gifts lead to more happiness? ACR North American Advances.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R. W., & Biehal, G. J. (2005). Achieving your goals or protecting their future? The effects of self-view on goals and choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 277–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamstra, M. R., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Veldstra, J. L. (2011). Everyday risk taking as a function of regulatory focus. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(1), 134–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling, white paper. http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf. Accessed Dec 2021.

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, J., & Chang, H. H. (2015). “I” follow my heart and “we” rely on reasons: The impact of self-construal on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1392–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. S., & Drolet, A. (2003). Choice and self-expression: A cultural analysis of variety-seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 373–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, A., Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilovich, T. (2020). Spending on doing promotes more moment-to-moment happiness than spending on having. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 88, 103971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lalwani, A. K., & Forcum, L. (2016). Does a dollar get you a dollar’s worth of merchandise? The impact of power distance belief on price-quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lalwani, A. K., & Shavitt, S. (2009). The “me” I claim to be: Cultural self-construal elicits self-presentational goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 88–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lalwani, A. K., & Shavitt, S. (2013). You get what you pay for? Self-construal influences price-quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lalwani, A. K., & Wang, J. J. (2019). How do consumers’ cultural backgrounds and values influence their coupon proneness? A multimethod investigation. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 1037–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. C., Hall, D. L., & Wood, W. (2018). Experiential or material purchases? Social class determines purchase happiness. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1031–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual differences scale. Psychology and Marketing, 14(6), 601–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, N. (2003). Shifting selves and decision making: The effects of self-construal priming on consumer risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 30–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self and others in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 993–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. Y. (1998). A comparison of Korean and American gift-giving behaviors. Psychology & Marketing, 15(6), 577–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, H., Wan, F., & Wyer, R. S. (2011). Cross-cultural differences in the refusal to accept a small gift: The differential influence of reciprocity norms on Asians and North Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 271–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, D., Song, J. H., & Biswas, A. (2014). Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) generation in new media platforms: The role of regulatory focus and collective dissonance. Marketing Letters, 25(2), 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statista. (2021). Average spend on Valentine’s Day gifts worldwide 2021, by country https://www.statista.com/statistics/1224128/average-spend-on-valentine-s-day-gifts-worldwide-by-country/

  • Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 649–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51(4), 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, K., Argo, J. J., & Sengupta, J. (2012). Dissociative versus associative responses to social identity threat: The role of consumer self-construal. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 704–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, E. C., Moore, S. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2019). Wine for the table: Self-construal, group size, and choice for self and others. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(3), 508–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S. O., Suk, K., Lee, S. M., & Park, E. Y. (2011). To seek variety or uniformity: The role of culture in consumers’ choice in a group setting. Marketing Letters, 22(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is based on the first author’s master’s thesis at Sogang University under the direction of the second author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sogang Business School, Sogang University, Seoul, South Korea

    Minji Suh & Hyewon Cho

Authors
  1. Minji Suh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hyewon Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyewon Cho.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 31 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suh, M., Cho, H. Cultural differences in giving experiential (vs. material) gifts. Mark Lett 34, 223–236 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-022-09645-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-022-09645-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation