Skip to main content

Exploring the effectiveness of business gifts: A controlled field experiment

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

To measure the effectiveness of business gifts, a controlled field experiment was designed to isolate the attitudinal and behavioral intent effects of business gift giving by an actual company and its customers. Customers were randomly assigned to experimental groups, (who received a business card file) and control groups (who received no business gift) according to a Solomon four-group design. Mail questionnaires were utilized to collect data on respondent attitudes toward four product attributes (price, quality, service, and delivery) across three product lines, and on customers’ likelihood to contact the donor company versus the majority of its major competitors., Consistent with the reciprocal intent of business gift giving, the results indicate the ability of business gifts to work in synergy with the other elements of an organization’s marketing communications program.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. 1983.Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs in Research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cialdini, Robert B. 1985.Influence: Science and Practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cialdini, Robert B., Joyce E. Vincent, Stephen K. Lewis, Jose Catalan, Diane Wheeler, and Betty Lee Darby. 1975. “Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face Technique”.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (2): 206–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. DePaulo, Bella M., Gregory L. Brittingham, and Mary Kister Kaiser. 1983. “Receiving Competence-Relevant Help: Effects on Reciprocity, Affect, and Sensitivity to the Helper’s Nonverbally Expressed Needs”.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (5): 1045–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gergen, Kenneth J., Phoebe Ellsworth, Christina Maslach, and Magnus Seipel. 1975. “Obligation, Donor Resources, and Reactions to Aid in Three Cultures”.Journal of Personality, and Social Psychology 31 (3): 390–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gibson, Richard. 1989. “Latest in Corporate Freebies Try to be Classy Instead of Trashy”.Wall Street Journal (August 7): B4.

  7. Greenberg, Martin S. and David M. Frisch. 1972. “Effect of Intentionality on Willingness to Reciprocate a Favor”.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 8 (2): 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Herpel, George L. and Richard A. Collins. 1972.Specialty Advertising in Marketing. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Herpel, George L. and Steve Slack. 1983.Specialty Advertising: New Dimensions in Creative Marketing. Irving, TX: Specialty Advertising Association International.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lowe, C.A., and J.W. Goldstein. 1970. “Reciprocal Liking and Attributions of Ability: Mediating Effects of Perceived Intent and Personal Involvement”.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16 (2): 291–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mauss, Marcel. 1967.The Gift. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Meredith, George and Robert P. Fried. 1977.Incentives in Marketing. Union, NJ: National Premium Sales Executives Education Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mizerski, Richard W., Neil K. Allison, and Stephen Calvert. 1980. “A Controlled Field Study of Corrective Advertising Using Multiple Exposures and a Commercial Medium.Journal of Marketing Research 17 (3): 341–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nadler, Arie, Jeffrey D. Fisher, and Shulamit Ben Itzhak. 1983. “With a Little Help from My Friend: Effect of Single or Multiple Act Aid as a Function of donor and Task Characteristics”.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 (2): 310–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pruitt, D. 1968. “Reciprocity and Credit Building in a Laboratory Dyad”.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8 (2 Part 1): 143–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Regan, Dennis T. 1971. “Effects of a Favor and Linking on compliance”.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 7 (6): 627–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Snyder, Mark and Michael R. Cunningham. 1975. “To Comply or Not Comply: Testing the Self-Perception Explanation of the ‘Foot-in-the-Door’ Phenomenon.”.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (1): 64–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tesser, Abraham, Robert Gatewood, and Michael Driver. 1968. “Some Determinants of Gratitude”.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 (3): 233–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilkie, H. and John T. Lanzetta 1970. “The Obligation to Help: The Effects of Amount of Prior Help on Subsequent Helping Behavior”.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 6 (4): 488–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilson, Warner and Wilma Henzlik. 1986. “Reciprocity, of Liking Following Face-to-Face Encounters with Attractive and Unattractive Others”.Psychological Reports 59 (2): 599–609.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard F. Beltramini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beltramini, R.F. Exploring the effectiveness of business gifts: A controlled field experiment. JAMS 20, 87–91 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723479

Download citation

Keywords

  • Product Line
  • Experimental Social Psychology
  • Pretest Questionnaire
  • Reciprocal Response
  • Posttest Questionnaire