Abstract
This paper examines the effects of handmade (vs. machine-made) gifts on social relationships. Across three studies, we find that handmade gifts promote social relationships. This effect can be explained by the perceived uniqueness of such gifts. Furthermore, these effects are moderated by social class (upper vs. lower). Specifically, membership in the upper class enhances the recipient’s perceived uniqueness of handmade gifts, which in turn enhances the recipient’s evaluation of social relationships. However, for members of the lower class, their perception of the uniqueness of handmade gifts becomes weaker, to the detriment of social relationships. These novel findings have both theoretical and practical significance for establishing harmonious interpersonal relationships and the consumption of handmade gifts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciprocity: Gratitude and relationships in everyday life. Emotion, 8, 425–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.425.
Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs you. Psychological Science, 17, 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01705.x.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Campbell, C. (2005). The craft consumer: Culture craft and consumption in a postmodern society. J Consum Cult, 5, 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505049843.
Chan, C., & Mogilner, C. (2016). Experiential gifts foster stronger social relationships than material gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 913. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw067.
Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., & Park, H. S. (2012). The unidimensional relationship closeness scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment, 24, 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026265.
Droege, J. (2021). The handmade effect: A model of conscious shopping in an industrialised economy. Rev Industrial Org, 60, 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-021-09844-9.
Eom, K., Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2018). Social class, control, and action: Socioeconomic status differences in antecedents of support for pro-environmental action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.009.
Etsy, I. (2019). 2018 annual report. Retrieved 23 January 2020 from https://s22.q4cdn.com/941741262/fles/docfnancials/annual/2018-Annual-Report-(1).pdf.
Fernbach, P. M., Kan, C., & Lynch, J. G. (2015). Squeezed: Coping with constraint through efficiency and prioritization. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 1204–1227. https://doi.org/10.1086/679118.
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, 404–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.11.003.
Frizzo, F., Dias, H. B. A., Duarte, N. P., Rodrigues, D. G., & Prado, P. H. M. (2020). The genuine handmade: How the production method influences consumers’ behavioral intentions through naturalness and authenticity. J Food Prod Mark, 26, 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2020.1765936.
Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2012). Customer-perceived positioning effectiveness: Conceptualization, operationalization, and implications for new product managers. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00892.x.
Fuchs, C., Schreier, M., & Van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2015). The handmade effect: What’s love got to do with it? The Journal of Marketing, 79, 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0018.
Gino, F., & Flynn, F. J. (2011). Give them what they want: The benefits of explicitness in gift exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 915–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.015.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Hutcherson, C. A., Seppala, E. M., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Loving-kindness meditation increases social connectedness. Emotion, 8, 720–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013237.
Johnston, J., & Baumann, S. (2007). Democracy versus distinction: A study of omnivorousness in gourmet food writing. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 165–204. https://doi.org/10.1086/518923.
Kok, B. E., Coffey, K. A., Cohn, M. A., Catalino, L. I., Vacharkulksemsuk, T., Algoe, S. B., Brantley, M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). How positive emotions build physical health: Perceived positive social connections account for the upward spiral between positive emotions and vagal tone. Psychological Science, 24, 1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612470827.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2011). Social class as culture. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414654.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119, 546–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028756.
Kreuzbauer, R., King, D., & Basu, S. (2015). The mind in the object-psychological valuation of materialized human expression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 764–787. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000080.
Lee, J. C., Hall, D. L., & Wood, W. (2018). Experiential or material purchases? Social class determines purchase happiness. Psychological Science, 29, 1031–1039. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617736386.
Liebl, M., & Roy, T. (2003). Handmade in India: Preliminary analysis of crafts producers and crafts production. Econ Polit Wkly, 38, 5366–5376.
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. A. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. J Pers Soc Psychol, 82, 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.112.
Rosenzweig, E., & Gilovich, T. (2012). Buyer’s remorse or missed opportunity? Differential regrets for material and experiential purchases. J Pers Soc Psychol, 102, 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024999.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Pers Relatsh, 5, 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x.
Schroll, R., Schnurr, B., Grewal, D., Johar, G., & Aggarwal, P. (2018). Humanizing products with handwritten typefaces. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 648–672. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy014.
Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.
Song, J., He, D., & Jiang, Y. (2023). The negative handmade effect: How and why control deprivation thwarts desire for handmade products. Psychol & Mark, 40, 1431–1445. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21812.
Steffel, M., & Le Boeuf, R. A. (2014). Overindividuation in gift giving: Shopping for multiple recipients leads givers to choose unique but less preferred gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 1167–1180. https://doi.org/10.1086/674199.
Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Townsend, S. S. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: The case of social class. J Pers Soc Psychol, 93, 814–830. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.814.
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. J Pers Soc Psychol, 102, 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027143.
Suh, M., & Cho, H. (2023). Cultural differences in giving experiential (vs. material) gifts. Mark Lett, 34, 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-022-09645-4.
Tully, S. M., Hershfield, H. E., & Meyvis, T. (2015). Seeking lasting enjoyment with limited money: Financial constraints increase preference for material goods over experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv007.
Weidman, A. C., & Dunn, E. W. (2015). The unsung benefits of material things. Soc Psychol Personal Sci, 7, 390–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615619761.
Wu, R., Han, X., & Kardes, F. R. (2021). Special fonts: The competing roles of difficulty and uniqueness in consumer inference. Psychol & Mark, 38, 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21414.
Yan, L., Keh, H. T., & Chen, J. (2021). Assimilating and differentiating: The curvilinear effect of social class on green consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 47, 914–936. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa041.
Yin, J., Wang, Y., Pang, J., & Wang, K. (2020). Customizing products for self versus close others: The effect of intended recipient on creator perceptions of product uniqueness. Mark Lett, 31, 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-019-09510-x.
Zhang, Y., & Epley, N. (2012). Exaggerated, mispredicted, and misplaced: When it’s the thought that counts in gift exchanges. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 667–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029223.
Zhou, X., Kim, S., & Wang, L. (2019). Money helps when money feels: Money anthropomorphism increases charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 953–972. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy012.
Funding
This paper was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (Grant No. LQ24G030005), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2022M710809), and a major project of the Department of Culture and Tourism of Zhejiang Province (Grant No. 2021KYZ005).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
This research was conducted in accordance with the ethics requirements of the corresponding author’s institutions. The data was collected and analyzed by the first two authors, and the main contribution of the third author was the re-revision of the manuscript as revised by the first two authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) 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.
About this article
Cite this article
Fan, X., Lai, A. & Keh, H.T. Handmade vs. machine-made: the effects of handmade gifts on social relationships. Mark Lett (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-024-09722-w
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-024-09722-w