Consumer Psychology

by Brian M Young

  Gift giving is ubiquitous and occurs in most cultures. This fact can be interpreted in two ways. The first and most common one is to look for cultural variations and differences that might provide an interesting insight into the ways and customs of that culture. There is the possibility however that those universal phenomena reflect essential features of being human and are (partly) dependent on the evolutionary history of our species. This is not such a well-trodden path although it does exist. For example Saad and Gill (2003) argued that gift giving can be analysed by appealing to a few basic predispositions that have evolved as we have developed as a species. For example the social and cooperative characteristics of much of our behaviour could be related to reciprocal altruism which suggests that ‘one good deed deserves another’ and can be demonstrated in other animals that are genetically related to us such as baboons where food is offered in exchange for sex. There is more on similar lines in Saad and Gill (2003) where other findings such as the ranking of recipients in terms of how much would be spent when giving to them (partners, close kin, then close friends) is accounted for using evolutionary principles. For example gift spending on close friends would be driven by reciprocal altruism only. That’s simple. Two people get on well and a friendship develops between them. At some time one partner behaves in a way towards his or her friend where in purely self-centred terms, the benefit accrued is less than the effort expended. That’s one way of looking at altruism and the reciprocal part is where the imbalance is repaid by the other partner thus establishing or cementing the friendship. However greater spending on partners and close kin are explicable in terms of reproductive fitness 11 and non-reproductive fitness respectively. Reproductive fitness is an additional benefit in terms of altruism as close kin share similar genes and altruistic behaviour is also cooperative behaviour that leads to greater survival. Non-reproductive fitness is based on the concept of inclusive fitness . This means that any estimate of reproductive success is based not just on the number of one’s own offspring but also by those who are in one’s kin group (Saad & Gill , op. cit., p. 771). Consequently close kin join the privileged few who receive the most.

  Curry, Roberts , and Dunbar (2013) were interested in altruism and developed much of what Saad and Gill (2003) had written 10 years earlier. They recognised a problem with the evolutionary argument. Close kin and members of the same family often get on well together because they live together and get to know each other’s ways. Strangers on the other hand will probably not share similar genes but will also be emotionally less close. The confounding of genetic and environmental variables is a situation which is all too common in research and it was resolved by simply asking questions of individuals in different positions in their extended networks of family and friends in order to disentangle the relative influence of genes and environment . For example a participant might be asked how emotionally close she felt to each member of the network and how likely they would donate a kidney to that member. The results demonstrated that a ‘kinship premium ’ existed; an added altruistic component that is there from kinship, irrespective of emotional closeness. Apart from establishing that an account of altruism needs to distinguish between the independent contributions of both kith and kin, 12 the finding also suggests that independent analyses of both friends and kinship relationships is necessary in any research in this area.

  I have spent some time on evolutionary psychology arguments and the vexed question of the extent to which our behaviour has evolved solely by culture and learning or whether we need to acknowledge our history as a species as another, legitimate source of influence on our current thoughts, feelings and intentions no matter where we live on the planet or how old we are. Some readers might feel uncomfortable with the latter assumption and argue that we are warming up old discredited theories about the origins of human nature. However most theories recognise that human nature has an inherited component and that we are not dealing with a ‘blank slate’ 13 at birth . Similarly it is non-controversial to assume that these inherited tendencies and the conventions and customs of society together with individual tastes and preferences are operative in the pattern of gift giving and exchange in a culture.

  One of the best sources for a review of the literature would be Ward and Chan (2015) and I have used this together with some additional recent material and some of my own interpretations. These authors structure their review by arguing that the gift’s primary function is to maintain and preserve relationships so that the giver’s primary emotional commitment is to search for the perfect gift. The rest of the paper looks at the various stages in this process and the evidence. Starting with the view from the perspective of the gift giver, there are two goals ; to get it right and not to get it embarrassingly wrong. The social skills required to get it just so are being able to read what the recipient is really like while telling the recipient what you are like and what the relationship is like too. Too risky a strategy might cause damage to the relationship as it is embarrassing and insulting for the recipient. 14 Regular gift giving can be constructive for relationship development as gifts can act as markers of similarity, mapping out expectations about how the relationship is going. If you can communicate to your partner that mutual intimacy and understanding is shared in gift choice then your relationship is enhanced. However pitching the perfect gift that expresses the giver’s own identity and at the same time satisfies what the receiver really wants is a skill that sometimes is absent. Because gift giving is ego-involving in the sense that the giver is saying ‘look—this is me’ with the gift, the receiver can be disappointed. There are perils and pitfalls in gift giving and sometimes the receiver’s interests and wants are neglected as the giver attempts to assert aspects of herself that the recipient will find attractive. However there are cultures such as China where the balance between the two parties’ (giver and receiver) needs and wants should be easier to maintain. The reason lies in a cultural difference between how the self is thought of in China as compared with the West. Briefly the Chinese conception of self emphasises the interdependent self aspects i.e. in most activities the feelings, thoughts and intentions of others are as important as or more important than one’s own and both are intertwined, whereas the Western emphasis is on individualism where the self is seen as separate and independent from others. Tynan, Pereira Heath, Ennew, Wang, and Sun (2010) examined self-gifts . These are purchases to be enjoyed by the buyer and are construed in my (Western) culture as indulgences; guilty pleasures if you like, that you splurge on to reward yourself for your own achievements. ‘Go on—spoil yourself. You deserve it’ might be the sort of strapline that the savvy marketer would use. Look at examples from China however in Tynan et al. (2010) and you will get a very different picture where the team at work succeeds against all odds so a new suit or smartphone is bought while the recipient describes the approval from immediate family members or team colleagues and his own feelings of well-being. In a later paper Wong, Hogg, and Vanharanta (2012) developed the idea of self to include received gifts transformed into possessions . These authors identified a crucial process that provides a link between gift giving and self in the culture of Hong Kong, a setting that emphasises both individualism and collectivism and where interdependent and independent self-construals can be made. 15 This process was called the extended self and was made famous by Belk (1988) 16 in one of the most important consumer research papers written on self, identity and ownership. The essence of Belk ’s thesis was that our self didn’t stop at the skin but continued into our possessions , and this simple truth opened up a great treasure trove of examples ranging over ethnography, psychology, philosophy and consumer research which Belk has worked over assiduously. Once this idea of an extended self is established then the idea that the collective or interdependent construal of the self has an important role to play in the process falls neatly into place. The boundaries between giver and recipient become blurred as gift giving becomes part of the mutual relationship between two people and this i
s particularly true in Chinese society when daily interactions are governed by mutual considerations as implied in face maintenance . 17 Consequently narratives about gift giving, which constitute the evidence base obtained from respondents by Wong et al. (2012) demonstrated clearly that ‘giving’ meant extending these possessions which they had given to another close person, rather than any loss on their part. However there are positive and negative sides of any convention or custom so at best gift giving in China can be seen as a celebration of mutual exchange and reciprocity . At worst though, it can be viewed as a series of obligations that reproduce or reaffirm a social hierarchy especially if traditional hierarchical norms are adhered to. The giving of lai see or Lunar New Year money in Hong Kong flows from superior to inferior and is an example of such a hierarchy (Ng, 2001). And at best, a Western norm of gift giving with careful and astute selection of the appropriate gift can convey fresh new ideas for different turns in a relationship using the language of giving. Indeed, according to Dunn , Huntsinger, Lun, and Sinclair (2008) the perception by each partner of the similarity between them is one of the great drivers of a relationship. As it grows stronger it can lead in some cases to an inflated perception of similarity between the partners. Gift giving can be seen as providing markers of similarity in a relationship. The importance of considered and thoughtful gift giving is parodied in an episode (Lawton, 2015) of the saga of the Simpson family where long-suffering Marge is given a present of a bowling ball by her husband Homer, in public, at a dinner attended by the children and Marge’s two sisters.

  Perhaps Marge had had plenty practice in smiling through gritted teeth when faced with Homer’s ludicrous attempts at gift giving until, in the episode cited, the bowling ball was the last straw and she erupted. Young children learn to control and suppress desires as their executive function develops. This can be a very important social skill, especially in consumer socialisation . Kieras , Tobin, Graziano, and Rothbart (2005) were interested in preschool children’s ability to apply effort and control natural reactions. These can be valuable in both inhibiting dangerous behaviour as for example when it’s necessary to stop chasing a ball when it rolls into a busy street and actively suppressing socially inadequate behaviour such as a shy girl deliberately approaching a new child to become friends. In the latter case the inadequacy of the behaviour is not dangerous; rather it is neglectful of an opportunity. It’s also socially useful when it’s required in situations such as receiving an undesirable gift. The authors showed that even 3–5-year-olds are capable of this useful social skill.

  As well as learning how to receive gifts, there can be a transfer of money, goods, and other tangible benefits within a family and children are often on the receiving end, either directly on significant occasions such as birthdays, or indirectly through caregivers receiving such benefits, either immediately or deferred. 18 Bradford (2009) in a perceptive study of transfer of assets within families explored how these assets as they trickle through the generations acquire a different status of inalienability where they are not seen as transferable but rather acquire symbolic meaning that reflects the family’s past. Given that children are often on the receiving end of this, dispensing with a family heirloom for cash for example would be seen as disrespecting the traditions and status of the family. One peculiarly English example (which to my knowledge has not been discussed in this context) was a comment attributed to one Tory politician (Alan Clark) about another (Michael Heseltine). “The trouble with Michael is that he had to buy his own furniture” (Aitkenhead, 2012). This rather snide comment refers to a class distinction in English society between old wealth and new wealth because old wealth is inherited and therefore a cut above the new acquired variety. A more common example would be—what does the older child or young adult do with all the mementoes and memorabilia that have been acquired after the death of the oldest generation within the family? The distinction between sacred and profane (see “Émile Durkheim and Sacred/​Profane” section in Chapter 2) is unclear and selling off one’s inheritance is an option. Where does one draw the line? The boundary would seem to lie at war medals awarded to a late member of the family; see for example Mumsnet (2011) and one of the main justifications for not selling appears to be disrespect if you did.

  There are a couple of interesting byways in the gift giving literature that will conclude this section. One relates to the taboo of using the gift-received as a gift-to-be, called ‘regifting ’ by some. This practice is usually cited in the literature (Adams, Flynn, & Norton, 2012) as similar to throwing the gift away as worthless and the reason is not hard to find if you take the view that the act of giving and receiving is replete with symbolic value such that the object is not simply a functional thing. However things are not as simple as they may seem. A closer reading of Adams et al. (2012) shows an asymmetry between receiver and giver. The receiver will express gratitude, sure but when the exchange is done and the giver has left and the possibility of breaching the rule by selling on the gift is contemplated by the receiver then not only is the receiver being completely unappreciative but is also profiting from it. From the giver’s point of view, it’s fine. She’s done her bit and what happens afterwards is up to the receiver. Although I know of no literature on it, I would assume having an independent self-construal where the self is seen as autonomous and free would lubricate the process of assigning these attributions. So the receiver is concerned but the giver is not that bothered. Recently, Thomsen and Zaichkowsky (2015) examined the concept of the ‘gift closet ’ which was a revelation to me and maybe other readers. Suppose you are out browsing through the shops and stores and see something for sale which would ‘exactly suit X’. But it’s not near a major gift-giving holiday. Many of you would make a mental note and pass by. Use the gift closet! Buy now and store it until a suitable event comes round. Or give it to someone anyway. This repository has obvious advantages in terms of bargain hunting, optimising search time and if one gives gifts on various occasions spread through the year it has its advantages. The glaring disadvantage though would be that the symbolic value has been stripped off and the recipient, if he or she was aware of the use such a household store of gifts would be unsure of whether the giver had chosen it specially or whether it was a rejected gift from someone else.

  Back to Ownership

  So now we can return to the life-span perspective on ownership and possession and examine these age-related trends in some detail. We’ll start with a small area in the field of adding value to things that deals with a hidden secret. Hidden because I always ask my class in consumer psychology if they have ever possessed one of these (after describing what I am referring to) and I usually get some embarrassed smiles but if I ask for a show of hands then this is too much for many. And rightly so.

  Transitional Objects

  They are called ‘transitional objects’ and have sentimental value for children and (some) adults . They often have an attractive textural quality and a sensual quality so they can be smelt, rubbed, fondled, examined, listened to (Woodward, 2011, p. 366). They can be a piece of blanket that dates back to the days when you were a baby in a pram, or a special cuddly toy that you’ve had since you were very young. It’s not uncommon to become attached to a special object and 62% of American children had one compared with 38% of Japanese children (Hobara, 2003). The reason for the difference suggests their function as North American children are more likely to sleep in their own room whereas Japanese children will sleep with their mothers either in the same room or same bed. The reason why transitional objects are prevalent in young children then is to do with bridging the gap between attachment and independence. As children grow up they become less dependent on their mother and the transition can be eased with such an object. Although that is the generally accepted theory, it’s instructive to go back to the original formulation by Winnicott (1953) where the emphasis is on the transitional object as the first possession in the life of the child when the infant is separating the world into ‘
me’ and ‘not me’ and there will still be a liminal zone in between. To use a more contemporary psychological language, acquiring a fundamental cognitive distinction between what is ‘me’ and what is ‘not me’ requires a resolution of the status of the indeterminate category ‘in between’ and this can be effected using a transitional object. 19 It is a cognitive achievement although there are potential issues surrounding the dilemma of attachment and separation and the resolution of these might affect the child emotionally in later life. Although Winnicott saw transitional objects as helpful to the child as she resolves the conflicting needs for attachment and separation, their possession is not without risk. Bronstein (1992) claimed that in the second year of life both parent and child become anxious as a result of the attachment/separation conflict. The possession of the attachment object then became a substitute for, and eventually more valued than the mother herself. The object no longer serves as a transitional object conveying the illusion of mother-child unity, but becomes a fetish object all-powerful and with magical properties. 20 But with more value added although whether it is negative or positive will depend on the user. 21

  If the transitional object is so valued and occupies a pivotal role in the development of the child, what happens to it as we grow up? We can put it away in a drawer marked ‘childish things’ and give a wry smile when we remember what we did then. But important parts of our early life usually don’t just disappear. Perhaps transitional objects have an important role to play throughout our lives? Woodward (2011) seems to think so. His paper seeks to integrate Winnicott ’s (1953, 1971) psychoanalytic theorising on the relations between objects and people into wider considerations about our relations with objects at aesthetic and emotional levels. It also has a life-span orientation which makes it particularly relevant to this book. It may not be bedside reading for those readers who relate to consumption primarily through weekly visits to Tesco as it is not written as the author admits to cover routine consumption 22 but it would cover those societies where certain goods are desired and consumed, some of which are seen as constituting sacred objects (see Chapter 2 and section on “Émile Durkheim and Sacred/​Profane”). The important nexus in Winnicott’s theory is the emergent space between ‘me’ and ‘not me’ described above where through engagement with objects in play for example, objects are consumed. Woodward talks of objects being ‘transitioned’ and the objects themselves can be toys for the child, but also food and alcohol for the adult , and special objects to which one is attached such as jewellery or even a favourite mug for the older adult. This development of the argument beyond infancy and childhood is helped when Woodward turns to the theories of Bollas (1978). 23 According to Woodward, Bollas believed that early childhood experiences where the self has been transformed by objects can be remembered. The details of the experience might not be there but the deep satisfaction which according to Woodward provides a promise of affording i.e. opening up the possibility of self-change becomes a search for the sacred in order to transcend the profane, using the dichotomy in the sense intended by Durkheim (Woodward, 2011, p. 377). There is more in the same vein but there is one added characteristic which needs describing and that is the aesthetic quality of the experience. It is a feeling of deep rapport with the object when one who is sensing the object is in a union with the object. This quasi-spiritual experience is indescribable and can set off a quest to rediscover it.