“My Desire or Your Wish?” The Asymmetry of Givers-Recipients' Gift Preference from the Perspective of Construal Level Theory

Abstract

Abstract: Construal level theory has been widely used in consumer research. The current study, based on the construal level theory and used situational questionnaire, examined whether or not the gender and givers-recipients' role would influence the preference asymmetry of gifts with five experiments. The results revealed that under the general situation, the preference asymmetry was generally influenced by gender—males preferred to give and receive instrumental gifts whereas females preferred to give and receive expressive gifts. However, as the psychological distance (social distance and spatial distance) increasing, the individual's construal level decreased, and the giver would consider more other's preferences and needs, and more likely to choose gifts based on the recipient's preferences.

Key words: construal level theory, gender factor, situation, psychological distance, gift givers-recipients

摘要： 解释水平理论被广泛应用于消费研究领域。本研究以解释水平理论为理论基础，采用情境问卷调查方法，通过5个实验探讨个体赠送与接受礼物时是否存在性别和角色偏好的不对称性。结果发现，一般情境下，受性别因素影响，男生偏好赠送和接受工具性礼物，女生偏好赠送和接受表达性礼物。但随着心理距离（社会距离和空间距离）的拉近，个体的解释水平降低，更关心他人的喜好和需求，赠送者会更基于接收者的偏好进行礼物选择。

关键词: 解释水平, 性别, 情境, 心理距离, 礼物赠送-接受

CLC Number:

B849

LI Kaiyun, WANG Sijie, YANG Huijing, BI Yan, ZHANG Wenjun, LIN Fengxun. “My Desire or Your Wish?” The Asymmetry of Givers-Recipients' Gift Preference from the Perspective of Construal Level Theory[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 136-144.

李开云, 王思杰, 杨蕙菁, 毕艳, 张文君, 林丰勋. “己之所欲”还是“成人之美”？解释水平视角下个体赠送-接受礼物的偏好不对称性[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 136-144.

References

陈文沛. (2013). 产品属性、消费者介入与新产品购买行为的关系. 财经论丛, (2), 101-106
杜伟宇, 蒋运霞. (2014). 消费者的解释水平对其选择偏好的影响. 心理研究, 7(1), 15-22, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1159.2014.01.003
黄俊, 李晔, 张宏伟. (2015). 解释水平理论的应用及发展. 心理科学进展, 23(1), 110-119
黄俊, 李晔, 张宏伟. (2016). 解释水平理论完善过程中的四个问题. 心理科学, 39(4), 887-892
孙晓玲, 张云, 吴明证. (2007). 解释水平理论的研究现状与展望. 应用心理学, 13(2), 181-186, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6020.2007.02.014
王财玉. (2013). 消费决策的特质论、情境论及应用. 广东工业大学学报(社会科学版), 13(3), 74-79
许彩国. (2003). 消费者购买决策影响因素分析. 消费经济, 19(1), 51-53, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5682.2003.01.018
杨秀丽, 程永运. (2009). 对情境因素下消费者超市购物行为的研究. 价值工程, 28(4), 112-114, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4311.2009.04.039
周惠. (2014). 大学生情侣间赠送礼物行为的心理学研究 (硕士学位论文). 曲阜师范大学.
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.
Choi, W. J., Park, J. H., & Yoon, H. J. (2018). Your gift choice for your boss versus your subordinate would not be the same: The interplay of power and giver-receiver role on consumers’ gift preferences. Journal of Business Research, 91, 1-7, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.033.
Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100, doi: 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70014-1.
Freitas, A. L., Langsam, K. L., Clark, S., & Moeller, S. J. (2008). Seeing oneself in one’s choices: Construal level and self-pertinence of electoral and consumer decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1174-1179, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.011.
Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17(4), 278-282, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01698.x.
Fujita, K., & Sasota, J. A. (2011). The effects of construal levels on asymmetric temptation-goal cognitive associations. Social Cognition, 29(2), 125-146, doi: 10.1521/soco.2011.29.2.125.
Gino, F., & Flynn, F. J. (2011). Give them what they want: The benefits of explicitness in gift exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 915-922, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.015.
He, Y. Q., Zhang, J. F., Zhou, Y. Y., & Yang, Z. L. (2019). “Monkey See, Monkey Do?”: The effect of construal level on consumers’ reactions to others’ unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2), 455-472, doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3870-x.
Henderson, M. D. (2013). When seeing the forest reduces the need for trees: The role of construal level in attraction to choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 676-683, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.001.
Rim, S., Uleman, J. S., & Trope, Y. (2009). Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory: Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1088-1097, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.015.
Sinha, I. (1994). A conceptual model of the role of situational type on consumer choice behavior and consideration. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 477-482.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421, doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463, doi: 10.1037/a0018963.
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.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310-320, doi: 10.1509/jmkr.40.3.310.19238.
Wirtz, J., Hung, Y., Yeung, C., & Chiang, J. (2017). From switching intent to behavior: A construal level theory perspective in the context of contractual services. In C. L. Campbell (Ed.), The customer is NOT always right? Marketing orientationsin a dynamic business world. Developments in marketing science: Proceedings of the academy of marketing science. Cham: Springer.
Yi, R., Stuppy-Sullivan, A., Pickover, A., & Landes, R. D. (2017). Impact of construal level manipulations on delay discounting. PLoS One, 12(5), e0177240, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177240.

[1]	ZHU Naping, WANG Wenping, LI Liqiong, LIU Yanling. Value Occupied Quantity: Children Aged 5~10 Years’ Quantity Equality Decline and Value Equality Increase [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(2): 233-239.
[2]	ZHOU Guangfang, WEI Zihan, OUYANG Liangyuan, NGURE Mary Muthoni, WANG Xiaozhuang. The Impact of Description-Experience Conflict on Individual Risky Decision-Making: Decision Model Fitting [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(1): 29-36.
[3]	KANG Tinghu, WANG Nizhuan, GAO Wuping. The Influence of Protagonist Shifting on the Updating of the Situation Model in Narrative Reading [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 1-7.
[4]	ZHANG Qiyong, LU Jiamei. The Regulation Effect of Students' Primacy Effect on Teacher's Emotional Contagion: The Mediating Effects of Authenticity of Emotion Judgment [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 60-66.
[5]	ZHU Peng, CHANG Ruosong. Effects of Gender and Situational Hazard Level on Pedestrian Hazard Perception: Evidence from ERP [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 113-120.
[6]	WANG Xiujuan, WANG Mengting, HAN Shangfeng, LIU Shen, ZHANG Lin. Help-seeking Under Risky Decision-making Framework: The Effect of Attachment Style [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(6): 840-845.
[7]	WU Sanmei, WANG Jingxin, HE Xianyou, TIAN Liangsu, ZHAO Xueru, CHEN Guangyao. The Compatibility Effect of Approaching the Positive and Avoiding the Negative at the Conceptual Level of Psychological Distance [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(4): 488-495.
[8]	LIU Shifan, LIAN Rong, LI Juan, LIAN Kunyu. Effect of Teaching Situation on Teachers’ Automatic Emotion Regulation [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(2): 209-215.
[9]	HOU Yuying, CHEN Shiping, MENG Siqing. The Perception and Learning Speed on Description-experience Conflict under Gain and Loss Situations [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(2): 268-273.
[10]	YAO Haijuan, WANG Jinxia, SU Qingli, BAI Xuejun. The Effects of Embodied Emotion and Creative Thinking: Situational Regulatory Focus as Moderator [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2018, 16(4): 441-448.
[11]	REN Yubing, DU Xiufang. The Influence of Psychological Distance and Life-impact on the Risk Decision-making Involving Physical Safety [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2018, 16(3): 327-334.
[12]	MENG Siqing, ZHAI Yan. A Investigation on the Frustration-tolerant Ability and Relationship Between it and Family Situation of the Middle School Students [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2017, 15(6): 781-785.
[13]	WANG Hanlin, MO Lei. “Action-Evaluation” Effect: The Interaction Between Body Movement and Cognitive Activity [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2017, 15(5): 626-632.
[14]	Liang Jing, Yan Wenjing, Chen Wenfeng, Fu Xiaolan. The influence of situational factors on lying: Based on self-concept maintenance theory [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(5): 709-714.
[15]	Liang Fucheng, Zhou Yu, Wang Junkun, Tang Weihai. Just World Beliefs and Motivation Effect of Cross-Context [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(3): 367-371.