Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#305 PEER’s Guide to Gift-Giving


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
What kind of gifts do people like receiving?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Improve an undesirable gift with a note indicating you own the gift too, although some gifts cannot be improved (example: stapler). When in doubt, stick with a wish-list or something sentimental (example: framed photo of yourself with recipient). Research suggests late and/or cheap gifts might be acceptable. The gifts used in studies were ones few would recommend (example: pen). However, a lack of data exists when the recipient is your significant other: Tread carefully in this evidence-free zone.



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
  • Fancy versus practical gift:
    • 189 participants rated preferences for “luxury” or “practical” pen;1 scale (1=very little to 7=very much).
      • Participants receiving practical pen:
        • Liked it more (score: 4.9 versus 4.4), felt happier (4.8 versus 3.9); all comparisons statistically different.
      • Limitation: No comparison to any other gift.
  • More versus less expensive gift:
    • 197 participants: more expensive (iPod) and less expensive (CD) gifts similarly appreciated [score: 6.0 on 7-point scale (higher=greater appreciation)].2
      • Limitation: Both gifts now obsolete.
  • Sentimental gifts:
    • 330 participants, 86% preferred sentimental gift (photo of gift-giver and recipient) over “preference-matched gift” (framed photo of favourite musician).3
      • Limitation: Photos of musicians may be suboptimal comparator.
  • Gift timing:
    • 181 students rated importance of on-time birthday gift.4
      • Scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree).
        • Timing unimportant: Mean rating=4.7
          • Limitations: Unclear how late gift would be (i.e., days versus months).
  • Wish-lists:
    • 90 students, recipient’s satisfaction score higher with registry gift: 8.6 versus 6.8 (non-registered gift) on 10-point scale (higher=better), statistically different.5
      • Limitations: the gifts utilized were all lamps.
  • Improving bad gifts:
    • 616 participants rated gift with/without notecard indicating: “I hope you like [this gift] -- I got myself [one] too!”.6
      • Some gifts (examples: cookbook, mug, socks) had improved “likeability, thoughtfulness and consideration” score (>0.5 points on 7-point scale) with notecard.
        • Others (examples: flashlight, stapler) no change.
CONTEXT 
  • No studies describing opinions of people receiving “regifted” items.
    • Original givers prefer their gifts be regifted versus thrown away.7
    • The Seinfeld cast give opinions in this segment.
  • Example desirable gifts from studies: Restaurant gift cards5, movie tickets5, blanket6, headphones6, and bourbon6.


Anne Davis January 6, 2022

Thank you for your research. Probably I’ll just hope for bourbon regifted.

Michael Thomassin January 11, 2022

interesting

Jennifer Douek March 25, 2022

Very useful research. Will remember that I’ll need to attach more than a notecard to jazz up a stapler. Perhaps a bottle of bourbon?


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#364 Facing the Evidence in Acne, Part II: Oral Antibiotics

How effective are oral antibiotics in treating acne of at least mild-moderate severity?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#363 Making a difference in indifference? Medications for apathy in dementia

In patients with dementia, how safe and effective are stimulants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics for treating apathy?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Samantha Moe PharmD
  • Adrienne J Lindblad BSP ACPR PharmD

1. Baskin E, Wakslak CJ, Trope Y, et al. Journal of Consumer Research. 2014; 41(1):169-82.

2. Flynn FJ, Adams GS. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2009; 45(2):404-9.

3. Givi J, Galak J. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2017; 27(4):473-9.

4. Teigen KH, Olsen MV, Solas OE. Br J Soc Psychol 2005; 44:125-44.

5. Ward MK, Broniarczyk SM. Journal of Marketing Research. 2016; 53(6):1001-18.

6. Polman E, Maglio SJ. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2017; 43(11):1582-94.

7. Adams GS, Flynn FJ, Norton MI. Psychol Sci. 2012; 23(10):1145-50.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.