Browse > Article

Gift Giving: The Interaction between Gender, Gift Recipient, and Group Identity Importance by Product Category  

Jackson Vanessa P. (Dept. of Merchandising, Apparel & Textiles, University of Kentucky)
Kwon, Hyun-Ju (Dept. of Merchandising, Apparel & Textiles, University of Kentucky)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles / v.30, no.12, 2006 , pp. 1759-1767 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between gender, gift recipient, and group identity by product category of Korean consumers. 672 usable questionnaires from South Korea completed a self- administered survey with a five-point Likert scale. This questionnaire evaluated the perceived importance of group identity when buying apparel and electronics as a gift for kin, nonkin, and co-workers. The interaction between gender, gift recipient, and group identity were statistically significant. The results suggest that the importance of group identity may vary when gender and gift recipient differ by product category. Recommendations for future research are discussed.
Keywords
Gift giving; Group identity importance; Product category;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Areni, C. S., Kiecker, P., & Palan, K. M. (1998). Is it better to give than to receive? Exploring gender differences in the meaning of memorable gifts. Psychology & Marketing, 15, 81-109   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Bond, M. H., Kwok, L., & Kwok, C. W. (1982). 'How does cultural collectivism operate? The impact of task and maintenance contributions on reward distribution.' Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 186-200   DOI
4 Camerer, C. (1988). Gifts as economic signals and social symbols. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 180-214   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255-269   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Komter, A. E. (1996) Reciprocity as a principle of exclusion: Gift giving in the Netherlands. Sociology, 30, 299-317   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Saad, G. & Gill, T. (2003). An evolutionary psychology perspective on gift giving among young adults. Psychology & Marketing, 20(9),765-784   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Shaffer, D. R., Pegalis, L. J., & Cornell, D. P. (1992). Gender and self disclosure revisited: Personal and contextual variations in self-disclosure to samesex acquaintances. Journal of Social Psychology, 132(2), 307-316   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Sherry, J. F. (1983). Gift giving in an anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 157-168   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology. In G. K. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross-cultural studies of personality, attitudes and cognition (pp. 60-95). New York: St. Martin Press
11 Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (pp. 22-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI
12 Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherall, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell
13 Wolfinbarger, M. F. (1990). Motivations and symbolism in gift giving behaviour. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gom, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in consumer research Vol. 17 (pp. 699-706). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research
14 Gerht, K. C. & Shim, S. (2002). The role of fruit in the Japanese gift market: Situational defined markets. Agribusiness, 14,389-402   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Belk, R. W. & Coon, G. S, (1993). Gift giving as agapic love: am alternative to the exchange paradigm based on dating experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 393-417   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Hofstede, G (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
17 Banks, S. K. (1979). Gift-giving: A review and an interactive paradigm. In W. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances in consumer research Vol. 6 (pp. 319-324). Ann Arbor, Ml: Association for Consumer Research
18 Caplow, T. (1982). Christmas gifts and kin network. American Sociological Review, 47, 383-392   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Prototypes and dimensions of masculinity and feminity. Consumer Research, 18(December),368-379
20 Lee, C. (1988). Cross-cultural validity of the Fishbein behavioral intention model: Culture-bound or culturefree? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin
21 Fischer, E. & Arnold, S. J. (1990). More than a labor of love: Gender roles and christmas gift shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(December), 333-345   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Park, S. (1998). A comparison of Korean and American gift-giving behaviors. Psychology & Marketing, 15(6), 577-593   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Ho, D. Y. F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867-884   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Otnes, C. C., Lowrey, T. M., & Kim, Y. C. (1993). Gift selectionfor easy and difficult recipients: A social roles interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 229-244   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Otnes, C. & McGrath, M. A. (1994). Ritual socialization and the children's birthday party: The early emergence of gender differences. Journal of Ritual Studies, 8(Winter), 73-93
26 Webster, C. & Nottingham, L. (2000). Gender differences in the motivation for gift giving. Proceedings of American Marketing Association conference. Chicago, lllinois, 11, 272-278
27 Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. (1991). Personal values and gift-giving behavior: A study across cultures. Journal of Business Research, 22, 149-157   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Belk, R. W. (1976). It's the thought that counts: A signed digraph analysis of gift-giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 3,155-162   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Unity Marketing Report. (2006, January 25). Gift tracker service. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.unitymarketingonline.com/reports2/gifting/gt4q2005.html
30 Lee, C. (1991). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein behavioral intentions model. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 289-305   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Goodwin, C., Smith, K. L., & Spiggle, S. (1990). Gift giving: Consumer motivation and the giftpurchase process. In Goldberg (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 17 (pp. 690-698). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Reseacrh
32 McGarty, C., Haslam, S. A., Hutchinson, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1994). The effects of salient group memberships on persuasion'. Group Research, 25, 267-293   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Ruth, J. A., Otnes, C. C, & Brunei, F. F. (1999). Gift receipt and the reformulation of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 385-402   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Cheal, D. (1987). Showing them you love them: Gift-gift and the dialectic of intimacy. Sociological Review, 35(1), 150- 169   DOI
35 Cheal, D. (1988). The gift economy. New York: Routledge
36 Joy, A. (2001). Gift giving in Hong Kong and the continuum of social ties. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 2,239-256   DOI   ScienceOn