礼物何以传递爱意: 便利型与合意型礼物对择偶交往意愿的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01524

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 择偶是重要的研究话题, 礼物又是择偶中传递信息与感情的重要媒介。本研究从礼物的合意性和便利性出发, 探讨了不同类型的礼物如何通过心理亲密感影响收礼者的择偶交往意愿。通过5项线上实验和1项基于真实恋爱交友活动的田野实验发现, 收礼者收到便利型(vs.合意型)礼物时, 会对送礼者表达出更高的交往意愿。这一影响通过收礼者感知到的与送礼者之间的心理亲密感中介实现, 而消费过程(联合vs.单独)则在其中起到调节作用。本研究揭示了送礼行为如何影响个体的择偶交往意愿, 为择偶研究提供了新的理论视角, 同时为个体如何在择偶阶段送礼、企业如何开展礼物营销提供了实践启示。

关键词: 送礼, 便利性与合意性, 择偶交往意愿, 心理亲密感, 联合消费

Abstract: Mating behavior is an important research topic. Gift is a crucial medium for conveying information and intimacy. However, previous literature on mating behavior has rarely explored how gifts affect mating intention. Moreover, most previous studies on gift-giving have been limited to the influence of gifts on general interpersonal relationships, and rarely focused on mate selection or courtship situations. The current research examined the influence of gift category (feasible vs. desirable) on the recipient's mating intention and its inner psychological mechanism. The current research proposed that recipients would show higher mating intention for the wooer who sent the feasible gift (vs. desirable gift), because the feasible gift represents a higher level of psychological closeness between the gift giver and receiver. Joint (vs. separate) consumption moderates this effect. Across 6 studies, including one field study, our research provided empirical support for these predictions.
Study 1 adopted a within-subject design, and 65 participants were recruited. Participants were first asked to imagine they were single and two wooers sent them two gifts on their birthday. They then saw two scenarios, a pen scenario and a shopping card scenario. In both two scenarios, two wooers sent feasible or desirable gifts, which were checked and chosen as stimuli by pre-study (N = 48). The feasible pen was practical and easily portable but mediocre in aesthetics. The desirable pen was state of the art and fancy, but not very portable due to its weightiness. The feasible shopping card was for a 4-stars dessert shop, which was about a 5-min walk away. The desirable card was for a 5-stars dessert shop, which was about 1 hour drive away. After reading these materials, participants indicated their mating preference between the two gift givers. The results indicated that participants showed high mating intention for the gift-giver who sent feasible gift, both in pen and shopping card scenario.
Study 2 was a one-factor (feasible vs. desirable gift) between-subject design (N = 265). Participants imagined they received a dessert shop card as a gift from a wooer, and then were randomly assigned to feasible or desirable gift condition. The gift information was the similar with Study 1 except that the feasible card was for a 3.5-stars dessert shop, and the desirable card was half an hour drive away. Participants were then asked to indicate their mating intention and perceived psychological closeness to the gift-giver. Lastly, their age, gender, relationship status were collected as control variables. Results replicated the findings of Study 1, and the mediating role of psychological closeness was supported.
In Study 3, we changed the manipulation of gift category to rule out knowledge extent and perceived exclusiveness as possible explanations. Specifically, Study 3 was a one-factor (feasible vs. desirable gift) between-subject design (N = 257), and the feasible gift was a ticket for an exhibition which has a certain popularity on social media, and there was no specific time limit for the ticket. Visitors can use it any time. Contrastly, the desirable gift was a ticket for an exhibition which was extremely popular on social media, but the time slot for this ticket was 7:30 am on Monday. Via two pre-studies, the manipulation for feasibility and desirability was successful and the attraction for these two gifts kept the same. The procedure of this study was similar with Study 2, except that we measured social status inference and price as another two possible explanations. The results supported psychological closeness as mediator rather than other variables.
Study 4 was designed to further examine the underlying role of perceived thoughtfulness and perceived closeness. It was a one-factor (feasible vs. desirable gift) between-subject design (N = 242). The procedure was the same as Study 2 except that we measured participants’ perceived thoughtfulness and how much they were certain to consume the gift following perceived closeness. Results revealed that perceived thoughtfulness and perceived closeness played the chain mediating role of the effect of feasible (vs. desirable gift) on mating intention. Furthermore, this mediating effect still existed after controlling consumption certainty.
Study 5 examined the moderating role of joint consumption, and was a 2 (feasible vs. desirable gift) ×2 (joint vs. separate consumption) between-subject design (N = 254). Participants imagined they received a painting course as a gift from a wooer and then randomly assigned to one of four conditions. The manipulation of gift category was similar with Study 2. As for the consumption process, in the joint consumption condition, participants were told that the course was for two persons, and the receiver would consume it with the gift-giver jointly. In separate consumption condition, participants were told that the course was only for one person. We then measured mating intention and psychological closeness. Mediated moderation was supported by the results.
Study 6 was a field study and we conducted a “Gift Represents You” single youth dating activity (N = 204). Participants were randomly assigned “gift-giver” or “gift-receiver”. Each gift-giver was asked to choose one gift (50 ~ 200 RMB) and write some descriptive sentences (100 ~ 250 words), and the receiver was asked to rate 10 gifts indicating his/her mating intention to the gift-giver. Each gift would be rated by 10 receivers. Two separate coders coded the level of feasibility and desirability of each gift according to the gift and its descriptive sentences. We examined both ANOVA and regression, and the results were replicated again in the field setting.
Overall, the current research is the first to explore the impact of gift on the recipient's mating intention, with focusing not only on the gift itself, but also on the subsequent consumption process of the gift. Our findings contribute to the mating behavior literature as well as the gift-giving literature. Besides, the current research explores the relationship between construal level and psychological distance from the perspective of mate selection behavior, which is new for construal level theory.

Key words: gift giving, desirability vs. feasibility, mating intention, psychological closeness, joint consumption

中图分类号:

B849: C91

李世豪, 栾墨, 李虹, 符国群. (2024). 礼物何以传递爱意: 便利型与合意型礼物对择偶交往意愿的影响. 心理学报, 56(11), 1524-1540.

LI Shihao, LUAN Mo, LI Hong, FU Guoqun. (2024). How gifts convey love? The influence of feasible and desirable gifts on mating intention. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(11), 1524-1540.

参考文献

[1] Adler N. E., Epel E. S., Castellazzo G., & Ickovics J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592.
[2] Aknin, L. B., & Human, L. J. (2015). Give a piece of you: Gifts that reflect givers promote closeness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 8-16.
[3] Baskin E., Wakslak C. J., Trope Y., & Novemsky N. (2014). Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers that to givers: A construal-level approach to gift giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 169-182.
[4] Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 339-363.
[5] Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1993). Gift giving as agapic love: An alternative to the exchange paradigm based on dating experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 393-417.
[6] Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1-14.
[7] Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204-232.
[8] Caprariello, P. A., & Reis, H. T. (2013). To do, to have, or to share? Valuing experiences over material possessions depends on the involvement of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 199-215.
[9] Cavanaugh L. A., Gino F., & Fitzsimons G. J. (2015). When doing good is bad in gift giving: Mis-predicting appreciation of socially responsible gifts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131, 178-189.
[10] Chan, C., & Mogilner, C. (2017). Experiential gifts foster stronger social relationships than material gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 913-931.
[11] Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2019). Why is age so important in human mating? Evolved age preferences and their influences on multiple mating behaviors. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 127-157.
[12] Epley, N., & Schroeder, J. (2014). Mistakenly seeking solitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1980-1999.
[13] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[14] 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(2), 404-409.
[15] Förster J., Epstude K., & Özelsel A. (2009). Why love has wings and sex has not: How reminders of love and sex influence creative and analytic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(11), 1479-1491.
[16] Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573-587.
[17] Givi J., Birg L., Lowrey T. M., & Galak J. (2023). An integrative review of gift-giving research in consumer behavior and marketing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(3), 529-545.
[18] Gonzaga G. C., Keltner D., Londahl E. A., & Smith M. D. (2001). Love and the commitment problem in romantic relations and friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 247-262.
[19] Goodman J. K., Malkoc S. A., & Rosenboim M. (2019). The material-experiential asymmetry in discounting: When experiential purchases lead to more impatience. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 671-688.
[20] Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
[21] Howard, D. J., & Gengler, C. (2001). Emotional contagion effects on product attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2), 189-201.
[22] Huang, M. H., & Yu, S. (2000). Gifts in a romantic relationship: A survival analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(3), 179-188.
[23] iiMedia Research. (2021). Research on China's gift economy industry and analysis of users' consumption behavior from 2021 to 2022. https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1718117 143899303691&wfr=spider&for=pc
[艾媒咨询. (2021). 2021-2022年中国礼物经济产业研究与用户消费行为分析报告. https://baijiahao.baidu.com/ s?id=1718117143899303691&wfr=spider&for= pc]
[24] iiMedia Research. (2023). Research on China's gift economy industry and analysis of users' consumption behavior from 2023 to 2024. https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=176685029 9591314666&wfr=spider&for=pc
[艾媒咨询. (2023). 2023-2024年中国礼物经济产业研究与用户消费行为分析报告. https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1766850299591314666&wfr=spider&for=pc]
[25] Joshi P. D., Wakslak C. J., Raj M., & Trope Y. (2016). Communicating with distant others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 37-44.
[26] Kalkstein D. A., Kleiman T., Wakslak C. J., Liberman N., & Trope Y. (2016). Social learning across psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(1), 1-19.
[27] Ko, A., & Suh, E. M. (2019). Does physical attractiveness buy happiness? Women’s mating motivation and happiness. Motivation and Emotion, 43(1), 1-11.
[28] Li N. P., Bailey J. M., Kenrick D. T., & Linsenmeier J. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947-955.
[29] Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18.
[30] Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201-1205.
[31] Liu P.,& Kwon, T. (2022). Shared consumption. In C. Lamberton, D. D. Rucker, & S. A. Spiller (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of consumer psychology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
[32] Liu P. J., Dallas S. K., & Fitzsimons G. J. (2019). A framework for understanding consumer choices for others. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(3), 407-434.
[33] Liu Y. F., Su L. N., & Wang H. Y. (2011). Women’s cue preferences and information processing mode in mate choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(1), 21-29.
[刘永芳, 苏丽娜, 王怀勇. (2011). 女性择偶决策的线索偏好及信息加工方式. 心理学报, 43(1), 21-29.]
[34] Lu J., Xie X., & Xu J. (2013). Desirability or feasibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 144-155.
[35] Luan, M., & Li, H. (2017). Good enough—compromise between desirability and feasibility: An alternative perspective on satisficing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 110-116.
[36] Luan, M., & Li, H. (2020). How do people construe objects when being observed? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(4), 808-823.
[37] Luan M., Wu S., & Li H. (2020). The relationship between anticipated communication and creativity: Moderating role of construal level. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(10), 1178-1188.
[栾墨, 吴霜, 李虹. (2020). 预期交流与创造力的关系: 解释水平的调节作用. 心理学报, 52(10), 1178-1188.]
[38] Luo B., Fang W., Shen J., & Cong X. F. (2019). Gift-image congruence and gift appreciation in romantic relationships: The roles of intimacy and relationship dependence. Journal of Business Research, 103, 142-152.
[39] Miller, G. (2001). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. New York: Anchor Books.
[40] Otnes C., Ruth J. A., & Milbourne C. C. (1994). The pleasure and pain of being close: Men's mixed feelings about participation in Valentine's Day gift exchange. Advances in Consumer Research, 21(1), 159-164.
[41] Rim S., Min K. E., Liu P. J., Chartrand T. L., & Trope Y. (2018). The gift of psychological closeness: How feasible versus desirable gifts reduce psychological distance to the giver. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(3), 360-371.
[42] Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2003). An evolutionary psychology perspective on gift giving among young adults. Psychology & Marketing, 20(9), 765-784.
[43] Simpson J. A., Griskevicius V., & Rothman A. J. (2012). Consumer decisions in relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 304-314.
[44] Tidwell N. D., Eastwick P. W., & Finkel E. J. (2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed‐dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 199-215.
[45] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 876-889.
[46] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
[47] Van Boven, L. (2005). Experientialism, materialism, and the pursuit of happiness. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 132-142.
[48] Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1193-1202.
[49] Vandenbroele J., Van Kerckhove A., & Geuens M. (2020). If you work it, flaunt it: Conspicuous displays of exercise efforts increase mate value. Journal of Business Research, 120, 586-598.
[50] Van Lange P. A., Rusbult C. E., Drigotas S. M., Arriaga X. B., Witcher B. S., & Cox C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1373-1395.
[51] Wang Y., Hou B., Li X., Li X., & Jiao L. (2017). The influence of different sex ratios and resource-gaining capability on male’s mating selection. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(9), 1195-1205.
[王燕, 侯博文, 李歆瑶, 李晓煦, 焦璐. (2017). 不同性别比和资源获取能力对未婚男性择偶标准的影响. 心理学报, 49(9), 1195-1205.]
[52] Wang Y., Yao P., & Zhou G. (2015). The influence of facial attractiveness and personality labels on men and women’s mate preference. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(1), 108-118.
[王雨晴, 姚鹏飞, 周国梅. (2015). 面孔吸引力、人格标签对于男女择偶偏好的影响. 心理学报, 47(1), 108-118.]
[53] Ward, M. K., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2016). Ask and you shall (not) receive: Close friends prioritize relational signaling over recipient preferences in their gift choices. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(6), 1001-1018.
[54] Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 635-653.
[55] Wight K. G., Liu P. J., Bettman J. R., & Fitzsimons G. J. (2022). Social relationships and consumer behavior. In L. R. Kahle, T. M. Lowrey, & J. Huber (Eds.), APA handbook of consumer psychology. American Psychological Association.
[56] Yang, A. X., & Urminsky, O. (2015). The foresight effect: Local optimism motivates consistency and local pessimism motivates variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(3), 361-377.
[57] 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(4), 667-681.