Buyer Beware: Getting Gifts For Many Can Hinder Good Gift Decisions

When shopping for multiple people, gift-buyers try to vary the presents, rather than getting the best gift for each recipient. Allie Wilkinson reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Holiday shopping has its fair share of headaches—the crowds, the long lines and, of course, the stress of finding the perfect gift for everyone on your list. But it turns out that shopping for multiple people can make you a less thoughtful gift-giver. That’s according to a study in the Journal of Consumer Research.[Mary Steffel and Robyn A. Le Boeuf, Overindividuation in Gift Giving: Shopping for Multiple Recipients Leads Givers to Choose Unique but Less Preferred Gifts]

Researchers conducted six experiments asking participants to shop for one person or multiple people. The study subjects were told the recipients’ preferences.

When shopping for multiple people, the gift-givers seemed intent on varying the presents, rather than getting the best gift for each recipient. This behavior is called “overindividuation” and arises from the desire to be thoughtful and treat each gift-getter as unique. Even if there was no way for two recipients to find out they got the same gift, the volunteers still varied the presents. Asking them to put special thought into their gifts only exacerbated overindividuation.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


So how to make sure a gift is a sure-fire hit? The researchers suggest: buy your loved ones what they’d most likely get for themselves

—Allie Wilkinson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe