New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Gift-Giving for Lovers

Research suggests that women don't seem to mind if they receive the less-than-perfect gift. Men, on the other hand, are a different story. Susannah F. Locke reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

Don't have the perfect gift for your sweetheart this holiday season? Don't sweat it . . . unless your partner is a man. Apparently, men are more sensitive than women when receiving gifts.

A team of psychologists published the findings this fall in the journal Social Cognition. They surveyed 32 heterosexual couples on their gift preferences. Then the researchers picked either someone's least favorite choice or the perfect present, but made it seem like it was coming from that person's partner instead.

Predictably, men who got bad gifts reacted more negatively than men who got good ones. No surprise there.

But, oddly enough, women showed the opposite trend. Women who got an undesired gift were actually more accepting of it than if they’d received their ideal item.

They launched into a rational defense of their boyfriends. Women saw themselves as more similar to their partners, which the authors use as a measure of relationship satisfaction. And women viewed their relationship as having just as much long-term potential.

But be careful. This study doesn't mean that you should go around buying your lady holiday-themed sweaters and fruitcake. The long-term effects of bad presents are still unknown.

—Susannah Locke


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.


60-Second Psych is a weekly podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast:

RSS | iTunes

 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe