Surprise Gift” Purchases: Customer Insights from the Small Electrical Appliances Market

A

cipergAbti©

K

ttt(goavPs

Bf

0d

Journal of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369

“Surprise Gift” Purchases: Customer Insights from theSmall Electrical Appliances Market

Joëlle Vanhamme a,b,∗, Cees J.P.M. de Bont c,d

a Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (ERIM Research Institute), The Netherlandsb IESEG School of Management (LEM, UMR CNRS 8179), France

c Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlandsd Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

bstract

Surprise gifts offer more business opportunities than gifts suggested by recipients, because a larger part of the selection and purchase processesan be molded, and such gifts are especially valued by recipients. Yet the extant gift-giving literature explicitly takes into account neither the giver’sntention to surprise nor the consequences for the gift selection and purchase processes. The present study investigates surprise gifts from the giver’soint of view and disentangles the selection and purchase processes of surprise gifts and gifts that are not meant as surprises. The hypothesesmerge as a consequence of the enhanced pleasure and experiential motivation underlying surprise gifts, as well as their greater inherent perceivedisk. According to panel data, design and money-back guarantees are more important for the purchase of surprise gifts (compared with non-surpriseifts), whereas good deals appear less important, and brand name does not seem to matter any more than it does for gifts not intended as a surprise.lso, surprise gifts more often are bought on the spot than non-surprise gifts, without extended information search (similar to impulse purchases),
y women alone, and for someone within the household. Finally, the giver usually has a poorer idea of what he or she wants to buy before enteringhe shop and visits fewer stores to purchase surprise gifts. However, the last three results apply only to appliances which often serve as gifts. Thesensights lead to significant managerial implications for retailers and manufacturers.
2008 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

eywords: Surprise gift; Money-back guarantees; Price level; Brand name; Design; Risk; Information search

adiB.

“grmW

Introduction

“You should work a little, wrack your brain for some-hing idiosyncratic and personal that will surprise and delighthe recipient,” professes a mother who decides to buy some-hing that is not on her daughter’s online birthday gift registrySlatalla 2000, p. 4). This quote illustrates Western societies’ift-giving precepts. Western societies often embrace the idealf the “perfect gift” (Belk 1996), which represents a “pervasivend influential model that affects our gift selections and pro-
ides a script for gift-giving” (Otnes and Beltramini 1996, p. 7).erfect gifts require sacrifice from the giver, are given with theole aim of pleasing the recipient, provide luxury, are uniquely
∗ Corresponding author at: Erasmus University Rotterdam, room T10-09, POox 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 10 408 1194;

ax: +31 10 408 9011.E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Vanhamme).

tu1tto–

022-4359/$ – see front matter © 2008 New York University. Published by Elsevier Ioi:10.1016/j.jretai.2008.06.003

ppropriate to the recipient, and must be both surprising andelightful (Belk 1996). In this ideal model, (positively) surpris-ng the recipient appears to be the sine qua non ingredient. Aselk (1996) puts it, “Gifts explicitly asked for by the recipient. . detract from the surprise of the perfect gift” (p. 68), andthe delight of surprise is [a] reason why having to ask for aift negates its value” (p. 67). Some authors argue that surpriseepresents a central emotion for gift-giving (Ruffle 1999) anday be the most valued characteristic of gifts in individualisticestern cultures (Belk 1996).Yet recipients often use wish lists or ask directly for some-

hing they want (Belk 1979; Sherry 1983). Whereas registriessed to be acceptable only for weddings (McGrath and Englis996), they now proliferate in various retail and e-stores for all
ypes of occasions and events (Chen 1997). Belk (1979) reportshat approximately 40% of gift selections depend on wish listsr hints. Nevertheless, a large proportion of gifts – roughly 60%are surprise gifts.
nc. All rights reserved.

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.06.003

urnal

opmowf–tagnes

tgKca1lpsitpOStgaia

pstuscsnOutiiC

ost

at

SkHbacdtcgggd(gcct

foue1ebo

oTgrcirscpa(gd

J. Vanhamme, C.J.P.M. de Bont / Jo

From a managerial point of view, surprise gifts offer morepportunities than gifts suggested by recipients, because a largerart of the selection and purchase processes1 remains undeter-ined. For gifts on a wish list or suggested by the recipient, most

f the selection process has been taken care of by the recipient,hich leaves much less room for influence by retailers and manu-

acturers. Because of the economic importance of the gift marketconsumers spend more than $100 billion annually on gifts in

he United States alone (Consumer Expenditure Survey 2004) –nd the massive marketing and sales activities focused on gift-iving (e.g., gift-related packaging, advertising, introduction ofew products, longer retail opening hours), the lack of researchffort to understand factors that will increase the likelihood ofurprise gift purchases is peculiar.

Research has looked at the perception of surprise gifts fromhe recipient’s point of view and confirmed that unexpectedifts that surprise are especially valued by recipients (Areni,iecker, and Palan 1998; McGrath, Sherry, and Levy 1993). In

ontrast, gifts selected from a wedding registry, for example,ppear cold because they lack spontaneity (Otnes and Lowrey993). However, the giver’s point of view has received veryimited consideration; the extant literature on gift selection andurchase fails to take the giver’s intention to surprise and its con-equences for the gift selection and purchase processes explicitlynto account. The lack of consideration for the giver’s intentiono surprise is apparent in Sherry’s (1983) model, the most com-rehensive and widely accepted model of gift exchange (Ruth,tnes, and Brunel 1999). On the recipient’s side of the model,herry (1983) recognizes the recipient’s strategic role in guiding

he gift selection (i.e., providing hints or directly requesting aift) but does not consider that the giver also faces a deliber-te strategic choice: exploit the recipient’s hints and requests orgnore them (i.e., surprise the recipient). Yet this choice likelylters the gift selection and purchase processes.

Therefore, the first objective of this article is to extendrior gift-giving literature and reconcile the giver and recipienttreams of research by explicitly considering surprise gifts fromhe giver’s point of view. Our second objective is to broadennderstanding of the factors that boost the probability of aurprise gift purchase by disentangling the selection and pur-hase processes of surprise gifts and gifts that are not meant asurprises.2 We specifically address three relevant sets of factors,amely, risk relievers, purchasing patterns, and personal factors.ur third objective is to provide retailers and manufacturers withseful managerial insights so that they may develop more effec-ive marketing and sales activities. Existing research tends to
nvestigate gift-giving from a consumer behavior or psycholog-cal (e.g., Belk 1979; Belk and Coon 1993), sociological (e.g.,aplow 1982), or anthropological (e.g., Mick and Demoss 1990;
1 These processes form the gestation stage, defined by Sherry’s (1983) modelf gift giving. The presentation stage (actual gift exchange) and the reformulationtage (gift evaluation and disposition) have less managerial relevance becausehey are almost entirely beyond retailers’ and manufacturers’ control.

2 We use the expressions non-surprise gifts, other gifts, and gifts not meant assurprise interchangeably to indicate those gifts that the giver does not intend

o give as a surprise gift.

rtoss

iC

w

of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369 355

herry 1983) perspective, without considering the strategic mar-eting or managerial perspectives. The quantitative studies byeeler et al. (1979) and Parsons (2002) and qualitative worky McGrath (1989) and Mick, Demoss, and Faber (1992) aremong the few exceptions. Greater understanding of the spe-ific elements of gift selection and purchase processes that likelyistinguish surprise from non-surprise gifts may help manufac-urers and retailers gain a competitive advantage, because theyan better encourage and help consumers find and buy surpriseifts. For example, firms need to know whether they should tar-et their marketing communications at a prototypical surpriseift purchaser, and if so, when and where that buyer likely willecide which product to buy. Furthermore, if specific attributese.g., risk relievers) trigger purchase of a product as a surpriseift, sellers can determine which attributes to emphasize in theirommunication campaigns. Finally, they could design betterommunication campaigns if they knew whether surprise giftsend to go to particular types of receivers.

The data we use to test our hypotheses are GfK panel data3

rom a sample representative of the German population in termsf demographics. Therefore, we extend the few studies thatse large panels that effectively represent the population toxamine gift purchases (i.e., Garner and Wagner 1991; Ryans977; Wagner and Garner 1993); those studies investigate differ-nces between gift versus non-gift purchases and/or differencesetween gift purchases for a recipient who resides within versusutside the household.

Theoretical importance of surprise gifts

We define all gifts that are intended, from the giver’s pointf view, to (positively) surprise the recipient as surprise gifts.his conceptualization is consistent with the “surprise as value”ift-exchange theme uncovered by Areni et al. (1998). Becauseetailers and manufacturers can only influence the giver’s pur-hase process, his or her intention to use the gift as a surprises most relevant, whereas the gift exchange and the actual expe-ience of surprise by the recipient, which occurs in a privatephere, remain largely beyond companies’ control. Gift giversan prompt surprise, an emotion elicited by unexpected or misex-ected events (Ekman and Friesen 1975)4, primarily by offeringgift that the recipient does not know he or she will receive

Belk 1996). Additional surprise can come from providing theift spontaneously without a specific occasion (e.g., outside tra-itional gift-giving occasions; Belk 1996), issuing the gift in aelationship that is not marked by expected gift exchanges (e.g.,he giver does not usually give a gift to that recipient; Belk 1996),
r givers’ deliberate attempts to mislead the recipient regardingome aspects of the gift (e.g., prompt the recipient to expectomething else; Areni et al. 1998).
3 GfK is the fourth-largest market research organization worldwide. Its activ-ties cover five business divisions: Custom Research, Retail and Technology,onsumer Tracking, Media, and HealthCare (www.gfk.com).4 The former denotes vague and not well-defined expectations about an event,hereas the latter denotes precise expectations that are proven wrong.

http://www.gfk.com/

3 urnal

eps(gwnvioiagataab2

cptdgfW(itL(tsasettg

tattsBluaaodpp“

1s(absq(oh

ew

56 J. Vanhamme, C.J.P.M. de Bont / Jo

The giver’s choice to buy a surprise gift likely shapes thearly stages of the gift selection process. Laroche et al (2000a,. 3) hint at differences in the (information) search process forurprise and non-surprise gifts in their discussion of McGrath’s1989) findings about men’s Christmas shopping behavior: “theifts were not intended as a surprise. . .. In the case of a listith specific items one might expect store information to beil.” Potential differences also emerge from excerpts of inter-iews we conducted in the early stages of this research with twonformants, who spontaneously mentioned their like or dislikef giving surprise gifts because of the selection process: “I findt nicer to give a gift that the person does not know about. . . It ishobby of mine to look for surprising gifts. I find it very nice too to the city and look for gifts everywhere” (female, age 40),nd “I think it is nicer to buy something unexpected because ofhe surprise. Still, I prefer to give something the recipients havesked for because I find it too difficult to think of something nice,nd I really hate having to search for something surprising. If Iuy what they asked for, they are also happy for it” (male, age6).

Nonetheless, such differences in the search and purchase pro-esses of surprise and non-surprise gifts have not been studiedreviously. Researchers have investigated various topics per-aining to the giver’s side of Sherry’s (1983) model, such asifferences in purchases of items for personal consumption andift items (e.g., Heeler et al. 1979) and between gift itemsor someone belonging to the household or not (Garner and

agner 1991), information search patterns for gift purchasese.g., Cleveland et al. 2003), gender differences and gender rolesn gift shopping (Fisher and Arnold 1990), age-related and cul-ural differences in gift information search (Laroche et al. 2000c;aroche, Cleveland, and Browne 2004), motivations for giving

Goodwin, Smith, and Spiggle 1990), the influence of third par-ies on gift decisions (Lowrey, Otnes, and Ruth 2004), the “darkide” of gifts (i.e., negativity and ambivalence; Sherry, McGrath,nd Levy 1993), gift-giving anxiety (Wooten 2000), and theocial roles of gift givers (Otnes, Lowrey, and Kim 1993). How-ver, none of these studies explicitly focuses on the giver’s intento surprise and its consequences, though some of the insightshey provide are relevant for a better understanding of surpriseifts (e.g., social anxiety).

Because existing models and theories do not explicitly takehe giver’s strategic choice into account, they do not necessarilypply equally to surprise and non-surprise gifts. For example,he literature posits that a gift represents a complete picture ofhe giver’s perception of the recipient and connotes the giver’self-identity (i.e., the gift is “charged with the donor’s energy”;elk 1979; Sherry 1983). This symbolic communication seems

ess likely to apply to a gift chosen from a wish list than to annexpected gift. Moreover, the “dark side” of gifts (Sherry etl. 1993) and the reformulation of interpersonal relationshipsfter a gift exchange (Ruth et al. 1999) might not be as prevalentr important for gifts suggested by the recipient, because the
irect request means “the recipient’s input into the selectionrocess may be greater than that of the donor” (Sherry 1983,. 164). In this case, gifts from a wish list could fall into anegligible effect” category of relational outcomes (Ruth et al. m
of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369

999) and spark much less social anxiety (Wooten 2000) thanurprise gifts, a phenomenon closely related to the dark sideSherry et al. 1993). Coding and encoding errors (Belk 1979)lso become less likely. Thus, it seems that surprise gifts woulde inherently more risky than gifts not meant as a surprise. At theame time, they are highly desirable, as noted in one young man’suote: “She deserved to have a nice, completely unexpected gift”Wooten 2000, p. 87, italics added). We exploit and elaboraten this peculiarity of surprise gifts in the development of ourypotheses.

Hypotheses

Our hypotheses development mainly stems from three prop-rties that we argue are intensified for surprise gifts comparedith other gifts:

Surprise gifts encompass more social and financial risks. Com-pared with other gifts, the purchase of a surprise gift appearsmore delicate and risky because of the demand for the unex-pected. Gifts not only need to please the recipient (Belk 1996)but also serve as a form of symbolic communication betweenthe giver and the recipient (e.g., Belk 1976). Choosing a gift thatconveys the right message is thus of high importance, becausethe giver runs the risk of jeopardizing the relationship if therecipient misinterprets the gift’s meaning. This social risk, asdefined by Jacoby and Kaplan (1972), increases for surprisegifts because the giver cannot ask the recipient how he or shewould feel about that particular gift without ruining the sur-prise. In addition, surprise gifts increase the perceived financialrisk; if the recipient dislikes an expensive surprise gift, the giverhas wasted resources.Surprise gifts intensify recipients’ pleasure. Surprise intensifiespeople’s pleasure (Charlesworth 1969; Desai 1939; Mellers,Schwartz, and Ritov 1999). For example, Mellers et al. (1999)show that the pleasure of winning is more intense when theoutcome of a game is surprising. Thus, compared with othergifts, surprise gifts amplify the pleasure experienced by therecipient, and purchasing them is a way to show care for theperson and a wish to truly please him or her.Surprise gift purchase is usually prompted by an experien-tial motivation. Wolfinbarger and Yale (1993) identify threemotivations for interpersonal gifts: reciprocation obligation(compliance with social norms), practical (provide assistanceto recipients), and experiential (fun and entertainment). Thelast form of motivation, which likely underlies surprise giftpurchases, has a hedonic, recreational orientation (Dawson,Bloch, and Ridgway 1990). When the motivation is experien-tial, the giver enjoys the gift selection process, gives it a greatdeal of thought and effort, and believes the gift reflects his orher love and friendship for the receiver (Wolfinbarger and Yale1993). Furthermore, givers driven by experiential motivationstend to select emotionally significant and individualized gifts
(Goodwin et al. 1990), such as surprise gifts.
In summary, the purchase and giving of surprise gifts is drivenainly by a hedonic motive; such gifts should be a source of

urnal

pms

eorTtsMdsiss

R

sCcmcqssplncoV

ll(fcssaatGphttoSep“d2

stite1

opasWbi

D

bwepc“mwtdimHLcpiematm

Hs

aboCwGgaW


leasure for both the giver and the recipient. But this hedonicotive and the necessary secrecy (imperfect information) that

urround surprise gifts also lead to more perceived risk.The first set of hypotheses we set forth to examine differ-

nces between surprise gifts and non-surprise gifts mainly drawsn perceived risk research and considers attributes that mightelieve the giver’s risk when he or she shops for surprise gifts.he next two sets of hypotheses emerge as a consequence of

he enhanced pleasure and experiential motivation underlyingurprise gift purchases, as well as their greater perceived risk.ore specifically, the second set of hypotheses seeks to identify

ifferences in the purchasing patterns of surprise versus non-urprise gifts (e.g., external information search patterns, whichs a crucial element of the gift selection stage). Finally, the thirdet of hypotheses highlights how personal factors may alter theelection and purchase of surprise gifts.

isk relievers

Risk has been researched widely in social sciences, and con-umer behavior in particular (Campbell and Goodstein 2001;onchar et al. 2004). Consumers perceive risk when a decisionreates social and economic consequences that they cannot esti-ate with certainty. Perceived risk involves two dimensions:

onsumers’ perceptions of uncertainty and the adverse conse-uences (i.e., losses) they might suffer from buying a product orervice (Conchar et al. 2004). For example, if a consumer con-iders buying a new watch as a surprise gift for his girlfriend,erceived risk arises because he does not know whether she willike the watch (uncertainty) and worries she will think he doesot know her tastes (adverse consequence). When potential out-omes appear either more uncertain or more negative, the levelf perceived risk associated with the purchase increases (Delecchio and Smith 2005).

Several factors influence perceived risk: (1) the attributeevels of the specific product (e.g., price, quality), (2) the like-ihood that the purchase will prompt negative consequences,3) the consumer’s purchase goals (e.g., gift versus a purchaseor oneself), and (4) situational aspects such as the purchasehannel (Dowling and Staelin 1994). Moreover, purchase deci-ions involve several specific types of risk, including financial,ocial, performance, psychological, and physical (e.g., Dowlingnd Staelin 1994; Jacoby and Kaplan 1972; Kaplan, Szybillio,nd Jacoby 1974). These sources of risk, alone or in combina-ion, drive consumers’ overall risk perceptions (Campbell andoodstein 2001). Because financial and social risks are the mostrevalent in gift-giving situations (Laroche et al. 2000c), theyave particular relevance for this study. Financial risk relates tohe potential economic loss if the gift falls short of its objec-ive, in which case the money paid for the gift represents anpportunity cost (i.e., could have been spent on a better gift).ocial risk exists to the extent that consumers expect negativevaluations from others because of their poor gift choice. Sur-
rise gifts can thus become a source of social anxiety, becausepeople become anxious when they are motivated to make theesired impressions but are doubtful of the success” (Wooten000, p.85).
u(oe

of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369 357

When consumers perceive risk in a purchase decision, twotrategies help resolve those risks: decrease the likelihood thathe purchase fails or reduce the severity of the potential lossf it does. Consumers also might shift from one type of losso another that they perceive as less problematic (e.g., buy anxpensive brand to ensure some social acceptance) (Roselius971).

Consumers also use signals as heuristics to judge the qualityf products to reduce their perceived purchase risk. The mostrevalent signals include (1) brand names, (2) product features orppearance (design), (3) price, and (4) product/retail reputation,tore names, warranties, or guarantees (Dawar and Parker 1994).e focus particularly on four prevalent risk relievers – design,

rand name, price, and money-back guarantees – to develop ournitial hypotheses.

esignGood design decreases the likelihood that a purchase will fail,

ecause it creates an initial impression and generates inferencesith respect to other product attributes (Berkowitz 1987). For

xample, attractive designs have a positive influence on qualityerceptions (Page and Herr 2002) and should thus reduce the per-eived purchase risk. Moreover, as Bloch (1995, p. 16) argues,the perception and the use of beautifully designed productsay provide sensory pleasure and stimulation,” and productsith particularly attractive designs can produce strong emo-

ional reactions (e.g., “falling in love” with the product). Productesign helps determine a consumer’s affective reaction (e.g., lik-ng) to the product (Page and Herr 2002; Veryzer 1993), even

ore than other product attributes such as brand name (Page anderr 2002). Finally, design belongs to “mechanics” in Berry,ewis, and Haeckel’s (2002) typology of cues that enhance austomer’s emotional experience (beyond the functionality of aroduct). Thus, selecting a gift with an attractive design shouldncrease the chances that the recipient will like it and find itmotionally significant. Because givers driven by experientialotives tend to select emotionally significant gifts (Goodwin et

l. 1990), surprise gift givers likely value risk-reliever attributeshat enhance the receiver’s emotional experience, such as design,

ore than other gift givers:

1. Design represents a more important purchase criterion forurprise gifts than for other gifts.

Brand Name. As an extrinsic cue that consumers use to evalu-te products (Richardson, Dick, and Jain 1994), a well-respectedrand name relieves purchase risk by decreasing the likelihoodf purchase failure (Erdem and Swait 1998; Roselius 1971).onsumers tend to choose known brands rather than new brandshen they perceive high purchase or social risks (Campbell andoodstein 2001; Erdem 1998), and umbrella-branding strate-ies, which allow consumers to remain with their known brands,re most effective for risk-averse consumers (Montgomery andernerfelt 1992). This role of brand name as a cue to eval-

ate products in the face of uncertainty holds across culturesDawar and Parker 1994). Many gift purchases similarly relyn the strength of the brand name (Heeler et al. 1979; Larochet al. 2000a). Purchasing a gift carries more risk than a pur-

3 urnal

cppeep

Hr

sRv(Mp(urqatfin

Hf

pHai1tsHsaratistpcatp

Hsf

op

eccnTt

Hap

ssctgsfSfihgciSpcpbpss

Hbs

P

dcCtiAemto

ml


hase for personal use; as Vincent and Zikmund (1975) show,erceived social risk increases for wedding gifts compared withersonal purchases. Because perceived risk for surprise gifts isven greater than that associated with other gift purchases, wexpect brand name to have a significant impact on surprise gifturchase decision-making:

2. Brand name represents a more important purchase crite-ion for surprise gifts than for other gifts.

Price Level. Price competition prevails in many retailingectors, as the spread of mass discounters attests (Arnold andeynolds 2003; Deleersnyder et al. 2007). Yet price also pro-ides a cue of product quality that can alleviate purchase riskRoselius 1971). For example, in a meta-analysis, Rao and

onroe (1989) find a positive relationship between price anderceived quality for consumer products, and Dawar and Parker1994) further establish the importance of price as a cue of prod-ct quality across cultures. Buying a more expensive gift reducesisk not only because of its positive relationship with perceiveduality but also by safeguarding against the consequences ofppearing “cheap” (Laroche et al. 2000a). Therefore, findinghe best deal likely represents a less important purchase motiveor surprise gift purchasers than other gift givers. This predictions consistent with research that shows recreational shoppers areot discount shoppers (Williams, Slama, and Rogers 1985):

3. A low price represents a less important purchase criterionor surprise gifts than for other gifts.

Money-Back Guarantees. A money-back guarantee reducesurchase uncertainty (Davis, Gerstner, and Hagerty 1995;eiman et al. 2002) by enabling consumers to gain experience

fter purchase and still return the product for a refund. That is,t reduces the financial risk if the purchase is a failure (Roselius971). Such guarantees appear especially valuable in reducinghe risk that the product will not fit the needs, tastes, lifestyle,ocial feedback, or capabilities of the recipient (Davis et al. 1995;eiman et al. 2002) and for goods or services for which con-

umers require feedback from others (Heiman et al. 2002). Forn anticipated gift, givers likely know whether the gift will fit theecipient’s needs and tastes (e.g., because the product appears onwish list), but for surprise gifts, givers must wait for the reac-

ion and feedback from the recipient before they can determine ift is successful. Therefore, money-back guarantees reduce bothocial and financial risk; if the recipient does not like the gift,he giver can return it and perhaps buy another gift that willlease the recipient. In addition, money-back guarantees act asues of product quality (Moorty and Srinivasan 1995), so theylso enhance the likelihood of gift success. These two proper-ies should attract consumers who are engaged in surprise gifturchases:

4. The money-back guarantee attached to a product repre-ents a more important purchase criterion for surprise gifts than
or other gifts.
Purchasing Pattern. Givers who receive hints or are awaref the wishes of the recipient have made up their mind about aarticular gift before shopping (Belk 1979), because the recipi-

ihSe

of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369

nt already has performed much of the gift selection process. Inontrast, the recipient’s input into the selection of a surprise giftannot be significant; asking a recipient what he or she wants isot an appropriate strategy because it would ruin the surprise.herefore, surprise gift givers likely have a poorer idea of what

o buy when they enter a shop.

5. Compared with givers of other gifts, givers of surprise giftsre less likely to have a precise idea of the exact product to buyrior to entering the store.

Additional differences likely mark the external informationearch process. External (as opposed to internal, i.e., memory)earch involves social references and market information abouthoice alternatives (Conchar et al. 2004). Banks (1979) reportshat givers often visit only one store on average and plan theirift purchases prior to entering the store, possibly because theyeek prior information from the gift recipient, such as the pre-erred product, brand, or even precise model (Otnes et al. 1993).urprise gift givers, however, must accept the full burden ofnding inspiration for appealing gift choices. Because of theirigher perceived risk and inability to rely on a wish list, theseivers likely require a more extensive information search pro-ess (i.e., visit more stores, spend more time, use more sources ofnformation) (Laroche et al. 2000b; Parsons 2002). Durgee andego’s (2001) findings also seem to indicate an extended searchrocess associated with surprise gifts. Among the 10 marriedouples these authors interviewed, most decided not to give sur-rise gifts but instead told each other what they wanted, mainlyecause they were too busy to invest much time in gift shop-ing. Thus, compared with other types of gifts, finding suitableurprise gifts should demand more time, information from moreources (both formal and informal), and visits to more stores:

6. Compared with other gifts, surprise gifts are characterizedy (a) visits to more outlets, (b) the use of more informationources, and (c) more time spent searching for information.

ersonal factors

Gender Differences. Several studies indicate strong genderifferences in terms of gift-giving. For example, women pur-hase gifts for more recipients, visit more stores, start theirhristmas shopping earlier, and undertake more shopping trips

han men (Cleveland et al. 2003); they also are more involvedn the task of shopping (Caplow 1982; Cheal 1986; Fisher andrnold 1990; Laroche et al. 2000b). Due to their broader knowl-

dge of shopping and more extensive experience buying gifts forultiple recipients, women are more likely to know the tastes of

heir gift recipients and should therefore perceive the purchasef surprise gifts as less risky than men do.

Moreover, more women tend to be recreational shoppers thanen (Bellenger and Korgaonkar 1980), which increases the like-

ihood they will conduct a surprise gift hunting trip (and enjoy
t). McGrath (1989, p. 434) illustrates this point in describingow a typical man shops for Christmas gifts for his wife: “Theaturday before Christmas and Christmas Eve are given almostxclusively to male shoppers. Many of these men purchase a

urnal

sebit

Hw

Ritikwpusigi

gomtabotgbd

Hp

P

tmsfls(te4sUo2Fn1

ao

abImaAms

vtcTeatussomutnnom(cdp

gaat(Tab

tric coffeemakers, irons, hairdryers, shavers, and toothbrushes.5

(The first three appliances appear in Ryans’s (1977) study;Wagner and Garner (1993) and Garner and Wagner (1991) do

5 We removed vacuum cleaners during the review process for two reasons: (1)they may be considered major electrical appliances (e.g., Braun carries smallelectrical appliances but not vacuum cleaners; Philips, Moulinex, and Rowentacarry small electrical appliances including vacuum cleaners; Miele and Bosch


pecific item as a gift for their wife, several of their choices appar-ntly having been made in advance by the wife, with the husbandeing physically sent to make the purchase. In this case, the gifts not a surprise but an orchestrated event, with the husbandaking the role of purchasing agent.” Thus, we hypothesize:

7. Women are more likely to buy surprise gifts, comparedith other gifts, than are men.

ecipient–Giver Relationship. Ryans (1977) highlights themportance of distinguishing between gift recipients who belongo the giver’s household and those who do not. In rapidly evolv-ng societies, people’s needs and desires change quickly, andeeping up with such changes requires that people be in contactith the details of one another’s daily lives (Cheal 1987). Wheneople share their daily lives, as within a household, they shouldnderstand one another’s tastes and wishes better. Possessinguch knowledge reduces the perceived social risk of purchas-ng a gift that conveys the wrong message or jeopardizes theiver–recipient relationship (Laroche et al. 2000a) while alsoncreasing the chances of purchasing a successful surprise gift.

In addition, the emotional value of relationships tends to bereater for recipients within the giver’s household than for thoseutside it (Caplow 1982, 1984). Gifts purchased for householdembers likely serve to demonstrate the giver’s affection for

he receiver, and because surprise gifts generate strong emotionsnd delight in the recipient (when successful), people probablyuy surprise gifts for recipients within their household moreften than they do for those outside the household. This predic-ion is consistent with Areni et al.’s (1998) finding that surpriseift exchanges dominate the memorable gift exchanges reportedetween siblings and parent–children pairs, whereas this themeoes not dominate gift exchanges outside the household.

8. Compared with other gifts, surprise gifts are more likelyurchased for recipients within the household.

Methodology

roduct category

We test our hypotheses using panel data collected in referenceo small electrical appliances. The small electrical appliances

arket relies on gift-giving to generate a substantial part of itsales (Davis 1972; Ryans 1977). Together with clothing, toys,owers, jewelry, sporting equipment, and china and dinnerware,mall electrical appliances rank among the most popular giftsBelk 1979; Caplow 1982; Wagner and Garner 1993); accordingo Davis (1972), the gift shares of total sales of hair dryers,lectric shavers, and irons in the United Kingdom in 1972 were2%, 29%, and 38%, respectively. According to more recenturveys, 20% of women’s shavers were bought as gifts in thenited States (NPD 2004), and in the United Kingdom, 70%f the Moi women’s shaver’s sales were gift purchases (GfK
004). Similarly, men’s shavers and hair dryers provide commonather’s Day or Christmas gifts (Chanil 1993). Comparing theseumbers with Belshaw’s (1965) estimation that gifts account for0% of total retail sales in North America (cited in Belk 1979
oraii

of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369 359

nd Sherry et al. 1993) further confirms the important positionf small electrical appliances among gift items.

Small electrical appliances include personal care, kitchen,nd cleaning appliances (e.g., electric shavers, electric tooth-rushes, mixers, toasters, coffeemakers, irons) (Euromonitornternational 2007). In 2005, their world market value was esti-ated at $83.6 billion, and in the United States alone, their sales

mounted to $14.6 billion (Euromonitor International 2007).ssuming a conservative 10% share of gift purchases, the giftarket for small electrical appliances represents $8.4 billion in

ales worldwide and $1.5 billion in the United States.Furthermore, this market is characterized by significant inno-

ation (Appliance Design 2006; Chanil 1993; Fuller 2001) inhe form of new or enhanced technologies and styles that useontemporary materials and colors (Appliance Design 2006).he iron market provides a good example: It involves ongoingfforts to develop appliances that perform better and reduce themount of time people must spend on chores (e.g., from 1992o 1996, iron sales increased by 30% in value and 15% in vol-me in the United Kingdom, with trends toward premium-pricedteam irons, which in 1996 accounted for 61% of the value ofales; Retail Business 1997). As another example, the additionf color to coffeemakers illustrates the ongoing trend towardore attractive designs. In the United Kingdom, colored prod-

cts boosted coffeemaker sales value to approximately 25% ofhe coffeemaker market in 1996 (Retail Business 1997). Suchewly introduced items make ideal gifts because of their new-ess (givers know recipients do not have them yet) and the sensef luxury they provoke (e.g., an electric toothbrush makes theundane, everyday task of brushing teeth seem more exciting)

Davis 1972). In addition, they respond to significant trends inonsumer behavior, such as preferences for more convenience,esires to express the inner self through purchase, and a goal ofampering oneself (Datamonitor 2004).

Compared with other gift categories whose items representifts almost exclusively (e.g., jewelry), small electrical appli-nces are a challenge to market, because they comprise both giftnd regular household spending categories. Gift season prepara-ions often entail difficult choices for retailers and manufacturerse.g., determine which type of products to promote as gifts).hey also must adapt their communications (e.g., shift fromn emphasis on utilitarian benefits toward hedonic benefits andenefits with self-expressive value).

The small electrical appliances investigated herein are elec-

ffer no small electrical appliances but carry vacuum cleaners), and (2) they areare as gifts compared with other small electrical appliances, with sales of 6%,ccording to GfK 2002–2003 data, which is less than the 10% average gift sharen the U.S. retailing industry (Belk 1979). We thank the reviewers for noting thisssue.

360 J. Vanhamme, C.J.P.M. de Bont / Journal of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369

FI

ntwKtcs(scs2

C

prbioiGafmG

Fig. 2. Gift and surprise gift purchase percentages per appliance. Notes: Barsrepresent the percentages of gift purchases per appliance (calculated usingpa(

dFqmGfPocqf

S

ptooNeo

T

llt

l

ig. 1. Sales in million US$ from 2000 to 2005 (source: Euromonitornternational 2007).

ot specify which appliances they use). The world market forhese appliances is growing, as we show in Fig. 1 (upper graph),hich also illustrates sales values for Germany, the Unitedingdom, and the United States in 2005 (lower part). Elec-

ric shavers, hairdryers, and toothbrushes belong to the personalare appliances subcategory; coffeemakers and irons are con-idered kitchen appliances and cleaning appliances, respectivelyEuromonitor International 2007). That is, the appliances in ourtudy cover the whole range of small electrical appliance sub-ategories, and their sales value represents 40% of total Germanales of small electrical appliances (Euromonitor International007).

onsumer panel data

The data were collected by GfK through its German consumeranel over a period of 2 years (2002 and 2003). Consumer panelsepresent an important means of understanding actual consumerehavior and thereby provide unique and additional insightsnto retail panel data, such as those generated by ACNielsenr GfK (Wansink and Sudman 2002). The GfK consumer paneln Germany consists of 20,000 households, representative of theerman population on many demographic variables (i.e., age

nd profession of the head of household, household income,amily composition, and place of residence). Every year, panelembers receive a binder with questionnaires (in German), andfK sends them reminders on a regular basis asking what kind of

Wt

urchase data for each appliance). The total purchases sample across all fiveppliances includes 8,194 purchase observations. Total gift sales: N = 1,229Nshaver = 366, Ntoothbrush = 336, Niron = 211, Nhairdryer = 160, Ncoffeemaker = 156).

urable products they have acquired during the previous month.or each durable product, the panel members may fill out a fulluestionnaire related to the different stages of their decision-aking process. The questionnaires have been developed byfK in close cooperation with marketing intelligence experts

rom leading brands in the small electrical appliances market:hilips, Braun, and Rowenta. The questions have been refinedver the years and therefore reflect a wealth of accumulatedategory knowledge generated through many qualitative anduantitative studies. Panel members receive a small incentiveor participating in the panel (e.g., a small birthday gift).

ample

From the 8,194 purchase cases contained in the data set, 15%ertain to gifts (ranging from 10% for irons and hair dryerso 25% for shavers; see Fig. 2). Because our hypotheses requirenly data pertaining to gifts, the testing sample consists of 1,229bservations (Niron = 211, Ncoffeemaker = 156, Nhairdryer = 160,shaver = 366, Ntoothbrush = 336). The data regarding coffeemak-rs come from 2003 only. Surprise gifts account for 699bservations, or 57% of gifted appliances.

he model

We attempt to identify specific factors that increase the like-ihood of purchasing a product as a surprise gift, so we use aogistic regression model to test the hypotheses. We formalizehe model as follows (Hair et al. 1998):

og

[Pr ob(Surprise gift purchase)

Pr ob(Other gift purchase)

]

= α + β1x1 + . . . + βixi + . . . + βkxk + error. (1)

e measure the dependent variable with a dichotomous ques-ion: “Did you purchase PRODUCT X as a surprise gift?

J. Vanhamme, C.J.P.M. de Bont / Journal of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369 361

Table 1Measures and descriptive statistics

Variables measured Measurement Descriptives

Gift type Question: ‘Did you purchase PRODUCT X as a surprise gift?’ (Respondents answeredthis question if they answered ‘yes’ to the question “Did you purchase PRODUCT Xas a gift?”).Dichotomous

0: No 43%1: Yes 57%

Importance of design Question: ‘Why did you finally choose this specific PRODUCT X’ followed by a listof attributes (design, brand, low price, easiness to use) that have to be rated in terms ofimportance

Mean = 4.2 SD = 2.1

Design: 7-point Likert scale (1 = not important at all; 7 = very important) measuringthe importance of the design in the choice of the product

Importance of brand Question: same as above Mean = 4.1 SD = 2.4Brand: 7-point scale (1 = not important at all; 7 = very important) measuring theimportance of the brand in the choice of the product

Importance of low price Question: same as above Mean = 5.5 SD = 1.9Low price: 7-point scale (1 = not important at all; 7 = very important) measuring theimportance of a low price in the choice of the product

Money-back guarantee Question: ‘Why did you finally choose the purchased brand’? Mean = 2.7 SD = 2.2Money-back guarantee: 7-point scale (1 = not applicable at all; 7 = totally applicable)measuring the role of the money-back guarantee in the purchase of the appliance

Gender of the purchaser Question: ‘Who purchased PRODUCT X’?Nominal

- Male purchaser 36%- Female purchaser 61%- Male and female purchased together 3%

This variable was recoded with 2 dummy variables

Idea of brand prior to purchase Question: ‘Did you think of one or several specific brands before purchasingPRODUCT X?’Dichotomous

0: No, I had not thought of any specific brand 68%1: Yes, I had thought of one or several specific brands 32%

Idea of model prior to purchase Question: ‘Did you have any ideas of the model before purchasing PRODUCT X?’ Mean = 2.0 SD = .83-point scale measuring to what extent the purchaser had an idea of the model prior topurchase

1: I had hardly any idea as to the model2: I had a rough idea as to the model3: I had a precise idea as to the model

Number of outlets visited beforepurchase

Question: ‘How many different outlets- including the outlet where you purchasedPRODUCT X - did you visit before purchasing?’

Mean = 1.5 SD = 1.3

Ratio (#)

Number of information sourcesused

Question: How intensive were your methods of gathering information aboutPRODUCT CATEGORY X before the purchase? Followed by a list of all possibleinformation sources. We counted the number of sources that the respondents said s/heused

Mean = 2.5 SD = 2.5

Ratio (#)

Information search Question: ‘How much time was there between the first thought of buying aPRODUCT X and the actual purchase?’Ordinal

- No time, it was a spontaneous purchase’ 20%- ±1–6 days 21%- ±1–3 weeks 25%- ±1–2 months 18%- More than 2 months 16%


Gift bought for a recipient withinthe household

Question: If the respondent answered ‘yes’ to ‘Did you purchase PRODUCT X as agift’? s/he had to specify either (a) yes, to give to (a) person(s) in another household or(b) yes, to give to (a) person(s) in my own householdThis was recoded as a dichotomous variable

0: No (outside the household) 37%1: Yes (within the household) 63%


Table 1 (Continued )

Variables measured Measurement Descriptives

Control variablesYear of data collection Ordinal

- 2002 45%- 2003 55%

This variable was recoded with 1 dummy variable

Occasion for giving the gift Question: ‘What was the occasion for the gift?’Nominal

- Christmas 34%- Birthday 12%- Other traditional occasions (Father’s Day, Mother’s Day, Valentine, . . .) 38%- No special occasion 16%


Product category Nominal- Male shaver 30%- Hair dryer 13%- Dental care 27%- Iron 17%- Coffee makers 13%


Importance of easiness to use Question: same as for importance of design, brand, and low price Mean = 5.5 SD = 2.0Easiness to use: 7-point scale (1 = not important at all; 7 = very important) measuringthe importance of easiness to use in the choice of the product

Price of the product purchased Question: ‘How much did you pay for PRODUCT X?” Mean = 48.5 SD = 46.8Ratio (price in euros)

Purchaser was accompanied bythe recipient while purchasing

Question: ‘Were you accompanied by the recipient while purchasing’Dichotomous

0: No 77%1: Yes 23%

Size of the purchaser’shousehold

Ordinal- 2 people or less 47%- More than 2 people 53%


Monthly income of thehousehold

Ordinal- less than D 2,500 55%- D 2,500 or more 45%


Children in the household Dichotomous0: No 70%1: Yes 30%

Age of head of household Ordinal- Up to 44 years old 47%- More than 44 years old 53%

ummy

Ypspecihv1mc

ptIdq

This variable was recoded with 1 d

Age of purchaser Ratio

es/No” (respondents answered this question only if they hadurchased PRODUCT X as a gift). This variable therefore mea-ures an intention to give a surprise gift, which dictates theurchase process. It does not measure whether the recipientxperiences the gift as a surprise, which is out of the company’sontrol. The xi. . .k represent the independent variables delineatedn the hypotheses and the control variables. Previous studiesighlight the influence of the gift occasion and demographic
ariables on gift exchanges (Belk 1979; Garner and Wagner991; Parsons 2002), so we use these variables as controls in theodel. We also control for the year of data collection and product
haracteristics available for all five products in the data set (i.e.,

aTw

variable

Mean = 45.7 SD = 15.9

roduct type, price, and ease of use importance). Finally, we con-rol for the presence of the recipient at the moment of purchase.ncluding covariates allows for a stronger test of our model. Weescribe the independent variables and measures used in theuestionnaire in Table 1.

Results

We report descriptive statistics for our variables in Table 1nd summarize the results of the logistic regression in Table 2.he model significantly explains the probability that the giftas bought as a surprise gift (likelihood ratio χ2(14) = 64.607,

J. Vanhamme, C.J.P.M. de Bont / Journal of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369 363

Table 2Parameter estimates (N = 1,216, 13 missing values)

Variable B SE Wald

Importance of design (H1) .093a .034 7.574Importance of brand (H2) −.027 .034 .621Importance of low price (H3) −.065b .037 3.158Money-back guaranteea (H4) .072b .038 3.520Idea of brand prior to purchase (H5) .013 .166 .006Idea of model prior to purchase (H5) .101 .094 1.155Number of outlets visited before purchase (H6a) −.034 .049 .471Number of information sources usedb (H6b) −.051b .029 3.063Up to 1 week information searchc (H6c) −.493a .204 5.838Up to 3 weeks information search (H6c) −.557a .206 7.307Up to 2 months information search (H6c) −.598a .227 6.912More than 2 months information search (H6c) −.387b .239 2.610Female purchaserd (H7) .316c .137 5.320Male + female together are the purchaser −.674d .509 1.753Gift bought for a recipient within the household (H8) .158 .150 1.109

Control VariablesYear of data collectione .256c .137 3.520Birthday giftf −.352b .150 5.492Gift for an occasion other than birthday and X’mas −.468b .215 4.750Gift for no special occasion −1.122a .207 29.266Hair dryerg −.382 .244 2.454Dental care .127 .199 .403Iron −.536b .214 6.301Coffeemaker .917a .287 10.175Importance of easiness to use .067c .036 3.475Price of the product purchased −.003 .002 1.856Purchaser was accompanied by the recipient while purchasing 1.716a .205 70.293Size of the purchaser’s householdh,i .006 .166 .001Monthly income of the householdh,j −.047 .134 .125Children in the household .140 .200 .492Age of head of householdh,k −.002 .189 .000Age of purchaser −.005 .006 .690

Constant −.512 .578 .783

a, p-value < 0.01; b, p-value < 0.05; c, p-value < 0.075; d, p-value < 0.10; all p-values are one-tailed for directional hypotheses (i.e., H1–H8) and two-tailed otherwise(i.e., control variables).

a These results are based on the total sample, except for the money-back guarantee. Due to the 408 missing observations for this variable, the correspondingestimate is based on a limited data set of 821 observations. The findings for the hypotheses remain substantively the same when we run the model on the sample of821 observations. See Deleersnyder et al. (2007) for a similar estimation procedure.

b Includes sources such as test reports, Internet (opinion portal, best price agency, newsgroups, manufacturer’s/retailer’s homepage), manufacturer’s brochures,mail order catalog, supplements/ads in newspapers or magazines, relatives/friends, point of purchase, salesperson, and customer service.

c Reference category = no information search, spontaneous purchase.d Reference category = male purchaser.e Reference category = 2002.f Reference category = Christmas gift.g Reference category = shaver.h We first ran analyses using the original categories contained in the data set. These are for household: 1 person household, 2 people household, 3 people household,

4 people household, 5 or more people household; for income: up to 1249, 1249; 1499], ]1499; 1749], ]1749; 1999], ]1999; 2249], ]2249; 2499], ]2499; 2749],≥2750; and age of the head of the household: up to 19, ]19; 24], ]24; 29], ]29; 34], ]34; 39], ]39; 44], ]44; 49], ]49; 54], ]54; 59], ≥59. Because none of thesevariables is significant, and for the sake of parsimony, we split them into two categories using a median split (see Table 1). The results are reported in the table anda

pa

hc

re non-significant.i Reference category = 2 people or fewer.j Reference category = less than D 2,500.k Reference category = up to 44.

< .001).6 In addition, the results fully support H1, H3, and H4nd offer marginal support for H7. As we expected, the logistic

6 The likelihood-ratio test compares the full model with 30 predictors (likeli-ood ratio χ2(30) = 1,485.124) with a model that includes only the constant andontrol variables (16 predictors, likelihood ratio χ2(16) = 1,549.731).

rtwpota

egression model shows that design is more important duringhe purchase of surprise gifts than for other types of gifts (H1),hereas consumers consider low prices less important for sur-
rise gifts (H3). Note that the results show no differences in termsf actual money spent (control variable) for surprise versus otherypes of gifts. It is also important to note that low price remainsn important attribute for surprise gift givers (mean above the


A res

stottdtttm

drwit

avombmb

mtwiaTmfoi

dpctico

Because we find non-negligible differences with respect tothe extent to which appliances are given as gifts (see Fig. 2), we

Fig. 3. Significant effects, ANOV

cale’s midpoint; Fig. 3, graph b), even though it matters to themo a lesser extent than to other gift givers. Moreover, in supportf H4, a money-back guarantee represents a more important cri-erion for purchasing a surprise gift than a non-surprise gift (dueo missing data, the corresponding estimate is based on a limitedata set of 821 observations [408 missing values]; see note [a]o Table 2). Moreover, consistent with our hypothesis, womenend to buy surprise gifts more often than do men (H7) (andhan women shopping with men). This result is, however, only

arginally significant.However, contrary to our expectations, we find no significant

ifference between surprise gifts and other types of gifts withespect to the importance of brand name (H2), the extent tohich givers have a precise idea of the desired product prior to

ts purchase (H5), the number of outlets visited (H6a), or whetherhe recipient belongs to the giver’s household (H8).

In addition, our data reveal counterintuitive results for H6bnd H6c. Although the coefficient estimates of the correspondingariables are significant, their signs are in the opposite directionf our hypothesized effects. That is, consumers do not engage in
ore information search before purchasing surprise gifts (H6c)
ut rather appear to choose them on the spot, without prior infor-ation search. In other words, surprise gift purchases appear to

e a kind of impulse purchase. Therefore, we re-estimated the

e

ults (estimated marginal means).

odel with impulse purchase as a binary variable (0: informa-ion search time > 0 versus 1: information search time = 0) thate included to replace the previous four dummy variables for

nformation search. All estimates remain substantively the same,nd impulse purchase is highly significant (beta = .54, p < .01).his complementary analysis confirms our conclusions. Further-ore, in contrast to our expectations, givers seem to consult

ewer sources of information to find surprise gifts than to findther types of gifts (H6b), which again is consistent with a typicalmpulse purchase.

Not surprisingly, the control variables in the model highlightifferences in terms of gift occasions (e.g., Christmas is the mostropitious period for triggering surprise gift purchases), productategories (e.g., compared with electric shavers, irons less likelyrigger a surprise gift purchase), ease of use (which marginallyncreases the likelihood of a surprise gift purchase), and socialontext (givers are less likely to buy surprise gifts in the presencef the recipient than non-surprise gifts).

xplored the potential influence of this aspect further.7 Accord-

7 We thank the reviewers for noting this issue.

urnal

ipttnfatarcaqsdwnubl

1ptotoimiotfwTF

sgigcogbgslpMHHeoswg

qeaes

C

sfagtffir

abepggaptgtwsfia

Cattesglipas

C

vp


ng to the principle of social proof (Cialdini 2001), buying aopular gift appliance provides an additional means to reducehe risk of purchasing an inappropriate gift. Buying an appliancehat others seldom use as a gift might increase the unexpected-ess of the gift but also makes it a highly risky purchase. Thus,requently gifted appliances might be more typical surprise giftsnd afford stronger support for our hypotheses. To test this poten-ial interaction effect, we created a new variable, gift share, usingmedian split, according to which shavers and toothbrushes rep-

esent frequently gifted appliances (i.e., popular gifts), whereasoffeemakers, hair dryers, and irons are less frequently giftedppliances (see Fig. 2). We then ran a two-way gift share (i.e., fre-uently versus less frequently gifted appliances) × gift type (i.e.,urprise gift versus other gifts) MANOVA on the importance ofesign, brand name, low price, and money-back guarantees, asell as the giver’s precise ideas about brand and features, theumber of outlets visited, the number of information sourcessed, impulse purchase, gender, and recipient’s household mem-ership. We also included all the control variables from theogistic model as covariates.

The results reveal significant main effects of gift share (F(11,184) = 16.259, p < .0001) and gift type (F(11, 1184) = 3.474,< .0001), as well as a significant gift share × gift type interac-

ion effect (F(11, 1184) = 2.026, p < .05). The univariate analysesf variance reported in Fig. 3 highlight which variables drivehese effects. We find significant main and/or interaction effectsf gift type for all the variables that indicate a significantnfluence on surprise gift purchases in the logistic regression

odel (i.e., design, low price, money-back guarantee, number ofnformation sources, and impulse purchase; although the effectf money-back guarantees is only marginally significant, andhat of low price only approaches marginal significance) andor the purchaser’s gender (female alone versus male alone),hose influence is marginally significant in the logistic model.hus, these results largely corroborate our previous findings (seeig. 3, graphs a–f).

In addition, three new effects emerge from this analysis: aignificant gift share × gift type interaction effect for (1) theiver’s precise idea of the brand, (2) the number of outlets vis-ted, and (3) the recipient’s household membership. Surpriseift givers have less precise ideas of the brand they want to pur-hase (p < .05) and visit fewer stores (p < .01) than other typesf gift givers when the appliance is a popular gift (see Fig. 3,raphs g–h). Similarly, popular surprise gifts are more likely toe given to someone within the household than are popular otherifts (p < .05) (see Fig. 3, graph i). In all three cases, we find noignificant difference between surprise gifts and other gifts foress frequently gifted appliances. In other words, we find sup-ort for H5 and H8 with regard to frequently gifted appliances.oreover, similar to our previous findings regarding H6b and6c, the number of outlets visited appears in direct contrast with6a, though this finding is consistent with the impulse purchase

xplanation. Finally, the interaction effects for the importance
f low price (Fig. 3, graph b) and the number of informationources (Fig. 3, graph d) depend on the significant differencese observe between surprise gifts and other gifts for frequentlyifted appliances (we find no significant differences for less fre-
ag2f

of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369 365

uently gifted appliances). Thus, as expected, the interactionffects lend stronger support to our hypotheses for popular giftppliances. (Similar to the logistic regression results, there is noffect of the type of gift on the importance of the brand name;ee Fig. 3, graph j.)

Discussion

onclusion

The present study aims to reconcile giver and recipienttreams of research by explicitly considering surprise giftsrom the giver’s point of view and disentangling the selectionnd purchase processes of surprise gifts and non-surpriseifts. Out of our eight hypotheses, six receive support fromhe data, whether in the full sample (H1, H3, H4, and H7) oror popular gift appliances only (H5 and H8). However, wend no significant results for H2 and counterintuitive findingsegarding all three parts of H6.

Compared with non-surprise gift givers, surprise gift giversppear influenced to a greater extent by the design and money-ack guarantees. Although finding a good deal is an importantlement when looking for a gift, it is not as important for sur-rise gift givers as it is for other gift givers. Also, surprise giftset purchased more often by women alone. When the surpriseift is a popular appliance for gift-giving, recipients more oftenre within the household of the giver, and the giver has lessrecise ideas of what he or she should buy. Brand name is impor-ant for gift givers but, in contrast to our expectations, has noreater significance for surprise gifts than for other gifts. In addi-ion, we find that surprise gifts tend to be bought on the spot,ith virtually no prior information search, and givers visit fewer

tores to find surprise gifts (on average, only one). However, wend support for this latter finding only among frequently giftedppliances.

Not surprisingly, surprise gifts often get exchanged during thehristmas season, likely to convey emotional messages (Fishernd Arnold 1990). This finding confirms Caplow’s (1984) con-ention that Christmas gifts should be surprising, demonstratehe giver’s familiarity with the recipient’s preferences, and beconomically scaled to the emotional value of the relation-hip. Moreover, the appliance’s ease of use appears important toivers, and even (marginally) more so to givers of surprise gifts,ikely because receivers might consider the gift a bad surprisef they cannot operate it or need to study lengthy and com-lex directions. Finally, we find that some electrical appliancesppear more appropriate as surprise gifts than do others (e.g.,havers versus irons).

ontributions, limitations, and further research

As Otnes et al. (1993, p. 229) puts it, “since Sherry (1983) pro-ided a framework that elucidated the stages of the gift-exchangerocess, researchers have examined the influence of myriad vari-
bles within these stages.” For example, phenomena such asender differences (Areni et al. 1998), gift anxiety (Wooten000), and reformulation of relationships (Ruth et al. 1999) haveallen under research scrutiny. The literature also highlights the

3 urnal

iCeh(tWwt–aeclovsswiasrwr

pepaeggtewmgsisodtt(rpn

gFgrIla

atrrmmcb

ispassbafspu

ipsi

aiewaaohewe

icbwbAbtfpe

M


mportance of specific gift occasions and gift types, such ashristmas (e.g., Belk and Bryce 1993), Valentine’s (e.g., Otnest al. 1994), self-oriented (e.g., Mick and Faure 1998), extra-ousehold (Garner and Wagner 1991), perfect (Belk 1996), lastStevenson and Kates 1999), business (Beltramini 1992), mone-ary (Cameron 1989), and romantic (Belk and Coon 1993) gifts.

e contribute to this consumer behavior literature in severalays. First, we explicitly acknowledge a key strategic decision

hat the giver faces at the beginning of the gift selection processto surprise the recipient or not – and clarify how this decision

ffects the gift selection and purchase processes. In so doing, wenrich the giver’s side of Sherry’s model and reconcile the giver-entric literature with that focusing on the recipient, which hasong recognized the value of surprise gifts. Second, by buildingn previous work (e.g., Areni et al. 1998; Belk 1996), we pro-ide a conceptual framework that highlights the specificities ofurprise gifts. Third, we shed light on particular aspects of theelection and purchase processes associated with surprise gifts,hich retailers can leverage to gain a competitive advantage

n the fierce fight to capture share in the gift market. Thus, welso contribute to the retail management literature and enrich thetream of research that investigates gift-giving from a manage-ial perspective (e.g., Mick, Demoss, and Faber 1992). Fourth,e extend the few studies that use large panels that effectively

epresent the population to examine gift purchases.Nonetheless, we acknowledge the rather narrow range of

roducts we consider. Therefore, additional research shouldxplore to what extent other product categories display a similarattern of results. The disparities we observe between frequentlynd less frequently gifted appliances indicate that the differ-nces between surprise and other types of gifts may be evenreater for product categories that involve a larger proportion ofifts, such as luxury items or jewelry. Gift product categorieshat trigger more perceived risk may also moderate these differ-nces. For example, the financial risk that gift givers perceivehen they purchase expensive jewelry might increase, whichight make the importance of the money-back guarantee even

reater. In addition, jewelry is a conspicuous product, whichhould enhance perceived social risk and result in the greatermportance of design. Further research should investigate thepecific influence of perceived risk and the relative importancef different types of risk in surprise gift purchase decisions forifferent product categories (e.g., mentally intangible gift itemshat increase purchase risk; Laroche et al. 2005). For small elec-rical appliances, both utilitarian (e.g., ease of use) and hedonice.g., design) attributes influence surprise gift purchases, but theelative importance of these attributes might change for otherroduct categories (e.g., predominantly hedonic or predomi-antly utilitarian products).

The vast majority (84%) of small electrical appliances wereiven for a special occasion, when recipients expect some gift.urther studies should explore the extent to which product cate-ories given as gifts outside of specific occasions, such as when
ecipients expect nothing, display similar patterns of results.f nothing is expected, givers’ perceived risk might be muchower and become a less important factor, which might lead todifferent pattern of results.
ae

of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369

In addition, surprise gift-giving may extend to services, suchs a stay at a spa, a popular consumer trend. Variables per-aining to design and concrete attributes of appliances mightequire some adaptation to such contexts (e.g., design of the inte-ior/décor could replace appliance design). Also, less concrete,ore emotional variables, such as sentimental or symbolic value,ight be interesting to investigate, especially for other product

ategories (e.g., a product that means a lot to the respondentecause of the memories attached to it).

The similarity between surprise gifts and impulse purchasess unexpected and begs further investigation. Surprise gifts mayurprise both the giver and the receiver, in that the giver does notlan to purchase a surprise gift until he or she sees a nice productnd decides to buy it as a surprise. Because of this apparent con-istency between surprise gifts and impulse purchases, variablesuch as trait impulsiveness (Eysenck and Eysenck 1977) mighte worth exploring in further studies. We also note that Weinbergnd Gottwald (1982) reveal that impulse buyers exhibit moreeelings of amusement, delight, enthusiasm, and joy than otherhoppers, and these emotions probably occur among gift shop-ers animated by an experiential motivation, which we assertnderlies surprise gift purchases.

Considering the importance of brands, the lack of their pos-tive influence on the likelihood of a surprise gift purchaserovides another unexpected finding. In-depth interviews withurprise gift purchasers could help unravel the reasons for thisnteresting phenomenon.

In addition, the aspects that make an appliance more suitables a surprise gift, beyond the characteristics we study, should benvestigated further. The MANOVA results point to one possiblexplanation: Because we find support for more hypotheses whene consider frequently gifted appliances, the extent to which

n appliance generally represents a potential gift may deservedditional attention. This factor likely relates to the perceptionsf appliances or the activities they enable (e.g., personal versusousehold use). Appliances that benefit the entire household ornable disliked chores might not be as suitable as gifts comparedith appliances for personal use that are associated with more

njoyable activities.Finally, the data we use represent both a strength and a lim-

tation of our study. Panel data provide rich information aboutonsumer behavior, but they do not always include a sufficientlyroad range of variables. Our panel data include questions abouthether the giver intended to surprise the recipient with the giftut cannot identify the different contexts that Belk (1996) andreni et al. (1998) suggest (e.g., whether the surprise is causedy the gift only or in combination with the type of relationship,iming, or deception). Therefore, researchers should investigateurther the potential influence of context effects on surprise gifturchases that may moderate the influence of the variables wexplore.

anagerial implications

The insights we derive have direct implications for retailersnd manufacturers. Gifts represent an important part of the U.S.conomy, and their associated opportunities have not gone unno-

urnal

tthdsgwsc

scmTetg

ebgripipRpm

ppnpivrottmotfitbida

mbtJLc

eotac

tcppctlb

taaiaitRTiBgtadctdcatll1eoEet

sadwrgg


iced by retailers and manufacturers, which attempt to maximizeheir sales during gift seasons. With the knowledge describederein, these firms can better address surprise gift shoppers wheneveloping their marketing and sales plans. Only considering themall electrical appliances market in the United States, surpriseifts likely represent as much as $800 million in sales, and ife were to extrapolate our findings to all U.S. gift purchases,

urprise gifts could exceed $50 billion, though we recommendaution in accepting this rough estimate.

Because surprise gift purchases seem impulsive, retailershould use point-of-purchase communications that encourageustomers to grab surprise gifts by focusing on design andoney-back guarantees, rather than brand name or low price.hese communications also could mention ease of use toncourage purchase. Note that point-of-purchase communica-ions likely will be even more effective in triggering a surpriseift purchase within popular gift categories.

Although McWilliams and Gerstner (2006) note the risk ofxcessive inventory management costs associated with money-ack guarantees, we argue this point has little impact on surpriseifts, because price dissatisfaction probably does not prompteturns (i.e., surprise gift givers have a low price sensitiv-ty). Moreover, offering a money-back guarantee provides otherotential advantages for the retailer, such as enhanced storemage, increased store traffic when consumers come to return aroduct, and increased trial of new products (Davis et al. 1995).etailers thus should expect additional benefits, beyond the sur-rise gift sale, from encouraging surprise gift purchases throughoney-back guarantees.Suitable surprise gift products must immediately catch shop-

ers’ attention, perhaps through packaging (e.g., gift-like), arominent shelf position, or a gift-themed display. However,ot all products should be promoted as surprise gifts; instead,ersonal use products (or those associated with enjoyable activ-ties) that represent popular gifts, are easy to use, and can createisual excitement are the most appropriate candidates. Whenetailers can display appliances in attention-getting ways, theyffer shoppers the same excitement that those consumers hopeo give as a gift. In addition, sales forces should be able to spotypical surprise gift shoppers and orient them toward the pro-

oted gifts. These consumers usually will be women on theirwn, who do not know before they enter the shop what gifthey want to buy. However, because surprise gifts often resultrom impulses, retailers get only one chance to close the deal;f their communication fails to spark consumers’ interest andrigger the surprise gift purchase, they lose that sale. Moreover,ecause aesthetic appeal is particularly important for generatingnterest among surprise gift givers, manufacturers could intro-uce special, colorful editions of products periodically to triggerdditional surprise gift purchases.

Companies might find it more efficient to focus on the Christ-as season, during which most surprise gift purchases occur,

ecause it makes the marketers’ task easier. The literature tends
o focus on Christmas gifts because of their profitability (e.g.,olibert and Fernandez-Moreno 1983; Laroche et al. 2000a;aroche et al. 2000b), but retailers and manufacturers shouldonsider adapting their Christmas season communications by c
of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369 367

xplicitly promoting their product as a perfect surprise gift forther traditional gift-giving occasions, such as Father’s Day. Inhis latter case, retailers can easily select an appropriate appli-nce to promote as a surprise gift because the recipients all shareommon characteristics (e.g., they are all fathers).

Retailers also might prefer to use surprise gifts as an oppor-unity to equalize seasonal peaks. Seasonality evokes variousonsequences, such as the need to stock more and hire additionalersonnel. Because they seem similar to impulse purchases, sur-rise gifts could reduce the incidence of seasonality, such thatompanies persuade consumers to buy gifts at times other thanraditional gift-giving occasions and thus equilibrate their salesevels to a certain extent. Birthday gifts should also be consideredecause they are given as gifts throughout the year.

Manufacturers of lesser known brands should take advan-age of the surprise gift market, because brand reputation is notdecisive purchase criterion. Similarly, top brands should not

ssume that their reputation provides a competitive advantagen the surprise gift market. Finally, we address a longer-termspect. Surprise gifts can delight both the giver and the recip-ent, and previous literature reports that delighting customersranslates into greater customer retention and loyalty (Oliver,ust, and Varki 1997; Rust, Zahorik, and Kenningham 1996).hus, though the drivers of store loyalty have not been explored

n much depth (Grewal, Levy, and Lehmann 2004; Peterson andalasubramanian 2002), we posit that successful surprise gift-iving experiences might increase loyalty. Retailers should makehe gift-giving experience successful by helping the giver findperfect surprise gift and ensuring the recipient associates theelightful event with the retailer (e.g., by adding a branded giftard). Thus, both the giver and the recipient develop trust inhe retailer for its ability to help them select a surprise gift thatelivers the right message and emotions. In their discussion ofustomer retention schemes, Rust, Zeithaml, and Lemon (2000)rgue that companies should strengthen relationships with cus-omers through emotional ties. Many companies have startedoyalty schemes, but such easily copied methods rarely provideong-term competitive advantages (Fournier, Dobscha, and Mick998). Building customer relationships based on emotion, how-ver, is difficult to replicate and therefore an important sourcef competitive advantage (Robinette, Brand, and Lenz 2001).nsuring the success of a surprise gift could encourage suchmotional links and therefore drive store loyalty. It is also likelyo generate positive word of mouth.

To conclude, we hope that this study clarifies that a giver’strategic decision to surprise a gift recipient remains a neglectedspect of gift-giving research that requires more attention. Thisecision is a key factor that researchers should bear in mindhen investigating or revisiting gift-giving topics, such as how

elationships evolve as a result of gift-giving, anxiety duringift exchanges, and the acceptance of gift registries among giftivers.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the reviewers and the editors for theironstructive comments and suggestions during the reviewing

3 urnal

ptto

AA

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

CDDD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

E

E

E

E

F

F

F

F

G

GG

G

H


rocess. They also thank Barbara Deleersnyder, Stefano Pun-oni, Dirk Snelders, Adam Lindgreen, and Stijn van Osselear forheir insightful comments and suggestions on previous versionsf this article.

References

ppliance Design (2006), Stand out strategy. Appliance Design. 54 (9). 12.reni, Charles S., Pamela Kiecker and Kay M. Palan (1998), “Is it Better to

Give Than to Receive? Exploring Gender Differences in the Meaning ofMemorable Gifts,” Psychology & Marketing, 15 (1), 81–109.

rnold, Mark J. and Kristy E. Reynolds (2003), “Hedonic Shopping Motiva-tions,” Journal of Retailing, 79 (2), 77–96.

anks, Sharon K. (1979), “Gift-giving: A Review and an Interactive Paradigm,”Advances in Consumer Research, 6 319–24.

elk, Russell W. (1976), “It’s the Thought that Counts: A Signed DigraphAnalysis of Gift-giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (3), 155–62.

(1979), “Gift Giving Behavior,” Research in Marketing,2 95–126.

elk, Russell W. (1996), “The perfect gift,” in Gift Giving: A Research Anthol-ogy, Otnes C. and Beltramini R. F., eds. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling GreenUniversity Popular Press, 59–84.

elk, Russell and Wendy Bryce (1993), “Christmas Shopping Scenes: FromModern Miracle to Postmodern Mall,” International Journal of Research inMarketing, 10 (August), 277–96.

elk, Russell W. and Gregory S. Coon (1993), “Gift Giving as Agapic Love: AnAlternative to the Exchange Paradigm based on Dating Experience,” Journalof Consumer Research, 20 (December), 393–417.

ellenger, Danny N. and Pradeep K. Korgaonkar (1980), “Profiling the Recre-ational Shopper,” Journal of Retailing, 56 (3), 77–92.

elshaw, Cyril S. (1965), “Traditional Exchange in Modern Markets,” Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

eltramini, Richard F. (1992), “Exploring the Effectiveness of Business gifts: AControlled Field Experiment,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,20 (1), 87–91.

erkowitz, Marvin (1987), “Product Shape as a Design Innovation Strategy,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4 274–83.

erry, Leonard L., Carbone P. Lewis and Stepahn H. Haeckel (2002), “Managingthe Total Customer Experience,” Sloan Management Review, 43 (3), 85–9.

loch, Peter H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and ConsumerResponse,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (3), 16–29.

ameron, Samuel (1989), “The Unacceptability of Money as a Gift and itsStatus as a Medium of Exchange,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(June), 253–5.

ampbell, Margaret C. and Ronald C. Goodstein (2001), “The ModeratingEffect of Perceived Risk on Consumers’ Evaluations of Product Incongruity:Preference for the Norm,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 439–50.

aplow, Theodore (1982), “Gifts and Kin Networks,” American SociologicalReview, 47 (3), 383–92.

(1984), “Rule Enforcement Without Visible Means:Christmas gift Giving in Middletown,” American Journal of Sociology, 89(6), 1306–23.

hanil, Debra (1993), “Personal Care Appliances,” Discount Merchandiser, 33(9), 74–7.

harlesworth, William R. (1969), “The Role of Surprise in Cognitive Develop-ment,” in Studies in Cognitive Development, Essays in Honor of Jean Piaget,Elkind D. and Flavel J. H., eds. London: Oxford University Press, 257–314.

heal, David (1986), “The Social Dimensions of Gift Behavior,” Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 3 (4), 423–39.

(1987), “Showing Them You Love Them: Gift Givingand the Dialectic of Intimacy,” Sociological Review, 35 (1), 150–9.

hen, David W. (1997), “Wishful Thinkers are Using Gift Registries for all
Occasions,” New York Times,. July 27
ialdini, Robert B. (2001), “Influence: Science and Practice,” fourth ed. London:Allyn & Bacon.

leveland, Mark, Barry J. Babin, Michael Laroche, Philippa Ward and Jas-min Bergeron (2003), “Information Search Patterns for Gift Purchases: A

H

H

of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369

Cross-national Examination of Gender Differences,” Journal of ConsumerBehavior, 3 (1), 20–47.

onchar, Margy P., George M. Zinkhan, Cara Peters and Sergio Olavarrieta(2004), “An Integrated Framework for the Conceptualization of Consumers’Perceived-risk Processing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,32 (4), 418–36.

onsumer Expenditure Survey (2004), http://www.bls.gov/cex/.atamonitor (2004), Global consumer trends. July 26, 2004.avis, John (1972), “Gift and The UK Economy,” Man, 7 (Fall) 408–29.avis, Scott, Eitan Gerstner and Michel Hagerty (1995), “Money-back Guar-

antee in Retailing: Matching Products to Consumer Tastes,” Journal ofRetailing, 71 (1), 7–22.

awar, Niraj and Philip Parker (1994), “Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Useof Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation asSignals of Product Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (April), 81–95.

awson, Scott, Peter H. Bloch and Nancy M. Ridgway (1990), “ShoppingMotives, Emotional States, and Retail Outcomes,” Journal of Retailing, 66(4), 408–27.

eleersnyder, Barbara, Dekimpe, Marnik G., Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M.,and Koll, Oliver (2007), “Win-win Strategies at Discount Stores,” Journalof Retailing and Consumer Services.

el Vecchio, Devon and Daniel C. Smith (2005), “Perceived Risk and BrandExtension Price Premiums,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,33 (2), 184–96.

esai, Mahesh M. (1939), “Surprise: A Historical and Experimental Study,”British Journal of Psychology, Monographic Supplement, 22 1–124.

owling, Grahame R. and Richard Staelin (1994), “A Model of Perceived Riskand Intended Risk-handling Activity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 111–34.

urgee, Jeffrey F. and Trina Sego (2001), “Gift-giving as a Metaphor for under-standing new products that delight,” Advances in Consumer Research, 2864–9.

kman, Paul and Wallace V. Friesen (1975), “Unmasking the face,” NJ: PrenticeHall.

rdem, Tülin (1998), “An Empirical Analysis of Umbrella Branding,” Journalof Marketing Research, 35 (3), 339–51.

rdem, Tülin and Joffre Swait (1998), “Brand Equity as a Signaling Phe-nomenon,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (April), 131–57.

uromonitor International (2007), Global Market Information Database(www.euromonitor.com).

ysenck, Sybil G.B. and Hans J. Eysenck (1977), “The Place of Impulsiveness ina Dimensional System of Personality Description,” British Journal of Socialand Clinical Psychology, 16 57–68.

inn, Adam (2005), “Reassessing the Foundations of Customer Delight,” Jour-nal of Service Research, 8 (2), 103–16.

isher, Eileen and Steven J. Arnold (1990), “More than a Labor of Love: GenderRoles and Christmas Gift Shopping,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17(December), 333–45.

ournier, Susan, Susan Dobscha and David Glen Mick (1998), “Preventing thePremature Death of Relationship Marketing,” Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 42–51.

uller, Allan (2001), “Solving the Male Gift-giving Dilemma,” Cosmetics, 29(6), 24.

arner, Thesia I. and Janet Wagner (1991), “Economic Dimensions of House-hold Gift Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (December), 368–79.

fK (2004), Consumer Panel Data. GfK Group.oodwin, Cathy, Kelly L. Smith and Susan Spiggle (1990), “Gift Giving: Con-

sumer Motivation and the Gift Purchase Process,” Advances in ConsumerResearch, 17 690–8.

rewal, Dhruv, Michael Levy and Donald R. Lehmann (2004), “Retail Brandingand Loyalty: An Overview,” Journal of Retailing, 80 (4), ix–ix10.

air, Joseph F., Rolf E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham and William Black (1998),“Multivariate Data Analysis,” fifth ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

eeler, Roger, June Francis, C Okechuku and Stanley Reid (1979), “Gift VersusPersonal Use Brand Selection,” Advances in Consumer Research, 6 325–8.

eiman, Amir, Bruce McWilliams, Jinhua Zhao and David Zilberman (2002),“Valuation and Management of Money-back Guarantee Options,” Journalof Retailing., 78 (3), 193–206.

http://www.bls.gov/cex/

http://www.euromonitor.com/

urnal

J

J

K

L

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

N

O

O

O

O

P

P

P

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

S

S

S

S

V

V

W

W

W

W

Wolfinbarger, Mary Finley and Laura J. Yale (1993), “Three Motivations forInterpersonal Gift Giving: Experiential, Obligated and Practical Motiva-


acoby, Jacob and Leon B. Kaplan (1972), “The Components of Perceived Risk,”Advances in Consumer Research, 3 382–93.

olibert, Alain and Carlos Fernandez-Moreno (1983), “A Comparison of Frenchand Mexican Gift Giving Practices,” Advances in Consumer Research, 10191–6.

aplan, Leon B., George J. Szybillio and Jacob Jacoby (1974), “Components ofPerceived Risk in Product Purchase: A Cross-validation,” Journal of AppliedPsychology, 59 (3), 287–91.

aroche, Michel, Mark Cleveland and Elizabeth Browne (2004), “ExploringAge-related Differences in Information Acquisition for a Gift Purchase,”Journal of Economic Psychology, 25 (1), 61–95.

aroche, Michel, Gaad Saad, Elizabeth Browne, Mark Cleveland and ChankonKim (2000a), “Determinants of In-store Information Search Strategies Per-taining to a Christmas Purchase,” Canadian Journal of AdministrativeSciences, 17 (1), 1–19.

, Gaad Saad, Elizabeth Browne and Mark Cleveland(2000b), “Gender Differences in Information Search Strategies for a Christ-mas Gift,” The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6 500–24.

, Gaad Saad, Elizabeth Browne, Mark Cleveland andChankon Kim (2000c), “A Cross-cultural Study of In-store InformationSearch Strategies for Christmas Gift,” Journal of Business Research, 49113–26.

aroche, Michel, Zhiyong Yang, Gordon H.G. McDougall and Jasmin Bergeron(2005), “Internet Versus Bricks-and-Mortar Retailers: An Investigation intoIntangibility and its Consequences,” Journal of Retailing, 81 (4), 251–67.

owrey, Tina M., Cele C. Otnes and Judith A. Ruth (2004), “Social Influenceson Dyadic Giving Over Time: A Taxonomy from the Giver’s Perspective,”Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (4), 547–58.

cGrath, Mary Ann (1989), “An Ethnography of a Gift Store: Trappings, Wrap-pings, and Rapture,” Journal of Retailing, 65 (4), 421–47.

cGrath, Mary Ann and Basil G. Englis (1996), “An Analysis of the Framingof Women as Marriage Partners Through Patterns of Wedding Gift Giving,”Proceedings of the Gender, Marketing and Consumer Behavior Conference,109–10.

cGrath, Mary Ann, John F. Sherry Jr. and Sidney J. Levy (1993), “Giving Voiceto the Gift: The Use of Projective Techniques to Recover Lost Meanings,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (2), 171–92.

cWilliams, Bruce and Eitan Gerstner (2006), “Offering Low Price Guaranteesto Improve Customer Retention,” Journal of Retailing, 82 (2), 105–13.

ellers, Barbara, Alan Schwartz and Ilana Ritov (1999), “Emotion-basedChoice,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128 (3), 332–45.

ick, David Glen and Michelle Demoss (1990), “Self-gifts: Phenomenologi-cal Insights from Four Contexts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (3),322–33.

ick, David Glen, Michelle Demoss and Ronald J. Faber (1992), “A ProjectiveStudy of Motivations and Meanings of Self-gifts: Implications for RetailManagement,” Journal of Retailing, 68 (2), 122–44.

ick, David Glen and Corine Faure (1998), “Consumer Self-gifts in Achieve-ment Contexts: The Role of Outcomes, Attributions, Emotions, andDeservingness,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15 (4),293–308.

ontgomery, Cynthia A. and Birger Wernerfelt (1992), “Risk Reduction andUmbrella Branding,” Journal of Business, 65 (1), 31–50.

oorty, Sridhar and Kannan Srinivasan (1995), “Signaling Quality with Money-back Guarantee: The Role of Transaction Costs,” Marketing Science, 14 (4),230–47.

PD (2004), Document Obtained from Philips DAP Marketing Intelligence, TheNetherlands.

liver, Richard L., Roland T. Rust and Varki S Sajeev (1997), “CustomerDelight: Foundations, Findings, and Managerial Insight,” Journal of Retail-ing, 73 (Fall) 311–36.

tnes, Cele C. and Richard F. Beltramini (1996), “Gift-giving: a ResearcgAnthology,” Bowling Green: University Popular Press.

tnes, Cele and Tina M. Lowrey (1993), “Till Debt do Us Part: The Selectionand Meaning of Artifacts in the American Wedding,” Advances in Consumer
Research, 20 325–9.
tnes, Cele, Tina M. Lowrey and Young Chan Kim (1993), “Gift Selection forEasy and Difficult Recipients: A Social Roles Interpretation,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 20 (2), 229–44.

W

of Retailing 84 (3, 2008) 354–369 369

, Judith A. Ruth and Constance C. Milbourne (1994),“The Pleasure and Pain of Being Close: Men’s Feelings About Participationin Valentine’s day Gift Exchange,” Advances in Consumer Research, 21159–64.

age, Christine and Paul M. Herr (2002), “An Investigation of the Processesby Which Product Design and Brand Strength Interact to Determine InitialAffective and Quality Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (2),133–47.

arsons, Andrew G. (2002), “Brand Choice in Gift Giving: Recipient Influence,”Journal of Product and Brand Management, 11 (4), 237–48.

eterson, Robert A. and Sridhar Balasubramanian (2002), “Retailing in the 21stCentury: Reflections and Prognosis,” Journal of Retailing, 78 (1), 9–16.

ao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1989), “The Effect of Price, Brand Nameand Store Name on Buyers’ Perceptions of Product Quality: An IntegrativeReview,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (3), 351–7.

etail Business (1997), Small electrical appliances, part 1, Retail Business:Market Surveys. 470 (April). 117–145.

ichardson, Paul, Alan Dick and Arun Jain (1994), “Extrinsic and Intrinsic CueEffects on Perceptions of Store Brand Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 58(October), 28–36.

obinette, Scott, Claire Brand and Vicki Lenz (2001), “Emotion Marketing: TheHallmark Way of Winning Customers for Life,” New York: McGraw-Hill.

oselius, Ted (1971), “Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods,” Jour-nal of Marketing., 35 (1), 56–61.

uffle, Bradley J. (1999), “Gift Giving with Emotions,” Journal of EconomicBehavior and Organization, 39 399–420.

ust, Roland T., Anthony J. Zahorik and Timothy L. Kenningham (1996), “Ser-vice Marketing,” New York: Harper Collins.

ust, Roland T., Valarie A. Zeithaml and Katherine N. Lemon (2000), “DrivingCustomer Equity: How Customer Lifetime Value is Reshaping CorporateStrategy,” New York: The Free Press.

uth, Judith A., Cele C. Otnes and Frédéric F. Brunel (1999), “Gift Receipt andthe Reformulation of Interpersonal Relationships,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 25 (4), 385–402.

yans, Adrian B. (1977), “Consumer Gift Buying Behavior: An ExploratoryAnalysis,” in Contemporary Marketing Thought, Bellinger O. and GreenbergB., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 99–104.

herry, John F. Jr. (1983), “Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective,” Journalof Consumer Research, 10 (2), 157–68.

herry, John F., Mary Ann McGrath and Sidney J. Levy (1993), “The Dark Sideof the Gift,” Journal of Business Research, 28 (November), 225–4.

latalla, Michelle (2000), Sending a Wish List: Is it Nasty or Nice? New YorkTimes, February 3.

tevenson, G. and Steven M. Kates (1999), “The Last Gift: The Meanings of GiftGiving in the Context of Dying of AIDS,” Advances in Consumer Research,26 113–8.

eryzer, Robert W. (1993), “Aesthetic Response and the Influence of DesignPrinciples on Product Preferences,” Advances in Consumer Research, 20224–8.

incent, Mark and William Zikmund (1975), “An Experimental Investigation ofSituational Effects on Risk Perception,” Advances in Consumer Research, 2125–9.

agner, Janet and Thesia Garner (1993), “Extrahousehold Giving in PopularGift Categories: A Socioeconomic and Demographic Analysis,” Advancesin Consumer Research, 20 515–9.

ansink, Brian and Seymour Sudman (2002), “Predicting the Future of Con-sumer Panels,” Journal of Database Marketing & Consumer Strategy, 9 (4),301–1.

einberg, Peter and Wolfgang Gottwald (1982), “Impulsive Consumer Buyingas a Result of Emotions,” Journal of Business Research, 10 43–57.

illiams, Terrell, Mark Slama and John Rogers (1985), “Behavioral Character-istics of the Recreational Shopper and Implications for Retail Management,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 13 (3), 307–16.

tions,” Advances in Consumer Research, 20 520–6.ooten, David B. (2000), “Qualitative Steps Toward an Expanded Model of

Anxiety in Gift-giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 84–95.

Surprise Gift” Purchases: Customer Insights from the Small Electrical Appliances Market

Documents

Transcript of Surprise Gift” Purchases: Customer Insights from the Small Electrical Appliances Market