Journal of Consumer Marketing

Giving and getting gift cards

Erhard K. Valentin, Anthony T. Allred,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Erhard K. Valentin, Anthony T. Allred, (2012) "Giving and getting gift cards", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 Issue: 4,
pp.271-279, https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211237344
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211237344
Downloaded on: 04 July 2017, At: 09:34 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 31 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 09:34 04 July 2017 (PT)

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1320 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2013),"Gift-giving among adolescents: exploring motives, the effects of givers' personal characteristics and the use of
impression management tactics", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 Iss 5 pp. 436-449 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JCM-01-2013-0426">https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2013-0426</a>
(2002),"Brand choice in gift-giving: recipient influence", Journal of Product &amp; Brand Management, Vol. 11 Iss 4 pp. 237-249
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420210435434">https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420210435434</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:463963 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Giving and getting gift cards
Erhard K. Valentin and Anthony T. Allred
John B. Goddard School of Business & Economics, Weber State University, Layton, Utah, USA

Abstract
Purpose The reported study was designed to provide insight into gift cards as gifts and their place among gifts of cash and goods. It also was
designed to identify promising avenues for further research.
Design/methodology/approach Data were collected using a structured questionnaire administered to a convenience sample of 317 respondents of
both sexes who varied greatly in age.
Findings Effective liquidity served largely as the basis for categorizing gift cards. The greater a cards effective liquidity, the more its economic impact
on the recipient resembles that of cash. The results indicated the following: face value affects recipient preference for effective liquidity; the giver-getter
relationship affects recipient preference for effective liquidity; the gift cards givers give tend to have less effective liquidity than those they prefer to get;
some gift cards are more appropriate gifts than others and some, but not all, gift cards are more appropriate gifts than cash; and people feel less guilt
when paying for personal luxuries with gift cards than with cash.
Research limitations The study was largely exploratory insofar as its breadth greatly exceeded its depth and findings derived from a convenience
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 09:34 04 July 2017 (PT)

sample.
Originality/value The study introduced effective liquidity as a basis for assessing similarities and differences between gift cards and gifts of cash
and goods. Findings enhance scholarly understanding of gift cards and their place among gifts of cash and goods. Moreover, they afford insights into
marketing gift cards and into promising paths for further research.

Keywords Gift cards, Effective liquidity, Preference asymmetry, Consumer behavior, Liquidity, Gifts

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
1. Introduction
Gift giving and getting have been studied for more than a
century from diverse disciplinary perspectives, including
anthropology, economics, and social psychology.
Collectively, findings suggest cash is the best present when
recipients apply only narrow utilitarian evaluation criteria
(Waldfogel, 1993, 2002, 2005), but generally, gift evaluation
is more complex and emotional than economic theories of
utilitarian rationality posit (Camerer, 1988; Teigen et al.,
2005; White, 2006, 2008).
The gifting literature, despite its vastness, affords only
sparse insights into gift cards, which account for an enormous
share of the money spent on gifts (Grannis, 2010). Most
gifting studies were conducted before modern gift cards
invented in 1995 (Offenberg, 2007) became sufficiently
prominent to attract scholarly attention. Further, much recent
gifting research has not focused directly on understanding gift
cards. Notable exceptions are studies that examined gift cards
in relation to cash and gifts of goods. While some gift cards
are essentially debit cards that, like cash, can be used widely,
others restrict purchases severely. Restricted cards are not
nearly as liquid as cash and, in some ways, resemble gifts of
goods (White, 2006, 2008).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing
29/4 (2012) 271 279
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]
[DOI 10.1108/07363761211237344]
The study reported in this article was designed to better
understand the gift cards place in the general scheme of gift
giving and getting and to identify promising avenues for
further research. It probed whether card face value and the
giver-getter relationship affect the type of gift card recipients
prefer to get, whether givers prefer to get the cards they give,
whether gift cards are more appropriate gifts than cash, and
whether paying for personal luxuries with gift cards alleviates
guilt that sometimes arise from making such purchases
(Burnett and Lunsford, 1994). The studys conceptual
underpinnings are delineated in the next section, which also
summarizes prior research that guided this inquiry.
Afterwards, research methodology, findings, and
implications are addressed.
2. Conceptual underpinnings and literature
review
Prior research into gifts of cash and gifts of goods is a rich
source of hypotheses about giving and getting gift cards.
Utilitarian economics implies that, when the giver knows
exactly what the getter wants and chooses accordingly, then a
gifts value to the recipient may exceed its purchase price
because the recipient is spared the burdens of shopping.
Otherwise, cash is the best gift (Waldfogel, 1993, 2002,
2005). Giving cash minimizes the givers risk of making a poor
selection, requires minimal shopping, and allows recipients
maximal freedom of choice. Nevertheless, giving goods
remains popular because neither gift givers nor gift getters
generally evaluate presents solely on utilitarian grounds
(Camerer, 1988; Caplow, 1982, 1984; Khalil, 2004;
Waldfogel, 2002; Webley and Wilson, 1989). Broadly
categorized, gift selection criteria reflect the givers self-
centered intentions, which are egoistic, and recipient-centered

271
 Giving and getting gift cards
Erhard K. Valentin and Anthony T. Allred
intentions, or aims to delight the recipient (Belk, 1976;
Camerer, 1988; Sherry, 1983).
2.1 Self-centered intentions
Common self-centered intentions, or motives, include making
a good impression, but without spending too much money or
time on acquiring a gift. Cash generally is the most convenient
gift. However, it has been stigmatized widely, albeit not
universally, as a thoughtless, lazy givers gift, while nicely
wrapped goods have been portrayed as potentially more
personal, endearing, respectful, and socially acceptable
presents (Burgoyne and Routhb, 1991; Khalil, 2004;
Waldfogel, 2002; Webley et al., 1983; Webley and Wilson,
1989).
Common self-centered intentions also include fulfilling
obligations; maintaining relationships; wanting to appear
generous, knowledgeable, or sophisticated; exerting influence
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 09:34 04 July 2017 (PT)
or control; and signaling social standing, respect, affection, or
criticism (Camerer, 1988; Sherry, 1983). Affection varies
greatly in kind, as do gifts that signal the intended kind of
affection (Belk and Coon, 1993). Jewelry and lingerie send
more intimate messages than cash and toasters, for example,
while a gift of bold apparel may serve to criticize or influence
the recipients tastes.
2.2 Recipient-centered intentions
Recipient-centered intentions are altruistic, or agapic (Belk
and Coon, 1993); they motivate givers to seek gifts recipients
want and value (Sherry, 1983). To varying degrees, the value
recipients place on gifts including cash, traditional non-cash
items, and gift cards depends on the following:
.
Symbolic and sentimental value emotions aroused by
inferences derived from a gift about the givers intentions
or disposition toward the recipient (Camerer, 1988;
Khalil, 2004). White (2006, 2008) found that purchases
made with gift cards tend to be more memorable and have
greater symbolic value than those made with gifted cash.
Giver concerns about a gifts symbolic or sentimental
value may be self- or recipient-centered.
.
Serendipity pleasant surprise, which sometimes is a gifts
most valued benefit (Caplow, 1984). For instance, a gift of
opera tickets that the recipient would not have bought
might lead unexpectedly to a pleasant experience and
discovery of a musical genre that becomes a favorite.
Likewise, receiving a boutique- or restaurant-specific gift
card may culminate in a joyful experience the recipient
would have missed.
.
Guilt relief the extent to which paying for personal
luxuries, such as jewelry, with a gift card or a gift of cash
alleviates guilt (Kivetz and Keinan, 2006). Tensions
commonly exist between prudence and indulgence. They
are moderated by regret for having been imprudent and,
thus, having jeopardized future well-being or by regret for
having been too prudent to enjoy life (Burnett and
Lunsford, 1994; Keinan and Kivetz, 2008).
Inducing consumers to precommit to an indulgent purchase
mitigates guilt when actually purchasing (Kivetz and
Simonson, 2002a, b). For instance, in advance of occasions
on which they anticipate getting gift cards, prospective
recipients may precommit to using cards received for self-
indulgent purposes. Imagining the joy of using a gift card to
buy hedonic goods or services may intensify precommit and
alleviate guilt further (Zaltman, 2000).
272
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 Number 4 2012 271 279
.
Circumstances contextual particulars. The giver-getter
relationship is among the most salient contextual
influences on gift evaluation (Burgoyne and Routhb,
1991). It may be close or distant and may or may not be
romantic. The occasion, custom, and innumerable other
circumstantial factors also may affect the value recipients
place on gifts (Otnes et al., 1993; Sherry, 1983; Webley
and Wilson, 1989).
.
Liquidity the ease with which a gift can be exchanged
without penalty. Of all conceivable gifts, cash is most
liquid in modern industrialized societies because
recipients can spend it as they please when they please.
Further, cash generally can be exchanged more readily for
goods or gift cards than vice versa.
The most liquid gift cards are pure debit cards that can be
spent wherever debit cards are accepted. They are fungible
and nearly indistinguishable from cash. The effective liquidity
of restricted cards, which are recognized only by specific
vendors, may or may not approach the liquidity of cash. A gift
cards effective liquidity depends on its instrumentality in
putting cash in the recipients pockets. Walmart cards, for
instance, have high effective liquidity because they can be
used to buy items that most households can use readily and
purchase routinely. In effect, they are cash because they free
up cash that recipients ordinarily would spend on household
necessities. Jewelry cards, in contrast, have less effective
liquidity because they less often purchase merchandise that
card recipients considered buying with money at hand.
Offenbergs (2005, 2007) study of gift cards auctioned on
eBay by their original recipients suggests that the bids sellers
are willing to accept depend on both effective card liquidity
and face value. On average, sellers accepted bids that netted
them 80 percent of face value, which implies a 20 percent
welfare loss, defined as follows (Waldfogel, 1993):
Gift purchase price 2 Cash equivalent
Welfare loss 100
Gift purchase price
The cash equivalent equals the amount of cash that renders
the recipient indifferent between the gift and cash.
Welfare loss was least for cards redeemable at home
improvement and general merchandise discount stores. It was
greatest for cards redeemable only at jewelry or clothing
stores. Accordingly, differences in effective liquidity seem to
explain differences in welfare loss, at least in part. The greater
a cards effective liquidity, the greater its cash value to the
recipient and the lower the welfare loss.
Welfare loss increased with card size, or face value, which
may reflect differences in the ease with which recipients can
spend a gift card on things they would buy without it. The
smaller the card, the easier. Hence, the relationship between
card size and welfare loss indicated by Offenbergs eBay study
may reflect differences in effective liquidity.
2.3 Risk and motives
Waldfogel (1993) found that recipients of traditional
Christmas gifts of goods would have realized substantially
more value from cash equal to the purchase price. In his
words, between a tenth and a third of the value of holiday
gifts is destroyed by gift-giving (p. 1336). Accordingly, gift
givers have ample recipient- and self-centered reasons to fear
their gifts will miss the intended mark and may give cash or
 Giving and getting gift cards Journal of Consumer Marketing
Erhard K. Valentin and Anthony T. Allred Volume 29 Number 4 2012 271 279

readily spendable gift cards not because they are lazy or Table I Respondent demographic
uncaring, but because they want to be safe (Waldfogel, 2002).
Whether recipient- or self-centered, concerns about giving a Sex
gift that will be well-received are apt to be more intense when Age group Female Male Totals
the giver-getter relationship is close rather than distant (Belk, 18-20 24 7 31
1982). 21-25 43 40 83
26-30 20 34 54
2.4 Gift preference asymmetries 31-40 22 31 53
Gift givers frequently give gifts different from those they 41-50 29 13 42
prefer to get. Differences, or asymmetries, between the gifts
> 50 35 18 53
givers prefer to give and those they prefer to get are
Totals 173 143 316a
potentially attributable to differences in givers and getters
preferences, errors in givers judgments, and self-centered Notes: aOne usable questionnaire did not provide age information
motives (Teigen et al., 2005).

Several common statistical tests were used to analyze data

3. Research questions and aims
(Kanji, 2006). They are noted as results are presented and
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 09:34 04 July 2017 (PT)

The preceding paragraphs raise issues about gift card giving
and getting that are too numerous to address in any single
study. Accordingly, the present study was limited to probing
the following questions:
Q1. Does card face value affect recipient preference for
effective liquidity?
Q2. Does the giver-getter relationship close or distant
affect recipient preference for effective gift-card
liquidity?
Q3. Are givers inclined to give the kinds of gift cards they
prefer to get?
Q4. Are even highly liquid gift cards more appropriate gifts
than cash?
Q5. Do gift cards relieve spending guilt?
Offenberg (2005, 2007) alluded to Q1 in a study that raised
many further questions. Much prior research has addressed
giver-getter relationships and their impact on gift evaluation.
Moreover, a few studies have focused on give-get
asymmetries. But Q2 and Q3, specifically, have not yet been
answered. Inquiries into Q4 and Q5 were intended to further
explore recipients perceptions of gift cards in relation to cash.
4. Research methodology
Data were collected using a four-page questionnaire that
instructed respondents to read questions carefully, mark their
answers, and return the completed questionnaire to the survey
administrator. Respondents resided in a metropolitan area of
the western USA. They were selected on a convenience basis
and provided 317 usable questionnaires. A breakdown of the
sample by age and sex is shown in Table I.
Two sections of the questionnaire solicited information
about respondents gift card giving and getting preferences.
Some questions centered on preferences for two hypothetical
gift cards, one having greater effective liquidity than the other.
Additional preference questions probed into restricted cards
identified by vendor name (e.g. Dillards) or description (e.g.
restaurant). Card face values were specified as US$50 and
US$100, and three giver-getter relationships were stipulated.
A third section included questions about the appropriateness
of gift cards in relation to gifts of cash and questions about
guilt experienced when buying personal luxuries with gift
cards. The last section solicited common demographic
information about sex, age, education, marital status, and
financial status.
discussed.
5. Results and discussion
The ensuing discussions address each research question. Card
size refers to face value; denominations are in US currency.
5.1 Q1: Does card face value affect recipient preference
for effective liquidity?
Respondents were asked to consider two hypothetical gift
cards, named the Everyday Card and the Special Card.
As described, the two cards differed, respectively, in their
capacity to purchases utilitarian necessities and discretionary
personal non-necessities, also called hedonic, special, and
luxury items (Kivetz and Simonson, 2002a). The Everyday
Card could be used to buy household mainstays, such as
gasoline and groceries, but nothing special. In contrast, the
Special Card could be used only to purchase enjoyable non-
necessities that the recipient seldom, if ever, would buy
without a gift card. Since the Everyday Card could be spent
on items nearly every household bought routinely, it
effectively put cash in recipients pockets and, in effect, was
much more liquid than the Special Card.
Respondents answered several preference questions by
choosing from the following replies:
.
1 Strongly prefer the Everyday Card.
.
2 Slightly prefer the Everyday Card.
.
3 No preference.
.
4 Slightly prefer the Special Card.
.
5 Strongly prefer the Special Card.
Thus, values below 3.0 denote preference for the Everyday
Card, while values above 3.0 denote preference for the Special
Card.
Two preference questions stipulated card denominations of
$50 and $100 and portrayed the giver as a casual
acquaintance. The topmost portion of Table II shows
(x
$50A 2:359) , (x
$100A 2:632) , 3.0, which indicates
that, regardless of card size, respondents preferred getting
the comparatively liquid Everyday Card from casual
acquaintances. However, the smaller the card, the stronger
their preference for the more liquid option (p , 0:01).
As reported in Table II, comparable results were obtained
when respondents were asked to choose between an Everyday
Card and a Special Card under the assumption they had won
a gift card. Of 317 participants, 59.62 percent chose the $50

273
 Giving and getting gift cards
Erhard K. Valentin and Anthony T. Allred
Table II Effects of face value and source on recipient preference for effective gift card liquidity
Question Null hypothesisa,b
Q1: Does card face value affect recipient H0: m$50A m$100A
preference for effective liquidity?
H0: p$50E p$100E
Q2: Does the giver-getter relationship H0: m$50A m$50F
affect recipient preference for effective
liquidity?
Notes: am and x
denote hypothesized and sample means, respectively, of items measured on a scale ranging from 1 Strongly prefer Everyday Card to
5 Strongly prefer Special Card, with 3 indicating no preference. Respectively, p and p^ denote hypothesized and sample relative frequencies. bSubscripts denote
card denominations ($50 or $100) and source (A=casual acquaintance, F=dear friend) or card choice (E=Everyday Card). cFrom z-test for proportions with
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 09:34 04 July 2017 (PT)
dependent samples
Source: Kanji, 2006, pp. 57-8
Everyday Card over the $50 Special Card. But preference for
the relatively liquid Everyday Card dropped to 48.26 percent
when respondents were asked to choose between a $100
Everyday Card and a $100 Special Card. The result
( p^ $50E 0:5962) . ( p^ $100E 0:4826), also, indicates a
significant inverse relationship between card size and
preference for effective liquidity (p , 0:01).
In sum, these results indicate effective liquidity is valued
more in small than large gift cards when the source is
impersonal. Accordingly, they imply that the percentage
discount from face value recipients would accept if offered
cash for their cards varies inversely with card size. The smaller
the card, the larger the acceptable percentage discount.
Offenbergs (2005, 2007) study of gift cards sold on eBay
indicated the opposite relationship. The larger the card, the
greater the accepted percentage discount. Correspondingly,
the larger the card, the greater the welfare loss and preference
for liquid media of exchange.
Although results from the present study do not support
Offenbergs (2005, 2007) findings, they do not refute them
either. Plausible reconciliatory explanations include the
following.
First, Offenbergs sample of 2002 gift cards sold on eBay
seems decidedly unrepresentative because people who trade
on eBay are very different from the population at large and,
thus, may have very different preferences than typical gift card
recipients (Hou and Elliott, 2010). Further, the mean face
value of cards in Offenbergs eBay sample was $192 while gift
cards sold in the U.S.A. average around $40 (Grannis, 2010).
Very few cards near average size were represented in
Offenbergs sample. The present study focused on $50 and
$100 denominations.
Second, the relationship between card size and preference
for liquid media of exchange may be U-shaped. Recipients
may devalue very large illiquid cards because they fear they
can redeem such cards only for items priced well above their
cash equivalent. And they may devalue small illiquid cards
because, without cash supplements, such cards seem unlikely
to purchase anything truly appealing. If the recipient of a $20
gift card, for example, paid $40 for an item he would buy
without a card only if it cost $30 or less, then, in effect, the
274
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 Number 4 2012 271 279
Test statistic and p for
Sample meansa,b n differencesc
x
$50A 2.359 315 t 4.167 p , 0.01
x
$100A 2.632
Difference 0.273
p^ $50E 0.5962 317 z 4.807 p , 0.01
p^ $100E 0.4826
Difference 0.1136
x
$50F 3.590 315 t 12.841 p , 0.00
x
$50A 2.359
Difference 1.231
card will have lost 50 percent of its value. Medium-sized cards
may be too large, yet too small, to raise the aforementioned
utilitarian issues.
5.2 Q2: Does the giver-getter relationship affect
recipient preference for effective liquidity?
One question identified the giver as a dear friend and the card
amount as $50. The last row of Table II shows the following:
(
x$50F 3:590) . 3.0 . (
x$50A 2:359), where x
$50F and
x
$50A , respectively, denote mean preference ratings for a $50
card from a dear friend and a $50 card from a casual
acquaintance. Since preference for the Special Card is
indicated by scores above 3.0, these results imply
respondents preferred to get the $50 Special Card from
close friends, despite its low effective liquidity. However, they
preferred to get the comparatively liquid $50 Everyday Card
from casual acquaintances (p , 0:0001). The closer the giver-
getter relationship, the less recipients appear to value effective
liquidity.
5.3 Q3: Are givers inclined to give the cards they prefer
to get?
Replies to several questions facilitated assessing whether
givers are inclined to give the cards they prefer to get. One
question asked respondents to choose between giving an
Everyday Card and a Special Card to a particular friend with
who they are not romantically involved and who is not a
relative. Card size was not specified. As shown in Table III,
only 38.29 percent of 316 respondents chose to give the
Everyday Card. Yet, when the two gift cards were framed as
prizes, 59.62 percent of the sample preferred getting a $50
Everyday Card to getting the $50 Special Card, while 48.26
percent preferred getting the $100 Everyday Card to getting
the $100 Special Card.
Both give-get differences shown in Table III are statistically
significant at p , 0:01. However, the give-get difference was
more pronounced when the card won had a $50 face value
(z 6:55; p , 0:001) than when it had a $100 face value
(z 2:98; p , 0:005).
Whether givers give the kinds of cards they prefer to get was
explored further by asking respondents to consider getting
and giving the following gift cards:
 Giving and getting gift cards Journal of Consumer Marketing
Erhard K. Valentin and Anthony T. Allred Volume 29 Number 4 2012 271 279

Table III Giver preferences and give-get comparisons

Research question Null hypothesisa Sample meansa n z and pb
Q3: Are givers inclined to give the cards H0: pE(Give) p$50E(Get) p^ E(Give) 0.3829 316 z 6.552 p , 0.001
they prefer to get? p^ $50E(Get) 0.5962
Difference 0.2133
H0: pE(Give) p$100E(Get) p^ E(Give) 0.3829 316 z 2.982 p , 0.005
p^ $100E(Get) 0.4826
Difference 0.0997
Notes: apE(Give) denotes the relative frequency of card givers who would give the Everyday Card rather than the Special Card; p$50E(Get) and p$100E(Get) denote the
relative frequencies, respectively, of card winners who would choose the $50 and the $100 Everyday Card. bFrom z-test for proportions with dependent samples
Source: Kanji, 2006, pp. 57-8

.
Card A: Good for $100 of groceries or gasoline from your favored Card D as givers (49 percent) than as getters (27
favorite grocery retailer or gas station. percent).
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 09:34 04 July 2017 (PT)

.
Card B: Good for $100 at Dillards, Macys, Nordstroms,
and all jewelry stores.
.
Card C: Good for $100 on all cameras, audio systems, and
video equipment at all stores that carry electronics.
.
Card D: Good for $100 at any nice restaurant where
dinner costs at least $15 per adult.
The Card A description was intended to depict a card much
like the Everyday Card one high in effective liquidity and
nearly as impersonal as cash. In contrast, the Card C and D
descriptions were intended to suggest much less liquid cards
cards similar to the Special Card. The Card B description
was intended to suggest a card akin to the Everyday Card and
cash in some aspects and akin to the Special Card in others.
Accordingly, the card was described as one that could be
redeemed at several department stores that sold various
personal and household necessities, as well as a wide variety of
hedonic merchandise, including jewelry.
Respondents were asked first: Which gift card would you
give a close friend who is not a relative and with who you are
not romantically involved? Then they were asked: Which gift
card from a close friend would thrill you most? Results are
reported in Table IV.
Overall, the first-choice give-get differences are statistically
significant (x2 63:84; p , 0:000). This result, like those
shown in Table III, also indicates givers are apt to give cards
unlike the ones they prefer to receive. Especially interesting
are the Card B and D give-get differences. As card recipients,
the largest number of respondents, 33 percent, said Card B
would thrill them most. Yet, only 21 percent said they were
most likely to give Card B. Conversely, more respondents
Respondents also were asked, Which gift card would you be
least likely to give a close friend who is not a relative and with
who you are not romantically involved? That question was
followed by, Which gift card from a close friend would thrill
you least? Results are reported in Table V. The overall last-
choice give-get differences, too, are statistically significant
(x2 13:05; p , 0:005), which further affirms that give and
get preferences differ. However, the last-choice differences are
less striking than the first-choice differences.
Present findings are consistent with results from a survey of
Norwegian students (Teigen et al., 2005). Respondents were
presented with pair-wise choices between distinctive items
(e.g. one bottle of excellent Bordeaux) and more mundane
gifts of equal cost (e.g. two bottles of good Chilean wine).
Participants usually favored giving the relatively special item,
even though they preferred getting the other gift. Further,
respondents favored getting cash, but were reluctant to give it.
Neither differences between givers and getters wants nor
misconceptions about recipients preferences accounted for
the Norwegian give-get preference asymmetries. Instead, the
evaluation mode, joint or separate, seemed to account
substantially for give-get preference asymmetries, which
were much greater when respondents were presented with a
choice of gifts (joint evaluation) than when they were asked to
evaluate gifts one at a time (separate evaluation).
Teigen et al. (2005) argued that recipients generally evaluate
gifts separately. Hence, relevant asymmetries are much
smaller than those detected in studies that offer both givers
and getters choices. However, Teigen et al. (2005) noted, also,
that this generalization does not apply when gifts evoke
comparisons. A damaged item, for example, evokes
comparisons between that item and its undamaged

Table IV Q3 supplement: give-get differences by type of card

Most likely to Most thrilled to
give get Differencea
2
First choice by type of card (x 5 63:84; p < 0:000) n (%) n (%) z p<
A: Good for groceries or gasoline 54 17 67 21 1.642 0.100
B: Good at Dillards, Macys, and Nordstroms 66 21 104 33 4.841 0.000
C: Good for cameras, audio, and video 41 13 60 19 2.469 0.015
D: Good at any nice restaurant 154 49 86 27 7.266 0.000
Notes: aFrom z-test for proportions with dependent samples
Source: Kanji, 2006, pp. 57-8

275
 Giving and getting gift cards
Erhard K. Valentin and Anthony T. Allred
Table V Q3 supplement: give-get differences by type of card
Last choice by type of card (x2 5 13:05; p < 0:005)
A: Good for groceries or gasoline
B: Dillards, Macys, Nordstroms, jewelry stores
C: Good for cameras, audio, and video
D: Good at any nice restaurant
Notes: aFrom z-test for proportions with dependent samples
Source: Kanji, 2006, pp. 57-8
equivalent. Seemingly, gift cards, whose face values inevitably
become known to recipients, evoke spontaneous comparisons
to cash.
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 09:34 04 July 2017 (PT)
5.4 Q4: Are even highly liquid gift cards more
appropriate gifts than cash?
Cash has been characterized widely as a lazy, impersonal gift
because giving it requires little deliberation or shopping
(Camerer, 1988; Webley et al., 1983). Many gift cards,
including Target and Walmart cards, resemble cash gifts
because they, too, are convenient and readily spendable.
Hence, recipients may evaluate them much as they do cash.
Whether that is the case was explored by asking respondents
to rate the appropriateness of Target and Walmart cards in
relation to cash. On a scale ranging from 1 strongly agree to
4 strongly disagree, respondents were asked to indicate the
extent to which they agreed with the statement, Usually a
Target gift card is a perfectly appropriate gift. Like questions
were asked with respect to Walmart gift cards and cash. The
lower the score, the more appropriate the gift.
Overall, the rating differences were found statistically
significant via repeated-measures ANOVA
(F 16:91; p , 0:000). Further, Tukey HSD tests rendered
the Target-cash and Target-Walmart differences significant
(p , 0:01). Respondents deemed the Target gift card most
appropriate ( x
2:176) and the Walmart card least
appropriate (
x 2:465), but not significantly less appropriate
than cash (
x 2:381). Evidently, adjudged appropriateness
does vary among gift cards, even those that are readily
available and exceedingly liquid.
5.5 Q5: Do gift cards relieve spending guilt?
On a four-point scale ranging from 1 strongly agree to
4 strongly disagree, which has a midpoint of 2.5,
respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they
agreed with the following statements:
If I bought something that I really did not need, I would feel guilty if I paid
for it with cash or a credit card.
If I bought something I really did not need, I would feel guilty if I paid for it
with a gift card that I could have used to buy groceries or gasoline.
Respondents agreed somewhat with the first statement
( x
2:304) and disagreed somewhat with the second
statement (x
2:677); the difference was statistically
significant (t 7:04; p , 0:000). Apparently, people feel
somewhat less guilt when buying personal luxuries with gift
cards even gift cards that purchase household necessities
than they do when buying them with cash or a credit card.
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 Number 4 2012 271 279
Least likely to Least thrilled to
give get Differencea
n (%) n (%) z p<
118 37 89 28 3.314 0.002
70 22 85 27 2.190 0.030
103 32 108 34 0.662 0.550
26 8 34 11 1.374 0.200
6. Synopsis of findings and implications
Inspired by Offenbergs (2005, 2007) work, the reported
study introduced effective liquidity explicitly as a construct
that facilitates understanding the gift cards place among gifts
of cash and goods (Waldfogel, 1993; White, 2006, 2008). It
revealed that face value and the giver-getter relationship affect
recipient preference for effective liquidity; givers tend to give
gift cards more liquid than those they prefer to receive; even
among highly liquid gift cards, some cards are more
appropriate gifts than others; some, but not all, gift cards,
are more appropriate gifts than cash; and people tend to feel
less guilt when paying for personal luxuries with gift cards
than with cash. These findings have both managerial and
research implications.
6.1 Managerial implications
Preliminarily, results from this study suggest the following
when viewed in light of prior research. Gift cards may be
promising solutions to dilemmas spawned by conflicting self-
centered intentions, such as wanting to minimize shopping
time and wanting to make a good impression. Buying them
generally requires little time or effort, and their social
acceptability and sentimental value may exceed that of cash.
However, effective gift card promotion requires tailoring
messages to fit the givers motives and relationship with the
recipient. For instance, promotions that advise buying a gift
card to save time are more likely to resonate with givers
seeking gifts for casual acquaintances than with givers seeking
gifts for dear friends. Accordingly, merchants seem well-
advised to aim communications that emphasize the ease with
which gift cards can be bought at givers who value
convenience as much as correctness and are in search of
gifts for casual acquaintances. Marketing messages should
remind anxious givers that giving goods can be hazardous and
giving cash is crass.
Purveyors of gift cards redeemable for personal luxuries
might emphasize that recipients welcome opportunities to
indulge. Gift cards that facilitate indulgent spending seem
especially appropriate when they are intended for close
friends. Accordingly, promotions aimed at givers seeking gifts
for close friends might emphasize a gift cards hedonic
purchasing power and the variety of hedonic choices it
affords. To prompt prospective recipients to ask for the
featured card, promotions might encourage likely recipients to
anticipate receiving the card and envision prospective
purchases.
Some gift cards seem more acceptable than others under
particular or even general circumstances. For instance,
276
 Giving and getting gift cards
Erhard K. Valentin and Anthony T. Allred
relatively liquid cards appear to be better gifts for casual
acquaintances than dear friends, and cards issued by
downscale vendors seem no more appropriate than cash.
Restaurant cards, while popular among givers and some
recipients, are less preferred, on average, than department
store cards. These findings suggest some gift card vendors
face formidable challenges. For instance, identifying likely
buyers of their cards and developing compelling promotional
messages seems more difficult for downscale than upscale
vendors. The give-get preference gap for restaurant cards may
portend a decline in sales of such cards, unless restauranteurs
reposition their offerings in the minds of gift card recipients.
6.2 Limitations and implications for further research
The noted managerial implications are preliminary because
the reported study was largely exploratory insofar as its
breadth greatly exceeded its depth and findings derived from a
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 09:34 04 July 2017 (PT)
convenience sample of 317 people residing within one
metropolitan area. Although both sexes and all relevant age
groups were represented amply, greater geographic diversity
would have rendered findings more conclusive and
generalizable. But whether random sampling or quota
sampling would have produced a sample more
representative of the relevant population is unclear because
the bounds of the relevant population are obscure.
While this study shed some light on gift cards as gifts, it also
made clear that understanding the gift cards place among
gifts requires much additional research. In general, it requires
further research by type of gift card, type of giver, type of
recipient, and type of situation, including culture, the giver-
getter relationship, and the occasion. More specific research
implications derived from present findings are enumerated in
the following.
6.2.1 Preference for liquidity and card size
This study and prior research suggest card size affects
recipient preference for effective liquidity. Yet unclear is
whether the relationship between card size and preference for
liquidity is direct, inverse, or U-shaped.
6.2.2 Preference for effective liquidity and the giver-getter
relationship
The closer the relationship, the less the recipient values
effective liquidity. Perhaps, utilitarian concerns give way to
non-utilitarian considerations, such as the givers intent or
disposition toward the recipient, as the giver-getter
relationship becomes closer. Prior research also suggests
close relationships differ in kind and that the type of close
relationship bears on gift evaluation (Otnes et al., 1993).
Preference for effective gift card liquidity was examined in this
study only with respect to two impersonal sources and one
personal source described as a dear friend. Further research is
needed to understand how diverse close relationships ,
e.g. spouse-to-spouse, friend-to-friend, parent-to-child, child-
to-parent affect recipients gift card evaluations.
6.2.3 Give-get preference asymmetries
Respondents who would give a comparatively liquid Everyday
Card to a close friend were significantly fewer than those who
would pick an Everyday Card had they won their choice of
cards. This result is consistent with findings from a
Norwegian study that revealed give-get preference
asymmetries with respect to several gift choices, including
one between a gift voucher and cash. Subjects preferred
receiving the more liquid option (cash), but preferred giving
277
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 Number 4 2012 271 279
the voucher (Teigen et al., 2005). For reasons that remain to
be determined, give-get preference gaps found in this study
were significantly wider for $50 than $100 cards. Seemingly,
get preferences approach give preferences as gift card size
increases, at least over some range.
6.2.4 Gift card appropriateness
Many gift cards resemble cash insofar as they require little
shopping time and, in effect, are nearly as liquid as cash. This
study suggests, however, that some such cards are more
appropriate gifts than others. For example, Target cards were
adjudged more appropriate gifts than Walmart cards, and
Walmart cards were no more appropriate than cash.
Why one card is considered more appropriate than another
is unclear and in need of further investigation. The most
apparent difference between Target and Walmart is store
image. Accordingly, adjudged gift card appropriateness may
depend on the image of the vendor whose name appears on
the card: The more upscale the vendor, the more appropriate
the card, at least to a point. How pure debit cards are
perceived as gifts in relation to cash and highly liquid
restricted gift cards, too, requires further investigation.
Adjudged card appropriateness also may depend on a cards
aptness to be seen as cash or evoke comparisons to cash.
Cards seen as cash may be stigmatized much like cash.
Seemingly, gift cards evoke spontaneous comparisons to cash
because their face values are transparent (Teigen et al., 2005).
Nevertheless, some cards may be more susceptible than
others to such comparisons. Further, a cards capacity to
engender memorable purchases rich in symbolic meaning may
depend on its perceived resemblance to cash (White, 2006,
2008).
6.2.5 Gift cards and guilt
Respondents felt less guilty about buying personal luxuries
with gift cards, including cards that could be spent on
household necessities, than they felt about buying them with
cash or a credit card. Since prior research has shown gifts and
windfalls are largely exempt from the mental accounting that
governs how people spend earned income and savings (Arkes
et al., 1994; Thaler, 1989), the finding that gift cards alleviate
guilt was not surprising. But, it raises the question, Do gift
cards alleviate guilt more readily than gifts of cash? While gift
cards and gifts of cash seem fungible at first glance, White
(2006, 2008) found they are different in the minds of
recipients and are spent differently.
References
Arkes, H.R., Joyner, C.A., Pezzo, M.V., Nash, J.G., Siegel-
Jacobs, K. and Stone, E. (1994), The psychology of
windfall gains, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 59, pp. 331-47.
Belk, R.W. (1976), Its the thought that counts: a signed
digraph analysis of gift-giving, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 155-62.
Belk, R.W. (1982), Effects of gift-giving involvement on gift
selection strategies, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 408-12.
Belk, R.W. and Coon, G.S. (1993), Gift giving and agapic
love: an alternative to the exchange paradigm based on
dating experiences, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 393-417.
 Giving and getting gift cards
Erhard K. Valentin and Anthony T. Allred
Burgoyne, C.B. and Routhb, D.A. (1991), Constraints on
the use of money as a gift at Christmas: the role of status
and intimacy, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 47-69.
Burnett, M.S. and Lunsford, D.A. (1994), Conceptualizing
guilt in the consumer decision-making process, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 33-43.
Camerer, C. (1988), Gifts as economic signals and social
symbols, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94,
pp. S180-S214.
Caplow, T. (1982), Christmas gifts and kin networks,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 47, pp. 383-92.
Caplow, T. (1984), Rule enforcement without visible means:
Christmas gift giving in Middletown, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 1306-23.
Grannis, K. (2010), Gift givers listening to recipients as gift
card spending expected to rise, National Retail
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 09:34 04 July 2017 (PT)
Federation, available at: www.nrf.com/modules.php?na
meNews&opviewlive&sp_id1033
Hou, J. and Elliott, K. (2010), Profiling online bidders,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 109-26.
Kanji, G.K. (2006), 100 Statistical Tests, Sage Publishing,
London.
Keinan, A. and Kivetz, R. (2008), Remedying hyperopia: the
effects of self-control regret on consumer behavior, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 45, pp. 676-89.
Khalil, E.L. (2004), The gift paradox: complex selves and
symbolic good, Review of Social Economy, Vol. 62 No. 3,
pp. 379-92.
Kivetz, R. and Keinan, A. (2006), Repenting hyperopia: an
analysis of self-control regrets, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 273-82.
Kivetz, R. and Simonson, I. (2002a), Earning the right to
indulge: effort as a determinant of customer preferences
toward frequency program rewards, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 39, pp. 155-70.
Kivetz, R. and Simonson, I. (2002b), Self-control for the
righteous: toward a theory of precommitment to
indulgence, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 199-217.
Offenberg, J.P. (2005), Essays on Market Pricing, Purdue
University, doctoral thesis, available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses.
Offenberg, J.P. (2007), Markets: gift cards, Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 227-38.
Otnes, C., Lowery, T.M. and Young, C.K. (1993), Gift
selection for easy and difficult recipients: a social roles
interpretation, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 229-44.
Sherry, J. (1983), Gift giving in anthropological
perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 157-68.
Teigen, K.H., Olsen, M.V.G. and Solas, O.E. (2005), Giver-
receiver asymmetries in gift preferences, British Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 125-44.
Thaler, R. (1989), Mental accounting matters, Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 183-206.
Waldfogel, J. (1993), The deadweight of Christmas,
American Economic Review, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 1328-36.
Waldfogel, J. (2002), Gifts, cash, and stigma, Economic
Inquiry, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 415-27.
278
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 Number 4 2012 271 279
Waldfogel, J. (2005), Does consumer irrationality trump
consumer sovereignty?, Review of Economics and Statistics,
Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 691-6.
Webley, P. and Wilson, R. (1989), Social relationships and
the unacceptability of money as a gift, Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 129 No. 1, pp. 85-91.
Webley, P., Lea, S.E.G. and Portalska, R. (1983), The
unacceptability of money as a gift, Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 223-8.
White, R.J. (2006), Format matters in the mental accounting
of funds: the case of gift cards and cash gifts, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, discussion paper.
White, R.J. (2008), The mental accounting of gift card
versus cash gift funds, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 35, p. 722.
Zaltman, G. (2000), Consumer researchers: take a hike!,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 423-8.
About the authors
Erhard K. Valentin is Professor of Marketing and
Management, Weber State University. He earned his Ph.D.
in Marketing from the University of Utah in 1979 and has
extensive business experience, including consulting, and
teaching experience at the undergraduate and MBA levels.
His research interests center on consumer behavior,
marketing management, and market strategy. Erhard
K. Valentin is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: evalentin@weber.edu
Anthony T. Allred is a Professor of Marketing at Weber
State University. He earned his Ph.D. in Marketing from
Oklahoma State University in 1997. His research interests
include marketing, sales management, and entrepreneurship.
He has substantial small business and corporate consulting
experience.
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.
For over a century, many disciplines have studied gift giving
and receiving. Cash is commonly identified as the most
preferred option because it involves minimal effort, eliminates
giver fear of making the wrong choice, and recipients enjoy
the freedom to purchase what they desire. However, the
evaluation of gifts is considerably more complex and
emotionally-laden than economic theories recognize. Gift
cards account for a sizeable percentage of the money spent on
gifts, but research attention in this area remains limited. Few
studies have focused on better understanding the gift card
phenomenon.
Various academics note that some individuals adopt a self-
centered approach when giving presents. Making a good
impression might be one driving factor, as could a need to
spend minimal time selecting what gift to give. Cash fits the
purpose in the latter scenario, although some view that choice
 Giving and getting gift cards
Erhard K. Valentin and Anthony T. Allred
as thoughtless and lazy. In contrast, a nicely wrapped
present is considered much more personal and endearing.
Givers could also be motivated by a need to fulfill a certain
obligation, sustain a relationship, or be perceived as
generous, knowledgeable or sophisticated. A gift can
reveal desire to manipulate or control, while the intention of
some people might be to indicate such as status, respect,
affection or even disapproval. Where affection is being
signaled, the level of intimacy will be determined by the
type of gift offered.
In contrast, the reason for giving a gift can be more
recipient-centered. Researchers view this behavior as altruistic
as it typically involves gifts which receivers wish for and value.
The value recipients place on a gift, be it cash, item or gift
card can be influenced by factors which include:
.
Symbolic and sentimental value. Giving a gift might indicate
intentions towards the recipient and arouse certain
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 09:34 04 July 2017 (PT)
emotions. It was found in some studies that the
symbolic value was greater for purchases made with gift
cards than those made with cash given as a gift.
.
Serendipity. The surprise factor is significant here such as
when recipients are given gifts that enable them to
experience something unexpected and stimulate a new
interest.
.
Guilt relief. It is normal for people to struggle to balance
being prudent and indulgent and experience guilt when
taking the latter course. An assumption here is that using a
gift card or gift cash to buy jewelry or other personal
luxuries can help alleviate any guilt an individual might
feel about making extravagant purchases. When people
anticipate receiving gift cards, they might even
precommit to this form of self-gratification.
.
Circumstances. The giver-recipient relationship is one
aspect that also includes contextual factors like custom
or the occasion. These and many other circumstantial
issues help determine the value recipients place on gifts.
.
Liquidity. This refers to how easy it is to redeem a gift
without incurring a penalty. Cash is the most liquid
present as it can be easily exchanged for something else
such as goods or gift cards. The liquidity of gift cards
varies depending on whether they effectively function as
debit cards or are restricted to certain stores or product
categories.
Fear of making an inappropriate choice of present prompts
people to opt for the safer option of cash or gift card. Such
anxiety becomes likelier when the giver enjoys a close
relationship with the recipient. Research also suggests a
tendency for people to give different gifts from those they
want to receive. Dissimilar preferences, poor judgment or self-
centeredness on the givers part are reasons cited for this.
Various issues relating to gift-card giving and receiving were
addressed in a study conducted in a metropolitan area of
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
279
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 Number 4 2012 271 279
western USA. The 317 subjects recruited were aged from 18
to over 50, with 173 being female. In addition to different
sections relating to gift giving and receiving, the questionnaire
asked respondents to provide demographic information.
Among the indications from the data were:
.
the face value of the gift card influences recipient
preference for effective liquidity. for impersonal sources,
liquidity is valued more for small than large gift cards;
.
nature of the relationship between giver and receiver also
impacts on liquidity preference. with this factor, liquidity
seems to be less valued as the relationship becomes closer;
.
give and receive preferences tend to differ and people
generally opt to give cards more liquid than they prefer to
receive themselves;
.
where highly liquid gift cards are concerned, certain gift
cards appear more suitable gifts than others;
.
some gift cards are regarded as a more appropriate gift
than cash; and
.
people feel less guilty when they buy luxury personal items
with a gift card than with cash or credit card.
Based on this evidence, Valentin and Allred conclude that gift
cards offer a solution to people faced with conflicting self-
centered intentions like saving time and aiming to make a
favorable impression. They point out that cards appear more
socially acceptable and contain greater sentimental value than
cash. Vendors are advised to adopt different focus depending
on whether the gift card is being purchased for a casual
acquaintance or a close friend. With the former, it is
acceptable to emphasize the ease of purchase and convenience
offered. Such messages can be reinforced by reminding buyers
of the risks involved in choosing goods and that a cash gift
shows insensitivity. Gift cards which can be used to purchase
luxury items are more fitting for intimate friends and
marketers of such cards should accentuate this. Pointing out
the hedonic choices a card enables is likewise
recommended.
The authors note the appropriateness of some gift cards for
specific occasions. On the other hand, downscale vendors
offer cards that have no greater merit than cash. Marketers of
these cards may struggle to persuade consumers of their
value. That restaurant cards seem to have lost some
popularity suggests a need to reposition the experience on
offer to the card recipient.
Additional study using more geographically diverse samples
may render these findings more generalizable. Further
investigation of issues examined here is suggested, while
researchers might also consider giver and receiver types, gift-
giving occasions, situational differences and the impact of
culture.
(A precis of the article Giving and getting gift cards. Supplied by
Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Jingming Pan, Wenqing Shi, Xiaowo Tang. 2017. Pricing and ordering strategies of supply chain with selling gift cards. Journal
of Industrial and Management Optimization 13:2, 50-50. [CrossRef]
2. Daniel Horne, Neil Bendle. 2016. Gift cards: a review and research agenda. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research 26:2, 154-170. [CrossRef]
3. Thyra Uth Thomsen, Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky. 2015. Gifting from the closet: thoughtful or thoughtless?. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 32:6, 450-458. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Suri Weisfeld-Spolter, Cindy B. Ripp, Stephen Gould. 2015. Impact of Giving on Self and Impact of Self on Giving. Psychology
& Marketing 32:1, 1-14. [CrossRef]
5. Qing Yao, Rong Chen. 2014. Gift Cards and Gifted Cash: The Impact of Fit between Gift Type and Message Construal. Journal
of Retailing 90:4, 481-492. [CrossRef]
6. Hannele Kauppinen-Risnen, Johanna Gummerus, Catharina von Koskull, ke Finne, Anu Helkkula, Christian Kowalkowski,
Anne Rindell. 2014. Am I worth it? Gifting myself with luxury. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal 18:2, 112-132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 09:34 04 July 2017 (PT)