Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Keeping the Joneses from getting ahead in the first place: Envy's influence T
on gift giving behavior
⁎
Julian Givia, , Jeff Galakb
a
John Chambers College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, United States of America
b
Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Past research in gift giving has largely treated asymmetries between the types of gifts givers give and the ones
Gift giving recipients prefer to receive as unintentional errors on the part of givers. In contrast, we show that givers
Envy sometimes intentionally bypass gifts that they know will bring the most joy and happiness to their recipients.
Self-other decision making Specifically, we demonstrate that givers dislike giving gifts that compare favorably to their own possessions,
Prosocial behavior
because they feel that doing so would lead them to experience envy and thus become less satisfied with their own
Social comparisons
possessions. Consequently, they instead opt for other gifts that are not superior to their own possessions and thus
do not negatively impact their liking of their own possessions. Critically, givers sometimes opt for these alter-
native gifts even in cases where they know they are less preferred by recipients. Theoretical contributions and
practical implications are discussed. (144/150 words).

1. Introduction
Gift giving is inherently about making other people happy. Indeed,
consumers spend a great deal of money (Flynn & Adams, 2009), time
(Gino & Flynn, 2011), and effort (Zhang & Epley, 2012) when gift
giving to ensure that they deliver joy and happiness to their recipients.
In the present research, however, we document a situation in which
consumers willingly forego gifts that will maximize their recipients'
happiness. Specifically, we show that consumers are averse to giving
gifts that are superior to their own possessions, because they believe
that doing so would lead them to experience envy and thus like their
own possessions less. As a result, they often instead give other gifts that
are not superior to their own possessions and thus do not negatively
impact their satisfaction with their own possessions. Critically, con-
sumers sometimes opt for these alternative gifts even when they know
they are less preferred by recipients.
2. Gift giving
Despite often having the best intentions at heart, consumers fre-
quently struggle to give gifts that their recipients want to receive (for a
review, see Galak, Givi, & Williams, 2016). Given that a typical con-
sumer spends over $600 on average each year for winter holiday gifts
alone (and likely close to $1000 each year, when other gift giving
occasions are considered; Smith, 2017), these errors carry an enormous
deadweight (economic) loss (Waldfogel, 1993). Rightly, then, re-
searchers have devoted much time to studying gift giving mistakes.
Early research employed a qualitative and/or anthropological approach
when examining why givers err and found that numerous factors are
responsible. For instance, the anxiety givers experience prior to the gift
exchange systematically alters their choices in several different man-
ners, which may lead to suboptimal gift selection (Wooten, 2000). Also,
the fact that givers know just how much time and effort was put into a
gift, while recipients do not, can lead to differing assessments of the
same gift (Sherry, 1983). Additionally, givers may incorrectly perceive
some recipients as easy (vs. difficult) to please (or vice versa) and thus
use a gift selection strategy best served for an easily pleased recipient
when they should use a strategy best served for a pickier recipient (or
vice versa; Otnes, Lowrey, & Kim, 1993). Moreover, there is strong
social pressure for recipients to always appear appreciative of a gift
regardless of whether they like it (or as the saying goes, to “never look a
gift horse in the mouth”); thus, givers rarely learn when they err in their
gift choices (Sherry, McGrath, & Levy, 1993). More recently, re-
searchers have taken an experimental approach to studying gift giving,
and this recent research has shed light on numerous novel factors that
contribute to gift giving errors. For example, givers and recipients
perceive gifts from different construal levels (Baskin, Wakslak, Trope, &
Novemsky, 2014; Choi, Park, & Yoon, 2018), which leads givers to give

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: julian.givi@mail.wvu.edu (J. Givi), jgalak@cmu.edu (J. Galak).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.046
Received 11 October 2018; Received in revised form 26 April 2019; Accepted 28 April 2019
Available online 06 May 2019
0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J. Givi and J. Galak
too many desirable (vs. feasible) gifts. Givers and recipients also have
differing opinions on what makes a gift thoughtful (Kupor, Flynn, &
Norton, 2017), different amounts of information regarding the re-
cipient's preferences (Givi & Galak, 2017), and divergent views on the
importance of the symbolic meaning of the gift (Cavanaugh, Gino, &
Fitzsimons, 2015); these asymmetries also lead to gift giving errors. The
types of evaluations made by the two parties differ as well: givers make
comparative evaluations regarding gift quality, whereas recipients
make absolute evaluations. This further complicates the task for givers
and leads to gifting mistakes (Teigen, Olsen, & Solås, 2005).
A critical assumption in the aforementioned line of experimental
research is that the giver's primary goal is to maximize the recipient's
happiness, and thus that giver-recipient asymmetries in gift choice are
unintentional. However, some research has found that givers are not
always focused solely on maximizing their recipients' utility; rather,
givers are also concerned with pleasing themselves with their gift
choices, and this more selfish consideration sometimes leads them to
knowingly select suboptimal gifts. For example, givers sometimes pass
on gifts they know are preferred in favor of unique but less preferred
gifts, because giving a unique gift allows them to feel more thoughtful
(Steffel & LeBoeuf, 2014). Similarly, when choosing between a re-
quested gift that is sure to be liked or an unrequested gift that is not
certain to be liked but that allows the giver to signal exactly how well
they know the recipient, givers sometimes opt for the latter (Ward &
Broniarczyk, 2016). Interestingly, this tendency is even more pro-
nounced when givers are giving to socially close (vs. distant) recipients
(who would seem to be the recipients that givers would be most con-
cerned with making happy; Ward & Broniarczyk, 2016). In addition,
givers spend more money on their gifts when they know others will be
giving gifts of high (vs. low) quality, in part because they are averse to
looking bad by giving a gift that does not compare well to other givers'
gifts (Givi, Galak, & Olivola, 2017). At the extreme, when givers know
others will be giving high quality gifts, they may skip out on the gift
giving event altogether, rather than give a gift that looks second-rate in
comparison to other givers' high quality gifts (Givi et al., 2017). In all
these cases, givers are basing their decisions on how they themselves
will be affected by the gift they give, rather than on optimizing the
recipient's utility. These findings are in line with much of the earlier
qualitative/anthropological work in gift giving, which has also de-
monstrated that givers' goals sometimes venture far from maximizing a
recipient's happiness (Otnes et al., 1993; Sherry et al., 1993). In the
present work, we add to this research documenting the more self-cen-
tered side of gift givers by investigating how a previously unexplored
selfish desire influences givers' decisions; specifically, we demonstrate
how an avoidance of envy consideration leads givers to deliberately
give suboptimal gifts.
3. Consumer envy
Consumers have an intrinsic tendency to compare themselves to
others (Festinger, 1954). Indeed, consumers compare themselves to
classmates (Zheng & Baskin, 2018; Zheng, Baskin, & Peng, 2018), co-
workers (Ensley, Pearson, & Sardeshmukh, 2007), friends (Karanika &
Hogg, 2016), media ideals (Adjin-Tettey & Bempah, 2015), and even
family members (Ensley et al., 2007). Upward comparisons (i.e., com-
paring the self to someone superior), however, may result in the aver-
sive feeling of envy, which is experienced “when a person lacks an-
other's superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it
or wishes that the other lacked it” (Parrott & Smith, 1993, p. 906). As
upward comparisons are made much more frequently and auto-
matically than downward comparisons (Festinger, 1954), consumers of
all cultures experience envy on a regular basis (Foster, 1972). Although
there are different forms (Van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2011) and
definitions (Smith & Kim, 2007) of envy, one facet of envy that re-
searchers agree on is that it is accompanied by a range of negative
feelings, such as sadness, frustration, and disappointment. These
376
Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388
aversive feelings stem from a decrease in satisfaction with an aspect of
the self that arises from an upward comparison, such as when con-
sumers become less happy with their bodies after comparing their
bodies to those of supermodels (Adjin-Tettey & Bempah, 2015), less
content with their wages after comparing their wages to the wages of
those who make more money than them (Clark, Westergård-Nielsen, &
Kristensen, 2009), and less satisfied with their possessions after com-
paring their possessions to the superior possessions owned by others
(Ackerman, MacInnis, & Folkes, 2000). Given the unpleasant nature of
envy, it is not surprising to learn that consumers have found several
ways to eradicate it whenever it is experienced. One way consumers do
so is by improving the self in domains relevant to the source of the envy
(Van de Ven et al., 2011). For example, if a friend owns the newest
iPhone, but a consumer owns an older iPhone, the consumer may
simply purchase the newest iPhone. In other instances, merely im-
proving the self in domains not relevant to the source of the envy is
sufficient to eliminate it (Zheng et al., 2018; Zheng & Baskin, 2018). For
instance, if a college student learns that another student outperformed
him on an exam, he may purchase a luxurious product to improve his
view of the self and to eradicate the envy the self was experiencing.
Conversely, consumers sometimes instead “pull down” the envied other
to a level closer to the self (Van de Ven et al., 2011). For example,
participants in a study who are endowed with less money than others
will sometimes choose to reduce the amount of money designated for
those others to receive, even when it is costly for them to do so (Zizzo &
Oswald, 2001). In some cases, rather than try to lift up the self or pull
down the envied other, consumers try to change the basis of the com-
parison altogether so that they can feel superior to the envied other
along some other dimension (Van de Ven et al., 2011). For instance, in
the iPhone example above, the consumer with the lesser iPhone may
decide to purchase a Blackberry, which is inferior to the newest iPhone
in terms of its hedonic qualities, but superior in terms of its utilitarian
qualities.
We propose that, in addition to these various strategies consumers
employ to eliminate envy once it manifests, consumers also try to
eliminate envy before it even materializes. More specifically, we pro-
pose that when making consumption decisions for others, consumers
are averse to choosing products (i.e., goods/experiences) that compare
favorably to those they own themselves because doing so would lead to
envy, which we conceptualize as a decrease in liking of one's own
possessions (or experiences, in the case of experiential consumption)
that arises from upward comparisons. Moreover, we posit that this
aversion is so strong that it sometimes even leads consumers to make
choices that result in the recipients of their decisions receiving clearly
less preferred products. We employ the context of gift giving to test
these hypotheses and feel it is an apt setting in which to do so for
several reasons: First, gift giving is one of the most common situations
in which consumers make consumption decisions for others (Galak
et al., 2016). Indeed, there are numerous occasions for which con-
sumers give gifts, and gift giving is a custom practiced around the globe
(Beatty, Kahle, & Homer, 1991). Second, because consumers develop
friendships with others who have similar interests and hobbies as they
do (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001), and because friends often
exchange gifts, the decision of whether to give a gift that is superior to
something owned by the self is likely made by consumers quite often.
Third, gift giving is a context that is supposed to be governed by al-
truism, making it perhaps the most conservative context for our re-
search program, given our hypotheses. That is, in the context of gift
giving, social norms strongly support the notion that the giver should be
concerned mostly with pleasing the recipient; this makes gift giving a
conservative context in which to test our hypotheses, because we sug-
gest that a giver will actively refrain from maximizing a recipient's
utility.
Consumers' aversion to giving gifts that are superior to their own
possessions often results in a blatant disutility to the gift recipient,
whereas other times it is less clear that it does. As an example of the
J. Givi and J. Galak
latter, imagine Mike is deciding what to give Gary for his birthday.
Mike owns tickets for below-average seats to a football game and tickets
for great seats to a basketball game. Mike is debating whether to give
Gary tickets for average seats to the football game or tickets for average
seats to the basketball game, but does not know which sport Gary likes
more. As we will show, under such circumstances, Mike will likely give
Gary the tickets to the basketball game because he would not want Gary
to have better seats than he does at the football game (as this would
make him envious and less satisfied with his own seats). Although this
decision by Mike is strategic, it is not clear that it results in a disutility
to Gary because Mike does not know which sport Gary likes more.
Although we believe this type of behavior by itself is quite interesting,
we will go one step further and demonstrate that in many instances,
consumers' aversion to giving gifts that are superior to their own pos-
sessions clearly results in a blatant disutility to the gift recipient. For
example, imagine that Mike knows that Gary likes football more than
basketball, yet still gives Gary the tickets to the basketball game. This
decision by Mike clearly leads Gary to receive a gift that provides him
with less enjoyment than the gift that was bypassed. Said otherwise,
rather than give a gift that he knows will provide Gary with more joy
and happiness, Mike strategically opts to give a less preferred gift so
that he himself will remain satisfied with his own experience at the
game. In sum, we will demonstrate that consumers' aversion to giving
gifts that compare favorably to their own possessions impacts gift
giving decisions both when the giver does not know which gift is pre-
ferred by the recipient and when the giver clearly knows which gift is
preferred. Moreover, we will show that this type of behavior occurs
regardless of whether the recipient is a relatively new friend whom the
giver does not know well or a close friend with whom the giver has a
well-established relationship.
4. The present research
To test our “envious gift giving” hypothesis, we utilize eight studies
that typically follow a similar methodology: Participants imagine there
are two types of products, such as sunglasses and headphones. Next,
some participants imagine they own average sunglasses and great
headphones, while others instead imagine they own great sunglasses
and average headphones. Participants then choose whether to give a
recipient (who does not already own sunglasses or headphones) above-
average sunglasses or above-average headphones. In some studies, it is
not made clear which of the two gifts the recipient would prefer. We
predict that in these studies, participants will be systematically less
likely to give a gift when it compares favorably to something they own
themselves versus when it does not. For example, when participants
own average sunglasses (headphones) and great headphones (sun-
glasses), they should be relatively less likely to give the above-average
sunglasses (headphones), because doing so would lead to a lesser liking
of their own average sunglasses (headphones). In other studies, it is
made clear that the recipient prefers one of the gifts. Here, we predict
that most participants will indeed choose the preferred gift, but that
they will be less likely to do so when it compares favorably to some-
thing they own themselves versus when it does not. For instance, when
participants know the above-average sunglasses are preferred, they
should be relatively less (more) likely to give them when they own
average sunglasses (headphones) and great headphones (sunglasses). In
other words, when the preferred gift is not superior to either of the
participant's possessions, they should have no reason to select the less
preferred gift and thus should give the preferred gift most of the time.
However, when the preferred gift is superior to one of the participant's
possessions, they should be relatively less likely to give it, because
doing so would lead to a lesser liking of their possession that compares
unfavorably to it.
The following studies systematically test the hypotheses outlined
above. Throughout the manuscript, we employ several different types
of gifts, giver-recipient relationships, and gift giving occasions, as well
377
Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388
as both hypothetical and real-life choices, to increase the general-
izability of our findings. In all studies, sample size was determined prior
to collecting data (and was selected to be at least as large as the sample
sizes employed in earlier, related research), all independent and de-
pendent variables are reported, and all participants who passed the
instructional manipulation checks and attention checks are included in
the analyses (except in Study 7, in which sample size was a function of
responsiveness to an advertisement prior to a deadline and in which
more rigorous inclusion criteria were included; see Section 12.1). All
data and materials can be found here: Data and Materials.
5. Study 1A
Study 1A provides an initial test of our hypothesis that givers are
averse to giving gifts that are superior to their own possessions. We use
the methodology described in Section 4 and the product category of
housing decorations to test this prediction.
5.1. Method
150 participants (62% female; Mage = 35.8, SDage = 12.5) from
Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) completed the study for $0.25.
Three participants were excluded for failing the instructional manip-
ulation check.
The study employed two between-subjects conditions: Halloween
Level 3, Winter Level 5 vs. Halloween Level 5, Winter Level 3. Adapting the
methodology employed by Ordabayeva and Chandon (2011), partici-
pants read a vignette in which the National Holiday Federation (a fic-
titious organization) rated the Halloween and Winter decorations of
every house in their neighborhood and then used these ratings to place
each house into tiers ranging from tier 1 (the worst) to tier 5 (the best),
for both types of decorations. Participants randomly assigned to the
Halloween Level 3, Winter Level 5 (Halloween Level 5, Winter Level 3)
condition read that their house was placed into tier 3 (5) for Halloween
decorations and tier 5 (3) for Winter decorations. Participants were
then shown the distributions of the tiers for their neighborhood, and it
was pointed out which tier their house was in for each type of dec-
orations. The vignette then explained that new neighbors had moved in
across the street and that because the neighbors moved from an
apartment, they did not own Halloween or Winter decorations. Parti-
cipants then imagined they were out shopping for a gift for their new
neighbors and came across Halloween and Winter decoration packages,
both of which were on sale for a good price and both of which they
estimated to be of tier 4 quality. Participants were again shown the
distributions of the tiers, except this time it was pointed out that, based
on the participant's decision, the new neighbors' house would either
become a tier 4 Halloween decoration house or a tier 4 Winter dec-
oration house (see Appendix A for the stimuli employed in the Hal-
loween Level 3, Winter Level 5 condition). Next, participants indicated
which package they would buy for their neighbors, explained their
choice (participants explain their choices in several studies, but we do
not conduct any analyses on these explanations), answered an in-
structional manipulation check (that instructed them to select a specific
response option), and responded to demographic questions.
5.2. Results and discussion
Our primary measure of interest is the percentage of participants
giving the Halloween (vs. Winter) decoration packages across the two
conditions. As expected, a smaller percentage of participants in the
Halloween Level 3, Winter Level 5 (vs. Halloween Level 5, Winter Level 3)
condition gave the Halloween decorations (Halloween Level 3, Winter
Level 5: 33.8%; Halloween Level 5, Winter Level 3: 54.3%; χ2 (1,
N = 147) = 6.28, p = .012; φ = 0.21, 95% CI for proportion difference
[4.8%, 36.2%]). In other words, most (60.5%) participants refrained
from giving the gift that was superior to something they owned
J. Givi and J. Galak
themselves (p = .013 in a binomial test against 50%).
This study provides initial evidence in support of our hypothesis
that givers are averse to giving gifts that are superior to their own
possessions. Indeed, even though the decisions were identical across the
two conditions, givers strategically altered their gift choices so that they
would not give a gift that was better than something they owned
themselves. Next, we look to replicate this finding while varying several
aspects of the paradigm.
6. Study 1B
Study 1B serves to replicate the findings of Study 1A while em-
ploying a new gift giving occasion (birthday), type of giver-recipient
relationship (friends), and product category (concert tickets). These
changes help increase the generalizability of our research.
6.1. Method
151 MTurk participants (52% female; Mage = 36.3, SDage = 12.8)
completed the study for $0.25. One participant was excluded for failing
the instructional manipulation check.
The study employed two between-subjects conditions: Bad Acoustics
Seats, Good Microphones Seats vs. Good Acoustics Seats, Bad Microphones
Seats. Participants read a vignette in which, through work, their cousin
had obtained each of them a free ticket to upcoming concerts for bands
called the “Acoustics” and the “Microphones.” Participants in the Bad
Acoustics Seats, Good Microphones Seats (Good Acoustics Seats, Bad
Microphones Seats) condition read that their seats at the Acoustics
(Microphones) concert were in one of the worst sections—section
E2—and that their seats at the Microphones (Acoustics) concert were in
the front row of the best section—section A. Participants were then
shown a layout of the concert venue with their seats for each concert
pointed out. Next, participants read that a friend's birthday was ap-
proaching and that they had decided to buy their friend and their
friend's significant other tickets to one of the two concerts; however, the
only seats left at either concert were in section B—a section worse than
section A, but better than section E2. The tickets to both concerts were
said to be priced the same, because the bands were equal in popularity.
Participants were again shown the concert venue, except this time it
was also pointed out that, based on their decision, their friend would
have section B seats for either the Acoustics concert or the Microphones
concert (see Appendix B for the stimuli employed in the Bad Acoustics
Seats, Good Microphones Seats condition). It was made clear to partici-
pants that because they did not have section B seats, no matter which
concert they chose, they would not be able to spend time with their
friend at the concert. Participants then indicated which concert they
would give their friend tickets to, explained their choice, answered an
instructional manipulation check, and responded to demographic
questions.
6.2. Results and discussion
Our primary measure of interest is the percentage of participants
giving the tickets to the Acoustics (vs. Microphones) concert across the
two conditions. As expected, a smaller percentage of participants in the
Bad Acoustics Seats, Good Microphones Seats (vs. Good Acoustics Seats,
Bad Microphones Seats) condition gave the Acoustics tickets (Bad
Acoustics Seats, Good Microphones Seats: 17.3%; Good Acoustics Seats,
Bad Microphones Seats: 82.7%; χ2 (1, N = 150) = 64.03, p < .001;
φ = 0.65, 95% CI [53.3%, 77.5%]). In other words, most (82.7%)
participants refrained from giving the gift that was superior to some-
thing they owned themselves (p < .001 in a binomial test against
50%).
Taken together, Studies 1A-B provide considerable evidence in
support of our hypothesis that gift givers are averse to giving gifts that
are superior to their own possessions. Further, these studies show that
378
Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388
this aversion holds across different types of giver-recipient relationships
(neighbors and friends), product categories (housing decorations and
concert tickets), and gift giving occasions (housewarming gifts and
birthday gifts). Next, we look to further demonstrate the robustness of
our findings by employing a new experimental design.
7. Study 2
In the previous studies, participants chose between two gifts.
However, givers' aversion to giving gifts that are superior to their own
possessions should also influence their absolute likelihood of giving a
potential gift (at a more general level). That is, such a consideration
should influence givers' overall likelihood of giving a gift; not just their
likelihood of giving a gift when it is pitted against another one.1 For
example, imagine a giver owns a pair of average headphones and is
deciding whether to give a recipient a pair of above-average head-
phones or to keep brainstorming other gift ideas. Our theory suggests
that the giver should be less likely to give the headphones under these
circumstances than when they own great headphones. To that end, in
Study 2, we test this prediction that givers are less (more) likely overall
to give a gift when it is superior (inferior) to something they own.
7.1. Method
299 MTurk participants (56% female; Mage = 36.9, SDage = 11.6)
completed the study for $0.25. Twenty-six participants were excluded
for failing one of the attentiveness checks.
The study employed two between-subjects conditions: Envious, Not
Envious. Participants read a vignette in which they and their significant
other were going to be taking a trip with one of their friends and their
friend's significant other. Participants in the Not Envious (Envious)
condition read that, for the flight to their destination, they and their
significant other had booked seats in First Class (Premium Economy
Class)—the best (second worst) of the four sections on the plane—and
that their friend and their friend's significant other had booked seats in
Economy class—the worst of the four sections on the plane. Next, the
vignette explained that because the participant's friend's birthday was
approaching, the participant considered upgrading the friend's and the
friend's significant other's seats from Economy Class to Business
Class—the second best section on the plane (see Appendix C for the
stimuli employed in the study)—for $100. Participants then indicated
how likely they would be to upgrade the seats (as opposed to giving
something else as a gift) using a scale that ranged from 0 (0% Likely to
upgrade their seats) to 100 (100% Likely to upgrade their seats). At the
end of the study, participants answered an instructional manipulation
check, an attention check (about the type of gift they were considering
giving in the vignette), and demographic questions.
7.2. Results and discussion
As expected, participants in the Envious (vs. Not Envious) condition
were far less likely to upgrade their friend's seats to Premium Economy
Class (Envious: M = 38.60%, SD = 29.51%; Not Envious: M = 49.09%,
SD = 33.13%; t(271) = −2.77, p = .006, d = −0.33, 95% CI
[−17.95%, −3.02%]). That is, participants were systematically less
likely overall to give a gift when it was superior to something they
owned, in comparison to when it was not.
These results speak to the robustness of givers' reluctance to give
gifts that compare favorably to their own possessions. In particular, this
study shows that givers' aversion to giving gifts that are superior to
their own possessions influences their overall likelihood of giving such
gifts (at a general level). This study also employed a new product ca-
tegory (airplane tickets), which further increases the generalizability of
1
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
J. Givi and J. Galak
our findings. Next, we look to show that this aversion leads givers to
sometimes choose gifts that they know are less preferred.
8. Study 3
The previous studies demonstrated that givers avoid giving gifts that
are superior to their own possessions. However, it is not clear that gi-
vers in earlier studies were avoiding such gifts at the expense of their
recipients' preferences. That is, although some participants likely were
giving gifts they perceived to be suboptimal (otherwise there likely
would not have been differences across conditions in Studies 1A-B), the
gift options were similar in terms of desirability; thus, we cannot say for
certain that participants were giving gifts they felt were suboptimal. In
contrast, Study 3 aims to show that an aversion to giving gifts that
compare favorably to one's possessions drives givers to give gifts they
know are suboptimal. To achieve this goal, in Study 3, the two condi-
tions from Study 1A are crossed with which of the two types of dec-
orations the neighbors like the best. Therefore, there are two conditions
(Envious) in which the gift the neighbors like the best is also the one that
will cause the giver to feel envious (i.e., it is a better decoration package
than the decorations the giver owns for that category), and there are
two conditions (Not Envious) in which the gift the neighbors like the
best is the one that will not cause the giver to feel envious (i.e., it is not
a better decoration package than the decorations the giver owns for that
category). We predict that participants in the Envious (Not Envious)
conditions will be more (less) likely to give the decorations that are not
the neighbors' favorite.
8.1. Method
400 MTurk participants (59% female; Mage = 35.1, SDage = 11.8)
completed the study for $0.25. Forty-nine participants were excluded
for failing one of the attentiveness checks.
Study 3 is a 2 (Neighbors' Favorite: Halloween, Winter) × 2 (Envy:
Envious, Not Envious) between-subjects design. Participants read a
vignette identical to one of Study 1A's vignettes, except that in the
Neighbors' Favorite-Halloween (Neighbors' Favorite-Winter) conditions, the
vignette included a sentence that read, “You remember that when you
had talked to your neighbors they had mentioned that although they
did not own any holiday decorations, their favorite type of holiday
decorations are Halloween (Winter) decorations.” Therefore, there are
two conditions (Envious) in which the preferred gift of the neighbors is a
better decoration package than the one the participant owns in that
category: 1) Participant owns tier 3 Halloween and tier 5 Winter, and
the neighbors' preference is tier 4 Halloween (i.e., Envious-Halloween);
2) Participant owns tier 3 Winter and tier 5 Halloween, and the
neighbors' preference is tier 4 Winter (i.e., Envious-Winter). There are
also two conditions (Not Envious) in which the preferred gift of the
neighbors is not a better decoration package than the one the partici-
pant owns in that category: 1) Participant owns tier 3 Winter and tier 5
Halloween, and the neighbors' preference is tier 4 Halloween (i.e., Not
Envious-Halloween); 2) Participant owns tier 3 Halloween and tier 5
Winter, and the neighbors' preference is tier 4 Winter (i.e., Not Envious-
Winter). Note that though this study has four conditions, we are inter-
ested in the comparison of only the Envy conditions because the
Neighbors' Favorite manipulation simply serves as a counterbalance.
Indeed, a logistic regression on the dependent variable with Neighbors'
Favorite, Envy, and their interaction as independent variables did not
reveal a significant interaction (χ2 (1, N = 351) = 0.46). Therefore, we
collapse across Neighbors' Favorite to form two conditions: Envious, Not
Envious (see Table 1 for the results across the original conditions). After
reading the vignette, participants indicated which decoration package
they would buy for their neighbors, explained their choice, answered
two instructional manipulation checks, answered two attention checks
(about the types of decorations they chose between and the type of
decorations the neighbors said was their favorite), and responded to
379
Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388
demographic questions.
8.2. Results and discussion
As expected, a greater percentage of participants in the Envious (vs.
Not Envious) condition gave the less preferred gift (Envious: 17.2%; Not
Envious: 9.7%; χ2 (1, N = 351) = 4.17, p = .041, φ = 0.11, 95% CI
[0.4%, 14.6%]). In other words, although most participants across the
two conditions chose the preferred gift, when this preferred gift was (vs.
was not) superior to something participants owned themselves, they
were nearly twice as likely to instead give the less preferred gift.
This study demonstrates that when givers know that a recipient
would prefer a certain gift, but this gift is superior to something they
own themselves, they are relatively likely to instead give a less pre-
ferred gift that is not superior to something they own. However, when a
preferred gift is not superior to something givers own, they are more
than happy to give it. Next, we look to provide support for an avoidance
of envy account for the phenomena documented thus far.
9. Study 4
We have shown that givers are averse to giving gifts that are su-
perior to their own possessions and that this even drives them to
sometimes deliberately give suboptimal gifts. Study 4 serves to provide
initial evidence in support of our proposed psychological account for
this aversion: givers believe they will feel envious and like their own
possessions less if they give something that compares favorably to those
possessions. Given that our hypothesis suggests that this drop in liking
results from comparisons, we would expect our effects to be stronger for
gifting decisions involving conspicuous (i.e., public, visible, etc.) versus
inconspicuous (i.e., private, not visible, etc.) gifts. That is, when givers
know that the comparisons will be quite salient to them down the road
(i.e., the products are conspicuous), they know that they will likely end
up making them quite frequently. Further, they expect that these
comparisons will lead them to like their own possessions less if the gift
is superior. Thus, givers should be averse to giving conspicuous gifts
that are superior to their own possessions. However, when givers know
that the comparisons will be less salient to them in the future (i.e., the
products are inconspicuous), they know that they will likely not make
them that often. Therefore, givers should expect that giving incon-
spicuous gifts that are superior to their own possessions will not lead
them to like their own possessions less (or will do so to a lesser extent)
and thus be more willing to give such gifts. To test this moderating role
of conspicuousness, in Study 4, we cross the Envious and Non-Envious
conditions from Study 3 with whether the decorations are outdoor or
indoor decorations. We predict that when the decorations are outdoor
decorations, the findings from Study 3 will replicate, but that when the
decorations are indoor decorations, the effect will be weaker.2
9.1. Method
805 MTurk participants (55% female; Mage = 33.1, SDage = 11.2)
completed the study for $0.25. One hundred and eighty-five partici-
pants were excluded for failing one of the attentiveness checks.
Study 4 is a 2 (Neighbors' Favorite: Halloween, Winter) × 2 (Envy:
Envious, Not Envious) × 2 (Decoration Type: Conspicuous, Inconspicuous)
between-subjects design. Participants read a vignette identical to one of
Study 3's vignettes, except that several sentences and figures were
changed to specify whether the decorations were outdoor or indoor
decorations. Note that though this study has eight conditions, we are
2
In Studies 1A and 3, we did not explicitly state that the decorations were
outdoor decorations, however it is likely that participants acted under the as-
sumption that the decorations were outdoor decorations. See the limitations
section of the General Discussion.
J. Givi and J. Galak Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388

Table 1
Setup and results of Study 3.
Condition Participant's Halloween Participant's winter decorations Neighbors' favorite % NOT giving neighbors' favorite
decorations decorations decorations

Envious-Halloween Tier 3 Tier 5 Halloween 17%

Not Envious – Halloween Tier 5 Tier 3 Halloween 8%
Envious-Winter Tier 3 Tier 5 Winter 17%
Not Envious - Winter Tier 5 Tier 3 Winter 12%

Table 2
Setup and results of Study 4.
Condition Participant's Halloween decorations Participant's winter decorations Neighbors' favorite decorations % NOT giving neighbors' favorite decorations

Decoration type - Conspicuous

Envious-Halloween Tier 3 Tier 5 Halloween 16%
Not Envious-Halloween Tier 5 Tier 3 Halloween 8%
Envious-Winter Tier 3 Tier 5 Winter 30%
Not Envious-Winter Tier 5 Tier 3 Winter 17%

Decoration type - Inconspicuous

Envious-Halloween Tier 3 Tier 5 Halloween 18%
Not Envious-Halloween Tier 5 Tier 3 Halloween 15%
Envious-Winter Tier 3 Tier 5 Winter 17%
Not Envious-Winter Tier 5 Tier 3 Winter 10%

interested in the comparison of only the Envy conditions across the two
levels of Decoration Type because the Neighbors' Favorite manipulation
simply serves as a counterbalance. Indeed, a logistic regression on the
dependent variable with Neighbors' Favorite, Envy, Decoration Type, and
all interactions as independent variables did not reveal a significant
three-way interaction (χ2 (1, N = 620) = 0.64). Therefore, we collapse
across Neighbors' Favorite to form four conditions: Envious-Conspicuous,
Not Envious-Conspicuous, Envious-Inconspicuous, Not Envious-
Inconspicuous (see Table 2 for the results across the original conditions).
After reading the vignette, participants indicated which decoration
package they would buy for their neighbors, explained their choice,
answered two instructional manipulation checks, answered three at-
tention checks (about the types of decorations they chose between, the
type of decorations the neighbors said was their favorite, and the indoor
vs. outdoor nature of the decorations), and responded to demographic
questions.
9.2. Results and discussion
As expected, when the decorations were outdoor decorations
(Decoration Type-Conspicuous), a greater percentage of participants in
the Envious (vs. Not Envious) condition gave the less preferred gift
(Envious: 22.5%; Not Envious: 12.3%; χ2 (1, N = 322) = 5.78, p = .016,
φ = 0.13, 95% CI [2.0%, 18.4%]). However, when the decorations
were indoor decorations (Decoration Type-Inconspicuous), the percen-
tage of participants who gave the less preferred gift did not differ
(significantly) across the Envy manipulation (Envious: 17.9%; Not
Envious: 12.2%; χ2 (1, N = 298) = 1.85, p = .174, φ = 0.08, 95% CI
[−2.4%, 13.8%]).
This study demonstrates that, in line with an avoidance of envy
account for givers' aversion to giving gifts that compare favorably to
their own possessions, when givers know these comparisons will be less
salient to them in the future, they are less likely to engage in such
strategic gift giving. That is, givers are far more likely to sacrifice their
recipients' preferences when a preferred gift is (vs. is not) superior to
something they own themselves when they know the gift will be salient
to them in the future, but are only moderately more likely to do so
when they know the gift will be less salient. Interestingly, although the
result was not significant in the Inconspicuous condition, givers in the
Envious (vs. Not Envious) condition were directionally more likely to
give the inferior gift. This suggests that even when a gift will not be
salient to givers after they give it, they may still believe they will ex-
perience a drop in satisfaction with their own possessions (perhaps from
either the comparison they make at the moment of their purchase, or
from future comparisons that arise from knowing what the recipient
owns). Next, we look to provide more evidence in support of an
avoidance of envy account for our findings.
10. Study 5
Study 5 serves to provide more evidence in support of our hypoth-
esis that givers are averse to giving gifts that compare favorably to their
own possessions because they believe that doing so will lead them to
feel envious and become less satisfied with their own possessions. To
that end, in Study 5, we directly asses participants' beliefs about how
their liking of their own possessions would change as a function of the
gift they give. We predict that participants will expect to like something
they own less if they give a gift that compares favorably to it. Also, to
further test our avoidance of envy hypothesis, participants complete a
dispositional envy scale (Smith, Parrott, Diener, Hoyle, & Kim, 1999),
which measures a person's tendency to make upward comparisons and
the negative feelings they experience from such comparisons. We pre-
dict that participants who score higher on this scale will show a
stronger effect.
10.1. Method
199 MTurk participants (56% female; Mage = 35.3, SDage = 10.6)
completed the study for $0.25. Sixteen participants were excluded for
failing one of the attentiveness checks.
Participants read a vignette identical to one of Study 1A's vignettes
(whether the participant's decorations were tier 3 Halloween and tier 5
Winter or the opposite was counterbalanced between-subjects); how-
ever, rather than choosing which package to give, participants re-
sponded to six scales (in total) on two separate pages. On one page,
participants imagined that they gave the tier 4 Halloween decorations,
and on the other, they imagined that they gave the tier 4 Winter dec-
orations (the order of these pages was counterbalanced). On each page,
participants indicated how their liking of their own tier 3 and tier 5
decorations would be affected if they were to give the designated
package (i.e., tier 4 Halloween or tier 4 Winter). These scales ranged
from −4 (I would like them much less) to +4 (I would like them much

380
J. Givi and J. Galak
more) and had a midpoint of 0 (I would like them the same). On each
page, participants also indicated how their neighbors' liking of the de-
signated package would be affected by the participant's own decora-
tions (again on a -4 to +4 scale; the order of these three measures on
each page was randomized). Participants then completed an eight-item
dispositional envy scale (Smith et al., 1999; example item: “The bitter
truth is that I generally feel inferior to others”). At the end of the study,
participants answered two instructional manipulation checks, an at-
tention check (about the types of decorations mentioned in the vign-
ette), and demographic questions.
10.2. Results and discussion
We first examine participants' beliefs about how their liking of their
tier 3 decorations would change based on what they imagined giving.
As predicted, a t-test against the midpoint (0) reveals that participants
expected they would like their own tier 3 decorations less if they gave
the tier 4 decorations in that same category (M = −0.36, SD = 1.42; t
(182) = −3.39, p = .001, d = −0.25, 95% CI [−0.56, −0.15]).
However, participants expected that their liking of their tier 3 decora-
tions would be unaffected (or perhaps increase slightly) if they gave the
tier 4 decorations in the other category (M = +0.16, SD = 1.17; t
(182) = 1.84, p = .068, d = 0.14, 95% CI [−0.01, +0.33]).
Next, we examine participants' beliefs about how their liking of
their tier 5 decorations would change based on what they imagined
giving. As expected, participants did not believe that they would feel
negatively about their tier 5 decorations, regardless of what gift they
imagined giving. In fact, participants expected that they would like
their tier 5 decorations more, regardless of whether they imagined
giving tier 4 decorations in the same category as their tier 5 decorations
(M = +0.77, SD = 1.35; t(182) = 7.68, p < .001, d = 0.57, 95% CI
[+0.57, +0.96]), or the other category (M = +0.46, SD = 1.21; t
(182) = 5.20, p < .001, d = 0.38, 95% CI [+0.29, +0.64]).
We now turn to participants' beliefs about how their recipients'
liking of their gift would be influenced by what the participant owned.
This allows us to test the possibility that participants in Study 1A gave
tier 4 decorations in the category in which they owned tier 5 decora-
tions because they thought the recipients would like these decorations
more when they themselves owned tier 5 (vs. tier 3) decorations in that
category. (Thus, for this analysis, we conduct a within-subjects t-test.)
In contrast to this account, participants actually believed that their
recipients would experience a greater increase in liking of their dec-
orations when these decorations were in the category in which the
participant owned tier 3 decorations (M = +0.85, SD = 1.40), com-
pared to when they were in the category in which the participant
owned tier 5 decorations (M = +0.46, SD = 1.21; t(182) = 3.39,
p = .001, d = 0.26, 95% CI [+0.16, +0.60]). In other words, givers
expect recipients to like gifts more when they compare favorably to the
giver's possessions; yet, as we have consistently demonstrated, givers
refrain from giving such gifts. These two results shed further light on
givers' willingness to give suboptimal gifts.
Finally, we examine how participants' dispositional envy scores re-
lated to their beliefs about how their liking of their tier 3 decorations
would change if they gave the tier 4 decorations in that same category.
As expected, there was a significant negative correlation between these
two variables, such that the higher participants scored on the disposi-
tional envy scale, the less they expected they would like their tier 3
decorations if they were to give their neighbors the tier 4 decorations in
the same category (r = −0.18, p = .017).
This study provides considerable evidence that givers avoid giving
gifts that compare favorably to their own possessions because they
expect that doing so will lead them to like their own possessions less.
Indeed, this study demonstrates, through both the direct assessment of
an envy consideration and an envy individual difference measure, that
an avoidance of envy motive is central to givers' aversion to giving gifts
that compare favorably to their own possessions. Next, we look to
381
Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388
provide more evidence in support of this theoretical account for our
findings.
11. Study 6
Studies 4 and 5 provided evidence in support of our hypothesis that
givers are averse to giving gifts that compare favorably to their own
possessions because they believe that doing so will lead them to like
their own possessions less. In Study 6, we look to provide even stronger
evidence in support of this hypothesis, via a mediation approach.
Specifically, in this study, participants both choose between gifts and
indicate how their liking of their own possessions would change as a
function of the gift they give. This allows us to test our proposed me-
chanistic explanation via a mediation analysis.
11.1. Method
307 MTurk participants (59% female; Mage = 37.6, SDage = 11.5)
completed the study for $0.25. Thirty-two participants were excluded
for failing one of the attentiveness checks.
The study employed two between-subjects conditions: San Francisco
Level 3, Los Angeles Level 5 vs. San Francisco Level 5, Los Angeles Level 3.
Participants read a vignette in which they and their significant other
were going to be taking a trip with one of their friends and their friend's
significant other to California. The vignette explained that the group
would be staying in San Francisco for two nights and in Los Angeles for
two nights. Participants randomly assigned to the San Francisco Level 3,
Los Angeles Level 5 (San Francisco Level 5, Los Angeles Level 3) condition
read that they and their significant other had booked a Hilton hotel
room in San Francisco that Hilton rated as a 3-star (5-star) room, and
booked a Hilton hotel room in Los Angeles that Hilton rated as a 5-star
(3-star) room. All participants then read that their friend and their
friend's significant other had booked 2-star rooms in the same Hilton
hotels in both cities. Next, the vignette explained that because the
participant's friend had a birthday approaching, the participant decided
that, as a birthday gift, they would upgrade their friend's room in one of
the two cities from a 2-star room to a 4-star room. It was specified that
identically-starred rooms cost the same in the two cities (e.g., a 4-star
room in San Francisco cost the same as a 4-star room in Los Angeles)
and, thus, that upgrading the friend's room would cost the same re-
gardless of which city was chosen. Participants then indicated in which
city they would upgrade their friend's room. Next, participants in-
dicated how, prior to making their choice, they thought their liking of
their 3-star room would be affected if they were to upgrade their
friend's room in each city (in a counterbalanced order, on the same
page). Each scale ranged from −4 (I thought I would like my room
much less) to +4 (I thought I would like my room much more) and had
a midpoint of 0 (I thought I would like my room the same). To create a
single difference score (for our mediation analysis), we subtracted
participants' responses to the measure that asked about how their liking
would be affected if they upgraded their friend's hotel room in Los
Angeles from their responses to the measure that asked about how their
liking would be affected if they upgraded their friend's hotel room in
San Francisco. A lower (higher) difference score indicates that a par-
ticipant felt that their liking of their 3-star room would be more ne-
gatively affected if they upgraded the friend's room in San Francisco
(Los Angeles). At the end of the study, participants answered an in-
structional manipulation check, an attention check (about the types of
gifts they chose between), and demographic questions.
11.2. Results and discussion
Our primary measure of interest is the percentage of participants
upgrading their friend's room in San Francisco (vs. Los Angeles) across
the two conditions. As expected, a smaller percentage of participants in
the San Francisco Level 3, Los Angeles Level 5 (vs. San Francisco Level 5,
J. Givi and J. Galak
Los Angeles Level 3) condition upgraded their friend's room in San
Francisco (San Francisco Level 3, Los Angeles Level 5: 35.2%; San
Francisco Level 5, Los Angeles Level 3: 60.9%; χ2 (1, N = 275) = 18.17,
p < .001; φ = 0.26, 95% CI [14.3%, 37.1%]). In other words, most
(62.9%) participants refrained from giving the gift that was superior to
something they owned themselves (p < .001 in a binomial test against
50%).
Next, we examine participants' beliefs about how their liking of
their 3-star room would have changed if they had upgraded their
friend's room in each of the two cities. As mentioned above, we created
a difference score to assess these ideas with a single measure; a lower
(higher) difference score indicates that a participant believed that their
liking of their 3-star room would have been more negatively affected if
they had upgraded their friend's room in San Francisco (Los Angeles).3
As expected, the San Francisco Level 3, Los Angeles Level 5 condition had
a lower mean difference score (M = −0.30, SD = 1.40) than the San
Francisco Level 5, Los Angeles Level 3 condition (M = +0.58, SD = 1.64;
t(273) = −4.81, p < .001, d = −0.58, 95% CI [−1.24, −0.52]. That
is, participants with a 3-star room in San Francisco and a 5-star room in
Los Angeles thought their satisfaction with their 3-star room would be
more negatively affected if they upgraded their friend's room in San
Francisco to a 4-star room, while participants with a 5-star room in San
Francisco and a 3-star room in Los Angeles thought their satisfaction
with their 3-star room would be more negatively affected if they up-
graded their friend's room in Los Angeles to a 4-star room. To test
whether this disparity mediated the difference in the percentage of
participants choosing to upgrade their friend's room in San Francisco
(vs. Los Angeles), we followed the method of Preacher and Leonardelli
Preacher and Leonardelli (2019) for mediation with a dichotomous
dependent variable. The Sobel test was significant (z = 2.20, p = .027;
see Fig. 1 for mediation analysis), indicating that the disparity in the
difference scores was largely responsible for the asymmetry in the
percentage of participants upgrading their friend's room in each city.
These results provide more evidence in support of our hypothesis
that givers are averse to giving gifts that compare favorably to their
own possessions because they believe that doing so will lead them to be
less satisfied with their own possessions. Collectively, Studies 4–6
provide converging evidence in support of this consideration as the
driver behind givers' aversion to giving gifts that compare favorably to
their own possessions. This study also employed a new product cate-
gory (hotel rooms), which further increases the generalizability of our
findings. Next, we look to replicate our findings when the decisions
involve real items.
12. Study 7
The purpose of Study 7 is to show that givers' aversion to giving gifts
that compare favorably to their own possessions leads them to choose
suboptimal gifts when making real-life decisions. To that end, in Study
7, participants were informed that at the end of the study there would
be a lottery and that if their name was drawn from the lottery, the gift
they chose would be given to the recipient.4 More specifically, parti-
cipants were informed of two upcoming baseball games for the local
baseball team (Pittsburgh Pirates vs. Milwaukee Brewers and Pittsburgh
Pirates vs. Cincinnati Reds) and were truthfully told that if their name
was drawn from a lottery, they would receive two tickets to both of the
3
Note that when examining only participants' beliefs about how their liking
of their 3-star room would be affected by upgrading their friend's room to a 4-
star room in that same city, we replicate Study 5's findings, such that partici-
pants expected that doing so would lead them to like their own 3-star room less
(M = −0.22, SD = 1.32; t(274) = −2.74, p = .007, d = −0.17, 95% CI
[−0.38, −0.06]).
4
Previous gift giving research has successfully employed lottery systems (e.g.,
Gino & Flynn, 2011; Givi & Galak, 2017; Ward & Broniarczyk, 2011).
382
Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388
games and a friend would receive two tickets to one of the two games;
specifically, whichever game the participant chose during the study.
The Pirates' stadium is organized such that the lower a section's
number, the better its seats (see Appendix D). Some participants (En-
vious) were told that if their name was drawn, they would receive two
tickets for 300-level (i.e., bad) seats to one of the games (e.g., the
Brewers game) and two tickets for single-digit-level (i.e., great) seats to
the other game (e.g., the Reds game). These participants then chose
whether they would want their friend to receive two tickets for 100-
level (i.e., good) seats to the Brewers game or two tickets for 200-level
(i.e., average) seats to the Reds game. These participants should be
averse to giving their friend the good 100-level seats to the Brewers
game, because they themselves would have only bad 300-level seats to
this game, so we predict that they will be (relatively) likely to instead
give their friend the average 200-level seats to the Reds game (even
though these 200-level seats are worse than the 100-level seats they are
refraining from giving). Further, these participants would have great
single-digit-level seats to the Reds game and thus should not be averse
to giving their friend average 200-level seats to this game. Other par-
ticipants (Not Envious) made the same choice, but the location of their
seats for each game was flipped. That is, if their name was drawn from
the lottery, they would receive two tickets for great single-digit-level
seats to the Brewers game and two tickets for bad 300-level seats to the
Reds game (see Table 3 for a simplified summary of the conditions).
These participants should not be averse to giving their friend the good
100-level seats to the Brewers game, because they themselves would
have great single-digit-level seats to this game, so we predict that they
will be quite likely to give their friend the tickets to this game (because
these 100-level seats are better than the average 200-level seats to the
Reds game). Additionally, these participants would have only bad 300-
level seats to the Reds game, so they should be averse to giving their
friend the average 200-level seats to this game (thus further motivating
them to give the good 100-level seats to the Brewers game). In sum,
participants in the Envious (Not Envious) condition should be more (less)
likely to choose the lesser 200-level seats, rather than the superior 100-
level seats.
12.1. Method
Participants were recruited through a university-run panel, local
subreddits, local Facebook pages, and the local Craigslist volunteer
page, via an advertisement that offered a $1.00 Amazon gift card for
participation. The study was advertised during the weeks prior to the
games, and data collection stopped five days before the first game. Four
hundred and thirty-four potential participants responded to the ads. Of
these, 298 were discarded because they failed one of the eligibility
requirements (see below), 31 were discarded because their IP address
appeared multiple times in the data (indicating multiple attempts at
study completion by the same person), and seven were discarded be-
cause their responses to the open-ended questions were flagged for
likely being written by the same person (e.g., identical responses by two
participants who completed the study within minutes of each other).
This resulted in 108 successful completions of the study (51% female;
Mage = 31.8, SDage = 11.9) after accounting for overlap among these
exclusion criteria. Twenty-five of these participants were excluded for
failing an attention check.
The first screen of the study contained three eligibility questions
that were imbedded with several filler questions. The first eligibility
question measured the extent to which the potential participant liked
the Pittsburgh Pirates on a 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very much) scale.
Participants who responded below a 3 were deemed not eligible. We
felt it was necessary to exclude those who did not like the team, because
they may not have felt envious if their friend had better seats to a game
than they did. The second eligibility question asked participants on
which of seven dates they had evening plans. Participants who in-
dicated they had evening plans on either of the dates of the games were
J. Givi and J. Galak
Difference Score
B = .88***
B = 1.05***
(B = .88**)
Condition
Fig. 1. Study 6 mediation analysis.
Note: Condition coded as: 1 = San Francisco Level 5, Los Angeles Level 3, 0 = San Francisco Level 3, Los Angeles Level 5. Values in parenthesis indicate results when both
Condition and the difference score are included in the regression. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 3
Setup and results of Study 7.
Condition Participant's seats at Brewers game Participant's seats at Reds game
Envious-Brewers 300-level Single-digit-level
Not Envious-Brewers Single-digit-level 300-level
Envious-Reds Single-digit-level 300-level
Not Envious-Reds 300-level Single-digit-level
deemed not eligible. The third eligibility question asked participants to
indicate for which of seven social media outlets they had accounts.
Participants who did not have a Facebook account were deemed not
eligible (see below).
Eligible participants were then informed that they would be taking a
“Movie Survey” and a “Social Media Survey” and that if they completed
both, they would receive a $1 Amazon gift card and be entered into a
lottery for Pittsburgh Pirates tickets. Participants then completed the
Movie Survey (which served as a sham task to conceal the true nature of
the study) before advancing to the Social Media Survey. To begin the
Social Media Survey, participants listed the name of a friend with a
Facebook account. Next, they were informed that the researchers were
interested in how consumers use social media to interact at sporting
events and thus needed some participants to go to Pittsburgh Pirates
games. Therefore, at the end of data collection, there would be a lottery,
and if their name was selected, a researcher would give them two
tickets to both an upcoming Pittsburgh Pirates vs. Milwaukee Brewers
game and an upcoming Pittsburgh Pirates vs. Cincinnati Reds game,
and give their friend two tickets to one of these two games; specifically,
whichever game the participant chose during the study. It was made
clear that the two tickets their friend would receive were for different
seats than their own seats and that they would not have to give up their
seats to either game. It was also made clear that they and their friend
would separately receive their tickets from the researcher (to avoid the
possibility of a participant planning to sell their friend's tickets). Next,
participants were told that if their name was selected, then during
whichever game they chose for their friend, they would both be re-
quired to tag each other in Facebook posts at least once per inning and
discuss what they liked and disliked about their seats and the per-
spective from their seats. This facet was included to keep the cover story
of a Social Media Survey realistic, to keep participants from planning to
sell their own tickets, and to highlight the comparison of the partici-
pant's versus the friend's seats.
The study then became a 2 (Game with 100-Level Seats: Brewers,
Reds) × 2 (Envy: Envious, Not Envious) between-subjects design.
Participants were shown stadium maps with arrows indicating where
their seats would be for each game and where their friend's seats could
possibly be for each game (see Appendix D for the stimuli employed in
the Envious-Brewers and Not Envious-Brewers conditions). Participants in
the Envious-Brewers condition were told that they would have two seats
in a 300-level green section (e.g., 325) for the Brewers game and two
seats in a single-digit-level light red section (e.g., 19) for the Reds game,
and that they could choose for their friend to have two seats in a 100-
level light blue section (e.g., 121) for the Brewers game or two seats in a
383
Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388
B = .32**
(B = .24*)
Upgrade the SF Room
Choice % Giving 200-level seats
100-level Brewers or 200-level Reds 50%
100-level Brewers or 200-level Reds 28%
200-level Brewers or 100-level Reds 50%
200-level Brewers or 100-level Reds 24%
200-level orange section (e.g., 223) for the Reds game. Participants in
the Not Envious-Brewers condition were told that they would have two
seats in a single-digit-level light red section for the Brewers game and
two seats in a 300-level green section for the Reds game, and that they
could choose for their friend to have two seats in a 100-level light blue
section for the Brewers game or two seats in a 200-level orange section
for the Reds game. Participants in the Envious-Reds condition were told
that they would have two seats in a single-digit-level light red section
for the Brewers game and two seats in a 300-level green section for the
Reds game, and that they could choose for their friend to have two seats
in a 200-level orange section for the Brewers game or two seats in a
100-level light blue section for the Reds game. Participants in the Not
Envious-Reds condition were told that they would have two seats in a
300-level green section for the Brewers game and two seats in a single-
digit-level light red section for the Reds game, and that they could
choose for their friend to have two seats in a 200-level orange section
for the Brewers game or two seats in a 100-level light blue section for
the Reds game. Note that though this study has four conditions, we are
interested in only the comparison of the Envious conditions, because the
Game with 100-Level Seats manipulation simply serves as a counter-
balance. Indeed, a logistic regression on the dependent variable with
Game with 100-Level Seats, Envy, and their interaction as independent
variables did not reveal a significant interaction (χ2 (1,
N = 83) = 0.05). Therefore, we collapse across Game with 100-Level
Seats to form two conditions: Envious, Not Envious (see Table 3 for the
results across the original conditions).
To ensure everything was clear, participants re-wrote a paragraph
explaining who would receive what tickets to each game if their name
was chosen from the lottery. Next, they chose which game they would
want their friend to receive tickets to, answered an attention check
(about which game(s) they and their friend would receive tickets to if
their name was drawn from the lottery), and responded to demographic
questions. After the study, the participant whose name was drawn from
the lottery and the friend were given their respective tickets.
12.2. Results and discussion
As expected, a greater percentage of participants in the Envious (vs.
Not Envious) condition chose for their friend to receive the tickets for
the lesser 200-level seats (Envious: 50.0%; Not Envious: 25.6%; χ2 (1,
N = 83) = 5.18, p = .023, φ = 0.25, 95% CI [4.3%, 44.6%]). In other
words, participants were more likely to refrain from giving their friend
the tickets to the game with the better seats when they themselves
would have had inferior seats at that game, in comparison to when they
J. Givi and J. Galak
would have had superior seats at that game.
This study demonstrates that even when making real-life decisions,
givers are more likely to forego their recipients' preferences if a gift is
(vs. is not) superior to something they own themselves. This study also
employed a new product category (baseball tickets), which further in-
creases the generalizability of our findings.
13. General discussion
Across eight studies, we systematically explored givers' aversion to
giving gifts that compare favorably to their own possessions. We
showed that this aversion influences givers' choices across various oc-
casions (housewarming gifts, birthday gifts, “out of the blue” gifts),
product categories (housing decorations, concert tickets, airplane
tickets, hotel rooms, baseball tickets), and giver-recipient relationships
(neighbors, friends); that it drives givers to give gifts they know are less
preferred; and that it arises because givers expect to like their own
possessions less as a result of giving something that compares favorably
to said possessions.
13.1. Theoretical contributions and practical implications
Our work adds to the growing literature on gift giving (Galak et al.,
2016). Whereas most of the experimental gift giving literature has
treated asymmetries between the types of gifts givers give and the ones
recipients prefer to receive as unintentional mistakes on the part of
givers, we documental a novel consideration that leads givers to
sometimes choose gifts they know are suboptimal: a desire to remain
satisfied with their own possessions. Moving forward, those studying
gift giving asymmetries should always be sure to consider, and test for,
selfish giver motives as possible underlying drivers of said asymmetries
(rather than assume givers are erring on accident). Relatedly, some
research in economics has questioned whether the custom of gift giving
is even rational from a utility maximizing perspective, because no
matter how hard givers try, they are unable to give recipients exactly
what they want every time they give a gift (Waldfogel, 1993). Our work
suggests that some of this deadweight loss is not an accident: givers
knowingly and willingly engage in suboptimal gift giving rather than
give a preferred gift that will lead to a lessened liking of their own
possessions. Although qualitative researchers have long suggested that
givers' desires may stray from the goal of maximizing the recipient's
happiness (e.g., Otnes et al., 1993; Sherry et al., 1993), very few ex-
perimental researchers have tested these hypotheses via an experi-
mental approach. Not only do we employ such an approach to test a
hypothesis regarding a more selfish consideration of givers, but our
avoidance of envy hypothesis is also one that, to the best of our
knowledge, has not even been explored by qualitative researchers. In
sum, our work adds to each of the various gift giving literatures.
Our work also adds to the literature on consumer envy. Whereas
previous envy research has focused on how experiencing envy leads
consumers to make strategic consumption decisions aimed at elim-
inating it, we show that consumers act strategically to eliminate envy
before it can even manifest. Our work fits nicely with the envy research
documenting consumers' willingness to “pull down” envied others (e.g.,
Zizzo & Oswald, 2001), as we show that even the possibility of envy can
lead to destructive behaviors. Perhaps the most interesting facet of our
work is that, unlike previous work studying the interplay of envy/social
comparisons and consumer behavior, we study it in a context (gift
giving) that is supposed to be governed by altruism. That is, gift giving
is inherently about pleasing others, yet we find that givers willingly
choose less preferred gifts rather than give something that will cause a
disutility to the self. Moreover, we find that givers do so when giving to
both close and less close recipients (i.e., friends and new neighbors) and
irrespective of other factors, such as the specific gifts under con-
sideration and the gift giving occasion. In fact, the only time we found a
(somewhat) weaker result was when givers were choosing a gift that
384
Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388
they likely would not frequently compare to their own possessions
down the road and that thus would not cause a disutility to the self. This
is all to say that our work shows that altruism and selflessness some-
times take a back seat to selfishness in gift giving contexts.
Our research has implications for both managers and consumers.
Managers often advertise and position their products as avenues
through which consumers can lead others to envy them. Indeed, both
the prevalence of products and adverting agencies that contain some
form of the word “envy” (e.g., HP ENVY Laptops, LG enV, Envy
Scooters, ENVY Advertising, Concept Envy Advertising, Envy Create,
etc.) and the numerous commercials that depict how the promoted
product can lead others to envy the consumer, speak to envy creation as
a central goal in advertising. Our work suggests that such a focus on
envy creation could have a downside: consumers may be averse to
purchasing products that cue an envy consideration when making
consumption decisions for others. Therefore, during times when con-
sumers are likely to be purchasing products for others (e.g., the Winter
holidays), marketers may be wise to refrain from running advertise-
ments that center around envy generation. Another option may be to
keep such advertisements and simultaneously employ “buy one, get
one” promotions. Allowing consumers to obtain a copy of the ad-
vertised product themselves should mitigate any feelings of envy.
Furthermore, gift recipients enjoy receiving products identical to those
that givers purchase for themselves (Polman & Maglio, 2017), so this
could be a “win-win-win,” so to speak, for givers, recipients, and
marketers. For consumers, our work suggests that those receiving gifts
should not expect to receive gifts that their givers feel are better than
their own possessions, even when the givers know that such gifts are
preferred. Thus, rather than requesting such products as gifts, con-
sumers should purchase them for themselves and request that givers
purchase them other products instead. For those giving gifts, our work
illuminates a sinister consideration that harms their choices. A sound
strategy for givers faced with the uneasy situation of knowing that a
preferred gift compares favorably to their own possessions may be to
learn what else the recipient would like and give that as a gift, rather
than give something that is less preferred.
13.2. Limitations and future research
Our work does have some limitations. One limitation is that in some
of our decorations studies, we did not state that the decorations were
outdoor decorations—although we did state that the new neighbors did
not have decorations because they had moved from an apartment,
which should have led participants to believe they were dealing with
outdoor decorations. Further, decorations are typically thought of as
outdoor items, which makes it more probable that participants believed
that the decorations were outdoor decorations. The results of Study 4
support these suppositions. Another limitation is that in Study 7, par-
ticipants' choices were not guaranteed to be realized, and thus they may
not have viewed them as fully consequential. Though we have no
reason to speculate that participants' decisions would have system-
atically changed if they were guaranteed to be realized, this possibility
does exist. However, note that the lottery system we employed is useful
in gift giving research, as it allows for the observation of giver behavior
when givers are considering expensive gifts (which makes it unrealistic,
from a financing perspective, to have every participant's choice rea-
lized). Indeed, similar lotteries have been employed several times in
earlier gift giving research (Gino & Flynn, 2011; Givi & Galak, 2017;
Ward & Broniarczyk, 2011). Another limitation is that, in our decora-
tions studies, the vignette stated only that the two decoration packages
were on sale, but did not state that they cost the same (in all other
studies, it was stated that the gifts cost the same). Thus, an alternative
explanation for the findings of those studies is that our manipulation
(i.e., Halloween Level 3, Winter Level 5 vs. Halloween Level 5, Winter Level
3) altered participants' perceptions of the decoration packages' prices.
For example, in Study 1A, participants in the Halloween Level 3, Winter
J. Givi and J. Galak
Level 5 (Halloween Level 5, Winter Level 3) condition may have increased
(decreased) their predicted price of the Halloween decorations and
decreased (increased) their predicted price of the Winter decorations,
and then avoided a gift when it seemed expensive. To test this possi-
bility, we ran a post-test in which participants were assigned to one of
these two conditions and then estimated the price of one of the dec-
oration packages (i.e., there were four between-subjects conditions).
The conditions that estimated the Halloween decoration package's price
estimated similar prices (MH3W5 = $72.11 vs. MH5W3 = $83.43;
p = .374), and the conditions that estimated the Winter decoration
package's price estimated similar prices (MH3W5 = $95.58 vs.
MH5W3 = $91.24; p = .769). Further, an ANOVA on the estimated price
with the participant's decorations, the decorations being evaluated, and
their interaction as predictors did not reveal any significant main effects
nor a significant interaction (all p's > 0.10).
To that end, future research could address some of our work's lim-
itations or explore other interesting questions that stem from our work.
For example, what are the other selfish considerations that lead givers
to intentionally give suboptimal gifts? Though we identified one such
consideration, there are undoubtedly others, and it is our hope that
future research methodically explores them. Relatedly, a worthwhile
endeavor for future work is to develop a conceptual framework for
when givers care more about pleasing themselves versus their
Appendix A. Stimuli employed in the Halloween Level 3, Winter Level 5 condition in Study 1A
385
Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388
recipients. The self-centered gift giving that we documented occurred
despite us varying several factors across studies (e.g., social closeness,
occasion, product category, etc.), but there must be circumstances
under which givers are focused solely on pleasing their recipients. In
our view, the literature would benefit greatly from a framework that
identifies such circumstances.
13.3. Conclusion
In summary, our work documents a novel consideration that drives
givers to knowingly give suboptimal gifts, contributes to numerous
literatures, has several practical implications, and opens many doors for
future research. As gift giving is about bringing joy to recipients, we
hope that readers take our findings to heart and refrain from any “en-
vious gift giving” in the future.
Acknowledgements
None.
Outside funding sources statement
No outside sources contributed to the funding of this research.
J. Givi and J. Galak Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388

Appendix B. Stimuli employed in the Bad Acoustics Seats, Good Microphones Seats condition in Study 1B

Appendix C. Stimuli employed in the Envious and Not Envious conditions in Study 2

Envious:

Not Envious:

386
J. Givi and J. Galak
Appendix D. Stimuli employed in the Envious-Brewers and Not Envious-Brewers conditions in Study 7
Envious-Brewers:
Not Envious-Brewers:
References
Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. (1991). Personal values and gift-giving behaviors:
A study across cultures. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 149–157.
Otnes, C., Lowrey, T. M., & Kim, Y. C. (1993). Gift selection for easy and difficult re-
cipients: A social roles interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 229–244.
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 906–920.
Sherry, J. F., McGrath, M. A., & Levy, S. J. (1993). The dark side of the gift. Journal of
Business Research, 28(3), 225–244.
Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Diener, E. F., Hoyle, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (1999). Dispositional
envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 1007–1020.
Zizzo, D. J., & Oswald, A. J. (2001). Are people willing to pay to reduce others' incomes?
Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, 63/64, 39–65.
Teigen, K. H., Olsen, M. V., & Solås, O. E. (2005). Giver–receiver asymmetries in gift
preferences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(1), 125–144.
Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Sardeshmukh, S. R. (2007). The negative consequences of
pay dispersion in family and non-family top management teams: An exploratory
analysis of new venture, high-growth firms. Journal of Business Research, 60(10),
1039–1047.
Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1),
46–64.
Flynn, F. J., & Adams, G. S. (2009). Money can't buy love: Asymmetric beliefs about gift
price and feelings of appreciation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2),
404–409.
Ward, M. K., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2011). It's not me, it's you: How gift giving creates
giver identity threat as a function of social closeness. Journal of Consumer Research,
38(1), 164–181.
Baskin, E., Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., & Novemsky, N. (2014). Why feasibility matters
more to gift receivers than to givers: A construal-level approach to gift giving. Journal
of Consumer Research, 41(1), 122–134.
Adjin-Tettey, T. D., & Bempah, K. (2015). A study exploring the influence of media
consumption on body image and beauty among young corporate Ghanaian women in
the Greater Accra Region. Journal of Business Research, 9(1), 28–43.
Kupor, D., Flynn, F. J., & Norton, M. I. (2017). Half a gift is not half-hearted: A gi-
ver–receiver asymmetry in the thoughtfulness of partial gifts. Personality and Social
387
Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388
Psychology Bulletin, 43(12), 1686–1695.
Zheng, X., & Baskin, E. (2018). The spillover effect of incidental social comparison on
materialistic pursuits: The mediating role of envy. European Journal of Marketing,
52(5/6), 1107–1127.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2019). Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive
calculation tool for mediation tests. Retrieved February 13, 2019, from http://
quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm.
Ordabayeva, N., & Chandon, P. (2011). Getting ahead of the Joneses: When equality
increases conspicuous consumption among bottom-tier consumers. Journal of
Consumer Research, 38(1), 27–41.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in
social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.
Zhang, Y., & Epley, N. (2012). Exaggerated, mispredicted, and misplaced: When “it's the
thought that counts” in gift exchanges. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
141(4), 667–681.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2),
117–140.
Cavanaugh, L. A., Gino, F., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2015). When doing good is bad in gift
giving: Mis-predicting appreciation of socially responsible gifts. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131, 178–189.
Gino, F., & Flynn, F. J. (2011). Give them what they want: The benefits of explicitness in
gift exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 915–922.
Ackerman, D., MacInnis, D., & Folkes, V. (2000). Social comparisons of possessions: When
it feels good and when it feels bad. Advances in Consumer Research, 27, 173–178.
Foster, G. (1972). The anatomy of envy. Current Anthropology, 13(2), 165–202.
Givi, J., & Galak, J. (2017). Sentimental value and gift giving: Givers' fears of getting it
wrong prevents them from getting it right. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4),
473–479.
Karanika, K., & Hogg, M. K. (2016). Being kind to ourselves: Self-compassion, coping, and
consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 760–769.
Clark, A. E., Westergård-Nielsen, N., & Kristensen, N. (2009). Economic satisfaction and
income rank in small neighbourhoods. Journal of the European Economic Association,
7(2–3), 519–527.
Steffel, M., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2014). Over-individuation in gift giving: Shopping for
multiple recipients leads givers to choose unique but less preferred gifts. Journal of
Consumer Research, 40(6), 1167–1180.
Polman, E., & Maglio, S. J. (2017). Mere gifting: Liking a gift more because it is shared.
J. Givi and J. Galak
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(11), 1582–1594.
Givi, J., Galak, J., & Olivola, C. Y. (2017). Two's company, three's a crowd: Givers'
oversensitivity to other givers' gifts. Advances in Consumer Research, 45, 217–221.
Zheng, X., Baskin, E., & Peng, S. (2018). Feeling inferior, showing off: The effect of
nonmaterial social comparisons on conspicuous consumption. Journal of Business
Research, 90, 196–205.
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2011). The envy premium in product
evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 984–998.
Sherry, J. F. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research Research, 10(2), 157–168.
Smith, A. S. (2017, October 27). NRF consumer survey points to busy holiday season,
backs up economic forecast and import numbers. Retrieved October 11, 2018, from
https://nrf.com/media/press-releases/nrf-consumer-survey-points-busy-holiday-
season-backs-economic-forecast-and.
Waldfogel, J. (1993). The deadweight loss of Christmas. The American Economic Review,
83(5), 1328–1336.
Ward, M. K., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2016). Ask and you shall (not) receive: Close friends
prioritize relational signaling over recipient preferences in their gift choices. Journal
of Marketing Research, 53(6), 1001–1018.
Galak, J., Givi, J., & Williams, E. F. (2016). Why certain gifts are great to give but not to
get: A framework for understanding errors in gift giving. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 25(6), 380–385.
Wooten, D. B. (2000). Qualitative steps toward an expanded model of anxiety in gift-
giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 84–95.
Choi, W. J., Park, J., & Yoon, H. J. (2018). Your gift choice for your boss versus your
subordinate would not be the same: The interplay of power and giver-receiver role on
388
Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 375–388
consumers' gift preferences. Journal of Business Research, 91, 1–7.
Julian Givi is an assistant professor of marketing at West Virginia University's John
Chambers College of Business and Economics. He has published academic research in top
journals, including the Journal of Consumer Psychology and Current Directions in
Psychological Science. He has presented his research at top marketing and psychology
conferences, including annual meetings of the Association for Consumer Research and
Society for Judgment and Decision Making. His work focuses on gift giving behavior,
forecasting, and probability perception.
Jeff Galak is an associate professor of marketing at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper
School of Business. His expertise is in consumer behavior, consumer psychology, judg-
ment and decision making, and research methodology. He has published academic re-
search in top journals, including the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing
Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Psychological Science, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, and Judgment and Decision Making. He has presented his research at top
marketing and psychology conferences, including annual meetings of the Association for
Consumer Research, Society for Consumer Psychology, Society for Judgment and Decision
Making, and Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Though his primary interest is
understanding consumer behavior more broadly, he focuses on work looking at, among
other things, gift giving behavior, consumer enjoyment, hedonic adaptation, variety
seeking, affective forecasting, expectation updating, sentimental value, and fluency ef-
fects.