태그 보관물: Construal level theory

선물, 주는 사람과 받는 사람 입장이 이렇게 다릅니다 (Gift giving)

선물을 주는 사람과 선물을 받는 사람이 선물의 가치를 다르게 평가하나요?

“선물을 주는 사람은 선물을 받는 사람이 기뻐하고 감동하는 순간에서 가치를 찾지만, 선물을 받는 사람은 받은 선물이 얼마나 쓸모있을지에서 가치를 찾습니다. 결국, 선물을 주는 사람은 선물 받는 사람이 느낄 감동을 과대 평가할 가능성이 높습니다.”

*행동경제학
선물 고르기와 행동경제학
#선물 에 대한 동서양 인식 차이
#현금 과 선물에 대한 인식과 평가
– 선물 만족도 끌어올리기 등
#주재우 교수 (국민대 경영학과)
#KBS1라디오 #경제라디오 #성공예감이대호입니다 #성공예감 #이대호 #경제심층인터뷰 #성공예감심화학습 #성공예감인터뷰 #경제 #트렌드팔로우

**

Reference

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 givingJournal of Consumer Research41(1), 169-182.

This article looks at the trade-offs that gift givers and gift receivers make between desirability and feasibility using construal level theory as a framework. Focusing on the asymmetric distance from a gift that exists within giver-receiver dyads, the authors propose that, unlike receivers, givers construe gifts abstractly and therefore weight desirability attributes more than feasibility attributes. Support for this proposition emerges in studies examining giver and receiver mind-sets, as well as giver and receiver evaluations of gifts. Furthermore, givers do not choose gifts that maximize receiver happiness or other relationship goals even though givers believe they are doing so. Finally, the authors demonstrate that while givers are sensitive to their distance from the receiver, receivers are not sensitive to this distance.

We recruited 425 US-based participants from Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. However, 365 were left after removing those who clicked to enter but did not finish the study, failed the IMC, or incorrectly answered whether they were in the giver or receiver condition. Participants were divided into a 2 (participant role: giver vs. receiver) X 2 (perspective: control vs. own preference) between-subjects design. First, participants imagined a specific friend and wrote down that friend’s initials. Then they imagined either giving that friend a gift or receiving a gift from that friend for a birthday occasion. Each participant was asked to imagine a choice between a highly feasible gift (a photo-editing program with few features that was easy to use) and a highly desirable gift (a high-quality photo-editing program that was hard to learn) and to give their relative preference on a 1–7 bipolar scale anchored at “prefer Gift A” and “prefer Gift B,” where Gift B was the high-desirability option. Right before answering, half of the participants were asked to take a moment to think about which software they would prefer for themselves.