Brain Blogger Home
  • Home
  • About
    • Editor's Note
    • Contributors
  • Advertise
  • Archives
    • By Author
    • By Topic
    • By Year
    • By Month
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Topics
    • Popular
    • Series
    • Video
    • Carnivals
  • Sitemap
  • Subscribe
  • Neuroscience & Neurology
  • Psychology & Psychiatry
  • Health & Healthcare
  • More >>
    • BioPsychoSocial Health
    • Complementary & Alternative Medicine
    • Drugs & Clinical Trials
    • History of Medicine
    • Law & Politics
    • Living with a Brain Disorder
    • Opinion
    • Site News
    • Stigmatization
  • View Archives
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • By Month
  • By Author

Follow BB:

Brain Blogger on FaceBook Brain Blogger on twitter Brain Blogger on Flickr Brain Blogger on YouTube
Advertisement
Psychology & Psychiatry
December 25, 2011

Bad Christmas Gifts – A Neuroscientific Gifting Guide

By Jordan Gaines, PhD student | 4 Comments | Share | Print | Email | Tweet | Like | 1+
Golden Christmas gifts

Gift-giving isn’t easy — particularly during the holidays, when there are so many different people for whom to buy. It’s overwhelming and stressful, and people cope with the burden in different ways. Some, like myself, begin lists in September, all the while picking up hints from others and taking note, then making my purchases before Thanksgiving. Others rush to the mall the weekend before — or of — Christmas, hoping something will catch their eye or they’ll snag a great deal.

At one point or another, we’ve all been on the receiving end of a poor or ill-fitting gift. How did you react to it? Or, more importantly, what did it mean to you in terms of your relationship with the giver? A study in recent years has explored exactly how men and women react upon receiving good and bad gifts.

A paper published in Social Cognition by Elizabeth Dunn and colleagues at the University of British Columbia explored the theory that while “good” gifts would reaffirm similarity between couples, poor gift-giving may cause partners to question their compatibility.

In the first experiment, participants met and chatted with a person of the opposite sex for four minutes. Afterward, they were instructed to select a gift for their new friend from a list of gift cards for various restaurants and stores. Would each participant evaluate their similarity to the person based on the gift they received?

Beforehand, each participant had ranked the gifts in the order in which they would personally prefer to receive them; the experimenter then used this information to persuade the participants when it came to gift-selecting. As a result, half of the participants chose their friend’s top choice, while the other half selected their friend’s second-to-last choice. Basically: half got what they wanted, and half did not.

Men who received the gifts they desired perceived themselves as more similar to their partner than those who did not. Women, however, seemed relatively unaffected by the appropriateness of the gift.

Dunn and colleagues performed a follow-up experiment, this time with men and women already in heterosexual relationships. Again, men who received poor gifts perceived less similarity to their partner. When asked how long they expected their relationship to last, those men predicted a shorter future with their girlfriend.

In an unexpected twist, women who received the poor gift from their boyfriend actually perceivedmore similarity with them, and predicted their relationship to last longer compared those women who received the good gift.

Dunn reason that perhaps the more “threatened” women feel in a relationship (in this case, internal conflict from receiving the poor gift), the more they try to protect against it. With the new relationship (experiment #1), there was not much to protect, hence the indifference to their partner. When, however, there is a substantial relationship to guard (experiment #2), women are more motivated to remedy the situation. Men did not display this effort, simply stating that they did not like the gift — and, by extension — their partner.

So the moral of the story is: if you want to stick with your honey, gift a woman a sock and a man their favorite Rolex. (Just kidding. Don’t. Seriously…don’t.)

References

Dunn, E., Huntsinger, J., Lun, J., & Sinclair, S. (2008). The Gift of Similarity: How Good and Bad Gifts Influence Relationships Social Cognition, 26 (4), 469-481 DOI: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.4.469

Image via Yelloj / Shutterstock.

Jordan Gaines, PhD student

Jordan Gaines, PhD student, is a graduate student and science writer pursuing her Ph.D. in Neuroscience at Penn State. She maintains the blog "Gaines, on Brains," which introduces recent discoveries in neuroscience to science lovers and non-lovers, the literate to the laymen.

Related Articles

  • Commitment – It’s the new Love
  • Transparency in the Pharmaceutical Industry
  • Maternal Relationship Reduces Violence and Improves Intelligence
  • Domestic Violence: Call for Primary Care Screening and Gender Issues – Part I
  • Motivation for Mental Health Care – All it Takes is a Phone Call
  • Women After Sex
  • Love Can Alleviate Pain

4 Responses

  1. Octavian says:
    December 26, 2011 at 8:22 am

    I don’t know much about other gifts, but if you always want to make sure they will love your gift, always choose electronics! No matter how old or young they are, they will always appreciate it!

    Reply
    • BioProf says:
      December 26, 2011 at 1:09 pm

      I assume you are speaking about a gift for a man. Speaking as a woman, I know that when my husband gives me an electronic gift, it’s something that he wants as a toy, not really something for me. That’s OK, since I want him to be happy, and I’m no good at picking out electronic gifts.

      Reply
  2. Carmela says:
    December 29, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    I know that if my boyfriend got me a cruise to the Bahamas, I would love him forever. I’m a little tired of getting gift cards to Home Depot

    Reply
  3. energynotsaved says:
    January 2, 2012 at 7:51 am

    In the 30 years of my marriage, my hubby gave me a total of 5 gifts that I wanted/liked/requested. The jewelry was always flashy or tacky, not at all my taste. The books were things he liked. The vacations his goals. I wasn’t part of his life.

    I never looked at him and said, “what is this crap?” Had I, the marriage might have ended sooner, but I would have been left with stuff I liked rather than pawnshop material!

    Selfish gift giving should be a warning to those dating. Selfish doesn’t change.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Subscribe without commenting


Advertisement

Popular Posts

  • Humanistic Theory and Therapy, Applied to the Psychotic Individual
  • Can Age-Related Forgetfulness be Overcome?
  • Music Therapy for the Alzheimer’s Disease Patient
  • Long-lasting Effects of Meditation
  • Ketogenic Diet for Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders

Future Posts

  • Improving Emotional Intelligence in Psychosis with Art Therapy
  • Multifaceted Causes of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
  • Math Anxiety – Dealing with Fear of Failure
  • Boosting Cognitive Performance by… Chewing?
  • Can You ‘Catch’ Depression?
Advertisement

Latest Posts

  • What Color Is That? The Answer Depends On the Language You Speak
  • Out-Group Discrimination Fuels Anger, Risk-Taking and Vigilance
  • Understanding How Color Is Perceived in the Brain
  • Psychopharmacological Drug Development in A Depression?
  • Teaching the Brain to Calm Itself

Comments

  • cars: There are many details that ne
  • Gabby: Schizophrenia is a really comp
  • Weronika: It's very hard to achieve full
  • Shower Screens: Very informative and interesti
  • i disagree: man this article is biased.we
Sponsored

GNLD NeoLife, neurofeedback, Free Shipping, chinese wholesale, GNLD,  Rollup Banner Stands ,   Buy Nexium

Copyright © 2005-2013 Brain Blogger sponsored by Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation (GNIF). All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer | Brain Blogger Privacy Policy | UBM Medical Network Privacy Policy | Feed | Log in | ISSN 1931-6224 | 0.646s