Volume 25 Issue 3 Article 5
October 2023
Gift Sharing on Social Media: What Drives It? Gift Sharing on Social Media: What Drives It?
Mira Lee
Professor, CAU Business School, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea
Yoon-Hee Kang
Instructor, Department of Psychology, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea
, psy_kyh@naver.com
Follow this and additional works at: https://amj.kma.re.kr/journal
Part of the Advertising and Promotion Management Commons, E-Commerce Commons, Marketing
Commons, and the Other Business Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Lee, Mira and Kang, Yoon-Hee (2023) "Gift Sharing on Social Media: What Drives It?,"
Asia Marketing
Journal
: Vol. 25 : Iss. 3 , Article 5.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.53728/2765-6500.1617
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Asia Marketing Journal. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Asia Marketing Journal by an authorized editor of Asia Marketing Journal.
Gift Sharing on Social Media: What Drives It?
Mira Lee
a
, Yoon-Hee Kang
b,
*
a
Professor, CAU Business School, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea
b
Instructor, Department of Psychology, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea
Abstract
This study examines factors inuencing gift sharing on social media. An online survey gathered data from Ameri-
can adults. It investigates how motivations for social media content posting, gift attributes, giver characteristics, and
recipient reactions affect gift-sharing behavior. Findings show self-expression motives in content posting drive sharing,
while social interaction motives do not. Gifts perceived as experiential and expensive are more likely to be shared.
Recipient-centric gifts positively inuence gift sharing, while giver-centric gifts hinder sharing. Attitude towards the
gift predicts sharing, while appreciation does not. The study enhances understanding of gift sharing on social media
and offers marketing insights for leveraging this behavior.
Keywords: Gifts, Gift-giving, Gift-givers, Gift-recipients, Gift-posting, Social media
1. Introduction
G
ift posting on social media platforms has be-
come a prevalent phenomenon, with individuals
frequently sharing the gifts they receive on various
occasions. Gift posts on social media can trigger envy
among viewers, leading to increased brand value and
purchase intention of the posted items (Lin 2018).
Moreover, when individuals choose to share their
received gifts on these platforms, they commonly em-
ploy brand- and product-related hashtags alongside
a general identier like #gift. Given that numerous
gift seekers turn to social media platforms to uncover
gift ideas, this act of gift posting can enhance brand
awareness, amplifying the reach and impact of shared
gifts across broader audiences.
In the realm of gift research, the majority of studies
have centered on the expectations and psycholog-
ical responses of both gift givers and recipients
(Cavanaugh, Gino, and Fitzsimons 2015; Flynn and
Adams 2009; Givi 2021; Givi and Das 2023; Givi and
Galak 2022; Givi and Mu 2022; Luo et al. 2019; Rixom,
Mas, and Rixom 2020). However, there has been a
dearth of attention paid to the public and behav-
ioral responses of gift recipients as they engage in the
practice of gift sharing on social media. While a lim-
ited number of recent studies have begun to uncover
aspects of gift recipients’ reactions on social media
(Chinchanachokchai and Pusaksrikit 2021), a compre-
hensive exploration of the multifaceted factors that
contribute to the phenomenon of gift sharing on social
media remains lacking.
This study aims to bridge the gap in our under-
standing by investigating the factors that drive the act
of sharing received gifts on social media platforms.
The sharing of gifts on social media is a multifaceted
behavior inuenced by various factors that shape in-
dividuals’ responses to gift-related variables. First,
it is vital to investigate how the characteristics of
a gift impact the probability of it being shared on
social media. While prior studies suggest that the
monetary value of a gift is not necessarily correlated
with recipient appreciation (Flynn and Adams 2009),
it is worth noting that the perceived price can still
function as a means of conveying its signicance on
social media. Additionally, research has shown that
gift recipients tend to develop a stronger connec-
tion with the giver and experience greater joy when
receiving experiential gifts as opposed to material
goods (Chan and Mogilner 2017; Goodman and Lim
2018). Furthermore, previous investigations have in-
dicated that gifts aligning with the recipient’s image
are more likely to elicit appreciation compared to gifts
that align with the giver’s image (Luo et al. 2019).
Received 11 September 2023; accepted 20 October 2023.
Available online 31 October 2023
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Lee), psy_kyh@naver.com (Y.-H. Kang).
https://doi.org/10.53728/2765-6500.1617
2765-6500/© 2023 Korean Marketing Association (KMA). This is an open-access article under the CC-BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172 161
It is intriguing to explore whether these preferences
for experiential gifts and gifts aligned with the re-
cipient’s image, as highlighted in the existing gift
literature, extend to the act of sharing them on social
media.
Second, the signicance of the social bond shared
between the giver and the recipient cannot be over-
stated. Research has emphasized the impact of this
bond on gifting behaviors and reactions (Cavanaugh,
Gino, and Fitzsimons 2015; Givi and Galak 2017).
Sharing a gift on social media may become a means
not only to express gratitude to the giver but also to
showcase the intimate bond between the giver and
recipient to a broader network.
Furthermore, recipients’ psychological and attitu-
dinal responses, such as feelings of appreciation
and their attitude toward the gift, have been fre-
quently examined as recipients’ reactions to both the
gift and the giver in gift-related literature (Flynn
and Adams 2009; Luo et al. 2019; Rixom, Mas,
and Rixom 2020; Zhang and Epley 2012). It is in-
triguing to assess whether these variables will yield
observable public and behavioral responses on social
media.
In addition to gift-related variables, the act of shar-
ing gifts on social media can also be motivated by
factors that drive general social media content post-
ing. Understanding why people choose to share their
gifts on social media is crucial, as motivations play a
pivotal role in shaping their behavior. Among various
motivations for using social media (Lee et al. 2015;
Sheldon et al. 2017), this study specically focuses
on two primary drivers for posting content: social
interaction and self-expression. These motivations are
examined in terms of their impact on the likelihood of
sharing gifts on social media.
In summary, this study seeks to examine the multi-
faceted drivers, including social media content post-
ing motivations and gift-related factors such as the
attributes of gifts, the relationships with the giver,
and the psychological responses of recipients, build-
ing upon previous research to shed light on the
intricate interplay that governs the sharing of gifts
on social media. To achieve this objective, we em-
ployed an online survey targeting American adults.
The insights discovered from this study will make sig-
nicant contributions to both the literature on social
media posting and the gift-related research. Further-
more, the ndings of this study will offer valuable
insights for marketers. Marketers can craft campaigns
centered around aiding gift givers in discovering the
perfect gifts for their recipients. This approach not
only enhances the chances of recipients liking the gifts
but also encourages them to share their gifts across
social media platforms.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
2.1. Motivation behind social media content posting
Social media platforms create a dynamic space
for ongoing interpersonal communication. Within
these digital realms, users interact with one another,
choosing to share and exchange information publicly
or privately. User behavior on social media varies
from passive content consumption to actively shar-
ing personal thoughts and experiences. Motivations
for using social media are equally diverse, includ-
ing the pursuit of social interaction, self-expression,
documenting life events, seeking escapism, and in-
dulging in voyeurism (Kang and Wei 2020; Lee et al.
2015). Of these motivations, social interaction and
self-expression are the primary reasons for posting
content, rather than just passively consuming it, on
social media.
Previous research has investigated how motiva-
tions for posting content on social media are related
with variables like time spent on platforms, hashtag
usage, and the extent of social connections (Sheldon
et al. 2017). Furthermore, other studies have explored
the relationships between motivations and reactions
to visual content on Instagram, including activities
such as sharing images and interacting with others’
visuals (Lee et al. 2022) as well as tagging behavior
(Kang et al. 2022). These investigations underscore
the associations between users’ behaviors and the
motivations that drive their engagement with social
media.
Likewise, an individual’s motivations for social
media content posting can also inuence the act of
sharing gifts they have received from others. Given
social media’s ability to facilitate connections and in-
teractions, sharing a gift can act as a means to inform
others about special occasions and experiences, en-
couraging positive feedback and interactions such as
likes and comments. Furthermore, individuals tend to
present an idealized version of themselves while con-
cealing their aws (Goffman 1956). This inclination
extends to social media, where users meticulously
curate their prole information and visual content to
convey their preferences, interests, and viewpoints
(Boyd and Ellison 2007). In essence, individuals aim to
communicate the image they want to project through
their shared content on social media (Mehdizadeh
2010; Zhao, Grasmuck, and Martin 2008). Sharing
gifts on social media can thus become a way to express
their desired self-image. For instance, individuals can
convey their identity by sharing gift items that align
with their envisioned self-images. Moreover, they
can demonstrate the intimacy of their relationships
with gift-givers or portray themselves as individuals
162 ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172
valued by others. Taking these factors into consider-
ation, we posit that as individuals’ motivations for
enhancing social interaction and expressing them-
selves through social media posts increase, so does
the probability of sharing gift-related experiences on
these platforms.
H1. Increased levels of motives for social interaction in
social media content posting will be related to a higher
likelihood of sharing gifts on social media.
H2. Greater levels of motives for self-expression in social
media content posting will correlate with a higher likeli-
hood of sharing gifts on social media.
2.2. Material gifts vs. experiential gifts
The decision to share gifts on social media can be
inuenced by the attributes of the received gift. Gifts
can be classied into two types: material goods and
experiential goods. Material goods include physical
objects that individuals can possess, such as owers,
jewelry, or clothing. Conversely, experiential goods
relate to events in which the recipient actively partic-
ipates, like concert tickets or vacations. Experiential
gifts lack tangible presence and are eeting in nature,
making them difcult to compare with other alterna-
tives (Chan and Mogilner 2017). Research suggests
that experiential goods tend to provide individu-
als with more satisfaction and happiness during
the consumption process in comparison to mate-
rial goods (Nicolao, Irwin, and Goodman 2009; Van
Boven and Gilovich 2003). In the context of gift-
ing, experiential gifts, such as concert tickets, require
a deeper understanding of the recipient’s prefer-
ences to make a suitable selection. Consequently, gift
givers might exhibit reluctance in choosing experien-
tial goods if they possess limited knowledge about
the recipient’s tastes. Conversely, recipients of expe-
riential gifts often feel a greater sense of closeness
with the giver and experience heightened delight
compared to receiving material goods due to the
positive emotions evoked throughout the gift ex-
perience (Chan and Mogilner 2017; Goodman and
Lim 2018). The presence of heightened positive senti-
ments towards both the experiential gift and the giver
may encourage recipients to actively express their
emotions and engage with others by sharing their
encounter on social media. In fact, a study exploring
gift-giving scenarios among romantic partners dis-
covered that Americans exhibited a greater tendency
to share experiential gifts like concert tickets on so-
cial media compared to material gifts like watches
(Chinchanachokchai and Pusaksrikit 2021). As a re-
sult, we posit that the inclination to share gifts on
social media will be more pronounced when individ-
uals receive experiential items rather than material
possessions.
H3. The greater the experiential nature of the gift (as op-
posed to material), the higher the likelihood that it will be
shared on social media.
2.3. Perceived gift price
Research within the realm of gift behavior has ex-
amined the dynamics surrounding gift amounts and
how they are perceived by both givers and recipients.
Previous studies indicate that gift givers often over-
estimate the relationship between the monetary value
they invest in a gift (its price) and the level of appreci-
ation experienced by the recipient (Flynn and Adams
2009; Givi and Galak 2022; Park and Yi 2022). As a
result, givers anticipate that recipients will express
greater appreciation and perceive a gift as thoughtful
when it is expensive or holds a high value (Flynn and
Adams 2009). Interestingly, research exploring the re-
lationship between gift prices and recipient reactions
suggests that the link between gift prices and the
recipient’s emotional response is not as strong. For in-
stance, an investigation focused on engaged couples’
relationships found that while engaged men believed
that their ancées would value and appreciate a more
expensive ring, the women who received the ring did
not necessarily feel more appreciative of the pricier
option (Flynn and Adams 2009). Similarly, in the con-
text of exchanging birthday gifts, gift givers expected
recipients to prefer and appreciate higher-priced gifts,
yet the recipient’s level of appreciation was not signif-
icantly inuenced by the gift’s price (Adams, Flynn,
and Norton 2012). The majority of gift behavior stud-
ies demonstrate that recipient appreciation, perceived
thoughtfulness, or caring does not exhibit a linear re-
lationship with the monetary value of the gift (Ames,
Flynn, and Weber 2004).
Nevertheless, reactions to gift prices might assume
a distinct role in the realm of social media gift posts.
Sharing a gift on social media serves as a means
of publicly associating oneself with both the gift it-
self and the person who gave it to them. However,
effectively conveying the gift’s signicance or the
sentiment behind it can be challenging. In such in-
stances, the perceived monetary value of the gift
might provide a more accessible way to communi-
cate the signicance of the gift or the giver-recipient
relationship within the realm of social media. Fur-
thermore, posting an expensive gift on social media,
which functions as a channel for self-expression, can
inherently project one’s values and social standing as
someone “worthy of such luxury.” In this particular
ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172 163
context, we anticipate that the higher the perceived
price of the received gift, the greater the likeli-
hood of engaging in gift-posting behavior on social
media.
H4. A positive relationship exists between the perceived
gift price and the likelihood of sharing the gift on social
media.
2.4. Recipient-centric gifts vs. giver-centric gifts
Individuals desire their self-concept to be recog-
nized and understood by others (Swann Jr and Read
1981; Swann 1987). In interpersonal relationships, in-
dividuals tend to favor interactions with those who
exhibit a clear understanding of them, foreseeing pos-
itive future exchanges (Human et al. 2013). Similarly,
existing research within the realm of gift behavior
underscores the challenges that can arise in the rela-
tionship between gift givers and recipients when the
giver is perceived as not exerting effort to understand
the recipient’s preferences (Ruth, Otnes, and Brunel
1999).
Recipients assess gifts based on their alignment
with their individual tastes and preferences. Specif-
ically, Luo et al. (2019) examined the impact of gifts
aligned with the recipient’s or giver’s image in a
romantic relationship and found that gifts consis-
tent with the recipient’s image were more likely to
elicit appreciation compared to those matching the
giver’s image. Additionally, Gino and Flynn (2011)
explored how recipients and givers evaluate and re-
spond to solicited and unsolicited gifts, respectively.
Their ndings indicated that gift givers often intend
to convey their effort and thoughtfulness through
gifts, occasionally even selecting items not included
in the recipient’s requested list. However, when re-
cipients share their preferences (e.g., a wish list) and
receive a gift aligned with those preferences, they per-
ceive the gift as more thoughtful and experience a
heightened sense of appreciation compared to receiv-
ing an unsolicited gift.
In the realm of social media gift posts, a gift that
resonates with their image or preferences can mirror
how individuals aim to present themselves on social
media platforms. Conversely, a gift that does not align
with their image might run counter to their online
persona, potentially dissuading them from sharing
it on social media. Consequently, it can be inferred
that the more a gift caters to the recipient’s prefer-
ences, the more likely they are to share it on social
media.
Conversely, a gift that resonates with the giver’s
image can evoke a sense of symbolic value for the
recipient, as gift givers often give presents as a way to
express their own identity. People generally respond
positively to alignment between others’ attitudes and
actions, interpreting disparities as lacking authentic-
ity (Guadagno and Cialdini 2010; Luo et al. 2019;
Sheldon et al. 1997). Especially within intimate rela-
tionships, gifts that mirror the giver’s sense of self
can nurture a feeling of closeness between the giver
and the recipient (Aknin and Human 2015). Conse-
quently, gifts that harmonize with the giver’s image
can be perceived as truly authentic by the recipient.
However, given that social media serves as a per-
sonal outlet for sharing self-relevant information and
identity, gifts reecting the giver’s image or identity
are unlikely to be posted, regardless of their level
of appreciation. In this context, it can be inferred
that gifts tailored to the giver’s tastes or preferences
are less likely to nd their way onto social media
posts.
H5. The better the gift matches the recipient’s preferences,
the greater the likelihood of it being posted on social media.
H6. The more closely the gift aligns with the giver’s pref-
erences, the lower the likelihood of it being shared on social
media.
2.5. Giver-recipient relationship closeness
Gifting behavior is a form of social interaction that
occurs within the context of interpersonal dynamics
(Antón, Camarero, and Gil 2014). Gifting behaviors
are used by individuals to convey their emotions
(Sherry Jr 1983; Ward and Broniarczyk 2011) or to
convey specic signicance to the recipient (Giesler
2006; Skågeby 2010). For example, gifts can embody
a range of symbolic meanings, including indicators
of relationship status, affection, ongoing interaction,
and emotional expression (Poe 1977; Sherry Jr 1983;
Ward and Broniarczyk 2011). As a result, gifts func-
tion as symbolic communication tools between givers
and recipients (Belk 1976; Caplow 1982; Cheal 1987).
Previous studies underscore the signicance of the
social bond shared between the giver and the recip-
ient in shaping gifting behaviors and reactions (Ward
and Broniarczyk 2011). Research demonstrates that
when gift givers share a close social connection with
the recipient, their gift selections often serve as a
means for nurturing the continuity of their relation-
ship (Larsen and Watson 2001; Wagner, Ettenson, and
Verrier 1990). In such instances, gift givers tend to
opt for higher-priced gifts and invest more effort in
gift selection (Caplow 1982; Joy 2001; Saad and Gill
2003). Correspondingly, gift recipients anticipate re-
ceiving more thoughtful gifts from individuals they
164 ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172
share close relationships with and are predisposed to
favor these gifts (Zhang and Epley 2012).
Furthermore, the degree of intimacy shared be-
tween a gift’s giver and receiver can result in various
effects, impacting not just the evaluation of the gift but
also the subsequent behavioral response of the recipi-
ent. Generally, when individuals experience a sense of
closeness, they endeavor to express their emotions to
the other person, aiming to cultivate a deeper connec-
tion. Additionally, individuals are more compelled
to precisely express and communicate their emotions
within close relationships, while they may exhibit less
concern about accurately conveying or sharing their
feelings in less intimate connections (Xu, Yi, and Xu
2007).
In essence, social media platforms function not only
as tools for establishing new social bonds with unfa-
miliar individuals but also as spaces for nurturing and
reinforcing established social connections (Boyd and
Ellison 2007; Ellison, Steineld, and Lampe 2007). The
individuals within their social media circles are fre-
quently those with whom they maintain close social
proximity. Thus, it is highly plausible that the giver of
a gift would be included in their social media friends
list. As a result, the closer the relationship between
the giver and the recipient, the more probable it is for
the recipient to openly express gratitude to the giver
within the context of social media.
Furthermore, when individuals experience a sense
of closeness to the giver, they endeavor to make this
connection more visibly evident in the social realm to
reinforce its solidity. The act of sharing a gift on social
media not only exposes the intimate bond between
the giver and recipient to the broader network but
also anticipates positive responses from others con-
cerning the relationship. In this context, we propose
that the level of closeness in the relationship with the
giver positively inuences the likelihood of posting
about a gift on social media.
H7. Greater closeness to the gift giver corresponds to a
heightened likelihood of posting about gifts on social media.
2.6. Psychological and attitudinal reactions to the gift
Most gifts are given with the intent of bringing joy
to the recipient (Belk and Coon 1993; Otnes, Lowrey,
and Kim 1993), often eliciting feelings of gratitude
towards the giver. While many studies on gift-giving
have explored factors that inuence recipients’ psy-
chological and attitudinal responses, such as feelings
of appreciation (Cavanaugh, Gino, and Fitzsimons
2015; Flynn and Adams 2009; Gino and Flynn 2011;
Luo et al. 2019; Zhang and Epley 2012) and their atti-
tude towards the gift (Givi and Das 2022; Polman and
Maglio 2017; Rixom, Mas, and Rixom 2020), there has
been less research into specic behaviors that follow
the evaluation of both the gift and the giver. Although
Guido, Pino, and Peluso (2016) has examined post-gift
behaviors, it mainly pertains to re-gifting in a more
‘private’ context and does not address how positive
psychological and attitudinal responses to gifts man-
ifest in subsequent behaviors or how these responses
are expressed in ‘public’ settings.
Feelings of gratitude for a gift often drive individ-
uals to express this appreciation to the giver. Social
media platforms provide a means to publicly convey
gratitude for a gift by mentioning or tagging the giver
in a post. Consequently, higher levels of gratitude
for a gift might correlate with a greater likelihood of
expressing it to the giver and sharing it with one’s
social media connections. Additionally, individuals
frequently align their attitudes and behaviors with
respect to objects (Festinger 1957). Therefore, it is not
surprising that people engage in behaviors like post-
ing about their favorite brands or products on social
media. In a similar vein, one’s positive attitudes to-
wards gifts could inuence their tendency to post
gift-related content on social media platforms.
H8. Increased feelings of appreciation for a gift correlate
with a heightened propensity to post about the gift on social
media.
H9. A more positive attitude towards a gift is associated
with an increased likelihood of posting about the gift on
social media.
3. Method
3.1. Sample and data collection procedure
In order to identify factors inuencing the act of
posting gifts on social media, an online survey was
conducted during the rst week of February 2023.
We enlisted 317 American adults with prior experi-
ence of posting content on Instagram or Facebook
through the Prolic platform. Four participants failed
an instructional manipulation check (Oppenheimer,
Meyvis, and Davidenko 2009) and additional seven
participants did not complete the questionnaire. This
left us with a total of 306 participants for analysis. The
participants’ age range spanned from 19 to 74 (M =
37.37, SD = 13.19). Among the participants, 59.2%
identied as female. The largest group identied as
White/Caucasian (69%), followed by Black (11.1%),
Asian (10.1%), Latino/Hispanic (7.5%), and those of
mixed ethnicity (2.3%).
Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the
following occasions: 1) birthdays, 2) anniversaries,
ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172 165
Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day, or Father’s Day,
3) Christmas or winter holidays, or 4) no special
occasion (without a specic reason). We chose this
approach not to distinguish differences among these
occasions, but rather to provide a comprehensive rep-
resentation of various gifting occasions. The goal was
to minimize potential bias that might arise from a
prominent occasion occurring in close proximity to
our study’s timeline. Once participants consented to
partake in the study, they were prompted to indicate
the frequency and motivations behind their social me-
dia content postings. This study centered its focus
on Facebook and Instagram, as these two platforms
ranked within the top three social media platforms
in terms of regular users in the United States dur-
ing 2022 (Statista 2023). Subsequently, participants
were requested to recollect a gift they had received
within the last 12 months for one of the aforemen-
tioned gifting occasions. In instances where no such
gift was received for the assigned occasion, respon-
dents were asked to recall the most recent gift they
had received. Employing the approach outlined by
Flynn and Adams (2009), participants were guided
to mentally visualize the gift, including details such
as its appearance, characteristics, the giver’s iden-
tity, their emotional response upon receiving the gift,
and to describe the gift itself. Following this, par-
ticipants completed a series of questions including
the attributes of the gift, the giver, the gifting occa-
sion, and their reactions towards the gift, as well as
whether they chose to share the gift on either Face-
book or Instagram. The questionnaire also included
demographic inquiries.
3.2. Measures
The present study investigated the predictors asso-
ciated with sharing gifts on social media. These pre-
dictors included participants’ motivations for posting
content on social media, along with variables relating
to the gift, the giver, and their reactions to the gift.
In relation to motivations for social media content
posting, two distinct types of motivations were mea-
sured using a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree,
7 = strongly agree). The social interaction motive was
gauged through two items: “To connect with peo-
ple who share some of my values” and “To connect
with people who are similar to me” (α = .94, M =
4.94, SD = 1.63) (Alhabash and Ma 2017). The self-
expression motive was assessed with four items: “Be-
cause posting content says something about me,”
“Because posting content is a form of self-expression,”
“Because posting content creates a certain image”
and “Because posting content is part of my self-
image” (α = .86, M = 3.71, SD = 1.50) (Zhu et al. 2019).
Moving on to the characteristics of the gift, whether
the gift was material or experiential was measured
using a single item: “To what extent did you perceive
the gift as being material or experiential?” (1 = more
material, 7 = more experiential) (M = 2.41, SD =
1.85). In order to assist participants in comprehend-
ing the notions of material and experiential products,
the subsequent denitions were furnished: “tangible
products that are retained over time” for material
products and “intangible events that a person lives
through” for experiential products (Goodman and
Lim 2018; Tully, Hersheld, and Meyvis 2015). The
perceived gift price was assessed with the item: “How
expensive was the gift?” (1 = not expensive at all, 7 =
very expensive) (M = 3.75, SD = 1.58) (Guido, Pino,
and Peluso 2016). Receiver-centric gift and giver-
centric gift were both measured on a 7-point scale (1 =
not at all, 7 = to a great extent) with these respective
items: “To what extent do you think the gift revealed
the giver’s knowledge of you (e.g., your interests, pas-
sions)?” (M = 5.75, SD = 1.40) and “To what extent do
you think the gift revealed the giver’s true self (e.g.,
the giver’s interests, passions)?” (M = 5.01, SD = 1.63)
(Aknin and Human 2015).
Concerning the giver, the level of closeness between
the receiver and the giver was measured using a
7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
agree) including two items: “We are very close” and
“We know each other very well” (α = .91, M =
6.09, SD = 1.26) (Givi and Galak 2017). Subsequently,
participants’ reactions to the gift were assessed. Ap-
preciation was measured on a 7-point scale (1 = not
at all, 7 = very much) using three items: “How much
did you appreciate the gift?” “How much were you
grateful for the gift?” and “How much were you
thankful for the gift?” (α = .94, M = 6.43, SD = .92)
(Kupor, Flynn, and Norton 2017). Attitude toward
the gift was assessed on a 7-point scale across three
dimensions: negative/positive, bad/good, unfavor-
able/favorable (α = .92, M = 6.38, SD = .96) (Lee and
Aaker 2004).
The study incorporated several control variables
to account for their potential inuence on the nd-
ings. These variables include gender, age, frequency
of social media content posting, and the specic type
of gifting occasions. Frequency of social media con-
tent posting was assessed using an 8-point scale: 1 =
never, 2 = a few times a year, 3 = once a month, 4 =
two to three times a month, 5 = once a week, 6 =
multiple times a week, 7 = once a day, 8 = multi-
ple times a day (M = 4.52, SD = 1.90). Lastly, the
specic type of gifting occasions was categorized as
follows: Valentines’ Day, Mother’s Day/Father’s Day,
Christmas/winter holiday, birthdays, thank-you, an-
niversaries, and other (For participants who selected
166 ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172
Table 1. Summary of gifting occasions and giver characteristics.
Posting No posting Total
N % N % N %
Type of Gifting Occasion
Christmas/Winter Holiday 36 43.4% 103 46.2% 139 45.4%
Birthday 26 31.3% 50 22.4% 76 24.8%
Just Because 5 6.0% 9 4.0% 14 4.6%
Valentine’s Day 5 6.0% 7 3.1% 12 3.9%
Thank-You 3 3.6% 23 10.3% 26 8.5%
Mother’s Day/Father’s Day 3 3.6% 3 1.3% 6 2.0%
Anniversaries 2 2.4% 4 1.8% 6 2.0%
Other (Just Because) 5 6.0% 9 4.0% 14 4.6%
Other 3 3.6% 24 10.7% 27 8.8%
Type of Giver
Romantic Partner 37 44.6% 61 27.4% 98 32.0%
Family 31 37.3% 102 45.7% 133 43.5%
Friends 13 15.7% 52 23.3% 65 21.2%
Acquaintances/Colleagues 1 1.2% 5 2.2% 6 2.0%
Other 1 1.2% 3 1.3% 4 1.3%
Total 83 27.1% 223 79.1% 306 100%
the “other” option, they were asked to specify the
occasion).
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive characteristics of givers and gifting
occasions
Among all participants with experience in posting
content on Instagram or Facebook, only 27.1% re-
ported sharing the gift they had envisioned following
the study’s aforementioned instructions. Illustrated
in Table 1, the prevalent gift-giving occasion within
this study was Christmas/winter holiday (45.4%),
followed by birthday (24.8%), thank-you (8.5%), just
because (4.6%), Valentines’ Day (3.9%), Mother’s
Day/Father’s Day (2.0%), anniversaries (2.0%), and
other occasions (8.8%). When specically considering
participants who conrmed sharing the gift on social
media, the most commonly referenced gift-giving oc-
casion remained Christmas/winter holiday (43.4%),
followed by birthday (31.3%), just because (6%),
Valentine’s Day (6%), Thank-You (3.6%), Mother’s
Day/Father’s Day (3.6%), anniversaries (2.4%), and
other occasions (3.6%).
Turning to the primary gift givers, family emerged
as the most frequently mentioned (43.5%), followed
by romantic partners (32.0%), friends (21.2%), and
acquaintances/colleagues (2.0%), and others (1.3%).
When narrowing the focus to participants who re-
ported sharing the gift on social media, the most
frequently identied gift giver was the romantic
partners (44.6%), family (37.3%), friends (15.7%), ac-
quaintances/colleagues (1.2%), and others (1.2%).
4.2. Hypotheses testing
Prior to hypothesis testing, an assessment of multi-
collinearity was undertaken. As depicted in Table 2,
the diagnostic indices for multicollinearity, which
included correlation coefcients (<0.71), tolerance
(>0.45), and VIF (<2.23), indicated the absence of con-
cerns related to multicollinearity within the models.
To investigate the factors that inuence the likeli-
hood of sharing a gift on social media, we conducted
a hierarchical logistic regression analysis. In Model 1,
we included several control variables as predictors,
including gender, age, frequency of content sharing
on social media, and the type of specic gifting oc-
casions. To handle the multicategorical nature of the
type of gifting occasions, we generated two dummy
variables: one for Christmas/winter holidays (in com-
parison to all other occasions) and another for birth-
days (in comparison to all other occasions). These
categories were found to be the most commonly men-
tioned and were notably substantial, whereas other
categories were represented by smaller instances. In
Model 1, statistical signicance was demonstrated (χ
2
(5) = 37.025, p < .001). Model 1 accounted for 16.5%
(Nagelkerke R
2
) of the variance in the inclination to
post a gift on social media. The association between
content sharing frequency on social media and the
likelihood of gift posting was positive and signi-
cant (p < .001). Specically, an increase of one unit
in content sharing frequency corresponded to a 51.1%
(OR = 1.511) rise in the odds of sharing a gift on social
media. However, other variables such as gender (p =
.440), age (p = .491), Christmas/winter holidays (p =
.704), and birthdays (p = .164) did not demonstrate a
ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172 167
Table 2. Correlation coefcients, tolerance, and VIF.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tolerance VIF
1 .931 1.074
2 .20 .784 1.276
3 .12 .38 .648 1.543
4 .09 .37 .54 .661 1.514
5 −.09 .02 −.04 .10 .949 1.054
6 .00 .11 −.00 .05 .09 .930 1.075
7 .06 .08 .00 .01 .04 .18 .590 1.694
8 .13 .08 .08 .07 .09 .20 .45 .752 1.329
9 .06 .08 .06 −.01 .09 .11 .33 .23 .809 1.236
10 .01 .07 .12 .03 .02 .10 .49 .27 .38 .448 2.233
11 −.02 .04 .08 .01 .02 .06 .50 .22 .34 .71 .457 2.187
Note: 1. Age, 2. Social Media Posting Frequency, 3. Social Interaction Motive, 4. Self-expression Motive,
5. Material/Experiential Gift, 6. Perceived Gift Price, 7. Recipient-Centric Gift, 8. Giver-Centric Gift, 9. Social
Closeness, 10. Appreciation, 11. Gift Attitude.
signicant relationship with the probability of post-
ing gifts on social media.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 postulated the impacts of so-
cial interaction posting motive and self-expression
posting motive on gift sharing on social media, re-
spectively. Model 2 integrated these two types of
motivations for sharing content on social media as
additional predictors, and it demonstrated statistical
signicance (χ
2
(7) = 42.486, p < .001). Model 2 ex-
plained 18.8% (Nagelkerke R
2
) of the variance in the
likelihood of sharing a gift on social media. The self-
expression posting motive predicted the probability
of posting a gift on social media (p = .038). Specif-
ically, an increase of one unit in the self-expression
posting motive led to a 26.6% (OR = 1.266) rise in
the odds of sharing a gift on social media. However,
the social interaction posting motive (p = .980) did
not emerge as a signicant predictor of the probabil-
ity of gift posting on social media. Hence, while H2
garnered support, H1 did not nd support.
Model 3 incorporated characteristics of the gift (Hy-
potheses 3–6), the giver (Hypothesis 7), and reactions
to the gift (Hypotheses 8–9) as additional predictors
and achieved statistical signicance (χ
2
(14) = 87.215,
p < .001). Model 3 accounted for 36.0% (Nagelkerke
R
2
) of the variance in the probability of posting a gift
on social media. In relation to gift-related variables,
we found that the material/experiential nature of the
gift (H3) (p = .036), the perceived gift price (H4) (p <
.001), and the recipient-centric gift (H5) (p = .033)
had a positive impact on the probability of sharing
a gift on social media. Conversely, the relationship
between the giver-centric gift and the likelihood of
gift posting was negative and marginally signicant
(H6) (p = .087). Specically, a one-unit increase in
the material/experiential nature of the gift led to an
18.8% (OR = 1.188) rise in the odds of sharing a gift on
social media, suggesting that the higher the perceived
experiential nature of a gift, the greater the chance of
it being shared on social media. Moreover, a one-unit
increase in the perceived gift price and the recipient-
centric gift corresponded to respective increments of
48.5% (OR = 1.485) and 41.0% (OR = 1.410) in the
odds of gift posting on social media, respectively.
Conversely, a one-unit increase in the giver-centric
gift resulted in a 17.3% (OR = 0.827) reduction in
the odds of sharing a gift on social media. Thus, H3,
H4, and H5 were supported, while H6 did not nd
support.
Further, the degree of social closeness between the
gift giver and recipient did not demonstrate statistical
signicance in predicting the likelihood of partici-
pants sharing gifts on social media (H7) (p = .179).
Lastly, concerning variables tied to the recipient’s
reactions to the gift, the attitude toward the gift sig-
nicantly predicted the likelihood of gift posting on
social media (H9) (p = .018), while feelings of appre-
ciation (H8) (p = .210) did not exhibit signicance.
Specically, a one-unit increase in the attitude toward
the gift resulted in a 101.1% (OR = 2.011) rise in
the odds of gift posting on social media. Thus, H9
garnered support, whereas H7 and H8 did not nd
empirical support. The outcomes of the hierarchical
logistic regression analysis are detailed in Table 3.
5. Discussions
5.1. Discussions of ndings
Our goal was to reveal the factors inuencing the
practice of sharing gifts on social media platforms.
To accomplish this, we conducted an online sur-
vey specically targeting American adults with prior
experience in posting content on Instagram or Face-
book. Our investigation examined the relationships
between sharing gifts and a range of variables, in-
cluding the motivations that drive individuals to post
content on social media, the characteristics linked to
168 ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172
Table 3. Results of hierarchical logistic regression for gift sharing on social media.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
B Wald OR B Wald OR B Wald OR
Control Variables
Gender (1 = male) −.221 .595 .802 −.242 .703 .785 −.538 2.637 .584
Age .007 .474 1.007 .006 .341 1.006 .013 1.141 1.013
Posting Frequency .413 27.784 1.511
***
.357 18.262 1.428
***
.362 15.292 1.436
***
Christmas .127 .144 1.136 .171 .253 1.186 −.123 .103 .884
Birthdays .516 1.937 1.675 .524 1.964 1.689 .181 .184 1.198
Posting Motive
Social Interaction −.003 .001 .997 −.015 .015 .985
Self-Expression .236 4.309 1.266
*
.275 4.393 1.316
*
Gift-Related
Material/Experiential .172 4.385 1.188
*
Gift Price .396 13.985 1.485
***
Recipient-Centric .344 4.538 1.410
*
Giver-Centric −.189 2.921 .827
+
Social Closeness .217 1.809 1.243
Appreciation −.373 1.574 .688
Gift Attitude .698 5.640 2.011
*
Constant −3.331 31.028 .036
***
−3.932 30.337 .020
***
−10.439 34.558 .000
***
Note: Dependent variable: Posting of a gift on social media (1 = no, 2 = yes), OR: odds ratio.
+
p <.1,
∗
p < .05,
∗∗
p < .01,
∗∗∗
p < .001.
both the gift and the giver, as well as the psychological
and attitudinal responses to the gift.
Our investigation sheds light on several key fac-
tors inuencing the likelihood of sharing gifts on
social media. First, we found a signicant positive
relationship between self-expression motives and the
likelihood of sharing gifts. This result is consistent
with previous studies emphasizing the role of so-
cial media as a means of self-expression (Alhabash
and Ma 2017; Lee et al. 2015). Participants may view
gift sharing as a way to express themselves, whether
by projecting an image of being loved or revealing
their desired self-image through the symbolism of the
gifts. Surprisingly, social interaction motives did not
predict gift-sharing behavior on social media, chal-
lenging the assumption that gift-sharing aligns with
motives linked to social interaction. These ndings
suggest that individuals prioritize self-expression
over seeking positive reactions or interactions with
others when deciding whether to share gifts on their
social media proles.
We also observed that gifts perceived as experien-
tial, as opposed to material, had a positive association
with sharing likelihood. This may be because expe-
riential gifts are seen as a more precise reection
of one’s identity than material possessions, as sup-
ported by Carter and Gilovich (2012). They observed
that people tend to closely identify with experiential
goods, frequently mentioning them when describing
their lives, and regarding them as offering a more
accurate representation of their identity compared to
material possessions.
Gifts resonating with the recipient’s interests and
passions motivated gift sharing, while those centered
around the giver’s preferences had a counterproduc-
tive impact. These ndings align with Luo et al. (2019)
study, indicating that gifts congruent with the recipi-
ent’s image were more likely to garner appreciation in
contrast to those matching the giver’s image. In light
of our ndings, it can be inferred that the preference
for sharing recipient-centric gifts, and the lower like-
lihood of sharing giver-centric gifts, both stem from
individuals’ inclination to prioritize self-relevant con-
tent on their social media platforms.
In addition, our study revealed that the perceived
price of a gift positively inuences the recipient’s
likelihood of sharing it on social media. This re-
sult is noteworthy, especially in light of previous
research in the eld of gift-giving, which suggested
that recipients’ appreciation for a gift or perceived
thoughtfulness were not inuenced by its monetary
value (Flynn and Adams 2009). Our nding sug-
gests that individuals may view such gifts as status
symbols. Sharing an extravagant gift on social media
could potentially serve as a means for individuals
to convey their social standing within their social
circle.
Unexpectedly, we found that the level of social
closeness between the gift giver and recipient did
not emerge as a predictor of gift-sharing behavior
on social media. We had anticipated that as the re-
lationship between the gift giver and recipient grew
closer, the giver would become a part of the recipient’s
social media friends list, and this closer relationship
ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172 169
would increase the likelihood of the recipient express-
ing gratitude openly on social media by mentioning
or tagging the giver. However, these expectations
were not met. Equally surprising, there was no sig-
nicant relationship between appreciation and the
likelihood of sharing gifts. This result is particularly
unexpected, as appreciation is typically seen as an
important aspect of successful gift-giving interactions
(Cavanaugh, Gino, and Fitzsimons 2015; Flynn and
Adams 2009; Kupor, Flynn, and Norton 2017; Luo
et al. 2019; Zhang and Epley 2012). As mentioned pre-
viously, these ndings might be attributed to the fact
that individuals tend to regard gift postings on social
media primarily as a means of self-expression, with
the focus being on showcasing the gift itself rather
than highlighting the giver.
Finally, a positive attitude towards the gift signif-
icantly increased the likelihood of sharing it. When
individuals hold a favorable view of the gift, they are
more inclined to share it as a way to express their
preferences and interests within their social circle,
promoting deeper understanding.
In summary, our research reveals that when indi-
viduals share gifts on social media platforms, their
primary focus tends to be on themselves. All signif-
icant ndings, including self-expression motives, the
experiential nature of the gift, perceived gift price,
and recipient-centric gifts, as well as non-signicant
ndings such as social interaction motives, the re-
lationship closeness with the giver, and feelings of
appreciation, underscore that individuals primarily
utilize gift-sharing as a means to showcase and ex-
press their own identity and preferences on social
media platforms.
5.2. Theoretical contributions and managerial
implications
The ndings of this study carry several signicant
theoretical implications that contribute to the broader
understanding of social media content posting and
gift-giving dynamics. First, previous research has
predominantly focused on understanding the motiva-
tions and factors driving the posting of travel experi-
ences (Kang and Schuett 2013), purchases (Duan and
Dholakia 2018), or food (Atwal, Bryson, and Tavilla
2019; Javed et al. 2021; Zhu et al. 2019) on social media.
However, a noteworthy gap exists when it comes to
investigating the factors inuencing the posting of
gifts. By examining this under-researched area, this
study lls a gap in the literature and extends our un-
derstanding of the diverse array of content shared on
social media.
Second, when considering the perspectives of gift
recipients, previous studies in gift-giving interactions
have predominantly focused on recipients’ expec-
tations and psychological perceptions. Specically,
scholars have investigated the impacts of gift-related
factors on recipient responses such as perceived
thoughtfulness (Cavanaugh, Gino, and Fitzsimons
2015; Flynn and Adams 2009; Givi 2020; Givi and
Das 2023; Kupor, Flynn, and Norton 2017; Park
and Yi 2022; Zhang and Epley 2012), appreciation
(Cavanaugh, Gino, and Fitzsimons 2015; Flynn and
Adams 2009; Givi 2021; Kupor, Flynn, and Norton
2017; Luo et al. 2019), happiness (Baskin et al. 2014;
Givi and Galak 2022; Givi and Mu 2022), perceived of-
fensiveness (Cavanaugh, Gino, and Fitzsimons 2015;
Givi and Das 2023, 2022), relationship satisfaction
(Aknin and Human 2015), and gift liking or evalua-
tion (Givi and Galak 2022; Givi, Galak, and Olivola
2021; Park and Yi 2022; Rixom, Mas, and Rixom 2020;
Zhang and Epley 2012). Most of these responses have
centered on the psychological and private aspects of
recipients’ responses (Chinchanachokchai and Pusak-
srikit 2021). However, there has been limited recent
attention given to the investigation of a more pub-
lic and behavioral response to gifts, which is the
phenomenon of sharing gifts on social media. (Chin-
chanachokchai and Pusaksrikit 2021). By identifying
the drivers behind gift sharing on social media, this
research contributes to a more comprehensive under-
standing of gift-giving interactions.
A particularly interesting observation emerged
from this study is that the factors inuencing re-
cipients’ perceptions of and reactions to the gift
demonstrated in previous studies may not always
align with the factors driving their decision to post
the gift on social media. This insight underscores
the dynamic interplay between ofine experiences
and their digital manifestations. The distinction be-
tween these two sets of factors claries the distinct
motivations that shape how individuals navigate gift-
sharing within the context of social media platforms.
In summary, this study’s theoretical implications ex-
tend the boundaries of existing research by exploring
gift sharing as a unique form of online self-expression.
By examining the factors that prompt individuals to
share gifts on social media, this study not only en-
hances our understanding of digital behavior but also
enriches the broader understanding of gift-giving dy-
namics.
The insights derived from this study’s ndings
hold signicant implications for marketers aiming
to leverage the power of social media for product
promotion and enhancing brand visibility. Marketers
can curate product collections that align with the
study’s insights on shared gifts, particularly experien-
tial products, and promote these selections as “Gifts
Worth Sharing.” This approach caters to gift givers
170 ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172
seeking items that are not only liked but also likely
to be shared on social media platforms. Moreover,
recognizing the importance of gift congruence with
the recipient’s interests and passions, marketers can
encourage consumers to create wish lists, streamlin-
ing the process of receiving desired gifts destined for
social media sharing. Lastly, by strategically position-
ing high-value gifts as symbols of luxury or status,
marketers can tap into this perception to stimulate
increased sharing activity.
5.3. Limitations and future research
Despite its signicant contributions, this study does
have several limitations that warrant consideration.
First, the study’s exclusive focus on American adults
may restrict the generalizability of its ndings to di-
verse cultural contexts. In alignment with the ndings
of Chinchanachokchai and Pusaksrikit (2021), who
identied cultural differences in gift-sharing behav-
iors on social media between Americans and Thais,
future research could replicate our investigations
with diverse samples representing various cultures.
Furthermore, our study focused exclusively on the
platforms of Facebook and Instagram. To compre-
hensively capture the spectrum of social media dy-
namics, future research endeavors could incorporate
a broader range of social media platforms, including
TikTok and Twitter, to provide a more comprehensive
understanding of gift-sharing behaviors. Lastly, while
content posting motivations and gift-related charac-
teristics are found to correlate with gift sharing on
social media, the study’s design does not enable us
to determine whether these factors directly cause gift
sharing behavior. To enhance our understanding, fu-
ture investigations could adopt experimental research
methodologies to explore the causal effects of motiva-
tions and gift-related attributes on the propensity to
share gifts on social media.
Conict of interest
There is no conict of interest.
References
Adams, Gabrielle S., Francis J. Flynn, and Michael I. Norton (2012),
“The Gifts We Keep on Giving: Documenting and Destig-
matizing the Regifting Taboo,” Psychological Science, 23 (10),
1145–1150.
Aknin, Lara B. and Lauren J. Human (2015), “Give a Piece of You:
Gifts that Reect Givers Promote Closeness,” Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 60, 8–16.
Alhabash, Saleem and Mengyan Ma (2017), “A Tale of Four Plat-
forms: Motivations and Uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,
and Snapchat Among College Students?,” Social Media+ Society,
3 (1), 2056305117691544.
Ames, Daniel R., Francis J. Flynn, and Elke U. Weber (2004), “It’s
the Thought that Counts: On Perceiving How Helpers Decide to
Lend a Hand,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (4),
461–474.
Antón, Carmen, Carmen Camarero, and Fernando Gil (2014), “The
Culture of Gift Giving: What Do Consumers Expect from Com-
mercial and Personal Contexts?,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
13 (1), 31–41.
Atwal, Glyn, Douglas Bryson, and Valériane Tavilla (2019), “Post-
ing Photos of Luxury Cuisine Online: An Exploratory Study,”
British Food Journal, 121 (2), 454–465.
Baskin, Ernest, Cheryl J. Wakslak, Yaacov Trope, and Nathan
Novemsky (2014), “Why Feasibility Matters More to Gift Re-
ceivers Than to Givers: A Construal-Level Approach to Gift
Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 169–182.
Belk, Russell W. (1976), “It’s the Thought That Counts: A Signed
Digraph Analysis of Gift-Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research,
3 (3), 155–162.
Belk, Russell W. and Gregory S. Coon (1993), “Gift Giving as Agapic
Love: An Alternative to the Exchange Paradigm Based on Dat-
ing Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (3), 393–417.
Boyd, Danah M. and Nicole B. Ellison (2007), “Social Network
Sites: Denition, History, and Scholarship,” Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 13 (1), 210–230.
Caplow, Theodore (1982), “Christmas Gifts and Kin Networks,”
American Sociological Review, 383–392.
Carter, Travis J. and Thomas Gilovich (2012), “I am What I Do, Not
What I Have: The Differential Centrality of Experiential and
Material Purchases to the Self,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102 (6), 1304.
Cavanaugh, Lisa A., Francesca Gino, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons
(2015), “When Doing Good is Bad in Gift Giving: Mis-predicting
Appreciation of Socially Responsible Gifts,” Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes, 131, 178–189.
Chan, Cindy and Cassie Mogilner (2017), “Experiential Gifts Foster
Stronger Social Relationships Than Material Gifts,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 43 (6), 913–931.
Cheal, David (1987), “‘Showing Them You Love Them’: Gift Giving
and the Dialectic of Intimacy,” The Sociological Review, 35 (1),
150–169.
Chinchanachokchai, Sydney and Theeranuch Pusaksrikit (2021),
“The Role of Self-Construal in Romantic Gift Posting Across
Social Networking Sites,” Computers in Human Behavior, 117,
106665.
Duan, Jingyi and Ruby Roy Dholakia (2018), “How Purchase Type
Inuences Consumption-Related Posting Behavior on Social
Media: The Moderating Role of Materialism,” Journal of Internet
Commerce, 17 (1), 64–80.
Ellison, Nicole B., Charles Steineld, and Cliff Lampe (2007),
“The Benets of Facebook Friends:” Social Capital and Col-
lege Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites,” Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12 (4), 1143–1168.
Festinger, Leon (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: Stanford
University Press.
Flynn, Francis J. and Gabrielle S. Adams (2009), “Money can’t
Buy Love: Asymmetric Beliefs About Gift Price and Feelings of
Appreciation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (2),
404–409.
Giesler, Markus (2006), “Consumer Gift Systems,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 33 (2), 283–290.
Gino, Francesca and Francis J. Flynn (2011), “Give Them What They
Want: The Benets of Explicitness in Gift Exchange,” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47 (5), 915–922.
Givi, Julian (2020), “(Not) Giving the Same Old Song and Dance:
Givers’ Misguided Concerns About Thoughtfulness and Bor-
ingness Keep Them from Repeating Gifts,” Journal of Business
Research, 117, 87–98.
Givi, Julian (2021), “When a Gift Exchange isn’t an Exchange: Why
Gift Givers Underestimate How Uncomfortable Recipients Feel
Receiving a Gift Without Reciprocating,” Journal of Business Re-
search, 129, 393–405.
Givi, Julian and Gopal Das (2023), “Givers Eschew Gifts That are
Inferior to Their Own: How Social Norms, Regulatory Focus,
ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172 171
and Concerns About Offending Lead Givers Astray,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 33 (2), 363–376.
Givi, Julian and Gopal Das (2022), “To Earmark or not to Earmark
When Gift-Giving: Gift-Givers’ and Gift-Recipients’ Diverging
Preferences for Earmarked Cash Gifts,” Psychology & Marketing,
39 (2), 420–428.
Givi, Julian and Jeff Galak (2022), “Gift Recipients’ Beliefs About
Occasion-Based and Nonoccasion-Based Gifts: The Importance
of Signaling Care and Meeting Expectations in Gift Giving,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32 (3), 445–465.
Givi, Julian and Jeff Galak (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.
Givi, Julian, Jeff Galak, and Christopher Y. Olivola (2021), “The
Thought that Counts is the One We Ignore: How Givers Overes-
timate the Importance of Relative Gift Value,” Journal of Business
Research, 123, 502–515.
Givi, Julian and Yumei Mu (2022), “Your Gift, But My Attitude:
Gift-Givers’ Aversion to Attitude-Inconsistent Gifts,” European
Journal of Marketing (ahead-of-print).
Goffman, Erving (1956), “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh,” Social Sciences Research
Centre, 5.
Goodman, Joseph K. and Sarah Lim (2018), “When Consumers
Prefer to Give Material Gifts Instead of Experiences: The Role of
Social Distance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (2), 365–382.
Guadagno, Rosanna E. and Robert B. Cialdini (2010), “Preference
for Consistency and Social Inuence: A Review of Current Re-
search Findings,” Social Inuence, 5 (3), 152–163.
Guido, Gianluigi, Giovanni Pino, and Alessandro M. Peluso (2016),
“Assessing Individuals’ Re-Gifting Motivations,” Journal of
Business Research, 69 (12), 5956–5963.
Human, Lauren J., Gillian M. Sandstrom, Jeremy C. Biesanz, and
Elizabeth W. Dunn (2013), “Accurate First Impressions Leave
a Lasting Impression: The Long-Term Effects of Distinctive
Self-Other Agreement on Relationship Development,” Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 4 (4), 395–402.
Javed, Maria, Faisal Azeem Malik, Tahir Mumtaz Awan, and
Ruqia Khan (2021), “Food Photo Posting on Social Media While
Dining: An Evidence Using Embedded Correlational Mixed
Methods Approach,” Journal of Food Products Marketing, 27 (1),
10–26.
Joy, Annamma (2001), “Gift Giving in Hong Kong and the Contin-
uum of Social Ties,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (2), 239–256.
Kang, Jin and Lewen Wei (2020), “Let Me Be at my Funniest:
Instagram Users’ Motivations for Using Finsta (aka, fake Insta-
gram),” The Social Science Journal, 57 (1), 58–71.
Kang, Jiwon, Jeewoo Yoon, Eunil Park, and Jinyoung Han (2022),
““Why Tag Me?”: Detecting Motivations of Comment Tagging
in Instagram,” Expert Systems with Applications, 202, 117171.
Kang, Myunghwa and Michael A Schuett (2013), “Determinants of
Sharing Travel Experiences in Social Media,” Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 30 (1–2), 93–107.
Kupor, Daniella, Frank Flynn, and Michael I. Norton (2017), “Half
a Gift is Not Half-Hearted: A Giver–Receiver Asymmetry in the
Thoughtfulness of Partial Gifts,” Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 43 (12), 1686–1695.
Larsen, Derek and John J. Watson (2001), “A Guide Map to the
Terrain of Gift Value,” Psychology & Marketing, 18 (8), 889–
906.
Lee, Angela Y. and Jennifer L. Aaker (2004), “Bringing the Frame
into Focus: The Inuence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Flu-
ency and Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
86 (2), 205.
Lee, Byung-Kwan, Hwan-Ho Noh, Eun Yeong Doh, and Hye Bin
Rim (2022), “Rejected or Ignored?: The Effect of Social Exclu-
sion on Instagram Use Motivation and Behaviour,” Behaviour &
Information Technology, 41 (15), 3177–3190.
Lee, Eunji, Jung-Ah Lee, Jang Ho Moon, and Yongjun Sung (2015),
“Pictures Speak Louder Than Words: Motivations for Using In-
stagram,” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18 (9),
552–556.
Lin, Ruoyun (2018), “Silver Lining of Envy on Social Media? The
Relationships Between Post Content, Envy Type, and Purchase
Intentions,” Internet Research, 28 (4), 1142–1164.
Luo, Biao, Wenpei Fang, Jie Shen, and Xue Fei Cong (2019),
“Gift–Image Congruence and Gift Appreciation in Romantic
Relationships: The Roles of Intimacy and Relationship Depen-
dence,” Journal of Business Research, 103, 142–152.
Mehdizadeh, Soraya (2010), “Self-Presentation 2.0: Narcissism and
Self-Esteem on Facebook,” CyberPsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 13 (4), 357–364.
Nicolao, Leonardo, Julie R. Irwin, and Joseph K. Goodman (2009),
“Happiness for Sale: Do Experiential Purchases Make Con-
sumers Happier Than Material Purchases?,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 36 (2), 188–198.
Oppenheimer, Daniel M., Tom Meyvis, and Nicolas Davidenko
(2009), “Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisc-
ing to Increase Statistical Power,” Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45 (4), 867–872.
Otnes, Cele, Tina M. Lowrey, and Young Chan Kim (1993),
“Gift Selection for Easy and Difcult Recipients: A Social
Roles Interpretation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (2), 229–
244.
Park, Yookyung and Youjae Yi (2022), “Is a Gift on Sale “Heart-
Discounted”? Givers’ Misprediction on the Value of Discounted
Gifts and the Inuence of Service Robots,” Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 65, 102489.
Poe, Donald B. (1977), “The Giving of Gifts: Anthropological Data
and Social Psychological Theory,” Cornell Journal of Social Rela-
tions, 12 (1), 47–63.
Polman, Evan and Sam J. Maglio (2017), “Mere Gifting: Liking a
Gift More Because It is Shared,” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 43 (11), 1582–1594.
Rixom, Jessica M., Erick M. Mas, and Brett A. Rixom (2020),
“Presentation Matters: The Effect of Wrapping Neatness on
Gift Attitudes,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30 (2), 329–
338.
Ruth, Julie A., Cele C. Otnes, and Frederic F. Brunel (1999), “Gift
Receipt and the Reformulation of Interpersonal Relationships,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (4), 385–402.
Saad, Gad and Tripat Gill (2003), “An Evolutionary Psychology
Perspective on Gift Giving Among Young Adults,” Psychology
& Marketing, 20 (9), 765–784.
Sheldon, Kennon M., Richard M. Ryan, Laird J. Rawsthorne, and
Barbara Ilardi (1997), “Trait Self and True Self: Cross-Role Vari-
ation in the Big-Five Personality Traits and Its Relations with
Psychological Authenticity and Subjective Well-Being,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (6), 1380.
Sheldon, Pavica, Philipp A. Rauschnabel, Mary Grace Antony, and
Sandra Car (2017), “A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Croatian
and American Social Network Sites: Exploring Cultural Dif-
ferences in Motives for Instagram Use,” Computers in Human
Behavior, 75, 643–651.
Sherry Jr, John F. (1983), “Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspec-
tive,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (2), 157–168.
Skågeby, Jörgen (2010), “Gift-Giving As a Conceptual Framework:
Framing Social Behavior in Online Networks,” Journal of Infor-
mation Technology, 25 (2), 170–177.
Statista (2023), “Social Network Usage by Brand in the U.S.
in 2022 [Graph],” (accessed May 11, 2023), [available at
https://www.statista.com/forecasts/997135/social-network-
usage-by-brand-in-the-us].
Swann Jr, William B. and Stephen J. Read (1981), “Self-Verication
Processes: How We Sustain Our Self-Conceptions,” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 17 (4), 351–372.
Swann, William B. (1987), “Identity Negotiation: Where Two Roads
Meet,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (6), 1038.
Tully, Stephanie M., Hal E. Hersheld, and Tom Meyvis (2015),
“Seeking Lasting Enjoyment With Limited Money: Financial
Constraints Increase Preference for Material Goods Over Expe-
riences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 59–75.
Van Boven, Leaf and Thomas Gilovich (2003), “To Do or To Have?
That is the Question,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85 (6), 1193.
172 ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL 2023;25:160–172
Wagner, Janet, Richard Ettenson, and Sherri Verrier (1990),
“The Effect of Donor-Recipient Involvement on Consumer
Gift Decisions,” Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 683–
689.
Ward, Morgan K. and Susan M. Broniarczyk (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.
Xu, Lingling, Cheng Yi, and Yunjie Xu (2007), “Emotional Expres-
sion Online: The Impact of Task, Relationship and Personality
Perception on Emoticon Usage in Instant Messenger,” PACIS
2007 Proceedings, 79.
Zhang, Yan and Nicholas Epley (2012), “Exaggerated, Mispre-
dicted, and Misplaced: When “It’s the Thought That Counts”
in Gift Exchanges,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
141 (4), 667.
Zhao, Shanyang, Sherri Grasmuck, and Jason Martin (2008), “Iden-
tity Construction on Facebook: Digital Empowerment in An-
chored Relationships,” Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5),
1816–1836.
Zhu, Jiang, Lan Jiang, Wenyu Dou, and Liang Liang (2019), “Post,
Eat, Change: The Effects of Posting Food Photos on Consumers’
Dining Experiences and Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 46 (1), 101–112.
