Best presents go beyond the 'big reveal'

Buying Christmas presents for people can be difficult and we often end up making mistakes. This difficulty in predicting other people’s preferences and future satisfaction has been widely documented in behavioural decision-making and social psychology research, particularly in studies of affective forecasting and interpersonal judgment errors [1,2]. Would you believe that this was the focus of a recent article in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science [3]. You might ask why are we bringing this up now as the holiday season is ending, but there is no harm in preparing yourself for next year. According to the authors we exchange gifts with the people we care about, in part, in an effort to make them happy and strengthen our relationships with them, a motivation consistent with broader literature on prosocial behaviour and social bonding [4,5,6]. It is certainly one reason why we share our Insider's Insights with our friends and colleagues. The authors of the new work note that by considering how valuable a gift might be over the course of the recipient's ownership, rather than their response when they open the present, we can meet these goals and provide useful, well-received gifts—an idea aligned with research on long-term utility versus immediate affective reactions [1,2].

Gift givers shouldn't focus on the moment of exchange when selecting a gift but be more focused on the long-term utility or practical attributes of the gift. This recommendation reflects findings from work on hedonic adaptation and durability of satisfaction, which show that immediate emotional reactions are often poor predictors of sustained happiness [1,2]. Researchers studied many existing frameworks from research in this area, trying to find a common ground between them. They found that the giver wants to “wow” the recipient with a gift that can be enjoyed immediately, in the moment. Know it or not, recipients are more interested in a gift that provides value over time. The researchers observed a mismatch between the thought processes and motivations of gift givers and recipients, consistent with established evidence of perspective-taking errors and empathy gaps in social decision-making [2,7]. Put another way, there may be times when the vacuum cleaner, unlikely to wow most recipients, really should be at the top of the present list.

Other considerations when choosing presents include:

Understanding Preferences

• Knowing the person’s tastes: It can be hard to figure out what someone actually wants, especially if they haven’t given any hints. Preferences vary widely, and some people are hard to shop for because their likes are specific or niche. This reflects limits in interpersonal accuracy and theory-of-mind judgments described in cognitive and social neuroscience [7,8,9].
• Changing interests: What someone loved last year might not interest them anymore, making it a challenge to pick something current and relevant, a phenomenon related to preference instability and shifting identity over time [10].

Balancing Practicality and Surprise

• Useful vs. fun: There’s often a dilemma between buying something practical (like household items) or fun and thoughtful (like a unique gadget or hobby-related gift). Balancing the two without the gift feeling either too utilitarian or frivolous can be tough. This tension parallels research on utilitarian versus hedonic consumption choices [11].
• Surprise factor: People often appreciate surprises, but guessing what will be both unexpected and enjoyable can be a real challenge, especially given evidence that people systematically mispredict emotional responses to future events [1,2].

Budget Constraints

• Staying within budget: Many people struggle with finding meaningful gifts that don’t break the bank. Shopping for several people can quickly add up, and there’s always pressure to get something that feels special without overspending. Financial decision-making research shows that social comparison and perceived norms strongly influence spending behaviour [12].
• Price vs. perceived value: Sometimes a more affordable gift can feel insufficient compared to others’ expensive gifts, even if it’s thoughtful, reflecting social signalling and status concerns in consumer psychology [13].

Holiday Stress

• Time pressure: The holiday season is already stressful with social events, decorating, and other commitments. Last-minute shopping can add to the stress, leading to rushed decisions or impulse purchases that aren’t well-thought-out. Stress and cognitive load are known to impair executive function and decision quality [14].
• Supply and availability: Popular items often sell out quickly, and online shopping can come with delays, making it difficult to secure the perfect gift on time—conditions that exacerbate scarcity effects and heuristic decision-making [14].

Gift Appropriateness

• Cultural or personal sensitivities: For some recipients, cultural or personal sensitivities might make certain gifts inappropriate, adding another layer of complexity. Cross-cultural psychology highlights variability in norms, values, and symbolism attached to material goods [15].
• Age and generational differences: Finding gifts that appeal across different generations—whether for children, adults, or elderly relatives, can be a balancing act of relevance, practicality, and fun, reflecting developmental differences in motivation and reward sensitivity [16].

Fear of Disappointment

• Pressure to please: Many people fear the recipient won’t like the gift or that it won’t be perceived as thoughtful enough, leading to anxiety and indecision. This aligns with evaluation apprehension and social anxiety constructs [17].
• Expectations: There’s often a societal expectation to give the “perfect” gift, which can feel overwhelming, particularly if there’s a sense that the recipient expects something specific or valuable, linking to impression-management theory and social evaluation concerns [17].

The researchers make recommendations for those hoping to choose better gifts, advising them to better empathise with gift recipients when thinking about gifts that would be both appreciated and useful, consistent with evidence that perspective-taking improves prosocial decision quality [3,6]. Things to avoid include:

• Giving unrequested gifts in an effort to surprise the recipient, when they are likely hoping for a gift from a pre-constructed list or registry;
• Focusing on tangible, material gifts, which are likely to be immediately well received, when experiential gifts, such as theatre tickets or a massage, would result in more enjoyment later on—an observation supported by research showing experiences often produce more enduring happiness than material goods [18].
• Giving socially responsible gifts, such as donations to a charity in the recipient's name, which seem special at the moment of gift exchange but may provide limited personal utility to recipients over time, reflecting differences between altruistic intent and recipient-centred value [4,5].

In conclusion, although giving Christmas presents is often joyful, the process can be complicated by the need to understand preferences, balance surprise with practicality, stick to a budget, manage time, and meet expectations without disappointing the recipient. These challenges are consistent with a large body of behavioural science and medical-psychology literature on decision-making, emotion prediction, stress, and social cognition [12,13].

References

1. Gilbert DT, Wilson TD. Prospection: experiencing the future. Science. 2007;317(5843):1351-4.
2. Wilson TD, Gilbert DT. Affective forecasting. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2003;35:345-411.
3. Galak et al, Why Certain Gifts Are Great to Give but Not to Get: A Framework for Understanding Errors in Gift Giving, Current Directions in Psychological Science (2016). 
4. Dunn EW, Aknin LB, Norton MI. Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science. 2008;319(5870):1687-8.
5. Harbaugh WT, Mayr U, Burghart DR. Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science. 2007;316(5831):1622-5.
6. Moll J, Krueger F, Zahn R, Pardini M, de Oliveira-Souza R, Grafman J. Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(42):15623-8.
7. Epley N, Keysar B, Van Boven L, Gilovich T. Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;87(3):327-39.
8. Frith CD, Frith U. The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron. 2006;50(4):531-4.
9. Mitchell JP. Social psychology as a natural kind. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009;13(6):246-51.
10. Quoidbach J, Gilbert DT, Wilson TD. The end of history illusion. Science. 2013;339(6115):96-8.
11. Dhar R, Wertenbroch K. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Mark Res. 2000;37(1):60-71.
12. Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat. 1954;7:117-40.
13. Kahneman D, Snell J. Predicting a changing taste: do people know what they will like? J Behav Decis Making. 1992;5(3):187-200.
14. Arnsten AFT. Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(6):410-22.
15. Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev. 1991;98(2):224-53.
16. Carstensen LL, Isaacowitz DM, Charles ST. Taking time seriously: a theory of socioemotional selectivity. Am Psychol. 1999;54(3):165-81.
17. Leary MR. A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1983;9(3):371-5.
18. Van Boven L, Gilovich T. To do or to have? That is the question. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(6):1193-202