How to support the gift giving of an e-book? : the influence of tangibility and personalization

(1)

How to Support

the Gift Giving of

an E-book?

E.G.M. van Egmond (11132043) University of Amsterdam

Faculty of Economics and Business Master thesis MSc Business Studies Specialization: Marketing Management Academic year: 2017-2018

Supervisor: dr. A.N. Weihrauch

Amsterdam, January 2018

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Ellen van Egmond who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

A considerable part of the overall turnover in the book trade consists of books bought with the intention to be given as a gift. The rise of e-books may have a negative effect on this contribution when the gift giving of an e-book does not appeal to the gift giver. This study therefor aimed to examine the influence of tangibility and personalization on the evaluation of the gift giving of an e-book. Data was collected from 206 students of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. Evaluation of the gift-giving presentation was assessed on the three stages of gift giving: (1) gestation, (2) prestation, and (3) reformulation. Results showed that tangibility and personalization both influence the evaluation of the gift-giving presentation in general and more specific in the first two stages of gift giving. The expected moderated effect of personalization is not proven by this study. Furthermore, an interesting result was found from a covariate, namely digital attitude. Results showed that respondents with a more positive attitude towards digital objects showed a higher evaluation of the gift presentation. Implications of these findings are discussed.

(4)

1 Introduction

Books were not only among the first commercially produced Christmas gifts: the book trade played a central role in turning Christmas into the commercialized holiday that we know today. “Publishers and booksellers were the shock troops in exploiting and developing a Christmas trade,” Stephen Nissenbaum (1997, p. 140) writes in The Battle for Christmas, a social history of the holiday. Books are small, light, affordable, mass-produced products of a uniform shape and size, and yet, because each title is unique, a gift-giver can choose a book to suit the taste of nearly everyone. This rare combination of uniformity, customization, and flexibility makes a printed book, from a commercial standpoint, a perfect gift-exchange commodity (Bourne, 2015).

A consumer survey of the Dutch Marketing Research Foundation (SMB) shows that 17% of the Dutch consumers who bought recent books said that these books were a gift for someone else (Scholtz & Witte, 2016). In an earlier report on the book trade, the Customer Journey of the Bookkeeper, the authors already came to a similar conclusion: 14% of respondents said that the books were purchased for someone else (Scholtz & Witte, 2015). Information from the Nielsen Book Survey of Book Buying Habits (2016), the world’s largest tracker of what book consumers buy and why, tells us that in 2015 23% of American book consumers bought a book as a gift. In 2011 this was 27%, so the share of books bought as gifts fell from 27% to 23%. No reasons were given for this decline other than the general decline in book sales of 53% to 47%.

The book trade has to adjust to the new, digital world, offering experiences and getting to know the new consumer behaviour (Nielsen, 2016). E-book sales exploded from 2007 onward because of new technology. The share of the e-book market now represents 6-7% of the total market in Europe, with significant differences between countries. In the US this share is higher, namely 24% (Nielsen, 2016). The shift from traditional books to e-books is not only affecting products bought for oneself, but also influences the important market share of consumers that buy books as gifts.

Recent managerial literature focusing on the customer journey of book purchasers looking for a book as a gift gives some insight into the actual way they purchase these gifts and what their considerations are (Scholtz & Witte, 2015). In this study, however, e-books given as gifts were not yet subject of study. A more recent market study though does provide

(6)

information about purchasing e-books and receiving them as a gift (Van Eeden & Witten, 2016). This study shows a clear interest in an e-book as a gift: half the people who today read e-books would like to receive a digital book or give it as a gift and 56% of the e-books received were given as presents. The most preferred form (77%) is a gift card for a general, non-specific e-book and 22% prefer to receive a specific e-book in the form of a physical or digital gift card. No distinction has been made between the preferences of the receiver for a physical and a digital gift card. Also, nothing is said about the preferences on this aspect of the gift giver. Because the gift giver is the one who makes the decision what to give, he is the one of economic interest for the book gifting industry.

The phenomenal of gift giving has been researched by many scholars in different disciplines. The last two decades gift card gifting has become a part of this research. The digitalization of gift items like books, movies and music though and the method that is used to actually give the present has only got limited attention. Also, in general, no academic research yet examined whether the tangibility of the gift presentation for the gift giver is of importance for his evaluation of the gift giving. It is known though that the presentation of the gift enhances the gift-giving experience so it can be expected that the tangibility aspect does have some influence (Belk, 1996; Larsen & Watson, 2001). Furthermore, a book is a sort of personal gift (Buckridge, 2012; Davis, 1983; Scott-Warren, 2001), a gift card, on the other hand, is considered to be impersonal (Horne & Bendle, 2015).

For the book trade, it is therefore important to understand the effect of the tangibility of the gift presentation that makes it possible to gift e-books and the effect of personalizing these presentations to imitate the more specific emotions associated with books as gift objects. Although it seems that tangibility and personalization fulfil an accelerator role of more positive evaluation for the giver, no empirical proof is provided to back up this theory (Belk, 1996; Larsen & Watson, 2001; Clarke, 2007; Horne & Bendle, 2015). The purpose of my master thesis is, therefore, to examine these effects on the emotional evaluation of the gifting experience from the perspective of the gift giver by answering the following research question:

“What is the effect of the tangibility of the e-book gift-giving presentation in the book trade on the emotional evaluation of the gifting experience from the perspective of the gift giver

(7)

By studying the preferences of gift givers, this study may contribute to the survival of the book as a gift item in a digital world. It also may contribute to the academic literature by offering an insight in preferences of the gift giver for the tangibility of the gift and the personalization of it.

In order to reach a comprehensive conclusion, the remainder of this study is structured as follows. The next chapter describes the current state of the art with respect to gift giving and in particular the tangibility and personalization of it. Subsequently, chapter three outlines the data collection procedure and research method. Results based on the collected data are discussed in chapter four. Finally, the most important conclusions and implications of the results of this study are discussed in chapter five, together with the most important limitations and a number of suggestions for further research.

(8)

2 Literature Review

The purpose of my master thesis is to examine the effect of the tangibility of the gift presentation that makes it possible to gift e-books and the effect of personalizing this presentation on the emotional evaluation of the gifting experience from the perspective of the gift giver by answering the following research question:

and what is the potential moderating effect of personalization on this evaluation?” In an attempt to investigate the research question in a more formal way, the following conceptual model is designed (figure 1):

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

In this model the independent variable is ‘tangibility of the gift-giving presentation’ and the moderator is ‘personalization’. The dependent variable is ‘evaluation of the gift giver of the gifting experience’.

This chapter discusses the most relevant findings from the current literature about the phenomenon of gift giving and states the hypotheses of this study. Initially, the key concepts that provide the theoretical foundation of the gift-giving experience are discussed. Subsequently, the chapter continues with a description of tangibility, personalization and its effect on the evaluation of gift givers. Finally, this chapter outlines how the evaluation of the gifting experience is shaped by the tangibility of the gift-giving presentation and the personalization with again the conceptual model, which will then show the hypotheses and the expected signs next to the arrows.

(9)

The Gift-Giving Experience

Many scholars have been researching the phenomenon of gift giving. They all revere to The Gift, a book of Marcel Mauss, a French sociologist, in which he lays the foundation of social theories of reciprocity and gift exchange and which has been translated and made more accessible in 2002 by W.D. Halls (Mauss, 2002). In this essay, Mauss describes gifting as the exchange of objects between groups to build relationships between humans. In his essay he presented a theoretical analysis of the gift-giving process, based on his examination of gift giving amongst various primitive, secluded, or ancient societies. He concluded that gift giving is a self-perpetuating system of reciprocity and summarized three types of obligations which preserve gift-giving: 1. the obligation to give, 2. the obligation to receive, and 3. the obligation to repay. In further research on the subject this fundament of reciprocity was never criticized, later important scholars on this subject like Belk and Sherry, all build further on this fundament.

In the seventies of the 20th century, Russel W. Belk started to investigate the phenomena in the field of consumer behaviour because of the rising importance of gifts for the total economy. He came up with a model of gift selection based on cognitive consistency theories. In his model, he proposed ‘balance’ as a predictor for a satisfying gifting process. For instance, if the giver likes the recipient and likes the gift chosen, for balance to occur the recipient should also be expected to like the gift. In a later study he introduces item specific and purchase situation specific elements to the field (Belk, 1981). Later, he defined a gift as “a good or service voluntarily provided to another person or group” (Belk & Coon, 1993, p.394). John F. Sherry (1983), studied the phenomena from a social scientists view. He came up with the ‘gift exchange process model’. Were Belk focused on the gift selection of the giver, Sherry conceptualized the complete gifting process in three stages, the gestation stage (the gift selection), the prestation stage (the actual giving) and the reformulation stage (the disposition of the gift). For each stage, he defined the special variables that needed to be taken into account to get to a complete picture of the gifting process. Not all characteristics of the gift are in the gift itself; many features are dependent on the giver and the receiver, their relationship, and the actual presentation of the gift (Belk, 1976; Belk & Coon, 1993).

Sherry, Mcgrath & Lev. (1993) turned more to the insider perspective. In their article ‘the dark side of the gift’, they researched the ambivalence and contradiction experienced by gift participants. Later studies executed all focused on the insider perspective and prove of

(10)

emotions. Belk & Coon (1993) for example, suggested an alternative for this view of economic and social exchange, namely the agapic love view which includes not only romantic love, but also brotherly love, spiritual love, and parental or familial love. This view leaves room for ecstatic, passionate, and self-transcending emotions. From this moment on, the emotional part of the gift-giving experience is included by most scholars. Larsen & Watson (2001) proposed a model of the gift-giving experience which provides four categories for breaking the giving process into examinable elements: economic, functional, social and expressive value. Gifts can be valued simply for their economic worth which is categorized as economic value. Gifts also have their utilitarian characteristics or attributes which can be specified as the functional value. Social value is mentioned for their role in establishing social ties or maintaining relationships. Gifts also provide a possibility to capturing some aspect of the giver. This is the expressive value.

Also, Beatty, Kahle & Homer (1991) made an important contribution to the literature by focusing on the more personal values and gift-giving behaviours (Beatty et al., 1991). They describe in their article on gift giving different gift-giving behaviour on two variables, namely ‘give more gifts’ and ‘exert more effort in gift selection’. Chapman & Campbell (2008) suggests in their article that people use different ways of signalling the importance of their relationships. That is why individuals may differ in the interpretation of specific gift-giving experiences.

Although the focus of this research is the gift giver experience, it cannot be neglected that the gift-giving experience is influenced by the context. According to Larsen & Watson (2001) their values (economic, functional, social and expressive) are influenced by “the cost of the gift, the context in which the gift is given, and the appropriateness of the gift” (Larsen & Watson, 2001, p.891). According to Clarke the gift itself, the occasion, the donor, and the recipient are the core components of this context. “It is the interaction between these four components that create the uniqueness of a particular gift exchange” (Clarke, 2007). He draws this conclusion based on a literature study. A descriptive index in the evaluation of the gifting experience is the nature of the occasion in which a gift is given (Belk, 1976). A second major descriptive index is the relationship between the giver and the recipient (Larsen & Watson, 2001). A third major index is the type of gift selected (Belk, 1976).

In the field of computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW), Kwon, Koleva, Scndelbach & Benford (2017) published a conference paper in which they systematically analyzed the

(11)

nature of digital gifting in comparison to conventional physical gifting. They came to the conclusion that what is regarded as a gift depends greatly on the ritualistic behaviour that surrounds it. Their conclusion is based on all the available gift-giving literature as mentioned above but it also mirrors findings from previous studies of digital technology in which teenagers’ text messages came to be seen as gifts when exchanged as part of occasioned rituals; or in which notions of receiving virtual possessions became bound up with singularized exchange rituals (Denegri-Knott, Watkins, & Wood, 2012; Taylor & Harper, 2002). In their research, Kwon et al (2017) paid therefor attention to the question “what makes an object a gift and which aspects are currently missing from digital gifts?”. Their participants noted that time and effort are barely noticeable in digital gifts, whereas these are often innate in material gift preparation. Frequently missed attributes from the digital gifts are also, personalization and one of a kindness (e.g. limited edition), passed ownership (not shared), collocated exchange (face-to-face) and wrapping. What their participants saw as attributes of received digital gifts where: emotionally charged and sentimental memento, useful, appropriateness (fits context and occasion) and experiential (Kwon et al., 2017). Evaluation of the gift-giving experience may be therefore reflected by the affective outcomes, which may be influenced by (digital) technologies that support the rituals of gift giving.

Most attention in this review is given to the presentation of gift giving. But, because the gift itself is also one of the core components, first attention is given to books as a gift object. (E-)Books as Gifts

An important article about books as gifts is an article by Nathalie Zemon Davis, a Canadian and American historian of the early modern period. In this article, she studied books as gifts in the sixteenth-century in France. She describes how the book is perceived as “an object of mixed not absolute property, of collective not private enterprise, despite the unequal distribution of monetary rewards” (Davis, 1983, p.87). According to Davis, this happened “because of a powerful tradition for understanding what a book was and what it embodied: something not just created by us, but inherited, given by God, given by others. “The book was a privileged object that resisted permanent appropriation and for which it was especially wrong to view it only as a source of profit” (Davis, 1983, p.87). Another scholar, Jason Scott-Warren, who did research into early modern reading, wrote a book about Renaissance book-giving, Sir Harington and the Book as a Gift (Scott-Warren, 2001). This study attends to the

(12)

fact that most of Harington’s books were customized items for specific individuals and occasions. In a more recent article (only one time cited) written by an Australian English literature scholar Patrick Buckridge, an analysis of a personal library is made (Buckridge, 2012). A third of the books in this library are gifts. The ‘reciprocity’ gift theory is questioned by Buckridge (2012) in the case of books. He writes: “The simple act of giving a book is, or can be, ‘utopian’ in a quite complex way. Giving a book to someone may be less like saying ‘I think you're worth this’, or ‘I think you're like this’, and more like saying ‘I believe you can rise to this’ or ‘I hope you can rise to this’. “Full acceptance of such a gift involves both reading and keeping the book and brings the transaction to a satisfactory and successful close” (Buckridge, 2012, p. 13).

In their research Hupfeld & Rodden (2014) aimed to understand the broader role of books in everyday life to find implications for the design of e-books. They concluded that the rich interactions books afford beyond reading are not reflected in the design of current e-reading technologies. They describe the gifting of books also as a part of the role of books in everyday life. “Receiving book presents were often perceived as affirming or disconfirming the receiver’s sense of self and intimacy of the relationship” (Hupfeld & Rodden, 2014, p. 648). So, overall it can be said that books do offer rich interactions beyond reading and gift giving which substantiate their special, more personal position as a gift item.

Gifting Presentations

In an earlier research focused on the use of e-books in everyday life, Hupfeld and Rodden, (2014) already mentioned the problem of sharing (as in passing through or as a gift) an e-book. The sharing and gifting of e-books between users, applications, and devices is constrained by corporate digital rights management (DRM) software (Hupfeld & Rodden, 2014). The workarounds booksellers have developed to manage this constraint in gift giving does not reflect the rich interactions books afford beyond reading and gift giving which is found in the literature. Current methods of e-book gift giving are possible through physical (plastic) gift card gifting or by electronic/digital code (per e-mail) gift gifting.

Gift cards can be defined as “value-stored, plastic cards that are issued by merchants at which consumers can redeem the card for consumable goods” (Yao & Chen, 2014, p.481). Over the past two decades, gift cards have become an increasingly popular gift option for birthdays, holidays and other occasions. Retailers across categories offer cards, which can be

(13)

used only at the specific retailer, often both online and at a physical location (Marketing Strategies, 2012). The popularity of gift cards arises from the consumer’s ability to fulfil gifting obligations while conveniently reducing the risk of poor gift selection. Also for more intangible gifts, like experiences and digital products, iTunes and Amazon have become major gift card sellers (Horne & Bendle, 2015).

The primary argument against the use of gift cards is that they serve the same function as cash (Horne & Bendle, 2015). Because of this association, the usage of gift cards is hindered by the perception that such gifts are impersonal (Austin & Huang, 2011). With his ‘choice model of gift card alternatives’, the scholar Yu (2010) provides empirical evidence that communicating personal feelings toward the recipient are important in driving gift card choice decision. He also pleads for further research for understanding consumer preferences to develop new gift card features.

A review study from Horne & Blendle (2015) on the literature on card gifting resulted in the conclusion that “gift cards have received limited academic study despite being a key element of many retailers strategies” (Horne & Bendle, 2015, p. 154). They again plead for taking a broader perspective on consumer behaviour and considering consumers involved in social systems that encourage gift giving. The modern gift card offers significant advantages over gift certificates. “Since the ‘working’ part of the gift card is contained in the magnetic stripe or barcode on the back side, the front of the gift card can be altered in almost any way a merchant desires. Such flexibility allows for a variety of appealing designs and tailored messages” (Horne & Bendle, 2015). Academic literature on the topic of electronic gifting by e-mail is even less available. The available literature focusses mainly on the sharing of content (as in ‘passing through’) and not on the gift-giving phenomenon (Corciolani & Dalli, 2014; McGee & Skågeby, 2005). Only recently, in the field of CSCW, Kwon & al. (2017) came to the conclusion that “little has been said about how CSCW technologies might enhance explicit acts of digital gifting” by which they mean situations in which people deliberately choose to give digital media as gifts (Kwon et al., 2017, p.2372). After their interview study, they found distinctive gaps in people’s engagement with the digital gifting process compared to physical gifting. “While giving digital gifts online is relatively easy, this very convenience may actually serve to undermine some of the most valued aspects of social gifting rituals such as, purposefully selecting an object; personalizing it by wrapping it; and thoughtfully giving it to the recipient” (Kwon et al., 2017, p. 2372). The scholars plead for systematically exploring

(14)

the junction between existing social customs in gifting and emerging digital gifting services to find implications for design to help address these gaps.

Tangible versus Non-tangible

The first issue that derives from the above is the ‘tangible versus intangible’ aspect. Is there a difference in evaluation from givers for tangible gift versus intangible, digital goods? It might be interesting to look at this in a more general way, like: is there a difference in value people perceive for tangible goods versus non-tangible, digital goods?

Digital dematerialization in terms of consumption and possession has been a topic of consumer research since the start of digitalization. In 2006 Siddiqui & Turley found that “even though they might exist and interact in the disembodied domain of cyberspace, consumers are still conditioned to exist and respond to a material world where constructs like possessions, no matter how abstract, still need tangible foundations” (Siddiqui & Turley, 2006, p.647). They argue that simulations in a computer-mediated environment (CME) might replace some aspects of the real and tangible, but they do not completely replace them in terms of value and association (Siddiqui & Turley, 2006). In his article ‘Possessions and the Extended Self’ Belk incorporates the impacts of digitization, and provide an understanding of consumer sense of self in today’s technological environment. He observed the act of ‘re-materialization’ in which the functionality and experience of digital materials are enhanced by connecting them to collateral physical materials (Belk, 2013).

Interesting though is that Siddiqui & Turley (2005) already mention an indication of gradual abdication of materialistic values. Earlier, Mick & Fournier (1998) designed a conceptual framework on the paradoxes of technological products and their influences on emotional reactions and behavioural coping strategies for which they also reported an expected evolvement over time. Denegri-Knott & Molesworth (2010, p.114) concluded that “a further understanding of the imaginary (or virtual) and its relation to the real (or material) is needed so that we can deal with consumer practices taking place in digital spaces”. Between 2006 and 2017 people are collecting larger and more diverse collections of digital things. The development of Cloud computing has enabled people to move their personal files to online places, and create new digital things through online services. People also have more and more virtual possessions like products that are increasingly becoming immaterial (e.g. books, photos, music, movies) and things that never even had a material form (e.g. SMS archives,

(15)

social networking profiles, personal behaviour logs) (Odom, Zimmerman, & Forlizzi, 2011). Odom et al. (2011) studied the perceived value teenagers have of their virtual possessions compared with their material things. This fieldwork uncovered several complications participants faced when “presenting and interacting with their digital possessions like storage, presentation of the self and transition between material and virtual forms” (Odom et al., 2011). Their findings show though how virtual possessions and online paces create new opportunities to support identity construction and experimentation. However, still little is known about how this shift might shape people’s orientations toward digital things because to date still little research exists about how people value and form attachments to virtual possessions.

According to books and e-books, Hupfeld & Roden (2014) found that their participants relationship with books seemed intensely emotional. Which stands in contrast with people’s relationship with e-books. According to research on this subject, the relationship with e-books seems much more functionalist in nature, centring on features like mobility, instantaneity, or the availability of free and low-cost content (Rouncefield & Tolmie, 2011; Hupfeld & Rodden, 2014).

Chan & Mogilner (2016) found evidence that people are more inclined to give material gifts. Clarke (2007) suggests in his study on experience gift-giving behaviour that tangible representation is pre-requisite. In the article in which Kwon & al (2017) compared digital gifting to conventional physical gifting, they found the absence of physical wrapping as a major exposing weakness of the overall gifting experience for the digital gifting. So, based on the above literature on tangible versus intangible preferences according to goods and gifts, the first hypothesis is formulated as:

(H1) Tangible gift cards relate to a more positive evaluation of the gifting experience compared to non-tangible gift cards.

The Personalization of the Gift

The primary argument against the use of gift cards is that they serve the same function as cash (Horne & Bendle, 2015). Also, the lesser effort to acquire and present it diminishes the perceived giver sacrifice that is a characteristic of the perfect gift (Belk, 1996). Because of this association, the usage of gift cards may be “hindered by the perception that such gifts are impersonal” (Austin & Huang, 2011, p.14). Yu (2010) provides in his dissertation empirical evidence that communicating personal feelings toward the recipient are important in driving

(16)

gift card choice decision. The effort to personalize a gift is widely appreciated as it implies that the giver cares greatly about the value of a social relationship (Belk, 1977; Belk, 1996; Sherry et al., 1993). The act of choosing an appropriate gift in the first place might become an act of personalization if thoughtfully conducted (Belk, 1981). To choose a specific book title as a gift item is, therefore, an act of personalization for it is already said that “receiving book presents were often perceived as affirming or disconfirming the receiver’s sense of self and intimacy of the relationship” (Hupfeld & Rodden, 2014, p. 648). In the gestation stage, gift givers feel more excited when they spent more time in acquiring and preparation of the gift, including virtual labour (Belk, 2013; Kwon et al., 2017).

The presentation and packaging of a gift intensify the gift-giving experience. Gift presentation is “a useful way of creating deception and enhancing or dramatizing the surprise” (Larsen & Watson, 2001, p. 897). By surprising or misguiding the recipient in some way even ordinary or seemingly insignificant gifts can become highly prized (Areni, Kiecker, & Palan, 1998). Sherry et al. (1993) highlight the dramatic potential of the gift presentation. Gifts that are presented ‘naked’, can be interpreted as “demonstrating an unwillingness to invest personally in the gift” (Larsen & Watson, 2001, p.897). Clarke (2007) suggests that greater creativity and individualization of gift presentation can take away these associations.

So, based on the above literature on personalization of gifts, the second hypothesis is formulated as:

(H2) Personalization relates positively to the evaluation of the gifting experience. Namely, givers prefer giving personalized e-book gifts presentations over non-personalized. For the personalization of the mentioned methods of e-book gift giving it is expected that this will have a positive effect on the evaluation of the gift giver. It may even be expected that the effect of personalization of the intangible e-mail will have a higher positive effect than the personalization of the plastic gift card. Recent findings under teenagers show how virtual possessions and online paces create new, accepted opportunities to support identity construction and experimentation (Odom et al., 2011). Siddiqui & Turley (2005) already saw an indication of gradual abdication of materialistic values because of the new opportunities of digital possessions.

(17)

Based on the limited literature on the perceived value of digital goods, the third hypothesis is formulated as:

(H3) The tangibility of the gift-giving presentation and the personalization of it, will interact in effecting the evaluation of the gifting experience. More specifically, personalization of non-tangible gift cards will have a stronger positive effect on the evaluation of gift-giving

experience when compared to personalization of plastic cards. Research Model

In prior sections three sets of hypotheses were established. The first hypotheses represents the main model of the study and forms the basis for the other hypotheses. The main model refers to the direct relationship between the tangibility of the gift-giving presentation and the evaluation of the gift giver. This relationship is indicated by the H1 arrow in figure 2. The expected influence of personalization has been graphically illustrated by the H2 and H3 arrows.

(18)

3 Data & Method

This chapter represents the start of the empirical part of this study. First, a description of the research design, the data collection procedure, the data sample, and the variables included in the questionnaire is given. Finally, a brief description is given of the statistical approach that was taken in order to test for the expected relationships as discussed in the previous chapter. Description of Research Design

To examine the effect of the tangibility of the e-book gift-giving presentation in the book trade on the evaluation of the gifting experience from the perspective of the gift giver and what the potential moderating effect is of personalization on this effect, an experimental design is needed to demonstrate the effect. Only with the experimental design as research strategy a causal link between the variables can be studied (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The experimental design is a 2 (plastic card, e-mail) x 2 (no personalization, personalization) factorial between subjects design.

Description of the Data Collection Procedure

For measuring group differences with higher statistical power, Morgan & Wilson (2007) and VanVoorhis & Morgan (2007) advise 50 participants per variable, meaning a minimum of 200 participants for this experiment. To take in account that some participants might not complete the total questionnaire, a group of 264 students from the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences was invited to participate in this experiment by completing the questionnaire that was designed in the web-based survey tool Qualtrics. In this tool they were randomly assigned to one of the four gift-giving presentations: 1. neutral plastic card gifting, 2. neutral e-card gifting, 3. personalized plastic card gifting and 4. personalized e-card gifting. See Appendix 3 for the actual presentation of the different presentations. Arguments for these presentations are already given in the review of the literature. The details of the presentations are explained in the section ‘description of the measurement of the independent variable’.

They first were framed with a written particular gift-giving scenario. According to Clarke (2007) the four core elements distilled from the literature review are the gift, the occasion, the donor, and the recipient. “It is the interaction between these four components that create the uniqueness of a particular gift exchange” (Clarke, 2007, p. 100). So a descriptive index in the evaluation of the gifting experience is the nature of the occasion in which a gift is given (Belk,

(19)

1976). All tough gift giving appears in many occasions, birthdays dominate as occasion in most gift-giving research (Belk, 1977; Clarke, 2007). A second major descriptive index is the relationship between the giver and the recipient (Larsen & Watson, 2001) The four most popular gift recipients are friends, parents, children and siblings (Belk, 1977; Clarke, 2007). A third major index is the type of gift selected (Belk, 1976). The subject of this research is e-books. That a book can be seen as a relevant gift item is already pointed out in the introduction and is also validated in the academic literature (Belk, 1976; Scholtz & Witte, 2016; Scott-Warren, 2001). All mentioned indexes need to be part of the situation the participants are framed in. For the written scenario, see Appendix 1.

As mentioned, an online questionnaire was used to confront the participants with the gift-giving scenario and one of the four gift-gift-giving presentations followed by questions that measure the gift-gifting evaluation. Questionnaires make it possible to ask the same set of standardized questions to a large number of respondents (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Because the questions are standardized, the data collected can be analysed statistically which is necessary to collect prove for the hypotheses.

The questionnaire consist of rating questions mostly. This type of questioning is most suitable for measuring opinions (Kothari, 2004). The evaluation of the gift-giving experience is measured on a Likert scale. The advantage of this scale is that the data can be analysed as a continuous variable which gives access to higher statistical methods (Kothari, 2004).

Minimizing the changes of questions misinterpreted, the questionnaire was tested first with a small group of 5 students. They were asked to accomplish the questionnaire. Afterwards interviews with the participants took place to validate the questions. Minor adjustments were made thereafter.

Description of the Sample

Many scholars have been researching the phenomena of gift giving. They found cultural, personal and motivational differences in gift giving but they did not find, or did not search for, segments who did not give at all. So, we can see all humans as gift givers which immediately defines the population for this research.

Not all humans are readers though. To find proof for the hypotheses it was important to conduct this research under a large group of people who are more likely to read or to be surrounded by people who read books. It is known that higher educated people read more than

(20)

lower educated people (Scholtz & Witte, 2016). Although younger people read less than older people, students do read more than non-students. “Students have the highest overall reading rate of any age group. They also exhibit an increased interest in e-books and audiobooks compared to younger readers” (Zickuhr, Rainie, & Purcell, 2012, p. 4). Because direct access to a large group of students was possible, collect data with this group made the research goal achievable.

A very specific result was found in an article of Komter (1996) where she explored gift giving in the Netherlands. She found that students appear to be great givers referred to other defined groups. According to her, this is because gift giving mostly takes place within still unsettled, and yet important social relationships, an explanation she derives from Caplow (1982). This result also was an argument for using students for this research.

The biggest advantage of between-subjects designs is that exposure to one of the levels of the independent variable cannot contaminate the participant’s behaviour under other levels. But the biggest disadvantage of a between-subjects design is that the groups assigned to each level of the independent variable(s) might not be equivalent to each other on some dimension, and this dimension might bias the behaviour being measured. Random assignment of participants for between-subjects experiments is effective in removing potential bias among groups (Martin, 2007).

Description of the Measures

Accordingly, the following constructs are measured in this study: the tangibility of the gift-giving presentation, personalization and gift-gift-giving evaluation.

Dependent Variable: Gift-giving Evaluation

The dependent variable, gift-giving evaluation, will be measured based on two widely cited gift exchange models that would aid a systematic approach to the subject. Both models will, in combination, deliver a complete picture of the evaluation of the gift giver.

Sherry (1983) illustrated gifting by using a 3-stage model: gestation stage (all behaviour antecedent to the actual gift giving), prestation stage (the actual gift exchange) and reformulation stage (the disposition of the gift). The total model though is very complex because of the large number of variables and concepts. For this research, the described stages and the issues addressed in the stages will give the structure in which the questions will appear to the participants. See figure 3 for the stages and the issues addressed.

(21)

Based on Belk’s review of gifting behaviour (1977), Larsen & Watson (2001) proposed a model of the gift-giving experience which determine categories for breaking the giving process into examinable elements of value. They present four dimensions of value as part of the gift-giving experience: economic, functional, social and expressive value. Gifts can be valued for their economic worth which is categorized as an economic value. Gifts may also be valued for their utilitarian characteristics or attributes, which is the functional value. Social value is mentioned for their role in establishing social ties or maintaining relationships. Gifts are also able to provide an expressive quality in which the gift may capture some aspect of the giver. See figure 3 for the aspects to be measured based on the mentioned values.

Stage Issues Aspects to be measured based on values as input for actual questions

Social (S), Economic (E), Functional (F), Expressive (EX)

Overall Evaluation

Gestation Stage  Possibility occurs for expressing some motivation stage through a giving strategy.

 An elicitation strategy may be employed in the service of a particular expectation.

 Possible recipient input into the selection process

 Donor conducts an internal search involving conceptions of self, other and gift

 What is socially accepted as a gift-giving method? S

 What must it cost in terms of effort? E  How much time is devoted to search? E  How is the gift selected? F

 How is it obtained? F

 How much fun/excitement beforehand is experienced? EX

Prestation Stage  Both donor and recipient are attentive to the time, place and mode of transaction: the way the gift is given influences the impact of given.

 The amount of control the giver has on the actual giving

 The donor is concerned with response induction.

 The donors possibility to evaluate the receivers respons.

 Social acceptation of the method of gift giving? S

 Are intentions recognized? S  How to observe response? S

 Does the gift giving actually take place? F  Is the effort made perceived? E

 How much fun/excitement is experienced by the giver? EX

Reformulation Stage

 The gift becomes a vehicle by which the relationship of the donor with the recipient is realigned.  A reversed role of the recipient as a

future donor will show the consequences of the earlier gift giving.

 Is the gift actually consumed? F  How does the gift giving influence the

relationship? S

 Will the value in terms of effort and attention put in the gift giving sustain? E  Will the actual gifting sustain? EX

(22)

The giver’s evaluation of the gift-giving presentation will, after an overall evaluation, be measured on the combination of these stages and the reported values. This will be translated in statements on which the participants can disagree or agree. The statements will be measured on a Likert scale. The advantage of this scale is that the data can be analysed as a continuous variable which gives access to higher statistical methods. A 6-point scale will be used to force participants to choose and stay away from the neutral option. See figure 3 for the structure and aspects by which the gift-giving evaluation is measured. See Appendix 2 for the actual questions.

Independent Variable: Tangibility of the Gift-giving Presentation

Because current gift-giving presentations of e-book gift giving are through plastic card gifting (tangible) or per e-mail (non-tangible) the independent variable, tangibility of the gift-giving presentation, is operationalized on this fact. The items that will be used are presented in Appendix 3. For the plastic gift card, the most common form is chosen so it will be recognized by all participants. To avoid misinterpretations the pictures were tested beforehand together with the written explanation.

Moderator: Personalization

“The popularity of gift cards stems from the purchasing consumer’s ability to fulfil gifting obligations while conveniently reducing the risk of poor gift selection” (Yao & Chen, 2014, p. 481). But the usage of gift cards may also be hindered by the perception that such gifts are impersonal (Austin & Huang, 2011).

Personalisation in this research is operationalized by allowing the gift giver to choose a specific book title for the receiver which will be shown on the plastic gift card and in the e-mail. Choosing a specific title facilitates some of the aspects which defines a perfect gift; namely that the gift should show donor sacrifice, the gift is uniquely appropriate to the recipient and the gift should surprise the recipient (Belk, 1996).

To clarify that the gift givers are able to specifically choose a title, both gift-giving presentation conditions show an example title. To prevent any unwanted priming from the example title displayed, a relatively new title from a best seller author is chosen, see Appendix 4 for references. In the instruction for the participants is written that they should imagine they choose a title themselves for which they are relatively sure that the receiver likes.

(23)

Control Variables

This study will also be controlled for possible alternative explanations by including relevant control variables. The first variable to control for is the gifting behaviour. Beatty, Kahle and Homer (1991) describe in their article on gift giving different gift-giving behaviour on two variables, namely ‘give more gifts’ and ‘exert more effort in gift selection’. Chapman & Campbell (2008) suggests in their article that people use different ways of signalling the importance of their relationships. That is why individuals may differ in the interpretation of specific gift-giving experiences. It is for this reason important to control for ‘Gifting Behaviour’. Seven items were used to assess a giver’s Gifting Behaviour. An example item is: “I consider gifts to be an important way of communicating love or friendship to others”. The items were based on the questionnaire of Beatty et al (1991), which were initially developed based on focus group interviews and which have been used in a previous study. Three items represented perceived effort in gift selection for which they reported a Cronbach’s α = .69. Four items represented the perceived amount of giving for which they reported a Cronbach’s α = .73. All items are measured on a 6-point Likert-like scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

The second variable to control for is the digital attitude, the difference in value participants perceive for tangible goods versus digital goods. As described in the literature review section to date no academic research exists for digital versus material gifts evaluation. Some knowledge exists though about how people value and form attachments to virtual possessions. Until now material possessions are more valued. That this value evolves over time is for sure so it is important to know how it is now felt by the participants of this research to draw conclusions about correlations with their evaluations of the gift-giving presentations. It could be an explanation for a more (not expected) positive evaluation towards the non-tangible gift-giving presentation. Because no standard scales on this subject are available, they are created for this research based on aspects that are filtered out of literature on the subject of digital possessions, like (un)certainty about ownership and security, social visibility, emotional attachment and feelings of control over the object (Furby, 1978; Odom et al., 2011; Siddiqui & Turley, 2006). These will be measured on a 6-point Likert-like scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The statements are:

 To me, digital possessions are of the same value as material possessions.  I feel uncertain about the ownership of a digital possession.(reverse score)

(24)

 I can feel attached to a digital object like I can feel attached to a material possession.  I have the same amount of control on digital possessions like material possessions.  I feel no more uncertainty about security of a digital possession versus a material

possession

The fourth and five variables to control for are gender and age of the participants. These features need to be available just to describe the participants. The influence of gender in gift giving is described by many scholars doing research on the subject of gift giving.

In their overview article of the terrain of gift value, Larsen & Watson show that research has indicated that “women are typically more involved in gift giving than men” and “women spend more time looking for gifts and their interpretations of the meaning of gift-giving exchanges are more detailed” (Larsen & Watson, 2001, p. 901). Also, in several studies women are also categorized as the heavier gift givers (Beatty et al., 1991; Garner & Wagner, 1991). But, according to Areni, Kiecker & Palan (1998), who did explicit research on this subject, men do give gifts and even devote considerable effort to the gift-giving task. What they did find was a distinction between men’s and women’s role as givers. Males adapt to more instrumental roles as givers than do females. This was also reported by Gould & Weil (1991). Also in the study of Komter (1996) about gift giving in the Netherlands, it was found that women play an important role in ritual giving but this was pointed especially towards housewives. Because all research on this subject report differences in a way between man and women, gender needs to be researched for alternative explanations.

The variances in age will be low because participants will all be between 18 and 25 years old. For precize desription of the respondents the controle variable age is included as well.

The last variable to control for is e-reader, which indicate if the participant read e-books her- or himself. The fact if they do or do not could be an explanation for a more positive evaluation towards the non-tangible gift-giving presentation because of the experience with the gift-giving object. People tend to be more positive about objects they are more exposed to (Zajonc, 1968).

For the English and Dutch version of the items and questions see Appendix 2. Analytical Strategy

Data were collected by means of an online survey using Qualtrics. Survey administration started on November 13th, 2017. The survey was closed three weeks later on December 4th,

(25)

2017. To perform the statistical analyses, the Statistical Software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. The data export from Qualtrics was done with Use Legacy Exporter to have insight in the randomized options.

Sample

The sample consisted of Dutch students from the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences who were personally invited during lectures to participate. From the 264 students that started filling out the questionnaire, 213 respondents fully completed the questionnaire.

Data cleaning

After selecting the finished cases frequency tables were made. There were no missing values because of the ‘forced input’ that was used. The check for outliers was done by standardizing the scores and by running univariate outliers output: seven outliers were found (cases with z < -3 or z > 3) one in ‘Carefully selecting and giving gifts is an important tradition for me’, one in ‘I almost always exert considerable effort to select or make special gifts for close friends’ and two in Age. The outliers were examined to ensure no data entry or instrument errors were made. After checking the items were deleted. The total amount of respondents left for analysis was then 206. This sample size meets the criteria to test with 80% statistical power for all statistics designed to detect differences between groups (VanVoorhis & Morgan, 2007).

Descriptive statistics of the sample

Taking all left 206 respondents together (age-range: 16-27, mean 20.7, SD 2,34) 77,2% were female and 24,3% were e-book readers. The used presentation was divided as follow: plastic card (25,2%), e-mail (25,2%), personalized plastic card (25,7%) and personalized e-mail (23,8%). The variable tangible was now divided in tangible (51%) and non-tangible (49%), and the variable personalized was now divided in non-personalized (50,5%) and personalized (49,5%).

Reliability

Because no standardized set of questions was available, a reliability test was done on the subsets of stages and values before these variables were computed. The overall total score for the evaluation of the gift-giving presentation (all items added up), evaluation total, has high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .95. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above .30). Also, none of the items would substantially affect reliability if they were deleted. The same is the case for all the subtotals: overall evaluation (.79), gestation stage (.94), prestation stage (.90),

(26)

reformulation stage (.71), economic value (.86), social value (.87), functional value (.75) and expressional value (.78). The corrected item-total correlations indicate also that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above .30). Also, none of the items would substantially affect reliability if they were deleted. The overall total score on digital attitude has also good reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .75. after deleting the statement ‘I feel uncertain about the ownership of a digital possession’.

Normality check

After recoding revered scales, checking scale reliabilities, computing total variables and descriptive statistics, skewness, kurtosis and normality tests were computed. From the in total seven total variables, only general total showed some negative kurtosis (-1,006). After transforming this variable by using X=Log10(K-X) this no longer occurred. The presence of normal distribution in all variables made it possible to use parametric models.

Used analyses

After an overall correlation analysis to quantify the intensity of the relationship between the studied variables, a One-way ANOVA was used to establish the main effect of tangible (H1) and personalization (H2) on evaluation total. In order to test the moderating role of personalizing (H3), Factorial ANOVA was used. Based on the correlation analysis the role of the covariate digital attitude in the hypothesized relationships was further explored using ANCOVA.

In the following chapter, the result of the research will be discussed. Firstly, an elaboration on the different variables of the hypotheses is provided. Secondly, the outcomes of the research are discussed. Finally, a conclusion can be found in the last chapter.

(27)

4 Results

First the correlation matrix, (see table 1) will be discussed. Subsequently, the results from the ANOVA’s will be outlined. The moderated effect of personalization is discussed with the outcomes of the Factorial ANOVA. At the end of this chapter, based on the correlation table, more attention is given to the possible effect of the control variable digital attitude.

Correlation Analysis

An overview of the descriptive statistics, correlations and scale reliabilities is presented in table 1. A first observation derived from the table is that both tangible and personalized are significantly correlated to evaluation total. Both correlations are relatively low though: tangibility is negatively correlated to evaluation total (r = -.31, p < .01) and personalized is positively related to evaluation total (r = .14, p < .05). Both tangibility and personalization significantly correlate to evaluation total in all sub values. They also correlate in the gestation and prestation stage but they do not in the reformulation Stage. All these effects are further explored with ANOVA’s further below. A second observation derived from this table is that, different from the other control variables (age, gender, e-reader, gifting behaviour), digital attitude does significantly correlate to evaluation total (r = .41, p < .01). The possible effect of the control variable digital attitude on the hypothesized relationships will therefore be further explored with ANCOVA at the end of this chapter. A third observation is a significant correlation between the control variables gender and gifting behaviour (r = .28, p < .01) which seems to indicate that women have a ‘more intense gifting behaviour’. Because no further correlations are significant between gender and gifting behaviour with the dependent variable and sub variables, no further effect of these control variables on the hypothesized relationships is explored.

(28)

Table 1 Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlations of Study Variables Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 Gender (0=m,1=f) 0.77 0.42 - 2 E-reader (0=yes,1=no) 0.76 0.43 .02 - 3 Personalized (0=not,1=does) 0.50 0.50 .05 .02 - 4 Tangible (0=tangible,1=not) 0.49 0.50 .05 -.17* _-.02 _- 5 Overall Evaluation 3.23 1.19 -.06 -.06 .04 -.33**_(.79) 6 Gestation 2.96 1.11 -.02 -.04 .20**_-.21**_.67** _(.94) 7 Prestation 3.10 0.97 -.01 -.04 .19**_-.35**_.64** _.78** _(.90) 8 Reformulation 3.51 0.97 -.04 -.06 .05 -.14 .46** _.52** _.66** _(.71) 9 Economic Value 2.91 1.10 -.01 -.03 .16* _-.22**_.63** _.89** _.83** _.69** _(.86) 10 Social Value 3.14 1.01 .05 -.04 .14* _-.36**_.60** _.74** _.94** _.67** _.80** _(.87) 11 Functional Value 3.51 0.89 -.09 .00 .18* _-.28**_.63** _.78** _.85** _.65** _.71** _.73** _(.75) 12 Expressional Value 2.96 1.04 -.03 -.13 .18* _-.17* _.62** _.78** _.83** _.79** _.81** _.76** _.72** _(.78) 13 Gifting Behaviour 4.07 0.73 .28** _.00 _.14* _.12 _.05 _-.01 _.02 _.10 _-.01 _.04 _.00 _.09 _(.73) 14 Digital Attitude 3.06 0.99 -.13 -.02 .02 -.10 .27** _.37** _.42** _.36** _.40** _.37** _.40** _.39** _-.05 _(.75) 15 Evaluation Total 3.20 0.90 -.04 -.06 .14* _-.31**_.84** _.88** _.90** _.76** _.90** _.86** _.85** _.88** _.05 _.41** _(.95) 16 Age 20.07 2.34 -.12 -.16* _.00 _-.02 _.04 _.08 _.11 _.06 _.05 _.12 _.12 _.08 _-.07 _-.13 _.09 _-

Note: N = 206. Reliabilities are reported along the diagonal. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

(29)

ANOVA

To find prove for H1, the relationship between tangible and evaluation total was tested with a One-way ANOVA. Necessary conditions for ANOVA (i.e. independent observations drawn from a normally distributed population with no large outliers) are satisfied. A Levene test found that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met, F(1,204) = 0.53 ( p = .47). In table 2 the descriptive statistics of the different groups can be found.

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics One-way ANOVA

N Mean SD

Tangible 105 3.47 0.88

Non-tangible 101 2.92 0.83

Total 206 3.20 0.90

As shown in table 3, there was a statistically significant effect of tangibility on evaluation total, F(1,204) = 21.56, p < .01. As expected, tangible gift cards were on average evaluated more positively than e-cards. So, H1 is supported. About 10% of variance in evaluation total is explained by tangible.

Table 3 One-way ANOVA

Tangible SS df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 15.80 1 15.80 21.56 .00

Error 149.49 204 .73

Total 165.29 205

To test the H2, the relationship between personalization and evaluation total was also tested with a One-way ANOVA. The Levene test found that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met, F(1,204) = 0.39, p = .53. In table 4 the descriptive statistics of the different groups can be found.

Table 4 Descriptive statistics One-way ANOVA

N Mean SD

Not Personalized 104 3.07 0.85

Personalized 102 3.33 0.93

(30)

As shown in table 5, there was a statistically significant effect of personalization on evaluation total, F(1,204) = 4.13, p < .05. As expected, personalized gift cards in general were on average evaluated more positively than non-personalized gift cards in general. So, H2 is also supported. About 2% of variance in evaluation total is explained by personalization.

Table 5 One-way ANOVA

Personalized SS df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 3.28 1 3.28 4.13 .04

Error 162.01 204 .79

Total 165.29 205

Although not hypothesized, to see if there are any differences in the effect of tangible or personalization per different stage, ANOVA’s have been performed per stage as well. In both gestation and prestation a statistically significant effect is present. For reformulation no statistically significant effect was found for tangible, as well for personalization. To see if there are any differences in the effect of tangible or personalization per different value (social, economic, functional and expressional), ANOVA’s have been performed per value as well. In all values though, the statistically significant effect is present. See Appendix 5 for the results per stage and Appendix 6 for the results per value.

Factorial ANOVA

To test if the effect of personalization on evaluation total differs for tangible and non-tangible, that is, to see if there is any interaction between tangible and personalization (H3), a Factorial ANOVA is made. In table 6 the descriptive statistics of the different groups can be found.

Table 6 Descriptive Statistics Factorial ANOVA

N Mean SD

Tangible Not-Personalized 52 3.35 ,87

Personalized 53 3.59 ,88

Total 105 3.47 ,88

Non-tangible Not Personalized 52 2.80 ,74

Total 101 2.92 ,83

Total Not-Personalized 104 3.08 ,85

(31)

As shown in table 7 and graphically shown in figure 4 , there was a non-statistically interaction effect between tangible and personalization on evaluation total, F(1,204) = .00, p = .99, partial

2

 = .00. It was expected that personalization could overcome the negative effect of non-tangibility but no support is found for this. So, H3 is not supported.

Table 7 Factorial ANOVA

SS df MS F Sig. Partial 2  Tangible 15.53 1 15.53 21.41 .00 .10 Personal 3.00 1 3.00 4.14 .04 .02 Tangible * Personal .00 1 .00 .00 .99 .00

Figure 4 Evaluation slopes for the personalized – tangible relationship

Although also not hypothesized, to see if there are any interactions on the level of different stages or values Factorial ANOVA’s have been performed per stage and value as well. No interactions on sub levels were found as well. See Appendix 7 for the descriptive statistics, results and bars.

ANCOVA

As concluded in the literature review, up to now material possessions are more valued then non material possessions. It is mentioned though that this value evolves over time so it is important

(32)

to know how it is now felt by the participants of this research to draw conclusions about correlations with their evaluations of the gift-giving presentations. It could be that a higher digital attitude is an alternative explanation for a more positive evaluation towards the non-tangible gift-giving presentation. Because no effect is expected yet, it is not hypothesized. But because of the significant correlation between digital attitude and evaluation total it is necessary to further explore a possible effect.

To take into account the role of digital attitude in the hypothesized relationship between tangible and evaluation total an ANCOVA is performed. The Levene test found that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met, F(2,203) = 0.17, p = .68. As shown in table 8, the covariate digital attitude was significantly related to evaluation total, F(1,203) = 39.57, p < .01, Therefore, it can be concluded that a person’s evaluation of the gift-giving presentation is influenced by his digital attitude. There is still a significant effect of tangible after controlling for the effect of digital attitude, although the amount of variance it explains is lower now, F(1,203) = 19.06, p < .01, partial  = .09 The amount of unexplained variance in the total ₂ model is reduced to 125.09 units.

Table 8 ANCOVA SS df MS F Sig. Partial 2  Between Groups 40.19 2 20.09 32.61 .00 .24 Digital Attitude 24.39 1 24.39 39.57 .00 .16 Tangible 12.08 1 12.08 19.60 .00 .09 Error 125.09 203 .61 Total 165.29 205

The value of b for the covariance (.351) as seen in table 9, tells us that if a person’s digital attitude increases by one unit, then the person’s evaluation should increase by just under half a unit (although there is nothing to suggest a causal link between the two). Meaning: the effect of b = .35 indicates that two people that differ by one unit of digital attitude are estimated to differ by b = .35 units in the evaluation. The sign of b is positive meaning that those relatively higher in digital attitude are estimated to be also higher in evaluation.

(33)

Table 9 Parameter Estimates

Parameter B SD t p

95% Confidence Interval

Partial₂ Lower Bound Upper Bound

Digital Attitude

.35 .06 6.29 .00 .24 .46 .16

A test of the assumption of homogeneity of slopes revealed no significant interaction between the covariate digital attitude and tangible, F(1,202) = 0,046, p = .78, partial  < .01. 2

(34)

5 Conclusion & Discussion

Below, the most evident findings are discussed, together with the implications of these findings with respect to the literature and management practice. Furthermore, the limitations regarding the conclusions of this study are outlined. Finally, a number of suggestions for further research will be given.

Evident Findings

For the book trade and for academic purposes, it is important to understand the effect of the gift presentations that makes it possible to gift e-books and the effect of personalizing these presentations to imitate the more specific emotions associated with books as gift objects. This research addresses this gap in the literature by answering the following research question:

and what is the potential moderating effect of personalization on this evaluation?” In line with what was expected based on the academic literature (Clarke, 2007; Belk, 2013; Chan & Mogilner, 2016; Kwon et al., 2017), this study found significant support for the effect of the tangibility of a gift presentation for e-books on the evaluation of gift givers: the non-tangible gift presentation has a statically significant lower evaluation of the gift-giving presentation than the tangible gift-giving presentation. Givers have a preference for a tangible gift presentation for e-books. This effect was shown in the total evaluation of the gift-giving experience but did not hold for the last stage in the gifting process, the reformulation stage.

Also in line with what was expected based on the academic literature (Belk, 1996; Larsen & Watson, 2001; Clarke, 2007) on personalization of the gift-giving presentation and on the literature about books given as gifts (Davis, 1983; Buckridge, 2012; Hupfeld & Rodden, 2014), this study found significant support for the positive effect of personalization of a gift-giving presentation for e-books on the evaluation of gift givers: the personalized gift presentations have statically significant higher evaluation than the non-personalized gift presentations. Givers seem to have a preference for a personalized gift presentation for e-books. This effect was shown overall but did also not hold for the last stage in the gifting process, the reformulation stage.

What is different in the reformulation stage relative to the other stages that results show divergent results? The reformulation stage is the stage in which the gift becomes a vehicle by

How to support the gift giving of an e-book? : the influence of tangibility and personalization

How to Support

the Gift Giving of

an E-book?

Abstract

Contents

1

Introduction

2

Literature Review

3

Data & Method

4

Results

5

Conclusion & Discussion