Relationships
When Is a Romantic Gift a Turnoff?
How to avoid gifts that give the wrong impression.
Posted December 19, 2021 Reviewed by Gary Drevitch
Key points
- Gift selection often reflects something about the giver.
- Giving gifts consistent with images of romantic recipients are more likely to advance relationships.
- Level of dependence is positively related to the consistency between recipient self‐image and gift image.
Special occasions are celebrated with both presence and presents. Whether a birthday or the holidays, you want to be there for the ones you love, and see their eyes light up when you present them with a gift marking the occasion. But if you have just started dating a prospective paramour or are not yet in a committed relationship, what do you buy?
In terms of what to buy and how much to spend, the first consideration is how long you have been dating. The cost of your gift should be proportional. If you don’t know the person well and are afraid of sending the wrong message, a gift card is a safer option than a romantic gift, although you run the risk of coming across as too impersonal. If you know someone well enough to be buying them a gift to begin with, you probably should make it more meaningful.
But you also don’t want your gift to send the wrong message. Some women would be completely turned off by an item of lingerie from Victoria’s Secret from someone they do not consider (yet) to be a romantic partner. A man may similarly feel threatened by a personal gift suggesting intimacy from a woman he is casually dating.
Have you ever wondered why you desire to give certain types of gifts to romantic partners? Regarding the psychology of gift-giving, it appears that your present preference may reflect something about you.
The Psychology of Gifting
Rifei Cong et al. (2018) in a piece entitled “It Is for You, or It Is for Me” explored the extent to which romantic gift-giving represents the self-image of the giver, linking relationship dependence and gift image consistency.[i] They found that a gift giver's level of dependence was positively related to the consistency between the recipient's self‐image and what they describe as the gift image (relating to gift‐recipient consistency) but had a negative role in the consistency between the self‐image of the giver and the gift image (described as gift‐giver consistency). They also recognized the impact of mutuality of dependence and observed that this dynamic moderated, either through making it stronger or weaker, the effect of the giver's dependence level on the consistency of gift image—an effect that is carried through a giver's relationship power.
Choosing Gifts to Promote Commitment
In terms of practical implications, Cong et al. explain that giving gifts consistent with the images of romantic recipients are more likely to advance relationships. Sometimes this is easier said than done because it can be difficult to accurately capture the personality traits of other people, and often much easier to choose gifts that match our own self-image. This is no doubt particularly true early on in a relationship where both parties are still getting to know each other.
Cong et al. note that their research also suggests that the partner who is more dependent should be careful to select gifts that are consistent and thus more pleasing to the recipient, whereas a partner who is less dependent can place less emphasis on gift‐recipient consistency. Remembering this principle might help prevent us from giving a gift that presumes a higher degree of intimacy than appropriate. In the early stages of a relationship, tickets to the ballgame are a better choice than plane tickets to Bali.
In the end, regardless of the occasion, and regardless of the stage in your relationship, remember that it is more blessed to give than to receive. That type of relational authenticity is a gift in itself.
References
[i] Cong, Rifei, Biao Luo, Tieshan Li, and Chengyuan Wang. 2018. “It Is for You, or It Is for Me: How Relationship Dependence Affects Gift Image Consistency in Romantic Relationships.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 17 (4): 343–54. doi:10.1002/cb.1724.