Search Strategies for a Christmas Gift
Michel Laroche
CONCORDIAUNIVERSITYGad Saad
CONCORDIAUNIVERSITY
Chankon Kim
SAINTMARY’SUNIVERSITYElizabeth Browne
CONCORDIAUNIVERSITYThis study investigates usage of in-store information sources by Anglo as a notable social mechanism. Otnes (1990) argued that four
and Franco-Canadians while Christmas shopping. A literature review characteristics distinguish Christmas from other annual
gift-revealed a number of situational, personal, and demographic variables giving occasions including: (1) the highest level of cultural
that may influence search behavior for a Christmas gift. A survey was recognition of all gift-giving occasions featuring more than
conducted soon after the Christmas season to explore the effects of the one giver and receiver; (2) more media attention than other
identified moderators on the extent of search as pertaining to a clothing annual gift occasions; (3) more marketing effort than other
gift. Three dimensions of in-store search were found: general information gift-giving occasions (e.g., Mother’s Day); (4) immediate
reci-(e.g., displays), specific information reci-(e.g., brand), and assistance of sales- procity is expected (p. 8). Otnes concludes that “this type
clerks. Each of the three search indices was regressed on the identified of exchange could be described as the most sociologically variables. Directional hypotheses were posited linking each of the modera- significant gift giving in modern American culture” (p. 8). tors of search to extent of search. The models faired well both in terms In today’s global economy, understanding cross-cultural of fit and in their rate of support for the hypotheses. Distinct patterns of consumption differences is an imperative strategic tool for in-store search behavior were found for each cultural group, some consis- ensuring long-term viability. While culture is the most general tent with current knowledge, others providing new findings. J BUSN RES and indirect socialization agent, its importance in shaping
2000. 49.113–126. 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. consumption habits is nonetheless pervasive. Gift giving, while
a universal behavior found in all societies, varies in the manner by which it is implemented across cultures. While several theories have been proposed to explain possible gift-giving
T
he economic importance of the Christmas season to motives, little research has been conducted on the processesboth manufacturers and retailers is well established. involved in selecting a gift and the likely cross-cultural differ-Christmas holiday sales can account for between 30
ences along the latter behavior. In the current work, we investi-and 50% of a retailer’s total yearly sales (Gifts investi-and Decorative
gate such differences as pertaining to information search prior Accessories, 1987; Ryans, 1977; Banks, 1979). Gift purchases
to the purchase of a Christmas gift. Specifically, we isolate have been placed at 10% of all retail purchases in North
the two dominant cultures within the Quebec market, namely America (Belk, 1979; Sherry, McGrath, and Levy, 1993). In
French and English-Canadians, and accordingly attempt to one study by Belk (1979), close to 30% of the reported
gift-gauge whether differences exist in their search behavior. The giving occasions were for Christmas.
research will be limited to in-store information search for a In addition to its economic significance, Christmas gift
Christmas gift of clothing, given that several researchers have giving is important to the North American culture for it serves
found that clothing was the most popular Christmas gift item (Belk, 1979; Caplow, 1982; Jolibert and Fernandez-Moreno, Address correspondence to Michel Laroche, Department of Marketing, Fac- 1983). In summary, we investigate the relevant situational, ulty of Commerce and Administration, 1455 de Maisonneuve West,
Mont-real, QC H3G 1M8, Canada. personal, and demographic traits that have an effect on
con-Journal of Business Research 49, 113–126 (2000)
2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 0148-2963/00/$–see front matter
sumers’ external information search strategies while Christmas and McGrath (1989) investigated merchandise display and store layout. It was determined that the location of the mer-gift shopping and whether these are moderated by one’s
be-longing to the French or English-Canadian culture. chandise within the store had an effect on how well it sold.
Mattson (1982) found that a broad product selection was crucial to gift shoppers, especially when choosing a second
Literature Review
store to visit.Another crucial in-store information source, especially in Human behavior can be dichotomized into those sets of
behav-the context of a gift selection, is behav-the salesclerk. For example, iors that are culturally invariant and those that have been
suggestions offered by a salesclerk can help reduce the per-shaped by one’s context and culture. The former, that is,
ceived risk for the giver. Using personal interviews with both universal behaviors, are determined by evolutionary forces
customers and salespeople, Sherry and McGrath (1989) con-and hence are free of cultural influences. For example, recent
cluded that, while salespeople were potentially informative, work in evolutionary psychology has shown that the traits
they were not always accessed by the customers. In an earlier that men and women seek in potential mates is culturally
study, Ryans (1977) found that in comparing in-home gifts invariant (cf., Buss, 1989, 1994; Buss and Schmitt, 1993).
(gifts for people living with the respondent) to personal use While evolutionary psychology is gaining prominence as a
purchases, respondents relied more heavily on in-store infor-field of inquiry, it nonetheless lags far behind cross-cultural
mation sources. However, the results for out-home gifts were psychology, namely the subbranch that seeks to understand
not significant. Finally, Otnes (1990) uncovered three clusters culturally bound behaviors. Social scientists have identified
of searchers in her study of Christmas shopping, of which the an impressive array of behaviors that are moderated by culture
“eclectic” searchers made greatest use of in-store information (see Berry, Poortinga, Segall, and Dasen [1992] for a thorough
sources. review). Within the marketing realm, there has been a growing
Scholars have identified a slew of variables that moderate trend towards identifying specific consumer-related behaviors
the extent of prepurchase search. These are typically broken (e.g., “patriotic” purchasing) that are highly prone to cultural
down into situational, personal, and demographic variables. influences (cf., Clark, 1990; Manrai and Manrai, 1996). Gift
A brief overview is provided below of each of the three sets giving is one such behavior to which we turn next.
of factors.
Gift Giving
Situational Variables
Several consumer researchers have proposed conceptual
mod-els of the gift-giving process including those by Belk (1976, Given the inherent situational nature of the Christmas gift-1979), Banks (gift-1979), and Sherry (1983). Typically, the pro- giving season, it is not surprising that scholars have identified cess is broken up into a set of distinct stages including the several situational variables including dimensions of perceived prepurchase search for the gift, its exchange with the recipient, risk (e.g., financial, social), predetermined gift selection ideas, and its subsequent consumption. Of most relevance to the the giver-recipient relationship, the difficulty of the gift recipi-current work is the prepurchase search, coined the gestation ent, and time pressure. A brief overview of each variable is
and purchase stage in Sherry’s (Sherry, 1983) and Banks’ provided below.
(Banks, 1979) models, respectively. Within the Christmas gift- The perceived risk associated with a gift purchase can be
giving context, Otnes (1990) and Laroche, Kim, Saad, and of many types, two of the most prevalent being social and
Browne (1997) investigated a myriad of situational, personal- financial risk. In the former case, one might be worried about ity, and demographic variables affecting prepurchase gift offending the recipient if the purchased gift is inappropriate
search. Smith and Beatty (1985) and Sprott and Miyazaki (e.g., buying the wrong bottle of wine for your employer’s
(1995) also have investigated factors moderating the extent dinner). On the other hand, financial risk typically involves of gift search. Given both its theoretical importance to the determining the appropriate budget for the gift. Two risk-information search literature and its practical implications to reduction strategies for reducing social risk include shopping retailers, it is surprising how little research has been conducted with a trusted companion (cf., Grønhaug, 1972; Sherry and
in this area. McGrath, 1989) and obtaining a predetermined list from the
recipient (Otnes, Lowrey, and Kim, 1993). In a retail setting,
In-Store Information Sources
a consumer who is accompanied by a trusted companion might substitute in-store information sources, including sales-While numerous scholars have looked at external search, fewpeople, with the companion’s suggestions. A somewhat differ-have investigated the moderators of search as carried out
ent type of risk-reduction strategy is for the consumer to set specifically within a retail store (i.e., in-store information
a larger budget for the gift. For example, Vincent and Zikmund sources and salesclerk help). Store displays and breadth of
(1975) found that respondents bought more expensive items product selection are two important in-store information
when they were intended as a wedding present than when sources that have been examined in conjunction with gift
might be reduced by setting a higher budget, financial risk personality traits or lifestyle characteristics on gift-giving
be-simultaneously increases due to the higher cost. havior is somewhat surprising. In one of the few studies to have
Another factor affecting the perceived risk of a gift purchase addressed this issue, Otnes (1990) uncovered three relevant is the importance of the giver-recipient relationship. Clearly, psychographic variables: (1) attitude toward or love of shop-the more important shop-the relationship is, shop-the greater shop-the conse- ping (in the current context, this can be extended to love of quences of a poor decision will seem. Of the few studies that Christmas shopping), (2) tendency to use gifts for either iden-have investigated time invested for gift shopping (e.g., Ryans, tity formation or social bonding, and (3) attitude toward the 1977; Heeler, Francis, Okechuku, and Reid, 1979), it appears riskiness of gift giving.
that gifts to more distant people involve less effort for the
purchaser, although the evidence is circumstantial. On a re-
Demographic Variables
lated note, Sprott and Miyazaki (1995) found that the difficulty
The relationship between demographic variables and search of a gift recipient affected the extent of search, such that more
behavior has been addressed by several researchers. In Schan-difficult recipients required greater amounts of gift search.
inger and Sciglimpaglia’s (Schaninger and Sciglimpaglia, As previously mentioned, many consumers will typically
1981) study, age was negatively related to the extent of search. have an a priori gift idea prior to entering a store. This was
Additionally, younger and more educated housewives who confirmed by Banks (1979) wherein it was reported that most
were earlier in the family life cycle and of higher social class gift purchases were planned prior to shopping in the store.
examined more information. Recall that in her study, Otnes Furthermore, in many instances, search was extremely limited
(1990) uncovered three clusters of information searchers. The in that gifts were purchased after visiting only one store. Thus,
respondent’s family size, age, and education level were found in such a situation, it is essential that brand selection for the
to be significant discriminators of the three clusters. Inciden-product class be sufficient, and additionally that in-store
infor-tally, her results contradicted those of Schaninger and Sciglim-mation be adequate enough to distinguish the brands. Thus,
paglia vis-a`-vis the effects of age on the extent of search. while having a greater brand selection offering in a given store
While demographic variables, such as age, have yielded reduces interstore search (i.e., fewer stores might be visited),
mixed results, one of the most robust findings is the differential it is likely to increase the search within that particular store.
effect of gender on the gift-giving ritual. Overwhelmingly, it Finally, of all of the situational variables relevant to the
has been shown that women are much more involved in current discussion, none is as pervasive as the time pressure
Christmas gift shopping (Caplow, 1982; Cheal, 1987; Sherry that most Christmas shoppers typically experience. Given most
and McGrath, 1989; Fischer and Arnold, 1990; Rucker et al., humans’ tendency to procrastinate, it is not surprising that
1991). Of interest to the present study are gender differences much of Christmas shopping is conducted under considerable
specifically pertaining to the use of in-store information sources time duress. This ordinarily affects not only the extent of
while gift shopping, a topic that has been addressed rarely in search but also the choice of information sources (e.g., internal
the literature. memory, friends, in-store sources). The general finding has
been that an increase in time pressure yields a decrease in
The Case for Including Cultural Variables
information search (cf., Beatty and Smith, 1987; Sprott and
Miyazaki, 1995). As previously mentioned, gift giving appears in all societies
even though the rituals and practices vary across cultures. The
Personal Variables
motivations for providing a gift are context dependent, and they include altruism, economic concerns, obligation, social Much of the research that has looked at the effects ofpersonal-exchange, and communication (cf., Wolfinbarger, 1990). Triv-ity traits and/or lifestyle characteristics on search behavior was
ers (1971) argued that reciprocal altruism (a combination of not conducted in the specific context of gift giving. In one of
obligation and altruism) is an evolved trait that is found in the earliest such studies, Rogers (1962) found that innovators
all cultures. In the current context of the Christmas gift-giving engage in greater information search, including in-store sources.
ritual, the predominant motivation is a sense of obligation and/ More recently, Horton (1979) and Locander and Hermann
or adherence to a cultural norm. Goodwin, Smith, and Spiggle (1979) have demonstrated that consumers who view themselves
(1990) defined two types of obligations, namely, reciprocity as bargain hunters conduct more in-store search. On the other
and ritual, both being integral to the Christmas gift-giving ritual. hand, those who were not brand loyal and were more favorable
Much of the research on gift giving stems from the anthro-towards generic products engage in a lesser search of in-store
pological tradition whereby the focus has been on investigating information. Finally, Schaninger and Sciglimpaglia (1981)
in-such behavior within the context of tribal and primitive socie-vestigated the relationship between cognitive personality traits
ties. As such, while anthropologists have looked at gift-giving and information acquisition. They concluded that individuals
practices of numerous cultures, few if any have attempted to having higher self-esteem examined a greater amount of
infor-specifically investigate cross-cultural differences along that mation prior to making a final choice.
appears to be a dearth of relevant research, as evidenced by that there exists significant consumption differences between
the ensuing quotes: the members of the two cultures. Tamilia (1978) found that
in an advertising context, Francophones react more to the No one seems to have conducted cross-cultural studies of
source of the ad (e.g., celebrity endorser) whereas An-this phenomenon (Jolibert and Fernandez-Moreno, 1983,
glophones are more reactive to a message’s content. Addition-p. 191).
ally, Francophones are more introspective, emotional, and The absence of any comparative or cross-national study of humanistic and less pragmatic and materialistic than their
gift giving is part of a more wide-spread circumstance Anglophone counterparts (He´on, 1990). The former tend to
(Jolibert and Fernandez-Moreno, 1983, p. 192). associate price with value, are more willing to pay higher
prices for convenience and premium brands, and are more The study of gift giving cross-culturally is still in its infancy
brand loyal (Vary, 1992). Greater brand loyalty might typically . . ., but offers rich avenues of additional inquiry (Beatty,
lead to reduced information search prior to a purchase, a Kahle, and Homer, 1991, p. 150).
result confirmed by Muller and Bolger (1985) in the context
Jolibert and Fernandez-Moreno (1983) compared French and of a car purchase. Hui, Joy, Kim, and Laroche (1993) found
Mexican Christmas gift-giving practices. The authors conclude that, among other things, Anglophones were less concerned that the most challenging endeavor in this area of inquiry is for children, were less innovative, had less opinion leadership, to identify the specific cultural traits and traditions that gener- and were less fashion conscious. On the other hand, they ate such cross-cultural differences (p. 196). Several researchers demonstrated greater price consciousness, had a higher liking have accordingly pursued such a strategy. Belk (1984) argued
for use of credit, and displayed greater brand loyalty (contra-that gift giving would vary across cultures based on the manner
dicting earlier work, e.g., Mallen, 1977).
by which an individual’s self-concept was defined. Green and Scholars have attempted to understand the factors that
Alden (1988) compared American and Japanese gift-giving prac- might explicate the consumption differences between the tices and found considerable differences across all stages of the members of the two cultures. Early work by Lefranc¸ois and process. The differential need for group affiliation between the Chatel (1967) proposed that such differences were due to two cultures was one of the traits used to explain the obtained socioeconomic factors, namely, that the traditionally lower results. Beatty, Kahle, and Homer (1991) investigated the socioeconomic status of the Francophones translated into cor-frequency of gift giving and the exertion of effort in selecting responding consumption differences. However, several re-a gift in the Americre-an re-and the Fre-ar Ere-ast cultures. The re-authors searchers have since disproved the socioeconomic hypothesis found that, irrespective of culture, personal values (e.g., warm (Palda, 1967; Thomas, 1975; Schaninger, Bourgeois, and Buss, relationships with others versus fun and excitement in life) 1985; Chebat, Laroche, and Malette, 1988; Joy, Kim, and were a good predictor of the latter two gift-giving behaviors.
Laroche, 1991). He´nault (1971) argued that there exist eight In summary, while there does appear to be an increased
cultural traits by which the two cultures differ. Of the most interest in the separate areas of prepurchase gift search and relevant to the current work are that the French are more cross-cultural differences in gift giving, little work has investi- individualistic, less conformist, less pragmatic, have a higher gated the overlapping of the two fields, namely cross-cultural propensity to spend, and are more likely to be financed as differences in the prepurchase gift search. The current work opposed to being the financer. Mallen (1977) proposed that attempts to address this paucity, by specifically looking at the consumption differences were due to three general differ-French and English Canadian differences in terms of the latter ences in traits: (1) the “sensate” trait involving the five senses, behavior. Prior to positing the hypotheses and research objec- namely the French are more likely to react to appeals involving tives, we provide a brief overview of the literature that has the senses; (2) the “conservative” trait that relates to low risk-addressed Franco and Anglo-Canadian differences in several taking behavior and strong family orientation, for example, consumer-related domains.
being more risk-averse; and (3) the “nonprice cognitive” trait, which is an outcome of the other two traits. In other words,
French–English Canadian
if the French like a product due to some sensate trait, they willConsumption Differences
repurchase it irrespective of its price (within some acceptable range of prices). Bouchard (1983) proposed that the French Of the 7.3 million people in Quebec (1995 census estimate),have six common specific cultural and historical roots that the two dominant cultures are the French and English
Cana-translate into 36 responsive chords (i.e., six chords per root). dian ones comprising 80 and 6.3% of the population,
respec-Of most relevance to the current article are the following seven tively. Thus, in addition to its theoretical importance,
under-chords: shrewdness, superconsumerism, eccentric taste, herd standing Franco-Anglo consumption differences has clear
mentality, conservatism, joie de vivre, and individualism. pragmatic implications.
Clearly, the French and English Canadians possess different Differences between French and English-Canadian
con-cultural traits, customs, and traditions subsequently yielding sumers arise for more reasons than solely linguistic ones
concern is the identification of those cultural traits that should ory. The data came from a sample of residents of a major metropolitan area, by using the area sampling method. The moderate prepurchase gift search. For example, given that the
French have a stronger religious background, they might place data collection was confined to a selected number of census tracts in the residential areas of the city. Interviewers ap-greater importance on the Christmas season. Accordingly, this
would increase their task involvement when purchasing a proached households on randomly selected streets in the cho-sen census tracts, and a questionnaire was left with the con-Christmas gift. Similarly, given the nonprice cognitive trait of
the French, price-related factors might be less relevant when senting respondent to be completed and mailed back (postage-paid) at his or her convenience. An additional procedure also shopping for a gift.
was employed by randomly approaching individuals in the hallways of a large shopping mall and leaving with the
con-Objectives of the Current Research
senting respondent a questionnaire to be mailed at his/herconvenience. The study has three key objectives. First, it will gauge whether
Equal numbers of English and French respondents were the extent of search conducted prior to a gift purchase is
sought. Self-identification was used to categorize the respon-moderated by culture. Several cross-cultural psychologists
dents into the two groups. A total of 1,026 questionnaires have proposed that a key cultural value is the “reflective versus
were distributed using the procedures described above, 493 action-oriented” continuum. Clearly, this trait might have an
in English and 533 in French. It was deemed that this number effect on the amount of deliberation that members of a
particu-would yield a sufficient response. A total of 368 usable ques-lar culture engage in prior to committing to a final decision.
tionnaires were returned, yielding an overall return rate of For example, Punnett (1995) compared Chinese and
Ameri-36%. Of these, 155 were from English respondents and 213 can college students along several key cultural dimensions
from French respondents, a response rate of 31 and 40%, including “impulsivity”, a trait that is likely related to the
respectively. As can be seen in Table 1, the majority of respon-above continuum. Positing an a priori hypothesis in the
cur-dents are female and are married or its equivalent, and they rent context is very difficult given that many of the cultural
tend to possess above average education and family income. differences between the two cultures would yield
contradic-tory predictions regarding the extent of search. For example,
Questionnaire
the greater brand loyalty typically exhibited by the French
would imply a decrease in search while their Catholic root The questionnaire was divided into three parts: situational, might yield greater task involvement in the Christmas gift- personal, and demographic variables. Only the variables perti-giving ritual thus resulting in an increase in search. nent to the present analysis will be discussed here.
The second objective of the study is to develop comprehen- Part I of the questionnaire contained several questions using sive models of the gift-giving search process for each of the a 10-point Likert scale anchored at 1 5 strongly disagree two cultures and subsequently to explore whether significant and 10 5 strongly agree, designed to measure consumers’ cross-cultural differences exist in the results obtained. A myr- purchase of a specific Christmas gift, as well as their use of in-iad of moderators of search (situational, personal, and demo- store information sources for the same purchase. Respondents graphic variables) will be integrated into general regression were requested to think of a particular gift of clothing that
models. With the exception of Laroche, Kim, Saad, and they had actually purchased for Christmas. As previously
men-Browne (1997), no other study has attempted to include such tioned, clothing was selected because a review of the literature a large set of variables within one model of search. As such, indicated that clothing was the most popular type of gift the theoretical implications of the endeavor appear fruitful. purchased, particularly at Christmas (Belk, 1979; Caplow, Thirdly, we wish to test directional hypotheses between the 1982). First, 33 questions measured purchase-specific situa-moderators of search and the extent of search. For example, tional variables identified in the literature review (see Table one might posit a positive relationship between the cost a gift 2), while 10 questions measured actual in-store information and the extent of search. Accordingly, should the regression search conducted by the respondent for the specific Christmas model yield a significant coefficient for the latter moderator gift purchase (the dependent variables, see Table 3). Part I (i.e., cost of gift), the expectation would be that its sign should also contained one question as to for whom the gift was be positive. This exercise would allow us to fully gauge the intended (coded as 1 5 primary relation, e.g., father; 2 5
explanatory power of the models. secondary relation, e.g., sister or aunt; 35tertiary relation,
e.g., cousin; 45nonrelation), and one question measuring availability of information in the store (“Everything I needed
Research Methodology
to know about the clothing item was available in the store”).
Survey Administration
Part II contained 56 questions designed to measure the personal characteristics of the respondents, by using a 10-In terms of timing, the survey was conducted soon after thepoint Likert-type scale anchored at 15strongly disagree and Christmas season was over, to ensure that the clothing gift
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample to see if the strength of religious beliefs is a motivating factor in in-store information search. The last part of the questionnaire
English (%) French (%)
included standard questions about the respondent’s gender,
Gender (p50.09) age, marital status, household income, family size, age of the
Male 18.0 25.6 youngest child at home, and education, among others. The
Female 82.0 74.4 questionnaire was first written in English, then translated into
Marital status (p,0.01)
French, except for the questions taken from Kim, Laroche,
Single 25.7 12.8
and Lee (1989) and Hui, Joy, Kim, and Laroche (1993), which
Separated/divorced 10.1 7.4
Married or equivalent 64.2 79.8 were already available in French. The translation was verified
Household income (p,0.01) by two French-speaking people.
Less than $30,000 16.7 4.9
$30,000–$39,999 12.0 5.3
Data Preparation
$40,000–$49,999 16.7 7.8
$50,000–$59,999 17.3 9.7 The hypothesized relationships between usage of store
in-$60,000–$69,999 5.3 21.4 formation sources and the situational, personal, and
demo-Over $70,000 32.0 51.0
graphic variables were examined using multiple regression Average age of youngest child
analyses. However, prior to running the regression analyses, living at home (p50.29) (years)
some of the data was factor analyzed to develop measures of
11.0 9.9
Age (p50.02) the various constructs, test their reliability, and recode them.
Less than 30 22.0 18.1 From Part I, all of the situational questions together with
30–39 19.3 34.3
the three questions relating to time pressure also were factor
40–49 32.0 30.3
analyzed using Varimax rotation. The solution produced 10
50–59 19.3 12.3
factors explaining 64.0% of the variance, the first eight
exhib-Over 60 7.3 4.9
Family size (p50.17) iting good reliabilities, and the last two marginal reliabilities,
Two or less 25.9 24.0 especially for the French subsample. Table 2 presents the
Three 15.0 22.0
factor loadings and Cronbach’s alphas. While not shown in
Four 37.4 39.5
Table 2, recall that Part I contained two additional constructs
Five or more 21.8 14.5
(“availability of information” and “close relationship”), which Education (p50.10)
(highest level attained) were each measured by a single item.
High school or less 22.0 16.2 Second, the 10 questions in Part I pertaining to in-store
College 30.0 24.5
information search effort were factor analyzed using Varimax
University 48.0 59.3
rotation. The solution produced three factors explaining 67.7% of the variance: in-store search for general information, in-store search for specific information, and information ac-cessed from a salesclerk. The first two constructs involved of an individual’s tastes, preferences, or attitudes that could
information search that can be conducted alone by the giver, be related to that person’s Christmas shopping behavior (see
with no interaction with other people, whereas the third factor Table 4). Most of these questions were adapted from the
requires personal interaction with the salesclerks. Table 3 lifestyle instrument used by Wells and Tigert (1971). Other
presents the factor loadings and Cronbach’s alphas. questions relating specifically to Christmas or gift shopping
Finally, from Part II of the questionnaire, all the questions and attitude toward time pressure were either developed anew
measuring personal characteristics were factor analyzed using or adapted from the instrument used by Otnes (1990).
Varimax rotation. The solution produced eight factors all ex-Part III of the questionnaire contained a number of
ques-hibiting good reliabilities, and collectively they explained tions related to culture. The first set of questions involved
62.1% of the variance. Table 4 presents the factor loadings evaluating the usage frequency of English and French across
11 activities. These have been shown by Kim, Laroche, and and the Cronbach’s alphas.
A reliability analysis was also performed on the culture-Lee (1989) to be a reliable single measure of acculturation.
Four questions were used to measure identification (I consider related measures. The 12 items measuring acculturation had Cronbach’s alphas of 0.80 and 0.89 for the English and French myself to be English/French Canadian …; My parents are
English/French Canadians …). Three questions were related samples. The four items measuring identity had Cronbach’s
alphas of 0.69 and 0.62, respectively. The three items measur-to religion: I consider myself measur-to be a strong Protestant/Catholic
believer, I had a strong Protestant/Catholic childhood up- ing religious beliefs and upbringing had Cronbach’s alphas of 0.93 and 0.89. Religious beliefs and religious upbringing were bringing, Protestant/Catholic beliefs are an important part of
my life. All these questions were on a 10-point Likert-type related to the religion (Protestant or Catholic) declared by the respondent. For the multiple regression analyses, the mean scale anchored at 15strongly disagree, 105strongly agree.
Table 2. Factors for Situational Variables
Factor Cronbach
Description Item Loading Alpha (E/F)
Time pressure When I am Christmas shopping, I am always pressed for time 0.8637 0.7670/0.8354
I always feel rushed while Christmas shopping 0.8661
There is never enough time to get all of the Christmas shopping done 0.7698
Costly gift This clothing gift was very expensive 0.8347 0.7476/0.7902
The budget for this gift of clothing was higher than I usually set for other Christmas 0.8163 gifts
The cost of the actual gift exceeded my budget for it 0.8077
Risky gift I would feel really bad if I bought someone a gift that they did not like 0.8454 0.6159/0.6222 I often worry about what can happen if I buy a Christmas gift for someone and they 0.8188
do not like it
I will not like the consequences if the recipient does not like the clothing gift 0.6615 It is important that I get just the right gift for this recipient 0.5508 I often feel that I run a high risk of buying someone a Christmas gift they will not 0.3928
like
Strict budget I had a definite budget in mind before shopping for this clothing gift 0.7703 0.7758/0.7714 Money was no object for this particular clothing gift (reversed) 0.7658
I was reluctant to exceed my budget for this gift 0.6998
Price is the last thing I consider when I am buying a gift (reversed) 0.6948 If an item is too expensive, I will not buy it as a gift 0.6034 I always stick to my budget when buying gifts for others 0.4927
Predetermined gift I had everything decided about the garment before I got to the store 0.7902 0.6413/0.7382
selection I knew exactly what to buy for this recipient 0.7572
I had no idea what I was going to get as a gift for this person before I started shopping 0.7453 (reversed)
Difficult recipient It is especially risky to buy gifts for this particular recipient 0.7765 0.6505/0.5639
This recipient is easy to buy gifts for (reversed) 0.7312
List The recipient gave me a list to choose from 0.9259 0.9259/0.8465
I bought this item from a list given to me by the receipient 0.9000
Helpful companion While I was shopping in the store, I consulted with a friend in choosing the clothing 0.9098 0.8261/0.7984 gift
I was shopping with someone else who helped me in choosing this clothing gift 0.8976
Good selection It was very easy to shop around and compare other similar clothing items 0.7324 0.5983/0.3775 There were many brands to choose from once I had decided what to buy for this 0.6511
recipient
There was a large selection of gifts I could have bought for this recipient 0.5378
Familiarity I am not very familiar with this type of clothing (reversed) 0.8164 0.4920/0.3550
I have bought this type of clothing often in the past 0.6182
Table 3. Factors for In-Store Information Search Effort
Factor Cronbach
Description Item Loading Alpha (E/F)
Impersonal sources
General information search I looked at all the items in the display area where I bought the gift 0.8464 0.8335/0.8174 I walked around the store looking at the display of all merchandise 0.8153
I checked all the prices very carefully 0.7305
I spent a lot of time comparing the brands or clothing items in the store 0.6557
I read all the signs around the display area 0.5396
Specific information search I very carefully read the manufacturer’s label 0.8880 0.7453/0.7918 I very carefully examined the packaging information 0.8161
I tried to get as much information as possible in the store about this 0.6198 clothing item
Personal source
Salesclerk help I received a lot of help from the salesclerk 0.8566 0.6805/0.5145
Table 4. Factors for Personal Characteristics
Factor Cronbach
Description Item Loading Alpha (E/F)
Traditional Christmas lover I love the Christmas season 0.8852 0.8989/0.9225
I look forward to Christmas every year 0.8803
I am strongly attached to all the Christmas traditions 0.8325
Christmas is my favorite time of year 0.8432
When it comes to Christmas, I follow all the traditional customs of the 0.7585 season
I love to Christmas shop 0.7516
It is important to get into the Christmas spirit by participating in the season’s 0.6516 traditional activities
Christmas shopping is one of my least favorite activities (reversed) 0.6354
Bargain hunter In general I shop a lot for “specials” or discounts 0.8641 0.7211/0.7056
I am willing to spend more time shopping in order to find bargains 0.8091 A person can save a lot of money by shopping around for bargains 0.6285 Prior to shopping, I check all the newspapers and magazines for gift ideas 0.5207
and prices
Influencer I often try new brands before my friends and neighbors do 0.6864 0.8054/0.7155
When I see a new brand on the shelf I often buy it 0.6507
I sometimes influence what my friends buy 0.6180
People come to me more often than I go to them for information on brands 0.6085
I like to try new and different things 0.5825
My friends and/or neighbors often come to me for advice 0.4215
Leader I think I possess more self-confidence than most people 0.8244 0.8039/0.6985
I like to be considered a leader 0.7549
I am more independent than most people 0.7097
Thoughtful giver I conduct a lot of research about what the person would enjoy before I go 0.7010 0.7133/0.6824 shopping at Christmas
I watch carefully the people I am buying gifts for to see what they would 0.7199 really like
It is important to get gifts that people will enjoy 0.6681 I like to put a lot of thought into the gifts I buy 0.5327
Generics buyer Generics are often as good as advertised brands 0.8532 0.8955/0.6725
Generics are not much different from name brands except for the packaging 0.7990 Generic products provide good value for what I pay 0.7941
Fashion conscious I usually have one or more outfits that are of the latest style 0.7475 0.7128/0.5901 An important part of my life and activities is dressing smartly 0.7053
When I must choose between dressing for fashion or for comfort, I choose 0.6960 the former
Identity shaper I often give Christmas gifts that help to shape the recipient’s personality 0.8409 0.5886/0.7191 I often give Christmas presents to people in order to reinforce some aspect 0.7353
of ther identity
Finally, demographic variables measured on nominal scales regression analyses were run for each dependent variable and were converted to dummy variables (gender: female 5 1, for each subgroup1. The results for each of the three regression
male50); or interval variables (marital status was converted analyses are summarized in Table 5 for the English subgroup to: single, separated/divorced/widow, and married/living to- and in Table 6 for the French subgroup.
gether). In summary, reliable and significant factors were
found for the personal, situational, and culture-related vari-
Objective 1: Is Extent of Search
ables and for in-store information search.
Moderated by Culture?
An ANCOVA analysis (controlling for education, income, gen-der, marital status, age) was conducted for each of the three
Results
search indices to determine whether belonging to a given The data was analyzed for relationships between the three
groups of independent variables (personal, situational, and
demographic) and the three dependent variables related to in- 1Twelve respondents were dropped (five and seven from the English and
French samples, respectively) following an analysis of outliers.
Table 5. Results of the Regression Analyses: English Subsample
Marginal
Dependent Variable Independent Variables Coefficient t Group R2 Contribution
General information search Thoughtful giver 0.3398 3.169a 0.0486 0.0707
Traditional Christmas lover 0.1382 1.787b
Fashion conscious 20.1045 21.511
Strict budget 0.4821 5.850a 0.2371 0.2270
Costly gift 0.2183 3.241a
Predetermined gift selection 20.1514 22.090b
Good selection 0.1226 1.638
Gender 1.2065 2.857a 0.1059 0.0592
Age of youngest child living at home 0.0463 2.196b
Martial status 20.2063 21.570c
Constant 20.5612 20.454
F value: 9.82a Adjusted R2 0.3719
Specific information search Leader 20.2221 22.050b 0.0645 0.0820
Thoughtful giver 0.5008 3.747a
Identity shaper 20.2494 22.893a
Fashion conscious 0.1999 2.213b
Strict budget 0.2984 3.083a 0.0762 0.0808
Costly gift 0.1681 2.121b
Helpful companion 0.1083 1.823b
Close relationship 20.3481 21.896b
Age 0.5082 3.230a 0.1359 0.1630
Education 0.6565 3.320a
Age of youngest chld living at home 0.0495 1.941b
Religion 0.0913 1.576c
Constant 26.2576 23.939a
F value: 5.99a Adjusted R2 0.3032
Salesclerk help Generics buyer 20.2209 22.932a 0.0458 0.0538
Thoughtful giver 20.1880 21.472c
Fashion conscious 0.1478 21.841b
Identity shaper 0.1686 2.107b
Availability of information 0.4744 6.400a 0.2704 0.3054
Costly gift 0.2371 3.091a
Risky gift 0.2503 2.345b
Close relationship 20.3631 22.016b
Predetermined gift selection 20.1415 21.759b
Strict budget 20.1435 21.538c 0.0000 0.0312
Size of family 20.3380 22.343b
Education 0.2572 1.508c
Marital status 0.2461 1.544c
Constant 2.3295 1.361
F value: 6.33a Adjusted R2 0.3461
The Group adjusted R2is obtained when only the group of variables (personal, situational, demographics) is regressed on the dependent variables. The marginal contribution is the
loss of adjusted R2obtained when the group of variables is removed from the regression. aSignificant atp
,0.01 (one-way).
bSignificant atp
,0.05 (one-way).
cSignificant atp
,0.10 (one-way).
culture influenced one’s extent of prepurchase gift search. The which will be impossible to compromise regardless of the extent and length of contact with the majority cultural group. sole significant difference was for general information whereby
the English engaged in greater search (p,0.02). Language(s) used by minority group members, especially in
the choice of mass media such as radio, television, and news-In the multicultural context of the Quebec market where
many cultural groups are in continuous contact with one paper, is one aspect that is partly determined by the length and extent of their contact with the majority group (Kim, another, it is important that cross-cultural studies incorporate
acculturation as a key covariate. The latter refers to the degree Laroche, and Lee, 1989). Identification and language accultur-ation were therefore used in this article to measure culture to which the values and norms of an individual or a cultural
Table 6. Results of the Regression Analyses: French Subsample
Marginal
Dependent Variable Independent Variables Coefficient t Group R2 Contribution
General information search Thoughtful giver 0.2628 2.753a 0.1659 0.0739
Bargain hunter 0.1646 2.021b
Generics buyer 20.1488 22.071b
Influencer 0.1534 1.702b
Strict budget 0.5004 6.970a 0.2427 0.1738
Difficult recipient 20.1770 22.893a
Time pressure 20.0888 1.608c
Religion 0.0944 1.905b 0.0239 0.0087
Constant 0.2631 0.274
F value: 14.41a Adjusted R2 0.3436
Specific information search Thoughtful giver 0.3025 2.547a 0.1614
20.0476
Bargain hunter 0.2137 2.174b
Strict budget 0.3433 3.906a 0.1977 0.1042
Predetermined gift selection 0.2077 2.889a
Good selection 0.2177 2.462a
Religion 0.1700 2.750a 0.0800 0.0299
Education 20.2792 1.596c
Constant 23.4050 22.565a
F value: 13.56a Adusted R2 0.3002
Salesclerk help Generics buyer 20.2107 22.993a 0.0210 0.0307
Fashion conscious 0.1203 1.632c
Availability of information 0.4311 7.202a 0.2715 0.2681
Costly gift 0.3114 5.764a
Time pressure 0.1033 1.795b
Helpful companion 20.0723 21.538c
Gender 20.9066 22.716a 0.0615 0.0592
Acculturation 20.2205 22.527a
Education 0.2683 1.830b
Age of youngest child living at home 0.0330 1.701b
Size of family 20.2025 21.394c
Constant 1.4008 1.167
F value: 11.23a Adjusted R2 0.3554
The group adjusted R2is obtained when only the group of variables (personal, situational, demographics) is regressed on the dependent variables. The marginal contribution is the
loss of adjusted R2obtained when the group of variables is removed from the regression. aSignificant atp
,0.01 (one-way).
bSignificant atp
,0.05 (one-way).
cSignificant atp
,0.10 (one-way).
between the two cultures. Thus, following the temporary re- Looking at the adjusted R2 values allows one to gauge the
data fit to each of the regression models. For the English moval of the highly acculturated individuals from both
sam-ples, the ANCOVA analysis was repeated. In this case, the sample, these were 0.3719, 0.3032, and 0.3461 for general, specific, and salesclerk information, respectively. On the other sole significant difference was for salesclerk help, whereby the
French engaged in greater search (p , 0.01). This accords hand, for the French sample, the corresponding adjusted R2
values were 0.3436, 0.3002, and 0.3554. Thus, it appears with the results of He´on (1990), namely that the French are
more humanistic, which in this case translates into greater that the regression models yielded equally good fits not only when comparing across cultures but also across search indices. human interaction. Table 7 displays the search results for both
sets of samples (i.e., the complete samples and those wherein The last two columns in Tables 5 and 6 report the group
the highly acculturated individuals were removed2). adjusted R2and the marginal contribution scores. The former
is obtained when only the group of variables (personal,
situa-Objective 2: Explore Comprehensive Models
tional, demographics) is regressed on the dependent variables. The marginal contribution is the loss of adjusted R2obtainedof Search and Compare Between the Two Cultures
when the group of variables is removed from the regression. Both Tables 5 and 6 display the results of three regression
Based on the group R2 and marginal contribution scores, it
equations, namely one for each of the three search indices.
appears that the situational variables were the most important ones to both samples, an intuitive result given the inherent
2For this analysis, the removal of the highly acculturated individuals
situational nature of the Christmas gift-giving season.
from both samples yielded 78 “strong” English individuals and 75 “strong”
summa-Table 7. Extent of Search for Each of the Three Search Indices 36 and 26 significant slopes, respectively, suggesting that the former have a more complex search process. The number of
I English French p-value
times that the two cultures yielded a significant slope on the same search index and with the same directionality (i.e., same Complete data set
General information 6.48 5.80 0.012 sign) was 10. On the other hand, on only two occasions did Specific information 4.87 5.38 0.106 the two cultures yield a significant slope for a given search
Salesclerk help 5.09 5.54 0.123
index but with opposite directionality. For the 38 remaining Removal of acculturated
cases (i.e., 622 202 4), there was a significant coefficient respondents from
for only one of the two cultures. Of the latter 38 cases, 14 both groups
General information 630 5.70 0.148 were from the French sample whereas 24 were from the En-Specific information 5.23 5.11 0.803 glish sample. A breakdown of the 38 cases across the three
Salesclerk help 4.69 5.78 0.009
search indices reveals that general, specific, and salesclerk search yielded 14, 12, and 12 cases, respectively. A similar breakdown but along type of variable revealed that personal, rized in a comparative fashion in Table 8. There were 62 situational, and demographic variables had 11, 16, and 11 of significant coefficients (out of a possible 174, i.e., 29 the cases, respectively. Thus, it does not appear that any trends variables33 search indices32 cultures). These were broken- exist regarding the pattern of cross-cultural differences.
up as follows: 19 personal (11 English; 8 French); 24 situa- As previously mentioned, an unexpected result was the
tional (14 English; 10 French); and 19 demographic (11 En- fact that search could be broken-up into three distinct indices. As such, we decided to explore whether a given moderator glish; 8 French). Thus, the English and French samples yielded
Table 8. Comparative Synopsis of the Significant Coefficients
General Specific Salesclerk Results
I F E F E F E Hypothesis F E
Personal variables
Christmas lover 1 1 1:1
Bargain hunter 1 1 1 2:2
Influencer 1 1 1:1
Leader 2 2 1:1
Thoughtful giver 1 1 1 1 2 1 2:2 2:3
Generics buyer 2 2 2 2 2:2 1:1
Fashion conscious 2 1 1 2 1 1:1 1:3
Identity shaper 2 1 1 1:2
Total 8:8 7:11
Situational Variables
Time pressure 2 1 2 1:2
Costly gift 1 1 1 1 1 1:1 3:3
Risky gift 1 1 1:1
Strict budget 1 1 1 1 2 1 2:2 2:3
Predetermined selection 2 1 2 2 0:1 2:2
Difficult recipient 2 1 0:1
Gift list 2
Helpful companion 1 2 2 1:1 0:1
Good selection 1 1 1 1:1 1:1
Familiarity 2
Availability of information 1 1 1 1:1 1:1
Close relationship 2 2 2 2:2
Total 7:10 12:14
Demographic Variables
Acculturation 2 ?
Gender 1 1 2 1 0:1 2:2
Age 1 ?
Age of youngest child 1 1 1 1 1:1 2:2
Marital status 2 1 ?
Education 2 1 1 1 ?
Family size 2 2 2 1:1 1:1
Religion 1 1 1 1 2:2 1:1
Self-identity ?
of search could have a differential effect across two or more moderators had a differential effect on two or more search indices. For example, in the English sample, the personality search indices (i.e., being positively related to one and
nega-tively related to another). For the English sample, there were trait “thoughtful giver” was positively related to both general and specific search and negatively related to salesclerk help. 11 cases (5 sign reversals) whereby a moderator was significant
for two or more search indices whereas for the French sample Had only one aggregate component of search been used in the current study, the regression model might have yielded the number was 7 (2 sign reversals). This tentatively suggests
that in some instances, a given moderator of search will have no relationship between the latter personality trait and extent of search, masking the underlying set of significant effects. a differential effect on two or more search indices. For
exam-ple, time pressure, which solely entered the regression in the Given that much of the existing search literature has precisely used one aggregate component of search, the latter result has French sample, led to less general search and more salesclerk
help. In other words, not only does search become more clear theoretical implications.
The six regression models faired quite well both in terms directed, but also a shift occurs in terms of seeking
informa-tional sources that have lower acquisition costs. In this case, of fit (median adjusted R2
50.3462) and with respect to the posited directional hypotheses (81.5% support rate). Only the differential costs correspond to the difference in time it
takes to seek the information from a salesperson versus looking three of the twenty-nine moderators of search, namely “gift
for general information. list,” “familiarity” (with the product category), and self-identity
did not yield a single significant coefficient, demonstrating that a preponderance of the identified moderators affect search
Objective 3: Test Directional Hypotheses of
behavior. Johnson and Russo (1984) showed that the
relation-Specific Moderators and Extent of Search
ship between extent of search and familiarity with a product The second-to-last column in Table 8 shows the directional
category corresponded to an inverted-U function. In other predictions that were made for 24 out of 29 moderators. No
words, moderately familiar consumers search the most while predictions were made for the following five demographic
novices and experts engage in lesser search, albeit for different variables: acculturation, age, marital status, education, and
reasons. Hence, the null effect that we obtained for “familiar-self-identity. Specifically, we posited a hypothesis to predict,
ity” might have been due to our attempt to fit a linear function ceteris paribus, the effect that an increase in the moderator
to a curvilinear relationship. would have on the extent of prepurchase search. The
predic-Several notable cross-cultural differences were identified. tions were made vis-a`-vis a general component of search since
First, following the temporary removal of the highly accultu-a priori we did not know thaccultu-at we would obtaccultu-ain accultu-a
three-rated individuals from both samples, it was found that the factor solution. The predictions were based on either previous
French make greater use of salesclerk help. No significant findings in the literature and/or a cost/benefit model of search.
differences were obtained either for general or specific infor-For example, as the availability of information increases, its
mation. Across both samples, 62 significant coefficients were acquisition costs decrease, and hence one would expect a
obtained, of which only 20 (i.e., 32%) were “shared” by both corresponding increase in search. Similarly, the more of a
cultures. Hence, it appears that substantial cross-cultural dif-bargain hunter one is, the greater the likely benefits in search
ferences exist in terms of the patterns of significant slopes. for additional information. The last column in Table 8 displays
That being said, an exploratory analysis revealed that neither the number of cases that supported/refuted each of the posited
the type of search index nor the type of moderator could explain hypotheses. For the English sample, 7:11 (personal), 12:14
the pattern of cross-cultural differences. In other words, the (situational), and 6:6 (demographic) supported the posited
cross-cultural differences were evenly distributed across the directional hypotheses. On the other hand, for the French
three search indices and three types of moderators. One pattern sample, the corresponding ratios were 8:8, 7:10, and 4:5.
that did emerge was that the search behavior of the English Thus, in total 25:31 (80.7%) of the directional hypotheses
sample was more complex, as evidenced by the greater number were supported for the English sample whereas, 19:23
of significant coefficients (36 vs. 26 for the French). (82.6%) were supported for the French sample. Clearly, the
model performed exceptionally well across both cultures.
Ag-gregating across the two cultures, 15:19 (personal), 19:24
Limitations and Future Research
(situational), and 10:11 demographic supported the posited
hypotheses, for a support rate of 81.5% (44:54). The scope of the current study was limited to the prepurchase
search for a Christmas gift of a clothing item. In order to increase the study’s generalizability while maintaining the
fo-Discussion
cus on in-store search for gifts, other scenarios should beexamined including “nonclothing” gifts and other gift-giving Several important results were obtained in the current study.
occasions (e.g., Mother’s Day, Valentine’s Day). First, we unexpectedly uncovered a three-factor solution for
Given that Christmas shopping is typically carried out dur-the dependent measure, namely extent of prepurchase gift
ing a specific time period, memory effects were of great con-search was broken down into general con-search, specific con-search,
Belk, R. W.: Gift-Giving Behavior.Research in Marketing2 (1979): Christmas season to distribute the questionnaire, consumers
95–126. might have forgotten how they had behaved when Christmas
Belk, R. W.: Cultural and Historical Differences in Concepts of Self shopping. It was determined that beyond mid-February, the
and Their Effects on Attitudes Toward Having and Giving, in interest among respondents would have dwindled, and the Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 11, Thomas C. Kinnear, ed., reliability of the data would have been suspect. As such, the Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. 1984, pp. 753–760. time frame for the research was very strict. With a greater time Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., and Dasen, P. R.: availability, some weaknesses in the instrument could have Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications, Cambridge been ameliorated. For example, the time pressure construct University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1992.
measured sensitivity to time pressure rather than the actual Bouchard, J.: The French Evolution.Marketing(September 1983): 60.
situational experience.
With the exception of the third objective wherein we tested Buss, D. M.: Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolution-ary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures. Behavioral and Brain
Sci-directional hypotheses linking moderators of search to extent
ences12 (1989): 1–14. of search, much of the remainder of the current study was
Buss, D. M.:The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, Basic exploratory in nature. As such, we did not posit a priori
Books, New York. 1994. expectations regarding the pattern of cross-cultural
differ-Buss, D. M., and Schmitt, D. P.: Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolu-ences. We simply gauged whether such differences existed in
tionary Perspective on Human Mating.Psychological Review100 the current context. Hence, a crucial area for future research (1993): 204–232.
will be to try to explain such differences. For example, why
Caplow, T.: Christmas Gifts and Kin Network.American Sociological
was a moderator consistently significant (i.e., two or more Review47 (1982): 383–392.
times) in one sample but not in the other (e.g., “bargain Cheal, D.: Showing Them You Love Them: Gift Giving and the hunter” with the French and “close relationship” with the Dialectic of Intimacy.Sociological Review35 (1987): 150–169. English)? Within a given sample, why did a given moderator Chebat, J. C., Laroche, M., and Malette, H.: A Cross-Cultural Compar-yield a differential effect on two or more search indices (e.g., ison of Attitudes Towards and Usage of Credit Cards.International
Journal of Bank Marketing6 (1988): 42–54. “time pressure” in the French sample)? Comparing between
the two cultural groups, why did some moderators have an Clark, T.: International Marketing and National Character: A Review and Proposal for an Integrative Theory.Journal of Marketing54 opposite effect on a given search index (e.g., education with
(October 1990): 66–79. specific information and fashion conscious with salesclerk)?
Fischer, E., and Arnold, S. J.: More Than a Labor of Love: Gender There were four moderators of search that were significant
Roles and Christmas Gift Shopping.Journal of Consumer Research
for all three search indices (“thoughtful giver”, “fashion
con-17 (1990): 333–344. scious”, “costly gift”, and “strict budget”). All four occurred
Gift Retailing: Here Come the Nineties.Gifts and Decorative Accessories
in the English sample, further demonstrating that the English
(December 1987): 156–186. appear to have a more complex process when shopping for
Goodwin, C., Smith, K. L., and Spiggle, S.: Gift Giving: Consumer gifts. Is there a framework and/or a specific set of cultural Motivation and the Gift Purchase Process, inAdvances in Consumer traits that can help explicate these differences? The potential Research, vol. 17, M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, and R. W. Pollay,
for future research appears indeed promising. eds., Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. 1990, pp.
690–698.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences Green, R. T., and Alden, D. L.: Functional Equivalence in
Cross-and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The data was collected as part Cultural Consumer Behavior: Gift Giving in Japan and the United
of the fourth author’s Master’s thesis presented to the Faculty of Commerce States.Psychology and Marketing5 (1988): 155–168.
and Administration, Concordia University. The authors thank two anonymous Grønhaug, K.: Buying Situation and Buyer’s Information Behavior. reviewers and the participants of the Symposium on Retail and Service Envi- European Marketing Research Review7 (1972): 33–48.
ronment Atmospherics Research (Montreal, October, 1997) for their insightful
Heeler, R., Francis, J., Okechuku, C., and Reid, S.: Gift Versus
comments. Finally, Isabelle Miodek’s role in the data analyses stage also is
Personal Use Brand Selection, inAdvances in Consumer Research,
gratefully acknowledged.
Vol. 6, W. Wilkie, ed., Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI. 1979, pp. 325–328.
He´nault, G.: Les Conse´quences du Biculturalisme sur la
Consomma-References
tion.Commerce73 (1971): 78–80. Banks, S. K.: Gift-Giving: A Review and an Interactive Paradigm, in
Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 6, W. Wilkie, ed., Association He´on, E.: Excess Means Success in the Quebec Market.Marketing
for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI. 1979, pp. 319–324. (August 1990): 6.
Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., and Homer, P.: Personal Values and Gift- Horton, R. L.: Some Relationships Between Personality and Con-Giving Behaviors: A Study across Cultures. Journal of Business sumer Decision Making.Journal of Marketing Research16 (1979):
Research22 (1991): 149–157. 233–246.
Beatty, S. E., and Smith, S. M.: External Search Effort: An Investiga- Hui, M., Joy, A., Kim, C., Laroche, M.: Equivalence of Lifestyle tion Across Several Product Categories.Journal of Consumer Re- Dimensions Across Four Major Subcultures in Canada. Journal search14 (1987): 83–95. of International Consumer Marketing5 (1993): 15–35.
Johnson, E. J., and Russo, J. E.: Product Familiarity and Learning New Belk, R. W.: It’s the Thought that Counts: A Signed Digraph Analysis
Jolibert, A. J. P., and Fernandez-Moreno, C.: A Comparison of French Ryans, A. B.: Consumer Gift Buying Behavior: An Exploratory Analy-sis, inContemporary Marketing Thought, vol. 44, O. Bellinger and and Mexican Gift Giving Practices, inAdvances in Consumer
Re-search, vol. 10, Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, eds., B. Greenberg, eds., American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. 1977, pp. 99–104.
Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI. 1983, pp.
191–196. Saint-Jacques, M., and Mallen, B.: The French Market Under the
Microscope.Marketing(May 1981): 10–15. Joy, A., Kim, C., and Laroche, M.: Ethnicity as a Factor Influencing
Use of Financial Services.International Journal of Bank Marketing Schaninger, C. M., Bourgeois, J. C., and Buss, W. C.: French-English
9 (1991): 10–16. Canadian Subcultural Consumption Differences.Journal of
Mar-keting49 (1985): 82–92. Kim, C., Laroche, M., and Lee, B.: Development of an Index of
Ethnicity Based on Communication Patterns Among French and Schaninger, C. M., and Sciglimpaglia, D.: The Influence of Cognitive English Canadians.Journal of International Consumer Marketing2 Personality Traits and Demographics on Consumer Information
(1989): 43–60. Acquisition.Journal of Consumer Research8 (1981): 208–216.
Laroche, M., Kim, C., Saad, G. and Browne, E.: Determinants of In- Sherry, J. F., Jr.: Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective.Journal
Store Information Search Strategies Pertaining to a Christmas Gift of Consumer Research10 (1983): 157–168.
Purchase. Working Paper, Concordia University 1997. Sherry, J. F., Jr., and McGrath, M. A.: Unpacking the Holiday Pres-Lefranc¸ois, P. C., and Chatel, G.: The French Canadian Consumer: ence: A Comparative Ethnography of Two Gift Stores, in
Interpre-Fact and Fancy.The Canadian Marketer2 (1967): 4–7. tive Consumer Research, E. Hirschmann, ed., Association for Con-sumer Research, Provo, UT. 1989, pp. 148–167.
Locander, W. B., and Hermann, P. W.: The Effect of Self-Confidence
and Anxiety on Information Seeking in Consumer Risk Reduction. Sherry, J. F., Jr., McGrath, M. A., and Levy, S. J.: The Dark Side of
Journal of Marketing Research16 (May 1979): 268–274. the Gift.Journal of Business Research28 (1993): 225–244. Smith, S. M., and Beatty, S. E.: An Examination of Gift Purchasing Mallen, B.:French Canadian Consumer Behaviour: Comparative Lessons
Behavior: Do Shoppers Differ in Task Involvement, Search
Activ-from the Published Literature and Private Corporate Marketing
Stud-ity, or Perceptions of Product Selection Risk?, inAMA Educator’s ies.The Advertising and Sales Executives Club of Montreal,
Mon-Proceedings, Robert F. Lusch, M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, and R. treal, Canada. 1977.
W. Pollay, eds., American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. Manrai, L. A., and Manrai, A. K., eds.:Global Perspectives in
Cross-1985, pp. 69–74.
Cultural and Cross-National Consumer Research, The Haworth
Sprott, D. E., and Miyazaki, A. D.: Gift Purchasing in a Retail Setting: Press, Binghamton, NY. 1996.
An Empirical Examination, inAMA Winter Educators’ Conference, Mattson, B. E.: Situational Influences on Store Choice. Journal of
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. 1995, pp. 1–19.
Retailing58 (1982): 46–58.
Tamilia, R. D.: A Cross-Cultural Study of Source Effects in a Canadian Muller, T. W., and Bolger, C.: Search Behaviour of French and English
Advertising Situation, inMarketing, J. M. Boisvert and R. Savitt, Canadians in Automobile Purchase.International Marketing Review
eds., Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Montreal. 2 (Winter 1985): 21–30.
1978, pp. 250–255.
Otnes, C. C.: A Study of Consumer External Search Strategies Per- Thomas, D. R.: Culture and Consumption Behaviour in English and taining to Christmas Shopping. Unpublished doctoral disserta- French Canada, inMarketing in the 1970s and Beyond, B. Stidsen, tion, University of Tennessee, 1990. ed., Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Montreal. Otnes, C., Lowrey, T. M., and Kim, Y. C.: Gift Selection for Easy 1975, pp. 255–261.
and Difficult Recipients: A Social Roles Interpretation.Journal of Trivers, R.: The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism.Quarterly Review Consumer Research20 (1993): 229–244. of Biology46 (1971): 35–56.
Palda, K.S.: A Comparison of Consumers’ Expenditures in Quebec Vary, F.: Quebec Consumer Has Unique Buying Habits.Marketing and Ontario.Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science (March 1992): 28.
33 (1967): 26.
Vincent, M., and Zikmund, W.: An Experimental Investigation of Punnett, B. J.: Preliminary Considerations of Confucianism and Situational Effects on Risk Perception, inAdvances in Consumer Needs in the PRC.Journal of Asia-Pacific Business1 (1995): 25–42. Research, vol. 2, M. J. Schlinger, ed., Association for Consumer
Research, Chicago, IL. 1975, pp. 125–129. Rogers, E. M.:Diffusions of Innovations, The Free Press, New York.
1962. Wells, W. D., and Tigert, D. J.: Activities, Interests and Opinions.
Journal of Advertising Research11 (August 1971): 17–35. Rucker, M., Leckliter, L., Kivel, S., Dinkel, M., Freitas, T., Wynes,
M., and Prato, H.: When the Thought Counts: Friendship, Love, Wolfinbarger, M. F.: Motivations and Symbolism in Gift-Giving Be-Gift Exchanges and Be-Gift Returns, inAdvances in Consumer Re- havior, inAdvances in Consumer Research, vol. 17, M. Goldberg
search, Vol. 18, R. Holman and M. Solomon, eds., Association et al., eds., Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. 1990, pp. 699–706.
