I’m worth it or I need it? Self-gift giving and consumers’ self-regulatory mindset
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of the research presented in this paper is to enhance our understanding of self-gift giving behavior. Self-regulatory theory is used as a conceptual support to achieve this objective. The main idea that is explored is that consumers’ self-gift purchase intentions vary across contexts and situations to the extent that these are compatible or not with their self-regulatory mindset, whether it is chronic or situational. Design/methodology/approach Two studies, using a scenario-based experiment, were conducted to investigate the effects that regulatory focus has on consumers’ intentions to buy themselves a gift. Findings The results support the proposition that the chronic form of regulatory focus in success and failure situations has a significant impact on the intention to purchase a gift to oneself and show that the situational form of regulatory focus has an influence on self-gift purchase intention as well. They also confirm that situations that are congruent with consumers’ self-regulatory mindset lead to stronger self-gift purchase intentions. Originality/value The main contribution of this research lies in delineating the role that some specific dispositional and situational factors play in shaping consumers’ perceptions of success and failure events and how this impacts the eventual purchase of a gift to oneself. This contrasts with previous research on self-gift giving, where success and failure situations are assumed to be perceived similarly by consumers. Marketing managers wishing to stimulate consumers’ propensity to buy themselves gifts should consider using regulatory focus as a segmentation basis. Marketing communications should be adapted to consumers’ self-regulatory mindset.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it