GIVING THE GIFT OF GOODNESS: AN EXPLORATION OF SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE GIFT-GIVING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research examining the consumer response to CSR activities demonstrates a mostly positive response. This has been illustrated via increased customer loyalty (e.g., Du, Bhattacharya and Sen 2008) as well as a willingness to pay premium prices (e.g., De Pelsmacker, Driesen & Rayp 2005). However, in a review of the research examining the stakeholder response to CSR activities, Peloza and Shang (2011) suggest that not all CSR activities provide similar value to consumers. They suggest that different CSR product types – experiential, symbolic and functional – provide an interesting lens through which to better understand the value that CSR activities provides. This current research explores one of these specific CSR product types (i.e. symbolic) and focuses on a unique form of consumption behaviour: gift giving. Through thirty depth consumer interviews, we develop a typology of consumers based on whether consumers integrate CSR-related information into purchases for their themselves and for purchases for others (i.e., gifts). In doing so, we identify a number of key themes that motivate each of our four segments of consumers. We find that in some instances, consumers actively avoid purchasing products from socially responsible organizations and did so with the intention of managing their impressions with the gift recipient. This is counter to previous research that suggests consumers often choose to make socially responsible consumption decisions in efforts to satisfy self-presentation concerns (i.e., Griskevicus et al, 2010). In addition, the decision to engage in socially responsible consumption for oneself but not for others was motivated by a variety of factors including the role of the recipient and a concern over the credibility of socially responsible gifts. Finally, some participants who do not incorporate CSR into their own personal consumption chose gifts that supported a variety of CSR activities in an effort to build awareness for socially responsible organizations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".