La Estadística Multivariante en Big Data

Although an apology-gift market exists, and many retailers advertise their products as a potential apology gift, our results demonstrate that it might be unwise to use products as a way to apologize. Apology gifts appear not to meet the expectations of the givers (Study 1 and Study 3), not to be able to restore a relational inequity (Study 5), not to be able to resolve anger experienced by recipients (Study 6), and not to enhance recipients’ appreciation of the relationship with the giver (Study 6). In addition, products given as apology are less positively evaluated and are more likely to be regifted (Studies 2A, 2B, 3, and 5), regardless of the value and the relational focus of the gift (Study 4). This decreased product evaluation holds specifically for apology gifts but not for gifts motivated by recipients’ negative emotions in general (Study 2b). We have tested across several experiments this hypothesized decrease in product evaluation when given in an apology versus spontaneous context. A meta-analysis based on Winer’s method of pooling t’s (1971) of the effects observed across Studies 2a, 2b, 3, 4, and 5 validates the decreased evaluation for products received as apology gifts. Overall, we find a medium negative effect of apology setting on gift product evaluation (z = 14.12, 0.2934

< CI 95% < 0.3881, r = 0.34). This suggests that it is very likely that recipients do not optimally evaluate a gift product when it is received as an apology. Thus, an apology context has a direct negative effect on the recipient’s product evaluations.

45 Figure 2.7: Meta-analysis of Studies 2A, 2B, 3, 4, and 5

Note: White dots reflect the effect sizes on gift evaluation, and grey dots reflect the effect sizes on the intention to regift. The black dot displays the overall estimated effect size.

As highlighted in the aforementioned conclusions, the results of Study 6 indicate that apology gifts can have detrimental effects on relationship appreciation and suggest that the absence of an apology would lead to a better evaluation of the relationship by the recipient.

We are aware that this is a very strong claim but we do not want to draw too much attention to a finding for which we did not have a specific hypothesis. Nevertheless, the finding signals an opportunity for future research on how relationships evolve after an apology.

Importantly, our findings support our view that the insufficiently restored anger and the relational equity cause the negative evaluation of apology gifts (Study 5 and Study 6) and that two other alternative explanations do not account for the effects. First, although previous research has shown that affective states, including negative emotions, influence consumers’

everyday judgments and decisions (Forgas, 1995; Judge & Illies, 2004; Bruyneel et al., 2009;

Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005), we found in Study 2B that a gift product evaluation is not negatively affected when people feel sadness towards the giver. This indicates that the decrease in gift product evaluation is unique to apology contexts in which angry feelings have been evoked, therefore, the decreased evaluation cannot be ascribed to recipients’ negative emotions in general. Second, research has shown that consumers tend to dislike products related to people they dislike (Paolacci et al., 2015). Whereas this alternative explanation would

46

suggest that an angry recipient dislikes any product received from the apologizing giver, Study 5 revealed that a recipient evaluates an apology gift less positively than a birthday gift that was previously received from the same giver. Overall, our findings suggest that neither negative emotions in general (Study 2B) nor an increased dislike of the recipient (Study 4) accounts for the (full) decrease in product evaluation of apology gifts.. but that his effect is generated caused by the inadequacy of the gift product to resolve the recipient’s angry feelings and to restore the relational equity.

We would like to remark all our studies all involve vignette and autobiographical recall designs. The findings supporting our hypotheses are thus based on self-reported expected valuations. Whereas research designs based on predictions and intentions have been found to translate well to actual behavior (Sheeran, 2002), we believe our current studies would be strengthened with a series of studies exploring actual anger-evoking events and the consequent behaviors. Therefore, to add value to the external validity of our research, a behavioral study in which we manipulate anger and the receipt of a gift has the highest priority in our research agenda.

Theoretical contributions and future research

The present research adds new insights to the literature on gift giving. Whereas previous research has emphasized the motivating aspect of emotions to engage in gift giving (Ruth, 1996; Wolfinbarger, 1990; De Hooge, 2016), our research explores the impact of gifts given as apology. Our results point out that gifts given as apology might not lead to the desired responses. Our research thus adds to the gift-giving literature by highlighting that gifts do not always have the positive intended effects (Sherry et al., 1993; Ruth et al., 1999;

Schwartz, 1967). Future research should investigate under which conditions giving apology gifts could fully reduce anger and lead to appreciation. Anger seems best appeased when the transgressor directly repairs for the harm done (Haesevoets et al., 2014). Therefore it is possible that an apology gift might be successful when the gift matches the harm. A transgression can involve both material (e.g., someone lost or damaged one’s possessions) and immaterial harm (e.g., hurt someone’s feelings or mistreat someone). Although our research shows that an apology gift is not the right gesture to resolve angry feelings, an apology gift might be successful when it directly repairs the harm caused. More specifically, for material harm, this means that the apology-gift product should be an exact replacement of the original

47

object. It is probably more difficult to repair immaterial harm with an apology gift. After all, there are no direct product replacements for hurt feelings. Nevertheless, it could well be the case that for immaterial harm, an immaterial apology gift (e.g., taking someone for a day out) will lead to more positive gift-product evaluations.

Our findings are rooted in the social exchange theory (Adams, 1965) and empathy gap literature (Nordgren et al., 2011; Campbell et al., 2014; Dunning et al., 2001). As consumers have been found to have difficulties predicting the feelings of others (Nordgren et al., 2011;

Campbell et al., 2014; Jordan et al., 2011) and the influence of those feelings on the decisions and behavior of others (Loewenstein, 1996; Dunning et al., 2001), we presume that the relational inequity that arises after an anger-evoking event (Adams, 1965; Scherer, 1984) are perceived differently by the transgressor and the victim Although the transgressor believes an apology gift is an adequate apology that sufficiently resolves the anger and restores the distorted relational equity, the transgressed recipient of the gift feels otherwise. The findings of this chapter show that empathy gap can lead to inadequate behavior, especially in contexts characterized by anger. More specifically, the transgressor’s underestimation of the influence of anger might lead to nonoptimal consumption decisions to repair the harm through inadequate purchases of apology gifts. Future research should investigate under which circumstances the giver’s empathy gap can be reduced such that the giver could correctly assess the impact of the anger-evoking situation and thus apologize sufficiently.

Addressing apology gifts, this chapter focused on gift exchanges in personal relationships. We wondered how friends or family members evaluated a gift product that they received as apology for harm done to them. Feeling anger towards another person is not limited to personal relationships but could also arise in other types of relationships. In the marketing literature (Bougie et al., 2003; Bechwati & Morrin, 2003; Ward & Ostrom, 2006), consumers have been found to hold angry feelings towards companies who mistreated them.

Companies potentially evoke angry feelings among its customers when the goods that the company delivers do not meet the set expectations (Folkes, 1984). When the product fails in the eyes of the consumer, companies might not always want or be able to replace the product.

In such situations, companies could apologize and offer the customer an apology gift. The current chapter suggests that apology gifts do not necessarily lead to desired outcomes in harmed social relationships; however, we believe that these findings might not generalize to more commercial relationship settings. The relationships people have with companies are

48

drastically different from their relationships with friends or family members (Fiske, 1992;

Clark & Mills, 2011; McGraw & Tetlock, 2005). The relationships differ in norms and expectations. As we will reveal in Chapter 4, the type of relationship people have with another person heavily influences the way they behave in consumption situations. Consumers respond differently to a friend than to a commercial partner. It would be interesting for future research to investigate whether it matters if an apology gift is given by a personal-relationship partner or by a commercial relationship partner, and how this would affect the gift-product evaluation process.

Practical relevance

Our research has important practical implications for both consumer and retailer well-being. Both for relational and economic reasons, consumers should think twice whether they want to give a gift to apologize. Our findings suggest that compared to a spoken apology, apology gifts insufficiently repair anger and relational inequity and do not lead to better results even though the gesture is costlier. Furthermore, because product evaluations suffer when products are used as an apology, companies could be inspired to increase their efforts to prevent the former. For example, they could emphasize their product as a self-gift (instead of a gift for another person) and avoid associations with their products as being a potential apology gift. In line with this reasoning, it would be relevant to research whether the negative connotation associated with and the decreased evaluation of an apology-gift product also holds for apology gifts that are a direct replacement for the harm. Similarly, future research should explore the reminding functions of gift products. More specifically, it might be possible that recipients relive or re-experience the angry feelings when they are confronted with the gift product.

49

CHAPTER 3