Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

The feminine side to Santa Claus. Women’s work of kinship in contemporary gift-giving relations Dave Sinardet ∗ , Dimitri Mortelmans Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

Abstract The predominant male-breadwinner model having been surpassed by other forms of household organization, discussion rises on whether the female role of caretaker within households also undergoes change. The question certainly becomes relevant concerning an often less visible and/or overlooked aspect of the caretaker role, which is the ‘work of kinship’. This article looks at a specific aspect of this, which can be considered as even more invisible than other caring tasks: the responsibility for gift exchange. More precisely, we explore women’s role in, contribution to and attitude towards the giftgiving process on three domains: the buying, giving and receiving of gifts. Results point to important gender differences: women remain chief responsible for gift selection and gift giving and invest more time in selecting the appropriate gifts for kin. They also show greater satisfaction with the gift-giving process, of which they tend to stress the symbolic value instead of the instrumental value, which is more strongly emphasized by men. This shows that traditional role models endure in an important but often invisible aspect of the work of kinship and more generally of the caretaker role and that these role models also seem to be strongly culturally integrated by men and women. © 2008 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The central position of women in the selection and buying of gifts in contemporary Western societies has widely been acknowledged. References to this can be found in all kinds of popular emanations of modern mythology, but it was also confirmed by research in different national settings. Men, even Santa himself, may often share in the credit for gifts that are actually bought, wrapped and given by women. This specific observation can be seen in light of the more general role of women as caretakers in family as well as in society. Nevertheless, women’s position as prime-caregivers has recently come under discussion. The central question in this paper will be if traces of these changes ∗

Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 3 275 55 91. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Sinardet).

0362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2008 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2008.12.006

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

125

are also to be noted in the realm of gift giving. We will answer this by means of the results of a large-scale study on Belgian gift-giving culture, also comparing our results to previous studies, to find out whether women’s dominance in gift giving remained stable over the years. This exploration into women’s role in the gift-giving process will be made possible by means of the results of a study conducted at Antwerp University on Belgian gift-giving culture. More precisely, we will first look at recent evolutions in the traditional role of women as caretakers. Next we will focus on the matter of gift giving, which can be considered an aspect of this caring task. In the empirical part, we will deal with actual gender differences in gift-giving behaviour, before looking at how these objective observations are embedded in gift-giving culture and in attitudes towards giving.

1. Giving care The central position of women in the selection and buying of gifts is acknowledged in many, often American, empirical studies (Caplow, 1982; Fischer & Arnold, 1990; Goodwin, Smith, & Spiggle, 1990; Komter & Vollebergh, 1997; McGrath, 1995; Rosental, 1985; Rucker & Dolstra, 1993). Less acknowledged, is that this can be situated in a more general division of labour in Western societies. As Malinowski (1978) already pointed out in 1922 through his classic example of the Kula-tribe, the principle of reciprocity is the basis for social relations and solidarity. This was complemented by Mauss (1950), who considered gift giving to be a social phenomenon, creating long-lasting social relations. In social exchange theory, emphasis is laid on the actors in the exchange process and their respective resources and the forms of exchange (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958). Three types of gift exchanges are often distinguished. First, there is a basic economic exchange where the power is situated at both sides. There is an equal exchange of both parties. There is an obligation of give and take but no additional social meanings are involved. The second type is based on a symbolic exchange of goods. The gift is a symbol of a relation and becomes an inalienable part of the giver (Weiner, 1992). The last type is the pure gift (Malinowski, 1978) or the agapic gift (Belk & Coon, 1993) where no financial motives are involved at all. In his classic 1976-article on social exchange, Emerson (1976) links up exchange theory to gift giving using the concept exchange networks. By exchanging material and non-material goods, people become mutually dependent on each other. This mutual dependence is regulated by a power balance between the actors in the network (Scanzoni & Szinovacz, 1980). The reciprocal character in the exchange process binds people together. Family networks are an important example of a social network where gifts are instruments par excellence to ensure the kin bonds between the family members. These bonds are primarily kept alive by women. The observation that gift giving is generally a woman’s task in a household comes as no surprise. It can partially be explained by the fact that it is also women who are often primarily responsible for “the conception, maintenance, and ritual celebration of cross-household kin ties” in general (Di Leonardo, 1987). This involves being responsible and/or taking care of visits, letters, telephone calls, cards and of course gifts to kin. That’s why it gradually was labelled as “the work of kinship” (Di Leonardo, 1987:442–443). In general, it is women who work at keeping family members in

126

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

touch with one another. They are the “kinkeepers” (Rosental, 1985). They are responsible for maintaining social ties, particularly within kin networks, thus responsible for kin keeping (Fischer & Arnold, 1990). Moreover, this does not necessarily have to be restricted to family relations. Indeed, according to Komter, women do not only give much to family but also to friends (Komter & Vollebergh, 1997). The maintenance of family relations is, in turn, imbedded in the caring role, which is also attributed to women. Instead of care being a state monopoly, a variety of sectors come into play, of which the informal one of family and friends is the most fundamental (Graham, 1999:283–284). Many empirical studies, inventorying these forms of personal care have elaborately shown that women play the central part in them (Baldwin, 1985; Blieszner & Allen, 1990; Brody, 1990; Finch, 1989; Lewis & Meredith, 1988), whether it is caring for their own children (in normal circumstances or in the case of disabled children), for their elderly parents, other relatives, etc. National research in the United States showed that women provide more than 70% of informal care (Stone, Cafferata, & Sangl, 1987). Thus bringing some to concluding that caring was “an activity which is culturally defined as being ‘natural’ for women” (Finch & Groves, 1983). Caring (also often described as a “labour of love”, as it demands love but also labour) is the most important category that characterises the gender difference (Graham, 1999) and it plays a crucial part in the construction of gender identity. Indeed, caring is often framed as an activity that defines femininity and which sets it against the ‘non-caring’ masculinity which, by contrast, is often defined by professional activity (Chodorow, 1979). This can be brought back to childhood socialisation where the mother is the prime responsible for taking care of child(ren), making femininity synonymous with relations and attachment (McGrath, 1995). This female caring role is reproduced and personality types associated with masculinity and femininity are recreated (Chodorow, 1979). In other words, variation by gender is a key element in patterns of support between kin. Different reasons can be given for this, according to Finch. The cultural factor does seem to play a part in that in some families, care for children or elderly people is considered to be a woman’s task and not a man’s. But this plays only a marginal part, as other factors seem to explain the greater involvement of women in support within families. Availability, although not completely disconnected from the cultural factor, is clearly important: because men still tend to have a more active professional life, the often invisible work of caring tasks tend to fall back on women, even when they are not considered to be specific feminine tasks (Finch, 1989:52–53). However, this gender determination for caring has recently come under serious scrutiny. Indeed, there are indications that the dominant role of women in care giving is shifting. Some argue that the role of men has been significant for a while already, but was neglected by social scientists that conducted research from an outspoken feminist viewpoint (e.g. see: Lamb, 1995, 2000). Recent research shows that “men’s caring contribution is substantial”, especially among married men caring for their wife in later life and among unmarried men living at home caring for a parent. On the other hand, men do not easily provide care in other households, in contrast to women. The gender difference remains very prominent among married carers, who can rely on their wives “to fulfil kinship obligations and perform caring roles which they would otherwise have had to undertake personally” (Arber & Ginn, 1999:321–337).

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

127

In this article, we will research a specific aspect of the caring role. Indeed, gift giving, being part of the work of kinship which in turn can be considered as a subsidiary of caring, is a small but integral part of the caring process. One also which, given its evident nature, can be considered as being even less invisible than other caring tasks, maybe even to women themselves. Therefore, the question that arises in the light of our specific research concerning women’s role in gift giving, is whether the apparent change in the caring role is also translatable to the specific part of the work of kinship which is the practice of gift giving.

2. Caring about giving Fischer and Arnold (1990) operationalize the greater involvement of women in the buying and giving of gifts by defining “being more involved” as giving to a larger number of people, starting to shop earlier, spending more time per recipient, spending less money per recipient and being more successful in choosing the appropriate gift. Women play an important part in the buying, packaging and giving of gifts. In nearly every household, shopping, decorating, gift-wrapping and gift-giving centers on a woman who is the chief performer of the ritual. This does not mean, however, that men never buy gifts. There seems to be a gender difference between the kind of gifts that are exchanged and more specifically, the kind of relationships within which they are exchanged. While women seem to give to all kinds of people they know, men’s gifts are often to be situated in a romantic relationship and are often driven by “a specific goal of deepening the relationship” (McGrath, 1995:387). Men may give fewer gifts; however, on average their presents are more expensive than those given by women. In general, women get more gifts, but also cheaper gifts, than men (Schuyt, 1997), which is probably connected to the fact that women have the tendency to see gift giving in a more altruistic and less economic perspective (Belk & Coon, 1991). While for men, the price of a gift is more important to evaluate the balance in the relationship, women attribute a lot of importance to the fact whether the receiver loves the gift (Rucker et al., 1991). This is probably why women also tend to spend less money on their gifts than men. This suggests that women’s central position is justified, since research shows women are more attentive than men to the interests of the receiver (Goodwin et al., 1990:696). Moreover, reciprocity of giving and receiving is more frequent with women than with men. Women not only give more, they more often are the receiver of gifts. But the difference with men concerning gift giving is larger than that concerning gift receiving. These gender differences are not confined to the actual practice of buying and giving gifts. They can be noted at a much earlier stage. There is also a clear gender difference concerning the attitude towards the gift-giving process. Men generally have a more negative attitude towards gift giving, which they consider as “stressful, an obligation, . . .” in comparison to women whose feelings are much more positive (Fischer & Arnold, 1990; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 1991). McGrath’s projective study (1995), confirmed this attitude among males, who when asked to write imaginative stories concerning gift giving, told more negative or unpleasant stories than females. The gender difference was most outspoken in the stories where the respondent found himself in the role of the giver.

128

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

An explanation for men’s more restricted involvement in gift giving might well have to do with the fact that they feel resentment at “engaging in what is culturally designated as women’s work.” In this light, males may perceive both gift giving and receiving as a threat (McGrath, 1995). Bearing these differences in mind, it is hardly surprising that previous studies showed that women like their central position as the chief performers in the gift giving ritual (Fischer & Arnold, 1990). However, while the positive feelings with gift giving itself remain, we have recently shown elsewhere that this seems to be much less the case with feelings on buying gifts (Mortelmans & Sinardet, 2004). This could be a consequence of women’s “second shift” (Hochschild, 1989), which brings us back to the question of the division of household labour. Choosing and buying gifts is a time-consuming effort, which may be too hard to enjoy for working women. This could explain their high degree of discontent with shopping for gifts. Another explanation is that women’s gift giving work is often unrecognised, as many gifts are symbolically presented by a couple or family unit, but technically chosen, bought and wrapped by the woman in that couple or family (McGrath, 1995). In these situations the male is given credit for a gift he may not even have seen before the receiver unpacks it. Moreover, the difference in attitude towards gift giving also seems to be translatable to attitudes towards care. As shown by American research on intergenerational solidarity between children and their parents, daughters would mostly be motivated by altruistic considerations while with sons feelings of duty, heritage expectations and the maintenance of existing contacts prevail.

3. Research 3.1. Analysis of the giving process As we pointed out in the introduction, we will analyse the gift-giving process on two levels. Before examining gender differences in attitudes (what are women’s and men’s feelings concerning gift giving practices?), we will concentrate on the more basic level of differences in actual gift-giving behaviour. This will be achieved through a path analysis in which the number of gifts given, the mean amount of gifts given and the duration of the gift consumption process are assessed. These three variables make up the core of the actual gift-giving behaviour on a gift-giving occasion like Christmas. A number of gifts needs to be bought and a certain amount of money is allocated for this. The person who buys the gifts needs to go searching for the appropriate gifts and invests a certain amount of time in this consumption process. We assume that gift-giving behaviour depends on three variables. Of course, gender is the variable we will specifically turn our eyes to. As we have amply discussed above, the central place women take in the gift-giving process has been acknowledged many times, with women buying and giving more gifts and spending more time on this than men (e.g. Goodwin et al., 1990; Komter, 1997; McGrath, 1995; Mortelmans & Damen, 2001; Rucker & Dolstra, 1993). Therefore we expect women to buy more gifts than men, but also, because they invest themselves more strongly in the process and keeping in mind their role as caretaker, we expect

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

129

Fig. 1. Path model of the gift-giving process.

women to spend more time and effort to find exactly the right gift for the right person. Finding a gift that expresses the relationship between giver and receiver and the identity of the two partners in the gift-giving process takes a lot of time. Men are expected to buy fewer gifts but they will substitute this by spending more money on their gifts. So here, we expect a negative effect of gender on the mean amount given (Fig. 1). Next to gender, we also expect the giving tradition to be of influence. In Belgium, there are two main gift-giving traditions that prescribe how many gifts are to be bought and for whom these gifts are intended. One possibility is that everybody who is invited to the giftgiving occasion (like Christmas) gives a gift to everybody else. This implies that the number of gifts exchanged, rises with the size of the group in which they are exchanged. The other tradition shows more resemblance to a lottery. Each participant in the gift-giving occasion is assigned, weeks before the actual occasion, a name of one other participant. The assignment goes at random so that each time, every participant will have another recipient to give a present to. There are other forms of organising the gift exchange but these are only marginal and were not included as separate categories in the analysis. Following the system that is used in a certain family, the number of gifts given and their mean amount will differ. In the first system where everybody gives to everybody, a higher number of gifts are expected, combined with a higher amount. Consequently, the time to buy all these gifts will also be higher. Thirdly, we expect the height of the income to have an effect on the gift-giving behaviour. Of course, one can buy more gifts with a higher income but we suspect that people will also do this, not only thinking of the recipient but also of one’s own social status. Therefore, we expect that higher incomes will buy more gifts and spend more money on their gifts. In conclusion, we also need to look at the right-hand side of the model. These three variables are not independent of each other. In fact, the number of gifts is supposed to determine the mean amount of the gifts bought and the time spent on buying them. If one buys more gifts, we can expect the mean amount of the gifts to decrease since people spread their gift budget of different gifts. On the other hand, the consumption of gifts will take more time because there are more gifts to be searched and chosen.

130

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

3.2. Analysis of the involvement in the giving process The second level of the analysis looks at the commitment of people to the gift-giving process. The aim of the analysis is to see whether or not people are highly involved with giving or not. Do people see giving as a network tool or as a way to show love and appreciation for people around them? How much satisfaction do they get out of gift giving? Since involvement cannot be measured by a single question, we opted for a group of latent constructs, all dealing with some aspect of involvement in the gift process. A structural equation model will be used to estimate the constructs and to see the influence of some manifest exogenous variables. We will use five latent constructs: ‘satisfaction with giving gifts’, ‘attitude on wrapping’, ‘gift giving as a tradition’, ‘gift giving as a labour of love’ and ‘gift giving as a network tool’. We will elaborate on the actual measurement of these constructs further in this paper. Therefore, we only mention the exogenous variables in this paragraph. There are four manifest variables included in the model (Fig. 2). The first exogenous factor is gender. As we showed earlier, women generally have a higher degree of involvement than men. In both the household and the gift-giving process, they are the kinkeepers. Looking more specifically towards the five constructs, we firstly expect women to be more satisfied with giving gifts. Given the higher importance women attach to the process, we can expect them to find more satisfaction in it. Secondly, it can be expected that women will also have a more positive attitude towards the wrapping of gifts. If it is important for them to please the receiver with their gift, they will also want this gift to look as good as possible. The third construct looks to which extent gift giving is considered as a tradition. If women are indeed more involved in the gift-giving prices, they are expected to see gift giving more as a tradition. On the other hand, we expect men to see gift giving more as a networking tool. If one scores high on this construct, one considers gift giving as something instrumental, something that can be used for ones own profit. While men would see gift giving as a means to obtain

Fig. 2. Path structural model of attitudes towards the gift-giving process.

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

131

other things, women would consider it as an end: to make the receiver happy and show him love and appreciation. Moreover, it’s a part of their task as kinkeeper. This is also why it can be expected that women will consider gift giving as a labour of love, the fifth construct. Next to gender, we will examine the effect of three other exogenous manifest variables. The first of them is the living condition. We expect people who are living with a partner and specifically people that are living with a partner and child(ren) to show more involvement with gift giving. This because they will have many more close relatives, thus a larger gift-giving network, than people who are living alone. The two other exogenous manifest variables are income and the level of education. Here we expect people with a higher education and income to show less involvement because of their presumed individualistic life-style (Wilska, 2002). 3.3. Methods 3.3.1. Sample The research project on gift-giving behaviour was carried out in 2000. A simple random sample was drawn from the Flemish population of adults above 18 years. A written questionnaire was sent to 1500 people. This provided 731 usable questionnaires: a response rate of 49% (Table 1). Women are slightly over represented in the sample. Flemish census data for 1999 give a percentage of 50.7 women compared to 57.9 in our sample (Administration Planning and Statistics, 1999:36). The age varies from 17 to 92 years. The majority of the ones who responded live together with a partner, with or without children, and almost 70% have one or more children. The number of children that still lives at home ranges from 1 to 8. 20% of the respondents Table 1 Number of respondents by socio-demographic features. Socio-demographic variables

%

Socio-demographic variables

%

Gender Male Female Age 17–29 30–39 40–59 60–79 80–92 Form of cohabitation With parents (in law) Single With partner With partner + child(ren) Single + child(ren) Others

N = 730 42.1 57.9 N = 731 14.6 24.7 38.2 16.0 1.5 N = 731 10.1 12.1 26.9 41.7 6.6 2.6

Grandchildren Have grandchildren Have no grandchildren Level of education Primary or less Lower secondary Higher secondary Higher education

N = 657 20.7 79.3 N = 719 7.5 13.1 29.3 50.1

Income None or 9916 D )

N = 703 2.0 18.1 45.8 25.0 7.4 1.7

Children Have children Have no children

N = 723 69.3 30.7

132

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

have grandchildren. The number lies between 1 and 20. People with a higher education are slightly over represented compared to the census data (Administration Planning and Statistics, 1999:228). Almost half of respondents have a joint monthly income between 50,000 and 100,000 Belgian francs (D 1240 and D 2479), which corresponds to the Flemish average of 77,800 Belgian francs (D 1929). 3.3.2. Variables included in the path analysis The path analysis contains six manifest variables. The respondents were asked to write down how much gifts they had given during the past 4 weeks. For each gift on the list, a specification on the type of gift and its price was asked. The duration of the shopping process for gifts was measured on an ordinal scale going from ‘less than an afternoon’ to ‘more than 4 days’. Gender was asked for in a straightforward way. Income was measured on an ordinal scale with 16 categories. The scale has a lower limit of no income. All categories consist of income intervals measured in Belgian francs. Finally, living condition was measured using a nominal scale with four categories. For the path analysis, we created three dummy variables: living with a partner, living with a partner and child(ren) and living alone. 3.3.3. Manifest variables and latent constructs in the structural equation model The model to be estimated is a non-standard structural equation path model (Hatcher, 1994). We include some non-latent variables in the model accounting for a part of the causal explanation of the endogenous measures. In other words, we assume that these manifest variables are perfect measures for the constructs they represent. Before we turn our attention to the latent constructs in the model, we first want to give an overview of the manifest variables. These are largely the same as in the path analysis (see above). The only additional manifest exogenous variable is living condition which was measured on a nominal scale with four categories. As a consequence, three dummy variables are added in the path model: living with a partner without children, living with a partner and children and living alone. Before discussing the measurement model more deeply, we will concentrate on the five latent concepts included in the model. The first latent construct is the satisfaction people have with giving gifts. As indicators, we use Likert items on whether or not respondents have positive or negative feelings when giving gifts. We used a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The items were taken from Macklin and Walkers’ gift giving “Joy”scale (Macklin & Walker, 1988) and showed a strong internal consistency (alpha = .70) with high and significant factor loadings in both an exploratory and a confirmatory factor analysis. These results are reflected in the measurement model presented in Table 2. All items keep their high loadings and the latent construct has a composite scale reliability of .70. The second latent construct is the perception of the need to wrap a gift. Wrapping may seem an obvious thing to do when giving gifts but it is not generally accepted. Wrapping gifts, if it is not done in the shop where it is bought, can be a time-consuming activity. This is definitely the case when one person has to wrap all the gifts of a family. Therefore, we assume that a positive attitude towards wrapping a gift is closely connected to a more central role in the gift network of a family. The construct is composed of five Likert-items each of which was measured on a five-point scale (strongly disagree–strongly agree). Standardised factor loadings

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

133

Table 2 Latent construct measurement summary: confirmatory factor analysis and scale reliability. Itema

Item description summary

Standardised loading

t-Value

0.68 0.46 0.56

15.56 11.18 13.33

0.55

12.53

0.52

12.36

0.79 0.51

22.10 13.30

0.68

18.22

0.64

17.24

0.84

23.95

0.82 0.79 0.71

22.58 21.20 19.27

F4. Giving gifts as a network tool (ρc = .70) In general, I give gifts . . . Netw1 to please someone Netw2 to uphold relations Netw3 to start relations Netw4 to make up Netw5 to get something in return

0.66 0.58 0.53 0.43 0.60

15.45 11.76 11.97 9.94 12.95

F5. Giving gifts as a labour of love (ρc = .73) In general, I give gifts . . . Love1 to show friendship and love Love2 to show appreciation Love3 to thank someone

0.69 0.75 0.60

16.88 17.78 13.82

F1. Satisfaction with giving gifts (ρc = .70) Satisf1 Giving gifts makes me feel good Satisf2b I don’t like gift giving Satisf3 I like to see the expressions on people’s faces when they open a gift Satisf4 I always try to give something a recipient might like Satisf5b Giving or receiving gifts does not interest me F2. Attitude on wrapping (ρc = .82) Wrap1 A gift without a paper is not a gift Wrap2b The package is not important, only the content of the gift counts Wrap3 Without the package, the surprise effect would be lost Wrap4 The package of a gift is a sign of the effort that the givers has done for the gift Wrap5 Even if you know what a gift will be, it needs a package F3. Giving gifts as a tradition (ρc = .82) In general, I give gifts . . . Trad1 because it is expected Trad2 because one is used to it Trad3 because one feels obliged

Note: Fit statistics for measurement model of 21 indicators for five constructs: χ2 (270) = 514.4, p = .00; GFI = .94; RMR = .06; CFI = .95; PNFI = .69; NNFI = .93; RMSEA = .037.  2 2 a Scale composite reliability ρc = [( λi ) var(ξ)]/[( λi ) var(ξ) + θii ] (Bagozzi, 1988). b Reverse coded.

are high and significant. We tested the scale for unidimensionality with an exploratory and a confirmatory factor analysis. Both analyses showed high and significant loadings on one factor (alpha = .82). The last three constructs come from a single question in which respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree–strongly agree) the reasons for which they give gifts. In an exploratory factor analysis, these reasons grouped together into three latent

134

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

constructs. The first construct is composed of indicators that depict gift giving as a tradition. The exchange of gifts is an age-old habit from which some feel they cannot withdraw. Therefore, a higher involvement in gift giving will go together with a stronger emphasis on the exchange of gifts as a tradition. The second construct encompasses a negative way to deal with gifts. One can use gifts intentionally to build relations. Rather than being a result of some social relation, a gift can also be used to start new relations, to make up or even with the sole intention to get something in return. This construct, which was termed ‘giving gifts as a network tool’, has an alpha value of 0.70 and a scale composite reliability of 0.72. The last construct is almost the opposite of the networking concept. It groups reasons to give gifts that are associated with clear positive and almost altruistic feelings. The gratitude and appreciation towards the recipient is placed central—rather than the returns from the recipient, as did the network construct. Also this construct showed an acceptable reliability (alpha: .71). The measurement model shown in Table 2 provides a reasonable fit to the data. The Chisquare test of exact fit is significant, where the objective is to achieve a non-significant p-value. However, Hatcher indicates that a significant Chi-square does not make the measurement model inadequate (Hatcher, 1994). The Chi-square ratio shows that the ratio of the Chi-square value and the degrees of freedom is lower than two (1.91). This indicates that the Chi-square test is within acceptable limits (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Other favorable diagnostics include a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of .94, a root mean square residual (RMR) of .06, a comparative fit index (CFI) of .95, a parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) of .69, a nonnormed fit index (NNFI) of .93 and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .037. In terms of validity of the constructs, convergent validity is evidenced by the large and significant loadings of the items that have been pointed out by the indicators. Further evidence of convergent validity is shown in Table 3. Most of the correlations between the latent constructs are not too high to challenge the convergent validity of them. There are only slightly elevated correlations between factors 1 and 2 and between 3 and 4. Discriminant validity is also demonstrated because the interval around the correlation estimated between any two latent constructs never include 1.0 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988:416). The Variance Extracted Test also shows the discriminant validity of our constructs. The variance-extracted test compares the two latent constructs with a square of correlation between the two (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity is shown when the explained variance is greater than the squared correlation. We compared all pairs of factors and they all showed an acceptable variance extracted. A last test on the discriminant validity of our constructs was the Chi-square Difference Test (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The Chi-square Table 3 Construct correlation matrix. Construct

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F1. Satisfaction with giving gifts F2. Attitude on wrapping F3. Giving gifts as a tradition F4. Giving gifts as a network tool F5. Giving gifts as a labour of love

1.00 0.38 −0.08 −0.12 0.29

1.00 0.09 0.11 0.29

1.00 0.42 0.01

1.00 0.08

1.00

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

135

of the measurement model is compared with the Chi-square of a “no-difference” model with the correlation between two factors set to 1. Again discriminant validity of our constructs was demonstrated with all Chi-square difference tests resulting in a highly significant Chi-square difference.

4. Results 4.1. Path analysis of the gift-giving process The path analysis was estimated with the Calis procedure in the statistical package, SAS. This allowed us to perform a model test on the complete analysis. The Chi-square value was 2.76 with 2 d.f., resulting in a probability of 0.25 which is well above the 0.05 borderline. However, the paths in the model are generally low and several of them are non-significant (Fig. 3). The number of gifts exchanged is influenced by gender and income. Women buy more gifts than men, as is the case with people who have higher incomes. The type of giving tradition hardly makes a difference. If people give gifts to the whole family, they exchange slightly more gifts than the reference category of marginal exchange types. The mean amount of gifts was poorly explained by the model. Therefore, we will not give much attention to it. Only the number of gifts has a significant influence on the amount spent. The more gifts one buys, the lower the mean amount of the gifts. The duration of the shopping process is better explained. Here we find significant path coefficients from gender, giving tradition and number of gifts. As could be expected, the more gifts that need to be bought, the longer it takes to buy them. Also giving a gift to the whole family increases shopping time significantly. This is not the case when only one gift needs to be bought for a single recipient. The strongest effect however, comes from gender. Women spend significantly more time on buying gifts then men.

Fig. 3. Path model of the gift-giving process.

136

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

4.2. Structural equation model of the involvement in the giving process The proposed structural model in Fig. 3 was tested by using conventional maximum likelihood estimation techniques. The model showed an acceptable fit with a Chi-square ratio (Chi-square/d.f.) of 1.88 and a RMSEA of .0392. Other fit statistics supported the model as well. Nevertheless, several misspecifications could be observed. The main problem that was detected concerned the lack of influence of both the income and the level of education variables. All included paths were non-significant and nearly zero. Modification indices indicated to remove these effects from the model. We decided to estimate a revised model in which the above-suggested changes were adopted. The revised model fitted the data well. The Chi-square ratio decreased to 1.75 and RMSEA decreased to .033. The complete removal of both variables from the model resulted in an acceptable model (Fig. 4). The final model again showed an acceptable fit. Favorable diagnostics include a goodnessof-fit index (GFI) of .95, a root mean square residual (RMR) of .041, a comparative fit index (CFI) of .96, a parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) of .77 and a non-normed fit index (NNFI) of .95. Since most of the test-statistics show an acceptable model, we can look at the causal paths in the final model. Whether or not one has a good feeling on giving gifts is mainly influenced by the attitude one has on wrapping. If people find wrapping and the consequent surprise effect important, they have a greater chance of being satisfied with gift giving in general. Women are more likely to have a positive attitude on wrapping and a higher satisfaction with giving gifts. Especially this last effect is large and highly significant. The topside of the model further shows a strong effect from the satisfaction with giving gifts on the perception that gifts are given as a labour of love. If one feels good by giving gifts, if ones satisfaction is high, this results in a perception of gifts as a labour of friendship and love. Also, gender has an influence on this construct. Strangely enough, there is a negative effect

Fig. 4. Structural model of relation to the gift-giving process.

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

137

from gender. This means that men more often see gift giving as a labour of love than women. Not only had we hypothesised the opposite effect, the negative effect is apparently in contrast with the positive indirect effect from gender over the satisfaction construct to the labour of love construct. We will come back to this later. Living condition did not play a significant role in the first part of the model. However, it does have a significant effect on the Tradition construct. Not all three dummy variables showed a high and significant effect. Since the third dummy did have an effect, we held the three dummy variables in the model. The third dummy variable shows that people who live alone are less inclined to see gift giving as a tradition or an obligation. If people live together with a partner (without children) there is a similar, though non-significant effect. Other living conditions are independent of the tradition construct. The same can be said for gender. Women have a slightly bigger effect on the construct but the size of the effect is small and non-significant. Ultimately, we look at the influence on the perception that gifts can be used as a network tool. This construct is influenced by gender, living conditions and the tradition construct. This last construct has a strong and positive influence on the network construct. People who consider gift giving as something pre-given, as a tradition are more likely to consider gift giving as an instrumental tool that generates and supports social relations. Both the exogenous variables show a negative effect. Women consider gift giving less as a network tool than do men. If we look at the living conditions, we can observe that living with a partner, with or without children, shows the strongest rejection of the network construct. The effects of both dummies are nearly equally sized and both significant. In addition, the effect of living alone is negative but falls just below the 0.05 borderline of significance.

5. Discussion In line with previous research, the results in this article show that gender remains a very significant factor to explain differences in gift-giving behaviour. The other factors we used had much less or no significance. The level of one’s income only had a significant effect on the number of gifts bought. The mean amount of a gift does not rise significantly with the income. It seems that people who have more money to spend will not try to show this off by buying people expensive gifts. However, they will buy gifts for a larger amount of people. This does not have to be a voluntary action as people with more financial resources often have larger social networks. The giving tradition only had an effect on the duration of shopping. That the tradition did not have an effect on the mean amount and the number of gifts could be explained by the phrasing of our questions in the questionnaire. Indeed, respondents were only allowed to report a maximum of five different gifts. However, the real number of gifts when the “giving to everybody”-system is used could be much higher than that. This hypothesis is also confirmed indirectly by the significant effect of the giving tradition on the duration of shopping. Here it is clearly the case that when people have to buy a gift for everybody, they will shop much longer than people who only have to buy something for one family member. Given the restricted effect of the other factors on gift-giving behaviour, gender emerges from our analysis as the only factor with some significant effect. As we expected, women

138

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

give significantly more gifts than men, and also invest more time in buying those gifts. For the latter the gender difference is even larger. Generally, this confirms their role as caretaker and kinkeeper in the symbolic exchange network, at least in the realm of gift giving. More specifically this caring role is confirmed through the fact that women invest much more time in shopping than men. They will often not be satisfied having just “any gift” to present to the recipient (as men may be) but will want to have exactly that present which fits him or her perfectly. They will, in other words, “care” about his or her reaction. However one of our expectations concerning the influence of gender was not confirmed: men’s gifts are not more expensive. There is a slight effect of gender on the mean amount of gifts indicating that this hypothesis would also be verified. However, this effect is not significant. In other words, men do not seem to compensate their lack of involvement in the gift-giving process by spending significantly more money on the fewer gifts they do buy and give. It seems they agree with the principle that it is not the amount but the thought that counts. According to previous studies, women were already convinced of the veracity of this principle. The path analysis also confirms that women are still the chief performers in the gift-giving ritual. The results of the structural equation model show that on top of that women enjoy this central role and deeply engage in it. Women are more likely to stick to the surprise effect of a gift and generally show more satisfaction with the gift-giving process as a whole. However, the three constructs concerning the justification for giving show somewhat different results. The significant effect of gender on the network construct is negative as we expected. Men are more sensitive to the instrumental aspects of gifts. These are not only symbols of a social relation, but can also be deliberately used to create or adjust social relations to gain certain profits. Women are clearly hesitant to use gifts in this way. We hypothesised that women would see gift giving as a tradition, which they are expected to fulfill. The path coefficient is positive, supporting the hypothesis. However, the effect is rather low and not significant. The difference between both sexes on this is less clear as was expected. Probably some items were interpreted differently by men. Certainly the third item ‘I give gifts because I feel obliged to’ can be considered as being confirmed by men, who generally have a lower opinion of gifts and gift-giving traditions. The negative effect of gender on the third factor is unexplainable. There is no clear reason why men are more likely to give gifts out of a general feeling of love and appreciation. The indirect (and much stronger) effect of gender on satisfaction with gift giving and giving gifts as a labour of love makes our initial hypothesis still more likely. Not only gender but also living condition influences people’s attitudes towards giving gifts. Especially the negative effects of the dummy variables on the network construct catch the eye. As we observed earlier, living together with a partner or having children has a clear result on the instrumental use of gifts. People in these situations clearly reject the idea that gifts are used for derived reasons. The most surprising result however was the complete absence of any influence of educational attainment or income. The involvement in the gift-giving process is equal among different social status strata. Being higher educated or belonging to higher income groups makes absolutely no difference. This is similar to what Di Leonardo (1987) found in her research on ItalianAmericans in Northern California. The main reason for this is the untransferable character of gift-giving and kin keeping. Household work and child care can, and is easily, passed on to others.

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

139

6. Conclusion Some gift-giving occasions, like Christmas, are said to be collective rituals that embrace and promote the values of materialism, hedonism and unlimited consumption and unlimited consumption under the veil of traditional values and habits. According to Belk, the modern Christmas is not only a celebration of abundance, prosperity and wealth. It is also “the grand celebration of consumption” (Belk, 1987; Belk & Coon, 1993) and Santa Claus is “a god of materialism and hedonism – of modern consumer culture” (Belk, 1989). Besides that, Santa is also a masculine icon representing the positive side of giving and its connection. The materialist turn in Christmas is believed to turn the symbolic exchange of gifts into more economic exchanges where even money plays a more predominant role. Gift vouchers and cash money pop up more regularly as a gift and internet auction websites like Ebay take care of reselling failed gifts (cf. Sinardet & Mortelmans, 2005). Nevertheless, the different ritual gatherings are reproduced over and over again. The form of the ritual and the penetration of commercial forces have not halted the symbolic labour of exchanging gifts. Also the crucial performers of the ritual have undergone no change. Women are still the chief performers in the gift-giving sphere. As part of the work of kinship, gift giving is (still) women’s labour. This might be in contrast with the changing gender positions in the household work, the end of the male-breadwinner and the female-homemaker model being a much-debated topic in social research (Cappelli, Constantine, & Chadwick, 2000; Janssens, 1997; McGraw, Anisa, & Walker, 2000; Spitze & Loscocco, 1999). The increasing participation of women in the labour market during the past decades is said to be accompanied by a shift in the division of household labour. Several hypotheses have been formed to explain this new division of household labour (Barnett, 1999; Coverman, 1985). Still, the shift towards a more egalitarian division at home goes slow (Buunk, Kluwer, & Schuurman, 2000). However, household labour seems to be perceived differently from the work of kinship, which results in the endurance of traditional role models in this specific type of invisible work. Our results clearly show that traditional role models endure in an important but often invisible aspect of the work of kinship – and more generally of the caretaker role – such as gift giving. The greater satisfaction women show with the gift-giving process and the fact that they see it in a more altruistic and a less instrumental light compared to men suggests that these traditional role models have also been strongly culturally integrated by men and women. This study has limitations. The sample was drawn predominantly among white European respondents, living in Belgium. This implies that the implications of the study are limited to a particular cultural background. By no means, do we assert our results to be generalizable to other cultural backgrounds. Gift-giving cultures and especially gender patterns in these traditions are culture specific. However, we do shed some light on behavioural patterns concerning gifts that might be tested in other cultural settings. A second limitation concerns the aspect of changes. As the consumer society expands continuously, so do changes in traditional giftgiving culture. These changes are not captured in our study because of the cross-sectional nature of the sample. Even though changes in gender patterns may occur rather slowly, these patterns do change. Therefore, new research may not only explore cultural differences but should look at longitudinal changes as well. In that way, our results on the gendered patterns

140

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

of gift giving can be extended. Finally, while we think that the results of our quantitative study have shed new light on the relationship between gender and gift-giving, we also think that this topic lends itself very well to additional research based on more qualitative data and in a more anthropological vein, providing further relevant insight into the matter.

References Administration Planning Statistics. (1999). Vrind 99 Vlaamse regionale indictoren (Flemish regional indicators). Brussels: Departement General Affairs and Finances. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. Arber, S., & Ginn, J. (1999). Gender differences in informal caring. In G. Allan (Ed.), The sociology of the family (pp. 321–339). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. Baldwin, S. (1985). The costs of caring. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Barnett, R. C. (1999). A new work-life model for the twenty-first century. Annals AAPSS, 562(March), 143–158. Belk, R. W. (1987). A child’s Christmas in America: Santa Claus as deity, consumption as religion. Journal of American Culture, 10, 87–100. Belk, R. W. (1989). Materialism and the modern U.S Christmas. Interpretive Consumer Research, 115–135. Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1991). Can’t buy me love: Dating, money, and gifts. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 521–527. Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1993). Gift giving as agapic love: An alternative to the exchange pad. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 341–393. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Blieszner, R., & Allen, J. M. (1990). Family caregiving for the elderly: An overview of resources. Family Relations, 39(1), 97–102. Brody, E. M. (1990). Women in the middle: Their parent-care years. New York: Springer. Buunk, B. P., Kluwer, E. S., & Schuurman, M. K. (2000). The division of labor among egalitarian and traditional women: Differences in discontent, social comparison, and false consensus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 759–779. Caplow, T. (1982). Christmas gifts and kin networks. American Sociological Review, 47, 383–392. Cappelli, P., Constantine, J., & Chadwick, C. (2000). It pays to value family: Work and family tradeoffs reconsidered. Industrial Relations, 39(2), 175–198. Chodorow, N. (1979). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Coverman, S. (1985). Explaining husbands’ participation in domestic labor. The Sociological Quarterly, 26(1), 81–97. Di Leonardo, M. (1987). The female world of cards and holidays: Women, families, and the work of kinship. Signs, 12(3), 440–453. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 35–62. Finch, J. (1989). Family obligations and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Finch, J., & Groves, D. (1983). A labour of love: Women, work and caring. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Fischer, E., & Arnold, S. J. (1990). More than a labor of love: Gender roles and Christmas gift shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 333–345. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 39–50. Goodwin, C., Smith, K. L., & Spiggle, S. (1990). Gift giving: Consumer motivation and the gift purchase process. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 690–698.

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

141

Graham, H. (1999). The informal sector of welfare: A crisis in caring? In G. Allan (Ed.), The sociology of the family (pp. 283–299). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. North Carolina: SAS Institute. Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift. New York: Viking. Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 62, 597–606. Janssens, A. (1997). The rise and decline of the male breadwinner family? An overview of the debate. International Review of Social History, 42(Suppl.), 1–24. Komter, A. (1997). Het geschenk (The gift). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Komter, A., & Vollebergh, W. (1997). Gift giving and the emotional significance of family and friends. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 747–757. Lamb, M. E. (1995). Paternal influences on child development. In M. C. P. Van Dongen, G. A. B. Frinking, & M. J. G. Jacobs (Eds.), Changing fatherhood. An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 145–157). Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers. Lamb, M. E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement: An overview. Marriage and Family Review, 29(2), 23–42. Lewis, J., & Meredith, B. (1988). Daughters who care. London: Routledge. Macklin, M. C., & Walker, M. (1988). The joy and irritation of gift giving. Developments in Marketing Science, 11, 28–32. Malinowski, B. (1978). Argonauts of the western pacific. An account of native enterprise and adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian. New Guinea, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodnes-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391–410. Mauss, M. (1950). Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques. In M. Mauss (Ed.), Sociologie et anthropologie (p. 386). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. McGrath, M. A. (1995). Gender differences in gift exchanges: New directions from projections. Psychology & Marketing, 12(5), 371–393. McGraw, L. A., Zvonkonic, Anisa, M., & Walker, A. J. (2000). Studying postmodern families: A feminist analysis of ethical tensions in work and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(February), 68–77. Mortelmans, D., & Damen, S. (2001). Attitudes on commercialisation and anti-commercial reactions on gift giving occasions in Belgium. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1(2), 156–173. Mortelmans, D., & Sinardet, D. (2004). The role of gender in gift buying in Belgium. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 96(2), 31–39. Rosental, C. J. (1985). Kinkeeping in the familial division of labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 965–974. Rucker, M., & Dolstra, J. (1993). Gifts as tokens of appreciation: New tests for old models. In R. Varadarajan & B. Jaworski (Eds.), Marketing theory and applications (pp. 55–56). Illinois: American Marketing Association. Rucker, M., Leckliter, L., Kivel, S., Dinkel, M., Freitas, T., Wynes, M., et al. (1991). When the thought counts: Friendship, love, gift exchanges and gift returns. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 528–531. Scanzoni, J., & Szinovacz, M. (1980). Family decision-making: A developmental sex role model. Beverly Hills: Sage. Schuyt, T. N. M. (Ed.). (1997). Geven in Nederland (Giving in The Netherlands). Houten/Diegem: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum. Sinardet, D., & Mortelmans, D. (2005). Preserving the front stage: Causes, consequences and the symbolic meaning of failed gift exchanges. International Review of Modern Sociology, 31(2), 251–275. Spitze, G., & Loscocco, K. (1999). Women’s position in the household. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 39, 647–661. Stone, R., Cafferata, G. L., & Sangl, J. (1987). Caregivers of the frail elderly: A national profile. The Gerontologist, 27(5), 616–626. Weiner, A. B. (1992). Inalienable possessions. The paradox of keeping while giving. Berkeley: University of California Press.

142

D. Sinardet, D. Mortelmans / The Social Science Journal 46 (2009) 124–142

Wilska, T.-A. (2002). Me—a consumer? Consumption, identities and lifestyles in today’s Finland. Acta Sociologica, 45(3), 195–210. Wolfinbarger, M. F., & Gilly, M. C. (1991). The relationship of gender to gift-giving attitudes (or are men insensitive clods?). Gender and Consumer Behavior, 11, 223–233.