4 ms·

The Effect of Wrapping Neatness on Gift Attitudes

30 points by mhb 7y ago

JamesCoyne 7y ago
Does HN allow Sci-Hub links?
- JamesCoyne 7y ago
  https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/jcpy.1140 https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/jcpy.1140
  - jraph 7y ago
    By the way, should this host not work on your domestic connection, I do not advise you to switch away from your ISP DNS, nor, alternatively, to put the following line: 186.2.163.171 sci-hub.se in your hosts file. Or 186.2.163.90 sci-hub.tw for that matter.
    - papln 7y ago
      Is it important to match the IP address to the domain name? I assume that all the hosted sites are mirrors of each other.
      - jraph 7y ago
        I just tried, and yes, it is important to match the correct host with the ip address. The server uses the Host HTTP header to find the right virtual host and send the right SSL certificate. A wrong match seems to break the site. But your assumption is right, I believe all these hosts are otherwise identical mirrors of Sci-Hub.
    - andreareina 7y ago
      And if you find that your ISP is intercepting and modifying DNS traffic from 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8 or what-have-you, definitely don't enable DNS over HTTPS.
papln 7y ago
Related, via https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3T6p93Mut7G8qdkAs/evaluability-and-cheap-holiday-shopping https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3T6p93Mut7G8qdkAs/evaluabili... > According to Hsee—in a paper entitled “Less is Better”—if you buy someone a $45 scarf, you are more likely to be seen as generous than if you buy them a $55 coat. and https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/less-is-better-effect/ https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclope... > When objects are evaluated separately rather than jointly, decision makers focus less on attributes that are important and are influenced more by attributes that are easy to evaluate. The less-is-better effect suggests a preference reversal when objects are considered together instead of separately. One study presented participants with two dinner set options. Option A included 40 pieces, nine of which were broken. Option B included 24 pieces, all of which were intact. Option A was superior, as it included 31 intact pieces. When evaluated separately, individuals were willing to pay a higher price for set B. In a joint evaluation of both options, on the other hand, Option A resulted in higher willingness to pay (Hsee, 1998). So put a fancy trinket in shabby wrapping, for maximum impact.
- notafraudster 7y ago
  Not really sure why the first one is viewed as "less is better" at all. The design doesn't rule out the idea that someone would prefer a $150 coat to a $45 scarf. To me all it demonstrates is that generosity is at least partially anchored in the quality of a gift relative to the category it was selected in -- I'd rather a really nice scarf than a really crummy coat, even if coats cost more than scarfs. I can experiment this way on myself: if someone got me a gorgeous, $25 pocket square, I'd derive much more utility than if they got me a hideous $300 Men's Warehouse cotton-poly suit. And you could even read this a third way: some objects you want one of (I don't need a second microwave, for instance, even if it's better than the one I own) and some objects you want many of (I would be happy with any bottles of Scotch!) The second study also lends itself to more rational / less "behavioural" explanations. First, it's possible there's diminishing marginal returns between 24 and 31 pieces to the point that f(31) ~= f(24) and f(31) - disposal_cost < f(24). Second, perhaps utility for a dinner set depends on its quality as in the first study. I have a relatively diffuse prior about the quality of the dinner sets, but by learning that Option A has 9 broken pieces, I update my belief so that I now think Option A has 31 crummy pieces and Option B has 24 decent pieces. Maybe the brokenness of the 9 pieces is orthogonal to the quality of the various sets, but in general this would seem to be a good heuristic and a smart use of updating. To take either of these things as a conclusion about expectation setting or less-is-more seems silly to me. More is more, but only in utility terms, not in raw input dollars.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> We recruited 180 university students who participated for extra credit (60.6% female, Mage = 25.71, SD = 6.40). Just like we have cured pretty much every disease in studies in mice, I am sure that in the social studies college demographic (who participate in studies for extra credit) we have decoded the human psyche. Unfortunately, often the mouse studies and college student social studies translate poorly to the real world.
- notafraudster 7y ago
  I would think a stronger indictment of the external validity of the study is not the sample (I have no reason to believe people slightly older/younger are materially different than college students, and to the extent that wealth is a confounder I would expect the direction of confounding to attenuate the study as presented), but rather the design: the way people perceive "prizes" won from participating in a study is materially different than the way they appreciate gifts given to them by people they know and have a bond with. There's also an internal validity argument to be made that the effect size is trivial in substantive terms. 7.06 versus 7.82 on a 9 point scale of satisfaction for a mug? Who gives a shit? I would interpret both 7.06 and 7.82 as "I like this gift, it is a good gift". And also, who cares about getting a mug? If a mug is anchored at a 7-7.8 for me, then every gift I actually get from loved ones is going to be about a 500 out of 9. Study 3 is meant to deal with the social-emotional element of giving a gift, but that's the only study where people don't actually get a gift. They use MTurkers and ask them to imagine. I would completely ignore this part of the study. The more interesting takeaway here is the 1.5 point spread in anticipation between neat and sloppily wrapped gifts in Study 2. That's a way bigger effect than I'd think.
lliamander 7y ago
So, should I stop working on improving my gift wrapping skills? "I got you some new socks, and since I wrapped it in a bundle of old newspaper, you'll like it better!"
swayvil 7y ago
Speaking of gift-wrapping. Speaking as a guy who takes gift-wrapping very seriously (I even print my own paper). I have one word to say about "gift bags". Shameful.
- andreareina 7y ago
  Do you have a large-format printer, tend to give small gifts that can be wrapped with a single sheet of letter/a4 paper, or just use multiple pieces per gift? What paper do you use?
  - swayvil 7y ago
    I get my prints done at the the office supply store. Large format inkjet on the cheapest paper (they call it engineering paper). A print the size of a door for $6.

30 points by mhb 7y ago

JamesCoyne 7y ago

Does HN allow Sci-Hub links?

JamesCoyne 7y ago
https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/jcpy.1140 https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/jcpy.1140
- jraph 7y ago
  By the way, should this host not work on your domestic connection, I do not advise you to switch away from your ISP DNS, nor, alternatively, to put the following line: 186.2.163.171 sci-hub.se in your hosts file. Or 186.2.163.90 sci-hub.tw for that matter.
  - papln 7y ago
    Is it important to match the IP address to the domain name? I assume that all the hosted sites are mirrors of each other.
    - jraph 7y ago
      I just tried, and yes, it is important to match the correct host with the ip address. The server uses the Host HTTP header to find the right virtual host and send the right SSL certificate. A wrong match seems to break the site. But your assumption is right, I believe all these hosts are otherwise identical mirrors of Sci-Hub.
  - andreareina 7y ago
    And if you find that your ISP is intercepting and modifying DNS traffic from 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8 or what-have-you, definitely don't enable DNS over HTTPS.

papln 7y ago

Related, via https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3T6p93Mut7G8qdkAs/evaluability-and-cheap-holiday-shopping https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3T6p93Mut7G8qdkAs/evaluabili... > According to Hsee—in a paper entitled “Less is Better”—if you buy someone a $45 scarf, you are more likely to be seen as generous than if you buy them a $55 coat. and https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/less-is-better-effect/ https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclope... > When objects are evaluated separately rather than jointly, decision makers focus less on attributes that are important and are influenced more by attributes that are easy to evaluate. The less-is-better effect suggests a preference reversal when objects are considered together instead of separately. One study presented participants with two dinner set options. Option A included 40 pieces, nine of which were broken. Option B included 24 pieces, all of which were intact. Option A was superior, as it included 31 intact pieces. When evaluated separately, individuals were willing to pay a higher price for set B. In a joint evaluation of both options, on the other hand, Option A resulted in higher willingness to pay (Hsee, 1998). So put a fancy trinket in shabby wrapping, for maximum impact.

notafraudster 7y ago
Not really sure why the first one is viewed as "less is better" at all. The design doesn't rule out the idea that someone would prefer a $150 coat to a $45 scarf. To me all it demonstrates is that generosity is at least partially anchored in the quality of a gift relative to the category it was selected in -- I'd rather a really nice scarf than a really crummy coat, even if coats cost more than scarfs. I can experiment this way on myself: if someone got me a gorgeous, $25 pocket square, I'd derive much more utility than if they got me a hideous $300 Men's Warehouse cotton-poly suit. And you could even read this a third way: some objects you want one of (I don't need a second microwave, for instance, even if it's better than the one I own) and some objects you want many of (I would be happy with any bottles of Scotch!) The second study also lends itself to more rational / less "behavioural" explanations. First, it's possible there's diminishing marginal returns between 24 and 31 pieces to the point that f(31) ~= f(24) and f(31) - disposal_cost < f(24). Second, perhaps utility for a dinner set depends on its quality as in the first study. I have a relatively diffuse prior about the quality of the dinner sets, but by learning that Option A has 9 broken pieces, I update my belief so that I now think Option A has 31 crummy pieces and Option B has 24 decent pieces. Maybe the brokenness of the 9 pieces is orthogonal to the quality of the various sets, but in general this would seem to be a good heuristic and a smart use of updating. To take either of these things as a conclusion about expectation setting or less-is-more seems silly to me. More is more, but only in utility terms, not in raw input dollars.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

> We recruited 180 university students who participated for extra credit (60.6% female, Mage = 25.71, SD = 6.40). Just like we have cured pretty much every disease in studies in mice, I am sure that in the social studies college demographic (who participate in studies for extra credit) we have decoded the human psyche. Unfortunately, often the mouse studies and college student social studies translate poorly to the real world.

notafraudster 7y ago
I would think a stronger indictment of the external validity of the study is not the sample (I have no reason to believe people slightly older/younger are materially different than college students, and to the extent that wealth is a confounder I would expect the direction of confounding to attenuate the study as presented), but rather the design: the way people perceive "prizes" won from participating in a study is materially different than the way they appreciate gifts given to them by people they know and have a bond with. There's also an internal validity argument to be made that the effect size is trivial in substantive terms. 7.06 versus 7.82 on a 9 point scale of satisfaction for a mug? Who gives a shit? I would interpret both 7.06 and 7.82 as "I like this gift, it is a good gift". And also, who cares about getting a mug? If a mug is anchored at a 7-7.8 for me, then every gift I actually get from loved ones is going to be about a 500 out of 9. Study 3 is meant to deal with the social-emotional element of giving a gift, but that's the only study where people don't actually get a gift. They use MTurkers and ask them to imagine. I would completely ignore this part of the study. The more interesting takeaway here is the 1.5 point spread in anticipation between neat and sloppily wrapped gifts in Study 2. That's a way bigger effect than I'd think.

lliamander 7y ago

So, should I stop working on improving my gift wrapping skills? "I got you some new socks, and since I wrapped it in a bundle of old newspaper, you'll like it better!"

swayvil 7y ago

Speaking of gift-wrapping. Speaking as a guy who takes gift-wrapping very seriously (I even print my own paper). I have one word to say about "gift bags". Shameful.

andreareina 7y ago
Do you have a large-format printer, tend to give small gifts that can be wrapped with a single sheet of letter/a4 paper, or just use multiple pieces per gift? What paper do you use?
- swayvil 7y ago
  I get my prints done at the the office supply store. Large format inkjet on the cheapest paper (they call it engineering paper). A print the size of a door for $6.