tag:theconversation.com,2011:/institutions/new-york-institute-of-technology-3340/articlesNew York Institute of Technology2024-02-21T13:22:53Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2224732024-02-21T13:22:53Z2024-02-21T13:22:53ZAre our fears of saying ‘no’ overblown?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/576255/original/file-20240216-28-feso3m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=50%2C8%2C5540%2C3724&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We can be unduly hard on ourselves as we grapple with the implications of declining an invitation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/man-using-cell-phone-behind-translucent-glass-royalty-free-image/1015918742?phrase=typing%2Bno%2Bthank%2Byou%2Binto%2Bphone">Yifei Fang/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Everyone has been there. You get invited to something that you absolutely do not want to attend – a holiday party, a family cookout, an expensive trip. But doubts and anxieties creep into your head as you weigh whether to decline.</p>
<p>You might wonder if you’ll upset the person who invited you. Maybe it’ll harm the friendship, or they won’t extend an invite to the next get-together.</p>
<p>Should you just grit your teeth and go? Or are you worrying more than you should about saying “no”? </p>
<h2>An imaginary faux pas</h2>
<p>We explored these questions <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000443">in a recently published study</a>.</p>
<p>In a pilot study that we ran ahead of the main studies, we found that 77% of our 51 respondents had accepted an invitation to an event that they didn’t want to attend, fearing blowback if they were to decline. They worried that saying no might upset, anger or sadden the person who invited them. They also worried that they wouldn’t be invited to events down the road and that their own invitations would be rebuffed.</p>
<p>We then ran a series of studies in which we asked some people to imagine declining an invitation, and then report their assumptions about how the person extending the invite would feel. We asked other participants to imagine that someone had declined invitations they had extended themselves. Then we asked them how they felt about the rejection. </p>
<p>We ended up finding quite the mismatch. People tend to assume others will react poorly when an invitation isn’t accepted. But they’re relatively unaffected when someone turns down an invite they’ve extended.</p>
<p>In fact, people extending invites were much more understanding – and less upset, angry or sad – than invitees anticipated. They also said they would be rather unlikely to let a single declined invitation keep them from offering or accepting invitations in the future.</p>
<p>We found that the asymmetry between people extending and receiving invites occurred regardless of whether it involved two friends, a new couple or two people who had been in a relationship for a long time.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="One speech bubble with a question mark in it, and another with an ellipses, indicating contemplation or a brief moment of speechlessness." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/576254/original/file-20240216-16-93bp3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/576254/original/file-20240216-16-93bp3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/576254/original/file-20240216-16-93bp3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/576254/original/file-20240216-16-93bp3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/576254/original/file-20240216-16-93bp3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/576254/original/file-20240216-16-93bp3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/576254/original/file-20240216-16-93bp3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People are pretty understanding when their invitations are rebuffed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/question-bubble-and-chatting-bubble-royalty-free-image/1448380909?phrase=saying+No&adppopup=true">Carol Yepes/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Why does this happen? </p>
<p>Our findings suggest that when someone declines an invitation, they think the person who invited them will focus on the cold, hard rejection. But in reality, the person extending the invite is more likely to focus on the thoughts and deliberations that ran through the head of the person who declined. They’ll tend to assume that the invitee gave due consideration to the prospect of accepting, and this generally leaves them less bothered than might be expected.</p>
<p>Interestingly, while our research examined invitations to fun events – dinners out to restaurants with a visiting celebrity chef and trips to quirky museum exhibits – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000457">other studies</a> have found that the same pattern emerges when someone is asked to do a favor and they decline. </p>
<p>Even with these less enjoyable requests, people overestimate the negative implications of saying no.</p>
<h2>Lay the groundwork for future invites</h2>
<p>There are a few things you can do to make things easier on yourself as you grapple with whether to decline an invitation.</p>
<p>First, imagine that you were the one extending the invitation. Our research shows that people are less likely to overestimate the negative implications of declining an invitation after they envision how they would feel if someone turned down their invite.</p>
<p>Second, if money is a reason you’re considering passing on a dinner or a trip, share that with the person who invited you – as long as you feel comfortable doing so, of course. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1226">Other research</a> has found that people are especially understanding when people cite finances as their reason for declining.</p>
<p>Third, consider the “no but” strategy <a href="https://www.self.com/story/saying-no-to-invitations">that some therapists suggest</a>. Decline the invitation, but offer to do something else with the person who invited you.</p>
<p>With this method, you’re making it clear to the person who invited you that you’re not rejecting them; rather, you’re declining the activity. A bonus with this strategy is that you have the opportunity to suggest doing something that you actually want to do. </p>
<p>Of course, there’s a caveat to all of this: If you decline every invitation sent your way, at some point they’ll probably stop coming.</p>
<p>But assuming you aren’t a habitual naysayer, don’t beat yourself up if you end up declining an invitation every now and then. Chances are that the person who invited you will be less bothered than you think.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222473/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Nearly 80% of people have accepted invitations to events they didn’t want to attend.Julian Givi, Assistant Professor of Marketing, West Virginia UniversityColleen P. Kirk, Assistant Professor of Marketing, New York Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1373802020-04-29T20:04:00Z2020-04-29T20:04:00ZSay hello to the ‘crazy beast’ mammal who lived among the dinosaurs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330918/original/file-20200428-76576-1m8yy1m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C37%2C2500%2C1362&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Scott Hartman (skeletaldrawing@gmail.com)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A species of mammal that lived in what is now Madagascar when dinosaurs roamed the island has finally been <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2234-8" title="Skeleton of a Cretaceous mammal from Madagascar reflects long-term insularity">described today in Nature</a>. </p>
<p>The work is based on a complete skeleton of the animal found more than two decades ago.</p>
<p>The cat-sized animal, known as <em>Adalatherium hui</em> or “crazy beast”, has features not found in today’s mammals, so it could be one of evolution’s abandoned experiments in developing new life.</p>
<h2>The origin of mammals</h2>
<p>Almost all the mammals today fall into two groups: the placentals (which includes dogs, mice, whales, cows and us) and marsupials (kangaroos, the koala and the Tasmanian devil). While very distinctive today, both these groups were mostly small and mouse-like in the time of the dinosaurs. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-how-do-we-know-if-a-dinosaur-skeleton-is-from-a-child-dinosaur-or-an-adult-dinosaur-125562">Curious Kids: how do we know if a dinosaur skeleton is from a child dinosaur or an adult dinosaur?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>During this time, several other types of mammals roamed the Earth. Some were the ancestors of modern mammals, but many others are long extinct. We see glimpses into these little known and extinct mammal groups but they are a mystery to us.</p>
<p>Since the 1980s strange fossil teeth have been found in places such as <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-012-0919-z" title="Persistence of a Mesozoic, non-therian mammalian lineage (Gondwanatheria) in the mid-Paleogene of Patagonia">South America</a>, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1671/0272-4634%282007%2927%5B521%3ALCSGFI%5D2.0.CO%3B2" title="Late Cretaceous sudamericid gondwanatherians from India with paleobiogeographic considerations of Gondwanan mammals">India</a> and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242879814_Cosmopolitanism_among_Gondwanan_Late_Cretaceous_mammals" title="Cosmopolitanism among Gondwanan Late Cretaceous mammals">Madagascar</a>. These modern landmasses were once joined as part of the southern supercontinent known as <a href="https://www.britannica.com/place/Gondwana-supercontinent">Gondwana</a>. The strange fossil mammals found there are named the Gondwanatheria.</p>
<p>When all that is known of an animal is its teeth, it is a challenge to distinguish what exactly it is and how it relates to the fossil remains of better understood groups of early mammals.</p>
<h2>We needed a skeleton</h2>
<p>The breakthrough came when a team of palaeontologists (led by Dave Krause) discovered the first intact skeleton during excavations in Madagascar in 1999.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331233/original/file-20200429-110770-1h5hm87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331233/original/file-20200429-110770-1h5hm87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331233/original/file-20200429-110770-1h5hm87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331233/original/file-20200429-110770-1h5hm87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331233/original/file-20200429-110770-1h5hm87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331233/original/file-20200429-110770-1h5hm87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331233/original/file-20200429-110770-1h5hm87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331233/original/file-20200429-110770-1h5hm87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A plaster jacket containing the skeleton of <em>Adalatherium hui</em> is carried from the excavation site. (David Krause, front left).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo courtesy of National Geographic Society/Maria Stenzel.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This remarkable find, dated to near the end of the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/Cretaceous-Period">Cretaceous period</a> (66 million years ago), showed gondwanatherians were different from all other mammals known.</p>
<p>There were so many mysteries surrounding how this animal looked that it remained a challenge to relate this species back to other mammals. As a result, the process of scientific description was long and complicated.</p>
<h2>Introducing the ‘crazy beast’</h2>
<p>We gave the full skeleton the name <em>Adalatherium hui</em>. It’s a combination of a Malagasy word “Adàla” meaning “crazy” and Greek word “therium” for “beast”, in reference to the many strange features found in this unusual mammal.</p>
<p>The skeleton was encased in a block of sandstone, which was delicately sculpted away to reveal the bones in almost life position.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330919/original/file-20200428-76598-1hd2eh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330919/original/file-20200428-76598-1hd2eh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330919/original/file-20200428-76598-1hd2eh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330919/original/file-20200428-76598-1hd2eh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330919/original/file-20200428-76598-1hd2eh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330919/original/file-20200428-76598-1hd2eh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330919/original/file-20200428-76598-1hd2eh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330919/original/file-20200428-76598-1hd2eh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Skeleton of <em>Adalatherium hui</em> in sandstone.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marylou Stewart</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Because it was so fragile, we relied on X-ray <a href="https://www.microphotonics.com/what-is-micro-ct-an-introduction/">microCT</a> scanning through the rock to digitally map the bones and teeth. Some of the fossil parts were shattered, the back teeth and the braincase in particular.</p>
<p>Over hundreds of hours, the minute fragments of teeth were painstakingly put back together in a 3D jigsaw puzzle in the computer.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/s5wNuqkaIlQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption"><em>Adalatherium</em> tooth being reconstructed.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Each component could then be 3D-printed at real size, or enlarged to see the features better.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331228/original/file-20200429-110757-ml4n1x.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331228/original/file-20200429-110757-ml4n1x.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331228/original/file-20200429-110757-ml4n1x.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331228/original/file-20200429-110757-ml4n1x.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331228/original/file-20200429-110757-ml4n1x.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331228/original/file-20200429-110757-ml4n1x.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331228/original/file-20200429-110757-ml4n1x.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331228/original/file-20200429-110757-ml4n1x.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alistair Evans with 3D-printed <em>Adalatherium</em> teeth at four times real size.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gudrun Evans</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A most bizarre mammal</h2>
<p>There is much about this animal that was so unusual. Features of the skull (the largest number of small holes for nerves and blood vessels in any mammal) and ear bones (small ridges inside the cochlea) have never been found in other mammals. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cY8jVAsjdrM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption"><em>Adalatherium</em> skeleton and 3D reconstruction.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Among the most bizarre features in <em>Adalatherium</em> are its teeth. Not only did this species have mouse-like ever-growing front teeth, but the rear teeth are completely unlike those of any other mammal that has ever been described. </p>
<p>The ridges and bumps on teeth are generally very consistent within each group of mammals, so they can act like a fingerprint to tell us who they are. <em>Adalatherium</em> has a new fingerprint, with a diamond-shaped ridge running around the outside of each tooth that interlocks with its opposing tooth in the other jaw.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331231/original/file-20200429-110775-1nezuc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331231/original/file-20200429-110775-1nezuc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331231/original/file-20200429-110775-1nezuc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331231/original/file-20200429-110775-1nezuc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331231/original/file-20200429-110775-1nezuc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331231/original/file-20200429-110775-1nezuc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331231/original/file-20200429-110775-1nezuc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331231/original/file-20200429-110775-1nezuc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mounted cast skeleton of <em>Adalatherium hui</em>.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Courtesy of Triebold Paleontology.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>From examining its unusually bowed leg bones, strong back muscles and big claws on the back feet, we suggest <em>Adalatherium</em> was a robust animal, perhaps capable of digging for food or shelter. Its unusual teeth may indicate a plant diet.</p>
<p>The dramatic differences between <em>Adalatherium</em> and all other mammals known, past and present, shows there is more than one way to be a mammal.</p>
<p>The Gondwanatherians therefore represent an experiment in evolution, one of a number of early mammal groups where different body shapes and ways of life were still being tinkered with, before most died out, leaving the familiar mammals of today.</p>
<h2>Island life for dinosaur-age mammals</h2>
<p>One reason this group became so different likely relates back to where it was living: on an island.</p>
<p><em>Adalatherium</em> lived in what is now Madagascar, which at that time had already been set adrift, separated from what became mainland Africa and the other major landmasses for tens of millions of years.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-smart-were-our-ancestors-turns-out-the-answer-isnt-in-brain-size-but-blood-flow-130387">How smart were our ancestors? Turns out the answer isn't in brain size, but blood flow</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Strange things can happen on islands. Very large animals evolve to become smaller, perhaps because there is not enough food on the island to feed a population of giants.</p>
<p>Conversely, very small animals sometimes evolve to become larger, especially if there are no large predators on the island with them. Such was the case with the <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/2/150217-lemur-cave-madagascar-graveyard/">gorilla-sized lemurs</a> that lived on Madagascar only a few thousand years ago, before humans arrived.</p>
<p>This is known as the <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/gigantism-and-dwarfism-islands/">island effect</a> and may explain why <em>Adalatherium</em> is one of the largest mammals of its era. It was around the size of a domestic cat at about 3.1kg, possibly due to its freedom from competitors on its island home.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137380/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alistair Evans receives funding from Australian Research Council, and is an Honorary Research Affiliate at Museums Victoria. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Krause receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation. David Krause is also the Founder and CEO of the Madagascar Ankizy Fund (<a href="http://www.ankizy.org">www.ankizy.org</a>), a not-for-profit organization whose mission it is to provide education and healthcare to children living in remote areas of Madagascar.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simone Hoffmann receives funding from The National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>This ancient cat-sized animal lived millions of years ago and had features not found in any of today’s mammals.Alistair Evans, Associate Professor, Monash UniversityDavid Krause, Emeritus Distinguished Service Professor, Stony Brook University (The State University of New York)Simone Hoffmann, Assistant professor, New York Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1248482019-11-06T12:35:47Z2019-11-06T12:35:47ZMany states now require anti-bullying training that includes a focus on LGBTQ students – but risks remain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299271/original/file-20191029-183142-1fnbhg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C29%2C3759%2C2308&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tyler Clementi's 2010 death inspired anti-bullying efforts.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Rutgers-Suicide/430145e818c640dd97be721cc42ca57d/7/0">AP Photo/Mel Evans</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/02/06/the-story-of-a-suicide">Dharun Ravi</a> spent spent weeks gossiping with his friends about the sexual orientation of his freshman roommate at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Initially, he texted and used social media.</p>
<p>His roommate, Tyler Clementi, eventually learned that Ravi had used a web-cam to secretly film his intimate moments with another man. On Sept. 22, 2010, Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge.</p>
<p>In January 2011, the state responded by passing the <a href="https://www.njea.org/issues/anti-bullying/">Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights</a>. While <a href="http://www.bullypolice.org/">all 50 states</a> have passed anti-bullying laws in the past decade, mainly to address growing concerns over cyberbullying, <a href="https://www.njspotlight.com/2016/02/16-02-01-explainer-tough-anti-bullying-law-guides-schools-in-dealing-with-harassment-intimidation/">New Jersey’s</a> is among the strongest. </p>
<p>I’m an instructor for New York state’s <a href="http://www.p12.nysed.gov/dignityact/">anti-bullying training programs</a> for public school staff, providing the six hours of required training mandated by <a href="http://www.nysed.gov/content/dignity-all-students-act-dasa">the state’s law,</a> which was implemented in 2012. I also consult with school counselors to create programs and events designed to prevent bullying and improve school culture. </p>
<p>I have <a href="https://academicminute.org/2017/10/dan-cinotti-new-york-institute-of-technology-lgbtq-bullying/">trained more than 3,000 teachers, counselors, administrators</a> and other educators to identify and intervene when bullying occurs. In my work, I can see that although not everyone remembers Clementi’s tragic death, it had lasting consequences.</p>
<h2>Changing definitions</h2>
<p>After six years of intense and complicated litigation, Ravi was convicted of <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/27/499663847/roommate-pleads-guilty-in-rutgers-suicide-case">attempting to invade Clementi’s privacy</a>, but the state dropped 14 other charges against him. In 2010, what he and his friends did wasn’t legally considered “<a href="https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bullying/">bullying</a>” – aggressive behavior that usually is repeated and intended to harass, threaten or intimidate someone.</p>
<p>In the decade since Clementi’s death, the public’s understanding of <a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/02/ce-corner">what constitutes bullying has changed</a>, and not just on college campuses. The definition of the word itself has broadened to include behaviors that may not be repeated or even intended to be hurtful.</p>
<p>Now, under most <a href="http://www.bullypolice.org/">state anti-bullying laws governing public schools</a> a single incident could be reported as bullying. And specific personal characteristics have <a href="https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/protected-classes-under-anti-discrimination-laws.html">become protected</a> in much of the country, including the 21 states that explicitly prohibit bullying on the bases of <a href="https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/safe_school_laws">sexual orientation and gender identity</a>.</p>
<p>Even incidents of unintentional or even unconscious comments or actions that cause harm, <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microaggression">commonly called “microagressions</a>,” are now increasingly being <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/microaggressions-in-everyday-life/201101/bullying-microaggressions">recognized in many states</a> as bullying.</p>
<p>These policy changes have occurred as the percentage of Americans who identify as LGBTQ has <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx">steadily risen</a>. The Gallup polling organization estimates that 4.5% of Americans are <a href="https://news.gallup.com/opinion/methodology/259457/measure-lgbt-population.aspx">lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender</a> but other research suggests that the <a href="https://www.prri.org/research/mtv-culture-and-religion/">share of teens who are LGBTQ</a> is much higher than that. </p>
<p>What’s more, some 3% of high school freshmen, sophomores and juniors are identifying as transgender, “gender non-conforming” or “genderqueer,” a team of <a href="https://www.health.umn.edu/news/news-releases/umn-study-nearly-3-minnesota-students-identify-transgender-gender-nonconforming">University of Minnesota</a> researchers have estimated.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299270/original/file-20191029-183136-7omipk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=112%2C76%2C2883%2C1320&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299270/original/file-20191029-183136-7omipk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=112%2C76%2C2883%2C1320&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299270/original/file-20191029-183136-7omipk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299270/original/file-20191029-183136-7omipk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299270/original/file-20191029-183136-7omipk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299270/original/file-20191029-183136-7omipk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299270/original/file-20191029-183136-7omipk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299270/original/file-20191029-183136-7omipk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tammy Aaberg created a support group for young people harassed over their sexuality after her 15-year-old son Justin committed suicide in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Anti-Gay-Bullying/b9e675869e8d46ebb787fe680bb80a19/3/0">AP Photo/Jim Mone</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Suicidal thoughts</h2>
<p>A growing number of students now use a <a href="https://www.itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/">galaxy of terminology</a> under the umbrella of “transgender” – a term for anyone who doesn’t self-identify as the sex they were assigned at birth. </p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/GLSEN-2017-National-School-Climate-Survey-NSCS-Full-Report.pdf">2017 National School Climate Survey</a>, more than half of LGBTQ youth experienced verbal harassment and about a quarter were physically bullied. Almost half of LGBTQ youth generally felt unsafe in their schools due to their gender expression. </p>
<p>Notably, nearly two-thirds of the transgender teens who took part in the University of Minnesota study reported that they had experienced suicidal thoughts – triple the rate for their peers – at a time when <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/youth-suicide-rates-are-on-the-rise-in-the-u-s">youth suicide attempts are rising</a>.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.10.303">quarter of children between the ages of 12 and 14 who complete suicide</a> are LGBTQ, according to a study by Geoffrey Ream, a social work associate professor at Adelphi University.</p>
<h2>Being indirect but dangerous</h2>
<p>Feeling unsafe at school is not only a product of name-calling, slurs or getting pushed in the hallway. It’s also related to <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/understanding-implicit-bias-4165634">implicit bias</a> and microaggressions against LGBTQ students. Implicit bias refers to negative beliefs about a group derived from attitudes or stereotypes that occur largely outside of conscious awareness and control. </p>
<p>The federal definition of bullying acknowledges that there are two bullying modes: <a href="https://www.stopbullying.gov/media/facts/index.html#definition">direct and indirect </a>.</p>
<p>The direct kind occurs in person or through emails and texts. It can include taunting, name-calling or harassing messages on social media. As many as 1 in 3 U.S. students say they have experienced this form of <a href="https://www.stopbullying.gov/media/facts/index.html#stats">bullying at school</a>, most commonly in middle school.</p>
<p>The indirect variety happens out of sight. Like in Tyler Clementi’s case, it can occur through the spreading of rumors or gossip and is intended to harm someone’s reputation. A good example would be a series of tweets, meant to belittle someone or damage their reputation but not sent directly to them. </p>
<h2>Recognizing the less obvious kinds of bullying</h2>
<p>But despite changes in the law, including increased protections for LGBTQ students in public schools, bullying is still a problem between pre-K and high school – as well as <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/26/mental-health-help-college-discuss-before-your-child-leaves-column/2115468001/">in college</a>. In my experience, schools fail to do enough about bullying when staff members frown upon <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-016-0089-9">intolerant behavior</a> without addressing it head on.</p>
<p>Adults who fail to take action when they witness bullying, or who even model intolerant behaviors themselves, send signals to their students without even realizing it. When that happens, they can end up making a school’s bullying problems even worse by condoning discrimination and creating a culture of intolerance. </p>
<p>It is clear to me that the teachers and counselors I train need additional guidance to fully support their LGBTQ students. For example, many of these school employees don’t understand the differences between <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php">sex, gender</a> and sexual orientation.</p>
<p>Traditionally the term sex is a label that refers to biological traits including sex organs and chromosomes. It is assigned at birth, by a doctor, and goes on your birth certificate. Gender refers to characteristics that differentiate masculinity from femininity and the degree to which a person displays these traits. Sexual orientation refers to who you are attracted to and have intimate relationships with. </p>
<p>But laws like New Jersey’s Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights require public schools to respond with appropriate interventions, including consequences for the students who bullied. </p>
<p>And, unfortunately, many of the counselors and teachers I’ve trained don’t seem to recognize the less obvious forms of bullying behaviors. A good amount of the six hours I have with them is focused on identifying and addressing direct bullying.</p>
<p>It would take a lot more time to truly get them up to speed. Unless school administrators, teachers, and counselors start to deal with the underlying causes of the bullying of LGBTQ students, I fear that preventing tragedies like the one that occurred in a Rutgers University dorm will never be possible.</p>
<p>[ <em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124848/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel A Cinotti works for New York Institute of Technology, which runs for-pay anti-bullying training on the DASA law. Daniel is an employed DASA instructor for NYIT and receives $700/session taught through the institution. If the article results in more educators attending and paying the $80 registration fee, both NYIT and the author will benefit.</span></em></p>Nearly a decade after Tyler Clementi’s death, there are growing efforts to do more to protect students like him from their peers.Daniel A Cinotti, Associate Professor of School Counseling and Director of Counseling Programs, New York Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1146792019-04-04T10:45:18Z2019-04-04T10:45:18ZPet owners want to be masters, not servants – which is why we value dogs more than cats<p><a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/13/lion-kings-why-cats-are-the-lords-of-the-internet/">Cat videos may rule the internet</a>, but dogs possess mastery of their owners’ hearts – at least if spending is any guide. </p>
<p>A survey of pet owners found that they <a href="https://americanpetproducts.org/Uploads/MemServices/GPE2017_NPOS_Seminar.pdf">spent an average of US$2,883</a> in 2016 on 22 “common expenses” for their dogs, compared with $1,926 for cats, based on an analysis of the data collected for the 2017-2018 National Pet Owners Survey. The <a href="https://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp">extra money went primarily toward</a> vet visits and kennel boarding, but dog owners also spent more on treats, grooming and toys. </p>
<p>My 2019 paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.057">Dogs Have Masters, Cats Have Staff</a>,” shines some light on why.</p>
<h2>A growing market</h2>
<p>Americans are spending more on pet care as an increasing share of U.S. households own an animal. </p>
<p>A little over <a href="https://americanpetproducts.org/Uploads/MemServices/GPE2017_NPOS_Seminar.pdf">two-thirds of all U.S. households</a> own at least one pet, up from <a href="https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-pet-statistics">56% in 1988</a>, the first year of the National Pet Owners Survey. </p>
<p>And almost half of households own a dog, while just 38 percent have a cat. Generational trends suggest this divergence is likely to grow, as millennials are more likely to adopt a canine, while baby boomers tend to be cat lovers. </p>
<p>This is resulting in a <a href="https://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp">growing market for pet-related products and services</a>, which hit an estimated $72 billion in 2018, up from $46 billion a decade earlier. </p>
<h2>A willingness to pay</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.057">My study</a> builds on <a href="https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.232.4.531">earlier research</a> showing that dog owners are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2603652">willing to spend more</a> on their pets than cat owners – including to save their lives. </p>
<p>One reason suggested was that dog owners had stronger bonds to their pets, which prompted them to spend more on things like veterinary care. </p>
<p>My research uncovered a key factor indicating why dog owners feel more attached to their pets: Dogs are famously more compliant than cats. When owners feel in control of their pets, strong feelings of psychological ownership and emotional attachment develop. And pet owners want to be masters – not servants. </p>
<p>Like other marketing researchers, my work uses “willingness to pay” as an indicator of the economic, rather than emotional, value owners place on their pets. It shows – and compares – how much pet owners would pay to save their animal’s life. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267443/original/file-20190403-177178-1n8rfm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267443/original/file-20190403-177178-1n8rfm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267443/original/file-20190403-177178-1n8rfm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267443/original/file-20190403-177178-1n8rfm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267443/original/file-20190403-177178-1n8rfm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267443/original/file-20190403-177178-1n8rfm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267443/original/file-20190403-177178-1n8rfm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dog owners are willing to pay twice as much as cat owners for a life-saving surgery.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Extreme-Heat-Wave/e4af2fd4aa0242d5917048d208541c9f/8/0">AP Photo/Angie Wang</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Who’s in control?</h2>
<p>So I carried out three online experiments to explore the role of psychological ownership in these valuations. </p>
<p>In the first experiment, I asked dog or cat owners to write about their pet’s behavior so I could measure their feelings of control and psychological ownership. Participants then imagined their pet became ill and indicated the most they would be willing to pay for a life-saving surgery.</p>
<p>Dog owners, on average, said they would pay $10,689 to save the life of their pet, whereas cat owners offered less than half that. At the same time, dog owners tended to perceive more control and psychological ownership over their pets, suggesting this might be the reason for the difference in spending. </p>
<p>Of course, correlation is not causation. So in a second experiment, I asked participants how much they would be willing to pay to save their animal’s life after I had disturbed their sense of ownership. I did this by asking participants to imagine their pet’s behavior was a result of training it received from a previous owner.</p>
<p>As expected, disrupting their feelings of ownership eliminated the difference in valuation between dogs and cats.</p>
<p>Since pet owners like to control their animals, and since cats are less controllable than dogs, the third experiment went straight to the point: Does the owner value the dog or cat for its own sake or for its compliant behavior?</p>
<p>To find out, I again asked survey respondents to describe how much they’d be willing to pay to save their pet’s life, but this time I randomly assigned one of four scenarios: Participants were told they either own a dog, a cat, a dog that behaves like a cat, or a cat that behaves like a dog. </p>
<p>Participants reported they would pay $4,270 to save the life of their dog, but only $2,462 for their cat. However, this pattern was reversed when the pet’s behavior changed, with dog-behaving cats valued at $3,636, but cat-behaving dogs only $2,372.</p>
<p>These results clearly show that the animal’s behavior is what makes people willing to pay. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267433/original/file-20190403-177193-1842prv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267433/original/file-20190403-177193-1842prv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267433/original/file-20190403-177193-1842prv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267433/original/file-20190403-177193-1842prv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267433/original/file-20190403-177193-1842prv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267433/original/file-20190403-177193-1842prv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267433/original/file-20190403-177193-1842prv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When cats act more like dogs, people say they’d spend more money on them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cute-little-bengal-cat-on-leash-198531950">pixfix/shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Master or servant</h2>
<p>These findings establish that psychological ownership is a driving factor in dog owners’ higher valuations. </p>
<p>People feel ownership because they perceive that they can control their pets’ behavior. This research even distinguishes the type of control that probably most stimulates ownership feelings: It’s not just physical control, such as being able to pick up an animal or drag it by a leash. Rather, it’s the animal’s voluntary compliance with its owner’s wishes.</p>
<p>No matter how cute and cuddly your kitties may be, they can’t compete with dogs when it comes to giving pet owners the sense of mastery they seek. </p>
<p><em>This article has been updated to correct how much pet owners say they spend on their cats and explain the data more completely.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114679/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colleen P. Kirk does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Pet owners spend a lot more on dogs than cats, and new research suggests it has a lot to do with how differently canines and felines behave.Colleen P. Kirk, Assistant Professor of Marketing, New York Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1097502019-01-16T11:41:27Z2019-01-16T11:41:27ZMany painful returns: Coping with crummy gifts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253922/original/file-20190115-152971-r1vnsw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gee, you shouldn't have.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sock-36893122?src=7uskGo5AR12J_EPcOQdftg-1-9">Happy Stock Photo/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What happens to the gifts you get? I’m not talking about the ones that you really adore. I mean the rest of them – the ones you can’t or don’t want to use, or even hate.</p>
<p>The problem doesn’t end when you’ve awkwardly thanked someone and thrown away the wrapping paper. In my case, I stowed an awful present from my dad in a closet for years. Whenever I looked at it, I got upset all over again.</p>
<p>That experience was one reason why I became a consumer researcher who studies <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=uxCvNEUAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate">gift giving</a>. Based on my research, I have come to understand the price paid by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-cringeworthy-gifts-are-worse-than-inconsiderate-88528">people who get unwelcome gifts</a>. </p>
<h2>Many costly returns</h2>
<p>Painful gift giving falls into two categories. One is intentional and the other is accidental. Either way, it burdens friends and loved ones with unwanted stuff they may try to get rid of.</p>
<p>One common solution, at least for purchased gifts, is returning them. But even when the giver gets a refund or the recipient converts an eyesore into a pile of more useful cash, that still takes a toll. </p>
<p>Retail holiday sales amounted to an <a href="https://nrf.com/media-center/press-releases/nrf-forecasts-holiday-sales-will-increase-between-43-and-48-percent">estimated US$720 billion</a> in 2018, with <a href="https://apprissretail.com/resource/2018-consumer-returns-in-the-retail-industry-report/">about 10 percent of those purchases being returned</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253925/original/file-20190115-152968-8crhcl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253925/original/file-20190115-152968-8crhcl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253925/original/file-20190115-152968-8crhcl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253925/original/file-20190115-152968-8crhcl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253925/original/file-20190115-152968-8crhcl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253925/original/file-20190115-152968-8crhcl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253925/original/file-20190115-152968-8crhcl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253925/original/file-20190115-152968-8crhcl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">She has no words.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/dissatisfied-woman-opening-gift-over-gray-267830282?src=gPJx4CcopT6q5cKUZou9Aw-1-8">Dean Drobot/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Two rulebooks</h2>
<p>To learn more about how people deal with gifts they don’t like, want or need, I teamed up with consumer behavior expert <a href="https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Schiffman-Consumer-Behavior-12th-Edition/PGM1747829.html?tab=authors%22">Leon G. Schiffman</a>. We did 30 in-depth interviews individually with 15 couples to study what happens in those situations. I always began with the question, “Can you tell me about gift giving between you and your spouse?” </p>
<p>I also searched for the words “gift returns” on message boards at <a href="https://community.babycenter.com/">Babycenter.com</a> and analyzed more than 500,000 relevant results. </p>
<p>With both approaches, I found that a lot of people, mostly women, want advice about returning gifts. I also saw that many people try to not let givers know about it.</p>
<p>Some people feel guilty about returning presents, but not everyone. It seems that people tend to follow one of what Schiffman and I call two <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.09.012">gift-giving rulebooks</a>.</p>
<p>One is economic. Some people just care about the monetary value of gifts. They don’t want to waste the giver’s money and effort so they try to swap out the gift for cash, credit or merchandise they want or need.</p>
<p>The other is symbolic. Some people see gifts as a means of communication. They fret about the message they may send by returning, exchanging, or otherwise getting rid of the gift. They worry about how the person who gave it to them might feel if they knew.</p>
<p><iframe id="IzEpA" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/IzEpA/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Faking it</h2>
<p>Some people feel compelled to make use of unwelcome gifts out of concern for their friends or loved ones. That can cause trouble.</p>
<p>For example, a woman who gets a purse she hates for Christmas from her husband might not want to hurt his feelings by letting him know. She would then use it at least occasionally to give him the impression that she likes it. What options would she have to subtly let him know not to buy her another one for her birthday?</p>
<p>It depends on her rulebook.</p>
<p>For people in the symbolic camp, they have two options: use it or store it. The ones who take the storage option might go out of their way to still use the gift once in a while, taking the utmost care not to hurt the giver’s feelings.</p>
<p>The economic types are more practical. </p>
<p>When they are sure that the person who gave them an ugly purse for Christmas are also pragmatic, then they have no qualms about returning, exchanging, donating, selling or re-gifting the thing.</p>
<p>However, if they aren’t sure about how the giver might feel, they might be like the people I found seeking advice on the internet. They often ask questions such as whether they can return gifts purchased through Amazon or registries without the sender knowing, and if it’s rude to return gifts.</p>
<p><iframe id="gVVz5" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/gVVz5/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>These questions indicate that recipients are concerned about how returning makes gift givers feel – usually not so good – and the giver’s feelings. However, they are also concerned about getting a gift’s monetary value. Common responses to questions about what else can be done when you can’t return something to a store without receipts include donate it, sell it, find another use for it, store it for later use or give it to someone else.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>There seems to be a buffer period of time after which a stored item can be donated, sold or re-gifted without many qualms. The apparently sacred power of the gift ebbs over time, making it acceptable to ditch once it no longer seems like a gift.</p>
<p>Whatever etiquette you find appropriate in this situation, apps such as <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/7-places-to-sell-your-stuff-online-for-real-money_n_5b2c0098e4b0040e27410e44">LetGo, Nextdoor and Decluttr</a> can help too. These platforms offer avenues for selling unwanted items, whether it’s new or old.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109750/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Deborah Y. Cohn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The problems from a disappointing gift don’t end once you’ve awkwardly thanked the giver and tossed the wrapping paper.Deborah Y. Cohn, Professor of Marketing, New York Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1066732018-11-20T21:24:26Z2018-11-20T21:24:26ZWhy do Black Friday shoppers throw punches over bargains? A marketing expert explains ‘psychological ownership’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246567/original/file-20181120-161630-gxgf1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Don't let go.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Holiday-Shopping-Black-Friday/6931136400c54312bcd74fbf012ab55b/174/0">AP Photo/Jeff Chiu</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Black Friday, the most celebrated shopping day of the year, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/well/mind/the-psychology-of-the-black-friday-shopping-mob.html">abounds</a> with tales of fistfights over discounted televisions or even stampedes as consumers rush to get that low-priced sweater they saw in an ad. </p>
<p>Many people chalk it up to <a href="https://theconversation.com/retail-rage-why-black-friday-leads-shoppers-to-behave-badly-34041">bad behavior</a>. But <a href="https://www.nyit.edu/bio/ckirk01">marketers like me</a> have a term to describe one feeling that contributes to it: psychological ownership. </p>
<p>Have you ever felt as if another driver stole your parking spot? Or were supremely miffed when someone else nabbed the last red sweater that you had your eye on? And isn’t it irritating when someone else receives credit for your idea? If so, you experienced psychological ownership. </p>
<p>In other words, we often take ownership over a thing or service in our minds before we actually give up the cash that makes it legally ours. And retailers use this psychological technique to get us to buy more of their stuff – or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/598614">spend more</a>. It also makes us <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804315000737">more likely to brag about our purchases</a>, valuable word-of-mouth advertising for those brands.</p>
<p>While <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77158-8_1">the concept itself is well-known</a>, there’s been little research on how people actually react when someone seems to infringe on their <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70247-6_8">psychological ownership</a>. My colleagues Joann Peck and Scott Swain and I <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx111">conducted</a> several studies to find out. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246501/original/file-20181120-161630-1c55dpg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246501/original/file-20181120-161630-1c55dpg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246501/original/file-20181120-161630-1c55dpg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246501/original/file-20181120-161630-1c55dpg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246501/original/file-20181120-161630-1c55dpg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246501/original/file-20181120-161630-1c55dpg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246501/original/file-20181120-161630-1c55dpg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">All it takes is a touch to elicit psychological ownership of a product.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Holiday-Shopping-Black-Friday/681df026890244769854e1d71d10b17c/25/0">AP Photo/Elaine Thompson</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>That feeling that something is yours</h2>
<p>Psychological ownership is an <a href="https://hbr.org/2018/09/how-customers-come-to-think-of-a-product-as-an-extension-of-themselves">important concept in marketing</a>. Sellers are motivated to elicit it because <a href="http://journals.ama.org/doi/10.1509/jmkg.74.1.65">having it makes you want to buy</a> their goods.</p>
<p>An example of this is potato chip maker Lay’s <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/1681333/how-lays-is-tapping-its-audience-for-its-next-big-chip-idea">“Do Me a Flavor” contest</a>, which began in 2008 and invited customers to suggest and vote on new chip flavors. By tickling customers’ sense of ownership in the product and the brand, it was a remarkable success in markets around the world. </p>
<p>But it doesn’t have to be a major campaign. A simple ad or invitation to touch can have the same impact.</p>
<p>There are three factors that foster psychological ownership:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If you can touch or control something or even imagine doing so. An example is putting something in your shopping cart – whether physical or virtual <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-77158-8_5">online</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>If you have customized something or invested your efforts in designing it. When the server brings the food to your table and places your dish in front of someone else, you’re quick to say, “That’s mine.”</p></li>
<li><p>Intimate knowledge. If you grew up with a product, have always used it or have a special or unique way of using it, the odds are good you feel psychological ownership over it. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Furthermore, you can feel psychological ownership over pretty much anything that doesn’t legally belong to you, from the last chocolate truffle in a display case to the dream home you found on Zillow, and even intangible things like ideas.</p>
<h2>Psychological ownership in action</h2>
<p>To find out how people react when their psychologically owned property is threatened, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx111">my colleagues and I conducted a series of experiments</a>. Each was designed to elicit or manipulate feelings of ownership in consumers and then have other people communicate, or signal, psychological ownership of the same product.</p>
<p>In the first one, 58 college students participated in a simulated dining study in our lab. At one point, they each poured themselves a cup of coffee from a bar and customized it with condiments like sugar, frothed milk and syrup, which helped create strong feelings of ownership of the coffee.</p>
<p>Later, after serving participants a piece of cake at their table, a waiter asked, “Is everything OK?” The waiter also, in half the cases, moved their coffee cup for no apparent reason. </p>
<p>After the “bill” came, we found that participants whose coffee cup was moved tipped the server 25 percent less. In a subsequent survey, these participants reported that they felt the server had infringed on their territory and said they’d be less likely to return to such a restaurant. </p>
<p>A second experiment extended this territorial feeling to something less tangible: an artistic design. As part of volunteer work for a local nonprofit, 162 university students decorated folders for children’s educational materials. They either copied a design onto the folder – which elicits low psychological ownership – or created their own design – leading to high psychological ownership. After they finished, a staff member walked up to half the participants and said, “That looks like my design!”</p>
<p>Later, as the staff member left the room, she “accidentally” dropped a pen, supposedly without noticing. We found that participants who designed their own folder and were told by the worker that it looked like hers were 66 percent less likely to pick up the pen and return it. </p>
<p>A later survey showed that these participants indeed felt that the staff member infringed on what they considered theirs. As a result, they were also less likely to donate to the nonprofit or volunteer again. </p>
<p>Interestingly, they reported they would be more likely to post a selfie with their folder on social media – in other words, they tried to defend their psychological ownership by communicating their own claim to ownership.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246506/original/file-20181120-161615-1y8bbp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246506/original/file-20181120-161615-1y8bbp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246506/original/file-20181120-161615-1y8bbp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246506/original/file-20181120-161615-1y8bbp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246506/original/file-20181120-161615-1y8bbp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246506/original/file-20181120-161615-1y8bbp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246506/original/file-20181120-161615-1y8bbp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hands off!</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/waiter-apron-gives-woman-cup-coffee-1228556992?src=mXNWGEPB0ZFzOlnCsoWr4w-1-99">ShotPrime Studio/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Limits of psychological ownership</h2>
<p>Other similar experiments showed there are some limits to psychological ownership and who’s more susceptible. </p>
<p>One such experiment, conducted online, involved asking participants to imagine they were queuing to buy a comfy sweater for an upcoming social event and told to close their eyes and picture themselves wearing it. They were then told, at random, to imagine either that another customer reached out and touched the sweater or asked permission to do so. We found that asking first reduced the participant’s feeling of infringement and tendency to respond territorially. </p>
<p>In a separate experiment, we wanted to see if more narcissistic people were more likely to respond territorially when someone infringed on their “property,” in this case a delicious-looking pizza. We elicited psychological ownership of the pizza by asking participants to imagine they had traveled a long distance just to get it. </p>
<p>As they were standing in front of the pizza stand, a stranger came up and said either “I am not familiar with this pizza” or “I know this pizza well. I call this pizza ‘Antonio’” – the latter phrase meant to signal ownership. At the end of the survey, we measured narcissism using a <a href="https://www.psytoolkit.org/survey-library/narcism-npi16.html">common personality scale</a>.</p>
<p>We found that customers who scored high on narcissism expected others to be more aware of their feelings of ownership. Thus, they were more likely to feel infringed upon and respond territorially to the stranger who signaled ownership.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246503/original/file-20181120-161624-1f3939s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246503/original/file-20181120-161624-1f3939s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246503/original/file-20181120-161624-1f3939s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246503/original/file-20181120-161624-1f3939s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246503/original/file-20181120-161624-1f3939s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246503/original/file-20181120-161624-1f3939s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246503/original/file-20181120-161624-1f3939s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scarcity of a product can make it more likely to create conflict over psychological ownership.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Walmart-s-Thanksgiving-Shopping-Events/cbb01c80bb304f9b8d6edfef26c7e664/48/0">Gunnar Rathbun/Invision for Walmart/AP Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How to cope</h2>
<p>Together, these studies demonstrate we really don’t like it when others show signs of ownership of something we feel is “ours,” particularly if we believe they should know of our prior claim. Furthermore, we might retaliate when given a chance.</p>
<p>Consumer responses when this happens can vary from simply abandoning the location to talking badly about the business or person involved. In other words, companies that play on this feeling of psychological ownership to spur sales should bear in mind that there’s a cost as well, particularly when a product or its low price is scarce, such as on Black Friday. </p>
<p>So as you hunt for bargains in the coming weeks, bear in mind that psychological ownership sets in long before a cashier puts your stuff – or a fellow shopper’s – in a bag. My best advice is be polite. There’s usually enough for everyone.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106673/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colleen P. Kirk does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Psychological ownership is that feeling that someone stole ‘your’ parking spot or nabbed the last sweater you had your eye on. We have a tendency to get territorial when we feel it’s been violated.Colleen P. Kirk, Assistant Professor of Marketing, New York Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/885282017-12-15T11:27:53Z2017-12-15T11:27:53ZWhen cringeworthy gifts are worse than inconsiderate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199322/original/file-20171214-27568-9x7rtp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sometimes a gift that might seem reasonable is no nicer than a stocking full of coal.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/christmas-stocking-full-coal-67095268">Suzanne Tucker/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ever wondered why your mom bought you that inexplicable thing? You’re not alone.</p>
<p>I have spent years doing consumer research related to <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296308002142">gift giving</a>. In my field, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/38/1/164/1799320">conventional wisdom</a> surmises that when gifts fail to please recipients, it’s accidental. But I’ve determined that sometimes people give bad gifts on purpose.</p>
<p>My personal interest in this dynamic stems from a gag present my dad gave me when I was a kid. As I unwrapped his box in a box in a box, the anticipation grew bigger as the boxes got smaller. When I found that the last box was empty, it crushed me. He thought it was funny. (In my dad’s defense, this happened on April Fool’s Day, an occasion on which we had no gift-giving traditions.)</p>
<p>But I never could shake my urge to learn why someone would give such a rotten gift.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199320/original/file-20171214-27580-3u4nb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199320/original/file-20171214-27580-3u4nb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199320/original/file-20171214-27580-3u4nb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199320/original/file-20171214-27580-3u4nb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199320/original/file-20171214-27580-3u4nb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199320/original/file-20171214-27580-3u4nb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199320/original/file-20171214-27580-3u4nb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199320/original/file-20171214-27580-3u4nb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It can be hard to recover from a disappointing gift, even when it’s supposed to be a gag.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/child-lies-on-big-bed-his-514760806?src=72B9LDsyo93AvpLcX6SqUg-1-18">unguryanu/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Studying mean gifts</h2>
<p>The total cost of unwanted gifts is high, both in terms of dollars and in damaged relationships, I’ve found in my research.</p>
<p>Unwanted merchandise returned to U.S. retailers during the 2015 holiday season (excluding fraud cases) <a href="https://nrf.com/sites/default/files/Images/Media%20Center/NRF%20Retail%20Return%20Fraud%20Final_0.pdf">totaled US$60.84 billion</a>. This sum of course leaves out the many unwanted gifts that are regifted, ignored, sold, donated or thrown away.</p>
<p>No data exist about how many presents are cruel, but this problem has implications for brands, retailers, marketers and consumers at a time when the National Retail Federation predicts that Americans are spending an estimated $678.75 billion a year <a href="https://nrf.com/media/press-releases/nrf-forecasts-holiday-sales-increase-between-36-and-4-percent">on presents</a>.</p>
<p>Depending on whether you’ve got similar tales of woe, you may (or may not) be surprised to learn that many people intentionally give gifts with no concerns for the recipient’s feelings.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/BOJy2JhA05e/?hl=en\u0026tagged=badgifts","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>Although it seems nonsensical to give someone a gift that will damage a relationship rather than strengthen it, some people deliberately do just that.</p>
<p>Not only are these returns a drag for businesses, they harm friendships and fray family bonds. </p>
<p>To undertake a study of <a href="http://jcsdcb.com/index.php/JCSDCB/article/view/225">mean presents</a>, the first of its kind, I did in-depth interviews individually with the people in 15 relationships. Each interview with one member of these couples began with the question, “Can you tell me about gift giving between you and your partner over the course of time?” In these interviews, couples often spoke about gifts exchanged within their families, too.</p>
<p>To broaden the study, I searched family-focused message boards at the <a href="https://community.babycenter.com/">Babycenter.com</a> website using the keyword “gifts” and analyzed the more than 400,000 relevant results.</p>
<p>People, it turns out, really like to talk about gifts. </p>
<p>They talk online about great gifts and horrible gifts. They seek help from others to figure out what went wrong. They like to complain when they suspect that someone has intentionally given them an awful present.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199318/original/file-20171214-27565-2h9t4g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199318/original/file-20171214-27565-2h9t4g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199318/original/file-20171214-27565-2h9t4g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199318/original/file-20171214-27565-2h9t4g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199318/original/file-20171214-27565-2h9t4g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199318/original/file-20171214-27565-2h9t4g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199318/original/file-20171214-27565-2h9t4g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199318/original/file-20171214-27565-2h9t4g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When your loved ones give presents that don’t suit you, it can get awkward.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-happy-couple-hug-love-christmas-335246750?src=Up-3N9u3INZ8efq3CeXNcA-1-1">Sebastian Gauert/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>5 kinds of inconsiderate presents</h2>
<p>After reviewing the data, I identified five categories of inconsiderate gifts.</p>
<p><strong>Confrontational.</strong> The first are gifts that are essentially personal affronts. One of my personal favorites is the pregnancy test a woman actually gave her childless daughter-in-law for Christmas.</p>
<p>I was also shocked by this other example that is purely aggressive rather than passive aggressive: A woman bought her grown son a book about Christianity knowing that he had given up the faith and didn’t appreciate being reminded of his mother’s disapproval.</p>
<p><strong>Selfish.</strong> “To-you-for-me” gifts benefit givers more than recipients.</p>
<p>One sports-loving man in my study epitomized this category by giving his wife a big-screen television for her birthday, just in time for the Super Bowl that she didn’t plan to watch.</p>
<p><strong>Aggressive.</strong> Sometimes gifts are explicitly meant to offend.</p>
<p>For example, after a man in my study gave his wife lawn furniture for Mother’s Day, she told him she hated the pattern and asked him to return it. Instead, he bought her more of that furniture for her birthday a few weeks later.</p>
<p>This category of crummy gifts signals a deteriorating relationship. Indeed, this couple got divorced not long after these incidents.</p>
<p><strong>Obligatory.</strong> It’s always hard to select gifts when the giver doesn’t know or especially care what the recipient would want.</p>
<p>These obligatory presents, often exchanged and opened in front of groups, are not malicious gifts. They are simply meant to check a box. If everyone gathering round a Christmas tree is going to be giving each other something, you may feel safer giving your Aunt Sally a completely random thing even if you have no clue about what she’d like.</p>
<p>One woman bought her husband clothes for his birthday even though she knew he would end up returning most of them. When asked, “If you knew he wouldn’t like it, why did you buy it?,” she replied, “Probably just so he would have something on his birthday.” She felt the need to give a gift, but no need to please her husband.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/BOHV7z1h74K/?hl=en\u0026tagged=badgifts","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p><strong>Competitive.</strong> Gifts given for bragging rights are intended to “out-gift” someone else. A common example of this is what happens when someone gives their grandchild a present the kid’s parents specifically said not to buy.</p>
<p>One woman in my study reported that her parents were competing with her in-laws to give her kids increasingly large and extravagant gifts over her objections – then posting about it on Facebook.</p>
<p>To be sure, these categories may overlap. Ill-conceived gifts can be both aggressive and competitive, and “to-you—for-me” presents can also be confrontational.</p>
<p>Typical Americans are buying <a href="https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/industry/retail-distribution/holiday-retail-sales-consumer-survey.html">15 gifts this holiday season</a>. If any of yours sound like they fit the mold of these crummy presents, there’s still time to alleviate the suffering by not going through with your plan to give someone a cruel gift – or at least to apologize if it’s too late. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q9UUu2JBQB0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Atlantic writer Derek Thompson explains why many presents amount to what economists call “deadweight loss”: The company wasted time making it, the giver wasted time buying it, and the receiver wasted time returning it.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88528/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Deborah Y. Cohn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sadly, people sometimes deliberately give bad presents.Deborah Y. Cohn, Associate Professor of Marketing, New York Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.