Why buy Christmas presents in August

3 downloads 0 Views 241KB Size Report
Indeed, Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, Saint Nicolas, Christmas and so on are ... Mother's Day are all ritual events with ritual artefacts and ritual scripts (Solomon ...
1

Why buy Christmas presents in August? The expanding commercial pressure at gift giving occasions in Belgium Sofie Damen & Dimitri Mortelmans Faculty of Political and Social Sciences - Antwerp University - Universiteitsplein 1 - 2610 Wilrijk Belgium - 0032/(0)3/820.28.58 - [email protected]; [email protected]

1 Introduction 14 February, 15 May, 6 December, 25 December ... All these dates ring a bell. Every year these fixed dates return. Indeed, Valentine‘s Day, Mother’s Day, Saint Nicolas, Christmas and so on are all characterized by annual repetition. They are being ritually celebrated in the same period. But this celebration period seems to be expanding increasingly. A transition is going on. The holidays’ dates remain the same, but the duration time of gift giving occasions seems to expand. Every year, gift giving starts earlier. Well in advance, shops are decorated with Christmas items, Valentine hearts, Easter bunnies et cetera. Saint Nicolas is already spotted two months before his feast day. Even worse, in Belgium, Saint Nicolas (celebrated on 6 December) and Father Christmas (25 December) are engaged in a competitive warfare with each other. More and more critical notes about the commercial aspect of these holidays resound. It is said that there is too much consumption, too much commercialization etcetera. This will be handled in the first part of the paper. We will mainly focus on Christmas, since it offers an outstanding example. A lot is being said and clamed about the commercial character of these holidays, but there hardly exists empirical evidence of what people really think about it or how people sense it. This paper is an attempt to fill the existing gap between popular beliefs and scientific evidence. We will consider holidays as social phenomena, that have a cyclical nature and consist of various ritual scripts, such as the gift interaction that surround them (Rook, 1985). Christmas, Valentine, Mother’s Day are all ritual events with ritual artefacts and ritual scripts (Solomon, 1999: 501, 504). We shall elaborate on this in the second part of the paper. For now, we can say that these holidays are all marked by a collective rhythm, that is being socially constructed. We will indeed note the presence of a number of commercial elements. Thirdly, we will examine how people experience the increasing commercial pressure. What do people think of the attention, which the media and the shops spend on ritual gift giving occasions? Are there any differences between men and women? These and other research questions occur in a research project on gift giving, which started at the Antwerp University in

2 1999. The project examines the nature of the Belgian gift culture on the one hand and the increasing role of economic logic in gift giving on the other. Finally, we will try to put the harsh criticism on the holidays’ commercial side into perspective. 2 Theoretical part: Commercial holidays 2.1 Commerce & criticism: a short overview Holidays, like Christmas, are said to be collective rituals that embrace the values of materialism and hedonism as a principle. Christmas is a ceremonial celebration of capitalism. Commercialism is said to rise “to a screaming crescendo every Christmas” (Jacobson, Mazur, 1995: 177). Culture critics argue that nothing more than materialism and unlimited consumption are promoted under the veil of traditional values and habits. Santa Claus is the god of materialism that is worshipped in a yearly recurring cycle by the whole (world) population. According to Belk, the modern Christmas is not only a celebration of abundance, prosperity and wealth. It is also a celebration of consumption, materialism, and hedonism (Belk, 1987: 96), it is “the grand celebration of consumption” (Belk, Bryce, 1993: 294) and Santa is “a god of materialism and hedonism – of modern consumer culture” (Belk, 1989: 132). The same can be said for Saint Nicolas, the Easter Bunny or Cupid. Jacobson goes even further; he labels Christmas as the “celebration of overconsumption” (Jacobson, Mazur, 1995: 180). Deploring the dark side of Christmas and other feast days itself has even become a part of the national Christmas ritual. Complaints, such as “it is all too much”, Christmas has become “far too materialistic” and “the real message of Christmas been lost”, have become routine complaints (Booker, 1997: 42). Often the role of the media and marketers is stressed, as expressed by a respondent in Otnes’ study of men’s opinions about Valentine’s Day: “It’s mostly brought about by the media’s brainwashing, capitalistic attempts at maximizing profits” (Otnes e.a., 1994: 163). Among others, the research studies why men celebrate Valentine’s Day. The most important reason appeared to show love and affection. But in the second place, they said to act out of a feeling of obligation and as a response to their partners’ expectations. Thirdly, they also said that the pressure that surrounds such a commercial holiday was responsible for their Valentine acts (Otnes e.a., 1994). Van der Zeijden also mentions the fact that in the Netherlands there are a lot of complaints about the commercialization of Saint Nicolas’ feast. Each year he arrives earlier and earlier. This could be the result of commercial considerations (van der Zeijden, 1996). The same is brought up by Schor in her book ‘The overspent American’. The commercialization of Christmas is denounced: Christmas has turned into “an orgy of shopping and spending”. According to Schor, large numbers of Americans are in favour of downscaling and decommercializing ritual

3 celebrations (Schor, 1998: 161). The period in which to buy Saint Nicolas purchases has to be stretched as long as possible (van der Zeijden, 1996: 23). Belk claims that a lot of the holidays’ elements, such as Rudolf the rednose reindeer, were invented for marketing reasons (Belk, 1993). Indeed, commercial interests are important. Schmidt shows that florists played a major role in flourishing and maintaining Mother’s Day: “commercial interests made Mothers’ day a national observance as much as Anna Jarvis1, the churches, or the politicians did” (Schmidt, 1991: 900901). But he also indicates that consumers do not always accept such attempts. In the United States there have been failed efforts to establish other consumption feasts. One of them is Candy Day, another is Friendship’s Day. The greeting card industry tried to turn 3 August into the Day that celebrates friendship, but their intentions failed (Schmidt, Moorhead, 1996; Schmidt, 1991). But these complaints are not as new as they seem. In 1959 Van Es stated that trade and commerce are important stimuli for the holidays. Anna Jarvis, the woman who started Mothers’ Day in the beginning of the 20th century, herself fought against the commercial side of Mothers’ Day (Schmidt, 1991: 911; Van es, 1959: 26). 2.2 Holidays as social rituals The events round holidays such as Saint Nicolas and Christmas contain various features that see to it that the whole is also a social ritual. As we already mentioned in the introduction, holidays have some cyclical quality and they are in contrast with the regular, straight-line progression of time (Waits, 1993). Every year, the whole event is being primed and experienced again. But periodicity at itself is not enough. There are lots of events that return with a certain regularity. Much more important are the ritual objects that are being used. These are very clear with Christmas. The whole street scene is involved. In the shops, there is suddenly a throne and parcels are spread all around. Some time later, the shopping streets are dealt with. Everywhere lighting is hung, the streets are ornamented with decorative festoons, Jingle Bells resound from all sides. Green pine-trees shoot up like mushrooms. The latter has even become an inter-urban status matter. The biggest cities, the most important intersections of the earth, want to have the largest Christmas tree in their city centre. It is a symbolic battle to own the most important eye catcher in the December ritual. In essence it is the same battle as the one that was fought out in the past for the size of cathedrals and basilica. Besides decorations of light and trees, shopkeepers do their best to look as “Christmas-like“ as possible.

4 Objects and lights are not enough to have a ritual. It is the people who give form to the ritual and participate to it. Without ritual roles, no ritual. In the December ritual, many of these roles are taken up. Let us start with the active roles. In the first place, there are the ones who take the pulpit during the ritual. During this period, dozens of people take on the role of Saint Nicolas or paint themselves black to throw candy. Also Santa Claus appears more and more as an extra. Besides these main figures, there are diverse background figures: musicians for example. Instead of the church choir or the brass band, dozens of individual musicians and choirs appear on the streets. The most important part of the repertoire consists of classical (often religious) singing/hymns. And yet, the contents does not matter that much. People are brought in the right atmosphere, they are made clear that this is a special period they have to take serious and that supposes they should plunge themselves in the atmosphere of the ritual. Besides the active roles, the public is allotted with a passive role. In the shopping centres, the shopping streets, on television, everywhere the collective ritual is so prominently present that we, almost without noticing it, automatically take on that passive role. We perform the Christmas ritual by and through consumption (Hirschman, LaBarbera, 1989: 143). Holidays used to have a religious meaning, but this is no longer the case. On the whole, the religious significance of the feasts is lost. No longer does the crib take a central place, but Santa Claus, no longer the resurrection, but the Easter bunny and Easter eggs and Cupid has taken the place of Saint Valentine (Schmidt, Moorhead, 1996). In practice, the importance of the secular aspects has grown more and more. Today the essence of the Christmas ritual consists of gathering together, eating together and exchanging gifts. Research indicates that these are indeed the central themes that appear: the celebration of the family and consumption. Feasting, decorating and giving gifts all imply family interaction. The Christmas dinner obtains a special place in the whole. Just as with many other (religious and non-religious) rituals, eating creates a bond. The ‘celebration’ of Christmas can only take place by eating and drinking together. The purpose of the Christmas dinner is the expression and the confirmation of the (familial) relation between the participants. Also the mutual gift exchange has this purpose. By giving gifts the participants of the Christmas ritual express the solidarity between them. Giving implies reciprocity. Christmas is an important time for renewing and redefining enduring relationships, and it is therefore not surprising to find that reciprocal giving is a prominent feature of that occasion (Cheal, 1986: 426). When you receive a gift from someone, it is expected that you give something in return (gratitude or another gift). Barry Schwartz pictures it as a debt balance that can never be in equilibrium. The continuing exchange of gifts attends to it that the balance keeps fluctuating and that the social relation between the participants of the Christmas feast lasts (Schwartz, 1967).

5

Fourthly, there are ritual places. Many rituals are celebrated in the therefore intended places. We already mentioned the shopping centres and streets and the striking transformation they undergo during the run up to the December happening. These are the most sacral places where the events take place. But the available ritual space is not longer sufficient. Increasingly, extra ritual spaces are created where the atmosphere is – if possible – even more controlled and the celebration can be more intense. Especially with Christmas, it is noticeable on the expanding trend of organising or uprating Christmas markets. Not only special attention is given to the presentation of the place (Christmas booths, extra Christmas trees, extra lighting and sound), also the participation in the event is actively promoted by intensive commercial campaigns (for foreign markets or otherwise). What was in fact a small-scale market event according to traditional methods, today is a great open-air shopping centre with dressed up vendors and conspicuous merchandise2. 2.3 Presence of commercial pressure The holiday rituals take place at two levels: at a micro-level on the one hand and at a macro-level on the other. At a micro-level, they are ritual outings that are strongly directed at the (nuclear) family. At a macro-level, they are social events, social rituals that may be just as religious and integrative as they are on a family level. The two levels interact with each other. The participation in the ritual on both levels often has a socially compelling character. We could compare it to the church visits some decades ago. Then, participating at the Mass still had an important social function in gathering the community of believers. If one wanted to belong to this community, one had to be seen at the Sunday liturgy. Something comparable is also going on with the December event. Getting gifts from Saint Nicolas is ‘obliged’. Children from deprived families that receive little or nothing, are looked askance at. Furthermore, the competition right after Saint Nicolas to lavish with the most beautiful and most expensive gift at school, may not be underestimated. But not only for children prevails the social pressure to participate. Also for adults the gifts asked for and the presents to buy are an important topic of conversation. Not participating in the gift race is not tolerated or it shuts the person who refuses to participate out from quite some social interaction. All traditional rituals we described earlier, have been invaded by quite some commercial aspects. First of all, the periodicity seems to expand. Each year, the events start earlier and earlier. In Belgium, there are several attempts to install a curfew around child feasts such as Saint Nicolas, Easter and Christmas. The media, the advertising world, toy factories and department stores are said to take advantage of the little children’s desires (XXX, 1999).

6 Ritual objects, roles and places serve to bring the consumer in the right consumptive attitude. For instance Saint Nicolas at his throne in the supermarket listens to the wishes of many children, but he also shows the parents the right consumptive attitude that fits the whole: “Everything the child asks for, is at sale somewhere in this shop”. The real-life figures of Saint Nicolas and Santa Claus constantly remind people of the fact that they still have to buy gifts. Advertising brochures with Saint Nicolas toys lead us to thinking about and being busy with consuming. The weekends in December switch into gigantic shopping days with bacchanal features. With hundreds of thousand consumers we go out looking for the End of the Year gifts. According to Carrier, the yearly returning ritual of Christmas shopping is a way to transform commodities (bought in a shop) in real gifts (Carrier, 1993). The fact that everybody has a free choice to participate at this ritual or not, does not take away the social pressure. These are the high days of the consumption society in which every shop-window proclaim the abundance from the rooftops. 3 Empirical part 3.1 In search of a theoretical model of attitudes on commercialization How can we define commercialization and an anti-commercial attitude, the way they are meant in this paper? At first sight, there seemed to be little literature on this subject. We did find a definition by Jacobson, who sees commercialism as an “ubiquitos product marketing that leads to a preoccupation with individual consumption to the detriment of society” [Jacobson, 1993 #794]. Obviously, Jacobson attributes an extremely negative connotation to the concept of commercialism. Basically we agree with this, but we don’t want to imply that this will lead to the detriment of society, as Jacobson puts it. What is the attitude of people versus that ubiquitos product marketing? We did find that some categories of people are quicker irritated by advertising then others, namely men, younger people, higher educated people and people with higher incomes (De Pelsmacker, 1998: 11).

3.2 Background variables In their study, Fisher and Arnold suggest what it means to be more involved in buying and therefore in giving gifts. Being more involved means giving to a larger number of people, starting to shop earlier, spending more time per recipient, spending less money per recipient and being more successful in choosing the appropriate gift (Fischer, Arnold, 1990: 336). The most obvious and most studied background variable then is gender. Many studies show that gift giving is a woman’s job. Shopping, decorating, gift wrapping and gift giving in nearly every household

7 centers around a woman who is the chief performer of the ritual (Benney e.a., 1959; Caplow, 1982; Di Leonardo, 1987; Fischer, Arnold, 1990; Goodwin e.a., 1990; Komter, Vollebergh, 1997; Mees, 1993; Rosental, 1985; Rucker, Dolstra, 1993). Women are also more attentive for the interests of the receiver (Goodwin e.a., 1990: 696). New concepts were even constructed to describe this task that is mainly executed by women, such as the work of kinship, which means “the conception, maintenance, and ritual celebration of cross-household kin ties, including visits, letters, telephone calls, presents and cards to kin” (Di Leonardo, 1987: 442-443). In general, it is the women who work “at keeping family members in touch with one another”. They are the kinkeepers (Rosental, 1985). They are responsible for maintaining social ties, particularly within kin networks, thus responsible for kin keeping (Fischer, Arnold, 1990). According to Komter, women do not only give more to family, but also to friends (Komter, Vollebergh, 1997: 755). But gender is only one of the possible variables that may influence the gift giving and buying attitude. Since being more involved, also means giving to more recipients, we could assume that people with a larger (kin) network are more involved than others (Caplow, 1982). The number of children is an important factor. We could assume that people who have more children give more gifts (Fischer, Arnold, 1990). But other research showed that partners with many children, gave each other less gifts. Married people with no children appeared to be in the large givers category. Here, a negative link between giving gifts and the number of children emerges (Brockmann, Peterson, 1990: 31). Income seems to be another variable of importance. It appears that people with higher incomes spend less time at gift selection. They seem to substitute this lack of effort by spending more money (Fischer, Arnold, 1990). A final variable is the duration period of shopping. People who are more involved in giving gifts, spend more time at buying gifts. Finding the right gift, the gift that expresses the relationship between giver and receiver on the one hand and the identity of the two partners in the gift giving process on the other hand, takes a lot of time. When receiving a gift, the behavioural budget is taken into account. This is the time, the psychic and physical efforts one delivers in searching for the appropriate gift (Robben, Verhallen, 1994: 336-337; Shurmer, 1971: 1244; Tesser e.a., 1968: 236). The labour theory of value links closely to this: the more effort put into something, the more its value increases (Cheal, 1987: 157). A gift is appreciated the most when the receiver notices that there is a lot of time and commitment is dedicated.

8 Figure 1: Structural model of attitudes on commercialization

Give1 Give2 Give3 Sex Attitude with giving gifts

Comm1 Comm2 Comm3 Comm4

# of children Buy1 Buy2 Buy3 Buy4

Atitude on commercializationn

Anticommercial behaviour

Income Attitude with buying gifts Duration of shopping

On basis of the existing gift giving literature, we assume that sex, number of children, income, and the duration time of shopping influence people ‘s attitudes toward giving gifts on the one hand and towards buying gifts on the other (Figure 1). These two factors are hypothesized to have an positive effect on the attitude on commercialization. We assume that a negative attitude towards commercialization will lead to anti-commercial behaviour.

9 3.3 Methods 3.3.1

Sample

As indicated above, the research project on gift giving behaviour started in 1999. A simple random sample was drawn from the Flemish population of adults above 18 year. A written questionnaire was sent to 1500 people. This provided 731 usable questionnaires: a response of almost 40%.

Table 1. Number of respondents by socio-demografic features Socio-demografic variables

%

Socio-demografic variables

%

GENDER

N=730

GRANDCHILDREN

N=657

Male Female

42.1 57.9

Have grandchildren Have no grandchildren

20.7 79.3

AGE

N=731

LEVEL OF EDUCATION

N=719

17-29 30-39 40-59 60-79 80-92

14.6 24.7 38.2 16.0 1.5

Primary or less Lower secondary Higher secondary HOBU University

7.5 13.1 29.3 34.1 16.0

FORM OF COHABITATION

N=731

With parents (in law) Alone With partner with partner + child(ren) Alone + child(ren) Others

10.1 12.1 26.9 41.7 6.6 2.6

INCOME None or < 20.000 20.000 – 49.999 50.000 – 99.999 100.000 – 149.999 150.000 – 399.000 > 400.000

N=703 2.0 18.1 45.8 25.0 7.4 1.7

CHILDREN

N= 723

Have children Have no children

69.3 30.7

Women are slightly over represented in the sample. The age varies from 17 to 92 years. The majority of the respondents lives together with his partner and with or without children. Almost 70% has one or more children. The number of children that still live at home ranges from 1 to 8. 20% has grandchildren. The number lies between 1 and 20. People with an higher education are slightly over represented. Almost half of the respondents have a joint monthly income between 50.000 and 100.000 Belgian francs.

10 3.3.2

Manifest variables

The model to be estimated is a non-standard model (Hatcher, 1994: 423). The causal model consists of several manifest variables that account for a part of the structural portion of the model. In other words, we assume that these manifest variables are perfect measures for the constructs they express. Before we turn our attention to the real latent constructs in the model, we first want to give an overview of the manifest variables in the model. There are four exogenous manifest variables. Sex is measured in a straightforward way: man and woman. Also the number of children at home is a clear variable. Income is measured on an ordinal scale with sixteen categories. The scale has a lower limit of no income. All categories consist of income intervals measured in Belgian francs. The last manifest variable expresses the time people spend to buy all their Christmas gifts. Possible answers range from ‘less than a day’ to ‘more than four days’ (7 choices were possible). 3.3.3 Measurement model of latent constructs In the model, we used three latent constructs1. Before discussing the measurement model more deeply, we concentrate on the different items for each construct. The main latent construct we used in our model was the attitude people have on the commercialization of gift giving occasions. These feelings were operationalized by asking people whether or not media or shops are giving too much attention to certain gift giving occasions. We used a five-point scale ranging from much too little attention to far too much attention. For both the media and shops, six gift-giving occasions were presented. The original intention of this question was to construct two Likert-like summative rating scales (McIver, Carmines, 1981: 22): feelings on commercialism via the media and feelings on commercialism in shops. Because of the strong internal consistency (Alpha = .91) we decided to reduce the ten-point scale2 to four items. These four items also showed a strong internal consistency (alpha = .79) with high and significant factor loadings in both an exploratory and a confirmatory factor analysis. These results are reflected in the measurement model presented in Table 1. All four items keep their high loadings and the latent construct has a scale composite reliability of .79. 1 2

The researchers want to thank Kristof De Coster for his help and comments on the analysis. Two items on the commercialization of St. Nicholas were removed from the original 12-item scale.

11

The second latent construct is the satisfaction people experience when they give gifts (scale composite reliability, ρc= .62). The construct is composed of three Likert-items each of which was measured on a five-point scale (don’t agree at all – strongly agree). The items were taken from Macklin and Walkers’ gift giving “Joy”scale (Macklin, Walker, 1988). They all include positive or negative feelings people have when giving gifts to one another. Standardized factor loadings are not as high as the first construct, but they all exceed .50 and are highly significant. The scale’s unidimensionality was tested with an exploratory and a confirmatory factor analysis showing high and significant loadings on one factor (alpha = .66). Thirdly, a construct was used measuring satisfaction of people when buying gifts. The scale ranges from negative evaluations on buying gifts towards a more pleasurable attitude. The construct is based on bipolar rating items. Respondents were given sets of two opposite terms between which they could situate themselves on a six-point interval. Some items were recoded in the analysis in order to include all four items with the same directionality. The scale is unidimensional with high factor loadings and an alpha of .81. There is one item in the scale (Buy3), expressing the difficulty respondents experience when buying gifts, which has a far lower factor loading (.50). Since factor analysis showed that the item belonged to the scale and the factor loading was still equal to .50 and significant, we decided to keep the item.

12 Table 1 Latent construct measurement summary: confirmatory factor analysis and scale reliability

Itema

Item Description Summary

Standardised loading

t-value

0.59 0.64 0.56

9.68 10.35 9.36

0.75 0.79 0.50 0.84

16.33 17.33 9.78 18.96

0.67 0.69 0.70 0.74

13.32 13.88 14.04 14.99

Satisfaction with giving gifts (ρc= .62) Give1 Give2 Give3

Gift giving makes me feel good I like watching the expressions on peoples faces when they open a present To me, gifts are a way of showing your love or friendship.

Satisfaction with buying gifts (ρc= .82) Buy1b Buy2 Buy3 Buy4 b

Buying gifts is relaxing … stressing Buying gifts is a waste of time … a pleasant pastime Buying gifts is difficult … easy Buying gifts is fun … boring

Attitude on commercialization (ρc= .79) Comm1 Comm2 Comm3 Comm4

Too much attention in the media at Christmas Too much attention in the media at Valentine’s Day Too much attention in the media at Easter Too much attention in the media at Mother’s Day

Note: Fit statistics for measurement model of 11 indicators for three constructs: χ²(73) =107.08, p = .00; GFI = .97; RMR = .06; CFI = .97; PNFI = .64; NNFI = .96; RMSEA = .034. a Scale composite reliability

ρc =

[(∑ λ ) var(ξ )]/[(∑ λ ) var(ξ ) + ∑θ ] (Bagozzi, Yi, 1988: 80) 2

i

2

i

ii

b Reverse coded.

The measurement model shown in Table 1 provides a reasonable fit to the data. The chi-square test of exact fit is significant, where the objective is to achieve a non-significant p-value. However, Hatcher indicates that a significant chi-square does not turn the measurement model inadequate (Hatcher, 1994: 289). The chi-square ratio shows that the ratio of the chi-square value and the degrees of freedom are lower than two (1.47). This indicates that the chi-square test is within acceptable limits (Marsh e.a., 1988). Other favourable diagnostics include a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of .97, a root mean square residual (RMR) of .06, a comparative fit index (CFI) of .97, a parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) of .64, a non normed fit index (NNFI) of .96 and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .034. In terms of validity of the constructs, convergent validity is evidenced by the large and significant loadings of the items on their posited indicators. Further evidence of convergent validity is shown in Table 2. None of the correlations between the latent constructs are too high to challenge the convergent validity of the constructs.

13 Table 2 Construct correlation matrix Construct

F1

F2

Attitude on commercialization

1.00

Satisfaction with giving gifts

-.05

1.00

Satisfaction with buying gifts

-.17

.34

F3

- .06

The discriminant validity is also indicated, because the confidence interval (± two standard errors) around the correlation estimate between any two latent constructs never includes 1.0 (Anderson, Gerbing, 1988: 416). The Variance Extracted Test also shows the discriminant validity of our constructs. The variance extracted test compares the variance extracted of two latent constructs with the square of the correlation between these two constructs (Fornell, Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity is shown when the explained variance is greater than the squared correlation. We compared all pairs of factors and they all showed an acceptable variance extracted. A last way in which the discriminant validity of our constructs was tested, was the Chi² Difference Test (Anderson, Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi, Phillips, 1982). In this test, the chi² of the measurement model is compared with the chi² of a model in which the correlation between two latent constructs is set to 1, indicating equal constructs. If the difference between these two models is significant, it shows that the second model provides a significant worse fit than the original measurement model. Again discriminant validity of our constructs was demonstrated since all three Chi² difference tests resulted in a highly significant Chi² difference. 3.3.4

Summated rating scale of Attitude on commercialisation

The right hand side of the model presented in Figure 1, posed some statistical problems. Although the main purpose of this paper was to find an exploratory model for the attitude on commercialisation of gift giving processes, we also wanted to test the hypothesis that this attitude leads to a form of anti-commercial behaviour. The research did not assess anti-commercial behaviour directly. We did not construct a scale measuring anti-commercial behaviour or anticommercial intentions of people. However, we did have some indicators of anti-commercial behaviour in the questionnaire. Respondents were asked whether or not they sometimes make gifts themselves instead of buying things. This can be seen as an unintended anti-commercial reaction. Making gifts yourself, implies a greater investment of time and effort than buying things. At the same time, it implies a distance from the gift giving market, commercialised or not. A second group of potential indicators of anti-commercial behaviour is obtained when we look at people’s behaviour on certain gift giving occasions. The questionnaire asked respondents for

14 their gift giving behaviour on occasions like weddings, births, Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day or Father’s Day. For weddings and births we assumed people would automatically buy a gift when they go to a wedding party or they visit a newborn. The other three occasions left open the possibility that nothing was done on these occasions. The hypothesis we pose here is that doing nothing is another form of anti-commercial behaviour. If one does not buy a gift on Valentine’s day, one does not follow the suggested path of giving a gift to your partner. The same goes for Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. Off course these last three indicators of anti-commercial behaviour are appropriate only for those respondents who, in the case of Valentine’s Day, have a partner. All respondent for whom the gift giving occasions did not apply, were excluded from the analysis. In terms of model estimation, the inclusion of the four indicators of anti-commercial behaviour posed some problem to the use of structural equation modelling. Anti-commercial behaviour is measured four times in a dichotomous way. Using these dichotomous variables as dependent variables in a structural equation model is not possible. In order to estimate this part of the model, logistic regression was needed. As a consequence, the right hand side of the model could not be included in the structural equation model and the latent construct “Attitude on commercialization” needed a manifest form in order to function as an explanation variable in the logistic regression. We have chosen to transform the latent construct in a Summated Rating Scale (McIver, Carmines, 1981) in order to include the construct in the logistic regression models. The justification for using a summated rating scale was given earlier. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the Attitude on Commercialization Scale showed a strong internal consistency with high and significant loadings. In addition the alpha value of the scale was .79 indicating internal consistency. The summated scale ranged from 1 to 20 (higher values indicate a stronger rejection of commercialization) with a mean of 15.3 and a standard deviation of 3.04. Most respondents scored high on the scale. Only 3.9 percent of the respondents had a score of 10 or lower, 48.8 percent had 16 or higher. 4 Results 4.1 Structural equation model of Attitude on commercialization The proposed structural model in Figure 1 was tested by using conventional maximum likelihood estimation techniques. The model showed an acceptable fit with a Chi² ratio (Chi²/df) of 1.7 and a RMSEA of .0428. Other fit statistics supported the model as well. Nevertheless, several misspecifications could be observed. The most important problem in the model was the path

15 coefficient from the Satisfaction with giving gifts to the Attitude on commercialization. It was non significant and nearly zero (Table 3). Modification indices indicated to remove this effect from the model and to add a path from the giving construct to the buying construct. Looking at the measurement model, this comes as no surprise. The correlations shown in Table 2 indicate a small correlation (-.05) between the Satisfaction with giving gifts and the Attitude on commercialization. On the other hand, the correlation between both satisfaction constructs was rather high (.34). We decided to estimate a revised model in which the above suggested changes were adopted. The revised model fitted the data well. The Chi² ratio decreased to 1.6, RMSEA decreased to .0386. The removal of the path from Giving gifts to Attitude on commercialization and the addition of an effect from Satisfaction with giving gifts to Satisfaction with buying gifts resulted in an acceptable model. We did decide though to revise the model a second time. The revised model did show some non-significant path coefficients from background variables. Both the effect of income on Giving gifts and the effect of sex on Buying gifts were non significant and low. Removing these effects resulted in Revised model 2 (Table 3).

Table 3 Standardized path coefficients of theoretical and revised structural equation models Dependent variable / Independent variable

Theoretical model

Revised model 1

Revised model 2

Attitude on commercialization Attitude with giving gifts Attitude with buying gifts

.02 -.17 **

-.17 **

-.17 ***

.26 *** -.14 * -.06

.26 *** -.15 * -.06

.28 *** -.17 ***

.14 ** -.18 *** .24 ***

.09 -.15 ** .21 *** .24 **

Attitude with giving gifts Sex Number of children Income Attitude with buying gifts Sex Income Duration of shopping Attitude with giving gifts

-.16 *** .22 *** .27 ***

The final model again showed an acceptable fit. The chi-square test of exact fit is significant but the chi-square ratio remains lower than two (1.6). Other favourable diagnostics include a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of .96, a root mean square residual (RMR) of .074, a comparative fit index (CFI) of .96, a parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) of .71, a non normed fit index (NNFI)

16 of .95 and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .039. All of the path coefficients are significant.

Figure 2: Structural model of attitudes on commercialization

Sex

.28

Attitude with giving gifts # of children

-.17 .27

Income

-.16

Attitude with buying gifts Duration of shopping

-.16

Attitude commercialization

Anticommercial behavior

.22

Note: All coefficients are significant with p-value < 0.0001. Note: Fit statistics for structural model: χ²(82) =130.65, p = .00; GFI = .96; RMR = .07; CFI = .96; PNFI = .71; NNFI = .95; RMSEA = .039.

Since most of the test-statistics show an acceptable model, we can look at the causal paths in the final model. The attitude on commercialization is only influenced by the way one looks at shopping. If buying gifts is an arduous process, one is more critical on the commercialization of the gift giving process. Those who see buying gifts as fun, are less puzzled with the commercial atmosphere that is created on gift giving occasions. The attitude of buying gifts is strongly influenced by the attitude one has when giving gifts to others and by the duration of the gift buying process. People who enjoy giving gifts have a strong positive feeling with the gift giving process. This kind of satisfaction with giving is associated with the way one perceives the shopping process. However, we need to be careful with the causal explanation of both the attitude and the duration path. The more time one spends on buying gifts, the more positive one perceives the shopping process. On the other hand one could also state that someone who has a positive attitude on buying gifts, spends more time searching for the right gift. Although none of the modification indices in the model suggested this reversed influence, it remains a theoretical possibility. Thirdly, income has a negative influence on the

17 satisfaction with buying gifts. The higher ones income, the more stressful the gift selection process becomes. Sex did not have a significant influence on the attitude with buying gifts. There was only a strong influence on the attitude of giving gifts. Women are more satisfied when giving gifts than men. Family size on the other hand had a negative influence. More children at home decreases the satisfaction people have when giving gifts. 4.2 Logistic regression model of Anti-commercial behaviour The influence of the attitude scale on anti-commercial behaviour was done with four logistic regressions in which the summated scale was used as an explanatory variable for each of the four dependent indicators of anti-commercial behaviour. Table 4 might look odd because the rows are not independent variables as is commonly used. All rows represent a different form of anticommercial behaviour on which the influence of the Attitude scale is estimated.

Table 4 Effects of Attitude on commercialisation on forms of anti-commercial behaviour Dependent variable

Standardized Significance Conditional ratio3

Hosmer & Lemeshow

Prob.

Goodness of fit-test

–2 LOG L

Estimate

level

odds

Making gifts

0.15

***

1.58

Chi² 12.5; D(f):6; Prob. 0.05

0.001

Doing nothing on

0.11

*

1.37

Chi² 11.4; D(f):6; Prob. 0.08

0.040

1.43

Chi² 5.2; D(f):6; Prob. 0.51

0.123

1.52

Chi² 4.6; D(f):6; Prob. 0.60

0.016

Valentine’s Day Doing nothing on

0.12

Mother’s Day Doing nothing on

0.14

**

Father’s Day

The influence of a rejection of commercialisation on anti-commercial behaviour is rather low. All parameters are positive, indicating that a more critical attitude on commercialisation leads to a higher probability of showing a certain form of anti-commercial behaviour. However, the estimates are rather low and some are not significant. The Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-offit statistic is acceptable for all four regression models but the –2 LOG L indicates that the 3

The conditional odds ratio was calculated on groups of five categories of the explanatory variable.

18 parameter of commercialization in model 2 (Valentine’s day) and model 3 (Mother’s Day) could be zero. 5 Discussion The first major finding in our results is the fact that giving gifts is a different social reality than buying gifts. At least if we look at attitudinal measures of giving and buying gifts, we see that there are different factors influencing both constructs. As we expected from earlier research there is a string influence gender dimension in the gift giving process. Women have far more positive attitudes on giving gifts to others than men. Being the chief performer in the gift giving ritual (see above), women like their central position and bear clear positive attitudes on the process. Therefore, it was quite surprising to see that gender did not have any significant influence on the attitudes on buying gifts. Women are not only principal role bearers in the gift giving process itself, they also play an important role in buying gifts. Earlier research shows that shopping for gifts is mainly a women’s task (Fischer, 1990). In our final model, there appeared no significant difference between men and women concerning the shopping process of gifts. Concerning the feelings of people towards giving gifts, family sizes matters. The larger a family, the less positive one reacts on giving gifts. There is a possible explanation in the duration of the gift giving process. The more people give gifts to each other, the longer the gift exchange lasts. Since it is common practice in Belgium to exchange a Christmas gift between all members of the family, the actual exchange process might take several hours. The negative effect in our model suggests that such a long exchange process has a negative influence on the attitudes on has towards the exchange process. If we look at the shopping process, it is clear that a positive attitude on giving gifts strongly correlates with a positive attitude on buying gifts. Buying gifts is one of the first stages in the gift giving process. If one looks forward to the gift giving process, one will certainly have a more positive attitude during the selection and the purchase of gifts. However, the shopping process is slightly income related. Higher income groups are less favourable towards buying gifts. On the other hand we see an opposite effect concerning duration. Hours and hours of gift exchange have a negative influence on the attitude on gift giving. Buying gifts for several hours on the other hand has a positive influence on the attitude construct. Again the difference is demonstrated between the buying of gifts and the gift giving itself. Spending several days on choosing and buying gifts is hardly considered a problem.

19 If one likes to shopping, if one has a positive attitude on buying gifts, one is less critical for socalled commercialization trends. It appears that the more one is integrated in the commercial environment of buying things, the less one asks any questions. The model showed that there is no direct influence on the attitude of commercialization from background variables. The influence we hypothesized, coming from the attitude construct of giving gifts, appeared non significant. Only attitudes directly related to shopping have an influence on the approval or disapproval of an increasing commercialisation of shopping environments. Further research could concentrate on the question whether or not the attitude on commercialization is in fact a much broader attitude on commercialization of all shopping behaviour instead of shopping for gift giving occasions. The literature review showed a strong disapproval of all commercializing trends. As we indicated earlier, the critique can be summarized as a vision that characterizes Christmas and gift giving as “grand celebrations of consumption” (Belk, Bryce, 1993). If we look at the results of our survey, it is clear that the anti-commercial attitude represented by cultural critics like Belk, has spread widely in our society. We have found little significant differences influencing the attitude on commercialisation. Only a positive attitude on shopping (gifts) has an inverse affect on a critical evaluation of commercialisation. Following this result, one might expect a strong influence of this attitude on behavioural variables. If one has a critical attitude on the increasing commercialisation of our consumer society, one might find some resistance against this evolution. The right side of the model, tried to find some tracks of a possible anti-commercial behaviour. Making gifts oneself, or doing nothing on Valentine’s day or Mother’s and Father’s day. The results show that there is little or no logical outcome in terms of behaviour from a critical attitude on commercialization. We see a minor effect of critical attitudes on making gifts oneself. However, refusing to participate in commercial gift giving rituals like Valentine’s day or Mother’s and Father’s Day could not be ascertained. Our data do not support the hypothesis that a more critical attitude towards commercialization, leads to some forms of anti-commercial behaviour. This result is related to socio-psychological work on the link between attitudes and behaviour (e.g. Wicker, 1969). Empirical research repeatedly showed that attitude scales used in psychological and sociological research are often poor reflections of people’s behaviour. What people say is often different from what people do (Ajzen, 1987: 53). The results of the second half of our model show the same phenomenon. People are critical towards the commercialization of gift giving occasions. But, the moment there are asked whether or not they participate in actual gift giving activities, they agree.

20 6 Conclusion The Janus face of Saint Nicolas and Christmas is paradoxical. We all participate in the events in December, but at the same time a feeling of discomfort and many critical voices arise. It is striking that this criticism is exclusively given to the commercial aspect of it all. The macro-level has something uneasy. We all take on an active or passive role in the ritual. We all consume and spend gigantic amounts during this period. We all (like to) give and receive presents. But anticommercial voices increasingly crop up. The sharpest criticism is directed at the main figures of the event. Saint Nicolas is not issued a visa before November and Santa Claus should keep his reindeer stalled until after 6 December. The critiques of the icons of the December event reflect the paradoxical attitude with respect to the event. By stopping the advertisements for Saint Nicholas or Christmas or by exiling dressed up actors from the streets, the problem is not solved. Politicians who plead in favour of curfew never talk about abolishing the Christmas shopping days on Sunday or exiling Saint Nicholas thrones from the supermarket. Although one says that one wants to get hold of the commerce, curfews only try to control the time duration of the ritual. Even though in that way the commercial character is possibly flattened, the essence of the social ritual itself stays intact. On top of that, one can ask the question whether there really exists a problem which has to be solved. In our society there is an apparent need for the December ritual in its current form. We want everything to go well and we want the shop-windows to be filled. Touching the agreeable and pleasant (consumption) sphere in the streets, equals at the same time touching the general Saint Nicolas and Christmas feeling. Both rituals, Christmas perhaps even more than Saint Nicolas, have an extremely integrative character at micro-level. What many critics try to save by passing criticism on the commercial character of Christmas, is perhaps being maintained and strengthened by that same social celebration of capitalism. Even if the December event is a festival of consumption, it is at the same time a renewal and a confirmation of kinship relations. The confirmation of these relations may run through the (excessive) buying of material objects, giving and receiving these consumption goods has as a sociological side effect a totally different result than we would expect of such commerce. Behind the façade the essence has remained.

21 7 Bibliography Ajzen, I. (1987) 'Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology', Advances in experimental social psychology, 20: 1-63. Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W. (1988) 'Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A review and recommended two-step approach', Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 411-423. Bagozzi, R.P., Phillips, L.W. (1982) 'Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal', Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 459-489. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. (1988) 'On the evaluation of structural equation models', Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1): 74-94. Belk, R. (1993) 'Materialism and the making of the modern American Christmas', pp. 75-104, in: Miller, D. (Ed.), Unwrapping Christmas. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Belk, R.W. (1987) 'A child's Christmas in America: Santa Claus as deity, consumption as religion', Journal of American culture, 10: 87-100. Belk, R.W. (1989) 'Materialism and the modern U.S. Christmas', Interpretive consumer researchAssociation for consumer researchEditor: Hirschman, E.C.: 115-35. Belk, R.W., Bryce, W. (1993) 'Christmas shopping scenes: from modern miracle to postmodern mall', International journal of reserach in marketing, 10(3): 277-296. Benney, M., e.a. (1959) 'Christmas in an apartment hotel', The American journal of sociology, 56(3): 233-240. Booker, C. (1997) 'Christmas contradictions', Illustrated London news, 8: 40-45. Brockmann, C.T., Peterson, Y. (1990) 'Marital gift giving communication', Free inquiry in creative sociology, 18(1): 29-36. Caplow, T. (1982) 'Christmas gifts and kin networks', American sociological review, 47: 38392. Carrier, J. (1993) 'The rituals of Christmas giving', pp. 55-74, in: Miller, D. (Ed.), Unwrapping Christmas. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cheal, D.J. (1986) 'The social dimensions of gift behavior', Journal of social and personal relationships, 3(4): 423-39. Cheal, D.J. (1987) ''Showing them you love them': gift giving and the dialectic of intimacy', Sociological review, 35(1): 150-69. De Pelsmacker, P., Van den Bergh, J. (1998) 'Advertising content and irritation: a study of 226 TV commercials', Journal of international consumer marketing, 10(4): 5-28. Di Leonardo, M. (1987) 'The female world of cards and holidays: women, families, and the work of kinship', Signs, 12(3): 440-53. Fischer, E., Arnold, S.J. (1990) 'More than a labor of love: gender roles and christmas gift shopping', Journal of consumer research, 17: 333-45. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F. (1981) 'Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error', Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2): 39-50. Goodwin, C., e.a. (1990) 'Gift giving: consumer motivation and the gift purchase process', Advances in consumer research, 17 (Goldberg e.a.): 690-98. Hatcher, L. (1994) A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. North Carolina: SAS Institute. Hirschman, E.C., LaBarbera, P.A. (1989) 'The meaning of Christmas', Interpretive consumer researchAssociation for consumer researchEditor: E.C. Hirschman: 136-47. Jacobson, M.F., Mazur, L.A. (1995) A survival guide for a consumer society. Boulder: Westview Press. Komter, A., Vollebergh, W. (1997) 'Gift giving and the emotional significance of family and friends', Journal of marriage and the family, 59: 747-757.

22 Macklin, M.C., Walker, M. (1988) 'The joy and irritaion of gift giving', Developments inmarketing science, 11: 28-32. Marsh, H.W., e.a. (1988) 'Goodnes-of-Fit Indexes in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The Effect of Sample Size', Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 391-410. McIver, J.P., Carmines, E.G. (1981) Unidimensional scaling. London: Sage. Mees, E. (1993) Het geven van geschenken. Niet gepubliceerde eindverhandeling, Katholieke Universiteit van Leuven. Otnes, C., e.a. (1994) 'The pleasure and pain of being close: men's mixed feelings about participation in Valentine's Day gift exchange', Advances in consumer research, 21: 15964. Robben, H.S.J., Verhallen, T.M.M. (1994) 'Behavioral costs as determinants of cost perception and preference formation for gifts to receive and gifts to give', Journal of economic psychology, 15: 333-50. Rook, D.W. (1985) 'The ritual dimension of consumer behavior', The journal of consumer research, 12: 251-64. Rosental, C., J. (1985) 'Kinkeeping in the familial division of labor', Journal of marriage and the family, 47: 965-974. Rucker, M., Dolstra, J. (1993) 'Gifts as tokens of appreciation: new tests for old models', pp. 55-56, in: Varadarajan, R., Jaworski, B. (Eds.), Marketing theory and applications. Illinois: American Marketing Association. Schmidt, E.L., Moorhead, J.H. (1996) 'Consumer rites: the buying and selling of American holidays', Theology today, 53(2): 238-241. Schmidt, L.E. (1991) 'The commercialization of the calendar: American holidays and the culture of consumption, 1870-1930', The journal of American history, 78(december): 887916. Schor, J.B. (1998) The overspent American. Upscaling, downshifting, and the new consumer. New York: HarperPerennial. Schwartz, B. (1967) 'The social psychology of the gift', The american journal of sociology, 73(1): 1-11. Shurmer, P. (1971) 'The gift game', New society, 18(482): 1242-44. Solomon, M.R. (1999) Consumer behavior. Buying, having and being. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Tesser, A., e.a. (1968) 'Some determinants of gratitude', Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(3): 233-36. van der Zeijden, A. (1996) 'Wie zoet is krijgt lekkers. Sinterklaas in Nederland en België', Neerlandia, 100(5): 19-23. Van es, F. (1959) 'Moederdag en vaderdag in Vlaams-België', Oostvlaamsche zanten, 34(1): 7-29. Waits, W.B. (Ed.) (1993) The modern Christmas in America. A cultural history of gift giving. New York: New York University Press. Webley, P., Wilson, R. (1989) 'Social relations and the unacceptability of money as a gift', The journal of social psychology, 129(1): 85-91. Wicker, A.W. (1969) 'Attitudes versus actions: the relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects', Journal of social issues, 25(4): 41-78. XXX (1999) “CVP wil niet dat sint te vroeg langskomt.” De Morgen 27/10/1999. 1

2

Anna Jarvis invented Mothers’ Day in 1908 Schmidt, L.E. (1991) 'The commercialization of the calendar: American holidays and the culture of consumption, 1870-1930', The journal of American history, 78(december): 887-916. For the moment this does not yet seem to apply to Saint Nicolas. And yet, here and there we notice so-called ‘toy markets’ arising, that are organized to suggest people some ideas for presents.