The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 23 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Gifts as Economic Signals and Social Symbols
Open accessAbstract
Gift-giving has often puzzled economists, especially because efficient grifts-like cash or giving exactly what a person asks for-seem crass or inappropriate. It is shown in a formal game-theoretic model that gifts serve as "signals" of a person's intentions about future investment in a relationship, and inefficient gifts can be beter signals. Other explanations for the inefficiency of gift giving are advanced, and some stylized facts about gift-giving practices are described (many of which are consistent with the signaling view of gifts).
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Camerer models gift-giving as costly signaling in courtship and business partnerships, arguing that inefficient gifts can credibly convey a giver’s willingness to invest in a relationship. The paper offers four explanations for gift inefficiency and connects them to stylized facts, while noting that the signaling view fits courtship and some business settings better than family or charitable giving.
Key findings
- In the two-stage signaling-investment game, equilibria depend on the prior probabilities that each player is willing to invest; possible outcomes include two-sided gift-giving with investment, no gift-giving with investment, no signaling with no investment, and one-sided gift-giving with investment.
- For gift-giving equilibria to hold, gift costs must satisfy \(P_2R(W) > G_1 > P_2C(U)\) and \(P_1R(W) > G_2 > P_1C(U)\), meaning gifts must be costly enough to deter unwilling types but not so costly that willing types lose by signaling.
- Inefficiency can be necessary: with entry costs \(T_1\) and \(T_2\), efficiency bounds such as \(e_1 < T_1/(G_2P_2)\) and \(e_2 < T_2/(G_1P_1)\) deter unwilling gift collectors; inefficient gifts are preferred when willingness probabilities are low, while efficient gifts are preferred in mature relationships.
- The paper gives four explanations for inefficient gifts: deterrence of insincere gift collectors, multidimensional signaling, convention, and errors in guessing a receiver’s tastes; the signaling account fits courtship and some business relationships but not family gift-giving or pure charity.
Methods
- A formal game-theoretic model with two players who choose whether to invest in a relationship, with willing (W) and unwilling (U) types, incomplete information, and a signaling stage followed by an investment stage.
- The analysis derives Bayesian Nash/sequential equilibria for the noncooperative game and compares them with cooperative, incentive-efficient solutions; it also uses a biological analogy to Dawkins’s account of animal courtship and discusses stylized facts.
- No empirical data or sample are used; the argument is theoretical and illustrative, drawing on anthropological, sociological, and business examples.
Limitations
- The author states the model is a simplified abstraction: real gift-giving often occurs over multiple rounds, can involve competitive bidding, and is shaped by conventions that the model does not fully capture.
- The author states the signaling view is not well suited to family gift-giving or pure charity, and notes anomalous facts such as removed price tags and special cases like memorial gifts.
- Evident from the text: the paper offers no empirical tests, relies on assumptions such as additively separable utilities and comparability of \(C(U)\) and \(C(W)\), and supports its claims mainly through stylized examples rather than systematic data.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 23 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In courtship situations like this, gift giving can sort potential partners according to their intentions (i.e., their investment plans).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- The authors state this as an assumption: In the model, players do not know whether their partner has invested until after the period is over.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and inefficient gifts can be better signals”
- Also stated in: § GIFTS AS SIGNALS · plain
“inefficient gifts that are not worth much to the receiver may be better signals than efficient gifts”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- The authors state this as an assumption: In the model, players do not know whether their partner has invested until after the period is over.
- Also stated in: § GIFTS AS SIGNALS · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both players are happier exchanging the inefficient gifts in ( 8) and ( 9) only if (see App. ) (1 -P1)1P1 > G11G2 > P21(l -P2) (10”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In my simple model, the ith suitor's gift should cost P' (the ith suitor's assessment of the probability that the courted player 2 is willing to invest in suitor i) times CQ(U) (the ith suitor's gain from cheating).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They prefer to invest only if P2 is above an investment threshold, which depends on R(W), Q(W), and C(W).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strategies described above-unwilling players never invest, willing players invest only if both probabilities P1 and P2 are above their investment thresholds-are a unique Nash equilibrium.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclear- The authors state this as an assumption: In the noncooperative game, players cannot communicate about or enforce their choices of strategies and cannot give gifts or convey willingness.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the model, players choose simultaneously and do not communicate.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ing cheaters are happier than willing cheaters), as seems most likely, then there are four kinds of equilibria:8”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If one probability is moderately high (P1, say) and the other probability is below the investment threshold, then the low-probability player 2 needs to give a gift to win player l's trust, but player 2 cannot afford to (even if he is willing) because the required gift is too expensive.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cooperative game has almost exactly the same result as the noncooperative game, except that the equilibrium always involves two-sided gift giving (followed by investment by willing players), regardless of the levels of probabilities.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(iv) if there is some cost even to entering the gift-giving-investment game, then inefficient gifts will serve a useful purpose by discouraging unwilling players from entering the game.”
- Also stated in: § OTHER EXPLANATIONS FOR INEFFICIENCY · plain
“In the formal model, impractical gifts are good because they deter unwillingly players from engaging in insincere gift giving simply to collect gifts.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § OTHER EXPLANATIONS FOR INEFFICIENCY · plain
- It may state two separate claims as one. 69
- Probably not a substantial claim. 34
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, gift giving will often be reciprocal (though not always), because gifts are meant to spur investments that are reciprocal.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The unwilling player 1 can be deterred from participating at all (though willing players are not deterred; see App.), thus saving player 2 the cost of a wasted gift, if e1 < T11G2P2 and, for player 2, e2 < T21G1Pl.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A suitor will give larger gifts if he (a) is more confident that the courted player is in love with him or (b) has more to gain by giving a gift and then cheating.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(iii) if one player's chance of investing is low and another's is sufficiently high, then only the low-probability player should give a gift to the highprobability player, and investment will then take place;”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this simple investment game, unwilling players never invest (by definition), and both willing players invest if and only if their expected values from investing are above their expected values from not investing”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the prior probabilities P1, P2 are small, then inefficient gift giving does more good (deterrence) than harm (opportunity cost), but, if the probabilities are large, as when a relationship is mature, giving inefficient gifts does more harm than good, and players prefer to exchange efficient gifts.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Players will not invest early in a relationship, when either P1 or P2 is low (and below the investment threshold), or before an important commitment, when Q(W) is especially large (so that the probability threshold is large).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Now, assuming C(W) < C(U),19 the threshold in (A7) is higher than the threshold t2, so there is a range of P2 in which a W-type player 1 is willing to invest but unwilling to pay the signaling cost to convince player 2 to invest.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: C(W) is less than C(U).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we define the right-hand side as an”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, players exchange perfectly efficient gifts, but the sizes of the gifts players give distinguish their willingness.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, we can rule out”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are a variety of purestrategy equilibria, depending on the exact values of the probabilities and utilities.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“if the efficiency thresholds in (8) and ( 9) are enforced and a U-type player 2 does not enter the game, then a W-type player 1 earns expected net gift receipts of P2(-G1 + elG2) -T1 and expected relationship gains of P2R(W).(These net gains are always positive, so Wtypes are not discouraged from entering the game as U-types are, assuming e's are chosen to make [8] and [9] bind.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the equilibria described above are sequential.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Otherwise, the two games are exactly the same, except the two-sided gift-giving solution is incentive efficient for any probabilities in the cooperative game, while it is only an equilibrium for certain probabilities in the noncooperative game.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two-sided Signaling Equilibria (table A2) First, suppose that both prior probabilities P1 and P2 are below their thresholds, t, and t2, so that if players do nothing to change their partners' beliefs, then no investment will result in the second period.A separating equilibrium results if both players choose (W, G; U, 0)-only willing players invest in the signal, so players can be separated by”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, a W-type player 1 has a net expected value of -T- G1 + elG2P2 + P2R(W).This expression is positive if el just satisfies the threshold (8) because then the first and third terms cancel out, and, since G1 = P2C(U), it is less than P2R(W) (because R[W] > C[U] by assumption).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: R(W) is greater than C(U).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Combining this inequality for W-type player 2 with an analogous condition for player 1 yields condition (10) in the text.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The feasibility constraints form a system of eight inequalities-four individual rationality (IR) constraints, one for each possible player type, and four incentive-compatibility (IC) constraints.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If both priors P1 and P2 are above their thresholds, t1 and t2, then players will invest in the second period even if they have learned nothing about their partner's type from the signaling.As a result, both types of players have no incentive to signal, and the result is a no-signaling equilibrium in which players do invest in the second period.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This solution is incentive efficient as well as feasible.(That is, there is no solution that makes all players better off.Indeed, every other feasible solution makes some players worse off.)”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For player 1, for instance, this implies P2R(W) > G2(eu -ew) > P2C(U),(A12)”
- Also stated in: § The Efficiency of Equilibrium Gifts · plain
“and, since both expressions on the right and the left of the inequality are positive, this implies eu must be greater than ew.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The costs C(U) and C(W) are comparable across unwilling and willing types.
- Also stated in: § The Efficiency of Equilibrium Gifts · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The signaling equilibria, if they exist, restrict how costly gift signals G1 and G2 must be (to satisfy inequalities [A4] and [A5]), but no natural limits on gift efficiency emerge.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this region (see fig. 1), no signaling (and, subsequently, no investment) takes place, and there is a symmetric region in which player 2 would like to signal but cannot afford to.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One can show formally that inefficiency is necessary because the value of gifts received subsidizes the cost of gifts given, and inefficient gifts deter partners who are unwilling to invest from simply collecting gifts.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“18 There are no mixed-strategy equilibria.W-types will always prefer I to any mixedstrategy play of I and N, conditional on their partner's probability being above its threshold.Intuitively, it seems that U-types might sometimes play I, if their probabilities are below their threshold, to coax their partner into playing L. However, U-types' sometimes playing I is not a Nash equilibrium, since, if”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The unique Bayesian Nash equilibria are these:18 (1) If both probabilities are above their thresholds t, and t2, players choose (W, I; U, N). ( 2) If either probability is below its threshold, then one W-type player will not invest, so the other W-type player will not invest either, and the players both choose (W, N; U, N).If equilibrium (2) results, then signaling is needed.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“helpful in explaining gift giving between groups of people or charitable gift giving by individuals or organizations”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On meeting, a nervous couple (with low probabilities of willingness) initially prefer to exchange inexpensive, inefficient gifts that have only sentimental value.”
- Also stated in: § Equilibria in the Two-Stage Gift-giving Game · plain
“they gradually give more expensive, more practical gifts.”
- Also stated in: § Equilibria in the Two-Stage Gift-giving Game · hedged
“Eventually, perhaps, they simply buy themselves what they want with their partners' money.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Equilibria in the Two-Stage Gift-giving Game · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The game, while simple, begins to account for some of the basic stylized facts, since conclusion (iii) shows that reciprocity is not essential and conclusion (iv) provides a rationalization for inefficient gift giving.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since such resources are nonsalvageable, they make gift giving inefficient (unless they substitute for the receiver's normal shopping).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“suggests that courtship of top executives, often with material gift giving, is an important precursor to a successful corporate”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wall Street Journal 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The conventional exchange of token gifts (flowers, special efforts in grooming or fashion) on initial dates may be an institutionalization of the two-sided signaling equilibrium when willingness is unlikely.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accepting an overpriced dinner instead of its cash equivalent has an opportunity cost to the receiver; so, incurring that cost is simultaneously a signal of the giver's intentions and of the receiver's intentions.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A DeBeers diamond ad reads,”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites DeBeers
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedSingle caseTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cigars a proud father might distribute to signal the birth of a child are probably not smoked, nowadays, but they are unmistakable signals.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the game-theoretic models, players are assumed to signal simultaneously, but they actually prefer to signal last (to avoid wasting gifts on a partner found to be unwilling).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All these explanations begin with the simple notion that gifts are signals of some characteristic of the gift giver.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Good gift giving thus involves guessing a gift receiver's tastes, which often produces inefficiency.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Perhaps keeping the price unknown cushions either the giver or receiver against disappointment if the gift cost much more or much less than we would prescribe (cf.Sabini and Silver [1982, pp. 107-23] on the protective ambiguity of flirting).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sabini and Silver [1982
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biological predictors and verbal pleas are notoriously unreliable (because they are not hard to fake), so partners need an indicator that is too costly to fake-a signal.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The degree of inefficiency here need not be large, but there will often be some inefficiency.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Often, long-term business or political relationships16 are economically identical to personal relationships, so we are not surprised by the”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Moore 1973 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, Caplow (1984) notes strict compliance with the rule that”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caplow 1984 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Conventions, like language, are”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caplow 1984 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any net cost of time, energy, or imagination is part of the signaling cost of a gift: the thought does count.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, conventions arise to coordinate behavior among people who cannot communicate with one another easily (Lewis 1969), so when things change and a more efficient signaling convention becomes available, it is difficult, by the nature of conventions, to coordinate change from the old convention to a new one.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lewis 1969
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Holidays occur regularly, but the appropriate rate of signaling occasions should be as fast or slow as the rate of change in a partner's willingness.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Caplow (1982) notes that, at Christmas, employers routinely give money gifts to employees.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caplow (1982) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the courted player is assumed to know whom he is in love with better than the suitors do, the only information that gifts convey is about the gains suitors would get from cheating.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The courted player knows whom he is in love with better than the suitors do.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“gifts will work very well because the gift givers are known to the recipients (unless they are given by secret admirers), as we require in our analysis of the game, and gifts clearly mark the informational purpose and target of the signal.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inefficient gift giving is a double-edged sword, however: it protects the giver from gift collectors, but it also costs the willing giver the opportunity to receive gifts he really enjoys.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each gift in this class signals willingness equally well ($50's worth), but each gift signals something else-tastes the giver has or hopes the receiver develops (Spin); how carefully the giver was listening when the receiver discussed food or wine (sushi, wine); or how much the giver appreciates the receiver's bodily (underwear) or intellectual (poetry) charms or thinks those bodily charms need”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other rules of etiquette dictate when it is appropriate form for only one person to give a gift (as in my one-sided gift-giving equilibria).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although I argued above that these gifts are simply conventional, there may be some reasons (besides historical accident) why these gifts, rather than others, became conventional.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, we might expect to see a decline in the traditional premarriage exchange of gifts from men to women, though important gifts (like diamonds) will still be useful to signal intentions on nonmarriage occasions.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In modern times, marriage no longer obligates a woman socially or physically to bear children because of changing mores, modern birth control, and legalized abortion.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To explain involuntary labor-market unemployment, Akerlof (1982Akerlof ( , 1984) ) suggests that hard work and above-market wages (which result in a shortage of jobs) are like an exchange of gifts between employers and employees who”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Akerlof (1982 source
- Not matchedcites [1984]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is precisely inefficient gift giving, except that in business settings the cost of gifts needed to ensure each side's investment can be so huge that exchanging gifts permanently is extremely inefficient.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, holidays serve other purposes too, and holidays do not always conveniently occur when simultaneous gift giving is needed-hence, the function of engagement rings, lavish wedding expenses, graduation gifts, and so on.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If gift giving is cooperative, simultaneity is assumed, but, if gift giving is noncooperative, it is useful to have some occasions on which it is commonly known that gifts should be exchanged to avoid the problem of who gives the gift first.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many gifts signal things by convention (Lewis 1969) or custom (Akerlof 1980), and these conventional gifts are often inefficient.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lewis 1969
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Akerlof 1980 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When vacationers bring back trinkets or send postcards to loved ones, they remind receivers at home that the giver is thinking about them, thus signaling by their thoughts (and possibly taking advantage of international price differences as well).”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“A similar idea dominates recent theories of product-quality assurance, in which firms buy inefficient gifts of advertising (Klein and Leffler 1981) or give gifts of high-quality goods sold at low-quality prices (Shapiro 1983) to signal their intention to produce high-quality goods.”
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since it is very costly for women to bear children alone, and men are always tempted to desert the marriage after conception (arguing by anal-ogy, remember), the premarriage gifts men give, such as an engagement ring, are like the nests that male birds build to pledge their fidelity to female birds.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Men are always tempted to desert the marriage after conception.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the assumption of cooperation is probably best suited to mature relationships where P1 and P2 are presumably above their thresholds (else, the relationship would not have lasted) and where signaling does not take place noncooperatively.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, familial gift giving is more like primitive premarket exchange-as in the anthropological accounts, where gifts provide social insurance-than like signaling during courtship, so the inefficiencies that are important for signaling purposes need not be present in gift giving in the family.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A third explanation for inefficiency is that the meaning of gifts is often conventional and arbitrary.Since convention is hard to change, once established, inefficient gift giving could persist.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps, by avoiding such comparison, whether by removing price tags or by making taboo the photographic comparison among gifts, givers and receivers can believe their relationships (as signaled by the gift) are better than they are.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inefficient gifts help deter, but they can hurt willing players.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this regard, note Caplow's (1984) observation that parents rarely photograph their children with all their gifts unwrapped (though they often photograph children surrounded by wrapped gifts), because to do so”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caplow's (1984) source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By adding investment, we give a noninvesting player something to gain from riding free, so we provide a motive for some players to lie about their investment plans, and we create an information problem that signaling can solve.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The signaling view accounts for some stylized facts about modern practices of gift giving-the thought counts, holidays coordinate gift giving that is not naturally simultaneous, and so on.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The intuition behind this result is that, by lowering any player's gift efficiency, we certainly make that player worse off, and we either make the other-type player no better off, or we make that player worse off because the IC constraints force player's utilities to be not far apart.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children's gifts to parents-often charmingly homemade and ugly, with no direct utility value to parents-signal the child's affection but not exactly as in courtship.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Usually, the amounts are not publicized, perhaps for the same reasons that price tags are removed from gifts.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“(Caplow [1982, p. 386] noted that at Christmas”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caplow [1982 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When efficient gifts are appropriate.-Whenparents give cash as a wedding present to their children, that strikingly cold gift draws attention to the end of the parent-child relationship (for, if the relationship were intended to endure, an inefficient gift would be more appropriate).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Put differently, the overt pricing of a relationship”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hemenway 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A fourth explanation is that gifts are signals of how much a gift giver knows about the receiver's tastes.If so, gifts are necessarily guesses about tastes that are sometimes wrong; therefore, gifts are sometimes inefficient.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, gifts from parents may shape or educate a child's tastes, or they may be control mechanisms to reward or punish children.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the analysis seems especially appropriate for simple gift giving during courtship and in some business settings, it is not well suited to gift giving in families or to explaining pure charity.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The variety of sociological explanations for gift giving suggests a second explanation, that gifts might serve multiple signaling purposes simultaneouslysignaling”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adding within-or between-player utility interdependencies-such as gifts' having less utility cost when you are in love with the gift receiver-makes it easy to explain inefficient gift giving.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gift giving is puzzling from an economic perspective because it is inefficient-givers spend money on gifts differently from the way receivers would-and it seems to be necessarily so.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(Intuitively, the player who is most likely to be a U-type must signal to his partner.The sincere must convince the skeptic, not the other way around.)”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the role of investment may seem contrived and artificial, without an investment-theoretic definition of the relationship, players have no incentive to lie, so no signals are needed.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sincefamilies are voluntary organizations formed by parents and having children who necessarily belong, there is no process of courtship to imply that gifts are signals.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Families are voluntary organizations formed by parents and having children who necessarily belong.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps this gesture blesses the marriage, signaling trust in the child's new spouse and acknowledging the validity of the child's new family.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cooperation-defined in game theory as the ability to communicate about and enforce the strategy choices of players-seems realistic in many gift-giving situations: partners do talk about gift giving in relation-ships, including discussions of gift costs and whether gifts should be efficient or not.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gifts Gifts in memory of the dead are often deliberately efficient as well (such as contributions to a specified charity), perhaps because the forwardlooking relationship, signaled by inefficient gifts, is ended.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Appropriate gifts are often inefficient; givers buy goods different from what receivers would like.
“Appropriate gifts are often inefficient: givers buy goods different from those receivers would like.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Modern gift giving is not always reciprocal.
“it is especially misleading to assume that modern gift giving must be reciprocal (it is not always so)”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the model, players do not know whether their partner has invested until after the period is over.
“we assume that players do not know whether their partner has invested until after the period is over.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the model, players know their own types and the probability that their partner is a willing type, but not the partner's type.
“In this case, we suppose players know their own types, and the probability that their partner is a willing type.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the noncooperative game, players cannot communicate about or enforce their choices of strategies and cannot give gifts or convey willingness.
“which means that players cannot communicate about and enforce their choices of strategies and they cannot give gifts or convey their willingness.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the model, players choose simultaneously and do not communicate.
“Since players are assumed not to communicate and to choose simultaneously”
The paper relies on this without support.
Gift giving usually occurs in multiple rounds, with successively more expensive and perhaps more efficient gifts.
“Usually, gift giving occurs in multiple rounds, in which successively more expensive, and perhaps more efficient, gifts are given.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The courted player knows whom he is in love with better than the suitors do.
“Since the courted player is assumed to know whom he is in love with better than the suitors do”
The paper relies on this without support.
In competitive gift giving, people often involve several suitors in bidding wars or tolerate such wars.
“Often, people involve several suitors in bidding wars (or tolerate such wars).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Gifts are symbolic of qualities of givers or receivers and are actions that convey meaning.
“gifts are symbolic of some qualities of gift givers or receivers; gifts are actions people take that convey meaning.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Utilities for gifts given, gifts received, and joint production are additively separable and independent between players.
“I also assume that utilities for gifts given, for gifts received, and for joint production are additively separable and independent between players.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The two-period signaling-investment game is initially played noncooperatively, and players' strategies are restricted to gifts of size zero or G1.
“I assume initially that this two-period game is played noncooperatively, and I restrict their choice of strategies to giving gifts of size zero or G1 (e.g., for player 1).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Virtually everyone's utility for generic gift products is continually increasing in price.
“Second, virtually everyone's utility for these products is continually increasing in price.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Quality is usually an increasing function of price.
“Since quality is usually an increasing function of price, the giver can be fairly sure a high-cost version of one of these gifts is somewhat efficient”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In mature relationships, a person prefers a relationship with a friend who knows their tastes.
“(assuming that I prefer a relationship with a friend who knows my tastes)”
The paper relies on this without support.
Marriage typically obligates a woman to bear children.
“I suggest an important motive for gift giving from men to women before marriage is that marriage typically obligates a woman to bear children.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Men are always tempted to desert the marriage after conception.
“and men are always tempted to desert the marriage after conception (arguing by anal-ogy, remember)”
The paper relies on this without support.
In modern times, marriage no longer obligates a woman socially or physically to bear children because of changing mores, modern birth control, and legalized abortion.
“Of course, this story has changed dramatically in modern times, since marriage no longer obligates a woman, either socially or physically, to bear children (because of changing mores, modern birth control, and legalized abortion).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Families are voluntary organizations formed by parents and having children who necessarily belong.
“Sincefamilies are voluntary organizations formed by parents and having children who necessarily belong”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The costs C(U) and C(W) are comparable across unwilling and willing types.
“To justify this logic, C(U) and C(W) must be comparable.This is a strong assumption, since a willing-type player and an unwilling-type player might be considered different people, and interpersonal comparisons of utility are notoriously problematic if not impossible.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
R(W) is greater than C(U).
“because R[W] > C[U] by assumption”
The authors state this as an assumption.
C(W) is less than C(U).
“assuming C(W) < C(U),19”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Malinowski citation year differs from reference entry
MinorThe text cites Malinowski as 1922, while the listed Malinowski reference is dated 1932.
“(Boas 1895;Malinowski 1922;Mauss 1967)”
“21. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1932. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.”
Gift cost set below its stated minimum
MinorThe appendix says the cheapest gift satisfying (A4) costs P2C(W), but (A4) requires it to cost more than P2C(U). Under the paper's stated case C(W) < C(U), the proposed cost cannot satisfy that bound.
“If we make the gifts as cheap as possible to satisfy (A3) and (A4), setting G, = P2C(W), then it only pays for the W-type player 1 to signal if the expected value in (A6) is positive”
“P2R(W) > G1 > P2C(U), (A4) P1R(W) > G2 > P1C(U).(A5)”
Citations
Cites
Theory of games and economic behavior
Garcia, S. R., & Miller, S. J. (2019) · American Mathematical Society eBooks · doi:10.1090/mbk/121/32 · Cited by 16,777
Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm
Fama, E. F. (1980) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/260866 · Cited by 10,543
(1976) · Cited by 10,423
(1985) · American Economic Review · Cited by 6,056
Equilibrium in Competitive Insurance Markets: An Essay on the Economics of Imperfect Information
Rothschild, M., & Stiglitz, J. (1976) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1885326 · Cited by 4,987
Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice
Thaler, R. (1985) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.4.3.199 · Cited by 4,885
The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies.
Tumin, M. M., Mauss, M., Cunnison, I., & Evans‐Pritchard, E. E. (1956) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2088549 · Cited by 4,071
The Role of Market Forces in Assuring Contractual Performance
Klein, B., & Leffler, K. B. (1981) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/260996 · Cited by 3,653
Banks, D. L., Ríos, J., & Insua, D. R. (2015) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/b18653-3 · Cited by 3,649
Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice
Thaler, R. H. (2008) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1070.0330 · Cited by 3,477
Flagged first, then by citations
12 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [33]33. Shapiro, C. 1983. "Premium for High Quality as Returns to Reputations." Quarterly Journal of Economics 98:659-80.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sacrifice and Stigma: Reducing Free-riding in Cults, Communes, and Other Collectives
Iannaccone, L. R. (1992) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261818 · Cited by 1,247
Reciprocity as a Contract Enforcement Device: Experimental Evidence
Fehr, E., Gächter, S., & Kirchsteiger, G. (1997) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2171941 · Cited by 1,193
Relationship marketing effectiveness: The role of involvement
Gordon, M. E., McKeage, K., & Fox, M. A. (1998) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(199808)15:5 · Cited by 223
Gift Giving as Agapic Love: An Alternative to the Exchange Paradigm Based on Dating Experiences
Belk, R., & Coon, G. S. (1993) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209357 · Cited by 695
Pride and Prejudice: The Human Side of Incentive Theory
Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2008) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.98.3.990 · Cited by 598
The determinants of trust in supplier–automaker relationships in the US, Japan, and Korea
Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. (2010) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.34 · Cited by 622
Sect, Subsidy, and Sacrifice: An Economist's View of Ultra-Orthodox Jews*
Berman, E. (2000) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355300554944 · Cited by 544
Revisiting multinational firms' tolerance for joint ventures: a trust-based approach
Madhok, A. (2005) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400161 · Cited by 521
“These are too important today to be ignored.”
BackgroundReligion, terrorism and public goods: Testing the club model
Berman, E., & Laitin, D. D. (2008) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.03.007 · Cited by 477
“They can be explained as an initiation rite which signals type [Camerer 1988, Iannaccone 1992].”
BackgroundPurchasing Behavior in Embedded Markets
Frenzen, J., & Davis, H. L. (1990) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208532 · Cited by 394
The Currency of Reciprocity: Gift Exchange in the Workplace
Kube, S., Maréchal, M. A., & Puppe, C. (2012) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.102.4.1644 · Cited by 368
Human Relations in the Workplace
Rotemberg, J. J. (1994) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261951 · Cited by 346
The role of stock ownership by US members of Congress on the market for political favors
Tahoun, A. (2013) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.10.008 · Cited by 305
“4 Camerer (1988) suggests that a gift serves as a signal of the intentions of a person to establish a long term relationship.”
Too Cool for School? Signalling and Countersignalling
Feltovich, N., Harbaugh, R., & To, T. (2002) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/3087478 · Cited by 271
Employee Recognition and Performance: A Field Experiment
Bradler, C., Dur, R. A. J., Neckermann, S., & Non, A. (2013) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2291 · Cited by 321
“In the spirit of Camerer (1988), Prendergast and Stole (2001), and Ellingsen and Johannesson (2011), we assume that the costs of creating thank-you cards decrease in the employer’s altruism, i.e., c (cid:48) ( α j ) 0 .”
BackgroundImpact of viewer engagement on gift-giving in live video streaming
Yu, E. J., Jung, C., Kim, H., & Jung, J. (2018) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.014 · Cited by 279
Probability and Mode of Acquisition Effects on Choices Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Options
O’Curry, S., & Strahilevitz, M. A. (2001) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1023/a:1008115902904 · Cited by 215
Market Signaling of Personal CharacteristicsPreprint
Fremling, G. M., & Posner, R. A. (1999) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.193490 · Cited by 186
“Camerer (1988), for example, shows that seemingly wasteful gifts can signal the donor’s interest in entering into a serious relationship.”
Baskin, E., Wakslak, C. J., Yaacov Trope, B., & Novemsky, N. (2014) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/675737 · Cited by 218
Service Sweethearting: Its Antecedents and Customer Consequences
Brady, M. K., Voorhees, C. M., & Brusco, M. J. (2011) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.09.0420 · Cited by 203
Qualitative Steps toward an Expanded Model of Anxiety in Gift-Giving: Figure 1
Wooten, D. B. (2000) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/314310 · Cited by 192
The dark side of trust: When trust becomes a ‘poisoned chalice’
Skinner, D., Dietz, G., & Weibel, A. A. (2013) · Organization · doi:10.1177/1350508412473866 · Cited by 218
“For example, a gift-giver might worry that their gift does not match the gift-recipient’s preferences (Camerer, 1988) or the pre-existing expectations on the part of the gift recipient might not match the reality of the gift, or the gift might not reflect the recipient’s self-concept correctly (Sunwolf, 2006).”
BackgroundAddressing antibiotic abuse in China: An experimental audit study
Currie, J., Lin, W., & Meng, J. (2014) · Journal of Development Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2014.05.006 · Cited by 188
Intracommunity Gifting at the Intersection of Contemporary Moral and Market Economies
Weinberger, M. F., & Wallendorf, M. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/662198 · Cited by 180
Do sincere apologies need to be costly? Test of a costly signaling model of apology
Ohtsubo, Y., & Watanabe, E. (2008) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.09.004 · Cited by 166
Money can’t buy love: Asymmetric beliefs about gift price and feelings of appreciation
Flynn, F. J., & Adams, G. S. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.11.003 · Cited by 161
“According to Camerer (1988) and others (e.g., Malinowski, 1922; Mauss, 1925), gift-giving represents a symbolic ritual, whereby gift-givers attempt to signal their positive attitudes toward the intended recipient and their willingness to invest resources in a future relationship.”
BackgroundPaying to belong: When does rejection trigger ingratiation?
Romero‐Canyas, R., Downey, G., Reddy, K. S., Rodríguez, S., Cavanaugh, T. J., & Pelayo, R. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0020013 · Cited by 167
“This supports past findings that men buy high value items for women when courting them (Camerer, 1988; Cronk & Dunham, 2007).”
Hamas, Taliban and the Jewish Underground: An Economist's View of Radical Religious Militias
Berman, E. (2003) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w10004 · Cited by 155
A guide map to the terrain of gift value
Larsen, D., & Watson, J. (2001) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.1034 · Cited by 151
Gift Exchange in The Workplace: Money or Attention?
Dur, R. A. J. (2009) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1162/jeea.2009.7.2-3.550 · Cited by 148
A Framework for Understanding Consumer Choices for Others
Liu, P. J., Dallas, S. K., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucz009 · Cited by 142
Why Do People Volunteer? An Experimental Analysis of Preferences for Time Donations
Brown, A. L., Meer, J., & Williams, J. F. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2951 · Cited by 126
Social Influences on Dyadic Giving over Time: A Taxonomy from the Giver's Perspective: Table 1
Lowrey, T. M., Otnes, C. C., & Ruth, J. A. (2004) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/380288 · Cited by 122
Komter, A. E. (2007) · International Sociology · doi:10.1177/0268580907070127 · Cited by 124
Ruffle, B. J. (1999) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/s0167-2681(99)00048-7 · Cited by 119
The non-monetary nature of gifts
Prendergast, C. J., & Stole, L. (2001) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/s0014-2921(00)00102-1 · Cited by 110
“First, both Camerer (1988) and Carmichael and MacLeod (1997) argue that money may be a bad medium of exchange when gifts are exchanged simply because cash is too valuable to the recipient.”
BackgroundInfluentialComing Clean and Cleaning Up: Does Voluntary Self-Reporting Indicate Effective Self-Policing?
Toffel, M. W., & Short, J. L. (2011) · The Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1086/658494 · Cited by 105
Religion, Terrorism and Public Goods: Testing the Club Model
Berman, E., & Laitin, D. D. (2008) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w13725 · Cited by 103
Ward, M. K., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2016) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.13.0537 · Cited by 98
“…of explicit suggestions for gifts could be interpreted as the giver not knowing the recipient well enough to identify a desirable gift, or not wishing to expend the resources needed to identify the best gift (Belk 1996; Camerer 1988), thus inhibiting the giver’s goal to signal relational closeness.”
BackgroundWhen Consumers Prefer to Give Material Gifts Instead of Experiences: The Role of Social Distance
Goodman, J. K., & Lim, S. (2018) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy010 · Cited by 98
“Gift giving serves multiple functions: gifts signal relationships and information, strengthen social bonds, and fulfill social norms, just to name a few (Belk 1996; Camerer 1988; Huang and Yu 2000; Schwartz 1967; Teigen, Olsen, and Solas 2005).”
BackgroundGraycar, A., & Jancsics, D. (2016) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2016.1177833 · Cited by 110
“Gifts can be strategically used as signals of the intention to establish relationship and shorten social distance (Camerer, 1988; Otnes & Beltramini, 1996; Sahlins, 1965).”
BackgroundGift-Giving as a Conceptual Framework: Framing Social Behavior in Online Networks
Skågeby, J. (2010) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2010.5 · Cited by 95
“O Symbolic interpersonal meanings invoked by gifting is a recurring and important theme in the gift-giving literature (Cheal, 1986; Camerer, 1988; Carrier, 1991).”
BackgroundHard Targets: Theory and Evidence on Suicide Attacks*
(2005) · Cited by 92
Sect, Subsidy and Sacrifice: An Economist's View of Ultra-Orthodox JewsPreprint
Berman, E. (1998) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.141977 · Cited by 92
“They can be explained as a sort of initiation rite which signals unobserved type [Camerer 1988].”
An integrative review of gift‐giving research in consumer behavior and marketing
Givi, J., Birg, L., Lowrey, T. M., & Galak, J. (2022) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1318 · Cited by 94
The Role of Stock Ownership by US Members of Congress on the Market for Political FavorsPreprint
Tahoun, A. (2010) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1571974 · Cited by 89
Reciprocity: An Economics of Social Relations
Kolm, S. (2008) · Cited by 87
Employee Recognition and Performance: A Field ExperimentPreprint
Bradler, C., Dur, R. A. J., Neckermann, S., & Non, A. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2228609 · Cited by 83
Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2011) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.002 · Cited by 80
“Building on the previous formal models Camerer (1988) and Prendergast and Stole (2001), we first provided a relatively general characterization of the circumstances under which donors prefer giving inefficient non–monetary gifts.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialGiver–receiver asymmetries in gift preferences
Teigen, K. H., Olsen, M. V. G., & Solås, O. E. (2005) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466604x23428 · Cited by 77
Economic Dimensions of Household Gift Giving
Garner, T. I., & Wagner, J. D. (1991) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209266 · Cited by 78
Apologies as Signals: With Evidence from a Trust Game
Ho, B. (2011) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1410 · Cited by 76
“2 There is a gift giving literature where agents choose inefficient gifts in order to signal type (Camerer, 1988; Prendergast and Stole, 2001, etc.).”
BackgroundChapter 1 Introduction to the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity
Kolm, S. (2006) · Handbook on the economics of giving, reciprocity and altruism · doi:10.1016/s1574-0714(06)01001-3 · Cited by 75
Theft, Gift-Giving, and Trustworthiness: Honesty Is Its Own Reward in Rural Paraguay
Schechter, L. (2007) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.97.5.1560 · Cited by 83
An Agency Perspective on New Technology Champions
Lawless, M. W., & Price, L. L. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.342 · Cited by 73
The Currency of Reciprocity - Gift-Exchange in the WorkplacePreprint
Kube, S., Maréchal, M. A., & Puppe, C. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1160170 · Cited by 71
“Our results are thus encouraging for recent theoretical advances analyzing the role of non-monetary gifts as costly signals (see Camerer (1988), Carmichael and MacLeod (1997) and Prendergast and Stole (2001)).”
Psychological distance in consumer psychology: Consequences and antecedents
Maglio, S. J. (2019) · Consumer Psychology Review · doi:10.1002/arcp.1057 · Cited by 74
‘No Strings Attached’: Welcoming the Existential Gift in Business
Frémeaux, S., & Michelson, G. (2011) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0749-5 · Cited by 63
Gifting and Status in Virtual Worlds
Goode, S., Shailer, G., Wilson, M. D., & Jankowski, J. (2014) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222310207 · Cited by 61
“Camerer [24] views gifts as signaling devices used by players in the first stage of a two-stage investment game to establish a relationship.”
BackgroundInfluentialFraming, intentions, and trust–choice incompatibility
Keren, G. B. (2007) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.02.002 · Cited by 60
Kolm, S. (2008) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511492334 · Cited by 60
Generalizability is not optional: insights from a cross-cultural study of social discounting
Tiokhin, L., Hackman, J., Munira, S., Jesmin, K., & Hruschka, D. J. (2019) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.181386 · Cited by 68
“One factor that may affect social discounting is that resource transfers have different meanings across societies [60–62].”
Household allocations and endogenous information: The case of split migrants in Kenya
de Laat, J. (2013) · Journal of Development Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.09.003 · Cited by 78
Commissars and cars: A case study in the political economy of dictatorship
Lazarev, V., & Gregory, P. R. (2003) · Journal of Comparative Economics · doi:10.1016/s0147-5967(02)00015-x · Cited by 59
“Following Camerer (1988) and Offer (1997), we interpret D’s gifts of vehicles as regard signals intended to persuade agents of D’s willingness to maintain patronage and to elicit agents’ cooperation.”
Biological Basics and the Economics of the Family
Cox, D. (2007) · The Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.21.2.91 · Cited by 52
Die individuellen Erträge ehrenamtlicher Arbeit
Erlinghagen, M. (2003) · KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie · doi:10.1007/s11577-003-0119-0 · Cited by 55
Informing others is associated with behavioral and neural signatures of value.
Tamir, D., Zaki, J., & Mitchell, J. P. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000122 · Cited by 59
“People also choose to discuss information that is not directly self-relevant as a means to signal their prosociality, trustworthiness, or investment in relationships (Camerer, 1988; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Feinberg, Willer, & Schultz, 2014; Milinski, Semmann, & Krambeck, 2002); these signals may encourage others to…”
BackgroundHalf a Gift Is Not Half-Hearted: A Giver–Receiver Asymmetry in the Thoughtfulness of Partial Gifts
Kupor, D. M., Flynn, F., & Norton, M. I. (2017) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167217727003 · Cited by 54
“…the potential moderating role of the relationship between givers and receivers: Because gift giving can be a signal of commitment to a relationship (Camerer, 1988), givers may be less averse to purchasing incomplete gifts for extremely close receivers—who may be more aware of givers’ commitment.”
BackgroundSharp, C., & Randhawa, G. (2014) · Transplantation Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.trre.2014.05.001 · Cited by 53
“From an economic perspective, altruistic decisions are based on a cost-benefit analysis, assumed to be rational decisions made by utilitarian agents who seek justice and fairness in any exchange [2-4].”
BackgroundCostly but worthless gifts facilitate courtship
Sozou, P. D., & Seymour, R. M. (2005) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3152 · Cited by 50
“The role of gifts in essentially symmetric interactions has been modelled by economists (Camerer 1988; Carmichael & MacLeod 1997).”
BackgroundDiscussion Papers in Economic and Social History
Offer, A. (2000) · Cited by 49
She-wolf: the story of a Roman icon
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-1264 · Cited by 49
Human Capital and Screening Theories: Implications for Human Resource Development
Dobbs, R. L., Sun, J. Y., & Roberts, P. (2008) · Advances in Developing Human Resources · doi:10.1177/1523422308325761 · Cited by 47
“Signaling models have since been applied to other economic phenomena from advertising (Nelson, 1974) to financial structure (Ross, 1977), social phenomena from courtship (Spence, 1973b) to gift exchange (Camerer, 1988).”
BackgroundGift giving and social emotions: experience as content
Chakrabarti, R., & Berthon, P. R. (2012) · Journal of Public Affairs · doi:10.1002/pa.1417 · Cited by 46
‘No strings attached?’: How attribution of disinterested support affects employee retention
Mignonac, K., & Richebé, N. (2012) · Human Resource Management Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2012.00195.x · Cited by 42
Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2009) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2009.05.010 · Cited by 44
“See for example Camerer (1988), Waldfogel (1993), Prendergast and Stole (2001), Ellingsen and Johannesson (2004b).”
BackgroundFrancis‐Tan, A., & Mialon, H. M. (2015) · Economic Inquiry · doi:10.1111/ecin.12206 · Cited by 42
Consumer interpretations of digital ownership in the book market
Helm, S., Ligon, V., Stovall, T., & Riper, S. V. (2018) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-018-0293-6 · Cited by 44
“Gifting The practice of gifting is an essential aspect of human interaction in every society as gifts facilitate the expression of feelings and maintenance of social ties (Camerer 1988).”
BackgroundThe Demand for Social Approval and Status as a Motivation to Give
van de Ven, J. (2002) · Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE · doi:10.1628/0932456022975349 · Cited by 41
Liu, B., Kang, J., & Wei, L. (2023) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/02654075231189899 · Cited by 44
“For example, Camerer (1988) found that ef fi cient gifts such as cash or giving exactly what one ’ s partner asks for (i.e., activities with high utility values) are considered inappropriate, crass, and not valuable; by contrast, inef fi cient gifts given based on one ’ s thinking and guessing about…”
BackgroundAmounts Spent on Engagement Rings Reflect Aspects of Male and Female Mate Quality
Cronk, L., & Dunham, B. (2007) · Human Nature · doi:10.1007/s12110-007-9018-9 · Cited by 39
“Although others have speculated that engagement ring costs may correlate with such aspects of mate quality as commitment ( Camerer 1988 ) and resource control (Miller 2000), no systematic research from an evolutionary perspective has yet been conducted on them.”
BackgroundInterpersonal Allocation Continuous with Intertemporal Allocation
Simon, J. L. (1995) · Rationality and Society · doi:10.1177/104346319500700402 · Cited by 39
Elucidating the emotional and relational aspects of gift giving
Pillai, R. G., & Krishnakumar, S. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.037 · Cited by 38
Waldfogel, J. (2002) · Economic Inquiry · doi:10.1093/ei/40.3.415 · Cited by 38
Directed giving: Evidence from an inter-household transfer experiment
Batista, C., Silverman, D. P., & Yang, D. (2015) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2015.03.008 · Cited by 38
Bilateral Trade and Opportunism in a Matching Market
Ramey, G., & Watson, J. (2001) · The B E Journal of Theoretical Economics · doi:10.2202/1534-5971.1030 · Cited by 37
“In this case, the actual reaction functions determined by (4) will coincide with the curve w0 at points where the unconstrained reaction functions lie below the curve, as long as an owner would not prefer to induce a violation of the effort constraint by choosing αi = 0; in the following subsection we show that owners…”
BackgroundChapter 6 Reciprocity: Its Scope, Rationales, and Consequences
Kolm, S. (2006) · Handbook on the economics of giving, reciprocity and altruism · doi:10.1016/s1574-0714(06)01006-2 · Cited by 36
Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help
Tiokhin, L., Yan, M., & Morgan, T. J. H. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-01040-1 · Cited by 48
Givi, J., & Galak, J. (2021) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1239 · Cited by 36
Commitment signals in friendship and romantic relationships
Yamaguchi, M., Smith, A., & Ohtsubo, Y. (2015) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.05.002 · Cited by 36
“Game theoretic analyses have shown that a particular kind of gift may serve as an effective commitment signal (Bolle, 2001; Camerer, 1988; Sozou & Seymour, 2005).”
BackgroundThe Duel of Honor: Screening For Unobservable Social Capital
Allen, D. W., & Reed, C. G. (2006) · American Law and Economics Review · doi:10.1093/aler/ahj006 · Cited by 36
“Thus in aristocratic markets patronage was policed along the lines of Klein and Leffler (1981) or Camerer (1988), with one’s social capital acting as a bond for good performance.”
BackgroundGift-giving, Quasi-credit and Reciprocity
Thomas, J. E., & Worrall, T. S. (2002) · Rationality and Society · doi:10.1177/1043463102014003003 · Cited by 36
“Other game theoretic models have been suggested by Camerer (1988) and Raub and Weesie (1990) and Goerlich (1996-97). Camerer (1988) treats gift-giving as a signalling game where the gift is a signal or symbol of one’s intention to invest in a relationship.13 He demonstrates how in the equilibrium of this game gift-giv…”
InfluentialGift‐Wrapping Effects on Product Attitudes: A Mood‐Biasing Explanation
Howard, D. J. (1992) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/s1057-7408(08)80036-8 · Cited by 34
Ziegler, R. (2008) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.10.001 · Cited by 35
Adams, G. S., Flynn, F. J., & Norton, M. I. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612439718 · Cited by 35
“We hypothesized that receivers would think regifting was more offensive to the giver than givers would report feeling.”
BackgroundWang, P. X., Wang, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2022) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/00222429221081506 · Cited by 42
“First, a gift carries and conveys multiple symbolic meanings (e.g., Camerer 1988; Larsen and Watson 2001; Pillai and Krishnakumar 2019).”
BackgroundThreat and parochialism in intergroup relations: lab-in-the-field evidence from rural Georgia
Schaub, M. (2017) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.1560 · Cited by 32
Interpersonalizing Intimate Museum Experiences
Ryding, K., Spence, J. C., Løvlie, A. S., & Benford, S. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1870829 · Cited by 39
“…strong emotional, embodied, and experiential characteristics for each individual involved, and that would possibly reflect and possibly impact their relationship (for support in the gifting literature, see e.g., Camerer, 1988; Lawler & Yoon, 1993; Richins, 1994; Ruth et al., 1999; Sherry, 1983).”
BackgroundWhy to Buy Your Darling Flowers: On Cooperation and Exploitation
Bolle, F. (2001) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1023/a:1005261400484 · Cited by 34
“Camerer (1988) enlarges his basic game only by a prestage of giving presents.”
BackgroundInfluentialKomiya, A., Ohtsubo, Y., Nakanishi, D., & Oishi, S. (2018) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.10.003 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Camerer, C.
- Corresponding author
- Camerer, Colin
- ORCID
- Camerer, Colin
- Venue
- American Journal of Sociology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1988-01
- Volume
- 94
- Pages
- S180-S214
- ISSN
- 0002-9602 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5390
- OpenAlex
- W2042154035
- Semantic Scholar
- 7734da19d67467c5891894b5aa630ca8a907e1e4
- Cited by
- 372
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 3.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Sociology (publishedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Theory and Institutions
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
- Keywords
- gift-giving, signaling, social symbols, relationship investment, reciprocity, game-theoretic model
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review