More Eggs in the Same Basket: How Shopping Online Reduces Variety

ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802

More Eggs in the Same Basket: How Shopping Online Reduces Variety Seeking in Purchases Julie Verstraeten, Ghent University, Belgium Anneleen Van Kerckhove, Ghent University, Belgium Jing Lei, University of Melbourne, Australia Ye Zhao, Schulich Business School

This research reveals that shopping baskets are less varied when groceries are ordered online compared to when consumers shop for their groceries offline. We present a large database study and three lab studies that demonstrate this effect and propose that differences in anticipated satiation online versus offline underly this effect.

[to cite]: Julie Verstraeten, Anneleen Van Kerckhove, Jing Lei, and Ye Zhao (2020) ,"More Eggs in the Same Basket: How Shopping Online Reduces Variety Seeking in Purchases", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 48, eds. Jennifer Argo, Tina M. Lowrey, and Hope Jensen Schau, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 94-96.

[url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/2659643/volumes/v48/NA-48

[copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. Motives For Anonymous Gift-giving and Its Beneficiaries Sarah Marth, University of Applied Sciences Wiener Neustadt, Austria Barbara Hartl, Danube University Krems & Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria Eva Hofmann, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria Elfriede Penz, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria

INTRODUCTION (Ranganathan & Henley, 2008; VandenBos, 2017). The usage of a The literature on gift-giving in recent years answered many public bookcase, from the perspective of giving, is not a purposive questions. For instance: who are the givers and what are the motives act benefitting socio-economic disadvantages, but rather an act with behind gift-giving and re-gifting (Ballantine & Parsons, 2011; Segev, an unknown outcome for others (gift-givers). Important to note here Shoham, & Ruvio, 2013) and how gifting can act as symbolic com- is that public bookcases, as well as other examples in this segment munication between giver and recipient (Sherry, 1983) and therefore such as food-sharing initiatives, offer both the possibility to give and indicate goodwill in a relationship (Caplow, 1982). Thereby, this re- receive simultaneously, which is unlike charitable donations, where search primarily focused on the giving aspect and hence, the giver the role of giver and recipient are distinct at the moment of donating. of gifts. Gift-giving takes many different forms, starting with gifts Furthermore, Sargeant & Woodliffe (2007) point out the necessity of that are given privately and directly, such as gifts for Christmas or asking for a charitable donation as a defining element, which can- birthdays, up to and including gift-giving in the form of charitable not be applied to public bookcases. The research question emerging donations (Sherry, 1983). In all these acts of giving that research has regarding this circumstance is: focused on thus far, it is clear that the recipient is chosen deliberately. RQ 1: What are the motives that lead people to give gifts to Either the giver shares a personal relationship with the recipient, or anonymous recipients? is giving to a particular group of people (e.g. victims of a natural The possibilities of anonymous gift-giving raise the question of disaster) for whom someone (e.g., organizations) is requesting dona- who the recipients are. For example, public bookcases can either be tions. However, there are also forms of gift-giving which build upon utilized for the mere act of sharing, or as a way of giving to people the idea of giving to an unknown recipient without the need to ask of a lower socio-economic status who lack access or the resources for it. One example gaining increasing attention in the last couple of to obtain books. Public bookcases can be discussed as part of the years are so-called public bookcases. These are used to give away sharing economy (Belk, 2014; Botsman & Rogers, 2010) with the unneeded books (gift-giver) but of which may be of some interest to principal idea of less possession and finding alternative manners of others (recipients). Another novel example are food-sharing initia- consumerism. In addition to other characteristics, Bikos and Papad- tives where people provide food in public areas for others to take imitriou (2017) identify public book exchanges as “an act of social (LittleFreePantry, n.d.). The aim of this current paper is to focus on policy undertaken by the civil society itself” (Bikos & Papadimi- emerging ways of gifting unknowns, using the example of public triou, 2017, p. 32). They argue that public bookcases contribute to bookcases, to discover the motives behind utilizing this practice of society providing access to educational material for those unable to giving and also to take a deeper look at the beneficiaries (recipients) afford it. Therefore, public bookcases may not only serve as a way of this new form of consumption. to distribute good readings for booklovers, but also foster education, self-education, lifelong learning and intellectual learning to people THEORETICAL BACKGROUND who lack these benefits. It is against this background, that our second Public bookcases are boxes or some similar sort of bookcase research question focuses on the recipients of books placed in public that is publicly accessible allowing the placement and exchange of bookcases shedding light on if such initiatives of anonymous giving books, and providing a free, anonymous manner to give away, share can reach the socio-economic poor and thus bear a charitable notion and obtain access to books. In recent years, public bookcases have of gift-giving as described above. been widely implemented throughout Europe and especially in Ger- RQ 2: Who are the recipients of anonymous gift-giving and man speaking countries. For example, according to the website open- does their socio-economic status differ from the givers? bookcase.org a total number of 4,228 public bookcases worldwide have been reported (OpenBookCase.org, n.d.). In Vienna, Austria, METHODS approximately 60 public bookcases and other public book sharing possibilities can be found. While the bookcases are mostly provided Sample by associations, private initiatives or the city administration, it is This current research builds on intensive field work on public upon private citizens to place, exchange and take books from the book cases in Vienna, Austria. The research project used a mixture bookcase. of methods, including observations and photographical documenta- Regarding the process of using a public bookcase the well-re- tion of three public book cases (for a period of two weeks with seven searched motivations for gift-giving fall short here. The process of observations per bookcase per day, resulting in a total of 294 obser- gift-giving requires a giver and a recipient (Mick & DeMoss, 1990). vations), as well as a representative questionnaire. For the latter, a However, in the case of public bookcases the recipient is anonymous. representative sample from Vienna, Austria was drawn for an online Therefore, in this instance, gift-giving does not fulfill the function survey. The survey link was opened by 1,206 visitors, out of which of establishing and maintaining a relationship as proposed by Belk 105 participants aborted the survey. Overall, 1,101 participants com- (1976). Also, the motivation behind giving cannot include neither pleted the survey; out of all the participants, 179 reported to have the sending of signals about future investments in a relationship (Ca- neither having heard of nor seen a public bookcase and therefore merer, 1988), nor a symbolic act of communication (Sherry, 1983). excluded from the final analysis. Of the remaining sample, 421 par- Furthermore, the usage of offers like public bookcases does not fit ticipants reported never having used a public bookcase and thus also the definition of charitable donations. A charitable act is undertaken excluded. One participant did not provide demographic data and was to help people, who are in need of special resources or assistance therefore also excluded. Thus, the final sample consisted of 500 par-

Table 1: Descriptive and statistical values regarding the ANOVAs testing of differences in the three groups.

Recipients (R) Givers (G) Sharer (S) n = 84 n = 120 n = 296

M Mdn M Mdn M Mdn 2 F p η (SD) (IQR) (SD) (IQR) (SD) (IQR) p 39.00 43.13 44.31 Age 4.70 <.01 .02 (14.16) (13.00) (14.42) 4.00 5.00 5.00 Books owned 3.30 <.05 .01 (3.00-6.00) (3.00-6.00) (4.00-6.00) 3.00 3.00 4.00 Books read in 2018 7.36 <.01 .03 (2.00-4.00) (2.00-4.00) (3.00-5.00) 6.24 6.48 6.74 Universalism 7.81 <.001 .03 (1.29) (1.20) (0.95) 6.53 6.54 6.81 Self-direction 3.88 <.05 .02 (1.15) (1.22) (0.95)

ticipants (48.4% men, Mage = 43.13 years, SDage = 14.15, Rangeage = ries in a total of 611 given reasons. The most common reason was 18-69) for further analyses. the benefit for others (25.53%, e.g. “So that others can also read a good book for free”), followed by the motive of merely discarding Procedure books (21.93%, e.g. “because I already read a book and don’t need First, we asked participants how many books they placed in or it anymore”). The third most often stated reason was to use a public took from the bookcase in the last year and how many they place or bookcase as an alternative to throwing books away (20.62 %, e.g. “I take on average per visit. Participants then indicated how often they don’t want to throw away books I don’t need anymore. Books are too visit a public bookcase and why they use (place and take books) valuable to throw away.”)1. After this analysis we further examined it. Next, participants answered the social value scale (56 items; the most mentioned motive behind benefitting others. The answers adapted from Schwartz, 1992) in which we asked them to rate the in this category were again divided into two groups. The first one and importance of each item (e.g. “equality – equal opportunity for all”; most mentioned was benefitting an undefined other person (80.13%, “social recognition – respect, approval of others”) as a principle in e.g. “to give others pleasure”). The other group of motives was ben- their life on an 8-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“completely efitting people with a lower socio-economic status and supporting a unimportant”) to 8 (“totally important”). The 56 items represent ten societal social balance (19.87%, e.g. “so that people who cannot af- different values (achievement, benevolence, conformity, hedonism, ford to buy books can read the newest bestsellers”, “it is knowledge power, self-direction, security, stimulation, tradition, universalism). for free, a contribution to nature and society”). The internal consistency was satisfying for all value scales (Cron- When looking at motives users of public bookcases state for bach’s α > .69). Furthermore, participants estimated the number of taking books, again independent of their giving behaviors (N = 380, books they possess and how many books they read per year on aver- 50.8% men, Mage = 43.14 years, SDage = 14.52, Rangeage = 18-69) we age. Using an open question, we asked them for their motives behind found eight different motive categories in a total of 388 given mo- giving and/or receiving books and if they use other methods to give tives. The most common motive was the interest and curiosity in one away or receive books and if so, which distribution channels they use or more of the books in the bookcase (40.98%, e.g. “because I often besides public bookcases (e.g. “Why do you put books in a public find interesting books”), followed by financial motives (17.27%, e.g. bookcase?”). For these final questions we used an open-ended ques- “in order to have a book at hand for free which I couldn’t afford oth- tion format to ensure the answers were unrestricted and handled the erwise”) and the motive of wishing for a constant supply of books to participants’ answers as qualitative data. Finally, socio-demographic fulfil ones’ reading habits (14.95%, e.g. “because I need new reading data was assessed. material”). Eighty-four people of this sample reported to have taken

books without replacing any in public bookcases (52.4% men, Mage RESULTS = 39.00 years, SDage = 14.16, Rangeage = 18-69). When we look at Concerning the observation and photographical documentation their book taking motives, the results show the same most important of the three public bookcases, we registered a total of 4,547 books in reason, that of interest and curiosity (39.29%), followed by financial the bookcases during the two weeks of observation. On average 84 motives (17.86%) and other unclassified reasons (17.86%, e.g. “to books were located in a bookcase per observation and an individual gather knowledge”). book remains there for 20 hours until removed. In order to answer the question of who the beneficiaries of For the representative questionnaire, as a first step to uncover anonymous gift-giving are and if their socio-economic status dif- the motives behind giving gifts to anonymous recipients, we focused fers from the givers (RQ2), we ran an ANOVA to compare the mere on participants who indicated to having placed books in a public recipients of books (R) with the mere givers (G) and people who bookcase at least once, independent of their removal behaviors, (N engage in both, giving and taking books (sharer; S). The results show

= 416, 47.6% men, Mage = 44.00 years, SDage = 14.02, Rangeage = that recipients are significantly younger and own significantly less 18-69) and the reasons they gave for placing books in a public case. books than the other groups. Concerning values, recipients showed Accordingly, we did a qualitative content analysis to categorize their significantly lower scores in universalism. Furthermore, the groups answers (Mayring, 2010) and found seven different motive catego- 1 Detailed data available upon request. 96 / Motives For Anonymous Gift-giving and Its Beneficiaries differ significantly in self-direction and in the number of books they and foster lifelong learning and self-education (Bikos & Papadimi- indicated to have read in the last year (see table 1 for detailed re- triou, 2017). However up to this point, the books placed in public sults). However, we did not find any significant differences of the bookcases are not reaching the socio-economic disadvantaged. We three groups concerning socio-economic variables (e.g. educational advise providers of public bookcases to encourage people with a low status and income). socio-economic status to make use of the bookcases. Also, we want to draw the city administrations and other initiators of public anony- GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION mous gift-giving projects’ attention to the possibility of promoting Our observation of three public bookcases in Vienna, Austria these activities as a way to help others and thereby integrating them clearly demonstrates a high usage rate and acceptance of this manner in the discourse and practice of creating a socially sustainable and to give and receive books anonymously and for free in the population educating society. and stresses the relevance to scientifically study similar initiatives of anonymous gift-giving. The results of the representative study show REFERENCES that the most common motive behind giving to anonymous recipi- Ballantine, P. W., & Parsons, A. G. (2011). Re-Gifting: the Gift You ents is a benevolent one, in which the focus is on the joy and pleasure Can’t Wait to Re-Give. ACR European Advances. of others. However, this motive is closely followed by other motives Belk, R. (1976). It’s the thought that counts: A signed digraph that are rather self-interested, i.e., the motives of discarding books analysis of gift-giving. Journal of consumer research, 3(3), and the aversion of disposing unneeded books. However, one fifth of 155-162. people who want to benefit others explicitly want to assist those of Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and a lower socio-economic status. This result supports the importance collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business to find out who the recipients of anonymous gift giving are in com- Research, 67(8), 1595-1600. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. parison to the givers. Our results show that currently the recipients of jbusres.2013.10.001 anonymous gift-giving are significantly younger, own less books and Bikos, G., & Papadimitriou, P. (2017). Exchange libraries: Greece’s have a lower score of the universalism value than givers of books, response to a global trend. Library Review, 66(1/2), 28-38. as well as people who report to give and take books. However, we Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). Beyond Zipcar: Collaborative did not find that recipients necessarily had a lower socio-economic Consumption. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 30-30. status than the givers, even if the second most common motive to Camerer, C. (1988). Gifts as economic signals and social symbols. take books are financial reasons. Furthermore, we found that sharers American journal of Sociology, 94, S180-S214. show significantly higher scores in self-direction. Based on Schwartz Caplow, T. (1982). Middletown families: Fifty years of change and (1992) the value of self-direction is connected to creativity, indepen- continuity: U of Minnesota Press. dence, curiosity, self-respect and a high appreciation of freedom of LittleFreePantry. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.littlefreepantry. action and thought. Due to the aspect of curiosity and a kind of open- org/ mindedness that comes with this value, sharers might also be users Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (11 ed.). Weinheim: who are seeking new experiences, like public bookcases in general Beltz. and are interested in both the experience of giving as well as the Mick, D. G., & DeMoss, M. (1990). Self-gifts: Phenomenological experience of taking books. However, in order to sufficiently explain insights from four contexts. Journal of consumer research, this aspect, future research should further examine the characteristics 17(3), 322-332. of givers, recipients and sharers. OpenBookCase.org. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://openbookcase. Alongside its merits, the current study also has some limita- org/index tions. First, when asking people about their motives behind giving Otnes, C., & Ilhan, B. E. (2009). Curling Up and Reaching Out: gifts, social desirability might lead people to overstate their own be- Meanings and Motivations For Passionate Readers. ACR nevolent motives. However, the collected data clearly shows that the North American Advances. participants do not hesitate to also report self-interested motives (e.g. Ranganathan, S. K., & Henley, W. H. (2008). Determinants of not enough space to keep books). We therefore assume a negligible charitable donation intentions: a structural equation model. effect of social desirability. Second, in order to provide people of International journal of nonprofit and voluntary sector lower income and/or educational level with free educational mate- marketing, 13(1), 1-11. rial, public libraries are a valuable source, that was not included in Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Gift giving: An our study. However, public bookcases and libraries differ in some interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Nonprofit aspects. For example, with public bookcases the focus lies on the and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(4), 275-307. exchange of books between consumers, unlike in libraries. Further- Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure more, unlimited loan-periods apply to public bookcases as the books of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 are not traced and there are no means of recording the placing and countries. In Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol taking of them. Also, owing to the issuance of a library card and 25 (pp. 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press; US. opening hours, we expect the hurdles in borrowing books from a Segev, R., Shoham, A., & Ruvio, A. (2013). Gift‐giving among library to be greater than that of those taking a book of a public book- adolescents: exploring motives, the effects of givers’ personal case, which can be utilized by anyone at any time as they are publicly characteristics and the use of impression management tactics. accessible. We suggest to include the role of libraries in comparison Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(5), 436-449. doi: https:// to public bookcases in future studies. doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2013-0426 Public bookcases and other initiatives enabling people to gift Sherry Jr, J. F. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. anonymous recipients have the potential to reach the ones in need. Journal of consumer research, 10(2), 157-168. By providing books publicly, those with lower income and educa- VandenBos, G. R. (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. American tional levels can be encouraged to read and therefore strengthen their Psychological Association. involvement in cultural and societal activities (Otnes & Ilhan, 2009),