Connect with us

Lifestyle

Opinion: To give great gifts, stop thinking like a gift giver

Published

on

Opinion: To give great gifts, stop thinking like a gift giver

The idyllic holiday scene — piles of presents, smiles all around — rarely matches reality. Who among us hasn’t faced the awkward silence of a gift that falls flat? Who hasn’t been disappointed by one we’ve received?

Why then, do we get it wrong so often? Why are we so bad at giving gifts? I’ve researched these questions through the lens of social psychology, trying to understand the psychological science of gift giving in hopes of helping gift givers make better choices. And the good news is that after 10 years, we have some answers that could help every gift giver make better choices.

The first thing to appreciate is that even though we all act as gift givers and gift recipients, we don’t typically do so at the same time: Even when exchanging gifts, we are thinking like a giver in advance, and then thinking like a recipient in the moment. This creates what is called an empathy gap. In short, when we are acting in one capacity, say as a gift giver, we typically do not consider or empathize with what it would be like to be a gift recipient. We apply a totally different psychology to gift giving than we do to gift receiving.

This can be as simple as considering what matters most to gift givers and recipients. When we give gifts, what we tend to believe matters most is the moment of the gift exchange — the moment when a recipient unwraps their gift and sees it for the first time. We want that big “wow” moment where we see a huge smile and know that we’ve done a good job. The problem is that this moment, the big reveal, typically lasts for just a few seconds, but the recipient is stuck with the gift for much longer. What we know matters to the recipient, instead, is much less the moment of exchange, but rather the entirety of the gift’s ownership.

Consider a novelty gift like a mug with a witty phrase like “World’s Best Procrastinator.” That’s sure to make someone chuckle when they see it, but then it’ll probably sit in their pantry collecting dust for who knows how long. Or consider a tchotchke that is intended to help decorate a home. It may spark excitement at first, but then the recipient is left with fitting it into the décor of their home … no small task, and often an unwanted chore.

Advertisement

Some gifts can leave a great first impression, but then fall flat later on. As gift givers, we need to think about the long-term implications of a gift, because that is what recipients truly value. As uninspired as it sounds, something like a toaster oven can be an amazing gift because it will be useful. It might not be the most exciting gift when it is opened, but your recipient will think fondly of you every time they use it.

Beyond the useful, it’s important to consider that recipients care more about thoughtfulness than just about anything else. After all, what is a gift if not a way to show someone that you care about them and are thinking of them? What that implies, and what the science of gift giving endorses, is that cost is not what dictates how much a recipient loves a gift. In fact, research suggests that there is virtually no relationship between the price of a gift and how much a recipient likes it. Instead, what recipients value is something thoughtful. That can be a freshly baked batch of cookies, or a nicely framed photograph of a treasured shared past experience, or even just a sincerely written note on a holiday card. Science tells us that recipients value the care a giver puts into their gift, and not its cost.

We can take this one step further and appreciate that thoughtfulness doesn’t come only on holidays and special occasions like birthdays. Instead, one can be thoughtful any day of the year! And what we’ve learned is that thoughtfulness on random days — not special occasions — is much easier to convey. A gift given out of the blue shows a recipient that they are being thought of not just on, say, their birthday, but all the time. These “just because” gifts are seen to be far more valuable to recipients than those that they receive at moments when they are expecting to be given gifts, such as holidays.

Putting this all together, science shows us that the best way to give great gifts is to stop thinking like a gift giver, and instead start thinking like a gift recipient. We’ve all been in that role before, so consider what gifts worked for you and take it from there. Appreciate that being stuck with a bad gift is far from ideal and that the gifts we cherish most are the ones that make us feel cared for. If you can apply these lessons to your own gift giving, your recipients are sure to smile not just when they unwrap your gift, but when they treasure it for years to come.

Jeff Galak, co-founder of the GiftStar AI, is an associate professor of marketing and social and decision science at Carnegie Mellon University.

Advertisement

Lifestyle

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Published

on

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Students walk on the Stanford University campus on March 14, 2019, in Stanford, Calif.

Ben Margot/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ben Margot/AP

When Theo Baker arrived at Stanford University a few years ago, he joined the student newspaper, following the path of his journalist parents, Peter Baker, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a writer for The New Yorker.

Through his reporting as a student journalist, he eventually broke a story about manipulated data in Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s neuroscience research that helped lead to the university president’s resignation.

Theo Baker’s book, How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University was released May 19. In it, Baker describes Stanford as a place where proximity to Silicon Valley gives rise to a parallel system of influence, recruitment and money, with investors looking to identify promising students almost as soon as they arrive on campus.

Advertisement

He told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there was “a sort of Stanford inside Stanford,” where elite students are drawn into an “alternate reality” of excess and access to cut corners.

In the interview, he discusses how Stanford is not just a university but also a pipeline where status and power can matter as much as ideas.

We reached out to Stanford University for comment and have not heard back.

Listen to the interview by clicking play on the blue box above.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf

Published

on

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf
The Italian fashion group behind Diesel and Maison Margiela is taking full ownership of the avant-garde haute couture house, acquiring the remaining 30 percent it didn’t already own. Founders Viktor Horsting and Rolf Snoeren remain creative directors.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

Published

on

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

The scoreboard shows the results of the women’s singles final match between Iga Swiatek of Poland and Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Saturday, July 12, 2025.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

Fifteen points in tennis? Nice. Thirty, 40 — even better. Advantage — that sounds good. “Love” — that also must be great, right? Well, not quite.

As the French Open rolls on and Serena Williams has announced her return to the sport, maybe you’ve been paying a little more attention to tennis. The sport’s scoring system is notably distinct, and can sometimes be hard to grasp for newcomers. But even tennis aficionados might not know why, or how, “love” became the unmistakable callout for zero points. For this installment of NPR’s Word of the Week, we’re exploring how a word that signifies trailing behind got such a sweet name.

“Love” comes from the heart — or an egg?

It’s hard to pinpoint when the first tennis ball went over the net. Tennis is a derivative of lots of other sports, such as “jeu de paume,” a handball game played in France, said JT Buzanga, the collections manager at the International Tennis Hall of Fame museum.

Advertisement

But tennis became a patented, official sport in 1874, said Steve Flink, a journalist whose tennis coverage got him inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It has retained its unique, mysterious scoring system ever since.

“By and large, the original system has held up almost entirely,” Flink said.

The use of “love” goes back to the late 18th century, said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer. But it was used earlier than that in card games such as whist and bridge. Before the term made its way to tennis, the sport favored plain old “nothing,” or “nil,” he said.

Why love in the first place, though? Historians don’t really know for sure, but there are a few theories.

The French could have something to do with it. Some historians believe “love” derives from “l’oeuf,” which means “the egg” in French. Because eggs are shaped like zeros, terms such as “goose egg” and “duck’s egg” have been used in other contexts to mean zero, Sheidlower said.

Advertisement

It’s also possible English speakers mispronounced l’oeuf as “love.” But Sheidlower isn’t convinced that’s the answer.

“It’s the French equivalent of an English expression. But since that expression doesn’t appear in French, the French word wouldn’t have been used,” he said.

To be sure, France has had a lot of influence on tennis culture, Buzanga said. For example, “deuce” or a game tied at 40 points, comes from the French word for “two”: “deux.” But he prefers another prominent theory: that “love” comes from the idiom “for the love of the game.” Even if a player hasn’t scored, it doesn’t matter, because their heart is in it. It’s the theory Sheidlower said is the most plausible, because the idiom was used by the English before tennis was popularized.

Another variation of the “love of the game” theory is that the word could have come from the Dutch “lof,” or “honor” — or the Latin “amare,” meaning “to love,” Flink said.

But if tennis’ “love” doesn’t come from a French word, the theory at least has a French sensibility.

Advertisement

“I think the ‘for the love of the game’ is kind of romantic,” Buzanga said.

“Love” probably isn’t going anywhere

Tennis used to be a sport of leisure. The style of play has changed a lot over the years; players are more athletic and competitive, for instance, Flink said. But the rules of the sport are more steadfast, he said.

“There’s this incredible, enduring respect for tradition in tennis,” he said. “Changes are not made easily.”

There has been one major change in modern history: the tie-break. Matches can go on and on because players have to score two consecutive points to break a deuce, or by two games to break a tied set. But the onset of television meant matches would have to get shorter if the sport wanted to capture a larger audience, Flink said.

Change even came for “love.” An alternative sprouted up in the 1970s, and is still used today: “bagel,” named for its zero shape, Sheidlower said. Novices may say “zero,” and insiders will understand what they mean, but they “will needle them about it,” Flink said.

Advertisement

But “love” still prevails.

“People kind of like it,” Flink said. “It’s different. Why say zero when you can say love?”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending