See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/24099093

Gift Giving in Hong Kong and the Continuum of Social Ties

Article  in  Journal of Consumer Research · September 2001

DOI: 10.1086/322900 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS
217 847

1 author:

Annamma Joy
University of British Columbia - Okanagan
50 PUBLICATIONS   1,602 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

sensory profiling and the wine industry View project

luxury consumption View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Annamma Joy on 28 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Gift Giving in Hong Kong and the Continuum
of Social Ties
ANNAMMA JOY*

This article explores gift-giving practices using data collected through interviews
in Hong Kong. I argue that Chinese culture promotes the familial over the private
self and that the attainment of family-oriented goals represents an important mea-
sure of self-realization and self-fulfillment. Although each individual also has a
private or inner self (chi ), it is also subject to the collective will. This idea is in
keeping with Confucian ideals that encourage the individual to focus on developing
internal moral constraints and conquering selfishness in the pursuit of social pro-
priety. Furthermore, the boundaries of the familial self are permeable and may
include others, such as important romantic partners and, occasionally, close friends
who become “like family.” In family and like-family contexts, reciprocity is dis-
couraged, and there is no need to build relationships through gift giving. Our re-
search also suggests, however, that there are various gradations of intimacy in
gift relationships against the backdrop of important cultural rules such as reciprocity,
sentiment, and face. Using the categories provided by our participants, the gift
continuum includes “close friends,” “good friends,” “just friends”/“hi-bye friends,”
and the “romantic other.”

T he ritual of gift giving occurs in all societies, but its

significance derives from the economic and symbolic
value each culture places on the gift (Carrier 1991; Mauss
[1925] 1967; Otnes, Lowrey, and Kim 1993) The gift is
generally defined as the circulation of goods to promote ties
and bonding between individuals. This process happens over
time and space, and includes three different phases: giving,
receiving, and reciprocating. Gift giving is a paradox: while
the giver reaches out to the receiver through an act of shar-
ing, s/he also places the receiver in a position of indebt-
edness (Godelier 1999). Solidarity reduces social distance
between the parties concerned, but dependency simulta-
neously increases social distance at least until the gift is
returned.
*Annamma Joy is associate professor, Department of Marketing, John
Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Can-
ada, H3G 1M8; e-mail: jjoy@mercato.concordia.ca. The data were col-
lected when the author was a visiting scholar at the Hong Kong University
of Science and Technology (HKUST) (1996–98). The author thanks the
marketing faculty at HKUST for their support and gratefully acknowledges
the Research Grants Council grant no. HKUST 532/95H awarded to Priya
Raghubir and Michael Hui while at HKUST. Priya Raghubir, Jennifer
Aaker, Voya Misic, Jenny Chang, Cynthia Law, and Valentina Baslyk all
contributed to the preparation of this article. Keith Tong Sai-tao helped
with the Cantonese and Mandarin phraseology. Special thanks to Domio
Zhou, Lenny Cheung, Jim Ngai, and Eva Wong who assisted in various
ways with the data collection. The author would like to especially thank
the editor, the associate editor, and the three JCR reviewers for their scin-
tillating thoughts, constructive comments, and useful suggestions. Finally,
the author would like to dedicate this article to her mother who is a con-
tinuous source of inspiration and joy in her life.
239
Furthermore, gifts facilitate interactions that might oth-
erwise be weakly institutionalized (Belk 1979; Cheal 1988);
they involve the ego but incorporate themes of love, caring,
and social interaction (Belk 1982). The act of giving to
others reflects an other- as much as a self-orientation, some-
thing Sherry (1983) refers to as maximizing the pleasure of
both recipient and donor. Since both self and other are
closely implicated in gift giving, it is reasonable to expect
that gift-giving patterns vary widely across cultures (Carrier
1991; Hyde 1983; Parry 1986). In this article, I explore the
various implications of gift giving among Hong Kong Chi-
nese, while paying special attention to the contexts in which
the cultural principles of reciprocity, sentiment, and face are
shaped by such behavior. Through such extensive cultural
analysis, I seek to provide an epistemological critique of
existing theories of the gift in both consumer literature and
anthropology.
Although Hong Kong and the rest of the People’s Re-
public of China (PRC) are similar in some respects, they
are also distinct in a number of important ways. Abbas
(1997, p. 11), in particular, points out that the term “Hong
Kong culture” is itself a novel formulation based on “tran-
sitoriness.” Thus, while it is possible to generalize about
both cultures, our discussion will focus primarily on data
gathered in Hong Kong and on its relevance to this admin-
istrative region. The Appendix provides a glossary of the
Cantonese terms used in this article.
Given the current interest in redefining existing consumer
theories, which are based primarily on data gathered in the
United States, this study on gift giving in one of Asia’s most

䉷 2001 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 28 ● September 2001

All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2002/2802-0005$03.00
240
affluent cities is both appropriate and timely because it in-
corporates research into other cultures (e.g., Arnould 1989;
Sherry and Camargo 1987). This article is divided into four
sections: In the first section, I provide an overview of the
general literature on the gift, then I discuss gift giving in
Chinese culture. This allows me to explore the ways in
which the act of giving is linked to the Chinese concepts
of self and other. In the second section, I describe our data-
gathering methods, and then I analyze the data. Based on
the data gathered from participants in Hong Kong, I argue
in the third section that there is clearly a gift continuum in
Chinese culture that includes close friends, good friends,
and acquaintances. Romantic others may be included in gift
exchanges, especially in the initial stages. The idea of rec-
iprocity embedded in the gift, however, does not apply in
the context of the family. In the fourth section, I suggest
avenues for further research.
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
Models of Gift Giving: Economic, Social, and
Agapic
Three models of social exchange are central to our un-
derstanding of gift giving. The first model is primarily ec-
onomic and uses the utilitarian motives of equivalence and
equality as the springboard for understanding social behav-
ior. Balanced and negative exchanges have more to do with
economic considerations than with social factors (Belk and
Coon 1993; Sahlins 1972). In balanced giving, social re-
lations are mostly maintained by material flows from both
sides. According to Malinowksi (1922 [1978]), in the Mel-
anesian system, obligatory return can be explained through
the use of sanctions invoked by either party for severing
bonds. Negative reciprocity, however, refers to exploitative
situations in which maximizing utility at the expense of
another individual is open to all exchange partners and in
which social relations are kept to a minimum. Overall, how-
ever, the principle of give and take is the basis for all social
activity, at least in Melanesia.
The second model, encapsulated in the concept of gen-
eralized reciprocity (Belk and Coon 1993; Mauss 1967),
focuses on the symbolic value of the gift and on how giving
strengthens and maintains relationships. In his classic essay
on the gift in archaic societies, Mauss (1967) draws attention
to the hau, or the spirit of the gift, which exists at two
levels: the spirit residing in the object itself and the donor’s
spirit embedded in the object. Thus, to give something is
to give a part of yourself (inalienability of the gift) and
similarly to receive something is to receive a part of another
person’s spiritual essence (Weiner 1992). Equivalence and
equality are not sought in such relationships, and one-way
flows of goods and commodities could last a long time
without causing any disturbance in the relationships.
The third model is an extension of the social exchange
model in which sacrifice and a deep desire to please the
other motivate gift giving. Malinowski (1978) describes this
as the “pure gift. ” In consumer literature it is called “agapic
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
love” (Belk and Coon 1993), for which financial or equiv-
alence considerations are unimportant.
Chinese Conceptions of Gift
In Hong Kong and the PRC, the term “gift” refers to
exchanges of products and services that connect people
linked not by family but by the concept of reciprocity (Yan
1996; Yau, Chan, and Lau 1999). In Cantonese, the term
for gift is láih maht; in Mandarin, it is li wu. In both in-
stances, the prefix láih or li points to the rules of etiquette
that a moral person is expected to follow in social inter-
actions. These rules, based on gender and rank, are rituals
of greeting and visiting that promote mutual consideration
as opposed to self-gain or competition (Yang 1994, p. 225).
Maht or wu merely refers to the consumer good or the object
of exchange and designates gift only with the prefix láih or
li. Láih maht, then, refers to gift transactions between friends
and acquaintances who develop good relationships. Since
the insider/outsider dichotomy is very important in social
relationships, it takes a long time for an outsider to become
an insider (Yang 1994, p. 195). The elaborate cultural rules
for gift giving (sung-láih) thus emphasize the social nature
of the exchange. We will now turn to this process.
Definitions of Self and Other
In the West, an individual is generally identified as a sep-
arate entity, a decision-making unit (Markus and Kitayama
1991), while in Chinese culture an individual is inherently
connected to others and fosters relationships through reci-
procity, sentiment, and kinship networks. Although the Chi-
nese experience themselves as interdependent and willing (or
encouraged) to make sacrifices for maintaining communal
harmony, they nonetheless make a distinction between the
inner and the outer self. Chinese culture regards the inner self
as both an active and a reflective force (chi) that motivates
and guides individuals to become the architects of their social
networks. Interdependent cultures thus emphasize the web of
relationships that individuals are a part of and that they con-
tinuously build through their outer selves. But even within
interdependent cultures an element of individuality obtains
(Belk 1988; Bond 1991).
Further, in Chinese culture, the individual implies only
the physical body and an exchange of hearts or xı̂n between
two bodies completes the person or rén. This notion of
complementarity between self and other has deep cultural
and philosophical roots: both Taoism and Confucianism rec-
ognize the interdependent self, but in the former it is com-
plemented by nature and in the latter by other human be-
ings—whether superiors, inferiors, or equals (Ames 1994;
Wei-Ming 1994). This culturally celebrated definition of the
self in relation to others (within the family) results in greater
tolerance of others, greater self-discipline, and in a constant
concern for preserving harmony with others.
Chinese culture views the inner self as a work in progress
that is not totally submerged in relationships. In this regard,
Hwang contends that “doing face work” and seeking per-
GIFT GIVING IN HONG KONG
sonal networks are the most common power games in Chi-
nese society (1987, p. 945). This does not mean, however,
that maximization and exploitative relations are the norm
when building relationships in more impersonal contexts
(e.g., business), as some of the research on guanxi (utilitarian
relations) suggests. Instrumentality may arise in such con-
texts, but the spirit of the gift ensures a strong connection
between the parties involved. Individuals may gain or lose
face (mı́n) during gift transactions (Cupach and Metts 1994),
but the refusal of a gift or repayment constitutes loss of face
(móuh mı́n) and should be avoided. As Ho (1975) and Hsu
(1985) observe, face is more a way of meeting the expec-
tations of others than acting in accordance with one’s own
wishes. Gratitude is essential and may be extended through
generations.
METHODOLOGY
This study arose from my observations of gift giving on
a university campus in Hong Kong, where I lived and con-
ducted research from January 1996 to December 1998. Early
during my stay, I noticed that a group of students would
suddenly converge on an individual, sing “Happy Birthday,”
and then offer that person a birthday gift. This phenomenon
served as the impetus for my article. Belk, Wallendorf, and
Sherry (1989) describe such naturally occurring occasions
as “revelatory events,” because they stimulate interpretive
insights and the systematic analysis of additional data. I
returned to Hong Kong a year later during the Dragon Boat
Festival, a gift-giving occasion, and visited a second time
the following year during another gift-giving celebration,
the Mid-Autumn Festival. This time, I conducted additional
interviews with participants, thus managing to get a fairly
longitudinal perspective on gift giving.
My understanding of gift giving is based primarily on
textual data collected through in-depth interviews with 35
students (25 females and 10 males) and on limited obser-
vations of participants in their homes or university resi-
dences. Verbal reports are generally interpreted as situated,
particularistic, and motivated (Arnould and Wallendorf
1994, p. 493), providing “perspectives of action,” while par-
ticipant observation allows “perspectives in action.” Ar-
nould and Wallendorf (1994) outline the various problems
with relying extensively on verbal reports and textual anal-
ysis, both of which apply to this study. Our university sam-
ple yielded a certain homogeneity in areas, such as age,
income, and educational background. As Rucker, Freitas,
and Kangas (1996) note, students are just as likely as other
sample populations to have given and received gifts.
My assistants included a Cantonese-speaking, trained
male ethnographer who helped me collect the data. Since I
did not know Cantonese, he conducted the interviews and
made the relevant observations. Thus, we created a bi-gen-
der team, subscribing to the idea that access to different
domains of meaning is essential for an ethnographic study
(Arnould and Wallendorf 1994). Before the interview pro-
cess, my assistant and I discussed the project at length and
studied the Chinese literature on gift giving. We obtained
241
permission to tape all the interviews and assured interview-
ees of confidentiality. Each participant was given a pseu-
donym. I met with my assistant after each interview so that
he could summarize the main themes in English while we
listened to the tape. At this stage, we each kept field notes
and field diaries.
I was also assisted by a professor from the language de-
partment who explained the phraseology and acted as an
external auditor, especially in the initial stages. A Cantonese
student, also trained as an ethnographer, helped with the
data analysis. Two other Cantonese graduate students acted
as external auditors. The constant discussions with my as-
sistant, external auditors, a translator, and a trained ethnog-
rapher helped to clarify the themes as they emerged. Given
the expertise of my assistants, I was confident that I was
obtaining meaningful data.
Our sampling criteria required that participants be able
and willing to volunteer at least two hours of their time for
the principal interview and at least one hour for the follow-
up. We gave the participants the option of discontinuing at
any point during the interview. All our participants were
students, between 20 and 30 years of age, who spoke Can-
tonese and some English. Most were from lower middle-
class to middle-class families. This assessment was based
on a number of factors: where they lived (the type of neigh-
borhood, housing complex, dwelling size), father’s occu-
pation (most mothers did not work outside the home), own-
ership of consumer goods, and stated amounts of
discretionary spending on clothing and goods, such as cel-
lular phones, pagers, and palm pilots. The specificity of our
sample in terms of age raised questions of validity and ge-
neralizability of the data across the population. Our rationale
for this choice was as follows: if Hong Kong stands out
from the rest of China because of its renown in the financial
and services sector and because of the diffusion and appro-
priation of Western material culture, university students best
exemplify these changes. To obtain a general understanding
of student life, we used an open-ended format (McCracken
1988a, 1988b).
Each interview began with a general discussion of the
participant’s university life, career aspirations, and friend-
ships. This led to a discussion of gift-giving patterns and
rules. Each interview was transcribed, translated, and jointly
read to ensure a deeper understanding of the students for
the second set of interviews. Participants were more candid
in the second round, displaying things they had received or
were planning to give as gifts. Some were contacted for a
third interview in mid-1998, mostly to follow up on details
that were missing or of special interest. In the third round,
we selected certain participants to provide feedback on our
findings. In September 2000, an additional round of data
gathering was possible. In sum, the longitudinal nature of
our data-collection process allowed us to become better ac-
quainted with our participants and to address items that
either we or they had overlooked.
We used a hermeneutic process to analyze the text, mov-
ing from a discussion of the part to the whole (Joy 1991;
242
Thompson, Locander, and Pollio 1989), both within a spe-
cific text and within the entire body of interviews. We dis-
cussed each theme extensively before reaching a consensus,
and each theme gave us further insight into what should be
asked at the follow-up interviews, when participants would
be shown a copy of their transcript to obtain feedback and
to collect more data through the process of auto-driving (see
Belk, Sherry, and Wallendorf 1988; Belk, Wallendorf, and
Sherry 1989). Thus, we were able to generate a hermeneutic
interpretation, which, as Thompson and Tambyah (1999)
note, seeks to be open to possibilities afforded by the text,
rather than to project a predetermined system of meanings
on to the textual data. We also kept field notes and diaries
at this stage of our data analysis. We provide a detailed
interview with a female participant to show the emergence
of the gift continuum with individuals outside the family;
a detailed interview with a male participant to discuss family
interactions; and an interview with the same male to discuss
the role of gift exchanges as his status changed from ro-
mantic other to family member.
The following narrative attempts to capture the richness
of participants’ accounts and to explicate them with theo-
retical accounts of gift giving. Implicitly we use a strategy
of defamiliarizing the assumptions in the consumer literature
by juxtaposing cross-cultural differences and by providing
an epistemological critique (Marcus and Fischer 1986). The
defamiliarizing technique also supplies a dramatic and more
direct cultural criticism (Arnould 1989).
Finally, even in a situation in which participants are com-
fortable with the interviewer (who speaks their language
and knows their culture), Chinese people still have a ten-
dency to create an impression of social harmony and bal-
ance, and not to reveal their true inner feelings. Thus, since
their responses are for public consumption, they might be
more indicative of other- rather than ego-focused activity.
CREATING A NARRATIVE: A GIFT
RELATIONSHIPS CONTINUUM
Our discussions with participants made it clear that they
drew on a gift continuum that calibrates relationships from
the most affective to the least. It comprises major categories,
such as close friends, good friends, and just friends, which,
in turn, includes the subcategory of hi-bye friends. The ro-
mantic other also figures in the continuum, especially in the
early stages of the relationship (see Fig. 1).
Relationships between romantic partners strengthen over
time, and conversely gift exchanges diminish in importance
because the romantic other becomes a member of the family.
It is noteworthy that family purchases and family giving do
not fall into this continuum although the family continues
to be used as a model for other social relationships. Three
of the closest relationships outlined in Confucian philosophy
are those between father and son, young and old, and hus-
band and wife, and each of these may be seen as a nesting
relationship within a larger cultural whole that values hi-
erarchy, patriarchy, and filial piety (Bell 2000).
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
The data also raise a relevant question: To what degree
have fundamental values, such as harmony and filial piety,
prevailed in a society that has undergone rapid transfor-
mation, first under the British and now as a special admin-
istrative region under the PRC government? Here Tobin’s
(1992) concept of “domestication” proves useful in under-
standing how Hong Kong residents have taken what is un-
familiar and new and made it their own. Tobin (1992, p. 4)
describes domestication as an active and creative cultural
process that integrates the modern with the traditional and
the exotic with the familiar. Some recent studies on the
younger generation’s attitudes toward traditional values in
contemporary Hong Kong demonstrate the validity of To-
bin’s concept. Shek’s (1998) study shows that, although the
extended family structure in Hong Kong is being replaced
by the nuclear family, its members continue to cultivate
intimate family relations even when the children leave the
nest. Zhang and Bond’s (1998) study suggests that the
younger generation in Hong Kong and Beijing still support
the tradition of providing for the material and psychological
well-being of one’s parents (e.g., observing rituals of an-
cestor worship, continuing the family line, etc.). But it is
also clear that the younger generation (like earlier genera-
tions) is ambivalent about how to uphold these traditions:
whereas once this age group would devote considerable time
to looking after their parents themselves, today they are more
prone to spending money on placing their parents in homes
for the elderly. While these homes represent a Western bor-
rowing, they are becoming increasingly familiar and may
soon be ingrained in the culture (Woo et al. 2000). Thus,
cultural borrowing recontexualizes the new into an existing
framework.
Hong, Chiu, and King’s (1997) study is also significant
because it argues that Hong Kong students are bicultural
and that, when primed with appropriate symbols, they be-
have in either a Chinese or a Western manner. For example,
some of our own participants were unsure about using the
term “gift” in situations of self-provisioning or even of self-
indulgence. Thus, in Hong Kong, a decision about how to
domesticate the new is not an easy one, but the expression
of such ambivalence regarding self-giving is not the focus
of this article.
Excerpts from an Interview with Sonia: Close
Friends, Good Friends, and Hi-Bye Friends
Sonia is an undergraduate student in commerce and ad-
ministration who lives with her family. She and her friends
engage in different types of gift giving. Sonia distinguishes
between close friends (first tier), good friends (second tier),
and hi-bye friends (third tier). For intimate friends, she care-
fully selects gifts to express her affection, whereas for hi-
bye friends, she takes a more casual approach (even though
she gives them gifts on special occasions). Consider the
distinctions she makes among these three tiers of friends:
Sonia (S): I classify people according to how close I feel
towards them. For those closest to me [first tier], I’d feel
GIFT GIVING IN HONG KONG
FIGURE 1
RECIPROCITY AND THE GIFT CONTINUUM IN HONG KONG
very guilty if I forgot their birthdays. Later, if I were to
remember, I’d remedy the situation immediately with a phone
call. Then, I’d try to see them and give them a gift. This
would be my way of showing how much I cared. But if the
same thing were to happen with a person at the second or
third tier, I wouldn’t feel so bad. Second-tier friends [good
friends] are a little closer, however, than third-tier ones. These
are friends I don’t expect much from, nor they from
me—they’re hi-bye friends. But I still try to remember their
birthdays and buy them a token gift to show my respect.
Although these gifts don’t mean much to them, they still
show my concern for them.
Sonia distinguishes between first-, second-, and third-tier
243
friends in both sentiment and reciprocity. She admits to
feelings of guilt and shame when she forgets her close
friends’ birthdays, but she is more concerned with express-
ing affection for them and less with losing social face. Here,
it is important to make a distinction between social face
(móuh mı́n) and moral face (lian) because the management
of social face may or may not involve the management of
personal integrity. Concerns about moral face, according to
King (1985), derive from feelings of shame or guilt caused
by inappropriate behavior toward an individual. For Sonia,
this concern imposed an internal moral restraint on her be-
havior toward a close friend. In the case of second- and
third-tier friends, Sonia still tries to remember their birth-
244
days, but her concern with reciprocity and equivalence over-
rides her feelings of guilt or pleasure. Birthdays, likewise,
are expressive gift-giving occasions that are also more
formalized.
Interviewer (I): Can you elaborate a little on your feelings
of guilt towards your close friends?
S: Not all friends expect you to give them a birthday gift.
About a year ago, I forgot the birthday of a very good friend
who was studying in the U.S. She called me up and said she
was very sad that I had forgotten her birthday. It wasn’t that
I didn’t care about her, but that I had merely forgotten the
date. I felt so sad and guilty that I couldn’t sleep that night,
because of the pain I had caused her. I tried to think of all
the possible ways in which I could make it up to her. Even-
tually I found her a very nice gift [“the right gift,” she added],
and she forgave me.
Forgetting a close friend’s birthday caused Sonia immense
pain (loss of moral face), particularly because her friend was
overseas. Sonia’s friend, however, had violated the rule of
the active disavowal of obligation embedded in the gift be-
cause she drew attention to the oversight. But this did not
weaken the relationship. Sonia implies that connections of
the heart are more important than social infractions, because
both time and the right gift (sincere expression of intense
sentiment) erased the pain of both parties. Furthermore,
Sonia’s friend in the United States expressed sorrow but not
resentment at having been forgotten.
In Chinese culture, the heart is a powerful source of spir-
itual and personal energy. When the Chinese describe the
relationship between two people as the connection of two
hearts, this has a powerful metaphorical resonance, which
evokes cultural, medical, philosophical, and historical no-
tions of the relations between self, body, and community
(Ames 1994). The terms “heart” (sãm) and “spirit” (lı̀hng)
are used to express this sentiment (Zito and Barlow 1994).
The relationship that Sonia has with her close friend is one
in which the gift per se is not important. Among close
friends, reciprocity is much more personal and informal, and
its effectiveness stems from the other party’s memories (see
Yau et al. 1999). Yan (1996) distinguishes between personal
gift relations with good feelings (close friends) and personal
relations without good feelings (distant friends). Gift giving
with good feelings kindles cherished memories, and for
Sonia those memories were not activated because she forgot
to buy her friend a gift. Although sentiment is crucial, Sonia
also suggests that finding the right gift is essential to restore
balance in the relationship. The rightness of the gift depends
on the relationship between the individuals and their gift-
giving history. Thus, although the relationship between the
transactors is important, the gift (invested with Sonia’s sen-
timent) also has the power to heal a breach in friendship.
As Yang (1994) observes, when gifts are reciprocated, there
is always a “little of you in me and a little of me in you”
(pp. 297–298). Hong Kong Chinese have a saying that a
caring and generous individual has a large, round face, while
a mean person has a small and narrow one. It is almost as
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
if the investment in the gift causes a bodily change. In other
cultures, this investment may be considered more abstractly,
such as in places where the emphasis is on labor and time
(Weiner 1992). Although this instance could have been an
occasion to lose social face among less intimate friends, it
did not happen to Sonia because of the strong relationship
with her friend.
I: Can you say a little bit more about the process of finding
the appropriate gift for close friends?
S: For close friends, I’m quite systematic about finding the
right gift. I make a list of things they need, and then I figure
out my budget. After this, I think of the best shops to target
and then go there to find the gift. When I find what I’m
looking for I’m always very happy. It’s almost like making
a high grade on an exam. I can imagine how my friend will
feel when she opens the gift. On the other hand, if I can’t
find the perfect gift, then I give her a card or take her out to
dinner instead of buying a less suitable gift.
The amount of effort and care invested in finding the right
gift reflects the intensity of the relationship. This is similar
to what Ruth, Otnes, and Brunel (1999) call the “empathetic
gift,” one the recipient needs the most, because the giver
sees inside the recipient. The participants are concerned with
budgets, particularly since they are students, but the sys-
tematic search for finding the right gift far outweighs the
concern over equivalence. Indeed, if they cannot find the
right gift, they seek a deferral, but in the interim they make
other social gestures, such as sending a card or taking the
friend out to dinner. According to Yau et al. (1999), a de-
ferred payment is valued, because a belated gift, always
larger than the initial one, allows individuals to savor, affirm,
and strengthen existing relationships. Such accretion of
value embodied in the right gift symbolizes the growth in
sentiment between close friends. The search for the right
gift also suggests that it is wrong to treat close friends as a
means to an end because, as Godelier (1999, p. 208) notes,
proximity is symbolized by the absence of calculation. A
belated gift is also said to bring pride and good luck, but
in the meantime, token giving helps to ease the transition
process. Furthermore, the pleasure of giving, as described
by Sonia, compares with the elation of achieving a high
grade. Given that parents rank academic success second only
to filial piety (see Shek and Chan 1999), the joy of pleasing
parents through scholastic achievement is equated to the
pleasure of finding the right gift for a friend. Similarly,
anticipating the friend’s reaction to the gift is in itself a
source of anticipated pleasure for the giver. Thus, with close
friends, paying attention to the details of gift giving make
the event memorable and emotionally charged.
I: Earlier, you used the terms second- and third-tier friends.
Can you elaborate?
S: Yeah. There is a second and third layer. A friend I was
close to about two years ago is no longer that close to me.
But we’re still friends, so I try and remember to buy her a
birthday gift. She slipped from the inner core to the second
GIFT GIVING IN HONG KONG
layer. But if I forget to give her a gift this year, perhaps our
friendship might deteriorate further and become more like a
third-layer friendship. The third layer is mostly composed of
acquaintances [hi-bye friends].
Here Sonia discusses the importance of observing the social
principles of reciprocity and equivalence with second- and
third-tier friends and the problems that arise when friends
slip from one tier to another because appropriate gifts are
not exchanged on the right occasion. Loss of social face is
possible. As Ho (1975) notes, social face and impression
management are important in communal relations. Ritual
occasions of gift exchanges with second- and third-level
friends serve as maintenance rites, reaffirming ties that tend
to weaken due to relational atrophy (Cheal 1988; Miller
1993).
S: For hi-bye friends, I won’t make such a deliberate effort
to go out and buy a suitable gift. If I’m shopping and find
something appropriate, I might just pick it up, and when the
occasion presents itself, I’ll give it to that person. Let me
give you an example. If somebody were to have a birthday,
then people who hang out together would collectively buy
that person a gift. So you’re forced to contribute. I can’t
escape from such a situation. The person closest to the birth-
day person is usually assigned the task of choosing the gift.
Then, on the actual day, all of us gather to present the gift.
You have to reciprocate, otherwise you’ll be identified as a
“shabby person.” If my classmates gave me a birthday gift,
I’d have to buy them one in return. Of course, I’m happy to
be remembered, but sometimes it becomes difficult to
reciprocate.
The term for shabby person is hòhn syûn, which translates
as “miserly behavior.” Not to reciprocate on a gift occasion
would clearly be a situation for losing social face and should
be avoided. Sonia states that there is even coercion involved
in contributing to a joint gift for a third-tier friend. In Chi-
nese culture, restrictive and even coercive acts promote mu-
tual consideration in social networks (Ho 1975). Further-
more, to minimize the sense of obligation associated with
the occasion, the individual closest to the person celebrating
the birthday is asked to buy the gift. The ritual surrounding
the birthday person when the gift is given also removes
some of the obligatory nature of gift giving. It is thus im-
portant even in forced relationships to demonstrate a lack
of concern with calculation. While gifts are not normally
opened in the presence of the giver, it is common to do so
among close friends. In this instance, both giver and receiver
enjoy the process of unwrapping. However, with less inti-
mate friends, recipients may show their gifts to close friends.
Heeding the face of others is a mechanism by which one
can prevent loss of face, while the possibility of a hi-bye
friend becoming a close friend also raises the strategic ne-
cessity of giving face to the other.
S: On one occasion, I really didn’t have the time to get a
third-tier friend a gift. I was frustrated, but I didn’t feel guilty.
Given the time and financial constraints, I did the best I could.
245
I: What did you mean by “you felt frustrated but did not feel
guilty?”
S: I was frustrated, but I still made an effort. Even though
receiving a gift is not that important to me, it may be to
others. It also plays a critical part in maintaining relationships.
Phoning, paging, and sending a card are all ways by which
you can show respect. For people who are not so close, you
would like to offer a token gift in order to maintain the
relationship. So it’s really out of a sense of obligation to keep
the network going. But I’ll do the minimum to keep the
relationship going.
The occasion Sonia describes caused frustration, but not
guilt (reserved for close friends), because any equivalent
gift would be appropriate to face the other person. Since a
countergift—token acts—would sustain the relationship,
timing was critical. Between third-tier friends, showing re-
spect is also more important than showing emotions. Cal-
culation is present, but individuals try to downplay it. Over-
all, preventing loss of social face is more critical than gaining
face in these instances. Yan (1996) suggests that Chinese
culture emphasizes networks of relationships, so that insid-
ers are not compelled to feel guilty about outsiders in these
situations.
I: Can you elaborate on this sense of obligation you feel?
S: Sure. I live in a society. I know that one day I’ll need my
friend’s help or maybe I might even get close to this person.
So if I like them initially, I’ll try to keep the relationship
going. I still want to show them my respect. The gift, however
small it is, is still a way of facing somebody. On the other
hand, with your close friends you don’t worry about whether
they’ll be helpful to you now or in the future. I don’t want
just any kind of help from my close friends, such as financial
help, for instance. But I may need comfort when I’m unhappy
or when I face challenges. I want their understanding more
than any other form of help.
Acting in relation to one’s social situation is important to
Sonia, for, as a member of a society, she must act in ac-
cordance with the social norms of reciprocity. The possi-
bility of requiring help from a friend or of intimacy with
that person in the future motivates Sonia to invest in the
relationship. Sustaining the relationship is an act of main-
tenance, but using this as a mechanism to ensure a stronger
future relationship causes Sonia to be more aware of oblig-
atory giving. Here an element of instrumentality obtains,
but it is tempered by the sentiment associated with gift giv-
ing. Yang (1994) and Yan (1996) mention the importance
that people place on increasing their guanxi. To Sonia the
importance of the gift lies in its power as a vehicle to face
somebody. Here Ho’s (1975) notion of sociality is crucial
to understanding the role of the gift, for even a token gift
recognizes the other as an equal partner in the exchange.
Thus, gaining or losing face is not a private act of self-
evaluation but an evaluation granted by the other. One can-
not just claim face; one has to be granted face. Consequently,
a person must always be vigilant and attentive to the face
246
of others because face considerations are often mutually
restrictive and sometimes coercive in the achievement of
social harmony.
With a close friend, however, face work is not so crucial,
and financial equivalence is not sought in gift giving. What
the Chinese value is the friendship itself and the support
they receive in times of crisis. The gift may be anything,
small or large and should not affect the relationship, which
is regarded as solid. Yet even here, an expensive gift either
communicates the feelings of the giver, exceeds an earlier
gift, or reflects the closeness of the relationship between
giver and receiver.
Excerpts from an Interview with Justin: Giving to
the Romantic Other, and Family Relationships
Justin is a third-year student at the university who lives
with his parents. Like Sonia, he makes distinctions between
close friends, just friends, and acquaintances. Many partic-
ipants, including Justin, used the phrase “gift comes and gift
returns” (laih seuhng wohng loih) to describe a society-wide
norm for what Yau et al. (1999, p. 1030) refer to as bao or
reciprocity. He discussed exchanging gifts with his girl-
friend:
Justin (J): Giving gifts to my girlfriend is important because
it is a way of telling her that I’ll take care of her and that I
want to make her happy. There are two things here—caring
for her and concern for her happiness. This is particularly
important in the initial stages.
I: What did you give her in the early stages of your
relationship?
J: I tried to buy her things she wanted. Later, she told me
that she was impressed, because I was spending time and
money to buy her things [spontaneous little gifts as well as
larger gifts for her birthday, and so on] that she liked. At
first, I bought her dolls and flowers, now I buy her unusual
jewelry.
I: What kind of unusual jewelry did you give her?
J: Most girls love gold jewelry, and it is now becoming more
commonplace to give such gifts. When I bought her a chain
with a carved eagle pendant, she was so thrilled. Although
expensive, it was unique. It was only then that she realized
that I really loved her.
Justin emphasizes that thoughtful gifts, both small and large,
enrich their relationship because they are tangible reminders
of its development. Creating and strengthening positive
memories of their good times is for him a way of building
a foundation for their future together. Justin’s girlfriend saw
the gift of jewelry as an act of sacrifice that led to a turning
point in their relationship (see also Ruth et al. 1999). It was
almost as if he had intuited her desires, and from that time
on, Justin had become more like family.
I: Can you tell me more about what happens in the context
of your family?
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
J: I buy a lot of things for my parents and sisters. They also
give me things they know I like. We do not refer to these
things as gifts, but they are ways of showing that we’re close.
I: What kinds of things do you buy?
J: Chocolates, for instance, that everybody can share. I know
that I don’t have to buy things to demonstrate that I love
them, but I do it, because I know that my parents and sisters
like certain kinds of chocolates, and so on. But when I’m
older and settled, I’ll take care of my family.
I: Can you expand on this?
J: When my parents are older and feeble, I’ll consider buying
gadgets to simplify their lives. My mother, for instance,
bought a wheelchair for my grandfather because he had dif-
ficulty walking. This was not an act of obligation, but some-
thing she wanted to do. You can see that she loves to do
such things.
I: Can you tell me more about the distinction you make
between obligation and willingness?
J: Sure, what I mean is that not only do I have the respon-
sibility for taking care of my parents but also the desire to
make them happy. When I was little, they took care of me
and my sisters. So when they’re old, looking after them will
be my way of showing I love them.
Justin’s family, like the families of other participants, does
not formally exchange gifts but exhibits a constant give and
take on an intimate level. Although Western holidays have
penetrated into the economy and the media, the commer-
cialization of family feelings is discouraged on such occa-
sions. Giving chocolates to family members is one way of
giving and receiving pleasure in a family context, but it does
not constitute an expression of deep feelings. Like other
participants, Justin discusses the importance of showing par-
ents that their children love and care about them, especially
in old age. Justin’s own mother had set the example for
filial love when she purchased the wheelchair for his grand-
father, an act Justin describes as one of love, and not of
obligation. He recognizes that his parents’ gift of life is
unconditional (enqing), and can never be reciprocated, only
replicated with his own offspring.
Family and Enqing Relations
Among Cantonese speakers, the term enqing describes
feelings of intimacy between family members. Parents give
children enqing for life, and their children in turn are in-
debted to them for life. Enqing can neither be repaid nor
exchanged, but is passed on from one generation to the next
and maintained through rituals celebrating ancestors. Any
attempt to interpret filial piety as a gift exchange or a display
of instrumentality is rejected outright. In this regard, Doug-
las and Isherwood (1978), Godelier (1999), and Weiner
(1992) discuss objects that cannot be given to others because
they belong to the realm of the sacred. Godelier (1999) states
that “no society or identity can survive over time and provide
GIFT GIVING IN HONG KONG
a foundation for the individuals or groups that make up a
society if there are no fixed points, realities that are exempted
from the exchange of gifts or from trade” (p. 8). Hong Kong
Chinese regard family relationships as such a reality: they
are inviolable and lifelong, and reciprocal gift giving would
violate the sanctity of this principle. Parry’s (1986) study
on giving in the Indian caste system (dana) demonstrates
that asymmetrical giving also characterizes Indian culture
and fulfills a similar function: one-way gift flows from mem-
bers of the higher caste to members of the lower caste main-
tain and reinforce the hierarchical social order. Thus, the
patterns of asymmetrical giving in India, as in Hong Kong,
challenge the universality of reciprocity in gift exchanges
across cultures.
The emphasis on enqing also emerges in the physical
layout of the household, which typically reflects a lack of
privacy and individuality. Homes are very small, and the
majority of the population, including families with four or
five members, lives in cramped two- or three-room apart-
ments (Siu 1999). The family may include grandparents and,
periodically, other extended family members. Because of
such close living arrangements, the individual learns to view
the world as a network of relationships (Hsu 1985). Many
interviewees noted that they did not have separate bedrooms
and therefore could not lock themselves in a room to listen
to music or to read a book. The only space that they could
claim as their own was a bed on which they placed personal
items, such as books and stuffed animals. Individuals, how-
ever, learn to have private moments, even when they are
surrounded by family members; for example, they may use
the bathroom for private phone calls, a good cry, or even
meditation. Space and possessions are not totally individ-
ualized, and the family may jointly own cassette players and
CDs, but given the affluence of Hong Kong, many young
people own their own CD players, cellular phones, and other
electronic items. Despite family injunctions against privacy
and the ownership of goods, the younger generation does
rebel against the collective will of the family and occasion-
ally violates these rules. But their attempts to redefine them-
selves by acquiring goods that emphasize self-reliance and
individuality occurs through domestication (Tobin 1992)
Participants noted that, in most instances, family members
do not exchange gifts, although families (as a unit) may
enter into gift relationships with other families, especially
during festivals such as Chinese New Year. Gift giving does
not occur within the family, because love and sacrifice take
precedence over reciprocity. In this regard, Yang (1994)
mentions feelings of intimacy that are experienced only in
the context of the family and sometimes in family-like re-
lations (yiqi). This is evidenced by Cantonese phrases that
express affection only for family and like-family members:
ngóh ge gãyàhn literally means “my family” but may also
be extended to include very close friends and romantic oth-
ers; ngûhkéi-yàhn, which literally means love between sib-
lings and respect for elders, may apply to all family mem-
bers; and haauseuhn, an expression of filial piety, may also
apply to all elders. However, family disputes may be re-
247
solved through consumer goods, but they do not have a
price tag. Gifts for family members, as our participants
noted, are practical and functional in nature, which de-em-
phasizes their special status. This contrasts with what Cheal
(1996) suggests occurs in the West, where the emphasis in
family giving is on nonpractical and nonutilitarian goods,
since basic needs are met in routine and impersonal ways.
Chinese culture regards parents as superior to children in
both gift-giving roles: as givers and receivers. As a result,
when parents receive gifts from their adult offspring at for-
mal or informal occasions, they do not have to reciprocate
them. Parents are also considered superior when they give
red packets of money to their unmarried children at Lunar
New Year. Similarly, when the children marry and start their
own families, they expect similar expressions of filial piety
from their own offspring, so the hierarchy is maintained
from generation to generation. The mother of one of our
interviewees had made this very clear when she said, “Your
body and life belong to me. You can never repay me for
this.” This statement both reveals a fundamental resistance
to changing a core value and emphasizes the engendered
and embodied nature of the ultimate gift—the gift of life.
The giver in this instance is superior to the receiver. In
enqing relationships, blood ties and the sharing of meta-
phorical bodily substances are both sanctified and institu-
tionalized (Bond 1991).
More recently, the introduction of Western holidays, in
particular Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, has created some
ambivalence about gift giving in families. Although gift
giving is used to express filial piety, it also allows givers
to exercise their autonomy because the act of choosing a
gift places them on the same level as their parents. As some
participants noted, this creates a double bind. On the one
hand, parents want their children to give them gifts on
Mother’s Day or Father’s Day, so as not to lose face among
their friends, but, on the other hand, they frown on the act
itself because it disrupts the parent-child hierarchy. In Con-
fucian thought, the child can never equal the parent, re-
gardless of the type of gift given, and any attempt to do so
would generate serious conflict. But the media’s influence
is so pervasive that parents often discuss with their friends
the gifts they received from their children on these special
occasions. The drive to save social face has imbued the gift
with extraordinary social implications for the family, for it
now has much more significance than when it was just a
token. It is as if one parent were to tell another “my daughter/
son bought this for me because s/he cares about me” and
then to pause to allow the friend to draw the correct infer-
ence. In an extreme case, one participant said that she would
be “dead meat” (séi la) if she forgot a gift-giving day. Such
a violent metaphor is surprising, but the participant noted
that her parents would be upset if they lost face among their
friends. As the respondent noted, her mother did not artic-
ulate such a thought directly but “mumbled under her
breath,” thereby conveying displeasure at her daughter’s
thoughtlessness in such ritual situations. In sum, the incur-
248
sion of Western holidays into Chinese life has altered the
nature of gift giving in the family.
Parents may ask their children to purchase items for them,
but these are not viewed as gifts. According to one partic-
ipant, the term wúih bou yéuhngyukh-ji-yãn literally trans-
lates as “the feelings that one has for parents to recognize
the grace of (having been brought up by them).” In other
words, children will do anything for their parents to make
them happy. But there are also instances in which children
have to be reminded to do what they are expected to do for
their parents.
The following excerpts from interviews clarify and further
explore some of the issues raised above. The first one il-
lustrates the ways in which young people are socialized to
behave in intergenerational interactions. The second offers
a glimpse into a situation in which intergenerational conflicts
may occur. The third, with a male informant, suggests that
in some instances parents have to be vigilant about rein-
forcing the idea of parental care. The fourth excerpt, also
with a male, suggests that in the context of the extended
family losing face might be a serious problem.
Marina: At Chinese New Year, only parents give us
gifts—red packets with money in them. You never give your
parents gifts. When I have my own family, I’ll be expected
to show them (and other seniors) respect through gifts. We
don’t use the word “gift” because we’re already a family,
and we don’t worry about whether it’s a gift or not.
Kathy: When I bring things home, my mother will often say,
“Why did you buy these useless things?” At that moment
I’ll act like a spoiled child and retort, “Okay, I won’t buy
you anything any more!” But when I have a family, I’m sure
I’ll react in a more Western fashion. I’ll accept the gift and
not say it’s useless.
Patrick: We seldom buy gifts in our family. My mother would
say, “You should not give me any gifts on my birthday. It
is a waste of money. You can give me more money when
you find a job and settle down.”
David: One time, when my father came home from a trip,
he brought a Swatch watch that he had promised my first
cousin, but I liked the watch and asked him for it. This caused
a problem, because my uncle had lost face when his son was
not given the Swatch watch. Since then, our families have
not been too close.
Marina’s confident and spontaneous assertion that what
you give should not be described as a gift because the re-
cipient is family highlights the importance of examining
what Sherry (1996) calls a biocultural basis for gift giving.
Care-giving rituals prevail in family contexts and shape an
individual’s understanding of gift giving. For Kathy down-
playing the notion of the gift, as her mother did, would
perpetuate the accepted norm of the interdependent self.
Kathy, like others of her generation, feels that she has a
different lifestyle and should have more freedom, much
along the lines of what Hong, Chu, and King (1997) imply.
Zhang and Bond’s (1998) suggestion that the extreme
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
requirements of filial piety may inhibit an individual’s in-
dependence and eliminate personal desire and interest is
worth noting. In this context, then, it is not surprising that
some of our participants were torn between feeling modern
and observing more traditional behavior. Patrick’s obser-
vation that his mother explicitly told him to give her more
money when he found a job is an unusual request because
it is direct and evokes the fear that children may not always
be able to look after their aging parents. Finally, David’s
story about how his uncle’s loss of face caused a family rift
suggests that withdrawing a promised object has repercus-
sions despite the injunction against gift giving in the family.
Relationships with a Romantic Other
In love relationships, the instrumental nature of gift giving
is downplayed from the start and, therefore, the term “token
gift” or sui láih maht is preferred to the word “gift.” In the
early stages of a relationship, men are expected to take the
lead and give several small gifts. As the relationship pro-
gresses, however, women not only tend to give more gifts
(planned and unplanned) than men but more substantial ones
as well. When the couple begins to discuss commitment and
marriage, the nature of giving changes again: Gifts become
more personal and are linked to the recipient’s specific
needs. Finally, when the relationship becomes very close,
giving—even on ritual occasions—becomes unnecessary.
Consider what some of the participants had to say on this
issue. In the following excerpts, Michael talks about the
problems of giving standard gifts, like chocolates, in the
early stages of the relationship, an act that may or may not
evoke feelings of excitement and warmth. Jacki is quite
graphic about her gift-giving practices. The idea of losing
social face is also apparent in Mary’s use of the phrase “you
get termite,” which simply means that a person will be so-
cially sanctioned by friends and relatives for not acting ap-
propriately. Finally, Alison describes what happens when a
lover becomes part of the family.
Michael: When I started dating my girlfriend, I decided to
give her a box of chocolates and take her out on Valentine’s
Day. It was a rather moderate gift. She opened the box and
said, “Oh . . . chocolate!” She didn’t appear too excited and
put it aside.
Jacki: For my boyfriend’s birthday, I’ll take him out to lunch
or dinner. If this relationship gets better, then I’ll buy him a
nicer gift, like a squash racket. If I feel that our relationship
is going nowhere, then I won’t give him any more gifts!
Mary: On days like Valentine’s Day, when all your friends
get flowers and you don’t, your boyfriend loses face. You
“get termite” as they say. You’re angry that your friends will
think your relationship is not good or that you’ve broken up,
etc. So there is some pressure to conform.
Alison: I’ve been going out with my boyfriend for almost
two years now, and we’re very close. He’s becoming more
GIFT GIVING IN HONG KONG
like family than just a very intimate friend. Now we don’t
give each other gifts because there’s no need to.
The term “token gift” captures the transition from outsider
to insider status because the romantic other, or prospective
groom, will receive token gifts to reflect his ambiguous
status in the family: small, spontaneous gifts and more sub-
stantial ones on special occasions like birthdays. When the
relationship strengthens, the sentiment attached to these ob-
jects becomes very important and is expressed in a phrase
like lihng keuih hoisam, which means something like “to
cheer him [or her] up” or “to please him [or her].” Ulti-
mately, when the romantic other becomes a member of the
family, gift giving in this formal sense ceases. Spontaneous
giving and sharing are encouraged because the romantic
other has become a member of the core group. Thus, my
study, which indicates that gift-giving patterns among lovers
in Hong Kong resemble Western ones, supports Yan’s ob-
servation (1996) that most studies on non-Western societies
downplay the importance of emotion. According to Yan,
there are two reasons for this: first, anthropologists tend to
exoticize the other; second, studies on gift giving in the
West focus on the pure gift, creating the impression that
questions such as who, what, and when are irrelevant. Cal-
culation and sentiment figure equally and prominently in
both Western and Chinese giving.
Yihhei and Gift Giving (Close Friends/First Tier)
Yihhei feelings refer to intimate relationships between
close or first-tier friends. Sometimes intimate friends be-
come like family and are therefore treated accordingly:
There is no obligation to give them appropriate gifts on
ritual occasions or to observe the other rules of social pro-
priety. This clearly contrasts with similar situations in the
West, where obligation and sentiment are invoked through
gift giving (Carrier 1993; Cheal 1988).
Yang’s (1994) previously quoted statement that part of
the individual is transferred to the recipient and vice versa
also applies to first-tier friends. Over time the “me-in-you”
is balanced by the “you-in-me,” but as Yan (1996) notes,
this sense of having to repay is unequivocally overpowered
by the emphasis on affect. When buying gifts for their close
friends, participants spoke freely about the time invested in
choosing the right gifts and of the joy of wrapping them
and of watching their friends open them. One of the par-
ticipants stated that she always kept her close friends in
mind when she went shopping just in case she found the
“right thing,” even if she was not looking for it. While these
gifts imply intimacy, the suggestion of obligation persists,
as we shall see in the excerpts below. In one instance, Jessy
discusses the ability to see inside her friend and the oppor-
tunity she had to buy her the ideal gift. Jessy’s comments
bring to mind the Chinese expression “everybody wants to
be at the center” (yàhn yàhn dõu séung sı̀hng waih jungsãm),
which reinforces the importance of the ties that bind people.
In another instance, in which close friends are discussed in
the same context as extended family members, Theresa com-
249
ments on the importance of giving her aunts gifts. Consider
the following excerpts in which respondents describe their
gift exchanges with close friends and extended family mem-
bers:
Jessy: I have a very close friend whom I have known for 10
years. I bought her a dress for her birthday—it was the perfect
gift! I knew her tastes so well, and in this instance I knew
her size as well. It was the ideal gift, because she had tried
it on and loved it.
Joey: You need friends, right? A gift is one way of saying
“I remember and care about you.” This will make them happy.
Vincent: For relatives, such as cousins, I give only birthday
cards, which they may see as an inferior gift, because they
can easily throw it away. I think they prefer an object, because
it lasts longer than a card.
Theresa: If I forget to give one of my aunts a gift, this will
be talked about in the extended family. So then my mother
will have to settle the matter. She’ll have to say something
like, “Oh, she’s sai-gu,” or too young to know, so please
forgive her.
In this instance, Theresa’s mother will have to do damage
control for her daughter’s socially inappropriate gift behav-
ior. If an individual does not show an extended family mem-
ber affection by offering a gift, he or she is described as
móuh gãgaau (“not from a good family”) or ngóh sı̂k yàhn-
chı̀hng-sai-gu (“one who does not understand the social
norms of balance and harmony”). However, if people are
too young to understand the intricacies of reciprocity, the
term sai-gu may be used to describe their behavior. This
simply means that the individual is too young to understand
the rules of propriety and social graces and should therefore
be excused.
In each of the above excerpts, the idea of using the family
as a model for behavior is apparent. The joy of giving and
receiving is emphasized (except by Vincent and Theresa)
over the amounts spent on the gift. However, in the last two
cases, which involve extended family members, giving is
obligatory. Yan (1996) refers to this as giving without good
feelings. In general, the amount of time spent on searching
for the right gift not only makes the receiver happy but also
pleases the giver, who imagines the process of receiving
prior to the giving. Also, with close friends, a deferral is
acceptable as long as the event is recognized with a token
gesture. In fact, as Yau et al. (1999) observe, the extra time
taken to find the right gift helps the giver to savor the re-
lationship and to enjoy every moment of the process. The
principle of generalized reciprocity is nevertheless observed
when an expensive gift is offered in return, but the focus
is not on the obligation. Instead, the giver is motivated by
a desire to cherish and affirm the relationship (see also Ruth
et al. 1999). The gift touches both giver and receiver very
deeply at many levels, because the gift embodies and builds
on past memories.
Although yihhei feelings are valued by most participants,
calculation sometimes takes precedence over affection. In
250
one of the interviews, Lisa indicates that in purchasing gifts
for close friends, she is sometimes motivated to buy what
she likes rather than what her friends like. She also admits
that price is an important consideration and clearly identifies
the benefits of making a specific purchase (“accumulation
of points toward my next purchase”). She also adds that she
experiences no guilt because her friend will have to feign
good feelings when she receives the gift.
Rénqı́ng and Gift Giving (Good Friends/Second
Tier)
Rénqı́ng refers to the emotional bond between good or
second-tier friends. In the exchange of gifts, a giving and
taking of personal essence occurs (Yang 1994), as in a yihhei
relationship. But the obligation to repay and not be in-
debted—without the receiver losing face at your ex-
pense—prevails. Here the reference to saving face points to
social rather than to moral face. Jenny, one of the partici-
pants, noted that “the gift has to be acceptable but you can
take it easy when you buy gifts for good friends.” Most
often gifts to good friends are given on birthdays, and the
amounts spent are generally less than on gifts for close
friends. Ada, another participant, mentioned that cash was
never given as a gift. Consider the following statements from
additional respondents:
May: Sometimes, you get ideas as to what to get your friend
for her birthday through the hints she drops. She might say
that something is getting popular and that she would also
like to have one. And this way we at least know that she
wouldn’t dislike it. Price is an issue, because I still have to
rely on my parents for money, but I can’t buy a cheap gift.
Buying something for less than 50 [Hong Kong] dollars is
cheap, but over a hundred dollars is acceptable for university
students.
Stephen: A birthday is more special, more personal. . . .
Spending time together eating/drinking or karaoke would be
fine.
Sylvia: For good friends, you cannot really give a small gift.
It is better to give a large gift, because the recipient will be
happy when she unwraps it in front of everybody.
Sonia: I did buy a clock for a friend, but in Chinese culture
clocks are never given as gifts because they are associated
with death. But before I gave the gift, I asked her for a small
amount of money, so that it appeared as if she had bought
it for herself.
In rénqı́ng contexts, despite the urge to please, ritual, rec-
iprocity, and equivalence are sought. Concern over price
surfaces, because offering a cheap gift causes one to lose
social face. However, offering an expensive gift also places
pressure on the receiver to reciprocate. Although individuals
may drop hints as to what they would like to receive, they
must be discrete, as must the person buying the gift. Oth-
erwise, both giver and receiver risk violating the rules of
surprise, mystery, and premeditation, for both pretend that
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
they do not attach any importance to the price of the gift.
The giver often experiences relief after buying the gift, be-
cause it is so difficult to find the right gift. Again, loss of
face may be averted by carefully selecting the gift. But even
among good friends, a distinction may be made between
close and not so close friends. In both instances, affirming
that one cares and wants to maintain the friendship is still
at the root of such giving, although the type of gift chosen
may vary.
When buying gifts for rénqı́ng friends, our participants
followed these guidelines: size matters, so buy a large gift,
because people will witness its unwrapping (Sylvia); do not
buy gifts associated with death, although one participant did
give a clock to a friend (Sonia); do not give money except
under certain circumstances, such as Lunar New Year (Ada);
do take a friend out to dinner to express your affection, even
on a personal occasion such as a birthday (Stephen). The
goal is to buy an appropriate gift for your rénqı́ng friend:
your gift must please her, but it must also suit the occasion.
In sum, calculation takes precedence over sentiment.
When reciprocity is not observed, some good friends may
turn nasty. Emily, another participant, described one such
occasion: a good friend had taken offense because she had
spent 100 more Hong Kong dollars on Emily’s gift than
Emily had on hers. Here comparison and calculation formed
the basis of the giving, but there are mechanisms in place
to discourage such behavior, for example, proverbs and say-
ings. In Hong Kong an individual who always compares
and calculates gifts given and received is called a “woman
with small eyes.” Rénqı́ng friends may be more calculating
than close friends, but they cannot express their disapproval
of a gift based on price alone.
Guanxi and Gift Giving (Hi-Bye Friends/Just
Friends/Third Tier)
More explicitly instrumental, guanxi has a tactical di-
mension, although degrees of affect and notions of loyalty,
duty, and trust are also involved. Guanxi relations develop,
by definition, between potential friends; hence a certain
amount of etiquette and propriety of conduct are necessary.
Gains and losses are calculated, and the balance has to be
maintained. Giving and losing face is crucial to this
relationship.
Participants referred to guanxi friends as just friends or
hi-bye friends, that is, reasonably good friends whose com-
pany they enjoy but also seek because of the potential for
developing networks of relationships. Strong emotional at-
tachments are rarely formed in such instances, although one
always shows respect to others. Joint gifts and calling or
paging friends on their birthday are mechanisms by which
such a relationship can be maintained. Having a meal to-
gether is often a useful way of getting to know people better
and to increase one’s guanxi without too much expense.
Consider what Clara had to say:
Clara: Although we’ve been in the program together for three
years, we rarely discuss personal matters. However, we re-
GIFT GIVING IN HONG KONG
member birthdays. We collect money for birthday gifts, and
the person who knows the individual [birthday girl or boy]
volunteers to buy the gift.
Further, what you give the other person in a material sense
is balanced by your moral advantage. You keep score to
ensure that it is a win-win situation, for face is not only a
matter of prestige, but also an emblem of personal and social
identity (Yang 1994). Thus the exchange of personal essence
occurs in guanxi as it does in other gift relationships, but
the “me-in-you” and the “you-in-me” is constantly under
surveillance. If the relationship is good, a temporary short-
coming in the donor will be tolerated because donor and
receiver want to maintain the relationship. Such augmen-
tation and reduction of face occur particularly in guanxi
relations, but even here an attempt is made to go beyond
material obligation and face work (Yan 1996). The following
excerpts elaborate these issues further:
Lydia: I personally think that I should not stand out from
the rest when I contribute to a joint gift. If I suggest an
expensive item, and they are used to buying reasonably cheap
items, they may misunderstand me. On the other hand, if
they want to buy an expensive gift, and I don’t want to
contribute much, they’ll think I’m shabby. So it’s a delicate
balance!
Linda: I would contribute to a joint gift because I don’t want
my friends to think ill of me. I care about how they see me,
and I also want to give them face. There are two sets of
relationships that have to be nurtured here: the one with your
friend who is asking you to contribute (which is important),
and the one with the person to whom you are giving a gift.
Vincent: If I have given him a gift for his birthday, and he
remembers mine but fails to give me one in return, I’ll start
to wonder about it. It is a feeling that if I have shown him
respect why does he not feel the same way about me?
Joint gifts are one way of giving individuals the respect they
deserve if one wants to maintain or build a relationship with
them. But even here rituals must be observed to remove the
commercial edge; for example, the person who knows the
individual best volunteers to buy the gift. If one suggests
an expensive item, it could be misconstrued as an attempt
either to dictate the choice of gift or to exceed the amount
of money that should be spent. The opposite might also
occur if the group wants to buy an expensive gift and one
individual does not wish to. This causes unnecessary friction
and the loss of face between the individual who refuses to
contribute to an expensive joint gift and the person who
volunteers to buy the gift, as well as between intermediary
and receiver. Refusing to contribute would also constitute a
loss of face because it would be an admission of being
unable and unwilling to pay. Relationships between indi-
viduals and groups thus expand and contract depending on
the emotion and sentiment involved. Any social context has
the potential for developing guanxi networks, and guanxi
relationships may likewise develop into more intimate
relationships.
251
The principle of indebtedness acts as a safeguard against
abuse. Implicit in the act of accepting a gift is an agreement
in trust to repay in-kind at a later date. The timeliness of
the gift and occasionally its rarity may also act as a mech-
anism to ensure this sense of reciprocity.
In Chinese society, the distinction between insiders and
outsiders is critical. It is important to be an insider at many
levels of interactions because people deal with you differ-
ently based on their knowledge of you. Access to things,
services, and people is barred if you are an outsider. Some
transformation is essential in order to move from outsider
to insider, and this is where gift giving plays an important
role. As many respondents noted, hi-bye friendships have
the potential to become more intimate by means of a timely
gift. One respondent described it as “adding a hat” (layering
the relationship) to a consumer good to make it a gift. This
category of friendship thus enhances the links between giver
and recipient. According to the participants, acting appro-
priately in line with one’s social position is important, be-
cause this way one avoids losing face. Nonetheless, it is
also clear that the line between obligatory giving, flattery,
gifts, and bribery blurs on occasions when calculation is
prominent in people’s minds.
CONCLUSIONS
This study emphasizes the importance of redefining our
understanding of gift giving through data gathered in Hong
Kong. Such a cross-cultural approach, recommended by
many consumer researchers (Deshpande 1999), provides an
epistemological critique of existing theories of gift behavior.
The few available studies (see Aaker and Maheswaran 1997;
Applebaum and Jordt 1996; Arnould 1989; Sherry and Ca-
margo 1987; Thompson and Tambyah 1999) in this genre
serve as exemplars for demonstrating how existing theories
can be revised based on data gathered further afield. All
these studies, regardless of their approach, make a persua-
sive case for viewing cultures as linguistic-, location-, and
time-specific systems of shared meaning, thus resisting the
reduction of cultural features into universally or taxonom-
ically consistent categories (Holt 1999). I extended this ap-
proach by demonstrating that gift giving in Hong Kong is
embedded in particular sociocultural circumstances and
practices. Overall, I argue that the term “gift” applies only
to consumption activities/objects within certain contexts that
involve an exchange between two or more individuals. The
family is a sacred sphere and therefore falls outside of the
realm of reciprocity. Further, the cultural principles of rec-
iprocity, sentiment, and face serve to guide gift relations.
The Gift Continuum
My findings clearly demonstrate the existence of a gift
continuum in Hong Kong that consists of a social scale of
friendships—from most to least intimate—that determines
and guides gift exchanges. Gifts thus involve the circulation
252
of goods in the service of ties. Central to yihhei, or the most
intimate of these relationships, is the concept of sharing and
of mutual support: the parties concerned are morally obli-
gated to give, receive, and give in return. The refusal to
share (i.e., to offer an immediate countergift) is tantamount
to creating social distance. In yihhei relationships, instru-
mentality plays a minimal role, even if price is a factor,
because the desire to please the other is paramount. Partic-
ipants emphasized the importance of buying the right gift,
one that evokes the past (e.g., prior gift exchanges and cher-
ished day-to-day interactions) and that reflects both the na-
ture of the occasion and the strength of the relationship.
Yihhei friends may offer a token gift either to give them-
selves more time to find the right gift or to prevent loss of
moral face when they have forgotten a friend’s birthday. A
belated gift should ideally be something the recipient needs
the most, for it must demonstrate that the giver understands
the heart of the receiver. A belated gift, which is always
larger than an immediate countergift, is said to bring pride
and good luck (Yau et al. 1999), which contrasts with what
happens in the West where it may cause tension.
There exists a gift-giving paradigm for close friends in
Hong Kong. First, social relationships take priority over
price considerations: acknowledging a close friend on a rit-
ual occasion, such as a birthday, is an act that builds intimate
relationships. Second, the gift chosen is determined by spe-
cific cultural criteria, such as finding the right gift, one the
friend truly desires. Third, goods are endowed with special
value because the right gift is jointly created and evaluated
by the participants in the exchange. Close friends actively
remember and share in the knowledge of a common past,
so gifts serve as visible markers of intimate social relation-
ships (Douglas and Isherwood 1978, pp. 75–76).
Obligation and reciprocity are central to rénqı́ng rela-
tionships, but sentiment, sharing, and mutual support over-
ride purely utilitarian motives. Forgetting a friend’s birthday,
however, or not reciprocating an act of kindness, may un-
dermine an existing relationship and cause loss of social
face. In exchanging gifts, good friends attempt to maintain
equivalence, but their priority is to please the friend. Price
is of concern to them because an inexpensive gift would
cause both receiver and giver to lose face. However, if they
gave a larger gift than they themselves had received, this
would put too much pressure on the receiver and would be
considered improper. Face considerations are significant
here, because the goal is to preserve rather than destroy the
relationship. While rénqı́ng bonds are weaker than yihhei
ones, good friends strive to maintain cordial relationships,
so they must select a gift from a calibrated scale that ac-
curately reflects the nature of their relationship
Guanxi ties are the most instrumental of gift exchanges,
although even here guanxi friends emphasize sentiment over
mercantile logic to minimize the loss of face for both giver
and receiver. In these relationships, propriety and etiquette
prevail, emotional bonds are often minimal, and showing
respect is key. The giver avoids losing face, especially in
weak relationships, by evoking shared memories (through
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
an intermediary’s guanxi networks). Guanxi relationships
depend on the creation of obligation and indebtedness
among gift-exchange partners. The distinction between in-
sider and outsider is therefore important, because access to
goods, services, and people is often closed to outsiders. Gift
giving facilitates the movement from outsider to insider
status. Overall, Chinese giving celebrates the remembrances
of gifts past and provides the springboard for countergifts
(Yang 1994; Yau et al. 1999).
According to Yang (1994, pp. 199–201), the whole point
of a gift relationship (except with close friends) is to even-
tually balance social relationships, show sentiment, and
maintain face. The giver has a moral right to the face of the
other, who can now be subjected to his or her will. Yang
describes this process as adding a personal essence to the
gift, which helps construct relational subjects by detaching
a personal substance from the giver and attaching it to the
receiver. One could also argue, however, that sharing always
precedes the act of giving and that the spirit of the giver,
rather than essence attached to the object, is critical in Chi-
nese culture (Yan 1996; Yau et al. 1999). Either way giving
requires an interaction with another individual. In the words
of Douglas and Isherwood (1978, p. 89), consumption is
about power, but power is held and exercised in different
ways.
The romantic other has an ambivalent status in gift-giving
contexts because of the probability that he or she will be-
come a member of the family. In the initial stages, gift
exchanges are crucial, but with growing intimacy, the person
becomes like family and eventually the gift giving ceases.
Thus romantic others receive token gifts that mark their
ambiguous or in-transition status. The focus on sentiment
in gift exchanges between romantic others is as important
as understanding the transformation from outsider to insider.
As Yan (1996) notes, the Chinese are just as affectionate
and sentimental in their giving behavior as their Western
counterparts.
Toward an Epistemological Critique
Gift giving presents a dilemma because it is both an act
of generosity and an act of enslavement (Godelier 1999).
On the one hand, participants in gift exchanges enter a shar-
ing relationship; on the other hand, receivers become de-
pendent and even subject to the control of the giver (and
hence are inferior in many cultures) until the gift is returned.
According to Mauss (1967), gift exchanges occur because
the hau, or spirit of the gift, which resides in the gift, and
the spirit of the giver, which is transferred to the gift, compel
the receiver to reciprocate. Mauss also states that there are
two spheres of wealth: the commercial sphere in which
goods are exchangeable and the sacred sphere in which
exchange is not encouraged. In Hong Kong, the family is
sacred and exempt from the reciprocal exchange of gifts.
Further, the interdependent, familial self prevails in Hong
Kong. Since very close friends and romantic others may be
included in the familial self, the norms of reciprocity, in
GIFT GIVING IN HONG KONG
some instances, may not apply to them either. Because filial
piety is enshrined in family relationships, children are for-
ever indebted to their parents who gave them the ultimate
gift—the gift of life. Children express filial piety by, among
other things, observing parental birthdays and ancestral rit-
uals; whatever gifts are offered on these occasions are prac-
tical. Similarly, when Chinese parents celebrate their chil-
dren’s achievements, they treat them chiefly as family rather
than as individual accomplishments. Anything that under-
mines the harmony and interdependence of the family is
discouraged. Actions of a moral nature that focus on the
inner self are encouraged among family members, although
maintaining social face as a family unit in the rest of society
is also emphasized.
If the time-honored principle of asymmetry is the glue
that binds the Chinese family together, we begin to appre-
ciate the intense desire to maintain such ethics of enqing,
especially in the parental generation. While the family re-
mains the core of society, it is not celebrated through rit-
ualized gift exchanges. The sanctity of the family is instead
honored on a daily basis, through acts of filial piety that
cherish interdependence and through acts of solidarity that
distinguish the basic unit from the rest of society. In Go-
delier’s terms, the family is outside the sphere of reciprocity.
In the West, in contrast, it is the vulnerability of family
life that is responsible for the large amounts of gift giving,
especially at Christmas (Cheal 1988). The gift becomes the
perfect vehicle for displaying love, gratitude, and friendship,
but the ideology of the pure gift (which emphasizes the
spontaneous expression of love between the parties con-
cerned) obscures the fact that even here gifts are calibrated
according to the nature of the relationship with the gift
partner—whether the gift partner is a wife, child, or nephew.
The exaggerated focus on sentiment obscures the cultural
rules at play in the West. For instance, if a child received
a smaller gift than a nephew, there would be some concern
about the nature of the relationship between giver and re-
ceiver. There is an implicit social distance scale in relation
to the given donor that is often subsumed under the term
“emotional value.” As Caplow (1982, p. 1321) observes,
“In the dialect of Christmas gift giving, the absence of a
gift is also a lexical sign, signifying either the absence of
a close relationship, as in the Christmas contact of cousins,
or the desire to terminate a relationship, as when a husband
gives no gift to his wife.” Excessive generosity and care
embedded in the pure gift are seemingly more ideal than
real, although they serve as an alternative to the mechanized
and rationalized egoistic forces that surround us (Belk 1996,
p. 78). As one moves beyond the circle of the family and
kin, the nature of giving changes as well. Carrier (1993, p.
58) suggests that reciprocation is insignificant and that there
is a certain amount of disengagement from the relationships
involved.
My findings also challenge the universal notion of reci-
procity embedded in the gift (Malinowski 1978). This view
has since been criticized because of its undue emphasis on
dyadic transactions between self-interested individuals (Parry
253
1986). Parry’s study of gift giving in India suggests that
asymmetrical giving maintains a hierarchical social order be-
cause there the givers (higher castes) are superior. In Hong
Kong and the PRC, one-way gift flows occur when parents
give red packets of money to children at Lunar New Year.
Although they are not expected to return the gifts, the children
offer their parents food and money when they themselves
marry. Like the higher castes in India, Chinese parents are
always superior regardless of whether they give gifts to or
receive them from their married children.
Token Giving
In his studies on the Kula, Malinowski (1978) underscores
the importance of maintaining social relationships through
the protracted process of exchanging valuable necklaces for
highly regarded arm shells. Here the protocol of sociality
is embedded in the token gift (Weiner 1992). Our research
also provides meaningful data on how token giving sustains
relationships at all levels of the gift continuum in Hong
Kong. The ambivalence toward gift giving among romantic
couples generally reflects their transitional status from
strangers to family members. The term sui láih maht (token
gift) illustrates the general reluctance to call such giving a
gift. It involves time and labor on the donor’s part and is a
way of gradually incorporating the receiver into the group.
The same also holds true for very good friends who are
considered like family, for often a phone call or a token gift
suffices to show one’s appreciation until the right gift is
found. Sometimes, eating together is regarded as a token
gift that affirms the like-family status of the friend because,
in family contexts, food exchanges are often the medium
through which love is expressed. In close friendships, sen-
timent and caring far outweigh equivalence and equality. In
the case of good friends, just friends, and hi-bye friends,
token giving is also important because it serves to give face
to others or to develop guanxi ties. Souvenirs and flowers
(which participants refer to as easy or typical gifts) are often
used to show respect. Token giving serves as a memory cue
and affirms the reciprocal nature of the relationship between
giver and receiver.
Limitations and Future Directions
Generalizations are difficult due to the problems associ-
ated with sampling young middle-class to lower-middle-
class university students (perhaps more Westernized than
the rest of the population). If Zhang and Bond’s (1998)
studies of filial piety and social harmony among university
students in Hong Kong testify to the resilience and conti-
nuity of traditional Chinese values, how Hong Kong students
appropriate and recontextualize the foreign and the unfa-
miliar requires greater elaboration. A case could be made
that the resistance to social change is more acutely felt and
better articulated by the older generations—the parents and
grandparents of the students interviewed. They often lament
254 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

that their offspring, raised under British rule, have aban- APPENDIX
doned cherished cultural values in their race to accept the
new. Clearly, we need to examine generational differences GLOSSARY OF CANTONESE TERMS
in gift-giving patterns and to pay greater attention to the
domestication of the new. English Cantonese
Further, although we had male and female participants,
we need to further explore gender distinctions and changing Reflective force (inner self) Chı́
gender roles in both the care of family members and the Gift Láih maht
development of romantic relationships. Women have in- Ritual Láih
Act of giving Sung-láih
creasingly sought career opportunities outside the home, and Self Xı̂n
they now contribute to the family income. In these new Person Rén
contexts, are males still pressured to manage the finances Relationship (instrumental) Guanxi
of their aging parents and of their younger siblings? Are Face Min
Losing social face/losing Móuh Mı́n/lian
women pressured to be nurturers or are they also expected moral face
to assume financial obligations? Women are often caregiv- Heart Sãm
ers, although in the absence of male siblings they act as Spirit Lı̀hng
caretakers as well. But both men and women become gift Miserly behavior Hòhn syûn
Gift comes, gift returns Láih seuhng wóhng
givers as they age, even though they were gift recipients as lòih
children. And finally, if men are expected to take the ini- Reciprocity Bao
tiative for developing romantic relationships, how does this Intimacy in family Enqing
affect gift exchanges over the long term? My family Ngóh ge gãyàhn
Love for siblings/respect Ngûhkéi-yàhn
According to Mick (1996), Mick and De Moss (1990), for elders
and Sherry (1996), the self-gift is prevalent in North Amer- All elders in family Haauseuhn
ica, but is self-giving in Hong Kong more common than Family like relations Yiqi
Dead meat Séi la
our data suggests? The issue of self-giving, which might To recognize the grace of Wúih bou yéuhngyukh-
have a negative impact on family values and solidarity, sur- parental care ji-yãn
faced in our discussions with participants who made a dis- Token gift Sui láih maht
tinction between self-purchases and self-giving. This topic To cheer him/her up Lihng kéuih hõisãm
Close friendships Yihhei
warrants further exploration, and Ahuvia and Wong’s (1998) Everybody wants to be at Yàhn yàhn dõu séung
study provides new directions for further research on self- the center sı̀hng wàih Jûngsãm
giving. Make them happy Deui Kéuih hóu
This study also raises the question of the generalizability Too young to understand Sai-gu
reciprocity
of our research findings to Chinese populations in various Not from a good family Móuh gãgaau
parts of the world, such as Taiwan, mainland China, and the One who does not under- Ngóh sı̂k yàhn-chı̀hng-
West. What are the similarities and differences among these stand social norms sai-gu
different groups? Johnson’s (1974) study of Japanese gift Benevolence (good Rénqı́ng
friends)
giving in Honolulu suggests that second generation Japanese
are closer to the U.S. model than is generally assumed. To
what extent does the domestication and acceptance of the
modern alter the traditional values of the diaspora? [Received November 1999. Revised January 2001. David
On a final note, despite our improved understanding of Glen Mick served as editor, and Eric J. Arnould served
how Hong Kong Chinese give and receive gifts, there are as associate editor for this article.]
still many unanswered questions. For instance, money may
be offered as a gift in Hong Kong, and thus has both al-
ienable and inalienable qualities. But in no society is there REFERENCES
a pure gift or a pure commodity. Since commodities can be Aaker, Jennifer and Durairaj Maheswaran (1997), “The Effect of
converted into gifts, what are the repercussions when gifts Cultural Orientation on Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer
are converted into commodities? No doubt, in Hong Kong Research, 24 (December), 315–328.
the red packaging helps to remove the commercial taint Abbas, Ackbar (1997), Hong Kong: Culture and the Politics of
(money as commodity) of giving money as a gift and to Disappearance, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
convert the money to the status of a gift. Examining the gift Ahuvia, Aaron and Nancy Wong (1998), “Brand Name Luxuries
patterns of young unmarried students does not yield suffi- and the Construction of the Collectivist versus the Individ-
ualist Identities in Singapore,” working paper, Center for In-
cient insight into the complexities of converting commod- ternational Business Education and the Michigan Business
ities into gifts and vice versa in daily life. Such a topic School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234.
requires further exploration as it exceeds the scope of this Ames, Roger (1994), “The Meaning of Body in Classical Chinese
study. Philosophy,” in Self as Body in Asian Theory and Practice,
GIFT GIVING IN HONG KONG
ed. Thomas P. Kasulis, Roger Ames, and Wimal Dissanayake,
New York: SUNY Press, 56–75.
Applebaum, Kalman and Ingrid Jordt (1996), “Notes Toward an
Application of McCracken’s Cultural Categories for Cross-
Cultural Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 23 (December), 204–218.
Arnould, Eric (1989), “Toward a Broadened Theory of Preference
Formation and the Diffusion of Innovations: Cases from Zin-
der Province, Niger Republic,” Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 16 (September), 239–267.
——— and Melanie Wallendorf (1994), “Market-Oriented Eth-
nography: Interpretation Building and Marketing Strategy
Formulation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (Novem-
ber), 484–504.
Belk, Russell (1979), “Gift Giving Behavior,” in Research in Mar-
keting, Vol. 2, ed. Jagdish Sheth, Greenwich, CT: JAI, 95–126.
——— (1982), “Effects of Gift Giving Involvement on Gift Se-
lection Strategies,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol
9, ed. Andrew Mitchell, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Con-
sumer Research, 408–412.
——— (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 15 (September), 39–168.
——— (1996), “The Perfect Gift,” in Gift Giving, ed. Cele Otnes
and Richard Beltramini, Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green
State University Popular Press, 59–85.
——— and Gregory Coon (1993), “Can’t Buy Me Love: An Al-
ternative to the Exchange Paradigm Based on Dating Expe-
riences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (December),
393–417.
———, John Sherry, and Melanie Wallendorf (1988), “A Natu-
ralistic Inquiry into Buyer and Seller Behavior at a Swap
Meet,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 449–470.
———, Melanie Wallendorf, and John Sherry (1989), “The Sacred
and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy in the Od-
yssey,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 1–38.
Bell, Duran (2000), “Guanxi: A Nesting of Groups,” Current An-
thropology, 41 (February), 132–138.
Bond, Michael (1991), Beyond the Chinese Face, Hong Kong:
Oxford University Press.
Caplow, Theodore (1982), “Christmas Gifts and Kin Networks,”
American Sociological Review, 47 (June), 383–392.
Carrier, James (1991), “Gifts in a World of Commodities: The
Ideology of the Perfect Gift in American Society,” Social
Analysis, 29 (January), 19–37.
——— (1993),“The Rituals of Christmas Giving,” in Unwrapping
Christmas, ed. Daniel Miller, Oxford: Clarendon, 55–74.
Cheal, David (1988), The Gift Economy, New York: Routledge.
——— (1996), “Gift in Contemporary North America,” in Gift
Giving, ed. Cele Otnes and Richard Beltramini, Bowling
Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press,
85–99.
Cupach, William and Sandra Metts (1994), Face Work, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deshpande, Rohit (1999), “Foreseeing Marketing,” Journal of
Marketing, 63 (December), 164–169.
Douglas, Mary and Baron Isherwood (1978), The World of Goods:
Towards an Anthropolgy of Consumption, London: Basic
Books.
Godelier, Maurice (1999), The Enigma of the Gift, trans. Nora
Scott, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ho, David Yau-fai (1975), “On the Concept of the Face,” American
Journal of Sociology, 81 (December), 72–78.
Holt, Douglas (1999), “Poststructuralist Lifestyle Analysis: Con-
255
ceptualizing the Social Patterning of Consumption in Post-
modernity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (December),
326–350.
Hong, Ying Yi, Chi-Yue Chiu, and Tracy Man King (1997), “Bring-
ing Culture Out in Front: Effects of Cultural Meaning System
Activation on Social Cognition,” in Progress in Asian Social
Psychology, Vol. 1, ed. Kwok Leung, Yoshihisa Kashima,
Uichol Kim, and Susumu Yamaguchi, Singapore: Wiley,
135–146.
Hsu, Francis (1985), “The Self in Cross-Cultural Perspective,” in
Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives, ed. An-
thony J. Marsella, George De Vos, and Francis Hsu, New
York: Tavistock, 24–55.
Hwang, Kwang-Kuo (1987), “Face and Favor: The Chinese Power
Game,” American Journal of Sociology, 92 (December),
944–974.
Hyde, Douglas (1983), The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life
of Property, New York: Vintage.
Johnson, Colleen Leahy (1974), “Gift Giving and Reciprocity
among the Japanese Americans in Honolulu,” American Eth-
nologist, 1 (February), 295–308.
Joy, Annamma (1991), “Beyond the Odyssey: Interpretations of
Ethnographic Research in Consumer Behavior,” in Highways
and Buyways: Naturalistic Research, ed. Russ Belk, Provo,
UT: Association of Consumer Research, 216–233.
King, Ambrose (1985), “The Individual and Group in Confucian-
ism: A Relational View,” in Individualism and Holism: Stud-
ies in Confucian and Taoist Values, ed. David H. Munro, Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 57–70.
Malinowski, Bronislaw ([1922] 1978), Argonauts of the Western
Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in
the Archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea, London: Rou-
tledge & Kegan Paul.
Marcus, George and Michael J. Fischer (1986), Anthropology as
Cultural Critique, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Markus, Hazel and Shinobu Kitayama (1991), “Culture and the
Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion and Motivation,”
Psychological Review, 98 (April), 224– 253.
Mauss, Marcel ([1925] 1967), The Gift: Forms and Functions of
Exchange in Archaic Societies, ed. Ian Cunnison, New York:
Norton.
McCracken, Grant (1988a), Culture and Consumption, Blooming-
ton: Indiana University Press.
——— (1988b), The Long Interview, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mick, David Glen (1996), “Self-Gifts,” in Gift Giving, ed. Cele
Otnes and Richard F. Beltramini, Bowling Green, OH: Bowl-
ing Green State University Popular Press, 99–122.
——— and Michelle DeMoss (1990), “Self-Gifts: Phenomeno-
logical Insights from Four Contexts,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 17 (December), 322–332.
Miller, Daniel (1993), “A Theory of Christmas,” in Unwrapping
Christmas, ed. Daniel Miller, Oxford: Clarendon, 134–156.
Otnes, Cele, Tina Lowrey, and Young Chan Kim (1993), “Gift
Selection for ‘Easy’ and ‘Difficult’ Recipients: A Social Roles
Interpretation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (Septem-
ber), 229–244.
Parry, Jonathan (1986), “The Gift, the Indian Gift and the ‘Indian’
Gift,” Man, 21 (September), 453–473.
Rucker, Margaret, Anthony Freitas, and April Kangas (1996), “The
Role of Ethnic Identity in Gift Giving,” in Gift Giving, ed.
Cele Otnes and Richard F. Beltramini, Bowling, OH: Bowling
Green State University Popular Press, 143–160.
Ruth, Julie A., Cele Otnes, and Frederic Brunel (1999), “Gift Re-
 256
ceipt and the Reformulation of Interpersonal Relationships,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 385–402.
Sahlins, Marshall (1972), Stone Age Economics, New York: Aldien
de Gruyter.
Shek, Daniel (1998), “A Longitudinal Study of Hong Kong Ad-
olescents’ and Parents’ Perceptions of Family Functioning and
Well-Being,” Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159 (Decem-
ber), 389–403.
——— and Lai K. Chan (1999), “Hong Kong Chinese Parents’
Perceptions of the Ideal Child,” Journal of Psychology, 133
(May), 291–302.
Sherry, John F., Jr. (1983), “Gift Giving in Anthropological Per-
spective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September),
157–168.
——— (1996), “Reflection on Giftware and Giftcare: Whither
Consumer Research?” in Gift Giving, ed. Cele Otnes and
Richard F. Beltramini, Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green
State University Popular Press, 217–237.
——— and Eduardo Camargo (1987), “May Your Life Be Mar-
velous: English Language Labeling and the Semiotics of Jap-
anese Promotion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (Sep-
tember), 174–188.
Siu, Kin W. M (1999) “Lanterns of the Mid-Autumn Festival: A
Reflection of Hong Kong Cultural Change,” Journal of Pop-
ular Culture, 33 (Fall), 67–86.
Thompson, Craig, William Locander, and Howard Pollio (1989),
“Putting Consumer Experience Back into Consumer Re-
search: The Philosophy and Method of Existential Phenom-
enology,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (September)
133–147.
——— and Siok Kuan Tambyah (1999), “Trying to Be Cosmo-
View publication stats
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
politan,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (September),
214–252.
Tobin, Joseph J. (1992), Re-Made in Japan, New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Wei-Ming, Tu (1994), “Embodying the Universe: A Note on Con-
fucian Self-Realization,” in Self as Person in Asian Theory
and Practice, ed. Roger T. Ames, Wimal Dissanayake, and
Thomas Kasulis, Albany: SUNY Press.
Weiner, Annette (1992), Inalienable Possessions, Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Woo Jean, Suzanne Chau Ho, Ignatius A. Yu, and Edith J. Lau
(2000), “An Estimate of Long-Term Care Needs and Identi-
fication of Risk Factors for Institutionalization among Hong
Kong Chinese Aged 70 Years and Over,” Journal of Ger-
ontology, 55 (April), M64–M69.
Yan, Yunxiang (1996), The Flow of Gifts: Reciprocity and Social
Networks in a Chinese Village, Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Yang, Mei Hui (1994), Gifts, Favors and Banquets: The Art of
Social Relations in China, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Yau, Oliver, Tsang S. Chan, and Kwok F. Lau (1999), “Influence
of Chinese Cultural Values on Consumer Behavior: A Pro-
posed Model of Gift-Purchasing Behavior in Hong Kong,”
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11 (January),
97–116.
Zhang, Jianxin and Michael Harris Bond (1998), “Personality and
Filial Piety among College Students in Two Chinese Societies:
The Added Value of Indigenous Constructs,” Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29 (May), 402–417.
Zito, Angelo and Tani Barlow, eds. (1994), Body, Subject and
Power in China, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.