Question
(a) Describe what psychologists have discovered about:
• gift-wrapping including beliefs of giver and recipient, and
• attention and shelf position. [6]
(b) Evaluate what psychologists have discovered about:
• gift-wrapping including beliefs of giver and recipient, and
• attention and shelf position, including a discussion about generalisations from findings.
Evaluation in your answer can include strengths, weaknesses and a discussion of issues and debates. [10]
Section C: Health Psychology
Answer all questions.
Mark scheme
8(a) Describe what psychologists have discovered about: 6 Award up to 4 marks where the response has described
• gift-wrapping including beliefs of giver and only part of the question even if the response otherwise
recipient, and meets the criteria for level 3.
• attention and shelf position.
Daniel Howard (1992) explored how gift-wrapping influences
Use Table A: AO1 Knowledge and understanding to mark recipients' perceptions of gifts. In the first experiment, 45
candidate responses to this question. university students were promised a gift for evaluating
Candidates must discuss both the gift wrapping and products; half received the gift (a sheepskin bicycle seat
attention and shelf position. They can include examples of cover) wrapped in decorative paper with a ribbon, while the
studies either identified as examples in the syllabus or not. other half received it unwrapped. Participants rated the
wrapped gift more favourably (average score of 7.14) than
Details may include: the unwrapped one (average score of 6.06) on scales
assessing desirability, quality, and wisdom of the gift.
Gift wrapping A second experiment involved 82 students who were told
Gifts are wrapped to indicate that what is being given is a the gift was either for them or for someone else. Those who
gift. The giver will choose appropriate wrapping for the believed the gift was for them rated it more positively when it
occasion and wrapping it shows that it is a gift and was wrapped, whereas those who thought it was for
something special for the receiver of the gift. Research someone else showed no significant difference in their
(Howard) has shown that receivers are happier with a evaluations based on wrapping.
traditionally wrapped gift than a gift which is unwrapped or
non-traditional wrapping. There are occasions where non Rixom, Mas, & Rixom (2019):
wrapped gifts are seen as acceptable (such as a gift of Participants & Setup: sample of 261 adults were asked to
flowers or chocolates when visiting someone). Gifts can be imagine receiving a gift at a party from either a close friend
presented three ways – unwrapped, wrapped in a non- or an acquaintance, and the gift was either neatly or
traditional manner and wrapped in traditional manner. sloppily wrapped
Procedure: Participants viewed images of the two wrapping
styles and were instructed to picture the giver as either a
friend or an acquaintance, then rated their satisfaction with
the gift they "received"
8(a) Example study – Porublev et al., 2009 Results: When imagining the gift was from a friend,
3 data collection techniques used were observations at a recipients reported greater satisfaction with the sloppily
Christmas gift wrapping stall; 20 in-depth interviews where wrapped gift—consistent with expectation-disconfirmation.
respondents reflected on gift wrapping (including questions In contrast, when the gift-giver was an acquaintance,
such as ‘in what instances do you wrap gifts?’); and 6 recipients preferred the neatly wrapped gift.
workshops where participants were paired and asked to Interpretation: For friends, sloppy wrapping sets low
wrap two gifts – one for someone close and one for an expectations, boosting delight when the content is better
acquaintance while they conversed with their partner. than anticipated (contrast effect). For acquaintances, tidy
Most of the participants (who came from Victoria, Australia wrapping signals that the giver values the relationship,
and were aged around 25–35 years old) preferred to receive enhancing overall appreciation via assimilation.
a gift that was wrapped and that there were clear
expectations of what a gift should look like. Researchers
gathered qualitative data to support these findings.
Attention and shelf position
Where a product is placed on the shelf can have an effect
on how long consumers look at the product and also
whether they then purchase the product. Planograms are a
diagram or drawing that shows where products should be
placed in a store/on the shelf. Central gaze effect is that
consumers tend to look at products in the centre of a shelf
for longer and are more likely to purchase this item
compared to items on left or right of shelf. This can be
measured in psychological studies by using eye tracking.
8(a) Example study Atalay et al., 2012
Atalay et al. used eye tracking technology to identify
customer tendency to choose the option in the centre of an
array. An ‘offline’ study also confirmed that the centrally
located item is chosen more often even when this is not the
centre of the visual field. Several studies were conducted:
1A involved 67 undergraduates in France, average age 20.
Using eye-tracking participants reviewed 2 product
categories – vitamin supplements and meal replacement
bars, each with 3 fictitious names and displayed in a 3 × 3
matrix on a computer screen. Brands in the centre received
more frequent eye fixations and overall were looked at for
longer.
1B extended 1A by considering horizontal centrality.
Participants were 64 undergraduate students in Paris. The
set up was similar to 1A but with the matrix shifted away
from the centre of the computer screen. Again, products in
the centre item are gazed at for longer.
Study 2 was a replication in a more realistic setting by
placing the products on a shelf rather than a screen. 84
students at Concordia University took part. The products
used were fictitious brands of energy drinks. Each brand had
a feature attribute: high intensity, extended endurance or
muscle recovery but these attributes were rotated around
the brands to eliminate effects. Items were displayed in
categories of 3 so that each product could be centre, left or
right. Participants were tested one at a time and positioned
so that the category they had to choose from was to their left
or right and never exactly in the centre of their visual field.
They were not allowed to reposition themselves. Results
found the centrally located brand is more often chosen even
when it is not in the centre of the visual field.
8(a)
Participants were asked to evaluate the product, and it was
found that the chosen product from the centre was not
always the most positively evaluated.
Other appropriate responses should also be credited
8(b) Evaluate what psychologists have discovered about: 10 Ecological validity can be used as the named issue as this is
• gift-wrapping including beliefs of giver and generalising from the task in the study to everyday life. If it
recipient, and has good EV than can make generalisations from the
• attention and shelf position, findings.
including a discussion about generalisations from
findings.
Evaluation in your answer can include strengths,
weaknesses and a discussion of issues and debates.
Use Table B: AO3 Analysis and evaluation to mark
candidate responses to this question.
Depending on the examples studied by candidates their
answers may vary.
A range of issues could be used for evaluation. These
include:
Named issue – Generalisations from findings
Porublev used random selection of 25–35 year olds from
Victoria, Australia. Sample had more female participants as
viewed as having a higher involvement in gifting. Other
demographic, socio-economic, hygiene and environmental
factors are open to ensure a wide cross stream of Australian
society
Atalay has 63/64 and 84 undergraduates from Paris.
Strengths (can be generalised)
Porublev – good cross section of Australian society from
Victoria. Representative as females more involved in gifting.
Random selection so no bias in selection/choice to
participate.
Atalay – Good sample size.
8(b) Weaknesses (cannot be generalised).
From one culture. Australia/France – culture affects how
products are chosen/how gifts are wrapped/expected to be
wrapped.
Undergraduates only (Atalay et al.)
Young age group and given extra credit for participating so
may have selected a certain type of student. (Porublev)
• Reductionism versus holism – Gift wrapping may be
seen as somewhat holistic as it is considering different
types of gifts (presents, house-warming, etc.) and
different types of wrapping (traditional, unwrapped, non-
traditional). Shelf position is more reductionist as just
considering the product being in the centre of the shelf
and not other explanations for purchase such as price,
popularity of product/brand, etc.
• Determinism versus free-will – The feelings of the
participants about the gifts are being determined by the
gift wrapping rather than the free will of the person e.g.
how they feel about the person giving the gift. Shelf
position is determining purchase.
8(b) • Subjective and objective data – Objective data used
in shelf position with the use of eye tracking equipment.
Subjective data used – Atalay used surveys in study 1A
to measure brand evaluation (Participants reviewed
each product on the screen as if they were on the store
shelf and indicated their brand choice. Next, they were
asked to complete a survey that assessed their
inferences about the brands, memory-based attention,
product familiarity and demographics). It is possible that
the brand choice self-reported by the participants might
not have been the same as what the brand choice
would be in real life shopping experience. Therefore,
this self-report could lack validity. Subjective data as
Porublev carried out interviews to gather data. There
may be bias in the way questions are asked (so lack of
reliability). People may lie.
• Validity – Atalay – eye tracking has good validity as
measuring what the participants spent their time looking
at. However, lacks ecological validity. Porublev can be
seen to have good validity as collected both quantitative
and qualitative data so got an in-depth understanding of
feelings about gift wrapping. However, lack ecological
validity as the participants are aware they are in a study
and are commenting on how they wrap gifts and why.
However, they are commenting on their real
experiences of wrapping and giving gifts so has good
ecological validity.
Other issues could include:
• Reliability
• Ethics
• Qualitative and quantitative data
• Application to everyday life
Other appropriate responses should also be credited.