How Personality Shapes the Gifts People Love
Gift advice by personality is everywhere. Most of it is confident and little of it says where the idea comes from. This article sets out what the research actually shows, what it doesn't, and how our quiz uses personality given those limits.
Short version: there is good evidence that people tend to be happier with purchases that fit their personality, and some evidence that tailoring things to personality can work. There is little direct evidence about which gifts suit which traits. We use personality as a thoughtful prompt, not a prediction.
What the evidence supports
Spending that matches personality is linked to higher life satisfaction
Researchers at the University of Cambridge studied more than 76,000 bank-transaction records. They found that people spend more on products that match their personality, and that those whose purchases fit their personality better report higher life satisfaction.[1] A follow-up experiment with 79 students (introverts and extraverts given a book or a bar voucher) found that personality-matched spending raised positive affect.[1] The first study is correlational, and the authors say it should not be used to advise people how to spend.
This is about what people buy for themselves, not gifts they receive. It supports a general idea ("fit matters") rather than a specific rule such as "give introverts a puzzle". We read it as a reason to care about fit, not as proof that any gift list works.
Messages tailored to personality can persuade more
In a survey of 324 people, Hirsh, Kang and Bodenhausen found that advertisements written to appeal to a particular Big Five trait were rated as more effective by people high in that trait.[3] The effect was significant for four of the five traits (not neuroticism). That is about ratings of advertisements for one product, not gifts or actual purchases. It shows that personality-based tailoring can change how people react to a message, and nothing more.
Recipients appreciate gifts they asked for
Five studies by Gino and Flynn found that recipients are more appreciative of gifts they explicitly request than of gifts they did not, while givers assume the two are equally appreciated.[2] This is not about personality, but it is the best-supported practical lesson here: if someone has told you what they want, a gift matching that request is likely to be appreciated more than a guess. (We read only the abstract of this paper.)
What it does not show
There is no strong gift-specific evidence for trait-to-gift rules. In the limited literature search we did for this article, we did not locate a peer-reviewed study that tests whether, for example, high-openness recipients prefer novel gifts or extroverts prefer social gifts. Plenty of web articles assert such links, and the ones we saw cite no study. This is a gap in what we found, not proof that no such study exists.
Our gift guides, such as gifts for introverts and gifts for extroverts, therefore rest on plausible reasoning about how people use gifts, not on tested findings. We say so on those pages.
Averages are not individuals. Even if a trait relates to a preference across a large group, it says little about one person. Two people with the same trait scores may want very different things.
A short quiz is a rough measure. Brief questionnaires exist, and the authors of a 10-item Big Five measure report that it is "somewhat inferior to standard multi-item instruments" while still being usable when time is limited.[5] Our quiz is shorter and about someone else, so a gift giver's judgment of another person adds more error. Treat its description as a conversation starter.
Why we use the Big Five and not personality "types"
The Big Five describes people on five continuous dimensions: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. We use three. We leave out agreeableness and neuroticism because describing someone's emotional stability or agreeableness to a gift buyer risks reading as a judgment, and we found no good way to turn them into gift ideas that is both kind and useful.
Many gift guides use the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) instead. A 1993 review by David Pittenger examined the research on that test and concluded that it does not conform to many of the basic standards expected of psychological tests and that there is no obvious evidence the 16 types are distinct categories.[4] It is a single review from 1993, so we do not claim it settles the question, but it is a reason we prefer continuous trait scales.
How the quiz uses personality
- Three traits only: openness (new vs familiar), extraversion (company vs time alone) and conscientiousness (organised vs easygoing). Two questions each.
- Every question can be skipped. If you answer "Not sure", personality plays a smaller role and interests and budget do more of the work.
- Interests and budget always matter. Personality adjusts the choice within what they like and what you can spend.
- No labels as verdicts. A low score is not a flaw. We describe tendencies in neutral terms.
What to do with this
If you want a method rather than a theory, see How to Choose a Gift for Anyone. If you want ideas by trait, start at Gift Ideas Based on Personality. Or take the quiz and treat the result as a place to start.
Sources
- Matz, S. C., Gladstone, J. J. & Stillwell, D. (2016). Money buys happiness when spending fits our personality. Psychological Science, 27(5). Full text read (author accepted manuscript): https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1519780/; publisher DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616635200
- Gino, F. & Flynn, F. J. (2011). Give them what they want: The benefits of explicitness in gift exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Abstract only (no open-access full text found): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.015
- Hirsh, J. B., Kang, S. K. & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2012). Personalized persuasion: Tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients' personality traits. Psychological Science. Full text read (author copy): https://www.sonia-kang.com/pdfs/hirsh-et-al-2012-personalized-persuasion-tailoring-persuasive-appeals-to-recipients-personality-traits.pdf
- Pittenger, D. J. (1993). Measuring the MBTI... and coming up short. Journal of Career Planning & Employment, 54, 48-52. Record: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ475507. Full text read from a freely downloadable copy of unclear provenance (https://img3.reoveme.com/m/614576efb2b91676.pdf); the publisher's own copy was not found.
- Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality. Full text read (author site): http://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/JRP-03-tipi.pdf
Evidence note: we read the full text of Matz et al., Hirsh et al., Gosling et al. and Pittenger. For Gino and Flynn we could find no legitimate open-access copy and read only the abstract, so that claim rests on the abstract alone.
Some links on this page are affiliate links; we may earn a commission. See our Disclosure.