To find an answer, he surveyed a group of Yale undergraduates. He concluded that gift giving "destroys" between a tenth and a third of the value in what we buy. In other words, if you spend $100 on that Santa-red cardigan at Macy's, chances are whoever gets it will only value your gift between $70 and $90. Some groups had a better gift radar than others. Grandparents, aunts and uncles had the worst sense of what to buy. Friends and significant others had the best. But ultimately, cash was just more efficient.

So if you're feeling uncertainty, don't guess. Do everyone a favor and go with greenbacks. Or at least a gift card.

Gee, that seems impersonal. What if I don't want to give cash?

Focus on the message.



If you do decide to try and pick out something personal, stop and think: What do I want to say? Gifts send messages. We talk through them. And that's where much of their value is bundled -- for both the giver and the recipient. To quote California State Unviversity Professor Mary Finely Walfinbarger, "in primitive cultures, the gift was equally economic and symbolic. In societies with well-developed markets, it is hardly surprising that the gift has been at least partially stripped of its economic importance, leaving in a much more prominent position the symbolic value...."

As University of Chicago business professors Canice Prendergast and Lars Stole have argued, gifts also are used to demonstrate our "certainty" about potential mates. The more familiar we are about a person, the more easily we can try and pick something specific to their tastes. It's the difference between getting your boyfriend a bottle of Jack Daniels, or knowing his favorite bourbon is Elmer T. Lee. As the two researchers put it, "an individual who can show that he understands the preferences of his partner is likely to be a more desirable partner than one who has no idea what his partner wants or believes in."

So what do I get for that special someone?

Buying for a guy? Get him a gadget. Buying for a girl? Get her something expensive and useless.



At the University of Utah, Professors Russell Belk and Laurence Coon analyzed the dating experiences of men and women, and found three main purposes for presents: social exchange, economic exchange, or a sign of "agapic" -- that would be Greek for "selfless" -- love. In the social sense, gifts were seen as a symbol of commitment. In the economic context, men saw gifts as a way to get sex. Women, meanwhile, tended to be more agapic, giving out of the goodness of their hearts.

But what did men and women actually want? Belk and Coon found women care about the symbolic value, whereas men are more interested in the utility. So women are best off getting their guy a gadget. Men are better off going sentimental. Or extravagant.

In his book The Mating Mind, University of New Mexico Professor Geoffrey Miller explained that in courtship, the best gifts are "the most useless to women and the most expensive to men." Flowers. Pricey dinners. Jewelery. The less useful, the better. Waste is the most efficient way to a woman's heart.