It is, so we are reminded by an advertising onslaught at this time of year, better to give than receive. But for some, gift-giving is not simply selfless. According to a groundbreaking economic analysis, it is a cynical exercise in maximising future rewards.
New research to be published in the Economic Journal suggests that when giving to their parents, many adult children make decisions based on what they expect to get in return.
The findings, which suggest that giving between children and parents is not purely motivated by love or emotions, have ramifications not just for slipper, sock and scented candle manufacturers. According to the two academics behind the study – Maria Porter of Michigan State University, and Abi Adams of the University of Oxford – they have profound consequences for social policy.
To test the hypothesis that adults often have mercenary motives when it comes to giving to their parents, the economists approached 200 adults at supermarkets in Oxford. They were asked to play a series of games with their parents and strangers which were observed by researchers under laboratory conditions. In each game, the adult children received a set of tokens which were given a monetary value. In some games, the tokens were worth more to the adult children when they held on to them. In others, the tokens were more valuable when given away.
Some participants were told their parents would receive detailed information about how much money they had chosen to give them. Others were told their parents would not be made aware how much money they had chosen to keep back for themselves.
Significantly, the economists found that children who were informed that their parents would not learn how much they had chosen to withhold were far more inclined to keep the tokens for themselves.
In contrast, when they were informed that their parents would know about their decisions, the children were much more likely to share the tokens. This was especially the case among those who had been very reluctant to share with strangers.
From this the economists speculate that adult children share with their parents for strategic rather than altruistic reasons, chiefly because they believe their parents “are more likely to reciprocate in subsequent interactions”. And unlike friendships, which can be fluid, familial relationships are fixed, so such interactions will often stretch over decades.
As Adams agreed, and millions will observe this festive period, “you can’t choose your family”.
The findings have implications that stretch far beyond the Scrooges of this world. Many economic models have assumed that giving within the family is purely altruistic. They predict that increasing government payments to the elderly will cut the amount of money their children give them. This is because the additional government aid negates the need for children to help.
But Porter and Adams believe their work indicates this may not be the case. The fact that adult children give to their parents for reasons other than altruism suggests that their support for them will not decline if governments were to be more generous to the elderly.
The pair claim: “This is relevant for debates about public pension systems in developing countries, where elderly parents rely on their children more than they rely on public assistance for financial help. It is also relevant to discussions of the provision of long-term care insurance in developed economies, where family help still plays a large role.”
