715
᭧ 2009 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 36 ● February 2010
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2010/3605-0010$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/612649
Sharing
RUSSELL BELK*
Sharing is a fundamental consumer behavior that we have either tended to overlook
or to confuse with commodity exchange and gift giving. Sharing is a distinct, ancient,
and increasingly vital consumer research topic that bears on a broad array of
consumption issues ranging from sharing household resources versus atomized
family possessions to file sharing versus intellectual property rights. This theoretical
review distinguishes between sharing in and sharing out, and suggests that sharing
in dissolves interpersonal boundaries posed by materialism and possession attachment
through expanding the aggregate extended self. However, such sharing
is challenged by growing market commoditization. Implications for consumer theory
and research are considered.
[Sharing is] the most universal form of human
economic behavior, distinct from and more
fundamental than reciprocity. . . . Sharing has
probably been the most basic form of economic
distribution in hominid societies for several
hundred thousand years. (Price 1975)
In much of Asia the tea cups are quite small and the beer
bottles are quite large. For, in contrast to contemporary
Western drinks, the beverages in these containers are meant
to be shared. It is generally unthinkable that dinner companions
would pour their own tea or sake or that they would
consume a bottle of beer by themselves. So the small cups
and large bottles assure frequent replenishment of others’
beverages. Rituals of sharing are also emphasized in the
communal dishes of a Chinese banquet with its round table
and rotating Lazy Susan laden with food for all. A good
Korean or Chinese host will even pick out the best morsels
of food and place them on the plate of a guest. Such sharing
of food and beverages is not restricted to Asia. In the West
*Russell Belk is Kraft Foods Canada Chair of Marketing at the Schulich
School of Business, York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada
(rbelk@schulich.yorku.ca). He gratefully appreciates the helpful input from
colleagues and doctoral students at York University and the University of
Hong Kong as well as from participants in seminars at Qatar University;
Sydney University; Monash University; University of Texas Pan-American;
the 2008 Cornell University Conspicuous Consumption Extended Self Interdisciplinary
Conference; the 2008 Consumer Culture Theory Conference
in Boston; the 2007 International Business Research Conference in Dubai;
the 2007 Mid-Northwest Consumer Behavior Winter Carnival Research
Camp in London, Ontario; the 2006 Consumer Culture and Civic Participation
Conference in Madison, Wisconsin; the 2006 Marketing Scholar
Forum in Hong Kong; the 2006 Anti-Consumption Symposium in Auckland,
New Zealand; the 2006 ESRC Research Seminar on Identities in
Birmingham, UK; and the 2006 To Buy or to Hire Seminar of the Institut
pour la Ville en Mouvement in Paris.
John Deighton served as editor and Eric Arnould served as associate editor
for this article.
Electronically published August 20, 2009
a meal served “family style” means that the contents of
serving dishes are freely available to all at the table. Participating
in a “potluck” meal is another form of routinized
sharing. Although we have a more individualized etiquette
than the medieval European days when people ate from
common trenchers and sat on common benches, we have
retained many communal elements of sharing in eating. We
also retain many vestiges of shared hospitality, as exemplified
by hosting parties, accommodating houseguests, and
caring for grandchildren.
Nor is all contemporary sharing merely a vestigial relic
of times when we were more interdependent, as some suggest
(e.g., Sennett 1970). Consider the help, advice, and
information that we share daily on the Internet. The Internet
is a cornucopia of shared information available to all. Contrasts
like Wikipedia versus traditional encyclopedias or Linux
versus Windows operating systems show the difference
between freely shared and proprietary information. By transcending
the perspective that information is something to
be owned, bought, and sold, Flickr, YouTube, Facebook,
Google, and many other such sites have ushered in a new
era of sharing that has quickly been embraced by millions.
Even offline, sharing information such as recipes, directions,
travel tips, weather forecasts, and restaurant recommendations
is often more the rule than the exception.
Most people of the world also share their homes, furnishings,
food, resources, and belongings with other household
members. While children in the household may ask for
food (“demand sharing”), they may often simply help themselves
to the contents of the family refrigerator and cupboards
(“open sharing” or what Gudeman [2001] calls a
commons to be shared by all). They need not seek permission
to enter their family home, use the telephone, sit on
the sofa, take a bath, or turn on the lights. These shared
things are, in effect, joint possessions. Although the attendant
bills, mortgages, and debts most likely legally belong
to the adults in the family, everyone in the family may feel
716 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
free to use most of the home and its contents. The children
need not fear that they will be given an itemized bill when
they leave to set up homes of their own.
Household pooling and allocation mechanisms in affluent
societies are ideally a close approximation of Louis Blanc’s
precept: from each according to his or her abilities and to
each according to his or her needs. But other possibilities
as well as other types of families exist. Fine (1980) found
that in Tamil Nadu India two-thirds of families allocated
scarce food according to the caloric needs of family members,
approximating Blanc’s ideal. But 20% allocated food
in proportion to the status of family members (with the male
head of household at the top), and nearly 10% tried to maximize
the survival chances of the “most important” members
of the family.
Numerous anthropological studies have examined patterns
of food sharing, primarily in forager societies. These
studies have generally concluded that the sharing frequently
found in such societies improves the efficiency of resource
use, increases security by sowing seeds of reciprocal obligations,
or enhances the status or mating opportunities of
those who share (e.g., Gurven 2006; Hawkes 1991; Kelly
1995). But recently some social researchers have begun to
argue that there is more to sharing than this and, specifically,
that sharing is not a form of exchange (e.g., Fiske 1991;
Price 1975; Woodburn 1998). Because contemporary consumer
behavior has been characterized as being tied to marketplace
exchange (e.g., Bagozzi 1975), the possibility of
non-exchange-based sharing as a common, if not dominant,
mode of consumption challenges existing thought in the
field.
The present conceptualization examines the nature of consumer
sharing and considers how it differs from commodity
exchange and gift exchange. Despite its pervasiveness, the
ubiquitous consumer behavior of sharing remains not only
a theoretical terra incognita, but a nearly invisible and unmentioned
topic in the consumer behavior literature. This
study offers the beginning of a redress for this neglect. It
starts by presenting a prototype theory of sharing versus
two other acquisition and distribution mechanisms. Emerging
cultural models of sharing are presented, followed by a
consideration of contemporary sharing within the family,
the extended family, and the community. The paper then
distinguishes between cultural and individual approaches to
the phenomenon of sharing and concludes with a summary
of initial theoretical insights and consumer research issues
involving sharing.
RELUCTANCE TO STUDY SHARING
There are several apparent reasons that prior consumer
research and research in related disciplines have neglected
sharing. One is that sharing has sometimes been treated as
either gift exchange or commodity exchange. This is part
of a larger impediment: the pervasive lens of rationalism
(e.g., Becker 2005). Because reciprocal exchange seems to
be self-interested, it is tempting to see all of human life as
an exchange of some sort and to see human beings as rational
selfish creatures competing with others for presumably
scarce resources. At the extreme, adopting this exchange
lens leads to what has been described as the commodification
of everything (e.g., Agnew 2003; Radin 1996).
Even though Marcel Mauss’s (1925/1967) highly influential
theory of the gift started out seeking an alternative
to the utilitarianism of marketplace exchange (Graeber 2001;
Hart 2007), it wound up being a theory of exchange between
groups in order to secure common benefits, often with a
competitive agonistic tone. Gregory (1982) posits gift giving
as a form of exchange that is friendlier than buying or exchanging
commodities. He sees gift giving as a holdout or
counterforce to the encroachment of the market. Gifts make
friends, express love, and celebrate human bonds. Yet studies
of contemporary gift exchange practices often show participant
ambivalence, anxiety, resistance, and conflict (e.g.,
Fischer and Arnold 1990; Marcoux 2009; Sherry, McGrath,
and Levy 1993), suggesting that an overly romanticized
view of gift giving as a corrective to the market is not always
warranted either. This “dark side of the gift” suggests that
rather than being free of the rational, self-interested, calculating
characteristics thought to pervade the market, gift
giving can be as agonistic and as selfish as market transactions.
To those who view all of human nature as selfinterested
rationalism, this is not surprising. This includes
most economists (e.g., see Kolm and Ythier 2006), many
social psychologists, and a substantial number of anthropologists.
In consumer research self-gifts have been theorized
as the epitome of self-interest in gift giving. While
focusing on the positive aspects of self-gifts, Mick and
DeMoss (1990) acknowledge that construing indulgences to
oneself as a gift may be but a subtle disguise for harmful
materialism.
A second reason that sharing may escape recognition and
study is that it is an activity that is more characteristic of
the interior world of the home rather than the exterior worlds
of work and the market. There is likely an accompanying
gender bias since traditionally women have been associated
with the interior of home and men with the exterior world.
The reality may be different as two-worker households become
the norm, but the continuing dominance of women in
the sharing activities of childbirth, child rearing, and feeding
the family and guests suggests that the association of women
with home and sharing has hardly disappeared. Although
he focused on gift giving rather than sharing, these activities
lie in the realm of the “love culture” that Cheal (1988) has
theorized. He suggested that gifts are spontaneous expressions
of autochthonous emotions. This desire for intimacy
with others is the most important determinant of human
behavior, according to Durkheim (1964). Both gift giving
and sharing are expressions of this desire for connection.
And like gift giving (Fischer and Arnold 1990), sharing is
a behavior disproportionately enacted by women in the contemporary
West.
One further explanation for the lack of attention that sharing
has received lies in its ubiquity and its resulting takenfor-granted
character. Although gift giving is often high-
SHARING 717
lighted by special ceremonial occasions for the individual
(e.g., birthdays), couple (e.g., Valentine’s Day), family (e.g.,
Christmas), or community (e.g., weddings), sharing is enacted
daily. Whereas most gift giving is formally acknowledged
with verbalized thanks, most sharing is not (Visser
2008). Some sharing, like that in controversial communes,
may be highly visible. But the majority of daily sharing of
food, money, and possessions goes unnoticed and is invisible
to most people for whom it is routine. It has been argued
that the wrapping and ceremony of gift giving are necessary
in order to distinguish gifts from ordinary sharing, on one
hand, and commodity exchange, on the other (Belk 1996).
The same is true of the excess, extravagance, and luxuriousness
of gifts as opposed to the sharing of more ordinary
goods. As a result, like the gender bias that renders women’s
work within the home largely invisible or trivial to their
partners and to male culture in general (e.g., Hochschild
2003; Strasser 2000), routine sharing, especially within the
household, often goes unnoticed and unappreciated.
SHARING AND RELATED CONSUMPTION
CONSTRUCTS
Prototypes
Benkler (2004) sees sharing as “nonreciprocal pro-social
behavior.” Belk (2007, 126) defines sharing as “the act and
process of distributing what is ours to others for their use
and/or the act and process of receiving or taking something
from others for our use.” Neither of these definitions is
sufficiently precise, but further precision is difficult. Rather
than attempt an Aristotelian definition of sharing, in this
paper I suggest an alternative approach based on family
resemblances (Rosch and Mervis 1975; Wittgenstein 1968).
Within this perspective prototypes replace taxonomic definitions,
and we may instead judge whether something is
sharing, gift giving, or commodity exchange based on its
resemblance to the prototype of each. It is not specified
which particular characteristics determine similarity to a prototype.
Just as a child may have her mother’s eyes and smile
or have her height and intelligence, we judge family resemblance
based on multiple characteristics of the prototype.
As long as we agree on the prototypes, we should be able
to judge whether a behavior should be regarded as one thing
or as something else (Weinberger 2007).
Belk (2007) suggests two key prototypes for sharing:
mothering and the pooling and allocation of resources within
the family. In giving birth the mother shares her body with
the fetus and subsequently shares her mother’s milk, nurturing,
care, and love with the infant. This care is given
freely, with no strings attached and no expectation of reciprocity
or exchange. Providing this care is seen as normal
and natural. Because of this expectation of “natural” maternal
caregiving and love we find such ideas as paying
surrogate mothers and selling babies to be troublesome
(Belk, Wallendorf, and Sherry 1989; Radin 1996). The lack
of reciprocity in sharing is often explained using Sahlins’s
(1972) notion of generalized reciprocity, where no one keeps
track of the balance between giving and receiving (e.g., Gell
1992; Godbout and Caille´ 1998; Wilk and Cliggett 2007).
But as we shall see, there is more to sharing than this.
Within the family, shared things are, de facto if not de
jure, joint possessions. Their use requires no invitation, generates
no debt, and may entail responsibilities as well as
rights. The responsibilities may include taking care not to
damage shared possessions, not overusing these things to
the detriment of other family members, and cleaning up so
that others will find these resources in a similar state of
readiness for their own use. Such responsibilities underscore
a difference between shared possession and sole ownership.
Where a household member is regarded as the sole owner
of something, there is more freedom to treat these items as
he or she pleases. In order to use the personal (i.e., not
jointly owned) possessions of family members in the West,
it is considered proper to ask permission to borrow. This
would normally be the case, for instance, when a child
wishes to wear a sibling’s clothing. In other instances like
dog or cat ownership, it is difficult not to jointly receive
the animal’s affection, regardless of who in the family technically
owns it. Tinson and Nuttall (2008) find that European
siblings see borrowing as distinct from sharing. It is regarded
here as a borderline case of sharing. Although it is a oneway
(i.e., nonreciprocal) temporary use of durable goods,
nevertheless it has some elements of gift giving. So long as
it is not “covert borrowing,” it would likely generate a thank
you.
Sharing tends to be a communal act that links us to other
people. It is not the only way in which we may connect
with others, but it is a potentially powerful one that creates
feelings of solidarity and bonding. Not everyone desires
such bonding. Douglas and Isherwood (1979, 66–67) speculate
that “there is a class of solitary feeding where the
person wolfs or bolts down his food, probably standing by
the refrigerator in his overcoat.” Fortunately for society,
such a person is far less common than the person who prefers
to eat and live in the company of others. Turner and Rojek
(2001, 28) suggest that our preference for companionship
gave rise to sociology, which they explain as “the scientific
study of friendship or companionship. . . . It should be
recalled that the notion of companionship derived from the
Latin pannis or bread. Companionship is the consequence
of a shared meal . . . between people who trust each other
because of shared involvement in a ritualistic community.”
Sharing, whether with our parents, children, siblings, life
partners, friends, coworkers, or neighbors, goes hand in hand
with trust and bonding. It differs from economic exchange,
which rarely creates communal bonds with other people. As
Turner and Rojek (2001, 7) frame it, sociology seeks “to
understand how social bonds are formed and sustained, despite
rather than because of economic exchange.” Economic
exchange may create economic obligations between buyers
and sellers, but regardless of the popularity of “relationship
marketing,” it generally fails to forge social bonds.
If the prototypes for sharing are mothering and the pooling
and allocation of resources within the ideal family, the pro-
718 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
totype for economic exchange is buying bread from a store.
Let us ignore for the moment the question of whether buyers
and sellers are really free individuals rather than pawns of
the political economy in which they are embedded (Carrier
1997; Ortiz 2005). From this perspective we exchange money
for bread in an unconditional reciprocal transaction. Although
we might also barter with a baker for the bread, this
is a less apt prototype because the lack of equivalence in
bartered goods may create lingering obligations or conditions
(Humphrey and Hugh-Jones 1992). Money is a more
perfect commodity. In prototypical market exchange, when
the exchange partners complete their transaction they need
never again encounter each other. Regardless of whether the
setting is a retail store, a bazaar, a garage sale, or an online
auction, the liberal economic ideal is that such markets bring
together transactors who are only temporarily connected
through an impersonal exchange. Commodity exchange is
about the reproduction of rights to objects, not the reproduction
of relationships between people. Therefore, ideally
the exchange is simultaneous so that there is no lingering
debt to tie the parties to one another.
Another prototypical characteristic of commodity exchange
is calculability. Weights, measures, and specifications
together with fixed or explicitly bargained or auctioned
prices help make clear exactly what we give and what we
get in such exchanges. Contracts and contract law stipulate
the conditions of sale and what is required of whom. Trade
laws encourage honest treatment and give us means to settle
disputed outcomes. Such specificity and legal requirements
are generally absent in the contexts of sharing and gift giving.
Where they are present (e.g., prenuptial agreements)
they threaten to turn what would otherwise be sharing or
gift giving into a commodity exchange by virtue of their
prescriptive stipulations of what is required of whom.
The prototype of gift giving can be found in the notion
of the pure or perfect gift (Carrier 1995; Derrida 1992). As
with marketplace commodity exchange and sharing, let us
for the moment ignore the possibility that gift givers may
not be acting as free individuals (Mauss 1925/1967). The
perfect gift is immaterial (the thought counts more than the
material manifestation), priceless (removed from the monetary
considerations of commodity exchange), and imposes
no obligation of a return gift. While Carrier (1995) concludes
that such gifts can exist, Derrida (1992) deconstructs
each of these characteristics to argue that the pure gift is an
impossibility. However, even if this is so, it does not preclude
viewing the perfect gift as a prototype for gift giving.
Belk (1996) makes this argument and specifies six characteristics
of the perfect gift:
1. The giver makes an extraordinary sacrifice
2. The giver wishes solely to please the recipient
3. The gift is a luxury
4. The gift is something uniquely appropriate to the
recipient
5. The recipient is surprised by the gift, and
6. The recipient desires the gift and is delighted by it.
Using O. Henry’s “The Gift of the Magi” and Shakespeare’s
“The Merchant of Venice,” Belk (1996) demonstrates how
these ideals are venerated and argues that they are important
influences on gift selection and exchange rituals in the West,
even if they are seldom fulfilled. There is also careful effort
by the gift giver to separate the item selected as a gift from
any evidences of its marketplace origins. The price tag and
store markings are removed (at least in the West), the gift
is concealed by gift wrapping and trimmings, and it is delivered
with befitting ceremony. As Carrier (1995) emphasizes,
these are the rituals through which we transform commodities
into gifts. As noted previously, they also help
distinguish gift giving from sharing.
Distinctions and Ambiguities
The lines between gift giving, sharing, and commodity
exchange are imprecise. When a gift is too far from the
characteristics of the perfect gift it may not be perceived as
a gift at all. Giving money is one instance where the transformation
into a gift usually requires, at the least, crisp bills
in a special wrapper. Even so, it may still fail to be perceived
as a gift (e.g., Webley, Lea, and Portalska 1983). Such an
offering may alternatively be read as a bribe (an attempted
commodity exchange—Noonan 1984) if it is given to someone
with more wealth or power, or charity (closer to sharing)
if it is given to someone with less wealth or power than the
giver. Different cultures may draw these distinctions differently,
as with the acceptability of money gifts in Ukrainian
Orthodox Canadian weddings (Cheal 1988).
A further instance of ambiguity between gift giving and
commodity exchange arises because even though the prototypical
gift imposes no obligations of a return gift, it is
common in practice to restrict our gift giving to those who
also give us gifts. More prototypical one-way gift giving
may occur when giving to the very young or very old and
when giving for a life cycle event like marriages, births, or
funerals. But for simultaneous or paired mutual gift-giving
occasions like Christmas, Valentine’s Day, White Day, birthdays,
and wedding anniversaries, we normally expect reci-
procity.
There is also potential overlap due to the ability of both
sharing and gift giving to bind the giver and recipient. However,
whereas the gift imposes an obligation of reciprocity,
sharing does not. Unlike marketplace commodity exchange,
gift exchange should ideally be staggered so that the exchange
is never completely balanced and someone is always
in gift debt to someone else. By remaining perpetually indebted,
the exchange partners remain linked. The inalienability
of the gift (“We can’t just sell it; it was a gift from
Uncle Fred”) also helps to establish and maintain bonds
(Weiner 1992). Being a part of a gift exchange network or
being invited to a gift-giving celebration like a birthday party
is a sign of inclusion (Komter 1996). Someone who reciprocates
a gift too quickly is opting out of the indebtedness
and the bond it signals, albeit more subtly than by refusing
the initial gift. Similarly, someone in the West who evidences
explicit calculation in attempting to perfectly balance
SHARING 719
the exchange is both betraying an overly commoditized view
of the exchange and suggesting that they wish to annul the
relationship rather than carry forward an imbalance.
As these betrayals of gift giving suggest, the judgment
of which prototype a given transaction best resembles is
sometimes a fuzzy one. Family resemblance cues may include
the presence of appropriate rituals and behaviors, appropriate
expectations and understandings, and appropriate
objects and persons. There are other cues as well. Since
commodity transactions typically involve strangers, the
goods exchanged also lack the inalienability that often lends
singularity to gifts and shared objects. Stated differently, the
value of commodities in marketplace exchange does not
depend upon who it is with whom we exchange. It is alienable
from this person. This is the prototypical case. But the
extent to which a commodity exchange is actually impersonal
can vary considerably in, say, buying something online
versus purchasing it at our best friend’s garage sale. Buying
used goods necessarily involves buying singularized potentially
inalienable possessions that may be perceived as contaminated
by their prior owners (Belk 1988; Gregson and
Crewe 2003). Therefore, secondhand goods, especially those
of a “personal” nature like used clothing, underwear, or
shoes, are not perfect commodities. Furthermore, business
exchanges embedded in personal friendships also lose some
of their impersonal commodity character (Carrier 1995; Granovetter
1985; Silver 1990).
While the prototype of economic exchange is a marketplace
exchange of money for bread, money itself is more
complex than it may seem. Besides being a medium facilitating
commodity exchange, money is thought to be a commodity
par excellence. It is fungible, nonsingular, alienable,
and impersonal. But there are some exceptions (Belk and
Wallendorf 1990; Bradford 2009; Zelizer 1994). For example,
an inheritance of money upon the death of a parent
has a different meaning than money earned in wages. The
wage money may be freely spent on anything, whereas the
inheritance is different because it is associated with the dead
parent and is more apt to be spent on something “special”
that can serve as a memorial. Gell (1992) offers a revised
criterion for distinguishing between commodities and gifts,
which may also help to distinguish commodity exchange
from sharing. He says that such classifications depend upon
the social context of the exchange rather than the relationship
between people (independent/interdependent) or between
people and objects (alienable/inalienable). When the
context is one of social reproduction such as marriage or
alliance formation, the transfer involves gift giving or sharing.
When the context is one of trade or barter, it involves
commodity exchange. This is a useful addition because it
helps us to understand why the money received as wages
is a commodity while the money received as a birthday gift
is not. But at the same time the contextual explanation does
not negate the fungible, nonsingular, alienable, and impersonal
characteristics of the commodity exchange prototype
of buying bread in a store. It simply suggests that contextual
characteristics (here a store) may also be indicative of the
prototype. Although the presence of commercial sellers may
mark offerings as being part of commodity exchange, when
a seller engages in relationship marketing, the intent is to
create an interpersonal dependency between seller and buyer,
to make products or services nonfungible, and to singularize
offerings through their inalienable association with the seller.
The reasons for doing so are easy to see in Gell’s (1992)
formula: gift/reciprocity p good; market exchange p bad.
Although we do not hesitate to inspect and inquire about
the characteristics and condition of an object we are contemplating
buying, to similarly examine or inquire about a
gift would be to “look a gift horse in the mouth” and likely
transform the gift into a commodity. Usury laws came about
to prevent the commoditization of loans to others and to
instead keep such loans within the realm of sharing without
expecting interest or gain (Atwood 2008; Hyde 1983). In
the rise of the market it first became permissible to offer
usurious loans to strangers, but not to kin or neighbors.
Although Islam continues to prohibit usury, Shariah bank
loan fees and risk sharing are substituted to allow what are
effectively commoditized loans to friends as well as strangers
(Maurer 2005). Such loans do employ a calculus of profit
and return. They differ from other bank loans through a
rhetoric maintaining that the resulting gains and losses are
shared by borrowers and lenders. But as the history of usury
also suggests, judgments about what should or should not
be sold as a commodity can vary over times and cultures
(Radin 1996).
Several recent examinations of communal activities in
consumer research use gift giving and sharing interchangeably
(e.g., Giesler 2006; Joy 2001; Kozinets 2002). There
is little in the literature that explicitly compares gift exchange
to sharing, but there are some key comparisons between
gift exchange and commodity exchange. We have
already noted Gregory’s (1982) suggestion to focus on interpersonal
dependence and object alienability and Gell’s
(1992) suggestion to instead focus on the context of the
transaction. Characterizations of gift exchange in consumer
research stress the ability of gifts to forge and reinforce
bonds of friendship or love (e.g., Belk 1979; Sherry 1993).
Although the possibility of one-sided agapic gifts of passion
has been suggested (e.g., Belk 1996; Belk and Coon 1993),
the majority of gift theorizing insists that the gift is motivated
by self-interest. In Mauss’s view, gift giving is driven
by three obligations: to give, to receive, and to return a
reciprocal gift. In the total prestations of the “archaic and
primitive” societies on which Mauss’s analysis was based,
gift giving was an essential process that formed and reinforced
alliances and prevented warfare. One of the sources
of confusion about gifts in such societies, according to
Mauss, is that they are “in theory voluntary, disinterested
and spontaneous, but are in fact obligatory and interested.
The form usually taken is that of the gift generously offered;
but the accompanying behavior is formal pretense and social
deception, while the transaction itself is based on obligation
and self-interest” (Mauss 1925/1967, 1). Even though Mauss
was talking about the “total social fact” of obligatory societal
720 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
expectations in “primitive” economic, legal, religious, and
moral systems, we can see here how even in contemporary
gift giving the ruse of selfless one-sided giving is given
great lip service even though most gift giving involves selfinterested
expectations of reciprocity. But in considering the
contemporary gift, Mauss goes to the opposite extreme and
makes the underlying motives for gift giving quite similar
to the underlying motives for commodity exchange. Although
Mauss distinguished between gifts and trade or barter,
he rejected Malinowski’s (1922) contention that “pure
gifts” lie at one end of a continuum and “pure trade” at the
other. He also rejected Malinowski’s example of gifts between
spouses as pure (read: prototypical) gifts and instead
maintains that a husband’s gifts to his wife are “a kind of
salary for sexual services” (Mauss 1925/1967, 71). Malinowski
himself later recanted the contention that there are
pure gifts (Malinowski 1926). Thus, in Mauss’s view contemporary
gift giving is a very practical form of exchange;
we give in order to get and because we are caught up in a
system of mutual obligations, even if we hide the exchange
characteristics of the gift through the pretense of bestowing
a generous gift, expecting nothing in return. There may still
be pure trade in this view, but there are no pure gifts except
as an ideal.
Despite the self-evident spirit of sharing within the idealized
family, this has not stopped some scholars from characterizing
these behaviors as self-interested commodity exchanges
as well (e.g., Becker 2005; Hawkes 1991; Trivers
1971). Drawing on Becker, Ruskola (2005) sees elements
of both gift giving and sharing in the resource allocation of
the traditional, if dated and idealized, model of family. But
overall she finds commodity exchange a more apt model
than altruistic kinship sharing: “A wife’s caring for the home
any one month and the husband’s sharing (part of) his paycheck
that month are surely gifts in the sense that neither
party is explicitly basing his or her contribution on the express
expectation of a quid pro quo. Yet, when these exchanges
that occur over time are viewed as part of one
transaction, a contract called ‘marriage,’ it appears that, as
part of the traditional sexual division of labor, wives are
providing housework and sexual services in return for maintenance”
(Ruskola 2005, 333–34). What treatments like Ruskola’s
leave out is caring. Whereas she concludes that the
(presumably Western) family is similar to a corporation, I
conclude the opposite: the ideal of the family engaged in
caring and sharing is dramatically different from the ideal
of the corporation engaged in impersonal commodity exchange.
Even with increased atomization within the family
and more joint incomes (Coontz 1997; Weiss 2000), caring
and sharing continue to distinguish the family from the corporation
(Belk 2007).
Given the confusions between gift giving, commodity exchange,
and sharing and the debates they have engendered,
family resemblances to the prototypes offer better recognition
of the fuzzy boundaries between these consumer behaviors
than do absolute definitions. Table 1 enumerates
some characteristics of these three consumption phenomena
as well as some counterindicants and exceptions. It should
be borne in mind, however, that these are descriptors of the
prototypes and not definitional criteria. The judgment of the
category to which a given behavior should be assigned is
not dependent on meeting any certain criterion. It is rather
based on a “looks right, feels right” judgment using the
prototype as a basis for comparison. While the table is presented
in linear fashion, it should really be cylindrical in
order to suggest that not only can sharing and commodity
exchange sometimes be confused with gift giving, they can
also sometimes be confused with one another.
Just as the characteristics of the three concepts are not
definitional criteria, the counterindicants and exceptions do
not necessarily negate the concepts. However, where a counterindicant
for one concept is a characteristic of another, it
is a likely basis on which to discriminate. For example,
exchange is characteristic of both gift giving and commodity
exchange but is a counterindicant in the case of sharing.
Likewise, both gift giving and commodity exchange involve
transfers of ownership, whereas sharing involves joint ownership,
at least de facto. The partners in gift exchange are
recognized separately as givers and receivers, and the partners
in commodity exchange are buyers and sellers. But
there are no separate terms to distinguish the parties in sharing.
This mutuality of possession is an important characteristic
of sharing. And in contradistinction to commodity
exchange, sharing is likely to involve caring and love. But
even here there is potential ambiguity, as with the phenomenon
of paid caregivers. Caregiving within an institutional
setting is something that these organizations and their employees
do for money. Yet, as Stone (2005) finds, these
caregivers typically become highly loyal and bonded to
those for whom they are caring. They go above and beyond
the call of duty, sometimes spending their own meager
wages to help care for those in their charge. Their rewards
for such true care are intrinsic more than extrinsic. They
become quasi family to their fictive kin clients and frequently
set aside self-interest, bend administrative rules, and
help their clients after hours. As Stone summarizes:
Experience with care markets demonstrates something quite
extraordinary: Even when people get paid a pittance for taking
care of utter strangers in the most physically and emotionally
demanding jobs, love creeps in. Study after study of
nursing home aides, home health aides, child care workers,
nannies and au pairs, even domestic workers, finds the most
amazing alchemy. People who care for strangers, no matter
what the pay, commonly fall in love with the people they
care for and come to consider them family. They say they
love their clients. Even though they have been trained by
their teachers and warned by their supervisors and their
friends to keep their emotional distance, they inevitably get
close to clients and they say things like “You get attached
to them.” (Stone 2005, 275)
If so, then views of service workers as people performing
onerous emotional labor (e.g., Hochschild 1983) as well as
views of neighbors and community members growing ever
SHARING 721
TABLE 1
PROTOTYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS
Sharing Gift giving Commodity exchange
Prototype 1. Mothering
2. Pooling and allocation of household
resources
The perfect gift (Della and Jim in
“The Gift of the Magi”)
Buying bread at a store for
money
Characteristics Nonreciprocal
Social links to others
De facto or de jure shared ownership or
usufruct rights
Money irrelevant
Singular objects
Networked inclusion
Inalienable
Personal
Dependent
Sharing context
Social reproduction
Nonceremonial
Love, caring
Nonreciprocal in appearance; reciprocal
exchange in practice
Nonobligatory in appearance;
obligatory in practice
Transfer of ownership
Thought that counts
Sacrifice; luxury
To please recipient
Nonfungible
Singularizes objects
Wrappings; ceremony
Lingering imbalance
Networked inclusion
Inalienable
Personal; dependent
Gift giving/alliance-formation
context
Qualitative relations between
people
Thank yous
Reciprocal
Balanced exchange
No lingering obligations
Transfer of ownership
Monetary
Nonsingular
Partible commodities
Calculation
Inspection
Alienable
Impersonal
Independent
Trade/barter context
Quantitative relations between
objects
Counterindications Reciprocal expectations
Formal monetary debt
Forced compliance
Exchange
Thank yous
Appearance of reciprocity
concern
Too quick a return gift
Too generous a gift
Gift scrutiny; inspection
Gift requests
Love, caring
Embedded relationships
Socially meaningful money (e.g.,
inheritance)
Thank yous
Exceptions Borrowing and lending
Some paid caregiving
Voluntary anonymous charity
Age and wealth exceptions to
reciprocity
Money gifts; gift certificates
Mandated charity (e.g., Zakat)
Secondhand goods
Relationship marketing
Usury prohibitions; Shariah
banking
more alienated from one another (e.g., Putnam 2000) are
overly negative.
STREAMS OF GIFT-GIVING AND
SHARING THEORY
Sharing within Gift-Giving Theory
A central stream of theory in cultural and economic anthropology
as well as consumer research holds that reciprocal
gift giving is distinct from the market and a key feature
of human social life. While this emphasis on reciprocity is
often attributed to Mauss (1925/1967), Sigaud’s (2002) careful
analysis reveals that it was really Le´vi-Strauss (1949/
1967) who simultaneously propelled Mauss to iconic status
in anthropology and reinterpreted his work as being all about
reciprocity. As Graeber (2001) and Hart (2007) emphasize,
Mauss was a lifelong socialist who wrote The Gift in order
to call into question the assumptions that marketplace exchange
and self-interest are the necessary order of human
interaction, even though he ironically ended up reinforcing
rather than overturning these assumptions. A history of the
stream of gift theory since Mauss will aid in understanding
the newly emerging branch of this stream that focuses on
sharing.
Bourdieu (1972/1979) first diminishes the distance between
gift giving and economic exchange by noting that all
that separates the gift from simple barter is the time delay
between the gift and the countergift. But he goes on to
suggest that this disguise of the economics of gift exchange
is critical “to prevent the economy from being grasped as
an economy, i.e., as a system governed by the laws of interested
calculation, competition, or exploitation” (Bourdieu
1972/1979, 172). Arguably, just as the traditional Kabyle
of Algeria studied by Bourdieu went to great lengths to make
it seem that there is an alternate realm—gift giving or sharing—where
the laws of self-interested exchange do not apply,
so do contemporary market societies insist upon these
two worlds. But, as we shall see, this is a largely Anglophone
view that differs from the Francophone view.
Sahlins (1972) took another tack in arguing that there is
indeed a realm in which the laws of self-interested exchange
722 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
do not apply—that of the family and close kin. Within this
realm he maintains that the dominant practice is “generalized
reciprocity.” Sahlins includes sharing within his view of
reciprocal exchange. He prefaces his typology of reciprocity
in the “primitive world” with a stipulation that reciprocity
“may include sharing and counter-sharing of unprocessed
food, hospitality, ceremonious affinal exchanges, loaning
and repaying . . . and so on and on” (Sahlins 1972, 192).
Unlike Mauss (1925/1967) and Malinowski (1926), Sahlins
believes that there is such a thing as a pure gift, and he
suggests sharing, hospitality, kinship duties, and noblesse
oblige distributions as examples of giving with only a vague
expectation of reciprocity. But despite their vagueness, Sahlins
still sees these as acts of generalized reciprocity—giving
without keeping track—as imposing reciprocal obligations.
Using food sharing among near kin and the suckling of
children as examples, he goes on to note that although the
countergift is left vague and will depend upon the abilities
of the current recipient and the needs of the current donor,
there is nevertheless an obligation imposed. With larger distance
between giver and receiver, Sahlins (1972) suggests
that tit-for-tat balanced reciprocity ensues. Although this
might seem closest to an anonymous marketplace exchange,
Sahlins characterizes market exchange as even more antagonistic,
involving negative reciprocity where each party
seeks to get more than is given. This is trade between enemies
who use hard bargaining and deceit in order to maximize
their gains.
This largely Anglophone two-worlds view is generally
cast as the West being dominated by capitalist economic
exchange principles and the Rest being dominated by gift
exchange (Hart 2007; Sigaud 2002). Gregory’s (1982) formulation
of this two-worlds view has been noted, but it can
also be found in the work of Carrier (1995), Strathern
(1988), Testart (1998), and others. Moreover, the two-worlds
view can also be found within the West. For example, Zelizer
(2005) analyzes the strong legal distinction between economic
activity and intimacy (especially personal caregiving,
sharing, and gift giving) and calls this the “separate spheres”
or “hostile worlds” ideology.
The Francophone anthropological view is found among
a group of intellectuals who came together in 1980 to form
Mouvement Anti-Utilitariste dans les Sciences Sociales or
MAUSS. As the name suggests, their primary connection
to Mauss was a resistance to the utilitarianism now associated
with Gary Becker and the Chicago School and its
program to frame all human behavior in terms of rational
choice theory (see Graeber n.d.). The organization publishes
La Revue du MAUSS, which has printed more than 1,000
articles along with about 30 books. Most of this material is
in French, but the work of Godbout and Caille´ (1998) and
Godelier (1999) has been translated into English. Graeber
(2001) and Gregory (1982) are members who have written
in English.
Although there are some differences among members of
MAUSS, from the point of view of sharing (e.g., Boilleau
[1991] does not consider sharing to be a form of gift giving,
while Godbout and Caille´ [1998] do), I will take Godbout
and Caille´’s book as exemplary. Graeber (2001) does so as
well. Rather than see the world of distribution and consumption
as divided into gifts and commodities, Godbout
and Caille´ (1998) specify three spheres of distribution: the
market, the state, and the domestic, with the latter being the
realm of the gift in contemporary society. Instead of reciprocity,
they stipulate that a gift imposes a debt on the
recipient—a debt that it may not be possible to discharge.
This debt, they say, begins with the gift of childbirth, which
causes the child to feel indebted to the parents. They also
stipulate that people within the family all feel that they owe
a great deal more to others in the family than they could
ever possibly repay. This differs from Sahlins’s (1972) generalized
reciprocity, but like Sahlins they maintain that sharing
within the family is simply a form of gift giving. The
emphasis on debt and repayment here is similar to a recent
treatment by Atwood (2008), who reminds us that the negative
side of this system is paying back hostility with vengeance
and revenge.
A Diverging Stream: Alternative Models
of Sharing
Bird-David (2005) notes the strong emphasis on sharing
in hunter-gatherer societies and among the anthropologists
who study them. Hunt (2005) designates such sharing, along
with household sharing of goods, as a one-way economic
transfer rather than an exchange. He describes a typical
sharing of meat in such a forager society: “The meat from
a large animal is shared with all members of the camp.
Typically the carcass is butchered into large segments at the
kill site and carried back to camp. The large segments of
the carcass are then cut into smaller pieces. . . . Once cut,
the pieces are moved in a way that everybody in camp gets
a piece. And the rule is that everybody gets an equivalent
piece” (Hunt 2005, 298). Bird-David (2005) sketches a brief
history of theoretical anthropological accounts for such sharing.
She notes that in the 1960s it was wrongly believed
that the meat was given away so it would not spoil. During
the 1970s, Sahlins’s (1972) notions of generalized reciprocity
held sway. In the 1980s it was argued that meat was
seen as common property with everyone entitled to a share,
or, alternatively, it was maintained that an egalitarian ideology
regarded everyone as political equals, with sharing
being used as a means to reduce material inequality. And
the 1990s saw the emergence of a view that Bird-David
(1990, 2005) characterizes as that of the giving environment.
Here the environment is seen as giving to people just as
parents give to children, and therefore it is natural to pass
along this natural bounty by sharing with others.
The history of these nonutilitarian (or at least nonegoistic)
accounts of sharing may not be as linear as Bird-David
suggests, and each view continues to have its adherents.
Other than Sahlins (1972), all of these accounts maintain
that sharing in foraging societies does not involve exchange,
debt, or reciprocity (e.g., Fiske 1991; Price 1975; Widlock
SHARING 723
2004, 2005). This does not mean that these societies do not
have exchange and gift mechanisms for other things in their
economies, and the theorists acknowledge that these forager
societies are an exception among human societies (Woodburn
1982). But they do establish that sharing can exist apart
from exchange and reciprocity. And this is enough to have
generated a series of reactive, exchange-based, responses.
As Marlowe (2004) outlines them in the context of food
sharing, five possibilities are mutualism, nepotism, reciprocity,
costly signaling, and tolerated scrounging. Mutualism
involves two or more people helping each other hunt
because the chances of getting meat by attacking prey together
is greater. Nepotism involves giving food to kin when
the costs of doing so are less than the benefits (e.g., feeding
infants makes them more likely to care for us in the future).
Reciprocity may involve either non-in-kind exchange (e.g.,
I give you berries and you give me meat) or in-kind delayed
reciprocity (e.g., I give you meat today, you give me meat
next week). Costly signaling involves showing off one’s
ability to hunt and share meat so that one can attract more
or better sexual mates and enjoy other social benefits (e.g.,
Hawkes 1991). Finally, tolerated scrounging results from
the decreasing marginal utility of continuing to eat more
and the trade-off between the cost of defending resources
from scroungers versus the benefit of doing do.
But as Woodburn (1998) convincingly argues, such egoistic
sociobiological interpretations that see sharing as some
form of self-interested reciprocal exchange do not accord
well with the evidence. Drawing on his own work on meat
sharing among the Hadza of Tanzania as well as studies in
many other cultures, Woodburn (1998) draws five conclusions
that effectively undermine the exchange interpretations
of such sharing:
1. There is no need to dispose of meat before it rots,
since it can be dried and stored for months.
2. The hunter’s generosity is not stressed; instead others
present engage in demand sharing (i.e., their requests
cannot be denied) as a matter of entitlement.
3. The hunter has little control over who gets the meat,
so he cannot favor those who have provided him meat
in the past, those who may do so in the future, or his
own kin.
4. Those who receive the meat are not obliged to reciprocate
either with food or in some other way.
5. Success in hunting and subsequent sharing does not
make the hunter more likely to have access to food or
other resources supplied by others in the future.
As Belk (1984) has argued, not only is ownership a communal
concept in such sharing societies, so to a large degree
is the concept of self. There is held to be a more aggregate
or communal sense of extended self in many hunter-gatherer
societies and, as Ingold (2000) summarizes, these people
also share their lives and environments with nonhuman
plants, animals, and features of the landscape. The entire
distinction between subjects and objects blurs within this
worldview (Woodburn 1998). For example, among the In˜upiaq
it is believed that the whale gives itself to all the
people to be killed and eaten (Bodenhorn 2005). The spirit
of the whale does not die but goes back to the community
of whales until it returns again to feed the people. As Bodenhorn
(2005, 91) explains: “What we are talking about here
is neither the bounded individual nor performative fragmentary
dividuals who sound so postmodern. Instead we
are talking about being part of a whole that is neither indistinguishable
nor separate from it. The cosmology of the
whale/human relationship is profoundly unifying.” This is
a broader sense of extended self than Belk (1988) envisioned
in that it goes beyond purely human communities, and here
self and other are less separate entities than they are part of
a single reality.
Sahlins’s (1972) explanation of sharing as generalized
reciprocity is refuted in alternative sharing models. Woodburn
(1998) points out that because the hunter has no choice
but to share the animal he kills (demand sharing), it is inappropriate
to think of this as either an act of reciprocation
or an act made in anticipation of future, albeit unspecified,
returns. He suggests that just as we do not think of our
taxation systems as involving generalized reciprocity, neither
should we think of meat distribution among foragers
this way. And like welfare entitlements, recipients of this
meat receive portions regardless of whether or not they have
contributed in the past or will contribute in the future. Others
have made similar arguments about the inapplicability of
generalized reciprocity to explain demand sharing (e.g.,
Bird-David 1990; Ingold 1986; Price 1975). Although some
have attempted to characterize even the one-way demand
sharing of children’s Halloween treats as generalized reciprocity
(Wilk and Cliggett 2007, 153), future reciprocity
here is highly unlikely. Price (1975, 5) does not deny that
generalized reciprocity exists but insists that the concept is
overextended when applied to “continuous one-way flows,
which would be better considered as sharing.” Widlock
(2004, 61) is more definitive in suggesting that “sharing is
not only unbalanced but a completely one-sided transfer and
therefore not reciprocal at all.”
A much more pervasive ideal mode of sharing is household
pooling and sharing of resources. As Hunt (2005)
points out, all humans are born helpless and depend upon
adults for liquids, food, clothing, and shelter. The provision
of these goods is not an immediate or delayed exchange.
For example, Lamb (2000) finds that among Bengalis in the
village of Mangaldihi in northern India a son’s wife may
be expected to care for his parents, but neither he nor his
siblings who have received their parents’ care are expected
to help care for them. Rather, demand sharing is the rule,
and children avail themselves of many parental resources
without incurring a debt.
Bearing in mind the prototype theory offered to distinguish
gift giving, commodity exchange, and sharing, we can
appreciate Price’s (1975) stipulation that gift exchange
draws on both the principle of sharing and the principle of
reciprocity. Still, he sees sharing as a more fundamental and
older principle. Gift giving, he suggests, enters the picture
724 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
as “an extension of sharing patterns beyond the ordinary
social contexts of sharing” (Price 1975, 3, 12). By ordinary
social contexts he refers to family, close kin, and sometimes
groups as large as a clan or village. He notes the role of
food, stimulants (e.g., coffee, tea, tobacco), and depressants
(e.g., alcohol) as instances when sharing may become reciprocal
gift giving and observes the particular ability of
these gifts to serve as acts of social communication. In this
regard, he cites Firth’s (1970) observation that in England
an offer of a cigarette is readily accepted, while someone
who is offered an equally priced postage stamp would insist
on paying. The difference, Price suggests, is that only the
cigarette can act as a conduit of social communion and,
because it extends beyond the ordinary social context, it is
a gift more than sharing.
According to findings in the United States, we normally
consider our immediate family to be a part of our extended
self (Belk 1987), and thus sharing with them is like sharing
with self. The family is often bound together by what Epp
and Price (2008) call a shared family identity or what Belk
(1988) calls the family level of extended self. Here, too, we
can see evidence of this in Lamb’s (2000) work in India.
She finds that families feel a common sense of self, even a
common body, by virtue of sharing food, living in the same
home and neighborhood, sleeping in the same bed, touching,
and having sexual relations. This extends to others as well,
so that those who prepare and serve food transfer some of
their essence, nature, and qualities to those who eat it. Sharing
in this instance can be seen as a negative contagion
when it cuts across castes or as positive contagion when
sharing food with welcomed visitors. While Gregson and
Crewe (2003) found fears of negative contagion in purchases
of secondhand clothing, Nemeroff and Rozin (1994) found
both positive and negative contagion effects involving wearing
the sweater of another person, depending on whether
the other person was seen as good (e.g., lover, rock star) or
bad (e.g., murderer, fanatical leader). Such findings suggest
that notions of extended self and family should be keys in
seeking to better understand sharing.
SHARING AND EXTENDED SELF
Familial Sharing
Sharing within the Western family is centered primarily
within the home. Distinctions and boundaries are drawn
between the private sharing sphere of the home and the
public sphere outside the home (Allan 1989). Because family
is held to be the most immediate layer of extended self
after the individual (Belk 1988), it is also where the greatest
amount of sharing takes place. This is not to say that the
use of home spaces is purely egalitarian. Control of the home
and its spaces differs with time, circumstances, purposes,
cultures, and relationships (e.g., Munro and Madigan 1999).
Adult owners generally have more access to the home and
its contents than children, lodgers, nonresident kin, neighbors,
friends, au pairs, and live-in nannies. Members of
reconstituted families and children who have left home may
feel less “at home” than others living there. Being at home
implies certain taken-for-granted sharing privileges. As noted
earlier, those who feel at home do not need to ask permission
or be invited to use family resources (Belk 2007). They
share food and common spaces within the home. These
spaces and family possessions also have meanings that are
shared within the family but that are unknown to outsiders
(e.g., Money 2007; Olson 1985; Riggins 1994). Even a humble
drinking glass has deeper meanings to the family members
who have drunk from it over many meals and family
occasions. But sharing in the family is usually taken for
granted and seldom draws attention since it is a routine
activity without the more formalized rituals of gift giving.
It is likely that one reason for Western parents making gifts
in the name of mythical gift givers like Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy is that for the young child this
is one of the few ways we can distinguish special gift giving
from normal everyday sharing.
Cultural and economic differences in the use of family
spaces can be important. For example, men’s and women’s
spaces in Arab Muslim homes are more gender segregated
(e.g., Farah and Klarqvist 2001), and the communal apartments
of Soviet homes had far less privacy from nonfamily
members than residents desired (e.g., Boym 1994). Privacy
is also a problem in the smaller and closer confines of the
poor (e.g., Stack 1974). But within bourgeois families of
the West, several generalizations about sharing can be made.
A number of studies find that cohabiting unmarried couples
tend to retain more individual ownership of possessions
rather than the greater shared ownership and integration of
possessions found among married couples (e.g., Olson 1985;
Rosenblatt and Budd 1975). Even the laundry of unmarried
couples is unlikely to be merged (Kaufmann 1998). Those
who fail to merge their possessions may not last as a couple
(e.g., see Miller 2008, chaps. 16 and 24). Although siblings
may sometimes share toys, rooms, and other possessions,
there is a taboo against sharing intimate personal clothing
like underwear (e.g., Gregson and Crewe 2003), as contagion
theory would suggest (e.g., Belk 1988). Gifts made to
an individual in the family, especially on an individuating
occasion like a birthday, are also more likely to be regarded
as private property by the recipient (Bossard and Boll 1950).
Sharing does not come naturally to children, at least in the
West, and they must instead be taught to share (Belk 2007).
However, in Aboriginal Australian societies, sharing is a
stronger norm than ownership (e.g., Altman 1987; Belk,
Groves, and Østergaard 2000).
The two categories of possessions on which the greatest
amount of research on sharing within the home has taken
place are food and money. Food encodes feelings of nurturance,
love, health, happiness, and hospitality (e.g., Lupton
1996). Sharing a family meal is an important bonding ritual.
Food is frequently used by wives and mothers in families
to express love and affection (Miller 1998). This often includes
sweet treats and comfort foods for children in the
family, although mothers also accept responsibility and guilt
for their family’s health and eating habits (Charles and Kerr
SHARING 725
1987). Pahl (1988) concludes that because family meals are
consumed collectively, there can be little or no variation in
food consumption within the family. But while many people
claim that food is fully shared in their family, this is not
necessarily the case. A pattern of sacrifice by women is
strongest among poorer families (Charles and Kerr 1987).
Although there is somewhat greater equality in sharing when
the woman works outside the household and when she earns
relatively more money, the pattern of discrimination does
not disappear entirely (e.g., Commuri and Gentry 2005; Pahl
2000; Poloma and Garland 1971).
As with possessions, compared to married couples, cohabiting
heterosexual couples are less likely to pool income
and more likely to employ private individual money management
practices (Elizabeth 2001; Heimdal and Houseknecht
2003; Vogler 2005), although the exact form of these
practices differs culturally. Even though women may receive
large amounts of money for “their use” in middle-class households,
it is often understood that this use is confined to household
maintenance, food for the family, and expenditures on
the children (Burgoyne 2004; Zelizer 1994). Whether cohabiting
or married, women are likely to have less discretionary
money within the household than men (Burgoyne 1990;
Elizabeth 2001; Pahl 1983). Although there is a tendency
for couples to report and actually believe that they are pooling
their money and sharing it equally, sharing with equal
access to funds is the exception rather the rule (Burgoyne
1990; Commuri and Gentry 2005; Marshall and Woolley
1993). Thus, whatever the romantic ideal of the marital vow
“With all my worldly goods, I thee endow,” it holds only
for a minority of married couples (Fehlberg 2005), and in
places without joint property laws it is unlikely to hold in
divorce settlements either. Far from sharing, divorcing couples
may battle over possessions (McAlexander 1991).
Children not only have less access to money within the
family than do adults, they may also be responsible for
various household tasks in order to receive their “allowance”
(Belk, Rice, and Harvey 1985). However, as noted earlier,
children generally have free access to most areas and goods
within the home. And both legally and out of love, middleclass
parents and grandparents provide for most children’s
needs as well as many of their desires (e.g., Qureshi and
Simons 1987). But within the family in consumer cultures
we also see less sharing in the increased atomization and
privatization of what were once the family radio, family
television, family car, family vacation, and family meal
(Belk 2007). Although Sennett (1970) suggested that with
affluence and abundance the community sense of self and
associated patterns of sharing would lessen, he did not anticipate
that this constriction of self and sharing might also
occur within the family.
Sharing within the Extended Family
According to studies in the United States, one level more
distant than the immediate family in the extended self is the
extended family (Belk 1987, 1988). Intergenerational sharing
outside of the home and immediate family is quite common
both upward to parents and downward to adult children
and grandchildren. Some of this sharing is concerned with
helping financially, while sharing heirlooms and other family
possessions is often more about passing family meanings
and myths from one generation to another (e.g., Curasi,
Price, and Arnould 2004; McCracken 1987; Price, Arnould,
and Curasi 2000). In some cultures this pattern of sharing
and meaning-making extends beyond death as the ancestors
are offered food, clothing, shelter, and other possessions
(e.g., Bonsu and Belk 2003; Lamb 2000; Scott 2007). The
majority of research and theorizing, especially but not exclusively
from economists, treats these transfers of goods
and money as reciprocal exchanges (e.g., Corrigan 1989;
Mitchell 2003). The reasoning is that we “invest” in our
children during their youth to insure that they will take care
of us in our old age. Although this may sometimes be the
case, there is also good reason to challenge this rational
model. The amounts that older children give to their parents
are considerably less than the amounts parents give to their
children (e.g., Caplow et al. 1982; Cheal 1983). There is
also a notable decline in the practice of the older generation
living with their children and an increase in the expectation
that they will continue to support themselves and live elsewhere,
even in more interdependent societies like India,
China, and Japan (e.g., Bethel 1992).
Others have observed that we have institutionalized much
of our former pattern of caregiving for ill or dying family
members (e.g., Bane 1983). Thus, the expectation of direct
reciprocity from one’s children in later life does not always
appear to be borne out. However, as Hyde (1983) suggests,
there may still be an indirect paying back (or more accurately
paying forward) by showing the same sharing and gift-giving
generosity to our children that our parents showed with
us. Just as we are more apt to share the highway and allow
someone into our lane after someone else has done the same
for us, this pass-along sharing appears to be infectious and
provides an example for recipients to emulate.
Sharing In, Sharing Out, and Aggregate
Extended Self
The question of sharing outside of the immediate family
is where the phenomenon of sharing becomes the most interesting
and has the greatest social and theoretical implications.
Widlock (2004, 61) observes that “sharing food with
neighbours, relatives, or anyone who happens to be around
at the time is done for the sake of shared enjoyment of
whatever it is that is being shared. Sharing in this perspective
is not primarily sharing out between dyads of givers and
receivers but a sharing in, extending the circle of people
who can enjoy the benefits of the shared resource.” Sharing
out (Ingold 1986) involves giving to others outside the
boundaries separating self and other, and is closer to gift
giving and commodity exchange, while sharing in is closer
to the prototype of sharing within the family in that it involves
regarding ownership as common, such that the others
are included within the aggregate extended self. It treats
726 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
those who have been invited to share food as quasi family
members. Just as individual consumers can extend themselves
through possessions, so too can they extend themselves
through other people (Belk 1988). This appears to
be a key basis for intimate sharing.
When sharing is expanded outside the family, it can involve
either sharing out or sharing in. Sharing out, as seen
in dividing a resource among discrete economic interests,
preserves the self/other boundary and does not involve expanding
the sphere of aggregate extended self beyond the
family. But sharing in expands the sphere of extended self
by expanding the domain of common property. Sometimes
the act of making extended self boundaries permeable to
others is ritualistically enacted, as with the following recollection
from a study by Belk and Llamas (forthcoming),
in which a woman suppressed her fear of contagion in order
to be accepted as part of the group:
I can remember vividly the day I learned to share. . . . I was
in the 7th grade so about 12 or 13 years old. It took place
in the school cafeteria at lunch. We were all drinking our
own smoothies and all of my friends decided to try each
other’s smoothies to see which one was the best. I realized
at that moment that if I wanted to be accepted, I couldn’t be
selfish and tell them no that I did not want your spit. . . .
So I bit my lip and passed around my drink. And the worse
part was re-drinking it. But after that I realized that sharing
was cool. [Laughs] It was the “in-thing” to do and I fitted
in. (F 22)
Other people no longer cause fears of boundary invasion
when they are incorporated within the aggregate extended
self. Thus we may more comfortably taste our friend’s
smoothie than a stranger’s. Moreover, the ritual of doing so
initiates and celebrates this self-extension via an act of communion.
Both cultural processes and individual psychology
are involved here. A less socially desirable instance of sharing
in and the aggregate extended self from the same study
was the case of a group of friends who felt compelled to
celebrate their interlocking extended selves by sharing answers
(i.e., cheating) on exams.
Sharing in and the expanded sense of self that it encompasses
are characteristic of the sharing prototype. A “time
share” condo is sharing out and creates no bonds. Sharing
a car within a couple or family is generally a case of sharing
in, while sharing a car within a large-scale commercial carsharing
organization is more a case of sharing out (e.g.,
Katsev 2003; Meijkamp 1998). Small-scale cooperative carsharing
arrangements like those of the Swedish car-sharing
organization studied by Jonsson (2006) are somewhere in
between. This car-sharing group has no employees, yet some
members worried that with 340 members it was getting too
large so that they no longer personally knew each of the
other members. Those who complained felt that it had become
more difficult to sustain feelings of community with
so large a group.
The latter car sharing is one instance of what has been
labeled collaborative consumption (Felson and Spaeth
1978). Eating a common meal and sharing a household
washing machine are other examples of collaborative consumption.
And like car sharing, whether or not such collaborative
consumption involves sharing in and aggregate
extended self depends upon how it is consumed. When cohabiting
couples avoid doing their laundry together (Kaufmann
1998) they reveal a sharing out that suggests unmerged
selves. On the other hand, unmarried couples who signal
their commitment to each other through such collaborative
consumption arrangements as sharing a pet, new furniture,
or clothes suggest a sharing in and demonstrate a merged
aggregate extended self. Newer forms of collaborative consumption
may be implicit in brand communities and cocreation
of brand meanings. This raises interesting issues of
whether virtual collaboration leads to an aggregate sense of
extended self to the same degree as face-to-face collabo-
ration.
The boundaries of the aggregate sense of self can sometimes
be flexible enough to include new acquaintances. Lastovicka
and Fernandez (2005) found that when there is more
of a shared extended self based on perceived similarity,
transfer of emotional-laden possessions is more likely. Thus
at a garage sale, having a profession in common meant that
beloved tools of the trade could be passed on to such a
kindred spirit. Similarly, collectors of the same objects often
report a sense of pseudo-kinship (Belk 2001).
SHARING IN SOCIOCULTURAL AND
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVES
Before moving on to discussion, it should be noted that
perspectives on sharing and gift giving differ markedly between
the sociocultural view that our behavior is shaped by
cultural forces with minimal individual choice and the social
psychological view that our behavior is a matter of individual
volition with minimal cultural influence. For example,
the meat division in traditional hunter-gatherer societies
is seen by many anthropologists to be culturally prescribed,
leaving the hunter little choice in deciding whether or how
to share the meat he has provided (e.g., Hunt 2005). Extending
this view to the contemporary middle-class urban
household, we might say that the demand sharing by which
many children can claim they are entitled to eat from the
family refrigerator and to use most of the household furniture
is something over which neither they nor their elders
have much control. It is the way that society and the law
prescribe that families should behave. Similarly, Mauss
(1925/1967) describes the gift giving involved in the Melanesian
Kula Ring as being an obligatory and culturally
enforced means of maintaining peaceful relations between
groups. Mauss saw gift giving in contemporary urban societies
as a vestigial remnant of earlier obligatory exchanges
and, therefore, under less cultural and moral sway. Nevertheless,
we can appreciate that in most societies today, those
we invite to our son’s birthday party or our daughter’s wedding
(with gifts expected in both cases) may feel that we
SHARING 727
should also participate in their children’s rites of passage
when the time comes, bearing appropriate gifts.
From a social psychological perspective the explanations
for the same contemporary consumer behaviors would differ.
Concepts of property, ownership, and possession are seen
as individualistic matters more than cultural prerogatives
(see Rudmin, Belk, and Furby 1986). While sharing choices
might well be made with an eye to their social consequences,
they are seen as individual choices subject to individual as
well as cultural differences (e.g., Furby 1978, 1980). More
recent psychological work emphasizes differences between
the two worlds of communal and exchange relationships,
with caring for infants being an example of the former and
marketplace purchases an example of the latter (e.g., Clark
and Mills 1979, 1993). A four-category model of relationships
has been worked out by Fiske (1991): communal sharing,
authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing.
Although Fiske is an anthropologist, he has published
the majority of his work on this model in psychology journals
and has influenced others in psychology and consumer
research (e.g., McGraw and Tetlock 2005; McGraw, Tetlock,
and Kristel 2003). Both Fiske’s multidisciplinary perspective
and other examples of the complimentarity of psychological
and anthropological perspectives (e.g., Belk 2005)
suggest that it would be shortsighted to attempt a unidisciplinary
explication of sharing. Both perspectives have
been invoked here in the attempt to understand contemporary
consumer sharing.
DISCUSSION
Conceptual Dimensions of Sharing
Sharing is bound up with ideas about property, ownership,
and self that are learned during childhood. Despite prevalent
childhood lessons that sharing is good, sharing outside the
family in the contemporary Western world has been found
to be relatively uncommon in adulthood (Belk and Llamas,
forthcoming). Although this might suggest that whatever
sharing lessons learned in childhood are lost by adulthood,
this is likely an oversimplification. Children learn lessons
not only stressing that it is good to share but also that they
should take care of their possessions. The sharing that binds
a nuclear family together through a sense of mutual extended
self may be dramatically refocused among dating and mating
partners and within close groups of friends. But as the extended
self is opened and expanded to include others, there
is no reason that this should entail contracting the aggregate
extended self of the nuclear family, especially in cultures
in which emphasis on extended family is strong.
How is it that some people within a given culture learn
to be generous in their sharing and others learn to be stingy?
There are several relevant conceptual dimensions of sharing
in need of further consumer research. These dimensions are
outlined below.
Possessiveness and Attachment to Possessions. One
factor likely affecting our willingness to share what we perceive
as ours is our feelings of attachment to these possessions.
People are more reluctant to share things to which
they have a strong emotional attachment. Possessiveness
(Belk 1985) and feelings of mastery and control of possessions
(Kleine and Baker 2004) are aspects of object attachment
and materialism that threaten sharing. Cultural differences
in the focus and nature of object attachments are also
important to consider (e.g., Mehta and Belk 1991; Wallendorf
and Arnould 1988). And possession versus access to
objects is another important distinction to address in this
area (Chen 2009).
The rise of possessive individualism over the past few
hundred years (Tuan 1982) has been accompanied by a concomitant
decline in our sharing of many things, ranging from
plates and utensils to grave sites (Deetz 1980). However,
recent work on brand community (e.g., Mathwick, Wiertz,
and de Ruyter 2008; Mun˜iz and O’Guinn 2001) shows that
possessive attachment and sharing may be compatible and
reinforcing. In this case, although members of a brand community
may be possessive of their particular branded objects,
they share a reverence for the brand itself and find
that this joint possession is enriched by the sense that it is
shared with like-minded members of the brand community.
Similar shared attachments may be found in the reverence
people feel toward a city, sports team, or celebrity (e.g.,
Belk and Tumbat 2005). In such cases, rather than Hardin’s
(1968) tragedy of the commons, we instead encounter what
might instead be labeled a comedy of the commons (Bauwins
2006; Cline 2005). Consider, for example, being the
only one to speak a language, or own a fax machine, or
have e-mail. If there is no one else with whom to communicate,
these devices would be useless. But the more
people who share these things, the richer the possibilities
become. This is more than just an “unlimited good” society
in which life is no longer seen as a zero-sum game (Foster
1969); instead, the benefits grow exponentially as more people
share.
A sense of collaborative ownership, like viewing the Internet
as a commons (David 2005), is a prime example of
such sharing. A simple search on the Internet provides ample
evidence of our ability to access nearly infinite shared content
thanks to others’ contributions to bulletin boards, chat
rooms, blogs, wikis, Web pages, and the like. Like sharing
a song or a joke, such practices exemplify the fact that we
can often share something without losing it (Belk 2007).
With such a wealth of resources available, it is understandable
that some of us may want to offer our own contributions
to unseen others who share our interests. The comedy of
the commons view here is that of an expanding aggregate
extended self that encourages a sense of sharing in.
Independence versus Interdependence. Besides possessiveness,
another salient dimension of Belk’s (1985) materialism
formulation that opposes sharing is nongenerosity.
Richins and Dawson (1992) found that those high in materialism
were less likely to report being willing to give or
lend things to friends or relatives. They were also less likely
to choose warm relationships with others as a personal value.
728 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
This suggests that materialists share less because they value
things over people. Independence means a constricted aggregate
extended self and less sharing in. By clinging tightly
to individual possessions we place barriers between ourselves
and others. The trade-off in such cases is highlighted
in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s version of the Greek myth of King
Midas. Midas got his wish that everything he touched turned
to gold but paid the price with the loss of his daughter’s
love when she became a golden statue. This trade-off between
things and people also appears related to the finding
of O’Guinn and Faber (1989) that compulsive buyers score
higher on the nongenerosity component of materialism. Kasser
and Ryan (1993) found that materialists had shorter and
more problematic relationships than those who were less
materialistic.
Sharing may also be inhibited because some people seek
to avoid feeling dependent on others who are willing to
share their resources. There are cultural as well as individual
differences in this tendency. For example interdependence
is thought to be regarded more positively in Japan and China
than in the United States (Markus and Kitayama 1991). This
is also suggested in the greater incidence of sharing rituals
in Asia, as seen in the beverage sharing highlighted at the
start of this paper. A greater preference for group travel may
be another demonstration of the Asian embrace of interdependence.
While not alone among religions stressing sharing,
Buddhism emphasizes dana, or generous sharing, as an
antidote to consumerism. The result is not only less materialism,
but more community (Santikaor 2005). What is
shared may also differ culturally: “Traditional Africans pool
labor, food, and living space to an extent that often astonishes
Americans. But in these same societies, people almost
never disclose their past actions, their plans, their aspirations,
their attitudes or their feelings even to family members—the
Communal Sharing of these subjective matters in
America often astonishes Africans” (Fiske n.d., 4).
Privacy, the Leaky Self, and the Stranger. From sexual
partners sharing bodily fluids to mothers sharing milk
when nursing infants, many prototypical sharing moments
are fluid. Liquids continue to nourish aggregate extended
self when socializing. The example of sharing smoothies at
school is also exemplary. Likewise, when we donate blood,
toast the bride and groom, baptize infants, take communion,
or celebrate Seder, liquids play a key role in linking and
merging identities. Like sharing generally, the state of liquidity
means that selves flow together. When this happens
we symbolically become one so that, at least for a moment,
the former me and you, as well as mine and yours, become
us and ours. From toothbrushes to secrets, these shared possessions
invite an aggregate extended self. But for those
who crave privacy and seek to avoid contamination from
others, there is likely a fear of what Gregson and Crewe
(2003) call the “leaky” self.
As one aphorism has it, “sharing is caring.” Although
there may be exceptions found in the final conceptual dimension
of sharing discussed below, for the most part sharing
involves demonstrations that we care for another person.
Sharing a pleasing meal is an act of caring as well as
nurturing. Parental sharing with children is quintessential
caring. In Stone’s (2005) emotionally involved personal
care workers, we see further evidence that caring can lead
to sharing.
Sobo (1994) asks why rural Jamaicans are plump but
never wealthy. The answer, she finds, is that they share
money and food. No one gets rich, but everyone is well fed:
“The ideal body is plump with vital fluids, and maintaining
the flow of substances through the body is essential for good
health” (Sobo 1994, 133). Here, too, we can see a connection
to fluids and sharing as well as a link to keeping these flows
moving: “The importance of keeping clean inside . . . parallels
the importance of keeping goods and services flowing
through networks of kin and corresponds . . . to the idea
that hoarding is bad. An overabundance of perishable resources
not passed on will rot. Even money uncirculated is
associated with decay” (Sobo 1994, 140). In rural Jamaica
the thin person is a stranger who never shares and never
cares for others. In other words, rural Jamaican culture stigmatizes
the Scrooge-like miser as being not only uncaring,
but not a part of the community.
Utilitarianism. There are also cases of apparent sharing
in which pragmatic economic motivations seem central. Collaborative
ownership with others can allow some people to
afford a vacation home that they could not have afforded
on their own. Just as schoolchildren or siblings who share
clothing leverage their material lifestyles by effectively increasing
their wardrobes with no additional expenditure, the
joint owners of major, but infrequently used, durables gain
greater access to expensive possessions at a lesser cost. The
same leveraging motivation is likely for commercial car
sharing and use of public goods like parks and roads. For
those who see themselves as using their share of these possessions
for a time, this is a sharing out rather than a sharing
in. There is little sense of aggregate extended self, and we
begin to worry about free riders and overusers as economic
theory and Hardin’s tragedy of the commons suggest. In
other words, what appears to be sharing is actually more of
a self-interested commodity exchange.
Issues for Future Research
Sharing is framed here as a pervasive, overlooked, and
fundamental consumer behavior process. As such, there are
many issues in need of further research. The list that follows
offers some examples.
1. To what extent is the self best conceptualized as extended
(i.e., beginning with an individual atomized self
and radiating outward into the world) versus part of
an organic unity with others and the environment?
How does this differ culturally and historically and
what are the implications for sharing? Tian and Belk
(2005) offer the beginning of one alternative formulation
of extended self.
2. How do contemporary consumers draw distinctions
SHARING 729
between sharing, lending/borrowing, gift giving, and
commodity exchange? How do these distinctions differ
across cultural, political, and economic systems? For
instance, what can we learn from the sharing experiences
of kibbutzim and the versions of communism
previously practiced in Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union?
3. What are the effects of shared experiences (not considered
here) on tendencies to share tangible possessions?
Just as Lastovicka and Fernandez (2005) found
that occupational similarity broke down barriers between
self and other and increased the likelihood of a
certain form of sharing, we might ask whether common
consumption communities, ethnicities, collecting
interests, and birthplaces (only some of which are volitional
choices) can have a similar affect.
4. What are the impacts of various types of economic,
military, and natural catastrophes on sharing tendencies?
If people sacrifice and help each other during
times or structural conditions of shared hardship, as
Stack (1974) found, why do people in times of greater
abundance narrow their sharing proclivities? Is individualism
and self-interest fostered by abundance more
than by scarcity?
5. What can be done to encourage prosocial sharing of
rides, cars, durables, toys, and other resources that are
now used wastefully? Considering findings of Gregson
and Crewe (2003) as well as others, why do we seem
more willing to share our children’s possessions than
our own? Is hand-me-down clothing less stigmatized
and less subject to symbolic contagion because of some
mythical purity of children, or is it more a matter of
trying to extract greater use value from clothing and
toys that have been outgrown before they are worn out?
6. What consumer goods should be regarded as public
goods whose use is facilitated by mandated sharing
(or at least mandated financing for potential shared
use)? For example, public beaches, public parks, footpaths
through private land, and public roads and streets
are opposed by private estates and gated communities
with private roads. What are the issues of social justice,
morality, and sense of national or municipal heritage
at stake in such cases of usufruct?
7. In light of findings by Giesler (2006), Hemetsberger
(2006), and others, why do online cooperative arenas
seem much more conducive to sharing than offline real
world arenas? What are the implications of the antisharing
stance of Intellectual Property Rights laws?
8. How does sharing differ across different family structures
and cultures in which different emphases on extended
family, differing gender roles, alternative notions
of gendered spaces, and different degrees of
individualism are common (e.g., see Netting, Wilk, and
Arnould 1984; Wilk 1989). How does something as
simple as helping yourself at the dinner table versus
being served or passing things around signal sharing
versus gift giving (e.g., Wilk 2006).
Some of these issues are more central than others to extended
self and sharing in versus sharing out notions. But
like the conceptual dimensions of sharing discussed in the
prior section, they suggest the richness and importance of
the phenomenon.
CONCLUSION
The desire for and experience of a feeling of unity and
an aggregate sense of self is likely a key reason for sharing
in. Even when this is not the intent behind the sharing in,
it can be an important and gratifying outcome. For example,
Sharp (2007) finds that the families of organ donors commonly
develop feelings of fictive kinship with the organ
recipient and his or her family. They refer to each other as
brother and sister, parents and children, grandparents and
grandchildren, or quasi spouses. This shared sense of self
between organ recipients and donors is not only symbolic,
but exists even at the level of transferred DNA. To be sure,
any given family engages in all three practices—sharing,
gift giving, and commodity exchange—at different moments,
even between the same individuals (Fiske n.d.). But
neither this fact nor the sometimes fuzzy boundaries between
these concepts negate the conceptual distinctions between
them.
At one point in her research with poor black children,
Elizabeth Chin (2001) gave them each $20.00 to spend and
took them to an otherwise inaccessible shopping mall. Strikingly,
some of the children spent much of their precious
money on others. One boy, who took care of his younger
brother in a troubled home, bought walkie-talkies: “Davy
had chosen a toy that by its very nature needed to be shared,
not just because he wanted to communicate with others;
although he was the only child in his family to be taken on
a shopping trip, he wanted to come home with something
his other siblings could enjoy with him” (Chin 2001, 124).
Perhaps this should not be surprising. Stack (1974) found
that the poor commonly share as both a tactic of survival
(sharing out) and an expression of community (sharing in).
David (2005) suggests that one way to appreciate the
power of sharing is to contrast the alchemists’ attempt to
hide the secrets of their “dark science” with the open science
model that has dominated since the Scientific Revolution.
When we academics present our work at conferences, publish
or otherwise distribute papers, and review for journals,
we play a part in this sharing model of open science, even
though there may also be some self-aggrandizement. But
even this sharing model is being challenged as universities,
pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology firms scramble
for intellectual property rights (IPR) to these ideas and
the profits they may produce (e.g., Angell and Relman 2002;
Eisenberg and Nelson 2002). As Mark Getty, chairman of
Getty Images, put it, intellectual property is the oil of the
twenty-first century (www.oil21.org). At the same time that
new technologies like the Internet and bioengineering enable
new sharing possibilities, the corresponding increase in IPR
legislation opens new realms of ownership that threaten evident
sharing inclinations (Benkler 2006). And, in turn, de-
730 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
velopments like open source software (e.g., Hemetsberger
2006), file sharing (e.g., Giesler 2006), and the covert sharing
of counterfeiting (e.g., Belk, Eckhardt, and Devinney
2005) have emerged to challenge these IPR attempts to restrict
sharing. Sharing versus proprietary ownership has entered
a new and important era of contest.
The derisive term “Indian giving” resulted from European
colonists in the Americas mistakenly seeing sharing through
the European lens of gift giving (Murray 2000; Parry 1986).
When Native Americans took back something they allowed
the colonists to use, they were merely practicing the sharing
that had long sustained them. It was the colonists’ failure
to recognize that the bountiful land was everyone’s that was
the incomprehensible behavior within the original sharing
system. We make a similar mistake if we assume that all
consumer behavior is either gift giving or economic exchange.
Sharing is a more subtle, and likely more pervasive,
mode of consumer behavior that has gone largely unrecognized
or misrecognized.
Consumer researchers’ neglect of sharing is a fundamental
omission in seeking to understand consumption. Not only
is sharing critical to the most recent of consumption phenomena
like the Internet, it is also likely the oldest type of
consumption. At the same time that sharing within families
is challenged by privatization of what were formerly family
possessions, new forms of sharing are opening up with developments
such as online support groups for consumers of
medical procedures (e.g., Radin 2006). Issues of social justice,
consumer welfare, environmentalism, materialism,
commoditization, global food security, sustainable environments,
and much more, all stand to be vitally informed by
work on sharing. For example, imagine cutting the amount
of commuter traffic by half through ride sharing. Sharing
in and sharing out also correspond to in-groups and outgroups.
This suggests that expanding notions of aggregate
extended self may be a superior way to encourage sharing
rather than reinforcing the sense of us and them that characterizes
sharing out. As Internet and Native American sharing
demonstrate, the “us” of sharing in can become quite
broad. And only by recognizing and challenging the encroachment
of the perspective that all the world is a market
and everything and everyone within it is an exchangeable
commodity can we begin to appreciate the critical role of
sharing in consumer behavior.
REFERENCES
Agnew, Jean-Christophe (2003), “The Give-and-Take of Consumer
Culture,” in Commodifying Everything, ed. Susan Strasser,
London: Routledge, 11–42.
Allan, Graham (1989), “Insiders and Outsiders: Boundaries around
the Home,” in Home and Family: Creating the Domestic
Sphere, ed. Graham Allan and Graham Crow, Houndmills,
UK: Macmillan, 141–58.
Altman, J. C. (1987), Hunter-Gatherers Today: An Aboriginal
Economy in North Australia, Canberra: Australian Institute
of Aboriginal Studies.
Angell, Marcia and Arnold S. Relman (2002), “Patents, Profits and
American Medicine: Conflicts of Interest in the Testing and
Marketing of New Drugs,” Daedalus, 131 (Spring), 102–11.
Atwood, Margaret (2008), Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of
Wealth, Toronto: House of Anansi Press.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1975), “Marketing as Exchange,” Journal of
Marketing, 39 (October), 3–39.
Bane, Mary Jo (1983), “Is the Welfare State Replacing the Family?”
Public Interest, 70 (Winter), 91–101.
Bauwins, Michel (2006), “Comedy of the Commons,” European
Center for the Experience Economy, http://www.experienceeconomy.com/2006/12/12/comedy-of-the-commons/,
last accessed
07/17/09.
Becker, Gary (2005), A Treatise on the Family, enlarged ed., Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Belk, Russell (1979), “Gift-Giving Behavior,” in Research in Marketing,
Vol. 2, ed. Jagdish N. Sheth, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
95–126.
——— (1984), “Cultural and Historical Differences in Concepts
of Self and Their Effects on Attitudes toward Having and
Giving,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, ed.
Thomas Kinnear, Provo: Association for Consumer Research,
753–60.
——— (1985), “Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material
World,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December),
265–80.
——— (1987), “Identity and the Relevance of Market, Personal,
and Community Objects,” in Marketing and Semiotics: New
Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale, ed. Jean Sebeok,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 151–64.
——— (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 15 (September), 139–68.
——— (1996), “The Perfect Gift,” in Gift-Giving: A Research
Anthology, ed. Cele Otnes and Richard F. Beltramini, Bowling
Green, OH: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 59–84.
——— (2001), Collecting in a Consumer Society, London:
Routledge.
——— (2005), “Exchange Taboos from an Interpretive Perspective,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 16–21.
——— (2007), “Why Not Share Rather than Own?” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611
(May), 126–40.
Belk, Russell W. and Gregory Coon (1993), “Gift-Giving as Agapic
Love: An Alternative to the Exchange Paradigm Based on
Dating Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (December),
393–417.
Belk, Russell W., Giana Eckhardt, and Timothy Devinney (2005),
“Consumer Ethics across Cultures,” Consumption, Markets
and Culture, 8 (September), 275–90.
Belk, Russell W., Ron Groves, and Per Østergaard (2000), “Aboriginal
Consumer Culture,” Research in Consumer Behavior,
9, 1–45.
Belk, Russell W. and Rosa Llamas (forthcoming), “The Nature and
Effects of Sharing in Consumer Behavior,” in Transformative
Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well Being:
Reviews and Frontiers, ed. David Mick, Simone Pettigrew,
Connie Pechmann, and Julie Ozanne, London: Taylor &
Francis.
Belk, Russell W., Clifford Rice, and Randall Harvey (1985), “Adolescents’
Reported Saving, Giving, and Spending as a Function
of Sources of Income,” Advances in Consumer Research,
12, 42–46.
Belk, Russell W. and Gu¨lnur Tumbat (2005), “The Cult of Mac-
SHARING 731
intosh,” Consumption, Markets and Culture, 8 (September),
205–18.
Belk, Russell W. and Melanie Wallendorf (1990), “The Sacred
Meanings of Money,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 11
(March), 35–67.
Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, and John Sherry (1989), “The
Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on
the Odyssey,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (June), 1–38.
Benkler, Yochai (2004), “Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and
the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production,”
Yale Law Journal, 114 (November), 273–358.
——— (2006), The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production
Transforms Markets and Freedom, New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Bethel, Diana (1992), “Alienation and Reconnection in a Home
for the Elderly,” in Re-Made in Japan: Everyday Life in a
Changing Consumer Society, ed. Joseph Tobin, New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 126–42.
Bird-David, Nurit (1990), “The Giving Environment: Another Perspective
on the Economic System of Gatherer-Hunters,” Current
Anthropology, 31 (April), 189–96.
——— (2005), “The Property of Sharing: Western Analytical Notions,
Nayaka Contexts,” in Property and Equality, Vol. 1,
Ritualisation, Sharing, Egalitarianism, ed. Thomas Widlok
and Wolde Gossa Tadesse, New York: Berghahn, 201–15.
Bodenhorn, Barbara (2005), “Sharing Costs: An Exploration of
Personal and Individual Property, Equalities and Differentiation,”
in Property and Equality, Vol. 1, Ritualisation, Sharing,
Egalitarianism, ed. Thomas Widlock and Wolde Gossa
Tadesse, New York: Berghahn, 77–104.
Boilleau, Jean-Luc (1991), “Le Don n’est ni Abandon ni Pardon,”
La Revue du MAUSS, 11, 33–53.
Bonsu, Samuel K. and Russell W. Belk (2003), “Do Not Go
Cheaply into That Good Night: Death Ritual Consumption in
Asante, Ghana,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (June),
41–55.
Bossard, James H. S. and Eleanor S. Boll (1950), Ritual in Family
Living: A Contemporary Study, Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1972/1979), Outline of a Theory of Practice, ed.
Richard Nice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boym, Svetlana (1994), “The Archeology of Banality: The Soviet
Home,” Public Culture, 6 (Winter), 263–92.
Bradford, Tonya W. (2009), “Intergenerationally Gifted Asset Dispositions,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (June): 93–111.
Burgoyne, Carole B. (1990), “Money in Marriage: How Patterns
of Allocation both Reflect and Conceal Power,” Sociological
Review, 38 (November), 634–65.
——— (2004), “Heart-Strings and Purse-Strings: Money in Heterosexual
Marriage,” Feminism and Psychology, 14 (1),
165–72.
Caplow, Theodore, Howard M. Bahr, Bruce A. Chadwick, Reuben
Hill, and Margaret H. Williamson (1982), Middletown Families:
Fifty Years of Change and Continuity, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Carrier, James G. (1995), Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and
Western Capitalism since 1700, London: Routledge.
——— (1997), “Introduction,” in Meanings of the Market: The
Free Market in Western Culture, ed. James G. Carrier, Oxford:
Berg, 1–67.
Charles, Nicola and Marion Kerr (1987), “Just the Way It Is: Gender
and Age Differences in Family Food Consumption,” in
Give and Take in Families: Studies in Resource Distribution,
ed. Julia Brannen and Gail Wilson, London: Allen & Unwin,
155–74.
Cheal, David (1983), “Intergenerational Family Transfers,” Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 15 (November), 805–13.
——— (1988), The Gift Economy, London: Routledge.
Chen, Yu (2009), “Possession and Access: Consumer Desires and
Value Perceptions Regarding Contemporary Art Collection
and Exhibit Visits,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35
(April), 925–40.
Chin, Elizabeth (2001), Purchasing Power: Black Kids and American
Consumer Culture, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Clark, Margaret S. and Judson Mills (1979), “Interpersonal Attraction
in Exchange and Communal Relationships,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 12–24.
——— (1993), “The Difference between Communal and Exchange
Relationships: What It Is and Is Not,” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 19 (December), 684–91.
Cline, D. J. (2005), “The Comedy of the Commons,” SDForum
News, 7 (December/January), 1, 3.
Commuri, Suraj and James W. Gentry (2005), “Resource Allocation
in Households with Women as Chief Wage Earners,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (September), 185–95.
Coontz, Stephanie (1997), The Way We Really Are: Coming to
Terms with America’s Changing Families, New York: Basic.
Corrigan, Peter (1989), “Gender and the Gift: The Case of the Family
Clothing Economy,” Sociology, 23 (November), 513–34.
Curasi, Carolyn F., Linda L. Price, and Eric J. Arnould (2004),
“How Individuals’ Cherished Possessions Become Families’
Inalienable Wealth,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December),
609–22.
David, Paul A. (2005), “From Keeping ‘Nature’s Secrets’ to the
Institutionalization of ‘Open Science,’” in CODE: Collaborative
Ownership and the Digital Economy, ed. Rishab Aiyer
Ghosh, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 85–108.
Deetz, James (1980), “A Sense of Another World: History Museums
and Cultural Change,” Museum News, 58 (May/June),
40–45.
Derrida, Jacques (1992), Given Time: I, Counterfeit Money, trans.
Peggy Kamuf, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Douglas, Mary and Baron Isherwood (1979), The World of Goods:
Towards an Anthropology of Consumption, New York: Basic.
Durkheim, Emile (1964), The Rules of Sociological Method, New
York: Free Press.
Eisenberg, Rebecca S. and Richard R. Nelson (2002), “Public vs.
Proprietary Science: A Fruitful Tension?” Daedalus, 131
(Spring), 89–101.
Elizabeth, Vivienne (2001), “Managing Money, Managing Coupledom:
A Critical Examination of Cohabitants’ Money Management
Practices,” Sociological Review, 49 (August), 389–401.
Epp, Amber and Linda L. Price (2008), “Family Identity: A Framework
of Identity Interplay in Consumption Practices,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 35 (June), 50–70.
Farah, Eman Abdelrahman and Bjorn Klarqvist (2001), “Gender
Zones in the Arab Muslim House,” in Proceedings, 3rd International
Space Syntax Symposium, ed. John Peponis, Jean
Wineman, and Sonit Bafna, Atlanta, http://www.scribd.com/
doc/6706930/Welcome-to-the-Third-International-Space-
Syntax-Symposium.
Fehlberg, Belinda (2005), “‘With All My Worldly Goods I Thee
Endow?’ The Partnership Theme in Australian Matrimonial
Property Law,” International Journal of Law, Policy and the
Family, 19 (August), 176–93.
732 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Felson, Marcus and Joe L. Spaeth (1978), “Community Structure
and Collaborative Consumption,” American Behavioral Scientist,
21 (March–April), 614–24.
Fine, Seymour H. (1980), “Toward a Theory of Segmentation by
Objectives in Social Marketing,” Journal of Consumer Research,
7 (June), 1–13.
Firth, Raymond (1970), “Giving and Getting: Theory of Exchange,”
unpublished manuscript, Lecture at University of Toronto.
Fischer, Eileen and Stephen Arnold (1990), “More than a Labor
of Love: Gender Roles and Christmas Gift Shopping,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 17 (3), 333–45.
Fiske, Alan Page (1991), Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary
Forms of Human Relations, New York: Free Press.
——— (n.d.), “Human Sociality: The Inherent Sociability of Homo
sapiens, www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fiske/relmodov
.htm (last accessed 4/26/09).
Foster, George M. (1969), “Peasant Society and the Image of Limited
Good,” American Anthropologist, 67, 293–315.
Furby, Lita (1978), “Sharing: Decisions and Moral Judgments
about Letting Others Use One’s Possessions,” Psychological
Reports, 43, 595–609.
——— (1980), “Collective Possession and Ownership: A Study
of Its Judged Feasibility and Desirability,” Social Behavior
and Personality, 8 (2), 165–84.
Gell, Alfred (1992), “Inter-tribal Commodity Barter and Reproductive
Gift-Exchange in Old Melanesia,” in Barter, Exchange
and Value: An Anthropological Approach, ed. Caroline
Humphrey and Stephen Hugh-Jones, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 142–91.
Giesler, Markus (2006), “Consumer Gift System: Netnographic
Insights from Napster,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33
(September), 283–90.
Godbout, Jacques T. and Alain Caille´ (1998), The World of the
Gift, trans. Donald Winkler, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University
Press.
Godelier, Maurice (1999), The Enigma of the Gift, trans. Nora
Scott, Cambridge: Polity.
Graeber, David (2001), Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value:
The False Coin of Our Own Dreams, New York: Palgrave.
——— (n.d.), “Give It Away,” http://www.revuedumauss.com,
last accessed 0717/09.
Granovetter, Mark (1985), “Economic Action and Social Structure:
The Problem of Embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology,
91 (3), 481–510.
Gregory, Christopher A. (1982), Gifts and Commodities, London:
Academic Press.
Gregson, Nicky and Louise Crewe (2003), Second-Hand Cultures,
Oxford: Berg.
Gudeman, Stephen (2001), The Anthropology of Economy: Community,
Market, and Culture, Oxford: Blackwell.
Gurven, Michael (2006), “The Evolution of Contingent Cooperation,”
Current Anthropology, 47 (February), 185–92.
Hardin, Garrett (1968), “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science,
162, 1243–48.
Hart, Keith (2007), “Marcel Mauss: In Pursuit of the Whole; A
Review Essay,” Comparative Studies in Society and History,
49 (2), 1–13.
Hawkes, Kristin (1991), “Showing Off: Tests of an Hypothesis
about Men’s Foraging Goals,” Ethology and Sociobiology,
12, 29–54.
Heimdal, Kristen R. and Sharon K. Houseknecht (2003), “Cohabiting
and Married Couples’ Income Organization: Approaches
in Sweden and the United States,” Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 65 (August), 525–38.
Hemetsberger, Andrea (2006), “When David Becomes Goliath:
Ideological Discourse in New Online Consumer Movements,”
Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 494–500.
Hochschild, Arlie (1983), The Managed Heart: Commercialization
of Human Feeling, Berkeley: University of California Press.
——— (2003), The Second Shift, New York: Penguin.
Humphrey, Caroline and Stephen Hugh-Jones (1992), “Introduction:
Barter, Exchange, and Value,” in Barter, Exchange, and
Value: An Anthropological Approach, ed. Caroline Humphrey
and Stephen Hugh-Jones, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1–20.
Hunt, Robert C. (2005), “One-Way Economic Transfers,” in A
Handbook of Economic Anthropology, ed. James G. Carrier,
Cheltanham, UK: Elgar, 290–301.
Hyde, Lewis (1983), The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of
Property, New York: Random House.
Ingold, Tim (1986), The Appropriation of Nature: Essays on Human
Ecology and Social Relations, Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
——— (2000), The Perception of the Environment: Essays in
Livelihood, Dwelling, and Skill, London: Routledge.
Jonsson, Pernilla (2006), Capturing the Elusive Simplifier, Go¨teborg:
Go¨teborg University School of Business, Economics
and Law, Center for Consumer Science.
Joy, Annamma (2001), “Gift-Giving in Hong Kong and the Continuum
of Social Ties,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28
(September), 239–56.
Kasser, Tim and Rich Ryan (1993), “A Dark Side of the American
Dream: Correlates of Financial Success as a Central Life Aspiration,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
410–22.
Katsev, Richard (2003), “Car Sharing: A New Approach to Urban
Transportation Problems,” Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy, 3 (1), 65–86.
Kaufmann, Jean-Claude (1998), Dirty Linen: Couples and Their
Laundry, London: Middlesex University Press.
Kelly, Robert L. (1995), The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in
Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
Kleine, Susan Schultz and Stacey Menzel Baker (2004), “An Integrative
Review of Material Possession Attachment,” Academy
of Marketing Science Review, 1, 1–39.
Kolm, Serge-Christophe and Jean Mercier Ythier, eds. (2006),
Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity,
Vols. 1 and 2, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Komter, Aafke E. (1996), “The Social and Psychological Significance
of Gift-Giving in the Netherlands,” in The Gift: An
Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. Aakfe E. Komter, Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press, 107–18.
Kozinets, Robert V. (2002), “Can Consumers Escape the Market?
Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 29 (June), 20–39.
Lamb, Sarah (2000), White Saris and Sweet Mangoes: Aging, Gender,
and the Body in North India, Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Lastovicka, John L. and Karen V. Fernandez (2005), “Three Paths
to Disposition: The Movement of Meaningful Possessions to
Strangers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (March),
813–23.
Le´vi-Strauss, Claude (1949/1967), The Elementary Structures of
SHARING 733
Kinship, trans. James Harle Bell, John Richard von Sturmer,
and Rodney Needham, Boston: Beacon.
Lupton, Deborah (1996), Food, the Body, and the Self, London:
Sage.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922), Argonauts of the Western Pacific,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
——— (1926), Crime and Custom in a Savage Society, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Marcoux, Jean-Sebastien (2009), “Escaping the Gift Economy,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (December), electronically
published May 20.
Markus, Hazel R. and Shinobu Kitayama (1991), “Culture and
Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation,”
Psychological Review, 98, 224–53.
Marlowe, Frank W. (2004), “What Explains Hadza Food Sharing?”
in Research in Economic Anthropology, Vol. 23, ed. Michael
Alvard, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 69–88.
Marshall, Judith J. and Frances Woolley (1993), “What’s Mine Is
Mine and What’s Yours Is Ours: Challenging the Income
Pooling Assumption,” Advances in Consumer Research, 20,
541–45.
Mathwick, Charla, Caroline Wiertz, and Ko de Ruyter (2008),
“Social Capital Production in a Virtual P3 Community,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 34 (April), 832–49.
Maurer, Bill (2005), “Does Money Matter?” in Materiality, ed.
Daniel Miller, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 140–64.
Mauss, Marcel (1925/1967), The Gift: Forms and Functions of
Exchange in Archaic Societies, ed. Ian Cunnison, New York:
Norton.
McAlexander, James (1991), “Divorce, the Disposition of the Relationship,
and Everything,” Advances in Consumer Research,
18, 43–48.
McCracken, Grant (1987), Culture and Consumption, Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
McGraw, A. Peter and Philip E. Tetlock (2005), “Taboo TradeOffs,
Relational Framing, and the Acceptability of Exchanges,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 2–15.
McGraw, A. Peter, Philip E. Tetlock, and Orie V. Kristel (2003),
“The Limits of Fungibility: Relational Schemata and the Value
of Things,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 219–29.
Mehta, Raj and Russell Belk (1991), “Artifacts, Identity, and Transition:
Favorite Possessions of Indians and Indian Immigrants
to the United States,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17
(March), 398–411.
Meijkamp, Rens (1998), “Changing Consumer Behaviour through
Eco-Efficient Services: An Empirical Study of Car Sharing
in the Netherlands,” Business Strategy and the Environment,
7, 234–44.
Mick, David and Michelle DeMoss (1990), “Self-Gifts: Phenomenological
Insights from Four Contexts,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 17 (December), 322–32.
Miller, Daniel (1998), A Theory of Shopping, London: Polity.
——— (2008), The Comfort of Things, London: Polity.
Mitchell, Barbara A. (2003), “Would I Share a Home with an
Elderly Parent? Exploring Ethnocultural Diversity and Intergenerational
Support Relations during Young Adulthood,”
Canadian Journal of Aging, 22 (Spring), 69–82.
Money, Annemarie (2007), “Material Culture and the Living
Room: The Appropriation and Use of Goods in Everyday
Life,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 7 (3), 355–77.
Mun˜iz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), “Brand
Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March),
412–32.
Munro, Moira and Ruth Madigan (1999), “Negotiating Space in
the Family Home,” in At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic
Space, ed. Irene Cieraad, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
Press, 107–17.
Murray, David (2000), Indian Giving: Economies of Power in
Indian-White Exchanges, Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Press.
Nemeroff, Carol and Paul Rozin (1994), “The Contagion Concept
in Adult Thinking in the United States: Transmission of Germs
and of Interpersonal Influence,” Ethos, 22 (June), 158–86.
Netting, Robert M., Richard Wilk, and Eric Arnould, eds. (1984),
Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic
Group, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Noonan, John T. (1984), Bribes, Berkeley: University of California
Press, 147–57.
O’Guinn, Thomas C. and Ronald J. Faber (1989), “Compulsive
Buying: A Phenomenological Exploration,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 16 (September), 147–57.
Olson, Clark D. (1985), “Materialism in the Home: The Impact
of Artifacts on Dyadic Communication,” Advances in Consumer
Research, 12, 388–93.
Ortiz, Sutti (2005), “Decisions and Choices: The Rationality of
Economic Actors,” in A Handbook of Economic Anthropology,
ed. James G. Carrier, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar,
59–93.
Pahl, Jan (1983), “The Allocation of Money and the Structuring
of Inequality within Marriage,” Sociological Review, 31
(May), 237–62.
——— (1988), “Earning, Sharing, Spending: Married Couples and
Their Money,” in Money Matters: Income, Wealth and Financial
Welfare, ed. Robert Walker and Gillian Parker, London:
Sage, 195–211.
——— (2000), “Couples and Their Money: Patterns of Accounting
and Accountability in the Domestic Economy,” Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 13 (4) 502–17.
Parry, Jonathan (1986), “The Gift, the Indian Gift and the ‘Indian
Gift,’” Man, 21, 466–71.
Poloma, Margaret M. and T. Neal Garland (1971), “The Married
Professional Woman: A Study in the Tolerance of Domestication,”
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33 (August),
531–40.
Price, John A. (1975), “Sharing: The Integration of Intimate Economics,”
Anthropologica, 17 (1), 3–27.
Price, Linda L., Eric J. Arnould, and Carolyn F. Curasi (2000),
“Older Consumers’ Disposition of Special Possessions,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 27 (September), 179–201.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival
of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Qureshi, Hazel and Ken Simons (1987), “Resources within Families:
Caring for Elderly People,” in Give and Take in Families,
ed. Julia Brannen and Gail Wilson, London: Allen &
Unwin, 117–35.
Radin, Margaret Jane (1996), Contested Commodities: The Trouble
with Trade in Sex, Children, Body Parts, and Other Things,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Radin, Patricia (2006), “‘To Me, It’s My Life’: Medical Communication,
Trust, and Activism in Cyberspace,” Social Science
and Medicine, 63 (February), 591–601.
Richins, Marsha L. and Scott Dawson (1992), “A Consumer Values
Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale Development
and Validation,” Journal of Consumer Research,
19 (December), 303–16.
Riggins, Stephen Harold (1994), “Fieldwork in the Living Room:
734 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
An Autoethnographic Essay,” in The Socialness of Things:
Essays on the Socio-Semiotics of Objects, ed. Stephen Harold
Riggins, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 101–47.
Rosch, Eleanor and Carolyn B. Mervis (1975), “Family Resemblances:
Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories,” in
Cognitive Psychology, 7 (October), 573–605.
Rosenblatt, Paul C. and Linda G. Budd (1975), “Territoriality and
Privacy in Married and Unmarried Cohabiting Couples,”
Journal of Social Psychology, 97 (October), 67–76.
Rudmin, Floyd, Russell Belk, and Lita Furby (1986), Behavioral
Science Bibliography on Property, Ownership and Possessions,
Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies.
Ruskola, Teemu (2005), “Home Economics: What Is the Difference
between a Family and a Corporation?” in Rethinking Commodification:
Cases and Readings in Law and Culture, ed.
Martha M. Ertman and Joan C. Williams, New York: New
York University Press, 324–44.
Sahlins, Marshall (1972), Stone Age Economics, Chicago: Aldine-
Atherton.
Santikaor (2005), “Practicing Generosity in a Consumer World,”
in Hooked! Buddhist Writings on Greed, Desire and the Urge
to Consume, ed. Stephanie Kaza, Boston: Shambala.
Scott, Janet Lee (2007), For Gods, Ghosts and Ancestors: The
Chinese Tradition of Paper Offerings, Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
Sennett, Richard (1970), The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity
and City Life, New York: Knopf.
Sharp, Lesley A. (2007), Bodies, Commodities, and Biotechnologies:
Death, Mourning, and Scientific Desire in the Realm of Human
Organ Transfer, New York: Columbia University Press.
Sherry, John F., Jr. (1993), “Gift-Giving in Anthropological Perspective,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September),
157–68.
Sherry, John F., Jr., Mary Ann McGrath, and Sidney J. Levy
(1993), “The Dark Side of the Gift,” Journal of Business
Research, 28 (November), 225–44.
Sigaud, Lygia (2002), “The Vicissitudes of The Gift,” Social Anthropology,
10 (3), 335–58.
Silver, Allen (1990), “Friendship in Commercial Society: Eighteenth
Century Social Theory and Modern Sociology,” American
Journal of Sociology, 95 (6), 1474–1504.
Sobo, Elisa J. (1994), “The Sweetness of Fat: Health, Procreation,
and Sociability in Rural Jamaica,” in Many Mirrors: Body
Image and Social Relations, ed. Nicole Soult, New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press, 132–54.
Stack, Carol B. (1974), All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a
Black Community, New York: Harper & Row.
Stone, Deborah (2005), “For Love nor Money: The Commodification
of Care,” in Rethinking Commodification: Cases and
Readings in Law and Culture, ed. Martha M. Ertman and
Joan C. Williams, New York: New York University Press,
271–90.
Strasser, Susan (2000), Never Done: A History of American Housework,
New York: Holt.
Strathern, Marilyn (1988), The Gender of the Gift: Problems with
Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Testart, Alan (1998), “Uncertainties of the ‘Obligation to Reciprocate,’”
in Marcel Mauss: A Centenary Tribute, ed. N. J.
Allen and Wendy James, New York: Berghahn, 97–110.
Tian, Kelly and Russell Belk (2005), “Extended Self and Possessions
in the Workplace,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32
(September), 297–310.
Tinson, Julie and Peter Nuttall (2008), “Insider Trading? Exploring
Familial Intra-generational Borrowing and Sharing,” European
Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 41–42.
Trivers, Robert L. (1971), “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism,”
Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–39.
Tuan, Yi-Fu (1982), Segmented Worlds and Self: Group Life and
Individual Consciousness, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Turner, Bryan S. and Chris Rojek (2001), Society and Culture:
Principles of Scarcity and Solidarity, London: Sage.
Visser, Margaret (2008), The Gift of Thanks: The Roots, Persistence,
and Paradoxical Meanings of a Social Ritual, Toronto:
HarperCollins.
Vogler, Carolyn (2005), “Cohabiting Couples: Rethinking Money
in the Household at the Beginning of the Twenty First Century,”
Sociological Review, 53 (February), 1–29.
Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric Arnould (1988), “‘My Favorite
Things’: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry into Object Attachment,
Possessiveness, and Social Linkage,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (March), 531–47.
Webley, Paul, Stephen L. Lea, and R. Portalska (1983), “The Unacceptability
of Money as a Gift,” Journal of Economic Psychology,
4 (September), 223–38.
Weinberger, David (2007), Everything Is Miscellaneous: The
Power of the New Digital Disorder, New York: Holt.
Weiner, Annette (1992), Inalienable Possessions, Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Weiss, Jessica (2000), To Have and to Hold: Marriage, the Baby
Boom and Social Change, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Widlock, Thomas (2004), “Sharing by Default: Outline of an Anthropology
of Virtue,” Anthropological Theory, 4 (1), 53–70.
——— (2005), “Introduction,” in Property and Equality, Vol. 1,
Ritualisation, Sharing, Egalitarianism, ed. Thomas Widlock
and Wolde Gossa Tadesse, New York: Berghahn, 1–17.
Wilk, Richard R., ed. (1989), The Household Economy: Reconsidering
the Domestic Mode of Production, Boulder, CO:
Westview.
——— (2006), “Serving or Helping Yourself at the Table,” Food,
Culture and Society, 9 (Spring), 7–12.
Wilk, Richard R. and Lisa C. Cliggett (2007), Economies and
Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology, 2nd ed.,
Cambridge, MA: Westview.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1968), “Wittgenstein’s Family Resemblance,”
in Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe,
Oxford: Blackwell, sec. 66.
Woodburn, James (1982), “Egalitarian Societies,” Man, 17 (September),
431–51.
——— (1998), “‘Sharing Is Not a Form of Exchange’: An Analysis
of Property-Sharing in Immediate-Return Hunter-Gatherer Societies,”
in Property Relations: Renewing the Anthropological
Tradition, ed. C. M. Hann, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 48–63.
Zelizer, Viviana (1994), The Social Meaning of Money, New York:
Basic.
——— (2005), The Purchase of Intimacy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Copyright of Journal of Consumer Research is the property of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.