Stop overthinking your Valentine’s gift – behavioural science says you’re probably worrying about the wrong thing

Have you ever feared looking cheap or incompetent with your Valentine’s gift? Or perhaps you’ve dismissed the idea of exchanging gifts because you worried your partner would think it’s too corny.

If so, you’re not alone. But research suggests we may be missing out on an opportunity to strengthen our close relationships by rejecting this ritual entirely.

In romantic relationships, the act of giving serves as a fundamental signal of relationship value, where the investment of resources like time, effort and money communicates a partner’s level of commitment and care.

When choosing a Valentine’s gift for a loved one, we may find ourselves worrying about making the “wrong” choice and leaning towards a safe, albeit expensive option. Yet psychological research suggests we’re often worrying about the wrong thing when deciding on a gift. Expensive gifts aren’t inherently bad, but people systematically underestimate the appreciation our partner may feel when they receive a thoughtful gift, regardless of its polish.

A 2025 study documented what the researchers called the “who cares more” asymmetry. When giving gifts, we are good at judging the positive impact of a “good” gift, but we tend to catastrophise imperfection.

We are stricter judges of the gifts we offer than those we receive. And we overestimate the potential for a “bad” gift to make our partner upset or harm our relationship. This blindspot explains why we feel such intense pressure to avoid a “miss” when choosing a gift.

Paradoxically, this also explains why we might often miss out on choosing the better gift for our relationship. The problem arises when we default to expensive-but-generic options because they feel safer — the £200 trendy restaurant instead of that quirky pub from your third date.

Research reveals a pattern, called the gift gap. As givers, we often prioritise practical care when choosing gifts but as receivers, we prefer gifts that are “relational signalling”, that is, that convey thoughtfulness about the relationship.

This gift gap is exacerbated for gifts with sentimental value where thoughtfulness is communicated through an emotional attachment or nostalgia associated with the gift itself. Givers avoid them as risky because they require more vulnerability, yet recipients report appreciating them more.

There is some evidence to suggest that, while we are all susceptible to fall for the gift gap, women are more likely to overestimate the importance of selecting a good gift for their friends whereas men tend to overthink it when choosing a gift for their partner.

But here’s what makes this complicated: personalisation isn’t about price point. An expensive restaurant reservation can be deeply personal if it’s the place your partner has been hinting about for months, or where you first met. Fine chocolates can signal genuine care if you remembered their favourite artisan chocolatier from that trip to Paris.

This is where corny gifts gain their unexpected power, not as cheap replacements for thoughtful expensive gifts, but as evidence of a different kind of investment.

These gifts work because they signal a receiver-focused sacrifice. They change how your partner sees you for the better. Perceiving your partner as willing to invest mental energy and to pay sustained attention to you is a better predictor of a relationship’s wellbeing than the actual gift quality.

A 2024 analysis of previous studies confirmed this pattern holds across relationship types (such as friendships, romantic or work relationships) and occasions. The mismatch isn’t about money; it’s about vulnerability.

In fact, expensive gifts can backfire when they miss this personalisation mark. Suspiciously large expenditures can undermine appreciation of the gift when recipients question the giver’s motives or worry about reciprocation. For example, when asked to imagine receiving a wine bottle as a gift, participants in a 2024 study were more suspicious about the intent of the giver when the bottle was described as “expensive” rather than “typically priced”.

This study illustrates the principle of instrumentality, which is the psychological association between money and self-serving, transactional goals. Big, expensive presents can lead the recipient to look a gift horse in the mouth by questioning if the giver is trying to gain a specific favour or create a power imbalance.

It is important to note that the research evidence shows that expensive but unpersonal gifts are rarely a mark of a lack of effort on the giver’s part; rather the “gift gap” is most often a result of givers misunderstanding what recipients value and being stricter judges of their own performance than they would be of their partners.

So don’t worry about looking bad this Valentine, instead know it’s OK to risk looking a bit corny by showing you’ve genuinely been paying attention. In fact, that’s probably the best thing you can do for your relationship.

Gaëlle Vallée-Tourangeau does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.