The doctoral thesis studies the gift-giving of couples, which is not the gift itself in essence, but the psychological behavior and economic behavior behind this behavior. Whether such research is valuable depends on whether the research methods it adopts are novel and appropriate, and whether the research conclusions it draws can objectively reflect the reality and discover the economic laws behind it. Just like the previous article on the relationship between the length of women's skirts and lipstick sales, it was worthless at first glance, but in the end it found the famous economic law of lipstick effect.

First, the research purpose needs to be reasonable. Whether a paper has research value is undoubtedly its research purpose. Papers produced for grandstanding cannot be valuable. This article seems wonderful, in fact, it starts with the very common economic psychological behavior in our daily life to analyze the economic psychological law behind this behavior. This is actually more challenging, because the data and methods of direct economic phenomena around us have certain paradigms, but the phenomena directly selected from life need to be groundbreaking. So choosing this topic shows that its purpose is clear, that is, to reveal the law.

Second, the research methods should be appropriate. A valuable document depends not only on its final research conclusion, but also on whether the methods it uses conform to this behavior or law. The result of blindly pursuing novel methods may not be effective. The method used in the study of dependence and trait in this paper is reasonable, which is also the reason why the majority of doctoral netizens affirm this paper.

Third, the research conclusions need to be effective. At present, the research conclusion of an article does not necessarily appear immediately, and there is a certain lag. It is common in academic circles that research conclusions that may not be valuable at that time will be taken seriously in the future. Therefore, it is a good thing that the research conclusion of this article is valuable, but we can't judge the research value of this article from this angle alone.

What do you think of this matter?