Year 2017, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 47 - 75 2017-12-30

Sosyal Dışlanmanın Etik Olmayan Tüketici Davranışı Gösterme Eğilimi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Deneysel Bir Çalışma
The Effect of Social Exclusion on the Tendency to Engage in Unethical Consumer Behavior: An Experimental Study

Niray TUNÇEL [1] , Bahtışen KAVAK [2]

264 588

Etik olmayan bir tüketici davranışını kendi başına gerçekleştirmek, onu bir grupla yakınlık kurmak için gerçekleştirmekten farklıdır. Dolayısıyla, sosyal dışlanmanın etik olmayan tüketici davranışı üzerindeki etkisi farklı durumlara göre değişiklik gösterebilir. Buradan yola çıkarak, bu çalışma etik olmayan bir tüketici davranışı meselesinde, bireylerin sosyal dışlanmaya karşı tepkilerini ölçmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla, farklı katılımcılarla iki ayrı deneysel çalışma yapılmıştır. İlk çalışmada, bireylerin bireysel olarak etik olmayan tüketici davranışı gösterme eğilimleri ölçülmüştür. İkinci çalışmada, bireylerin bir grupla yakınlık kurmak için etik olmayan tüketici davranışı gösterme eğilimleri ölçülmüştür. Her iki deney de bir kontrol (dışlanmayan) ve bir deney grubu (dışlanan) ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sosyal dışlanma manipülasyonu Cyberball adındaki top atma oyunu ile verilmiştir. Etik olmayan tüketici davranışı “kullanılan bir ürünü kullanılmamış gibi iade etmek” davranışı üzerinden ölçülmüştür. Sonuçlar, dışlanan bireylerin (yalnızca erkeklerin) etik olmayan tüketici davranışını kendi başına gerçekleştirmek konusunda istekli olduklarını göstermiştir. Ancak dışlanan bireylerin bir grupla yakınlık kurmak için etik olmayan tüketici davranışı göstermek konusunda isteksiz oldukları tespit edilmiştir. 

Engaging in an unethical consumer behavior on one’s own is different from doing it for making a connection with a group. Thus, the effect of social exclusion on unethical consumer behavior may vary for different cases. Hence, the study aims to analyze the individuals’ responses to social exclusion in an unethical consumer issue with two experiments. The first experiment measures the excluded individuals’ willingness for engaging in unethical consumer behavior on their own. The second experiment analyzes the excluded individuals’ willingness for engaging in unethical consumer behavior for reconnection. Both studies include a control (non-excluded) and an experimental (excluded) group. A ball toss game called Cyberball manipulates social exclusion. Unethical consumer behavior is measured by “returning a used product as it is unused.” The results indicate that only excluded men tend to engage in unethical consumer behavior on their own. However, the results show that excluded individuals are less likely to engage in unethical consumer behavior for reconnection. 

  • Ayduk, Ö., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2008). Individual Differences in the Rejection– Aggression Link in the Hot Sauce Paradigm: The Case of Rejection Sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 775-782.
  • Barry, V. (1979). Moral Issues in Business, Wadsworth Publishing: New York.
  • Baumeister, R. F., dewall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social Exclusion Impairs Self-Regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 589-604.
  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.
  • Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Point-Counterpoints: Anxiety and Social Exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 165-195.
  • Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of Social Exclusion on Cognitive Processes: Anticipated Aloneness Reduces Intelligent Thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 817-827.
  • Betz, M., O'Connell, L., & Shepard, J. M. (1989). Gender Differences in Proclivity for Unethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 321-324.
  • Beu, D., & Buckley, M. R. (2001). The Hypothesized Relationship Between Accountability and Ethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(1), 57-73.
  • Bourgeois, K. S., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Coping with Rejection: Derogating Those Who Choose Us Last. Motivation and Emotion, 25(2), 101-111
  • Burchardt, T., J. Le Grand, and D. Piachaud (1999). Social Exclusion in Britain 1991-1995, Social Policy and Administration, 33(3), 227-244.
  • Buss, D. M. (1990). The Evolution of Anxiety and Social Exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 196-201.
  • Caza, A., Barker, B. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2004). Ethics and Ethos: The Buffering and Amplifying Effects of Ethical Behavior and Virtuousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(2), 169-178.
  • Chow, R. M., Tiedens, L. Z., & Govan, C. L. (2008). Excluded Emotions: The Role of Anger in Antisocial Responses to Ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 896-903.
  • Dewall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but Feeling No Pain: Effects of Social Exclusion on Physical Pain Tolerance and Pain Threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 1-15.
  • Dewall, C. N., & Richman, S. B. (2011). Social Exclusion and the Desire to Reconnect. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(11), 919-932.
  • Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute Stressors and Cortisol Responses: A Theoretical Integration and Synthesis of Laboratory Research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 355–391
  • Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the Social Self is Threatened: Shame, Physiology, and Health. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1191- 1216.
  • Dubinsky, A. J., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing Ethical Decision Making in Marketing. Journal of Business Research, 19(2), 83-107.
  • Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2004). Why Rejection Hurts: A Common Neural Alarm System for Physical and Social Pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 294-300.
  • Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does Rejection Hurt? An FMRI Study of Social Exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290-292.
  • Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 49(3), 87-96.
  • Fullerton, S., Kerch, K. B., & Dodge, H. R. (1996). Consumer Ethics: An Assessment of Individual Behavior in the Market Place. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(7), 805- 814.
  • Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social Exclusion and Selective memory: How the Need to Belong Influences Memory for Social Events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 486-496.
  • Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior the Effect of One Bad Apple on the Barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393-398.
  • Hogg, M. A. A and Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge.
  • Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255-269.
  • Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A General Theory of Marketing Ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5-16.
  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395.
  • Kavak, B., Gürel, E., Eryiğit, C., & Tektaş, Ö. Ö. (2009). Examining the Effects of Moral Development Level, Self-Concept, and Self-Monitoring on Consumers’ Ethical Attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 115-135.
  • Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of Obedience: Toward a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility. Yale University Press.
  • Khazanchi, D. (1995). Unethical Behavior in Information Systems: The Gender Factor. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(9), 741-749.
  • Knowles, M. L., & Gardner W. L. (2007). Rejection. Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, Roy F. Baumeister & Kathleen D. Vohs (ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 738-740.
  • Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stages in the Development of Moral Thought and Action. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
  • Lakin, J. L., Chartrand, T. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2008). I am too just like You Nonconscious Mimicry as an Automatic Behavioral Response to Social Exclusion. Psychological Science, 19(8), 816-822.
  • Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to Social Exclusion: Social Anxiety, Jealousy, Loneliness, Depression, and Low Self-Esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 221-229.
  • Lee, J., & Shrum, L. J. (2012). Conspicuous Consumption Versus Charitable Behavior in Response to Social Exclusion: A differential needs explanation. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 530-544.
  • Macdonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does Social Exclusion Hurt? The Relationship Between Social and Physical Pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202-223.
  • Maner, J. K., dewall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does Social Exclusion Motivate Interpersonal Reconnection? Resolving the “Porcupine Problem". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42-55
  • Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., Rawn, C. D., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). Social Exclusion Causes People to Spend and Consume Strategically in the Service of Affiliation. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 902-919.
  • Mitchell, V. W., Balabanis, G., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Cornwell, T. B. (2009). Measuring Unethical Consumer Behavior across Four Countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 395-412.
  • Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Gardner, W. L., Dean, K., & Knowles, M. L. (2009). Motivations for Prevention or Promotion Following Social Exclusion: Being Rejected Versus Being Ignored. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 415.
  • Naderi, I. (2013). Social Exclusion and Green Consumption (Doctoral Thesis, North Texas University).
  • Nezlek, J. B., Kowalski, R. M., Leary, M. R., Blevins, T., & Holgate, S. (1997). Personality Moderators of Reactions to Interpersonal Rejection: Depression and Trait Self-Esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1235-1244.
  • Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The Need to Belong and Enhanced Sensitivity to Social Cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1095-1107.
  • Pillutla, M. M., & Thau, S. (2009). Actual and Potential Exclusion as Determinants of Individuals’ Unethical Behavior in groups. Psychological Perspectives on Ethical Behavior and Decision Making, David De Cremer (ed.), 121-133.
  • Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. Praeger publishers.
  • Ruegger, D., & King, E. W. (1992). A Study of the Effect of Age and Gender upon Student Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(3), 179-186.
  • Runes, D. D. (1964). Dictionary of Philosophy. Littlefields, Adams and Co., Patterson.
  • Smith, A., & Williams, K. D. (2004). RU There? Ostracism by Cell Phone Text Messages. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(4), 291-301.
  • Street, M. D., Douglas, S. C., Geiger, S. W., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). The Impact of Cognitive Expenditure on the Ethical Decision-Making Process: The Cognitive Elaboration Model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 256-277.
  • Tajfel, H. (1979). Individuals and Groups in Social Psychology. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(2), 183-190.
  • Trepte, S. (2006). Social Identity Theory. Psychology of Entertainment, J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (ed.), 255-271.
  • Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601-617.
  • Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Dewall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social Exclusion Decreases Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56-66.
  • Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If You Can't Join Them, Beat Them: Effects of Social Exclusion on Aggressive Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058-1069.
  • Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Social Exclusion Causes Self-Defeating Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 606-615.
  • Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (1992). Consumer Ethics: An Empirical Investigation of Factors Influencing Ethical Judgments of the Final Consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(8), 585-597.
  • Wan, E. W., Xu, J., & Ding, Y. (2014). To be or not to be Unique? The Effect of Social Exclusion on Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1109-1122.
  • Williams, K. D. (1997). Social Ostracism. Aversive Interpersonal Behavior. Springer US., 133-170.
  • Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When Ostracism Leads to Aggression: The Moderating Effects of Control Deprivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 213-220.
  • Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Psychology, 58(1), 425-452.
  • Williams, K. D., Bernieri, F. J., Faulkner, S. L., Gada-Jain, N., & Grahe, J. E. (2000). The Scarlet Letter Study: Five Days of Social Ostracism. Journal of Personal & Interpersonal Loss, 5(1), 19-63.
  • Williams, K. D., & Carter-Sowell, A.R. (2007). Ostracism. Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, Roy F. Baumeister, & Kathleen D. Vohs (ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 641-43.
  • Williams, K. D., & Fitness, J. (2004). Social and Physical Pain: Similarities and Differences. Society for Experimental Social Psychology, Ft. Worth, TX.
  • Williams, K. D., Govan, C. L., Croker, V., Tynan, D., Cruickshank, M., & Lam, A. (2002). Investigations into Differences between Social-and Cyberostracism. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 65.
  • Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A Program for Use in Research on Interpersonal Ostracism and Acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 174- 180.
  • Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism Consequences and Coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 71-75.
  • Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social Ostracism by Coworkers: Does Rejection Lead to Loafing or Compensation?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 693-706.
  • Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2001). On Being Ignored, Excluded, and Rejected. M. R. Leary (ed.), Interpersonal Rejection, 21-54.
  • Xu, M., Li, Z., Zhang, J., Sun, L., Fan, L., Zeng, Q., & Yang, D. (2015). Social Exclusion Influences Attentional Bias to Social Information. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 199-208.
  • Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How Low Can You Go? Ostracism by a Computer is Sufficient to Lower Self-Reported Levels of Belonging, Control, Self-Esteem, and Meaningful of Existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560-567
Subjects Economics
Journal Section Karatekin İİBF
Authors

Author: Niray TUNÇEL
Institution: HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Country: Turkey


Author: Bahtışen KAVAK
Institution: HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Country: Turkey


Bibtex @research article { ckuiibfd311862, journal = {Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi}, issn = {1308-5549}, eissn = {2147-4206}, address = {Cankiri Karatekin University}, year = {2017}, volume = {7}, pages = {47 - 75}, doi = {10.18074/ckuiibfd.311862}, title = {Sosyal Dışlanmanın Etik Olmayan Tüketici Davranışı Gösterme Eğilimi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Deneysel Bir Çalışma}, key = {cite}, author = {TUNÇEL, Niray and KAVAK, Bahtışen} }
APA TUNÇEL, N , KAVAK, B . (2017). Sosyal Dışlanmanın Etik Olmayan Tüketici Davranışı Gösterme Eğilimi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Deneysel Bir Çalışma. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 7 (2), 47-75. Retrieved from http://dergipark.org.tr/ckuiibfd/issue/31317/311862
MLA TUNÇEL, N , KAVAK, B . "Sosyal Dışlanmanın Etik Olmayan Tüketici Davranışı Gösterme Eğilimi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Deneysel Bir Çalışma". Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi 7 (2017): 47-75 <http://dergipark.org.tr/ckuiibfd/issue/31317/311862>
Chicago TUNÇEL, N , KAVAK, B . "Sosyal Dışlanmanın Etik Olmayan Tüketici Davranışı Gösterme Eğilimi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Deneysel Bir Çalışma". Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi 7 (2017): 47-75
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Sosyal Dışlanmanın Etik Olmayan Tüketici Davranışı Gösterme Eğilimi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Deneysel Bir Çalışma AU - Niray TUNÇEL , Bahtışen KAVAK Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - DO - T2 - Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 47 EP - 75 VL - 7 IS - 2 SN - 1308-5549-2147-4206 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2017 ER -
EndNote %0 Journal of the Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences Sosyal Dışlanmanın Etik Olmayan Tüketici Davranışı Gösterme Eğilimi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Deneysel Bir Çalışma %A Niray TUNÇEL , Bahtışen KAVAK %T Sosyal Dışlanmanın Etik Olmayan Tüketici Davranışı Gösterme Eğilimi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Deneysel Bir Çalışma %D 2017 %J Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi %P 1308-5549-2147-4206 %V 7 %N 2 %R %U
ISNAD TUNÇEL, Niray , KAVAK, Bahtışen . "Sosyal Dışlanmanın Etik Olmayan Tüketici Davranışı Gösterme Eğilimi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Deneysel Bir Çalışma". Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi 7 / 2 (December 2017): 47-75.