BibTex RIS Cite

THE MODERATOR EFFECTS OF TRUST TO SYSTEM AND PERCEIVED RISK ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSUMER INNOVATON AND BEHAVIOURAL INTENTIONS: A STUDY TOWARD INSTAGRAM-SHOP APPLICATON

Year 2017, , 232 - 252, 01.12.2017
https://doi.org/10.14514/BYK.m.21478082.2017.5/2.232-252

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to determine the effect of consumer innovativeness on behavioral intentions towards the Instagram-Shop system. In addition, it examines whether there are moderator effects on perceived risk and systemic trust between consumer innovation and behavioral intentions. A model of these variables has been established. In the study, Instagram was considered as a new application made in the social media environment and named as Instagram-Shop, and the related variables were evaluated within this scope. 300 people living in Istanbul, using Instagram and having information about the InstagramShop were interviewed. Structural Equation Modeling and moderator effect analyzes were conducted in the hypothesis testing. As a result of the analysis made, it is concluded that the hedonic and functional dimensions of consumer innovativeness have an effect on behavioral intentions. In addition, it has been determined that hedonic innovation and perceived risk between behavioral intentions and systemic trust variables have moderator effect

References

  • Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986). “The Moderator Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Strategic and Statistical Consideration”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, p. 1173-82.
  • Bartels, J. and Reindels, M. J. (2011). “Consumer Innovativeness and Its Correlates: A Propositional İIventory for Future Research”, Journal of Business Research, 64, p. 601–609.
  • Başar, E. E. ve Yapraklı, Ş., (2013). “Tüketici Yenilikçiliği ve Genişletilmiş Teknoloji Kabul Modelinin E-CRM Üzerinde Etkileri: Bankacılık Sektöründe Bir Uygulama”. International Journal of Social Science, Haziran, 6(6), s. 149-180
  • Boholm, A. (1998). “Comparative Studies of Risk Perception: A Review of Twenty Years of Research”, Journal of Risk Research, 1 (2), s. 135–163.
  • Bülbül, H. ve Özoğul, B. (2014). “Tüketici Yenilikçiliği Ve Algılanan Riskin Satın Alma Davranışına Etkisi”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, s. 43-58.
  • Casidy, R. and Wymer, W. (2016). “A Risk Worth Taking: Perceived Risk as Moderator of Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Willingness-to-Pay Premium Price”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 32, p. 189–197.
  • Choi, H., Choi, Y-J. and Kim, K-M. (2011). “The Understanding of Building Trust Model on Smartphone Application: Focusing on Users’ Motivation”, Proceedings of the International Conference on IT Convergence and Security.
  • Chu, K-M. and Juan, B.J. C. (2013). “The Effects Of Perceived Interactivity on E-Trust and EConsumer Behaviors: The Applıcation Of Fuzzy Linguistic Scale”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 14(1), p. 124-136.
  • Çifci, S. (2012). “Tüketicilerin Yeni Ürünlere Yönelik Adaptasyon Tutumları Üzerinde Tüketicilerin Ve Firmaların Yenilikçilik Düzeylerinin Etkisi”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 34, s. 83-92
  • Colesca, S.E. (2009). “Increasing E-Trust: A Solution to Minimize Risk in E-Government Adoption”, Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 4(1), p. 31-44.
  • Dobre, C., Dragomir, A. and Preda, G. (2009). “Consumer Innovativeness: A Marketing Approach”, Management & Marketing, 4(2), p. 19-34.
  • Fisher, R. J. and Price, L. L. (1992). “An Investigation into The Social-Context of Early Adoption Behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), p. 477−486.
  • Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measure”, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), p. 39–50.
  • Gaskin, J. “Confirmatory Factor Analysis”, http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/wiki/Confirmatory_Factor_Analysis. Erişim tarihi: 03.10.2015.
  • Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.): Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
  • Hirschman, E.C. (1980). “Innnovativeness, Novelty Seeking and Consumer Creativity”, Journal of Consumer Research, 7, p. 283-295.
  • http://www.afhayes.com/introduction-to-mediation-moderation-and-conditional-processanalysis.html.Erişim tarihi: 03.10.2015.
  • http://www.salihbosca.com/instagramda-butik-magaza-nasil-acilir/ Erişim tarihi: 27.02.2017.
  • Huang, Y-A. (2003). “Consumer Innovativeness and Consumer Expectations for New IT Products: Implications for Purchase Behavior”, Asia Pacific Management Review, 8(2), p. 113- 134.
  • Kaplan, L. B., Szybillo, G. J. and Jacoby, J. (1974). Components of Perceived Risk in Product Purchase: A Cross-Validation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), p. 287-291.
  • Malhotra, N. and Dash, S. (2011). Marketing research – An applied orientation, (6th ed.), Pearson Education.
  • McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C. (2002). “Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology”, Information Systems Research, 13(3), p. 334–359.
  • Midgley, D. F. and Dowling, G. R. (1978). “Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement”, Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), p. 229-242.
  • Mitchell V-W and Harris G. (2005). “The Importance of Consumers’Perceived Risk in Retail Strategy”, European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), p. 821–837.
  • Mitchell, V. M. (1999). “Consumer Perceived Risk: Conceptualizations and Models”, European Journal of Marketing, 33(1/2), p. 163-195.
  • Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993). “Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, 57(1), p. 81-101.
  • Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1994). “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 58(3), p. 20–38.
  • Özkan, Y. ve Purutçuoğlu, E. (2010). “Yaşlılıkta Teknolojik Yeniliklerin Kabulünü Etkileyen Sosyalizasyon Süreci”, Aile ve Toplum, 6(23), s. 37-46.
  • Pennanen, K., (2011). “Is Interpersonal and Institutional E-Trustworthiness Equally Important in Consumer E-Trust Development? Implications for Consumers’ E-Trust Building Behaviours”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, p. 233–244.
  • Reinhardt, R. and Gurtner, S. (2015). “Differences Between Early Adopters of Disruptive and Sustaining Innovations”, Journal of Business Research, 68, p. 137-145.
  • Roehrich, G. (2004). “Consumer innovativeness concepts and measurements”. Journal of Business Research, 57, p. 671-677.
  • Rogers E.M. and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of Innovations.
  • Sheth, J. N. and Venkatesan, M. (1968). “Risk-Reduction Processes in Repetitive Consumer Behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, 5, p. 307-310.
  • Shim, D., Kim, J.G. and Altmann, J. (2016). “Identifying Key Drivers and Bottlenecks in the Adoption of E-Book Readers in Korea”, Telematics and Informatics, 33, p. 860–871.
  • Simonson, I., ve Nowlis, S. M. (2000). “The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons”. Journal of Consumer Research,27(1), s.49−68.
  • Slade, E.L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Piercy, N.C. and Williams, M.D. (2015). “Modeling Consumers’ Adoption Intentions of Remote Mobile Payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with Innovativeness, Risk, and Trust”, Psychology & Marketing, 32(8), p. 860–873.
  • Vandecasteele, B. and Geuens, M. (2010). “Motivated Consumer Innovativeness: Concept, Measurement, and Validation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, p. 308- 318.
  • Venkatraman, M. P. (1991). “The Impact of Innovativeness and Innovation Type on Adoption”, Journal of Retailing, 67(1), p. 51−67.
  • Venkatraman, M. P. and Price, L. L. (1990). “Differentiating between Cognitive and Sensory Innovativeness: Concepts, Measurement, and Implications”. Journal of Business Research, 20(4), p. 293−315.
  • Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R. and Grohmann, B. (2003). “Measuring theHedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude”. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), p. 310−320.
  • Yeniçıktı, N.T. (2016). “Halkla İlişkiler Aracı Olarak Instagram: Sosyal Medya Kullanan 50 Şirket Üzerine Bir Araştırma”. Selçuk İletişim, 9 (2), s. 92-115.
  • Yi, Y., Jeon, H.ve Choi, B. (2013). “Segregation vs Aggregation in the Loyalty Program: The Role of Perceived Uncertainty”. European Journal of Mareting., 47(8), s. 1238–1255.

TÜKETİCİ YENİLİKÇİLİĞİ VE DAVRANIŞSAL NİYETLER ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE SİSTEME GÜVEN VE ALGILANAN RİSKİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİ: INSTAGRAM DÜKKÂN UYGULAMASINA YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Year 2017, , 232 - 252, 01.12.2017
https://doi.org/10.14514/BYK.m.21478082.2017.5/2.232-252

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, tüketici yenilikçiliğinin Instagram-Dükkân sistemine yönelik davranışsal niyetler üzerindeki etkisini belirlemektir. Bunun yanı sıra, tüketici yenilikçiliği ile davranışsal niyetler arasında algılanan risk ve sisteme güven değişkenlerinin düzenleyici etkilerinin olup olmadığı incelenmiştir. Bu değişkenlerden oluşan bir model kurulmuştur. Çalışmada, Instagram, sosyal medya ortamında yapılan ve Instagram-Dükkân olarak isimlendirilen yeni bir uygulama olarak dikkate alınmış ve ilgili değişkenler bu kapsamda değerlendirilmiştir. İstanbul’da yaşayan, Instagram kullanan ve Instagram-Dükkân hakkında bilgisi olan 300 kişi ile görüşülmüştür. Hipotezlerin testinde yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ve düzenleyici etki analizleri yapılmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda, tüketici yenilikçiliğinin hedonik ve fonksiyonel boyutlarının davranışsal niyetler üzerinde etkili olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca, hedonik yenilikçilik ile davranışsal niyetler arasında algılanan risk ve sisteme güven değişkenlerinin düzenleyici etkiye sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir

References

  • Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986). “The Moderator Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Strategic and Statistical Consideration”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, p. 1173-82.
  • Bartels, J. and Reindels, M. J. (2011). “Consumer Innovativeness and Its Correlates: A Propositional İIventory for Future Research”, Journal of Business Research, 64, p. 601–609.
  • Başar, E. E. ve Yapraklı, Ş., (2013). “Tüketici Yenilikçiliği ve Genişletilmiş Teknoloji Kabul Modelinin E-CRM Üzerinde Etkileri: Bankacılık Sektöründe Bir Uygulama”. International Journal of Social Science, Haziran, 6(6), s. 149-180
  • Boholm, A. (1998). “Comparative Studies of Risk Perception: A Review of Twenty Years of Research”, Journal of Risk Research, 1 (2), s. 135–163.
  • Bülbül, H. ve Özoğul, B. (2014). “Tüketici Yenilikçiliği Ve Algılanan Riskin Satın Alma Davranışına Etkisi”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, s. 43-58.
  • Casidy, R. and Wymer, W. (2016). “A Risk Worth Taking: Perceived Risk as Moderator of Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Willingness-to-Pay Premium Price”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 32, p. 189–197.
  • Choi, H., Choi, Y-J. and Kim, K-M. (2011). “The Understanding of Building Trust Model on Smartphone Application: Focusing on Users’ Motivation”, Proceedings of the International Conference on IT Convergence and Security.
  • Chu, K-M. and Juan, B.J. C. (2013). “The Effects Of Perceived Interactivity on E-Trust and EConsumer Behaviors: The Applıcation Of Fuzzy Linguistic Scale”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 14(1), p. 124-136.
  • Çifci, S. (2012). “Tüketicilerin Yeni Ürünlere Yönelik Adaptasyon Tutumları Üzerinde Tüketicilerin Ve Firmaların Yenilikçilik Düzeylerinin Etkisi”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 34, s. 83-92
  • Colesca, S.E. (2009). “Increasing E-Trust: A Solution to Minimize Risk in E-Government Adoption”, Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 4(1), p. 31-44.
  • Dobre, C., Dragomir, A. and Preda, G. (2009). “Consumer Innovativeness: A Marketing Approach”, Management & Marketing, 4(2), p. 19-34.
  • Fisher, R. J. and Price, L. L. (1992). “An Investigation into The Social-Context of Early Adoption Behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), p. 477−486.
  • Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measure”, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), p. 39–50.
  • Gaskin, J. “Confirmatory Factor Analysis”, http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/wiki/Confirmatory_Factor_Analysis. Erişim tarihi: 03.10.2015.
  • Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.): Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
  • Hirschman, E.C. (1980). “Innnovativeness, Novelty Seeking and Consumer Creativity”, Journal of Consumer Research, 7, p. 283-295.
  • http://www.afhayes.com/introduction-to-mediation-moderation-and-conditional-processanalysis.html.Erişim tarihi: 03.10.2015.
  • http://www.salihbosca.com/instagramda-butik-magaza-nasil-acilir/ Erişim tarihi: 27.02.2017.
  • Huang, Y-A. (2003). “Consumer Innovativeness and Consumer Expectations for New IT Products: Implications for Purchase Behavior”, Asia Pacific Management Review, 8(2), p. 113- 134.
  • Kaplan, L. B., Szybillo, G. J. and Jacoby, J. (1974). Components of Perceived Risk in Product Purchase: A Cross-Validation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), p. 287-291.
  • Malhotra, N. and Dash, S. (2011). Marketing research – An applied orientation, (6th ed.), Pearson Education.
  • McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C. (2002). “Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology”, Information Systems Research, 13(3), p. 334–359.
  • Midgley, D. F. and Dowling, G. R. (1978). “Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement”, Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), p. 229-242.
  • Mitchell V-W and Harris G. (2005). “The Importance of Consumers’Perceived Risk in Retail Strategy”, European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), p. 821–837.
  • Mitchell, V. M. (1999). “Consumer Perceived Risk: Conceptualizations and Models”, European Journal of Marketing, 33(1/2), p. 163-195.
  • Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993). “Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, 57(1), p. 81-101.
  • Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1994). “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 58(3), p. 20–38.
  • Özkan, Y. ve Purutçuoğlu, E. (2010). “Yaşlılıkta Teknolojik Yeniliklerin Kabulünü Etkileyen Sosyalizasyon Süreci”, Aile ve Toplum, 6(23), s. 37-46.
  • Pennanen, K., (2011). “Is Interpersonal and Institutional E-Trustworthiness Equally Important in Consumer E-Trust Development? Implications for Consumers’ E-Trust Building Behaviours”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, p. 233–244.
  • Reinhardt, R. and Gurtner, S. (2015). “Differences Between Early Adopters of Disruptive and Sustaining Innovations”, Journal of Business Research, 68, p. 137-145.
  • Roehrich, G. (2004). “Consumer innovativeness concepts and measurements”. Journal of Business Research, 57, p. 671-677.
  • Rogers E.M. and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of Innovations.
  • Sheth, J. N. and Venkatesan, M. (1968). “Risk-Reduction Processes in Repetitive Consumer Behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, 5, p. 307-310.
  • Shim, D., Kim, J.G. and Altmann, J. (2016). “Identifying Key Drivers and Bottlenecks in the Adoption of E-Book Readers in Korea”, Telematics and Informatics, 33, p. 860–871.
  • Simonson, I., ve Nowlis, S. M. (2000). “The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons”. Journal of Consumer Research,27(1), s.49−68.
  • Slade, E.L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Piercy, N.C. and Williams, M.D. (2015). “Modeling Consumers’ Adoption Intentions of Remote Mobile Payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with Innovativeness, Risk, and Trust”, Psychology & Marketing, 32(8), p. 860–873.
  • Vandecasteele, B. and Geuens, M. (2010). “Motivated Consumer Innovativeness: Concept, Measurement, and Validation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, p. 308- 318.
  • Venkatraman, M. P. (1991). “The Impact of Innovativeness and Innovation Type on Adoption”, Journal of Retailing, 67(1), p. 51−67.
  • Venkatraman, M. P. and Price, L. L. (1990). “Differentiating between Cognitive and Sensory Innovativeness: Concepts, Measurement, and Implications”. Journal of Business Research, 20(4), p. 293−315.
  • Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R. and Grohmann, B. (2003). “Measuring theHedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude”. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), p. 310−320.
  • Yeniçıktı, N.T. (2016). “Halkla İlişkiler Aracı Olarak Instagram: Sosyal Medya Kullanan 50 Şirket Üzerine Bir Araştırma”. Selçuk İletişim, 9 (2), s. 92-115.
  • Yi, Y., Jeon, H.ve Choi, B. (2013). “Segregation vs Aggregation in the Loyalty Program: The Role of Perceived Uncertainty”. European Journal of Mareting., 47(8), s. 1238–1255.
There are 42 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Fatih Koç This is me

Caner Giray This is me

Yener Girişken This is me

Publication Date December 1, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017

Cite

APA Koç, F., Giray, C., & Girişken, Y. (2017). TÜKETİCİ YENİLİKÇİLİĞİ VE DAVRANIŞSAL NİYETLER ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE SİSTEME GÜVEN VE ALGILANAN RİSKİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİ: INSTAGRAM DÜKKÂN UYGULAMASINA YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, 5(2), 232-252. https://doi.org/10.14514/BYK.m.21478082.2017.5/2.232-252
AMA Koç F, Giray C, Girişken Y. TÜKETİCİ YENİLİKÇİLİĞİ VE DAVRANIŞSAL NİYETLER ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE SİSTEME GÜVEN VE ALGILANAN RİSKİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİ: INSTAGRAM DÜKKÂN UYGULAMASINA YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi. December 2017;5(2):232-252. doi:10.14514/BYK.m.21478082.2017.5/2.232-252
Chicago Koç, Fatih, Caner Giray, and Yener Girişken. “TÜKETİCİ YENİLİKÇİLİĞİ VE DAVRANIŞSAL NİYETLER ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE SİSTEME GÜVEN VE ALGILANAN RİSKİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİ: INSTAGRAM DÜKKÂN UYGULAMASINA YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA”. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi 5, no. 2 (December 2017): 232-52. https://doi.org/10.14514/BYK.m.21478082.2017.5/2.232-252.
EndNote Koç F, Giray C, Girişken Y (December 1, 2017) TÜKETİCİ YENİLİKÇİLİĞİ VE DAVRANIŞSAL NİYETLER ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE SİSTEME GÜVEN VE ALGILANAN RİSKİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİ: INSTAGRAM DÜKKÂN UYGULAMASINA YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi 5 2 232–252.
IEEE F. Koç, C. Giray, and Y. Girişken, “TÜKETİCİ YENİLİKÇİLİĞİ VE DAVRANIŞSAL NİYETLER ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE SİSTEME GÜVEN VE ALGILANAN RİSKİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİ: INSTAGRAM DÜKKÂN UYGULAMASINA YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA”, Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 232–252, 2017, doi: 10.14514/BYK.m.21478082.2017.5/2.232-252.
ISNAD Koç, Fatih et al. “TÜKETİCİ YENİLİKÇİLİĞİ VE DAVRANIŞSAL NİYETLER ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE SİSTEME GÜVEN VE ALGILANAN RİSKİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİ: INSTAGRAM DÜKKÂN UYGULAMASINA YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA”. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi 5/2 (December 2017), 232-252. https://doi.org/10.14514/BYK.m.21478082.2017.5/2.232-252.
JAMA Koç F, Giray C, Girişken Y. TÜKETİCİ YENİLİKÇİLİĞİ VE DAVRANIŞSAL NİYETLER ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE SİSTEME GÜVEN VE ALGILANAN RİSKİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİ: INSTAGRAM DÜKKÂN UYGULAMASINA YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi. 2017;5:232–252.
MLA Koç, Fatih et al. “TÜKETİCİ YENİLİKÇİLİĞİ VE DAVRANIŞSAL NİYETLER ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE SİSTEME GÜVEN VE ALGILANAN RİSKİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİ: INSTAGRAM DÜKKÂN UYGULAMASINA YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA”. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, vol. 5, no. 2, 2017, pp. 232-5, doi:10.14514/BYK.m.21478082.2017.5/2.232-252.
Vancouver Koç F, Giray C, Girişken Y. TÜKETİCİ YENİLİKÇİLİĞİ VE DAVRANIŞSAL NİYETLER ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE SİSTEME GÜVEN VE ALGILANAN RİSKİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİ: INSTAGRAM DÜKKÂN UYGULAMASINA YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi. 2017;5(2):232-5.