Tüketici Davranışı Bağlamında “Bales’in Etkileşim Süreci Analizi” Yaklaşımının Uygulanabilirliğine İlişkin Bir Ön Çalışma

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, aile içi (karı-koca) satın alma kararlarında “Bales’ in Etkileşim Süreci Analizi” nin uygulanabilirliğini test etmektir. “Bales’ in Etkileşim Süreci Analizi” yönteminin etkililiğinin incelenmesi sırasında kullanılan araç, yine Bales’ gözlemleri aracılığıyla geliştirilmiş olan bir dizi hipotezdir. Araştırmada 15 çift (karı-koca) yer almıştır. Çiftlerden beklenen bir katalogdan yararlanarak stereo müzik seti satın alma kararı vermeleridir. 15 çiftten 5’ine “düşük” ürün bilgisi, 5’ine “orta” ürün bilgisi, ve 5’ine de “yüksek” ürün bilgisi verilmiştir. Uygulamalar doğallığı sağlamak amacıyla deneklerin evlerinde, yani kendi doğal ortamlarında gerçekleştirilmiş, uygulamalar Panasonic HC-V700EG-K ile kaydedilmiştir. Deneklerin etkileşimleri “Bales’ in Etkileşim Süreci Analizi” yaklaşımı kullanılarak kategorize edilmiştir. “Bales’in Etkileşim Süreci Analizi” yaklaşımı kullanılarak elde edilmiş olan veri, “Bales’in Etkileşim Süreci Analizi” yaklaşımının tüketici aile içi karar verme davranışlarını incelemede etkili bir araç olduğunu ortaya koymuştur

Keywords

• Karı-koca satın alma kararı davranışı, Etkileşim Süreç Analizi

An Exploratory Investigation of Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis as it to Consumer Behavior

Abstract

The purpose of this study to establish the feasibility of Bales’ system of Interaction Process Analysis in the study of a husband-wife purchase decision. The vehicle for the exploration of this method was the development and testing of specific hypotheses using Bales’ system of observation. Fifteen couples were exposed to a situation in which they were asked to select for themselves a portable stereo phonograph from a catalog. Five couples received small “pieces” of product information, five couples received medium “pieces” of product information, and five couples received large “pieces” of product information. Each couple was observed in their home and their respective interaction was later categorized from a tape (Panasonic HC-V700EG-K) made in the couple’ s home. The couple’ s interaction was categorized using Bales’ system of Interaction Process Analysis. From the data produced by the system, we have concluded that Bales’s system of Interaction Process Analysis is sensitive enough to use in the study of consumer behavior, but mainly as an evidence gathering tool

Keywords

• Husband-wife purchase decision, Interaction Process Analysis, Product Information

References

1. Bales, R.F. (1961) “The Equilibrium Problem of Small Groups.” Small Groups, edited by Hare, Borgatta, Bales, NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf, p.424-463.
2. Bales, R.F. (1955) “How People Interact in Conferences.” Scientific American, CXCII (March), p.31-35.
3. Bales, R.F. (1950) Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge:Addison- Wesley Press, Inc.
4. Bales, R.F., Borgatt, E.F. (1961) “Size of Group as a Factor in the Interaction Profile.” Small Groups, edited by Hare, Borgatta, Bales, NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf, p.396-413.
5. Bales, R.F., Strodtbeck, F.L. (1951) “Phase in Group Problem Solving.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XKVI (October), p.485- 512.
6. Bales R. F. (2000) “Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement, Book Revıew,” Reviewed by A. Paul Hare, Ben-Gurion University, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 4, No. 2, 199-208.
7. Borgatt, E.F., Bales, R.F. (1953a) “The Consistency of Subject Behavior and the Reliability of Scoring of Interaction Process Analysis.” American Sociological Review, XVIII (October), p.566-569.
8. Borgatt, E.F., Bales, R.F. (1953b) “Interaction of Individuals in Reconstituted Groups.” Sociometry, XVI (November), p. 302-320.

9. Borgatt, E.F., Bales, R.F. (1956) “Sociometric Status Patterns and Characteristics of Interaction.” Journal of Social Psychology, XLIII (May), p. 289-297.
10. Borgatt, E.F., Bales, R.F. (1953c) “Task and Accumulation of Experience as Factors in the Interaction of Small Groups.” Sociometry, XVI (August), p. 239-252.
11. Borgatt, E.F., Cottrell Jr. L.S. (1955) “On the Classification of Groups.” Sociometry, XVIII (December), p. 665-678.
12. Chapman C. L., Baker E. L., Porter G., Thayer S. D., Burlingame G. M., (2010) “Rating Group Therapist Interventions: The Validation of the Group Psychotherapy Intervention Rating Scale,” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 14, No. 1, 15–31.
13. Cheng J. T., Tracy J. L., Foulsham T., Kingstone A., Henrich J. (2013) ”Two Ways to the Top: Evidence That Dominance and Prestige Are Distinct Yet Viable Avenues to Social Rank and Influence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 104, No. 1, 103–125.
14. Jones E. E., Carter-Sowell A. R., Kelly J. R. (2011) “ Participation Matters: Psychological and Behavioral Consequences of Information Exclusion in Groups.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 15, No. 4, 311–325.
15. Kenkel, W.F. (1961) “Family Interaction in Decision Making on Spending.” Household Decision Making, edited by Nelson N. F. NewYork: NewYork University Press, p.140.
16. Kenkel, W.F., William F., Dean K.H. (1956) “Real and Conceived Roles in Family Decision Making.” Marriage and Family Living, XVIII (Nov), p.311-316.
17. Kenkel, W.F. (1961) “Sex of Observers and Spousal Roles in Decision Making.” Marriage and Family Living, XXIII (May), p.185-186.
18. Keyton, J. B., Stephenson J. (2009) “The Influential Role of Relational Messages in Group Interaction” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol 13(1), Mar,. pp. 14-30.
19. Peräkylä, A. (2004) “Two traditions of interaction research.” British Journal of Social Psychology. Mar., Vol. 43 Issue 1, p1-20. 20p.
20. Schaumberg R. L., Flynn F. J. (2012) “Uneasy Lies the Head That Wears the Crown: The Link Between Guilt Proneness and Leadership.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 103, No. 2, 327–342.