Türkiye’de Hukuk, Tıp ve Akademi Alanlarındaki Kişilerin Sosyal Paylaşım Ağları Kullanımı ve Sosyal Onay İhtiyacı

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’deki en itibarlı meslek alanları olan hukuk, tıp ve akademi alanlarında çalışan bireylerin sosyal onaya ne düzeyde ihtiyaç duyduklarını ve sosyal paylaşım ağlarını kullanan ve kullanmayan bireyler arasında sosyal onay ihtiyacı noktasında bir farklılık olup olmadığını ortaya çıkarmaktır. Araştırmada verileri elde etmek için anket yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın evrenini, Türkiye’de hakim, avukat, doktor, profesör ve araştırma görevlisi mesleğini icra eden yaklaşık 334 bin kişi oluşturmaktadır. Türkiye’nin 26 şehrinde yaşayan 1509 kişi, hakim, avukat, doktor, profesör ve araştırma görevlisi ise araştırmanın örneklemini temsil etmektedir. Verilerin analizinde Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test ve Frequency Analysis kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinden elde edilen sonuçlara göre, katılımcıların sosyal onay ihtiyaçları düşük olmaktadır. Bunun yanında katılımcıların meslekleri, yaşları ve cinsiyetleri ile sosyal onay ihtiyacı arasında anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca sosyal paylaşım ağlarını kullanan katılımcılar kullanmayan katılımcılara göre daha fazla sosyal onaya ihtiyaç duymaktadır.

Keywords

• Sosyal ağlar
• internet
• sosyal onay
• Türkiye
• meslekler

The Use of Social Networks and the Need for Social Approval of People in the Fields of Law, Medicine, and Academia in Turkey

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the level of social approval needs of people working in law, medicine, and academia, which are the most prestigious professions in Turkey, and whether there is a difference in the need for social approval among people who use and do not use social networks. The method used for obtaining data in this study was that of survey method. The universe of the study consists of about 334 thousand people who hold the profession of Judge, Lawyer, Doctor, Professor or Research Assistant in Turkey. The sample represented in this study comes from 1,509 people, who are judges, lawyers, doctors, professors and research assistants and living in 26 cities in Turkey. Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and Frequency Analysis were used in the analysis of the data. According to the results obtained from the analysis of the data, the social approval needs of the participants are low. In addition, the social approval needs of the participants varies greatly depending on their profession, age and gender. Furthermore, participants who use social networks need more social approval than those who do not.

Keywords

• Social networks
• internet
• social approval
• Turkey
• profession

Supporting Institution

The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

References

1. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1289-1295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.018
2. Ballard, R., Crino, M. D., & Rubenfeld, S. (1988). Social desirability response bias and the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Psychological Reports, 63, 227-237. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.63.1.227
3. Becker, G., & Dileo, D. (1967). Scores on Rokeach’s dogmatism scale and the response set to present a positive social and personal image. The Journal of Social Psychology, 71, 287-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1967.9919791
4. Buckhout, R. (1965). Need for social approval and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 60, 123-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1965.10545270
5. Bursztyn, L., & Jensen, R. (2017). Social image and economic behavior in the field: Identifying, understanding, and shaping social pressure. Forthcoming in the Annual Review of Economics, 9, 131-153. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-economics-063016-103625
6. Chua, T., & Chang, L. (2016). Follow me and like my beautiful selfies: Singapore teenage girls’ engagement in self-presentation and peer comparison on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 190-197. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.011
7. Consalvi, C. (1972). An item and factor analysis of Danish, Lebanese and United States college students‘ responses to the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3, 361-372. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202217200300405
8. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: studies in evaluative dependence. New York, USA: Wiley.

9. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349-354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
10. Dodou, D., & De Winter F. (2014). Social desirability is the same in offline, online, and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 487-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.005
11. Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Hough, L. M. (1999). Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 155-166. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.155
12. Evans, R., & Forbach, G. (1982). Intellectual ability correlates of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 59-62. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_10
13. Fisher, G. (1967). The performance of male prisoners on the differences as a function of race and crime Marlowe- Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 473-475. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097- 4679(196710)23:4<473::AID-JCLP2270230423>3.0.CO;2-B
14. Fisher, M., & Parsons T. (1962). The performance of male prisoners on the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 140-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(196204)18:2<140::AID-JCLP2270180209>3.0.CO;2-4
15. Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(3), 385-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0
16. Ganster, D. C., Hennessey, H. W., & Luthans, F.(1983). Social desirability response effects: three alternative models. The Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 321-331. https://doi.org/10.5465/255979
17. Gelfand, M., Triandis, H., & Chan D. (1996). Individualism versus collectivism or versus authoritarianism? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 397-410. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199605)26:3%3C397::AID-EJSP763%3E3.0.CO;2-J
18. Hays, R.D., Hayashi, T., & Stewart, A.L. (1989). A five-item measure of socially desirable response set. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 629-636. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001316448904900315
19. Herring, S. C., & Kapidzic, S. (2015). Teens, gender, and self-presentation in social media. In J.D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (pp. 146-152).Oxford, UK: Elsevier Inc.
20. Hogan, B. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30, 377-386. https://doi. org/10.1177/0270467610385893
21. Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1989). Three common social desirability scales: friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Journal of Research in Personality, 23(2), 180-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(89)90022-6
22. Holtgraves, T. (2004). Social desirability and self-reports: testing models of socially desirable responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 161-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203259930
23. Johnson, T. P., & Fendrich, M. (2002). A validation of the Crowne-Marlowe social desirability scale. Retrieved from http://www.srl.uic.edu/publist/Conference/crownemarlowe.pdf
24. Johnson, T. P., & van de Vijver F. J. R. (2002). Social desirability in cross-cultural research. In J. A. Harkness, F.J.R. van de Vijver & P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 193-209). New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
25. Johnson, T. P., Fendrich, M., & Mackesy-Amiti M. E. (2012). An evaluation of the validity of the Crowne–Marlowe need for approval scale. Quality Quantity, 46(6), 1883–1896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9563-5
26. Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles evidence from 19 countries. Journal Of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 264-277. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022022104272905
27. Karaşar, B., & Öğülmüş, S. (2016). Sosyal onay ihtiyacı ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 17(1), 84-104.
28. Klassen, D., Homstra R., & Anderson P. (1975). Influence of social desirability on symptom and mood reporting in a community survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 448-452. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0076863
29. Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165-178. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.165
30. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
31. Marlowe, D., & Crowne, D. P. (1961).Social desirability and response to perceived situational demands. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25(2), 109-115. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0041627
32. Martin, H.J., & Greenstein, T. N. (1983). Individual differences in status generalization: effects of need for social approval, anticipated ınterpersonal contact, and instrumental task abilities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 641-662. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.641
33. Mick, D. G. (1996). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 106-119. https://doi.org/10.1086/209470
34. Middleton, K., & Jones L. (2000). Socially desirable response sets: the impact of country culture. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 149-163. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2<149::AID-MAR6>3.0.CO;2-L
35. Millham, J. (1974). Two components of need for approval score and their relationship to cheating following. Journal of Research in Personality, 8(4), 378-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(74)90028-2
36. Moore, K., & McElroy, J. (2012). The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall postings, and regret. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 267-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.009
37. Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of OccupationaI and Organizational Psycbology, 65(2),131-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00490.x
38. Mwamwenda, T. (1996). Social desirability scores of South African and Canadian students. Psychological Reports, 78, 723-726. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3.723
39. Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 243- 249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007 Owens, D., Pettijohn, C., & Keillor, B. (2001). A Cross–cultural/cross national study of influencing factors and socially desirable response biases. International Journal of
40. Market Research, 43, 1-19. https://doi. org/10.1177/147078530104300101
41. Paulhus, D. (1984). Two-component models of social desirability responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598-609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
42. Ramanaiah, N. V., Schill, T., & Leung, L. S (1977). A test of the hypothesis about thetwo-dimensional nature of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 11(2), 251-259. https://doi. org/10.1016/0092-6566(77)90022-8
43. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review and synthesis. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 435-454. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4278955
44. Ross, C. E.,& Mirowsky, J. (1984). Socially-desirable response and acquiescence in a cross-cultural survey of mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25(2), 189-197. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136668
45. Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 402-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009
46. Shrauger, J. (1972). Performance on the Marlowe-Crowne scale and its perceived purpose. Journal of Personality Assessment, 36, 287-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1972.10119758
47. Smith, R. E., & Flenning, F. (1971). Need for approval and susceptibility to unintended social influence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36(3), 383-385. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031104
48. Steers, M.L. N., Quist, M. C., Bryan, J. L., Foster, D. W., Young, C. M., & Neighbors, C. (2016). I want you to like me: extraversion, need for approval, and time on Facebook as predictors of anxiety. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(3), 283-293. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000082
49. Strickland, B. R., & Crowne, D. P. (1962). Conformity under conditions of simulated group pressure as a function of the need for social approval. The Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 171-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224 545.1962.9712366
50. Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482-493. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.482
51. Sunar, L. (2015). Türkiye’de Çalışma Yaşamı ve Mesleklerin İtibarı. Retrieved from https://tyap.net/ mediaf/T%C3%BCrkiye-Mesleki-%C4%B0tibar-Skalas%C4%B1-Sunumu-Son.pdf
52. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. New York, USA: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
53. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907-924. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.696169
54. Triandis, H. C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross-Cultural Research, 27, 155-180. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F106939719302700301
55. Twenge, J. M., & Im, C. (2007). Changes in the need for social approval, 1958–2001. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 171-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.006
56. Ventimiglia, M., & MacDonald, D. A. (2012). An examination of the factorial dimensionality of the Marlowe- Crowne social desirability scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(4), 487-491. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.016
57. Vésteinsdóttir, V., Reips, D., Joinson, A., & Thorsdottir, F. (2015). Psychometric properties of measurements obtained with the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale in an Icelandic probability based Internet sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 608-614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.044
58. Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, M. (2010). Psychological predictors of young adults’: Use of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13, 173-177. https://doi.org/10.1089/ cyber.2009.0094
59. Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 250-264. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4307820