Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Dijital Kanaat Önderlerini Takip Etme Motivasyonları: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı üniversite öğrencilerinin dijital kanaat önderlerini takip etme motivasyonlarını belirlemeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Dijital medya ortamlarında kanaat önderliği; güven, etkileşim, uzmanlık, sosyal kanıt, popülerlik ve yönlendirme gibi çok boyutlu unsurlar üzerinden yeniden şekillendiği görülmektedir. Bu karşılık takipçilerin dijital kanaat önderlerini hangi motivasyonla takip ettiklerini bütüncül biçimde ölçmeye yönelik araçlara duyulan ihtiyaç devam etmektedir. Bu doğrultuda araştırma Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinde eğitim gören 370 kişilik öğrencilerin oluşturduğu örneklem üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Literatür taraması ve uzman görüşleri doğrultusunda oluşturulan 53 maddelik taslak form, 20 kişilik pilot uygulama sonrasında ana örnekleme uygulanmıştır. Yapılan Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi sonucunda 20 madde ve 5 boyuttan oluşan bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Bu boyutlar Bilişsel ve Değer Temelli Seçicilik, Sosyal Kanıt, Etkileşim ve Popülerlik, Mecra, içerik ve Uzmanlık Uyumu, Kanaat önderinin Etki ve Yönlendirme Gücü ile Güven, Samimiyet ve Duygusal Yakınlık olarak adlandırılmıştır. Ölçeğim KMO değeri .818, açıklanan toplam varyans oranı %55.177 ve genel Cronbach’s Alpha katsayısı .817 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca alt, üst %27’lik gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılıklar elde edilmiştir. Bulgular geliştirilen ölçeğin üniversite öğrencilerinin dijital kanaat önderlerini takip etme motivasyonlarını çok boyutlu olarak ele alınması gerekliliğini ortaya koyacak yeterli psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Dijital kanaat önderleri
• Takip motivasyonları
• Sosyal medya
• Ölçek geliştirme
• Üniversite

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırma, bilimsel araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine uygun olarak yürütülmüştür. Araştırmaya katılım gönüllülük esasına dayalı olarak gerçekleştirilmiş, katılımcılar araştırmanın amacı ve kapsamı hakkında bilgilendirilmiş ve elde edilen veriler yalnızca bilimsel amaçlarla kullanılmıştır. Katılımcıların kimlik bilgileri toplanmamış ve kişisel verilerin gizliliği korunmuştur. Araştırma için gerekli etik kurul izni, Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimler Yayın Etiği Kurulu’ndan 2025/296 sayılı kararla yazılı olarak alınmıştır.

Unıversity Students Motivations for Following Digital Opinion Leaders: A Scale Development Study

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool for identifying university students’ motivations for following digital opinion leaders. In digital media environments, opinion leadership is being reshaped through multidimensional factors such as trust, interaction, expertise, social proof, popularity, and influence. Accordingly, there remains a need for measurement tools that can assess followers’ motivations for following digital opinion leaders in a comprehensive manner. The study was conducted with a sample of 370 students enrolled at a public university in Türkiye. A 53-item draft form, developed on the basis of a literature review and expert opinions, was administered to the main sample following a pilot study. Exploratory Factor Analysis revealed a 20-item, five-dimensional structure. The dimensions were labeled Cognitive and Value-Based Selectivity; Social Proof, Interaction, and Popularity; Platform, Content, and Expertise Fit; Opinion Leader Influence and Guiding Power; and Trust, Sincerity, and Emotional Closeness. The KMO value of the scale was .818, the total variance explained was 55.177%, and the overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .817. In addition, statistically significant differences were found between the lower and upper 27% groups. The findings indicate that the developed scale has adequate psychometric properties and supports the multidimensional assessment of university students’ motivations for following digital opinion leaders.

Keywords

• Digital opinion leaders
• Social media
• Following motivations
• University students
• Scale development

Ethical Statement

This research was conducted in accordance with the principles of scientific research and publication ethics. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary; participants were informed about the purpose and scope of the research, and the data obtained were used solely for scientific purposes. No personally identifiable information was collected, and the confidentiality of personal data was protected. The required ethical approval for the study was obtained in writing from the Kütahya Dumlupınar University Social and Human Sciences Publication Ethics Committee with decision no. 2025/296.

References

1. Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2020). Influencers on Instagram: Antecedents and consequences of opinion leadership. Journal of Business Research, 117, 510-519. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.005
2. Childers, T. L. (1986). Assessment of the psychometric properties of an opinion leadership scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 184-188. doi: 10.1177/002224378602300211
3. Choi, S. (2015). The two-step flow of communication in Twitter-based public forums. Social Science Computer Review, 33(6), 696-711. doi: 10.1177/0894439314556599
4. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Crespo, C. F., & Tille, M. (2024). Examining the role of perceived source credibility on social media influencer’s ascribed opinion leadership. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 36(3), 208-223. doi: 10.1080/08961530.2023.2255379
6. Croes, E., & Bartels, J. (2021). Young adults' motivations for following social influencers and their relationship to identification and buying behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106910. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106910
7. De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: The impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798-828. doi: 10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035
8. Fakhreddin, F. (2025). What makes a social media user an opinion leader? Source characteristics and consumers’ behavioral intentions. Journal of Promotion Management, 31(1), 1-38. doi: 10.1080/10496491.2024.2420275

9. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
10. Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Eastman, J. K. (1996). Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: Two new measurement scales. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(2), 137-147. doi: 10.1177/0092070396242004
11. Fussey, P., & Roth, S. (2020). Digitizing sociology: Continuity and change in the internet era. Sociology, 54(4), 659-674. doi: 10.1177/0038038520918562
12. Glucksman, M. (2017). The rise of social media influencer marketing on lifestyle branding: A case study of Lucie Fink. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 8(2), 77-87.
13. Hair, J. F., Jr., Gabriel, M. L. D. S., da Silva, D., & Braga Junior, S. (2019). Development and validation of attitudes measurement scales: Fundamental and practical aspects. RAUSP Management Journal, 54(4), 490-507. doi: 10.1108/RAUSP-05-2019-0098
14. Harff, D., Stehr, P., & Schmuck, D. (2025). Revisiting opinion leadership in the digital realm: Social media influencers as proximal mass opinion leaders. New Media & Society, 28(6). doi: 10.1177/14614448251336441
15. Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215-229. doi: 10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
16. Howard, M. C. (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51-62 doi: 10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664.
17. Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111-117.
18. Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61-78. doi: 10.1086/266687
19. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. doi: 10.1086/268109
20. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Free Press.
21. Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202-220.
22. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
23. Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (Eds.). (2009). Encyclopedia of communication theory. SAGE.
24. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39-52. doi: 10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191
25. Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’S SPSS. Routledge.
26. Reinikainen, H., Munnukka, J., Maity, D., & Luoma-Aho, V. (2020). ‘You really are a great big sister’—Parasocial relationships, credibility, and the moderating role of audience comments in influencer marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3-4), 279-298. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2019.1708781
27. Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2020). Celebrity vs. influencer endorsements in advertising: The role of identification, credibility, and product-endorser fit. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 258-281. doi: 10.1080/02650487.2019.1634898
28. Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89-97. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059
29. Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101742. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011 IDEAS/RePEc
30. Starej, F., & Burić, I. (2022). Are influencers opinion leaders? Student perception of influencers as information resources from the position of Lazarsfeld’s two-step flow communication theory. Medijske studije, 13(25), 106-124. doi: 10.20901/ms.13.25.6
31. Tam, M. S. (2020a). Sosyal medya etkileyicilerinin kanaat önderliği rolü. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 8(2), 1325-1351. doi: 10.19145/e-gifder.726057
32. Tam, M. S. (2020b). Takipçiler nezdinde sosyal medya fenomenlerinin kanaat önderliği ölçeği. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23, 481-502.
33. Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Akademi Yayıncılık.
34. Weimann, G. (2016). Opinion leadership. G. Mazzoleni (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of political communication içinde (ss. 908-917). Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc002
35. Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 362-369. doi: 10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041