Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Öz-yeterlilik algısı, yaşam doyumu ve bir role tutulma etkileşimi: Sosyal bilişsel bir yaklaşım

Year 2019, Issue: 54, 193 - 207, 31.12.2019
https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.550754

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, bireylerin
öz-yeterlilik düşüncelerinin yaşam doyumlarını nasıl etkilediğini ve bu süreçte
role tutulmanın bir aracılık rolü olup olmadığının araştırılması amaçlanmıştır.
Bu amaçla alanda ulusal ve uluslararası geçerliliği olan ölçeklerle oluşturulan
anket formu, kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen 309 üniversite öğrencisine
uygulanmıştır. Araştırma hipotezlerinin testi için yapısal eşitlik modeli
kurulmuş, aracılık rolünü incelemek için önyükleme yöntemiyle dolaylı etkilerin
anlamlılığına bakılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, Pozitif Psikoloji, Sosyal
Bilişsel Teori, Rol Teorisi ve Kendini Düzenleme Teorisi çerçevesinde,
öz-yeterliliğin yaşam doyumunu hem doğrudan hem de role tutulma aracılığıyla
artırdığını göstermiştir.

References

  • AZIZLI, Nicole; Breanna E. ATKINSON; Holly M. BAUGHMAN and Erica A. GIAMMARCO; (2015), “Relationships Between General Self-efficacy, Planning for the Future, and Life Satisfaction”, Personality and Individual Differences, 82, pp. 58-60.
  • BANDURA, Albert; (1977), “Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change”, Psychological Review, 84(2), pp. 191-215.
  • BANDURA, Albert; (1993), “Perceived Self-efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning”, Educational Psychologist, 28(2), pp. 117-148.
  • BANDURA, Albert; (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York: Freeman.
  • BANDURA, Albert; (2001), “Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology, 52, pp. 1-26.
  • BANDURA, Albert; Gian V. CAPRARA; Claudio BARBARANELLI; Maria GERBINO and Concetta PASTORELLI; (2003), “Role of Affective Self-regulatory Efficacy in Diverse Spheres of Psychosocial Functioning”, Child Development, 74(3), pp. 769-782.
  • BRADLEY, Robert H. and Robert F. CORWYN; (2004), “Life Satisfation among European American, African American, Chinese American, Mexican American, and Dominican American Adolescents”, International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(5), pp. 385-400.
  • BRESO, Edgar; Wilmar B. SCHAUFELI and Marisa SALANOVA; (2011), “Can a Self-efficacy-based Intervention Decrease Burnout, Increase Engagement, and Enhance Performance? A Quasi-experimental Study”, Higher Education, 61, pp. 339-355.
  • CARAWAY, Kirsten; Carolyn M. TUCKER; Wendy M. REINKE and Charles HALL; (2003), “Self-efficacy, Goal Orientation, and Fear of Failure as Predictors of School Engagement in High School Students”, Psychology in the Schools, 40(4), pp. 417-427.
  • CHEMERS, Martin M.; Li-tze HU and Ben F. GARCIA; (2001), “Academic Self-efficacy and First-year College Student Performance and Adjustment”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), pp. 55-64.
  • COFFMAN, Donna L. and Tammy D. GILLIGAN; (2002), “Social Supports, Stress, and Self-efficacy: Effects on Students’ Satisfaction”, College Student Retention, 4(1), pp. 53-66.
  • CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, Mihaly; (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experiences, New York: HarperPerennial.
  • DEWITZ, S. Joseph and W. Bruce WALSH; (2002), “Self-efficacy and College Student Satisfaction”, Journal of Career Assessment, 10(3), pp. 315-326.
  • DIENER, Ed; (1984), “Subjective Well-being”, Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), pp. 542-575.
  • DIENER, Ed; (1994), “Assessing Subjective Well-being: Progress and Opportunities”, Social Indicators Research, 31(2), pp. 103-157.
  • DIENER, Ed; (2000), “Subjective Well-being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index”, American Psychologist, 55, pp. 34-43.
  • DIENER, Ed; Robert A. EMMONS; Randy J. LARSEN and Sharon GRIFFIN; (1985), “The Satisfaction with Life Scale”, Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), pp. 71-75.
  • DURAK, Mithat; Emre SENOL-DURAK and Tulin GENCOZ; (2010), “Psychometric Properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale among Turkish University Students, Correctional Officers, and Elderly Adults”, Social Indicators Research, 99, pp. 413-429.
  • FREDRICKS, Jennifer A.; Phyllis C. BLUMENFELD and Alison H. PARIS; (2004). “School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence”, Review of Educational Research, 74(1), pp. 59-109.
  • HAIR, Joseph F.; G. Thomas M. HULT; Christian M. RINGLE and Marko SARSTEDT; (2017), A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • HU, Li-tze and Peter M. BENTLER; (1999), “Cutoff Criterion for Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), pp. 1-55.
  • JERUSALEM, Matthias and Ralf SCHWARZER; (1992), “Self-efficacy as a Resource Factor in Stress Appraisal Process”, Ralf Schwarzer (Ed.). Self-Efficacy: Thought Control of Action In (pp. 195-213). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
  • KAHN, William A.; (1990), “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work”, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692-724.
  • KUH, George D.; Ty M. CRUCE; Rick SHOUP; Jillian KINZIE and Robert M. GONYEA; (2008), “Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-year College Grades and Persistence”, The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), pp. 540-563.
  • LEWIS, Ashley D.; E. Scott HUEBNER; Patrick S. MALONE and Robert F. VALOIS; (2011), “Life Satisfaction and Student Engagement in Adolescents”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, pp. 249-262.
  • O’SULLIVAN, Geraldine; (2011), “The Relationship Between Hope, Eustress, Self-efficacy, and life satisfaction amog Undergraduates”, Social Indicators Research, 101, pp. 155-172.
  • PIETARINEN, Janne; Tiina SOINI and Kirsi PYHALTO; (2014), “Students’ Emotional and Cognitive Engagement as the Determinants of Well-being and Achievement in School”, International Journal of Educational Research, 67, pp. 40-51.
  • PILCHER, June J.; (1998), “Affective and Daily Event Predictors of Life Satisfaction in College Students”, Social Indicators Research, 43, pp. 291-306.
  • PREACHER, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. HAYES; (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), pp. 879-891.
  • PROCTOR, Carmel L.; P. Alex LINLEY and John MALTBY; (2009), “Youth Life Satisfaction: A Review of the Literature”, Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, pp. 583-630.
  • SALMELA-ARO, Katariina and Katja UPADYAYA; (2014), “School Burnout and Engagement in the Context of Demands-Resources Model”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, pp. 137-151.
  • SCHAUFELI, Wilmar B.; Arnold B. BAKKER and Marisa SALANOVA; (2006), “The Measurement of Work Engagement with a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-national Study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), pp. 701-716.
  • SCHAUFELI, Wilmar B.; Isabel M. MARTINEZ; Alexandra M. PINTO; Marisa SALANOVA and Arnold B. BAKKER; (2002), “Burnout and Engagement in University Students: A Cross-national Study”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), pp. 464-481.
  • SCHAUFELI, Wilmar B. and Marisa SALANOVA; (2007), “Efficacy or Inefficacy, That's the Question: Burnout and Work Engagement, and Their Relationships with Efficacy Beliefs”, Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20(2), pp. 177-196.
  • SCHAUFELI, Wilmar B.; Marisa SALANOVA; Vicente GONZALEZ-ROMA and Arnold B. BAKKER; (2002). “The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92.
  • SCHAUFELI, Wilmar B.; Akihito SHIMAZU; Jari HAKANEN; Marisa SALANOVA and Hans DE WITTE; (2017), “An Ultra-Short Measure for Work Engagement: The UWES-3 Validation Across Five Countries”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000430.
  • SELIGMAN, Martin E. P. and Mihaly CSIKSZENTMIHALYI; (2000), “Positive Psychology: An Introduction”, American Psychologist, 55(1), pp. 5-14.
  • SHERNOFF, David J.; Mihaly CSIKSZENTMIHALYI; Barbara SCHNEIDER and Elisa S. SHERNOFF; (2014), “Student Engagement in High School Classrooms from the Perspective of Flow Theory”, Mihaly CSIKSZENTMIHALYI (Ed.). Applications of Flow in Human Development and Education In (pp. 475-494). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • SHROUT, Patrick E. and Niall BOLGER; (2002), “Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations”, Psychological Methods, 7(4), pp. 422-445.
  • SKINNER, Ellen A. and Jennifer R. PITZER; (2012), “Developmental Dynamics of Student Engagement, Coping, and Everyday Resilience”, Sandra L. CHRISTENSON; Amy L. RESCHLY and Cathy WYLIE (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement In (pp. 21-44). New York: Springer.
  • SULDO, Shannon M. and E. Scott HUEBNER; (2006), “Is Extremely High Life Satisfaction During Adolescence Advantageous”, Social Indicators Resarch, 78, pp. 179-203.
  • VEENHOVEN, Ruut; (1996), “Developments in Satisfaction Research”, Social Indicators Research, 37, pp. 1-46.
  • WEFALD, Andrew J. and Ronald G. DOWNEY; (2009), “Construct Dimensionality of Engagement and its Relation with Satisfaction”, The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), pp. 91-111.
  • XIAO, Jing J.; Chuanyi TANG and Soyeon SHIM; (2009), “Acting for Happiness: Financial Behavior and Life Satisfaction of College Students”, Social Indicators Research, 92, pp. 53-68.
  • YEŞİLAY, Ayşin; (1996), “Genelleştirilmiş Özyetki Beklentisi Ölçeği”, Erişim adresi: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/turk.htm, Erişim tarihi: 20.11.2018.
  • ZIMMERMAN, Barry J.; (2000), “Self-efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, pp. 82-91.

The interaction of perceived self-efficacy, life satisfaction and engagement in a role: A social cognitive approach

Year 2019, Issue: 54, 193 - 207, 31.12.2019
https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.550754

Abstract

In this study, the main
purpose is to explore how self-efficacy beliefs influence life satisfaction and
whether engagement in a role has a mediating role in these relations. For this
purpose, a survey, including validated instruments for the national and
international samples was administered to 309 university students with a
convenience survey method. We used a structural equation modeling for testing
the research hypothesis and sought the significance of indirect effect in the
model for determining the mediating role with using the bootstrapping method.
The results showed that self-efficacy not also increases life satisfaction directly
but also increases with the mediating role of engagement in a role within the
scope of Positive Psychology, Social Cognitive Theory, Role Theory, and
Self-Regulation Theory.

References

  • AZIZLI, Nicole; Breanna E. ATKINSON; Holly M. BAUGHMAN and Erica A. GIAMMARCO; (2015), “Relationships Between General Self-efficacy, Planning for the Future, and Life Satisfaction”, Personality and Individual Differences, 82, pp. 58-60.
  • BANDURA, Albert; (1977), “Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change”, Psychological Review, 84(2), pp. 191-215.
  • BANDURA, Albert; (1993), “Perceived Self-efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning”, Educational Psychologist, 28(2), pp. 117-148.
  • BANDURA, Albert; (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York: Freeman.
  • BANDURA, Albert; (2001), “Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology, 52, pp. 1-26.
  • BANDURA, Albert; Gian V. CAPRARA; Claudio BARBARANELLI; Maria GERBINO and Concetta PASTORELLI; (2003), “Role of Affective Self-regulatory Efficacy in Diverse Spheres of Psychosocial Functioning”, Child Development, 74(3), pp. 769-782.
  • BRADLEY, Robert H. and Robert F. CORWYN; (2004), “Life Satisfation among European American, African American, Chinese American, Mexican American, and Dominican American Adolescents”, International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(5), pp. 385-400.
  • BRESO, Edgar; Wilmar B. SCHAUFELI and Marisa SALANOVA; (2011), “Can a Self-efficacy-based Intervention Decrease Burnout, Increase Engagement, and Enhance Performance? A Quasi-experimental Study”, Higher Education, 61, pp. 339-355.
  • CARAWAY, Kirsten; Carolyn M. TUCKER; Wendy M. REINKE and Charles HALL; (2003), “Self-efficacy, Goal Orientation, and Fear of Failure as Predictors of School Engagement in High School Students”, Psychology in the Schools, 40(4), pp. 417-427.
  • CHEMERS, Martin M.; Li-tze HU and Ben F. GARCIA; (2001), “Academic Self-efficacy and First-year College Student Performance and Adjustment”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), pp. 55-64.
  • COFFMAN, Donna L. and Tammy D. GILLIGAN; (2002), “Social Supports, Stress, and Self-efficacy: Effects on Students’ Satisfaction”, College Student Retention, 4(1), pp. 53-66.
  • CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, Mihaly; (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experiences, New York: HarperPerennial.
  • DEWITZ, S. Joseph and W. Bruce WALSH; (2002), “Self-efficacy and College Student Satisfaction”, Journal of Career Assessment, 10(3), pp. 315-326.
  • DIENER, Ed; (1984), “Subjective Well-being”, Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), pp. 542-575.
  • DIENER, Ed; (1994), “Assessing Subjective Well-being: Progress and Opportunities”, Social Indicators Research, 31(2), pp. 103-157.
  • DIENER, Ed; (2000), “Subjective Well-being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index”, American Psychologist, 55, pp. 34-43.
  • DIENER, Ed; Robert A. EMMONS; Randy J. LARSEN and Sharon GRIFFIN; (1985), “The Satisfaction with Life Scale”, Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), pp. 71-75.
  • DURAK, Mithat; Emre SENOL-DURAK and Tulin GENCOZ; (2010), “Psychometric Properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale among Turkish University Students, Correctional Officers, and Elderly Adults”, Social Indicators Research, 99, pp. 413-429.
  • FREDRICKS, Jennifer A.; Phyllis C. BLUMENFELD and Alison H. PARIS; (2004). “School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence”, Review of Educational Research, 74(1), pp. 59-109.
  • HAIR, Joseph F.; G. Thomas M. HULT; Christian M. RINGLE and Marko SARSTEDT; (2017), A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • HU, Li-tze and Peter M. BENTLER; (1999), “Cutoff Criterion for Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), pp. 1-55.
  • JERUSALEM, Matthias and Ralf SCHWARZER; (1992), “Self-efficacy as a Resource Factor in Stress Appraisal Process”, Ralf Schwarzer (Ed.). Self-Efficacy: Thought Control of Action In (pp. 195-213). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
  • KAHN, William A.; (1990), “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work”, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692-724.
  • KUH, George D.; Ty M. CRUCE; Rick SHOUP; Jillian KINZIE and Robert M. GONYEA; (2008), “Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-year College Grades and Persistence”, The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), pp. 540-563.
  • LEWIS, Ashley D.; E. Scott HUEBNER; Patrick S. MALONE and Robert F. VALOIS; (2011), “Life Satisfaction and Student Engagement in Adolescents”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, pp. 249-262.
  • O’SULLIVAN, Geraldine; (2011), “The Relationship Between Hope, Eustress, Self-efficacy, and life satisfaction amog Undergraduates”, Social Indicators Research, 101, pp. 155-172.
  • PIETARINEN, Janne; Tiina SOINI and Kirsi PYHALTO; (2014), “Students’ Emotional and Cognitive Engagement as the Determinants of Well-being and Achievement in School”, International Journal of Educational Research, 67, pp. 40-51.
  • PILCHER, June J.; (1998), “Affective and Daily Event Predictors of Life Satisfaction in College Students”, Social Indicators Research, 43, pp. 291-306.
  • PREACHER, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. HAYES; (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), pp. 879-891.
  • PROCTOR, Carmel L.; P. Alex LINLEY and John MALTBY; (2009), “Youth Life Satisfaction: A Review of the Literature”, Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, pp. 583-630.
  • SALMELA-ARO, Katariina and Katja UPADYAYA; (2014), “School Burnout and Engagement in the Context of Demands-Resources Model”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, pp. 137-151.
  • SCHAUFELI, Wilmar B.; Arnold B. BAKKER and Marisa SALANOVA; (2006), “The Measurement of Work Engagement with a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-national Study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), pp. 701-716.
  • SCHAUFELI, Wilmar B.; Isabel M. MARTINEZ; Alexandra M. PINTO; Marisa SALANOVA and Arnold B. BAKKER; (2002), “Burnout and Engagement in University Students: A Cross-national Study”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), pp. 464-481.
  • SCHAUFELI, Wilmar B. and Marisa SALANOVA; (2007), “Efficacy or Inefficacy, That's the Question: Burnout and Work Engagement, and Their Relationships with Efficacy Beliefs”, Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20(2), pp. 177-196.
  • SCHAUFELI, Wilmar B.; Marisa SALANOVA; Vicente GONZALEZ-ROMA and Arnold B. BAKKER; (2002). “The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92.
  • SCHAUFELI, Wilmar B.; Akihito SHIMAZU; Jari HAKANEN; Marisa SALANOVA and Hans DE WITTE; (2017), “An Ultra-Short Measure for Work Engagement: The UWES-3 Validation Across Five Countries”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000430.
  • SELIGMAN, Martin E. P. and Mihaly CSIKSZENTMIHALYI; (2000), “Positive Psychology: An Introduction”, American Psychologist, 55(1), pp. 5-14.
  • SHERNOFF, David J.; Mihaly CSIKSZENTMIHALYI; Barbara SCHNEIDER and Elisa S. SHERNOFF; (2014), “Student Engagement in High School Classrooms from the Perspective of Flow Theory”, Mihaly CSIKSZENTMIHALYI (Ed.). Applications of Flow in Human Development and Education In (pp. 475-494). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • SHROUT, Patrick E. and Niall BOLGER; (2002), “Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations”, Psychological Methods, 7(4), pp. 422-445.
  • SKINNER, Ellen A. and Jennifer R. PITZER; (2012), “Developmental Dynamics of Student Engagement, Coping, and Everyday Resilience”, Sandra L. CHRISTENSON; Amy L. RESCHLY and Cathy WYLIE (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement In (pp. 21-44). New York: Springer.
  • SULDO, Shannon M. and E. Scott HUEBNER; (2006), “Is Extremely High Life Satisfaction During Adolescence Advantageous”, Social Indicators Resarch, 78, pp. 179-203.
  • VEENHOVEN, Ruut; (1996), “Developments in Satisfaction Research”, Social Indicators Research, 37, pp. 1-46.
  • WEFALD, Andrew J. and Ronald G. DOWNEY; (2009), “Construct Dimensionality of Engagement and its Relation with Satisfaction”, The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), pp. 91-111.
  • XIAO, Jing J.; Chuanyi TANG and Soyeon SHIM; (2009), “Acting for Happiness: Financial Behavior and Life Satisfaction of College Students”, Social Indicators Research, 92, pp. 53-68.
  • YEŞİLAY, Ayşin; (1996), “Genelleştirilmiş Özyetki Beklentisi Ölçeği”, Erişim adresi: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/turk.htm, Erişim tarihi: 20.11.2018.
  • ZIMMERMAN, Barry J.; (2000), “Self-efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, pp. 82-91.
There are 46 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Onur Köksal 0000-0001-7703-1807

Murat Güler 0000-0001-7370-2976

Fatih Çetin 0000-0002-2487-9553

Publication Date December 31, 2019
Acceptance Date May 24, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Issue: 54

Cite

APA Köksal, O., Güler, M., & Çetin, F. (2019). Öz-yeterlilik algısı, yaşam doyumu ve bir role tutulma etkileşimi: Sosyal bilişsel bir yaklaşım. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(54), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.550754

Cited By










Ethical Principles and Ethical Guidelines

The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences places great emphasis on publication ethics, which serve as a foundation for the impartial and reputable advancement of scientific knowledge. In this context, the journal adopts a publishing approach aligned with the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to preventing potential malpractice. The following ethical responsibilities, established based on COPE’s principles, are expected to be upheld by all stakeholders involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors).

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
Make decisions on submissions based on the quality and originality of the work, its alignment with the journal's aims and scope, and the reviewers’ evaluations, regardless of the authors' religion, language, race, ethnicity, political views, or gender.
Respond to information requests from readers, authors, and reviewers regarding the publication and evaluation processes.
Conduct all processes without compromising ethical standards and intellectual property rights.
Support freedom of thought and protect human and animal rights.
Ensure the peer review process adheres to the principle of double-blind peer review.
Take full responsibility for accepting, rejecting, or requesting changes to a manuscript and ensure that conflicts of interest among stakeholders do not influence these decisions.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
Submitted works must be original. When utilizing other works, proper and complete citations and/or references must be provided.
A manuscript must not be under review by another journal simultaneously.
Individuals who have not contributed to the experimental design, implementation, data analysis, or interpretation should not be listed as authors.
If requested during the review process, datasets used in the manuscript must be provided to the editorial board.
If a significant error or mistake is discovered in the manuscript, the journal’s editorial office must be notified.
For studies requiring ethical committee approval, the relevant document must be submitted to the journal. Details regarding the ethical approval (name of the ethics committee, approval document number, and date) must be included in the manuscript.
Changes to authorship (e.g., adding or removing authors, altering the order of authors) cannot be proposed after the review process has commenced.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Accept review assignments only in areas where they have sufficient expertise.
Agree to review manuscripts in a timely and unbiased manner.
Ensure confidentiality of the reviewed manuscript and not disclose any information about it, during or after the review process, beyond what is already published.
Refrain from using information obtained during the review process for personal or third-party benefit.
Notify the journal editor if plagiarism or other ethical violations are suspected in the manuscript.
Conduct reviews objectively and avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
Use polite and constructive language during the review process and avoid personal comments.
Publication Policy
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is a free, open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal that has been in publication since 1981. The journal welcomes submissions in Turkish and English within the fields of economics, business administration, public finance, political science, public administration, and international relations.

No submission or publication fees are charged by the journal.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process and similarity/plagiarism checks via iThenticate.
Submissions must be original and not previously published, accepted for publication, or under review elsewhere.
Articles published in the journal can be cited under the Open Access Policy and Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is given.
The journal is published three times a year, in April, August, and December. It includes original, high-quality, and scientifically supported research articles and reviews in its listed fields. Academic studies unrelated to these disciplines or their theoretical and empirical foundations are not accepted. The journal's languages are Turkish and English.

Submissions are first subject to a preliminary review for format and content. Manuscripts not meeting the journal's standards are rejected by the editorial board. Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to the peer review stage.

Each submission is sent to at least two expert reviewers. If both reviews are favorable, the article is approved for publication. In cases where one review is positive and the other negative, the editorial board decides based on the reviews or may send the manuscript to a third reviewer.

Articles published in the journal are open access and can be cited under the Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is made.