Benlik Uyuşmazlığı Teorisinin Tüketicilerin Online Satın Alma Davranışına Yansımaları

Abstract

Tüketicilerin çevrimiçi davranışları, pazarlamanın en yeni ve en çok ilgi çeken çalışma alanları arasında yer almaktadır. Yeni dijital pazarlarda tüketici için değer yaratmak, zamana karşı sürdürülen yarış, yoğun rekabet ve düşük sadakat düzeyinde giderek daha zor bir hal almaktadır. Bu kapsamda online tüketici davranışını oluşturan örüntülerin tespit edilmesinin araştırmacılar ve uygulayıcılar için oldukça önemli olduğu düşünülmektedir. Özünde insan davranışını modelleyen tüketici davranışına Higgins’in Benlik Uyuşmazlığı Kuramı çerçevesinde yaklaşılmış ve bu durumu tetiklemek üzere bir deney tasarımı gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda çalışmaya katılan bireylerin fiziksel çekicilik algıları ve mevcut benlik algıları ile ürünlerin sunum şekillerine yönelik dikkat ve kaçınma davranışları cinsiyetler doğrultusunda araştırılmıştır. Sonuçlar bireylerin ideal benlik algılarını temsil eden unsurlara daha fazla yöneldiğini göstermektedir. İdeal ve mevcut arasındaki fark arttıkça bireylerin kaçınma davranışı teoride belirtildiği şekilde artmaktadır. Gruplar arasındaki en yüksek kaçınma eğilimi, istediği kilonun üzerinde olan katılımcılara aittir. Bununla beraber cinsiyetin herhangi bir etkisi tespit edilememiştir.

Keywords

• Tüketici davranışı
• online satın alma
• göz izleme

The Reflections of Self- Discrepancy Theory on Online Consumer Behavior

Abstract

One of the newest and most interesting areas in marketing is online consumer behavior. Value creating for consumers in the new digital market is becoming progressively tough due to time pressure, low loyalty and as such the level of vigorous competition. In this context, it is considered that understanding the consumers’ behavior patterns is crucial for researchers and practitioners. Consumer behavior which basically reflects human behavior, was examined in the framework of Higgins’ Self Discrepancy Theory and experimental design was used to trigger its premises. According to this perspective, participants’ perception of physical attractiveness and current self-perception have been examined, and the stimuli’ engagement/avoidance behaviors have been ascertained. It was also examined whether the results differed by gender. Results reveal that individuals tend more towards self-representing stimuli. As the difference between ideal and actual increases, the avoidance behaviours of individuals increase in parallel with the theory. The group with the highest avoidance tendency among the groups is the participants who are above the desired weight. Once and for all, no effect of gender has been detected.

Keywords

• Consumer behavior
• online buying behavior
• eye tracking

References

1. Abelson, R. P. (1983). Whatever Became Of Consistency Theory?. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(1), 37-54.
2. Allport, G. W. (1943). The Ego In Contemporary Psychology, Psychological Review, 50(5), 451-478.
3. Alreck, P. L. ve Settle, R. B. (2002). The Hurried Consumer: Time-Saving Perceptions Of Internet And Catalogue Shopping. Journal Of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 10(1), 25-35.
4. Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, I. I., Lim, V. K., ve Felps, W. (2009). Testing A Social-Cognitive Model Of Moral Behavior: The Interactive Influence Of Situations And Moral Identity Centrality. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology. 97(1), 123.
5. Arnold, M. J. ve Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic Shopping Motivations. Journal Of Retailing, 79(2), 77-95
6. Asraar Ahmed, K. A. (2015). Utılıtarıan And Hedonıc Motives Of Universıty Students In Their Online Shopping-A Gender Based Examınatıon. Global Management Review, 9(4).
7. Aytekin, P. Ve Ay, C. (2015). Hedonik Tüketim ve Anlık Satın Alma İlişkisi. Academic Review Of Economics & Administrative Sciences, 8(1).
8. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value. Journal Of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656.

9. Batra, R., Ahtola, O.T., 1991. Measuring The Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Customer Attitudes. Marketing Letters 12 (2), 159–170.
10. Cervone, D. ve Pervin, L. A. (2008). Personality: Theory and Research (10. basım). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
11. Chandon P. Hutchinson W. Bradlow E. Young S. (2007). Measuring The Value Of Point Of Purchase Marketing With Commercial Eye Tracking Data. Working Paper Alliance Center For Global Research And Development, Wharton.
12. Cholewa-Wójcik, A. ve Kawecka, A. (2015). “The Influence of Effectiveness of Packaging Elements on the Consumers’ Preferences with the Use of Marketing EyeTracking Technique”. Modern Management Review, 20(22), 49-61.
13. Davis, R., Lang, B., ve San Diego, J. (2014). How Gender Affects The Relationship Between Hedonic Shopping Motivation and Purchase Intentions?. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(1), 18-30.
14. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory Of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
15. Fiedler, S. ve Glöckner, A. (2012). “The Dynamics of Decision Making in Risky Choice: An Eye-Tracking Analysis”. Frontiers in Psychology, Sayı: 3, Sayfa: 335- 339.
16. Fiore, A. M., Jin, H. J. ve Kim, J. (2005). For Fun And Profit: Hedonic Value From Image Interactivity And Responses Toward An Online Store. Psychology & Marketing, 22(8), 669-694.
17. Freud, A. (1948). The Ego And The Mechanisms Of Defense, Çeviren: Cecil Baines, Hogarth Press, London.
18. Geller, L. (1982). The Failure Of Self-Actualization Theory: A Critique Of Carl Rogers And Abraham Maslow, Journal Of Humanistic Psychology, 22(2), 56-73.
19. Goldberg, J. ve Helfman, J. (2011). “Eye Tracking for Visualization Evaluation: Reading Values on Linear Versus Radial Graphs”, Information Visualization, Sayı: 10, No: 3, Sayfa:182-195.
20. Guitart, I. A., Hervet, G. ve Hildebrand, D. (2018). “Using Eye-Tracking to Understand the Impact of Multitasking on Memory for Banner Ads: the Role of Attention to the Ad.”, International Journal of Advertising, Sayfa: 1–17.
21. Hasan, B. (2010). Exploring Gender Differences In Online Shopping Attitude. Computers In Human Behavior, 26(4), 597-601.
22. Hati, S. W. (2019, December). Impact Of Utilitarian And Hedonic Online Shopping Value On Woman Customer Perceived Value In Site Lazada. 1st International Conference on Applied Economics and Social Science (ICAESS 2019). Atlantis Press.
23. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self And Affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340.
24. Huang, W. Y., Schrank, H. Ve Dubinsky, A. J. (2004). Effect Of Brand Name On Consumers’ Risk Perceptions Of Online Shopping. Journal Of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 4(1), 40-50.
25. James, W. (1950), The Principles Of Psychology, Birinci Basım, Dover Publications. (Orijinal: 1890 Macmillan And Co, Londra).
26. Jen-Hung, H., ve Yi-Chun, Y. (2010). Gender Differences in Adolescents’ Online Shopping Motivations. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6), 849-857.
27. Jung, C. G. (1960). Psychology and religion. Yale University Press.
28. Kim, J., Seo, J. ve Laine, T. H. (2018). Detecting Boredom From Eye Gaze And EEG, Biomedical Signal Processing And Control, 46, 302-313.
29. Kimble, M. O., Fleming, K., Bandy, C., Kim, J., ve Zambetti, A. (2010). Eye tracking and visual attention to threating stimuli in veterans of the Iraq war. Journal of anxiety disorders, 24(3), 293-299.
30. Ko, H., Jung, J., Kim, J. ve Shim, S. W. (2004). Cross-Cultural Differences In Perceived Risk Of Online Shopping, Journal Of Interactive Advertising, 4(2), 20-29.
31. Lee, G. G. ve Lin, H. F. (2005). Customer Perceptions Of E-Service Quality In Online Shopping, International Journal Of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(2), 161-176.
32. Lee, M. Y., Kim, Y. K., ve Lee, H. J. (2013). Adventure versus gratification: Emotional shopping in online auctions. European Journal of Marketing, 47/1-2, 49-70.
33. Lim, Y. J., Osman, A., Salahuddin, S. N., Romle, A. R. ve Abdullah, S. (2016). Factors Influencing Online Shopping Behavior: The Mediating Role Of Purchase Intention. Procedia Economics And Finance, 35, 401-410.
34. Lindstrom, M. (2009). Buy-ology, Çeviren: Ümit Şensoy, Optimist Yayınevi, İstanbul.
35. Macatee, R. J., Albanese, B. J., Schmidt, N. B. ve Cougle, J. R. (2017). Attention Bias Towards Negative Emotional Information And Its Relationship With Daily Worry In The Context Of Acute Stress: An Eye-Tracking Study, Behaviour Research And Therapy, 90, 96-110.
36. Markus, H. ve Wurf, E. (1987). The Dynamic Self-Concept: A Social Psychological Perspective, Annual Review Of Psychology, 38(1), 299-337.
37. Maughan, L., Gutnikov, S. ve Stevens, R. (2007). Like More, Look More. Look More, Like More: The Evidence From Eye-Tracking. Journal Of Brand Management, 14(4), 335-342.
38. Mcguire, W. J. (1968) Personality And Attitude Change: An Information-Processing Theory. Psychological Foundations Of Attitudes, 171, 196.
39. Menon, R. V., Sigurdsson, V., Larsen, N. M., Fagerstrøm, A. ve Foxall, G. R. (2016). “Consumer Attention to Price in Social Commerce: Eye Tracking Patterns in Retail Clothing”, Journal of Business Research, Sayı: 69, No: 11, Sayfa: 5008- 5013.
40. Miller, B. W. (2015). Using Reading Times And Eye-Movements To Measure Cognitive Engagement, Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 31-42.
41. Milosavljevic, M., Navalpakkam, V., Koch, C., & Rangel, A. (2012). Relative visual saliency differences induce sizable bias in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 67-74.
42. Miyatake, K., Nemoto, T., Nakaharai, S. ve Hayashi, K. (2016). Reduction In Consumers’ Purchasing Cost By Online Shopping, Transportation Research Procedia, 12, 656-666.
43. Miyazaki, A. D. ve Fernandez, A. (2001). Consumer Perceptions Of Privacy And Security Risks For Online Shopping. Journal Of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 27-44.
44. Newcomb, T. M. (1968). Interpersonal Balance, Theories Of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook, 28-51. Rand McNally, Chicago.
45. Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, T. D., & Barrett, N. J. (2007). Hedonic shopping motivations, supermarket attributes, and shopper loyalty in transitional markets. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 19/3, 227-239.
46. Otnes, C., ve McGrath, M. A. (2001). Perceptions and Realities of Male Shopping Behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 111– 137.
47. Özdemir, Ş., & Yaman, F. (2007). Hedonik alışverişin cinsiyete göre farklılaşması üzerine bir araştırma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 2(2), 81-91.
48. Rogers, C. R., (1961). On Becoming A Person: A Therapist’s View Of Psychotheraphy, Houghton- Mifflin, Boston.
49. Rohm, A. J. ve Swaminathan, V. (2004). A Typology Of Online Shoppers Based On Shopping Motivations. Journal Of Business Research, 57(7), 748-757.
50. Roscoe, J.T. (1975) Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd edition. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
51. Roy, A., 1994. Correlates of mall visit frequency. Journal of Retailing, 70 (2), 139–161.
52. Sangwan, S., Siguaw, J. A., ve Guan, C. (2009). A Comparative Study of Motivational Differences For Online Shopping. Advances in Information Systems, 40(4), 28-42.
53. Santos, R. D. O. J., De Oliveira, J. H. C., Rocha, J. B. ve Giraldi, J. D. M. E. (2015). Eye Tracking In Neuromarketing: A Research Agenda For Marketing Studies, International Journal Of Psychological Studies, 7(1), 32.
54. Sarbin, T. R. (1952). A Preface To A Psychological Analysis Of The Self, Psychological Review, 59(1), 11.
55. Saydan, R. (2008). Tüketicilerin Online Alışverişe Yönelik Risk Ve Fayda Algılamaları: Geleneksel Ve Online Tüketicilerin Karşılaştırılması, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(23), 386-402.
56. Scarpi, D., Pizzi, G. ve Visentin, M. (2014). Shopping For Fun Or Shopping To Buy: Is It Different Online And Offline?, Journal Of Retailing And Consumer Services, 21(3), 258-267.
57. Sekaran, U. “Research Methods For Business: A Skill Building Approach”, 4. Basım John Willey & Sons, New York 1992.
58. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J. ve Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-Concept: Validation Of Construct Interpretations, Review Of Educational Research, 46(3), 407-441.
59. Solomon, M. (2002). Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having. And Being. 5. Basım Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NewYork.
60. Sramova, B., ve Pavelka, J. (2019). Gender Differences and Wellbeing Values in Adolescent Online Shopping. International Journal Of Retail & Distribution Management, 47(6), 623-642.
61. Stevens, E. N., Lovejoy, M. C. ve Pittman, L. D. (2014). Understanding The Relationship Between Actual: Ideal Discrepancies And Depressive Symptoms: A Developmental Examination. Journal Of Adolescence, 37(5), 612-621.
62. Strauman, T. J. ve Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self‐Discrepancies As Predictors Of Vulnerability To Distinct Syndromes Of Chronic Emotional Distress. Journal Of Personality, 56(4), 685-707.
63. Sullivan, H. W., Boudewyns, V., O’Donoghue, A., Marshall, S. ve Williams, P. A. (2017). Attention To And Distraction From Risk Information In Prescription Drug Advertising: An Eye-Tracking Study, Journal Of Public Policy & Marketing, 36(2), 236-245.
64. Swann, W.B., Jr. ve Read, S.J. (1981). Self-Verification Processes: How We Sustain Our Self-Conceptions, Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 351- 372.
65. Thakur, R. ve Srivastava, M. (2015). A Study On The Impact Of Consumer Risk Perception And Innovativeness On Online Shopping In India, International Journal Of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(2), 148-166.
66. To, P. L., Liao, C. ve Lin, T. H. (2007). Shopping motivations on Internet: A study based on utilitarian and hedonic value. Technovation, 27(12), 774-787.
67. Urban, E. (2005). Fordham, Jung And The Self: A Re-Examination Of Fordham’s Contribution To Jung’s Conceptualization Of The Self, Journal Of Analytical Psychology, 50(5), 571-594.
68. Ünal, S. ve Ceylan, C. (2008). Tüketicileri Hedonik Alışverişe Yönelten Nedenler: İstanbul Ve Erzurum İllerinde Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştırma, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 22(2), 265-283
69. Vila J. ve Gomez Y., (2015). “Extracting Business Information from Graphs: An Eye-Tracking Experiment”, Journal of Business Research, Sayı: 69, Sayfa: 1741- 1746.
70. Wakefield, K.L., Baker, J., 1998. Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping response. Journal of Retailing, 74 (3), 515–540.
71. Wang, E. S. T. (2010). Internet usage purposes and gender differences in the effects of perceived utilitarian and hedonic value. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(2), 179-183.
72. Weiten, W. ve Etaugh, C. (1974). Lateral Eye-Movement As A Function Of Cognitive Mode, Question Sequence, And Sex Of Subject. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38(2), 439-444.
73. Wolfinbarger, M. Ve Gilly, M. C. (2001). Shopping Online For Freedom, Control, And Fun, California Management Review, 43(2), 34-55.
74. Wook Chae, S. ve Chang Lee, K. (2013). “Exploring the Effect of the Human Brand on Consumers’ Decision Quality in Online Shopping: An Eye-Tracking Approach”, Online Information Review, Sayı: 37, No: 1, Sayfa: 83-100.
75. Yılmaz, H. A. (2016). Bir Derleme: Benlik Kavramına İlişkin Bazı Yaklaşımlar Ve Tanımlamalar, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (48), 79-89.
76. Yolcu, T., Gökdemir Ekici, S., Altunışık, R. ve Özkaynar, K. (2017). Online Mı? Offline Mı? Tüketici Tercihlerini Etkileyen Faktörlerin İncelenmesi, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat Ve İşletme Dergisi, 13(5), 1027-1033.
77. Yoon, V. Y., Hostler, R. E., Guo, Z. ve Guimaraes, T. (2013). Assessing The Moderating Effect Of Consumer Product Knowledge And Online Shopping Experience On Using Recommendation Agents For Customer Loyalty, Decision Support Systems, 55(4), 883-893.
78. Zagermann, J., Pfeil, U. ve Reiterer, H. (2016). Measuring Cognitive Load Using Eye Tracking Technology In Visual Computing, 6. BELIV’16 Beyond Time And Errors On Novel Evaluation Methods For Visualization Workshop Bildiri Kitabı, 78-85.