KİBARCA ANLATIR MISIN? REKLAM DİLİ VE REKLAMA KARŞI TUTUM ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Abstract

Reklamların kullandığı dil, bize o ürünü sevdiriyor, satın almamızı sağlıyor mu? Bizi o ürünü alırken risk de almaya teşvik ediyor mu? Bu soruları yanıtlamak için bu çalışmada yer alan kibarlık teorisi reklam mesajlarına uygulanmış ve reklam tutumları ölçülmüştür. Yapılan beş çalışmada reklamda kullanılan kibar dilin, kontrol reklama kıyasla daha olumlu reklam ve ürün tutumuna yol açtığı görülmektedir. Kibar dil, reklamdaki negatif, zorlayıcı bir dil kullanımından dolayı oluşan reklama ve ürüne karşı olan direnci kırmış, daha pozitif tutum olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Kibar dilin daha doğru, inanılır, daha kolay anlaşılır şekilde tutuma yol açtığı ve algılanan ürün riskini azaltmış olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Reklam mesajının kibar dil ile kırılan direnç karşısında katılımcılar tarafından daha iyi gözlemlendiği, dolayısıyla reklama karşı tutum geliştirmeden önce dikkatin ürüne ve ürünün vermek istediği mesaja çekildiği görülmüştür

Keywords

• Kibarlık teorisi,reklam,reklam tutumu,algılanan risk

CAN YOU SAY IT POLITELY? A RESEARCH ON ADVERTISING LANGUAGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS ADVERTISING

Abstract

Does the language used in advertisements make us both like and buy the product? Does it make us take risks to buy the product? To answer these questions, this study measures politeness theory on advertisements and advertising attitudes. Five studies showed that a polite language usage creates more positive attitude towards the advertisement, as well as attitude towards the product. A polite tone sets the resistance towards coercive and negative language and revealed a more positive attitude. It is observed that a polite tone is believed to be more trustworthy, easier to understand, and reduced the perceived risk of the product that is to be bought. Due to the polite language, participants could observe the advertisement better while focus is increased on the product and the message of the product wants to send

Keywords

• Politeness theory,advertising,attitude towards advertising,perceived risk

References

1. Aysever, L. (2001). Bir Şey Anlat(maya çalış)mak H. Paul Grice’a Eleştirel bir Bakış. Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2).
2. Bauer, R. A. (1967). Consumer Behavior and Risk Taking in Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, Edited by: Donald F. Cox, Harvard University Press, USA.
3. Bolatito, O. (2012). Linkage between Persuasion Principles and Advertising. New Media and Mass Communication, 8, 7-12.
4. Brown, P. ve Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.
5. Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt: The role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 361-368.
6. Dağabakan, F., Ö. (2016). 1 Kasım 2015 Türkiye Erken Genel Seçiminde Kadın ve Erkek Milletvekili Adaylarının Söylemlerine Toplumdilbilimsel Bir Yaklaşım. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 8(2), 57-79.
7. Danciu, V. (2014). Manipulative Marketing: Persuasion and Manipulation of the Consumer through Advertising. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 21(2 (591)): 19-34.
8. Del Saz-Rubio, M. M., ve Pennock-Speck, B. (2009). Constructing Female Identities through Feminine Hygiene TV Commercials. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12): 2535-2556.

9. Dipayan, B., Abhijit, B., ve Neel, D. (2006). The Differential Effects of Celebrity and Expert Endorsements on Consumer Risk Perceptions. Journal of Advertising, 35(2): 17-31.
10. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in. Butler, Bodies that Matter.
11. Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J. ve Marmorstein, H. (1994). The Moderating Effects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on the Price-Perceived Risk Relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1): 145-153.
12. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. 1975, 41-58.
13. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling.
14. Holtgraves, T. ve Yang, J. N. (1992). Interpersonal Underpinnings of Request Strategies: General Principles and Differences Due to Culture and Gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2): 246.
15. Jacoby, J., ve Kaplan, L. B. (1972). The components of perceived risk. ACR Special Volumes.
16. Jenkins, M. ve Dragojevic, M. (2013). Explaining the Process of Resistance to Persuasion: A Politeness Theory-Based Approach. Communication Research, 40(4): 559-590.
17. Kiyama, S., Tamaoka, K. ve Takiura, M. (2012). Applicability of Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory to a Non-Western Culture: Evidence from Japanese Facework Behaviors. SAGE Open, 2(4), 2158244012470116.
18. Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E. ve Flynn, L. R. (2005). Are Innovators Influenced by Endorser Expertise in An Advertisement When Evaluating a High Technology Product?. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13(3): 32-48.
19. MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J. ve Belch, G. E. (1986). The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations. Journal of Marketing research, 130-143.
20. Oglethorpe, J. E. ve Monroe, K. B. (1987). Risk Perception and Risk Acceptability in Consumer Behavior: Conceptual Issues and An Agenda for Future Research. In AMA Winter Marketers Educators’ Conference (pp. 255-260).
21. 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.
22. Roloff, M. E. ve Miller, G. R. (1980). Persuasion: New Directions.
23. Spears, N. ve Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring Attitude Toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2): 53- 66.
24. Stephan, E., Liberman, N. ve Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and Psychological Distance: A Construal Level Perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2): 268.
25. Sundar, A. ve Paik, W. (2017). Punishing Politeness: Moderating Role of Belief in Just World on Severity. ACR North American Advances.
26. Trope, Y. ve Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological Review, 117(2): 440.
27. Varışoğlu, B. Türkçe Öğretmeni Adaylarının Konuşma Stilleri Üzerine Cinsiyete Dayalı Sosyolengüistik Bir Betimleme. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim (TEKE) Dergisi, 7(1): 343-362.
28. Vazquez-Hermosilla, S. (2012). Gender and Politeness: A Case Study on Advertising Discourse. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 3.
29. Wilson, E. J. ve Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source Effects in Communication and Persuasion Research: A Meta-Analysis of Effect Size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(2): 101.
30. Yee, C. J. ve San, N. C. (2011). Consumers’ Perceived Quality, Perceived Value and Perceived Risk Towards Purchase Decision on Automobile. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(1): 47.
31. Yücel, H. (2004). Reklamlarda Yabancı Dil Kullanımı. İLETİ-Ş-İM, 1(1).