Kamuların Durumsal Kuramı ile Segmentasyon: Türkiye Meme Kanseri Kamuları Örneği

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki meme kanseri kamularını, iletişim davranışlarına göre segmente etmeyi
amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaca ek olarak çalışma, iletişim davranışını etkileme olasılığı olan, nedene dayalı
davranışları da tespit etmeyi hedeflemektedir. Araştırma modeli olarak Kamuların Durumsal Kuramı
(KDK) ve Neden Dayalı Eylem Teorisi’ne (NDET) dayanan bu çalışma, kadın katılımcıların meme
kanserine yönelik tutumlarının, niyetlerinin ve öznel normlarının onların aktif iletişim davranışlarını
nasıl etkilediğini analiz etmektedir. Metodolojik olarak, Türkiye’deki meme kanseri kamularının
iletişimsel davranışını ölçmek için bir anket uygulaması gerçekleştirilmiş, gerçekleştirilen uygulama
sonucunda 500 geçerli ve eksiksiz anket verisi elde edilmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen kümeleme analizi
sonuçlarına göre, Türkiye’de var olan üç meme kanseri türü tespit edilmiştir: Kayıtsız kamular (n =
191), Bilinçli kamular (n = 144) ve Dengeli kamular (n = 159). Sonuç olarak, Kamuların durumsal
kuramı ile Nedene dayalı eylem teorisinin bir araya getirilmesiyle elde edilen modelin Türkiye’deki
meme kanseri toplumlarını segmentlere ayırmada geçerli bir model olduğu görülmüştür. Bu araştırma
ayrıca, öznel normların sağlık davranışının en güçlü tahminleyicisi olduğunu da göstermektedir.

Keywords

• nedene dayalı eylem teorisi
• kamu segmentasyonu
• meme kanseri
• kamuların durumsal kuramı
• sağlık iletişimi

Segmentation Using the Situational Theory of Publics: Breast Cancer Publics in Turkey

Abstract

This study aims to segment the breast cancer publics in Turkey based on their communication
behavior. In addition to this purpose, the study seeks to identify reason-based behaviors that may affect
communication behavior. Based on the Situational Theory of Publics (STP) and the Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA) as research models, this study analyses how the attitudes, intentions, and subjective norms
of female participants towards breast cancer affect their active communication behavior. In terms of
methodology, a questionnaire was carried out to measure breast cancer publics’ communicative behavior
in Turkey by eventually obtaining data for 500 valid and complete questionnaires. A cluster analysis
identified three breast cancer public types to exist in Turkey: Indifferent (n = 191), Conscientious (n =
144), and Moderate (n = 159). As a result, combining STP with TRA was found to be a valid model in
segmenting breast cancer publics in Turkey. This article further analyzed that subjective norms are the
strongest predictor of health behavior.

Keywords

• Situational theory of publics
• theory of reasoned action
• public segmentation
• breast cancer
• health communication

References

1. Ahn, J., & Kahlor, L. A. (2020). No regrets when it comes to your health: Anticipated regret, subjective norms, information insufficiency and intent to seek health information from multiple sources. Health communication, 35(10), 1295-1302.
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
3. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4. Albarq, A., & Alsughayir, A. (2013). Examining theory of reasoned action in internet banking using SEM among Saudi consumers. International journal of marketing practices, 1(1), 16-30.
5. Aldoory, L. (2001). Making health communications meaningful for women: Factors that influence involvement. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(2), 163-185.
6. Aldoory, L., Roberts, E. B., Assini-Meytin, L. C. & Bushar, J. (2016). Exploring the use of theory in a national text message campaign: Addressing problem recognition and constraint recognition for publics of pregnant women. Health Communication, 33(1), 41-48. doi:10.1080/10410.236.2016.1242034
7. Al-Swidi, A., Huque, S. M., Hafeez, M. H., & Shariff, M. N. (2014). The role of subjective norms in theory of planned behavior in the context of organic food consumption. British Food Journal, 24(8), 1561- 1580. doi:10.1080/104.102.30903265912
8. Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Laversanne, M., Brewster, D. H., Gombe-Mbalawa, C., Kohler, B., Forman, D. (2015). Cancer incidence in five continents: Inclusion criteria. International Jornal of Cancer, 137(9), 2060- 2071.

9. Chen, Z. (2020). Who becomes an online activist and why: Understanding the publics in politicized consumer activism. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101854
10. Finlay, K. A., Trafimow, D., & Jones, D. (1997). Predicting health behaviors from attitudes and subjective norms: Between‐subjects and within‐subjects analyses. , Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(22), 2015-2031.
11. Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16(3), 233–239.
12. Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. M. Fishbein içinde, Readings in attitude theory (s. 477–492). New York: Wiley.
13. Fishbein, M. (1980). Theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (s. 65-116). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
14. Fishbein, M. A., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15. Gallant, A. (2014). Communication behavior study of support in the arts using the situational theory of publics and the theory of reasoned action. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) South Florida University.
16. Gök Demir, Z. (2016). Public Segmentation In Strategic Public Relations: The Analysis Of The Situational Theory Of Publics In Turkey In The Context Of Culture, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Akdeniz University.
17. Gök Demir, Z., & Karakaya Şatır, Ç. (2018). Kamuların Durumsal Kuramı Bağlamında Stratejik Halkla İlişkilerde Kamu Segmentleri: Türkiye’deki Aktif, Uyanmış ve Gizli Kamuların Profili. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Dergisi, 6(2), 1074-1105.
18. Grunig, J. E. (1966). The role of information in economic decision making. Journalism Monographs, 3(2), 1-51.
19. Grunig, J. E. (1978). Defining publics in public relations: The case of a suburban hospital. Journalism, 55(1), 117-157.
20. Grunig, J. E. (1979). New measure of public opinion on corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 22(4), 738-764.
21. Grunig, J. E. (1983). Communication behaviors and attitudes of environmental publics: Two studies. Journalism and Communication Monographs, 81(1), 3-47
22. Grunig, J. E. (1989). Information campaigns: Managing the process of social change. T. Salmon içinde, Publics, audiences and market segments: Models of receivers of campaign messages (p. 197-226). Newbury Park: CA Sage.
23. Grunig, J. E., (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. Public relations research: An international perspective,, 48(3), 1-54.
24. Grunig, J. E. & Childers, L. (1988). Reconstruction of a situational theory of communication: ınternal and external concepts as ıdentifiers of publics for AIDS. ERIC.
25. Grunig, J. E. & Ipes, D. (1983). The anatomy of a campaign against drunk driving. Public Relations Review, 9(2), 36-52. 05.14.2017, retieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ S036.381.1183800046
26. Grunig, J. E. & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. J. Grunig içinde, Excellence in Public Relations (s. 117-157). Hillside, N. J.: Erlbaum Associates.
27. Ham, M., Jeger, M., & Frajman-Ivković, A. (2015). The role of subjective norms in forming the intention to purchase green food. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 28(1), 738-748.
28. Hamilton, P. K. (1992). Grunig’s situational theory: A replication, application, and extension. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(3), 123-149.
29. Hong, H., Park, H., & Park, J. (2012). Public segmentation and government–public relationship building: A cluster analysis of publics in the United States and 19 European Countries. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(1), 37-68.
30. IARC. (2018). World Health Organisation. Interantional Agency for Research on Cancer: 08.01.2018 retrieved from https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/20-Breast-fact-sheet.pdf
31. Kim, J. N., & Grunig, J. E. (2011). Problem-solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problemsolving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120-149.
32. Kim, J. N., Ni, L., & Sha, B. L. (2008). “Breaking down the stakeholder environment: Explicating approaches to the segmentation of publics for public relations research.”, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(4), 751-768.
33. Kim, Y. 2015). Toward an effective government–public relationship: Organization–public relationship based on a synthetic approach to public segmentation. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 456-460. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.06.020
34. Meng, J., Pan, P. L., & Reber, B. H. (2016). Identify excellent features and situational factors in public health communication. Public Relations Review, 42(2), 366-368. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.02.001
35. Nabi, R. L., & Myrick, J. G. (2019). Uplifting fear appeals: Considering the role of hope in fear-based persuasive messages. Health communication, 34(4), 463-474.
36. Nabi, R. L., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D., & Dillman-Carpentier, F. (2008). Subjective knowledge and fear appeal effectiveness: Implications for message design. Health Communication, 23(2), 191-201.
37. Park, H. S., Klein, K. A., Smith, S., & Martell, D. (2009). Separating subjective norms, university descriptive and injunctive norms, and US descriptive and injunctive norms for drinking behavior intentions. Health Communication, 24(48), 746-751.
38. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Westview Press.
39. RTMH. (2014). Republic of Turkey Ministry Of Health. Kanser İstatistikleri: 01.03.2018, retrieved from: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/kanser-anasayfaDosya/ca_istatistik/2014-RAPOR._uzun.pdf.
40. Sha, B. L. (2006). Cultural identity in the segmentation of publics: An emerging theory of intercultural public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(1), 45-65.
41. Soames-Job, R. F. (1988). Effective and ineffective use of fear in health promotion campaigns. American journal of public health, 78(2), 163-167.
42. Sriramesh, K., Moghan, S., Wei, & Kwok, D. L. (2007). The situational theory of publics in a different cultural setting: Consumer publics in Singapore. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(4), 307-332.
43. Tesser, A., Whitaker, D., Martin, L., & Ward, D. (1998). Attitude heritability, attitude change, and physiological responsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(4), 89-96.
44. Tkalac-Verčič, A. (2008). The application of Situational theory in Croatia. L. E. Toth in The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: challenges for the next generation (p. 527-545). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers.
45. Voss, J. (2009). An empirical analysis of public perception of reclaimed water applying the situational theory of publics. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) South Florida University,
46. Xifra, J. (2015). Climate change deniers and advocacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(3), 276-287. doi:10.1177/000.276.4215613403
47. Xu, L., & Chen, Y. (2016). Research on audiences’ perception and attitude towards Herbal Products: An empirical study based on the situational theory of publics and theory of reasoned action. Journal of Dialectics of Nature, 4, 55-78
48. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. . Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(2), 1-27.