Ahlak, Sosyal Etkileşim ve Siberpsikoloji: Yönetici Paradoksu

Yıl 2024, , 127 - 154, 30.06.2024

Meral Doğanay

https://doi.org/10.31679/adamakademi.1330399

Öz

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, ahlak, sosyal etkileşim ve siberpsikoloji arasındaki ilişkiye yönelik yönetici algılarının belirlenmesidir. Bu kapsamda, araştırmaya yönelik hazırlanan anket formu 03/01/2022-14/02/2022 tarihleri arasında İzmir ilinde 6 ilçede uygulanmıştır. 44 kadın ve 148 erkek olmak üzere 192 (n=192) yönetici araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir. Yöneticilerin ahlak ve siberpsikoloji önem algısının yüksek düzeyde olduğu belirlenmiştir. Faktör analizi bulguları sonucunda cinsiyet açısından siberpsikoloji; etkisel-tepkisel, mekanik-dinamik etkileşim, motivasyonel durumsallık ve düşünümsel yaklaşım faktörleri boyutuyla farklılık gösterdiği, eğitim ve medeni durum değişkenleri açısından ahlak; yönetsel tutumsal belirleyicilik, sosyal etkileşim; sonuçsal yönelim, siberpsikoloji; etkisel-tepkisel, mekanik-dinamik etkileşim, motivasyonel durumsallık ve düşünümsel yaklaşım faktörleri boyutlarında farklılık gösterdiği, yaş değişkeni açısından farklılık bulunmadığı görülmüştür. Lisansüstü eğitim almış olan katılımcıların faktörlere daha fazla önem verdiği bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Siberpsikolojinin yöneticileri etkisel-tepkisel, mekanik-dinamik etkileşim, motivasyonel durumsallık ve düşünümsel yaklaşım boyutlarında negatif yönde etkilediği, ahlak, sosyal etkileşim ve siberpsikoloji değişkenleri arasında ise pozitif yönde doğrusal bir ilişki bulunduğu saptanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yönetim, Ahlak, Sosyal Etkileşim, Siber Psikoloji

Ethics, Social Interaction and Cyberpsychology: Directors’ Paradox

Öz

The main aim of this study is to determine the directors’ senses towards the relation among ethics, social interaction and cyber psychology. Within this scope, the survey form prepared towards this research is applied around six towns of İzmir province between 03/01/2022 -14/02/2022. 192 (n=192) directors about 44 female and 148 men are included in the study. The sense of directors’ ethics and cyber psychology importance is determined to be at high level. As a result of factor analysis findings, cyber psychology from the point of gender; varies in dimension of affective- reactional, mechanic-dynamic interaction, motivational contingency and reflexive approach factors, ethics in terms of education and marital status variables; varies in dimension of executive attitudinal determinism, social interaction, cyberpsychology; varies in dimension of effective- reactional, mechanic-dynamic interaction, motivational contingency and reflexive approach factors, it has been observed that there is no differences in terms of age variables. The finding has been reached that graduate participants put more emphasis on the factors. It has been determined that cyberpsychology influences directors negatively in dimension of affective- reactional, mechanic-dynamic interaction, motivational contingency and reflexive approach and there is a positive linear relationship among ethics, social interaction and cyberpsychology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Direction, Ethics, Social Interaction, Cyber Psychology

Kaynakça

• Adler, A. (1979). Superiority and Social Interest: A Collection of Later Writings.
• Adler, A. 1870-1937 (1964-12-30). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler: A Systematic Presentation in Selections from His Writings (First ed.). New York.
• Allafchi, N. (2017). Effect of Democratic leadership Style on Management of Communication with Customers in Melli Banks. International Journal of Cultural and Social Studies, 3(2).
• Amichai-Hamburger, Y.i & Etgar, S. (2019). Personality and Internet use: The case of introversion and extroversion. In A. Attrill-Smith, C. Fullwood, M. Keep, & D. J. Kuss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cyberpsychology (pp. 57–73). Oxford University Press.
• Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., ... & Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: a meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 136(2), 151.
• Attrill, A. (2015). Cyberpsychology. Oxford University Press, USA. Baumert, A., Halmburger, A., & Schmitt, M. (2013). Interventions against norm violations: Dispositional determinants of self-reported and real moral courage. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 39(8), 1053-1068.
• Beard, M. (2014). Laughter in ancient Rome: On joking, tickling, and cracking up. Oakland, CA: University of California Press
• Ben-Ner, A., Kong, F., & Putterman, L. (2004). Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 581–589
• Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
• Berglas, S. (2011). Donald Trump: A Man With An Inferiority Complex? Detailing how leaders foster and disrupt workers’ self-esteem. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenberglas
• Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Bruner, J. S., & Minturn, A. L. (1955). Perceptual identification and perceptual organization. The Journal of General Psychology, 53(1), 21-28. ihttps://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1955.9710133
• Castells, M. (2002). Local and global: Cities in the network society. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 93(5), 548-558.
• Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & De Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in human behavior, 26(2), 247-253.
• Gattiker, U. E., & Kelley, H. (1999). Morality and computers: Attitudes and differences in moral judgments. Information systems research, 10(3), 233-254.
• Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of “dark personalities”(narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice. Journal of research in personality, 43(4), 686-690.
• John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy. In O. P.
• John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
• Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kamensky, E. G. (2016). Cyberphysical Society: Agency. Values. Communication. Proceedings of the South-West State University. Series: The Economy. Sociology. Management, 4, 224-233. (in Russ.).
• Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals. Ed and Trans Mory Gregor originally published: 1979 Newyork, NY:Combridge Üniversty Press.
• Kant, I. (1986). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, İ. Kant’ın Felsefesi, Çev. T. Mengüşoğlu, İstanbul
• Kant, I. (1984). Ahlak Metafiziğini Temellendirme (Çev. N. Bozkurt). İstanbul: Remzi Yayınevi.
• Keefer, P. (2004). A review of the political economy of governance : from property rights to voice . World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. Washington, DC: The World Bank Development Research Group.
• Kimmel, A. J. (1979). Ethics and human subjects research: A delicate balance. American Psychologist, 34(7), 633–635. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.7.633
• Kinnunen, S. P., Lindeman, M. & Verkasalo, M. (2016). Help-giving and moral courage on the Internet. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4), article 6. DOI: 10.5817/CP2016-4-6
• Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B. M., & McGue, M. (2001). Altruism and antisocial behavior: Independent tendencies, unique personality correlates, distinct etiologies. Psychological Science, 12(5), 397-402.
• Magnusson, D. (1985). Implications of an interactional paradigm for research on human development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8(2), 115-137.
• Myers, W. C., Burket, R. C., & Husted, D. S. (2006). Sadistic personality disorder and comorbid mental illness in adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 34(1), 61-71.
• Ozturk, E. (2020). Cyber societies and cyber lives: digital communication networks as a dissociogenic agent. Cyber Psychology. Ankara: Turkish Clinics, 1-13.
• Parsons, T. D. (2019). Ethical challenges in digital psychology and cyberpsychology. Cambridge University Press.
• Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R.
• Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 221–241). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Stel, M., Van Baaren, R. B., & Vonk, R. (2008). Effects of mimicking: Acting prosocially by being emotionally moved. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 965–976.
• Wang, C. C., & Wang, C. H. (2008). Helping others in online games: Prosocial behavior in cyberspace. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 344–346.
• Whitty, M. T. & Young, G. (2016). Cyberpsychology: The study of individuals, society and digital technologies. John Wiley & Sons.
• Wright, M. F., & Li, Y. (2011). The associations between young adults’ face-to-face prosocial behaviors and their online prosocial behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1959-1962.