New Mask for a Old Face: A Bibliometric Study on the Use of Anthropomorphism in Marketing

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 243 - 262, 31.12.2024

Çetin Çildir , Cansu Birin Atılgan

https://doi.org/10.35342/econder.1596332

Öz

The practice of anthropomorphism is a common occurrence in the domain of marketing. The attribution of human qualities to brands, whether physical or emotional, is an emotionally charged phenomenon for consumers, with significant implications. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the literature on the topic of anthropomorphism and its applications in marketing. To this end, a comprehensive search was conducted on 11/20/2024 in the Web of Science database. The search terms employed in the database search were "Anthropomorphism" and "Marketing." The selected keywords were searched by limiting all fields in the database. The search yielded 341 studies published between 2005 and 2024. Following a comprehensive examination of the data, the findings were imported into the Vosviewer bibliographic analysis program, where a series of analytical techniques were employed. The analysis revealed that the majority of studies were conducted in 2024, with 85 publications. Additionally, it was determined that the majority of studies were conducted in the United States (101 studies) and China (84 studies). The study yielded the conclusion that the most frequently utilized keywords were "anthropomorphism," "brand anthropomorphism," and "artificial intelligence." The most cited publication was a study published by Waytz et al. (2010) titled "Who Sees Human? The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism."

Anahtar Kelimeler

Anthropomorphism, Marketing, Bibliometric

Eski Yüze Yeni Maske: Pazarlamada Antropomorfizme Dair Bibliyometrik Bir Çalışma

Öz

Antropomorfizm, pazarlama alanında sıkça kullanılmaktadır. Markalara hem fiziksel olarak hem de duygusal açıdan insani vasıflar yüklenmesi, tüketiciler tarafından duygusal açıdan ilişkilendirildiği ve bununda önemli sonuçları olduğu görülmektedir. Bu nedenle, çalışmada antropomorfizm ve pazarlama kavramlarıyla ilgili yayımlanan eserlerin bibliyometrik analizi yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda 20.11.2024 tarihinde Web of Science veri tabanında detaylı araştırma yapılmıştır. Veri tabanında araştırma yapmak için kullanılan arama kelimeleri “Anthropomorphism” ve “Marketing” olarak seçilmiştir. Seçilen anahtar kelimeler veri tabanında bütün alanlar sınırlaması yapılarak aratılmıştır. Tarama sonucunda, 2005-2024 yılları arasında yayınlanan 341 çalışma verisi elde edilmiştir. Detaylı inceleme sonrası elde edilen veriler Vosviewer bibliyografik analiz programına aktarılmış ve çeşitli analizler yapılmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda, çalışmaların en fazla 85 yayın ile 2024 yılında yapıldığı görülmüştür. Ayrıca çalışmaların en çok Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (101 çalışma) ve Çin’de (84 çalışma) yapıldığı belirlenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda; en fazla kullanılan anahtar kelimelerin antropomorfizm, marka antropomorfizmi ve yapay zekâ olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Waytz vd. tarafından 2010 yılında yayınlanan “Who Sees Human? The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism” isimli çalışma en fazla atıf alan yayın olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Antropomorfizm, Pazarlama, Bibliyometrik

Kaynakça

• Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
• Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2016). Anthropomorphism. In Routledge International Handbook of Consumer Psychology (pp. 618-636). Routledge.
• Atran, S., & Medin, D. L. (2008). The native mind and the cultural construction of nature. MIT Press.
• Barrett, D. B., Kurian, G. T., & Johnson, T. M. (2001). World Christian encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168.
• Belk, R. W. (1996). Metaphoric relationships with pets. Society & Animals, 4(2), 121-145.
• Biel, A. L. (2000). Do logos really matter? Corporate Reputation Review, 3(1), 48-63.
• Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How monkeys see the world: Inside the mind of another species. University of Chicago Press.
• Çildir, Ç. & Fettahlıoğlu, S. (2024). Evcil hayvan sahipliğinden tüketim olgusuna, genişletişmiş benlik teorisi perspektifinden fenomenolojik bir bakış. Eğitim Yayınevi.
• Dirik, D., Eryılmaz, İ. ve Erhan, T. (2023). Post-truth kavramı üzerine yapılan çalışmaların VOSviewer ile bibliyometrik Analizi. Sosyal Mucit Academic Review, 4(2), 164-188. doi: 10.54733/smar.1271369
• Dotson, M. J., & Hyatt, E. M. (2008). Understanding dog–human companionship. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 457-466.
• Eker, A., Soylu, S., & Kabacık, M. (2023). Yiyecek ve koku konulu çalışmaların bibliyometrik analizi, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Issues, Vol. 5, No. 2, 132-147.
• Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864-886.
• Ellingsen, K., Zanella, A. J., Bjerkås, E., & Indrebø, A. (2010). The relationship between empathy, perception of pain, and attitudes toward pets among Norwegian dog owners. Anthrozoös, 23(3), 231-243.
• Gebhard, U., Nevers, P., & Billmann-Mahecha, E. (2003). Moralizing trees: Anthropomorphism and identity in children’s relationships to nature. Identity and the Natural Environment, 91-111.
• Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. Oxford University Press.
• Hirschman, E. C. (1994). Consumers and their animal companions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 616-632.
• Johnson, S. C., Slaughter, V., & Carey, S. (1998). Whose gaze will infants follow? The elicitation of gaze-following in 12-month-olds. Developmental Science, 1(2), 233-238.
• Leyens, J. P., Demoulin, S., Vaes, J., Gaunt, R., & Paladino, M. P. (2003). Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4(1), 139-172.
• Messent, P. R., & Serpell, J. A. (1981). Companion animals and human health. Springer.
• Mitchell, R. W., Thompson, N. S., & Miles, H. L. (1997). Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals. SUNY Press.
• Morewedge, C. K., Preston, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Timescale bias in the attribution of human intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 37.
• Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98-100.
• Nenkov, G. Y., & Scott, M. L. (2014). So cute I could eat it up: Priming effects of cute products on indulgent consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 326-341.
• Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocerto, M. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 81-100.
• Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2014). You’re so lovable: Anthropomorphism and brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 21(5), 372-395.
• Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2005). Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Thomas, K. (1994). Man and the natural world: Changing attitudes in England 1500–1800. Penguin.
• Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219-232.
• Wiens, J. J. (2023). How many species are there on Earth? Progress and problems. PLOS Biology, 21(11), e3002388. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002388