Davranış Teorilerinin Bireysel, Sosyal ve Normatif Açıdan Kavramlaştırılması: BSN Davranış Modeli Önerisi

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 85, 127 - 186, 25.01.2019

İşıl Mendeş Pekdemir , Aygül Dönmez Turan

Öz

Birey davranışlarının irdelenmesi ve anlamlandırılması milattan önceki çağlara kadar uzanmasına ve ilkçağda yaşamış birçok filazofun
düşünce akımlarında birey ve toplum davranışları ile ilgili incelemeler bulunmasına rağmen; endüstriyel psikoloji çerçevesinde birey
davranışlarının örgüt bağlamında analiz edilmesi 19. yüzyılın sonlarına rastlamaktadır. Birey davranışlarının toplum veya daha sınırlı
bir topluluk olan örgüt yönetiminde ne kadar önemli olduğu anlaşılmasıyla, gerek psikoloji gerek sosyoloji gerekse endüstriyel psikoloji
alanlarında birey davranışlarını açıklayan birçok teori ve yaklaşım geliştirilmiştir. Bu teori ve yaklaşımlar farklı kapsam/bağlamlarda, belirli
yönleriyle birbirini doğrulayan, belirli yönleriyle birbirinden ayrılan modeller sunmuştur. İlgili teori, yaklaşım ve modelleri bir çatı
altında toplamak ve davranışın yapısını ortaya koyacak bir model oluşturmak amacıyla; üç aşamada gerçekleştirilen bu çalışmanın birinci
aşamasında, birey davranışını farklı çerçevelerde değerlendiren 12 davranış teorisinin farklı bir bakış açısıyla incelenmesi sonucunda, birey
davranışlarında yeni bir gruplamaya gitme ihtiyacı ortaya konulmuş ve birey davranışları bireysel, sosyal ve normatif açıdan üç ana kategoride
gruplandırılmıştır. Bu gruplandırmanın ardından çalışmamızın ikinci aşamasında davranışları açıklayan, literatürde kabul görmüş 26
davranış teori, yaklaşım ve model, bireyin bireysel, sosyal ve normatif açıdan sergilediği davranışlar açısından incelenmiş ve bu davranışlar
kavramsal bir çerçeveye oturtulmuştur. Üç grupta topladığımız bireyin davranışlarını açıklayan bir model önerisi geliştirmek bu çalışmanın
temel motivasyonunu oluşturmuştur. Bu amaçla, çalışmamızın üçüncü aşamasında da, literatürde ilgili teoriler ve modeller ışığında bu üç
grup birey davranışını açıklayan bir model, BSN Davranış Modeli (Bireysel, Sosyal ve Normatif Davranış Modeli) önerilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Davranış teorilerinin kavramlaştırılması, Teorik model önerisi, BSN davranış modeli (Bireysel, Sosyal ve Normatif Davranış Modeli)

Conceptualization of Behavioral Theories on the Basis of Individual, Social and Normative Perspective: ISN Behavioral Model Proposal

Öz

On the industrial psychology framework, investigating human behavior in the organizational context dates from the 19th century. However,
evaluations of individual and social behaviors trace back to the quotes of ancient philosophers, so considering and sensemaking the human
behavior dates from the ancient age. Understanding the importance of human behavior in management of organizations as well as society,
many different theories and approaches were developed in order to explain human behavior in the literature over the decades. The
theories and approaches purposed specific models, and then some subsequent researches confirmed to previous models, but a number of
other researches developed new models distinct from the formers. In order to illuminate the confusion of behavioral theories, approaches
and models, we aimed to explore whether these theories, approaches and models could be gathered in different perspective in this study
paper. Thus we developed a model to indicate the construction of behavior in three phases. In the first phase, 12 main behavioral theories,
approaches and models evaluated human behavior on the different frameworks were examined from a unique/distinct points of view.
Then present researchers identified the needs to develop a new classification for human behavior as individual, social and normative. In
the second phase, other 26 behavioral theories, approaches and models in the literature were investigated in terms of individual, social as
well as normative perspectives of behavior exhibited by human, and these behaviors were conceptualized. On that point, the main motivation
of this study is to develop a model explaining the human behaviors which were classified into three groups mentioned. Accordingly, in
the last phase of our study, Individual, Social and Normative (PSN) Behavioral Model which explains the three perspectives of the human
behavior has been purposed on the basis of the theories as well as approaches in the literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Conceptualization of behavioral theories, Theoretical model oroposal, ISN behavioral model (Individual, Social and Normative Behavioral Model)

Kaynakça

• Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Poland: Open University Press.
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
• Ajzen, I., ve Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior, Prentice Hall.
• Allison, B. J., Voss, R. S., ve Dryer, S. (2001). Student classroom and career success: The role of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5), 282-288.
• Ayyıldız-Ünnü, N. A. (2014). Rasyonel Perspektif Işığında Karar Verme Eylemi: Nitel Bir Analiz. Journal of Management and Economics Research (Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi), 24, 91-116.
• Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175.
• Bargh, J (1994). The Four Horsemen of Automaticity: awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In Wyer R and T Skrull (eds) Handbook of Social Cognition (2nd edition) Vol 1: Basic Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Batson, C. D., ve Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107-122.
• Bem, D. (1972) Self-perception Theory. In Berkowitz, L (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 6, London: Academic Press, 1-62.
• Berkowitz, L. (1972) Social norms, feelings and other factors affecting helping and altruism. In L. Berkowitz, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 6, New York: Academic Press.
• Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological bulletin, 88(1), 1-45.
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193-206.
• Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 221–236.
• Boiral, O. ve Paillé, P. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 431–445.
• Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. California: Stanford University Press.
• Brief, A. P., ve Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of management Review, 11(4), 710-725.
• Buhrmester, D., Goldfarb, J., ve Cantrell, D. (1992). Self-presentation when sharing with friends and nonfriends. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 12(1), 61-79.
• Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., Troyer, D., Switzer, G., ve Speer, A. L. (1991). The altruistic personality: In what contexts is it apparent?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 450-458
• Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., ve Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23(1), 107-134.
• Carlo, G., ve Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 31-44.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105–109.
• Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., ve Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). Academic Press.
• Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., ve Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015.
• Colby, A., ve Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgement: Theoretical foundations and research validation. Vol:1, New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
• Çalışkan, K. (2016). Siyasal kültür: Yeni yaklaşımlara genel bir bakış, Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), pp 23-46.
• Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader‐member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 315-326.
• Doran, R., ve Larsen, S. (2016). The relative importance of social and personal norms in explaining intentions to choose eco‐friendly travel options. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(2), 159-166.
• Douglas, Mary 1997. In Defence of Shopping, In Falk, Pasi and Colin Campbell (eds) The Shopping Experience, London: Sage, 15-30.
• Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., ve Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.
• Eisenberg B.N., Cameron, E., Tryon, K., ve Dodez, R. (1981). Socialization of prosocial behavior in the preschool classroom. Developmental Psychology, 17(6), 773.
• Elliott, R., ve Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Consumption and the Symbolic Project of the Self. ACR European Advances.
• Elster, J. (Ed.). (1986). Rational choice. Chicago: NYU Press.
• Eroğlu, Feyzullah. Davranış bilimleri. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
• Etzioni, A. (1999). Normative-affective factors: Toward a new decision-making model. In A Etzioni (eds) Essays in Socio-Economics (pp. 91-119). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
• Etzioni, A. (2010). Moral dimension: Toward a new economics. Cambridge: Simon and Schuster Press (1988 yılında yayınlanan kitabın tekrar basılmış şeklidir).
• Fabes, R. A., ve Eisenberg, N. (1998). Meta-analyses of age and sex differences in children’s and adolescents’ prosocial behavior. Handbook of Child Psychology,3, 1-29.
• Ferrell, O. C., ve Skinner, S. J. (1988). Ethical behavior and bureaucratic structure in marketing research organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 103-109.
• Festinger, L 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, California: Stanford University Press.
• Fishbein, Martin 1973. The prediction of behaviour from attitudinal variables. In Mortensen, C and K Sereno (eds) Advances in Communications Research. New York: Harper and Row, 3-31.
• Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5-6), 461-470.
• Franzoi, S. L., Davis, M. H., ve Vasquez-Suson, K. A. (1994). Two social worlds: Social correlates and stability of adolescent status groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 462-473.
• Giddens, A 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Giddens, A 1984. The Constitution of Society – outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Gollwitzer, P. M., Wicklund, R. A., ve Hilton, J. L. (1982). Admission of failure and symbolic selfcompletion: Extending Lewinian theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2), 358-371.
• Gorden, W. I. (1988). Range of employee voice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 1(4), 283-299.
• Gronovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Sociological Review, 91, 481-510.
• Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. The Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60-72.
• Hamilton, C. (2003). Growth Fetish. London and Melbourne: Berg Publishers.
• Higgins, T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self to affect. Psychological Review 94, 319-340.
• Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Hoffman, M. L. (1991). Empathy, social cognition, and moral action. In William L. Kurtines, Jack L. Gewirtz: Handbook of moral behavior and development, New York :Psychology Press, 275-301.
• Homans G.C. (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, New York: Harcourt
• Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption. Sustainable Development Research Network, 29, 1-135.
• Jager, W. (2003) Breaking Bad Habits: A dynamical perspective on habit formation and change, in L Hendrick, Wander Jager, L Steg (eds), Human Decision- Making and Environmental Perception - Understanding and Assisting Human Decision-Making in Real Life Settings. Libor Amicorum for Charles Vlek, Groningen: University of Groningen.
• Johnson, M. ve Hasher L. (1987). Human learning and memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 631-668. Jones, J. W. (1989). Personality and epistemology: Cognitive social learning theory as a philosophy of science. Zygon, 24(1), 23-38.
• Kahneman, D. ve Treisman A. (1984) Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R Parasuraman (ed) Varieties of Attention. New York: Academic Press.
• Kleiser, S. B., Sivadas, E., Kellaris, J. J., ve Dahlstrom, R. F. (2003). Ethical ideologies: Efficient assessment and influence on ethical judgments of marketing practices. Psychology & Marketing, 20(1), 1-21.
• Koçel, T. (2010). İşletme Yöneticiliği, İstanbul: Beta Basım..
• Krebs, D. (1982). Prosocial behavior, equity, and justice. In J. Greenberg ve R.L. Cohen (eds) Equity and Justice in Social Behavior (pp. 261-308), New York: Academic Press.
• Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J., ve Williams, E.G. (2013). Read this article, but don’t print it: Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Group & Organization Management, 38(2), 163-197.
• Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157.
• Leary, M. R., Knight, P. D., ve Barnes, B. D. (1986) Ethical ideologies of the Machiavellian. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(1), 75-80.
• Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science, in D.Cartwright(eds) Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.
• Lindenberg, S. (2001). Social rationality versus rational egoism. In J. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp. 635–668). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
• Lindenberg, S., ve Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117-137.
• Logan, G. ve Cowan W. (1984) On the Ability to Inhibit Thought and Action: a theory of an act of control. Psychological Review 91, 295-327.
• Luthans, F., ve Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational Behaviour Modification and Beyond: An Operant and Social Learning Approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
• Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., ve Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3-9.
• Manetti, L., Pierro, A., ve Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: Planned and self-expressive behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 227–236.
• Matthews, K. A., Batson, C. D., Horn, J., ve Rosenman, R. H. (1981). Principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others: The heritability of empathic concern for others. Journal of Personality, 49(3), 237-247.
• McShane S.L. and Van Glinov M.A. (2016) Örgütsel Davranış (Çeviren: Ayşe Günsel and Serdar Bozkurt – 2. Basımdan Çeviri), İstanbul: Nobel Yayınevi.
• Mead, G. (1934) Mind Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mendeş-Pekdemir, I., ve Turan, A. (2014). The mediating role of organizational identity complexity/ congruence on the relationship between perceived organizational prestige and in-role/extra-role performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(9-1), 119-131.
• Monin, B., Pizarro, D.A., ve Beer, J.S. (2007). Deciding versus reacting: Conceptions of moral judgment and the reason-affect debate. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 99-111.
• Myers D.G. (2015) Sosyal Psikoloji (Social Psychology’den çeviren: Serap Akfırat), İstanbul: Nobel Yayınevi
• Offermans, A. G. E. (2010). History of Cultural Theory; A summary of historical developments regarding Cultural Theory. Maastricht, ICIS Report.
• Ones, D. S., and Dilchert, S. (2012). Employee green behaviors. In S. E. Jackson, D. S. Ones, and S. Dilchert (Eds.), Managing HR for environmental sustainability (pp. 155–186). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
• Onwezen, M. C., Antonides, G., ve Bartels, J. (2013). The Norm Activation Model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 141-153.
• Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 43-72.
• Öcal H. ve Sarnıç, A. (2017). Dönüştürücü Liderliğin Prososyal Örgütsel Davraniş Üzerindeki Etkileri ve İmalat Endüstrisinde Bir Araştirma. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 107-125.
• Ölander, F. and Thøgersen J. (1995) Understanding Consumer Behaviour as Prerequisite for Environmental Protection. Journal of Consumer Policy 18, 345-385.
• Parker, S. K., Collins, C. G., ve Grant, A. M. (2008). The role of positive affect in making things happen. In Annual SIOP Conference, San Francisco, USA.
• Pavlov, I. P. (1941). Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes. Vol. II. Conditioned reflexes and psychiatry, New York: International Publishers (http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1941-04246-000)
• Pavlov, P. I. (2010). Conditioned reflexes: an investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Annals of Neurosciences, 17(3), 136. (1927 yazılan makalenin çevirisidir.)
• Podsakoff, P.M., ve MacKenzie, S.B. (1994). An examination of the psychometric properties and nomological validity of some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 702.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., ve Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
• Polanyi, K., ve MacIver, R. M. (1944). The great transformation(Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon Press.
• Reckwitz, A. (2002). The status of the “material” in theories of culture: From “social structure” to “artefacts”. Journal for the theory of social Behaviour, 32(2), 195-217.
• Rest, J. R. (1983). Morality. Handbook of child psychology, 3, 556-629.
• Reynolds, T. J., ve Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1), 11-31.
• Robbins S.P. and Judge T.A. (2013) Örgütsel Davranış – Organizational Behavior (Çeviren: İnci Erdem, 14.Basımdan çeviri), İstanbul: Nobel Yayınevi.
• Roccas, S., ve Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88-106.
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free press.
• Ruepert A.M., Steg L. ve Keizer K. (2015) The Nature an Umbrella and Multifacet Concept, In J.L. Robertson ve J. Barling (Eds) The Psychology of Green Organizational Behavior, New York: Oxford Press, s. 12-32.
• Russell, B. (2000) A History of Western Philosophy, London: Routledge.
• Scherbaum, C. A., Popovich, P. M., ve Finlinson, S. (2008). Exploring individual-level factors related to employee energy-conservation behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 818–835.
• Schnake, M. E., ve Dumler, M. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behaviour research. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 76(3), 283-301.
• Schultz, W. P. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339.
• Schultz, D. P., ve Schultz, S. E. (2001). Modern Psikoloji Tarihi, çev. Yasemin Aslay, Kaknüs Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, proposal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(4), 349-364.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (eds) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221-279). Academic Press.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M.P. Zanna (eds) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Academic Press.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of social issues, 50(4), 19-45.
• Schwartz, S. H., ve Howard, J. A. (1984). A Normative Decision-Making Model of Altruism. in JP Rushton,. & RM Sorrentino (Ed.) Altruism and Helping Behavior Social, Personality, and Development a Perspective (p.189-211). Nilsdale: NJ:Erlbaum.
• Sen, A. (1984) The Living Standard, Oxford Economic Papers 36, 74-90.
• Simon, H. (1957). Models of Man, New York: JohnWiley.
• Skinner, B. F. (1948). ‘Superstition’in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(2), 168.
• Sorrentino, R. M., ve Rushton, IJ. P. (1981) Altruism and helping behavior: Current perspectives and future possibilities. In J. P. Rushton ve R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmental perspectives (pp. 425-439). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
• Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and morality: Social and personal influences, New York: Academic Press.
• Stead, W. E., Worrell, D. L., ve Stead, J. G. (1990). An integrative model for understanding and managing ethical behavior in business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(3), 233-242.
• Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J. W., Keizer, K., ve Perlaviciute, G. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104-115.
• Steg, L., ve De Groot, J. (2010). Explaining prosocial intentions: Testing causal relationships in the norm activation model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 725–743
• Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
• Stern, P. C., ve Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of social issues, 50(3), 65-84.
• Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., ve Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97.
• Şimşek M.Ş., Çelik A. ve Akgemci T. (2015) Davranış bilimlerine giriş ve örgütlerde davranış, Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi (9.Baskı).
• Tabernero, C., ve Hernández, B. (2011). Self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation guiding environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 43(5), 658-675.
• Tajfel, H. (1982) Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tajfel, H. ve Turner J. (1979) An Integrative Theory of Inter-Group Conflict. In Austin, W and S Worchel (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey,CA: Brooks/Cole, 33- 47.
• Taylor, P. W. (1975). Principles of ethics: An introduction. (The Dickenson series in philosophy):Wadsworth Pub.
• Thibaut, J. ve Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley
• Thompson, M., Ellis, R., ve Wildavsky, A. (1990). Political cultures. Oxford:West View.
• Thompson, M. (2018). Cultural theory. New York: Routledge.
• Tolman, E. C. (1951). Purposive behavior in animals and men. California: Univ of California Press.
• Tudor, T. L., Barr, S. W., ve Gilg, A. W. (2007). A tale of two locational settings: Is there a link between pro-environmental behavior at work and at home? Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 12, 409–421
• Turan, A. (2015). Satisfaction with Organization and Intention to Retain: The Mediating Role of Organizational Identity Complexity/Congruence of Outsourcing Labors. The Anthropologist, 21(1-2), 300-310.
• Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., ve Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of management, 32(6), 951-990.
• Triandis, Harry 1977. Interpersonal Behaviour. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Tversky, A., ve Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
• Unsworth, K. L., Dmitrieva, A., and Adriasola, E. (2013). Changing behaviour: Increasing the effectiveness of workplace interventions in creating pro‐environmental behaviour change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 211-229.
• Walster, E. ve Piliavin, J.A. (1972) Equity and the Innocent Bystander1. Journal of Social Issues, 28(3), 165-189.
• Watson,J.B. ve Meazzini,P. (1977) .John B. Watson (http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/john_b._ watson)
• Wicklund, R. ve Gollwitzer P. (1982) Symbolic Self-Completion, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Wright, R. (1994) The Moral Animal – Why we are the way we are: The new science of evolutionary psychology. London: Abacus.
• Wolfson, S. L. (1981). Effects of Machiavellianism and communication on helping behaviour during an emergency. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20(3), 189-195.
• Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., ve Keizer, K. (2013). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and pro-environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55–63.
• Van Dyne, L., ve LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management journal, 41(1), 108-119.
• Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., ve Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors-in pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, 17, 215-285.
• Zey, M. (1992). Criticisms of rational choice models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.