IMPLICIT THEORIES (MINDSET): A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS

Öz

In today’s highly competitive environment, businesses must differentiate themselves from competitors which requires them to focus on individuals' needs, expectations, and experiences, and be individual concentric. Hence, there is a growing need for analytical methods to aid firms in developing strategies based on the personal characteristics and expectations of individuals. This study aims to develop a conceptual framework for implicit theory that emerged in the 1970s, which focuses on the motivation of individuals and is crucial to business and management disciplines. Moreover, this study aims to identify current areas of interest in the literature management and business disciplines on implicit theory and to offer avenues for future studies. For this reason, a bibliometric analysis was conducted on 397 articles retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database using specific keywords and filters. The results indicate a significant increase in the number of studies on implicit theory from 2010 to today. These studies mainly focus on consumer behavior, marketing activities from a consumer behavior perspective, brand management, sustainability, leadership, and organization in the management field. In this study, in addition to WoS, a literature review was conducted in Türkiye which revealed that a total of 63 studies were published on implicit theory, of which only three focused on business and management, indicating a big gap. This study on implicit theory aims to contribute to existing management and business literature by providing a new perspective to the field, identifying the main areas of study, and providing an avenue for future studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Implicit theory
• growth mindset
• fixed mindset
• bibliometric analysis
• vosviewer

ÖRTÜK ZİHNİYET TEORİLERİ ÜZERİNE BİR BİBLİYOMETRİK ANALİZ

Öz

Günümüz yüksek rekabet koşulları işletmeleri farklılaşmaya itmekte, bunun için de işletmeler bireylerin ihtiyaç, beklenti ve deneyimlerine odaklanmak, diğer bir ifadeyle birey odaklı olmak zorunda kalmaktadır. Bunun sonucunda, bireylerin kişisel özellik ve beklentileri çerçevesinde stratejiler oluşturabilmek için yapılan araştırmalara büyük ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. İşletme ve yönetim bilimleri için önem teşkil eden, kökeni 1970’li yıllara dayanan ve birey davranışlarının temelindeki motivasyona odaklanan örtük zihniyet teorisine yönelik kavramsal çerçeve oluşturmak, alan yazındaki mevcut durumu analiz etmek ve gelecek çalışmalara ışık tutmak üzere yapılan bu çalışma, Web of Science (WoS) veri tabanında taranan ve belirli anahtar kelimeler ve filtreler sonucunda elde edilen 397 makaleye uygulanan bir bibliyometrik analiz içermektedir. Yürütülen analiz sonucunda, işletme ve yönetim alanında birey odaklılığın artmasına paralel olarak 2010 yılı itibariyle örtük zihniyet teorisi ile ilgili yayın sayısında da önemli bir artışın olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Söz konusu çalışmaların tüketici davranışları, tüketici davranışı perspektifinden pazarlama faaliyetleri, marka yönetimi, sürdürülebilirlik, yönetimde liderlik ve organizasyon alanlarına odaklandığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu çalışmada WoS’la sınırlı kalınmayarak ayrıca, örtük zihniyet teorisi çerçevesinde Türkçe alan yazında da tarama yapılmış ve toplam 63 eserin bulunduğu, bunların içinden de sadece üç eserin işletme ve yönetim alanında üretilmiş olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Bu çalışma ile örtük zihniyet teorisi çerçevesinde yönetim ve işletme alan yazına katkı sağlanması, alana yeni bir bakış açısı sunulması ve gelecek çalışmalara yol gösterilmesi hedeflenmektedir. Genel olarak uluslararası yönetim ve işletme alanında, özellikle de ulusal alan yazında örtük zihniyet teorisine yönelik çok sınırlı çalışmanın bulunması bu çalışmanın yazında önemli bir boşluk doldurabileceğine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Örtük zihniyet teorisi
• gelişen zihniyet
• sabit zihniyet
• bibliyometrik analiz
• vosviewer

Kaynakça

1. Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics, 101(2), 1129-1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192.014.1269-8.
2. Baker, H. K., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2021). Twenty‐five years of the Journal of Corporate Finance: A scientometric analysis. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 101572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101572.
3. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, W. J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 497–505.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.87.3.497.
4. Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 363-376. https://doi.org/10.1162/ qss_a_00018.
5. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x.
6. Block, J. H., & Fisch, C. (2020). Eight tips and questions for your bibliographic study in business and management research. Management Review Quarterly, 70(3), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301.020.00188-4.
7. Bornmann, L. (2014). How are excellent (highly cited) papers defined in bibliometrics? A quantitative analysis of the literature. Research Evaluation, 23(2), 166-173. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu002.
8. Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215-2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329.

9. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317.
10. Chen, X., Hao, J., Chen, J., Hua, S., & Hao, T. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of the research status of technology enhanced language learning. In T. Hao, W. Chen, H. Xie, W. Nadee, & R. Lau (Eds.), Emerging technologies for education: SETE 2018 (Vol. 11284, pp. 169-179). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-03580-8_18.
11. Chiu, C.-y., Dweck, C. S., Tong, J. Y.-y., & Fu, J. H.-y. (1997). Implicit theories and conceptions of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 923–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.923.
12. Chiu, C.-y., Hong, Y.-y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.19.
13. Cobo, M. J., Lopez-Herrera, A., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525.
14. Demir Kaymaz, Z. (2023). Recycled or upcycled? Exploring consumer preferences, uniqueness, and implicit theories. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Koç University, Istanbul.
15. Dennis, K. S. (2016). Cultivating a growth mindset for effective adaptation in today’s dynamic workplace. International Journal on Lifelong Education and Leadership, 2(2), 1–11.
16. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2021.04.070.
17. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040.
18. Dweck, C. S. (1998). The development of early self-conceptions: Their relevance for motivational processes. In J. Heckhausen & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life span (pp. 257–280). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978.051.1527869.012.
19. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
20. Dweck, C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 34–39.
21. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y.-y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327965pli0604_1.
22. Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. L. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. IV. Social and personality development (pp. 643-691). New York, NY: Wiley.
23. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.
24. Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 98–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002.
25. Glänzel, W. (2014). Bibliometrics-aided retrieval: Where information retrieval meets scientometrics. Scientometrics, 102(3), 2215–2222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192.014.1480-7.
26. Groos, O. V., & Pritchard, A. (1969). Documentation notes. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 344-349. https:// doi.org/10.1108/eb026482.
27. Gürpınar, N. (2019). Marka yönetimi ve tüketici bilinci üzerine bir araştırma. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Galatasaray University, Istanbul.
28. Han, G., Luo, R., Sa, K., Zhuang, M., & Li, H. (2022). Bibliometric analysis of highly cited papers on resources and the environment in China. Sustainability, 14(2), 604. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020604.
29. Haselhuhn, M. P., Schweitzer, M. E., & Wood, A. M. (2010). How implicit beliefs influence trust recovery. Psychological Science, 21(5), 645–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/095.679.7610367752.
30. Hawkins, D. (1981). Online information retrieval bibliography: Fourth update. Online Review, 5(2), 139-139. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024056.
31. Heslin, P. A., Latham, G. P., & VandeWalle, D. (2005). The effect of implicit person theory on performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 842–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.842.
32. Heslin, P. A., Vandewalle, D., & Latham, G. P. (2006). Keen to help? Managers’ implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 871-902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2006.00057.x.
33. Heslin, P. A., & Vandewalle, D. (2008). Managers’ implicit assumptions about personnel. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 219-223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00578.x.
34. Heslin, P. A., & Vandewalle, D. (2011). Performance appraisal procedural justice: The role of a manager’s implicit person theory. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1694-1718. https://doi.org/10.1177/014.920.6309342895.
35. Hess, D. J. (1997). Science studies: An advanced introduction. NYU Press. Retrieved from https://www.jstor. org/stable/j.ctt9qfq18.
36. Hiebl, M. R. W. (2021). Sample selection in systematic literature reviews of management research. Organizational Research Methods, 26(2), 229–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/109.442.8120986851.
37. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
38. Hong, Y.-y., Chiu, C.-y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M.-S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588–599. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588.
39. Hood, W. W., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics, 52(2), 291-314. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101.791.9924342.
40. Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1421–1436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.74.6.1421.
41. Luo, F., Li, R. Y. M., Crabbe, M. J. C., & Pu, R. (2022). Economic development and construction safety research: A bibliometrics approach. Safety Science, 145, 105519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105519.
42. Mathur, P., Yucel-Aybat, O., Block, L., & Eisenstein, E. M. (2022). The effect of consumers’ implicit theory of personality and product feedback in self-directed consumer contexts. Personality and Individual Differences, 190, 111526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111526.
43. Moed, H. F. (2009). New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 13-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005.009.0001-5.
44. Murphy, M. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindsets shape consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.005.
45. Nerur, S. P., Rasheed, A. A., & Natarajan, V. (2008). The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: An author co-citation analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/ smj.659.
46. Nova-Reyes, A., Muñoz-Leiva, F., & Luque-Martínez, T. (2020). The tipping point in the status of socially responsible consumer behavior research? A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 12(8), 3141. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su12083141.
47. Orhan, S. İ., & Aydın, A. (2024). Gelişime açık düşünce tarzıyla ilgili yayınlanan makalelerin bibliyometrik analizi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 69, 99-131. https://doi.org/10.21764/ maeuefd.1084750.
48. Park, D., & Kim, S. (2015). Time to move on? When entity theorists perform better than incremental theorists.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5), 736–748.  https://doi. org/10.1177/014.616.7215578028.
49. Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2010). Got to get you into my life: Do brand personalities rub off on consumers? Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1086/655807.
50. Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 128–150.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.92.1.128.
51. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2016). A research dialogue on mindsets. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 125–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.016.
52. Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 81-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0510.
53. Septianto, F. (2020). Do past scandals influence the present performance? The moderating role of consumer mindset. Journal of Business Research, 106, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.011.
54. Septianto, F. (2022). The expression of anger enhances perceived competence following corporate social irresponsibility.  Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 30(1), 10–18. https://doi. org/10.1177/183.933.4921998884.
55. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269. https://doi. org/10.1002/asi.463.024.0406.
56. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:9<799::AID-ASI9>3.0.CO;2-G.
57. Tijssen, R. J. (2003). Scoreboards of research excellence. Research Evaluation, 12(2), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.3152/147.154.403781776690.
58. Topay, G., & Erdem, R. (2019). Türkiye’de tüketim kültürünün gelişimine dair kavramsal bir inceleme. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 35, 162-183.
59. Wang, L., Owens, B. P., Li, J. J., & Shi, L. (2018). Exploring the affective impact, boundary conditions, and antecedents of leader humility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(9), 1019–1038. https://doi. org/10.1037/apl0000314.
60. Wheeler, S. C., & Omair, A. (2016). Potential growth areas for implicit theories research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.008.
61. Yorkston, E. A., Nunes, J. C., & Matta, S. (2010). The malleable brand: The role of implicit theories in evaluating brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.1.80.
62. Zan, B. U. (2019). Doğrudan atıf, ortak atıf ve bibliyografik eşleşme yaklaşımlarına dayalı olarak araştırma alanlarının değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 14(2), 501–516.
63. Zorlu, A. (2003). Batılı bir yaşam tarzı olarak tüketim: Türkiye’de tüketim ürünlerinin ve kültürünün tarihi gelişimi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyolojik Araştırmalar e-Dergisi. Erişim adresi: https://web.archive. org/web/201.911.26163644/http://www.sdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/makaleler/zorlu_makale.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 04.11.2024).
64. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/109.442.8114562629.