Hava Taşımacılığı Sektöründeki İşverenlere İlişkin Farkındalık ve Dikkate Alınanlar Kümeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı hava taşımacılığının farklı alanlarındaki havacılık işletmelerinin farkındalık ve dikkate alınanlar kümelerini ve bunların boyutlarını etkileyen faktörleri tespit etmektir. Bu amaçla Türkiye’deki üniversitelerin Havacılık Yönetimi bölümü ve Sivil Hava Ulaştırma İşletmeciliği bölümü öğrencileri ile çevrimiçi anket aracılığıyla iki aşamalı bir araştırma yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın ilk aşamasında Türkiye’deki beş farklı havacılık işletmesi türü için farkındalık kümeleri elde edilmiştir. İkinci aşamada ise ilk aşamada elde edilen işletme isimleri listelenerek öğrencilerden bu listedeki işletmelerden çalışmayı düşünebilecekleri işletmeleri belirtmeleri istenmiştir. Bu sayede dikkate alınanlar kümesine ulaşılmıştır. Hava taşımacılığı sektörünün potansiyel çalışanlarının havayolu işletmelerine karşı daha olumlu görüşe sahip olduğu ve farkındalık kümesinin bu işletme türü için en yüksek olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Öğrencilerin staj durumu ve eğitim programı ile farkındalık kümesinin büyüklüğü arasında anlamlı ilişkiler tespit edilmiştir. Dikkate alınanlar kümesindeki ilk beş işletmenin havayolları ve havalimanı/terminal işletmelerinden oluştuğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Dikkate alınanlar kümesinin büyüklüğünün öğrencilerin öğrenim gördükleri programa göre farklılık gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmanın, küme teorisinin işveren markası bağlamına uygulanması ve hava taşımacılığı endüstrisindeki işverenlerin farkındalık ve dikkate alınanlar kümelerinin araştırılması açısından öncü niteliğinde olduğu düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Küme Seti Teorisi
• Farkındalık Kümesi
• Dikkate Alınanlar Kümesi
• İşveren Farkındalığı
• İşveren Markası
• Hava Taşımacılığı

Etik Beyan

“Hava Taşımacılığı Sektöründeki İşverenlere İlişkin Farkındalık ve Dikkate Alınanlar Kümeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma” başlıklı çalışmanın yazım sürecinde bilimsel kurallara, etik ve alıntı kurallarına uyulmuş; toplanan veriler üzerinde herhangi bir tahrifat yapılmamış ve bu çalışma herhangi başka bir akademik yayın ortamına değerlendirme için gönderilmemiştir. Gerekli olan etik kurul izinleri Eskişehir Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Kurulu’nun 30.06.2020 tarih ve 4/10 sayılı toplantısında alınmıştır.

A Study on the Awareness and Consideration Sets in Relation to Employers in Air Transportation Sector

Öz

This study identifies the awareness and consideration sets for the aviation companies operating in different fields of air transportation and the factors influencing the sizes of such sets. A two-stage study was conducted with the students from the Aviation Management and Civil Air Transportation Management Departments of Turkish universities through online survey. First, the awareness sets for five different types of aviation companies in Turkey were formed. Then, the consideration set was formed by listing and asking the students to specify the companies that they might want to work with. It is found that potential employers for air transportation companies, have a more favorable opinion of the airline companies and the awareness set size is the greatest for this company type. Significant relationships between both the internship status and education program of the students and the awareness set size is identified. Top five companies in the consideration are identified as airlines and airport/terminal companies. It is found that the size of the consideration set differed based on the education program of students. The study is a pioneer in applying the set theory to employer branding context and investigating the awareness and consideration sets for the employers in air transportation industry.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Set Theory
• Awareness Set
• Consideration Set
• Employer Awareness
• Employer Brand
• Air Transportation

Etik Beyan

During the writing process of the study “A Study on the Awareness and Consideration Sets in Relation to Employers in Air Transportation Sector” scientific rules, ethical and citation rules were followed. No falsification was made on the collected data and this study was not sent to any other academic publication medium for evaluation. In addition, permission was obtained from the Eskişehir Teknik University Social and Humanities Sciences Ethics Committee (Date: 30/06/2020 and Decision no: 4/10 ) to conduct the research

Kaynakça

1. Abstein, A., Heidenreich, S., & Spieth, P. (2014) Innovative work behaviour: the impact of comprehensive HR system perceptions and the role of work–life conflict. Industry and Innovation, 21, 91–116. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2014.896159
2. Agrawal, R. K., & Swaroop, P. (2009). Effect of employer brand image on application intentions of business school undergraduates, Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective 13(3), 41-49.
3. Alba, J.W., & Chattopadhyay, A. (1985). Effect of context and part-category cues on recall of competing brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 240-249. doi: 10.2307/3151430
4. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454. doi: 10.1086/209080
5. Aldag, R., Schwab, D., & Rynes, S. (1987). Theories and Research on Job Search and Choice. In K. M. Rowland, & G. R. Ferris (Eds.) Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (pp. 120-166). JAI Press. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1004.4323
6. Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International, 9(5), 501–517. doi: 10.1108/13620430410550754
7. Baker, R., & Orona, G. A. (2020). Gender and racial differences in awareness and consideration of curricular programs: Exploring a multistage model of major choice. AERA Open, 6(3), 1–19.
8. Brand, R.R. & Cronin, J.J. (1997). Consumer‐specific determinants of the size of retail choice sets: an empirical comparison of physical good and service providers. Journal of Services Marketing, 11(1), 19-38. doi: 10.1108/08876049710158349

9. Brown, J. J., & Wildt, A. R. (1992). Consideration set measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(3), 235-243. doi: 10.1007/BF02723410
10. Buitek, E. A., Kaliyeva, S. A., Turginbayeva, A. N., Meldakhanova, M. K. & Shaikh. A. A. (2025). How much does an employer’s attractiveness matter to youth employment? Evidence from a developing country. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 17 (1,) 258-283. doi: 10.1108/APJBA-02-2023-0086
11. Cable, D.M. & Turban, D.B. (2001). Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job seekers' employer knowledge during recruitment. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20, 115-163. doi: 10.1016/S0742-7301(01)20002-4
12. Campbell, B. M. (1969). The existence of evoked set and determinants of its magnitude in brand choice behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Columbia University.
13. Coates, S. L., Butler, L. T. ve D.C. Berry (2004). Implicit memory: A prime example for brand consideration and choice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1195–1211. doi: 10.1002/acp.1044
14. Collins, C. J., & Han, J. (2004). Exploring applicant pool quantity and quality: The effects of early recruitment practices, corporate advertising, and firm reputation. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 685-717. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00004.x
15. Crompton, J. L., & Ankomah, P. K. (1993). Choice set propositions in destination decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(3), 461-476. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(93)90003-L
16. Crowley, A. E., & Williams, J. H. (1991). An information theoretic approach to understanding the consideration set/awareness set proportion. Advances in Consumer Research, 18(1).
17. Dassler, A., Khapova, S.N., Lysova,E.I.and Korotov, K. (2022). Employer attractiveness from an employeeperspective: a systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.858217
18. Dawes, P. L., & Brown, J. (2002). Determinants of awareness, consideration, and choice set size in university choice. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 12(1), 49-75. doi: 10.1300/J050v12n01_04
19. Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20(5), 325-344. doi:10.1080/01972240490507974
20. Erdemir, E. (2006).Bilgi toplumunda insan kaynakları yönetiminin yeni rolü: yetenek savaşları olgusu ve Türkiye’deki yansımaları. 5. Uluslararası Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi, Turkey, 2, 29-39.
21. Fuller, R., Stocchi, L., Gruber, T. & Romaniuk, J. (2023). Advancing the understanding of the pre-purchase stage of the customer journey for service brands. European Journal of Marketing, 57 (2), 360-386. doi: 10.1108/EJM-10-2021-0792
22. Gault, J., Leach, E., & Duey, M. (2010). Effects of Business Internships on Job Marketability: The Employers’ Perspective. Education & Training, 52(1), 76-88
23. Gatewood, R. D., Gowan, M. A., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment image and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 414-427. doi: 10.2307/256530
24. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson.
25. Gilbride, T. J., & Allenby, G. M. (2004). A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Science, 23(3), 391-406. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1030.0032
26. Gronhaug, K. (1973). Some Factors Influencing the Size of the Buyer’s Evoked Set. European Journal of Marketing, 7, 232-241. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005116
27. Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game; a case study. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(1), 129–134. doi: 10.1037/h0057880
28. Hauser, J.R., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An evaluation cost model of evoked sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 393-408. Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
29. Hollstein, A. S., Schade, M., Kanitz, C., & Burmann, C. (2025). Identification as a Sword in the War for Talent: Understanding Organizational Identification Through a Prospective Employee Lens. Psychology & Marketing, 42 (4), 9955-969. doi: 10.1002/mar.22160
30. Goodman, J. K., & Reczek, R. W. (2021). Choosing what to choose from: Preference for inclusion over exclusion when constructing consideration sets from large choice sets. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(1), 85-98. doi: 10.1002/bdm.2199
31. Jang, M. (2024). Inconsistencies in consumer intertemporal decisions and marketplace inferences (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Chicago, Illinois.
32. Khan, S., & Digout, J. (2018). The corporate reputation reporting framework (CRRF). Corporate Reputation Review, 21(1), 22-36. doi: 10.1057/s41299-017-0041-4
33. Knox, S., & Freeman, C. (2006). Measuring and managing employer brand image in the service industry. Journal of marketing management, 22(7-8), 695-716. doi: 10.1362/026725706778612103
34. Kolodinsky, J., Lacasse, H., & Gallagher, K. (2020). Making hemp choices: Evidence from Vermont. Sustainability, 12(15), 6287. doi: 10.3390/su12156287
35. Kravariti, F., Voutsina, K., Tasoulis, K., Dibia, C. and Johnston, K. (2022). Talent management in hospitality and tourism: a systematic literature review and research agenda, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34 (1),321-360. doi: 10.1108/ IJCHM-03-2021-0365.
36. Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained competitive advantages: A competency-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19, 699-727. doi: 10.2307/258742
37. Lapersonne, E., Laurent, G., & LeGoff, J.J. (1995). Consideration set of size one: An empirical investigation of automobile purchases. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 55-66. doi: 10.1016/0167- 8116(95)00005-M
38. LeBlanc, R.P., & Herndon, N.C., Jr. (2001). Cross-cultural consumer decisions: Consideration sets – a marketing universal? Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 19, 500-506. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006216
39. Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G. & Schreurs, B. (2005), Examining the relationship between employer knowledge dimensions and organizational attractiveness: An application in a military context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 553-572. doi: 10.1348/09631790X26688
40. Lievens, F., ve Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company’s attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56, 75–102. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00144.x
41. Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G., & Anseel, F. (2007). Organizational identity and employer image: Towards a unifying framework. British Journal of Management, 18(S1), S45–S59. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00525.x
42. Maddox, R.N., Gronhaug, N.K., Homans, R.E., & May, F.E. (1978). Correlates of information gathering and evoked set size for new automobile purchasers in Norway and the US. Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 167-170.
43. Mariconda, S., & Lurati, F. (2014). Being known: A literature review on media visibility, public prominence and familiarity with implications for reputation research and management. Corporate Reputation Review, 17(3), 219-236. doi: 10.1057/crr.2014.11
44. Martin, J. H., & Franz, E. B. (1994). Attracting applicants from a changing labor market: A strategic marketing framework. Journal of Managerial Issues, 6, 33–53.
45. Maurer, S. D., Howe, V., & Lee, T. W. (1992). Organizational recruiting as marketing management: An interdisciplinary study of engineering graduates. Personnel Psychology, 45(4), 807. doi: 10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1992.tb00969.x
46. McDonald, H., Pallant, J., Funk, D. C., & Kunkel, T. (2024). Who doesn’t like sport? A taxonomy of non-fans. Sport Management Review, 27(1), 67-89. doi: 10.1080/14413523.2023.2233342
47. Mercedy, P., Wright, M., Feetham, P. & Stern, P. (2024). Remembering less, or needing less? Age related diferences in the purchase funnel. Marketing Letters, 35,171–186. doi: 10.1007/s11002-023-09681-8
48. Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits in our capacity to process information. The Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158
49. Mishina, Y., Dykes, B. J., Block, E. S., & Pollock, T. G. (2010). Why “good” firms do bad things: The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 701-722. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.52814578
50. Moore, A. K., Hastie, R. (2024). Navigating choices: a framework of consumer search. Marketing Letters, 1-12. doi: 10.1007/s11002-024-09741-7
51. Mothersbaugh, D. L. & Hawkins, D. (2015). Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy (11th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
52. Murphy, K. A. 1986. When your top choice turns you down: Effect of rejected job offers on the utility of selection tests. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 128-133. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.133
53. Narayana, C.L., & Markin, R.J. (1975). Consumer behavioral and product performance: an alternative conceptualization. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 1-6. doi: 10.2307/1250589
54. Parkinson, T.L., & Reilly, M.E. (1979). An information processing approach to evoked set formation. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 227-231.
55. Quiroz, E. P., Soubeyran, A (2025). Local proximal algorithms in Riemannian manifolds: Application to the behavioral traveler’s problem. Evolution Equations and Control Theory, In press, ff10.3934/eect.2024072ff. ffhal-04930974f
56. Reilly, M., & Parkinson, T.L. (1985). Individual and product correlates of evoked set size for consumer- packaged goods. Advances in Consumer Research, 12(1), 492-497.
57. Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033-1049. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2005.19573108
58. Roberts J. (1989). A grounded model of consideration set size and composition. Advances in Consumer Research Volume, 16(1), 749-757.
59. Roetzel, P. G. (2019). Information overload in the information age: A review of the literature from business, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. Business Research, 12(2), 479-522. doi: 10.1007/s40685- 018-0069-z
60. Ronda Gonzalez, L., Valor Martinez, C.., & Abril Barrie, C, (2018). How do employees choose employers?- Building the consideration and non-consideration set of employer brands. EMAC 2018 - People Make Marketing: University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK http://hdl.handle.net/11531/26192
61. Ronda, L., Valor, C., & Abril, C. (2018). Are they willing to work for you? An employee-centric view to employer brand attractiveness. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(5), 573-596. doi: 10.1108/JPBM-07-2017- 1522
62. Sheridan, J. E., Richards, M. D., & Slocum, J. W. (1975). Comparative analysis of expectancy and heuristic models of decision behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 361. doi: 10.1037/h0076632
63. DGCA (n.d.), Terminal Companies. Retrieved from http://web.shgm.gov.tr/documents/sivilhavacilik/files/havacilik_isletmeleri/terminal_isletmeleri.pdf on 16.07.2021.
64. Sekiguchi, T., Mitate, Y., & Yang, Y (2023). Internship experience and organizational attractiveness: A realistic job fit perspective. Journal of Career Development, 50(2), 353-371. doi: 10.1177/08948453221094311
65. Shocker, A. D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B., & Nedungadi, P. (1991). Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions. Marketing letters, 2(3), 181-197.
66. Silva, A. J. & Dias, H. (2023). The relationship between employer branding, corporate reputation and intention to apply to a job offer. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31 (8), 1-16. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-01-2022-3129
67. Sommer, L.P., Heidenreich, S., & Handrich, M. (2017). War for talents—How perceived organizational innovativeness affects employer attractiveness. R&D Management, 47(2), 299-310. doi: 10.1111/radm.12230
68. Spiggle, S., & Sewall, M.A. (1987). A choice-sets model of retail selection. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 97-111. doi: 10.2307/1251132
69. Stoppacher, L., Foscht, T., Eisingerich, A. B., & Schloffer, J. (2024). Always on your mind?–investigating consideration sets and private labels at the retailer and category level. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 1-23. doi: 10.1080/09593969.2024.2345122
70. Thang, N. N. & Trang, P. T. (2024) Employer branding, organization’s image and reputation, and intention to apply: the moderating role of the availability of organizational information on social media. Frontiers in Sociology, 9:1256733. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1256733
71. Tekbıyık, M. (2024). From internship to employment: from internship to employment: the role of talent management in retaining interns as full-time employees. TABAD Journal, 1(1), 33-61.
72. Turban, D. B. (2001). Organizational attractiveness as an employer on college campuses: An examination of the applicant population. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 293-312. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2000.1765
73. Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of management journal, 40(3), 658-672. doi: 10.2307/257057
74. Vanunu, Y., Urminsky, O., & Bartels, D. (2024). Coping With Complexity: A Selective Sampling Account of Consideration Set Formation for Product Bundles. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/5t6cv
75. Vatankhah, S., Roodbari, H., Rahimi, R., & Oraee, A. (2024). Decoding organisational attractiveness: a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-02-2024-0258
76. Vidmar, N., & Rokeach, M. (1974). Archie Bunker’s bigotry: A study in selective perception and exposure. Journal of Communication, 24(1), 36-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00353.x
77. Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., & Lings, I. (2010). Employer branding: strategic implications for staff recruitment. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(1-2), 56-73. doi: 10.1080/02672570903577091
78. Willman-Iivarinen, H. (2020). Consumer Media Choice: Towards a comprehensive model (Doctoral dissertation). Tampere University, Finland.
79. Yang, S. U. (2007). An integrated model for organization—public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 91-121. doi: 10.1080/10627260701290612
80. Zaichowsky, J.L. (1985). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of Advertising, 15 (2) 4-14. doi: 10.1080/00913367.1986.10672999