How Does Personality And Sociodemographic Characteristics Affect Attitudes Towards Cute Products? The Case of Turkey

Öz

The purposes of this study are to determine whether attitudes towards cute products depend on consumer personalities and to reveal the personality and demographic characteristics of individuals who are most sensitive towards cute stimuli and products. Descriptive research and face-to-face survey methods were used to collect primary data. According to the research conducted to identify the individuals with the most positive attitude towards cute products, it is possible to list these personality and sociodemographic characteristics: women; individuals in the 35–54 age range; individuals of non-neurotic personality types, particularly individuals with openness personality types; and individuals with hedonic structure. Moreover, although neurotic personality types don’t like cute products results show that if we support marketing efforts with hedonic factors, then neurotic consumers become positive towards cute products.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cuteness
• Cuteness Marketing
• Cute Products
• Personality
• Consumer Attitudes

Kişilik ve Sosyodemografik Özellikler Sevimli Ürünlere Yönelik Tutumlari Nasil Etkiler? Türkiye Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sevimli ürünlere yönelik tutumların tüketici kişiliklerine bağlı olup olmadığını belirlemek ve sevimli uyaranlara ve ürünlere en duyarlı olan bireylerin kişilik ve demografik özelliklerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Çalışmada birincil verileri toplamak için tanımlayıcı araştırma ve yüz yüze anket yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre sevimli ürünlere en olumlu tutuma sahip bireylerin demografik ve kişilik özellikleri; kadın, 35-54 yaş aralığındaki bireyler; nevrotik olmayan kişilik tiplerine sahip bireyler, özellikle açık kişilik tiplerine sahip bireyler; ve hedonik tüketim şekline sahip bireyler olarak sıralanabilir. Bunun dışında, nevrotik kişilik tiplerinin sevimli ürünlere olumsuz tutum göstermelerine ragmen, sonuçlar pazarlama çabalarının hedonik faktörlerle desteklenmesi durumunda, tüketicilerin sevimli ürünlere daha olumlu tutuma sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sevimlilik
• Sevimlilik Pazarlaması
• Sevimli Ürünler
• Kişilik
• Tüketici Tutumları

Kaynakça

1. Adıgüzel, Ü.D., Sarıtaş, E., Barutçu, S. (2017). “Sevimlilik Boyutlarının Derecelendirilmesi ve Sevimliliğin Satın Alma Davranışları Üzerine Etkisi: Ambalaj Tasarımı Üzerine Keşifsel Bir Araştırma”, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/pjess/issue/35975/403648, (Erişim:10.05.2018).
2. Adıgüzel, Ü.D., Barutçu S. (2017). “Sevimlilik Algısının Satın Alma Davranışlarına Etkisi: Denizli'de Bir Araştırma”, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/dpusbe/issue/29857/321478, (Erişim: 10.05.2018).
3. Aksoy, T. (2010). “Cool Olmak Ne Demek?”, www.temelaksoy.com.tr, (Erişim:11.04.2016).
4. Allison, A (2003). “Portable Monsters and Commodity Cuteness: Poke´mon As Japan’s New Global Power”, http://web.mit.edu/condry/Public/cooljapan/Feb23-2006/Allison-03-Postcol-Portble.pdf, (Erişim: 20.06.2019).
5. Angier, N. (2006). “The Cute Factor”, www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/science/03cute, (Erişim: 12.02.2016).
6. Areni, C. S., Kim, D. (1994). “The Influence of In-Store Lighting on Consumers’ Examination of Merchandise In a Wine Store”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016781169490023X, (Erişim: 18.11.2019).
7. Atak H. (2013). “On Maddeli Kişilik Ölçeği’nin Türk Kültürü’ne Uyarlanması”, https://toad.halileksi.net/sites/default/files/pdf/on-maddeli-kisilik-olcegi-toad.pdf, (Erişim: 18.11.2019).
8. Atkinson, R.L., Atkinson, R.C., Hilgard, E.R. (1995). Psikolojiye Giriş II, (çev: Kemal Atakay, Mustafa Atakay, Aysun Yavuz), İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınlar.

9. Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M. (1994). “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value”, https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/20/4/644/1798609, (Erişim. 20.06.2018).
10. Ballantine, P.W., Jack, R., Parsons, A.G. (2010). “Atmospheric Cues and Their Effect on The Hedonic Retail Experience”, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09590551011057453/full/html?mobileUi=0&fullSc=1&mbSc=1&fullSc=1&fullSc=1, (Erişim: 22.03.2020).
11. Barbaranelli, C, Caprara, G.V., Rabasca, A., Pastorelli, C. (2003). “A Questionnaire for Measuring the Big- Five in Late Childhood”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188690200051X, (Erişim: 22.03.2020).
12. Barutçu, S. ve Adıgüzel, Ü. D. (2015). “Sevimli Pazarlama Ve Maskotların Marka Farkındalığı Marka Bağlılığı ve Markaya Yönelik Tutum Üzerindeki Etkisi: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştırma”, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eyad/issue/57413/813677, (Erişim: 12.04.2016).
13. Bellfield, J., Bimont, C., Blom, J., Dommeyer, C.J., Gardiner, K., Mathenia, E., Soto, J. (2011). “The Effect of a Cute Stimulus on Personally-Initiated, Self-Administered Surveys”, http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/V22/MB_V22_N1_Dommeyer.pdf, (Erişim: 25.06.2018).
14. Brougere, G. (2013). “Licensing and The Rhetoric of Fun: The Cute and The Cool”, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/YC-03-2013-00354/full/html, (Erişim: 25.06.2018).
15. Brown, S. (2010). “Where The Wild Brands Are: Some Thoughts on Anthropomorphic Marketing”, https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/westburn/tmr/2010/00000010/00000003/art00002, (Erişim: 25.06.2018).
16. Bryce, M. (2006). “Cuteness Needed: The New Language/Communication Device in a Global Society”, http://ijh.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.26/prod.393, (Erişim:18.03.2019).
17. Burger, J.M. (2006). Kişilik, (çev: İnan Deniz Erguvan Sarıoğlu), İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları,
18. Can, A. (2017). SPSS ile Bilimsel Araştırma Sürecinde Nicel Veri Analizi, 5. Baskı, Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
19. Casidy, R. (2012). “An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Personality Traits, Prestige Sensivity and Fashion Consciousness of Generation Y in Australia”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1441358212000249, (Erişim: 20.02.2020).
20. Cheok, A. D., (2012).” Kawaii/Cute Interactive Media”, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-84996-137-0_9, (Erişim: 20.02.2020).
21. Cheok, A. D., Ohkura, M., Fernando, O. N. N., Merritt, T. (2008). “Designing Cute Interactive Media”, Innovation, 8,3: 8-9.
22. Chuang, T. (2005). “The Power of Cuteness”, Journal of East Asian Affairs, Summer: 21-28.
23. Cross, G. (2004). The Cute and The Cool: Wondrous Innocence and Modern American Children’ s Culture, NewYork Oxford University Press.
24. Dale, J.P. (2016). “Cute Studies: An Emerging Field”, https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/eapc/2016/00000002/00000001/art00002, (Erişim: 23.02.2020).
25. Decatur, M. A. (2012). “Consuming Cuteness in Japan: Hello Kitty, Individualism and Identity”, Popular Anthropology Magazine, 3, 1: 1-4, (Erişim: 23.02.2020).
26. Demirbilek, O. (2006). Emotions and Desing, International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, Second Edition. (e-book).
27. Demirbilek, O., Şener, B. (2003). “Product Design, Semantics and Emotional Response”, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140130310001610874, (Erişim: 12.04.2019).
28. Demirci M.K., Özler D.E., Girgin B. (2009). “Beş Faktör Kişilik Modelinin İşyerinde Duygusal Tacize (Mobbing) Etkileri: Hastane İşletmelerinde Bir Uygulama”, https://jhss-khazar.org/2009-12-2/BES%20FAKTOR%20KISILIK%20MODELININ.pdf, (Erişim: 23.04.2019).
29. Digman, J. M., Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). “Factors In The Natural Language Of Personality: Re-Analysis, Comparison, And Interpretation Of Six Major Studies”, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327906mbr1602_2, (Erişim: 23.04.2018).
30. Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). “Creating Social Connection Through Inferential Reproduction: Loneliness And Perceived Agency In Gadgets, Gods, And Greyhounds”, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x, (Erişim: 18.02.2019).
31. Eren, E. (2006). Örgütsel Davranış ve Yönetim Psikolojisi, İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
32. Eroğlu, F. (2015). Davranış Bilimleri, İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
33. Feist, J., Feist, G.J. (2008). Theories of Personality (7th Edition), McGraw−Hill Primis.
34. Fraj, E., Martinez, E. (2006). “Influence of Personality on Ecological Consumer Behaviour”, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cb.169, (Erişim: 18.02.2019).
35. Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., Sachser, N. (2009). “Baby Schema in Infant Faces Induces Cuteness Perception and Motivation for Caretaking in Adults”, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01603.x, (Erişim: 18.02.2019).
36. Gn, J. (2016). “A Lovable Metaphor: On The Affect, Language and Design of ‘Cute’”, https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/eapc/2016/00000002/00000001/art00005, (Erişim: 15.02.2019).
37. Granot, E., Alejandro, B., Russell, T.M.L. (2014). “A Socio-Marketing Analysis of The Concept of Cute and Its Consumer Culture Implications”, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1469540513485274, (Erişim: 15.02.2019).
38. Guido,G., Peluso, A.M., Capesto, M., Miglietta, M. (2015). “An Italian Version of the 10 Item Big-Five Inventory: An Application to Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Values”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886914007028, (Erişim: 01.04.2019).
39. Gülerarslan, A., (2011). “Tüketici Olarak Çocuk ve Ailenin Satın Alma Kararlarına Etkisi”, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/josc/issue/19022/200610, (Erişim: 01.04.2019).
40. Hellen, K., Saaksjarvi M. (2013). “Development of a Scale Measuring Childlike Anthropomorphism in Products”, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0267257X.2012.759989,(Erişim: 01.04.2019).
41. Hildebrandt K., Fitzgerald H.E. (1978). “Adult’s Responses to Infants Varying in Perceived Cuteness”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0376635778900426, (Erişim: 03.04.2019).
42. Hu, Y., Kim, H.J. (2018). “Positive and Negative e-WOM Motivations And Hotel Customers’ Ewom Behavior: Does Personality Matter?”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278431917300579, (Erişim: 13.04.2020).
43. İnanç, Y.B., Yerlikaya, E.E. (2011). Kişilik Kuramları, İzmir: Pegem Akademi.
44. John, O. P., Srivastava, S. (1999). “The Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, And Theoretical Perspectives”, Handbook Of Personality: Theory And Research, (edit. L. A. Pervin & O. P. John), 2: 102–138, New York: Guilford Press.
45. Karraker, H.K, Stern, M. (1990). “Infant Physical Attractiveness and Facial Expression: Effects on Adult Perceptions”, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15324834basp1104_2, (Erişim: 13.04.2020).
46. Kato, M (2002). “The Japanese Obsession With Adorable Icons is Rooted in Cultural Tradition”, www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/cute-culture, (Erişim: 25.04.2018).
47. Kinsella, S. (1995). Cuties in Japan. In Women, Media and Consumption in Japan, Honolulu University of Hawaii Press.
48. Koç, E. (2012). Tüketici Davranışı ve Pazarlama Stratejileri, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
49. Komatsu, T., Ohkura, M. (2011). Study on Evaluation of Kawaii Colors Using Visual Analog Scale, Human Interface (edit. M.J. Smith, G. Salvendy), Part I,103-108.
50. Kovarovic, S. (2011). “Hello Kitty: A Brand Made of Cuteness”, http://services.library.drexel.edu/static_files/dsmr/Kovarovic%20Final.pdf, (Erişim: 10.03.2020).
51. Kotler P., Armstrong, G. (2016). Principles of Marketing, Edinburgh: Pearson.
52. Lee, D. (2005). “Inside Look at Japanese Cute Culture”, www.uniorbblog.blogspot.com/2017/01, (Erişim: 01.12.2017).
53. Lin, L. (2010). “The Relationship of Consumer Personality Trait, Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study of Toys and Video Games Buyers”, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/10610421011018347/full/html, (Erişim: 12.01.2020).
54. Liu, Z., Xu, A., Wang, Y., Schoudt, J., Mahmud, J., Akkiraju, R. (2017). “Does Personality Matter? A Study of Personality and Situational Effects on Consumer Behavior”, HT’17, July 4-7, Prague, Czech Republic, 185-193, https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3078714.3078733, (Erişim: 12.01.2020).
55. Lobmaier, J.S., Sprengelmeyer, R. (2010). “Female and Male Responses To Cuteness, Age and Emotion In Infant Faces”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000531, (Erişim: 12.01.2020).
56. Marcus, A. (2002). “The Cult of Cute: The Challenge of User Experience Design”, https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/581951.581966, (Erişim: 13.01.2020).
57. McCrae, R.R., Sutin, A.R. (2009). “Openness To Exprience”, (Edit. Mark R. Leary, Rick H. Hoyle), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, Chapter. 17, 257-273, London: Guilford Press.
58. McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T. (2008). “The Five-Factor Theory of Personality”, (Edit. Oliver P. John Richard W. Robins Lawrence A. Pervin), Handbook of Personality, 3Th Edition, Chapter. 5,159-181, London: Guilford Press.
59. McDougall, J., Chantrey D. (2004). “The Making Of Tomorrow's Consumer”, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17473610410814283/full/html, (Erişim: 13.01.2020).
60. McVeigh, J.B. (2000). “How Hello Kitty Commodifies The Cute, Cool and Camp”, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/135918350000500205, (Erişim: 13.01.2020).
61. Morgan, C.T. (2010). Psikolojiye Giriş, (çev: Sirel Karakaş, Rükzan Eski), Konya: Eğitim Kitabevi Yayınları.
62. Morgan, G.A., Leech, N.L., Gloeckner, G.W., Barrett, K.C. (2011). IBM SPSS For Introductory Statistics Use and Interpretation, 4th Edition, New York: Routledge,
63. Mowen, J.C., Spears, N. (1999). “Understanding Compulsive Buying Among College Students: A Hierarchical Approach”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740899703608, (Erişim: 14.01.2020).
64. Möller, J. (2009). Cuteness As a Form of Communication. An On-Line Experience, (Master of Communication Thesis), University of Gothenburg, https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/26741, (Erişim: 14.01.2018).
65. Mulyanegara, R.C., Tsarenko, Y., Anderson, A. (2009). “The Big Five and Brand Peersonality: Investigating the Impact of Consumer Personality on Preferences Towards Particular Brand Personality”, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550093, (Erişim: 04.05.2020).
66. Nenkov, Y. G., Scott, L. M. (2014). “So Cute I Could Eat It Up: Priming Effects of Cute Products on Indulgent Consumption”, https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/41/2/326/2907555, (Erişim: 16.04.2019).
67. Ngai, S. (2005). “The Cuteness of The Avant-Garde”, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/444516, (Erişim: 16.04.2019).
68. Nittono, H., Fukushima, M., Yano, A., Moriya, H. (2012). “The Power of Kawaii: Viewing Cute Images Promotes a Careful Behavior and Narrows Attentional Focus”, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0046362&__hstc=171738815.2fdd7a7debc8575bac5a80cf7e168316.1476662400122.1476662400123.1476662400124.1&__hssc=171738815.1.1476662400125&__hsfp=1773666937, (Erişim: 16.04.2019).
69. Nye, J. (2006). “Transformational Leadership and U.S. Grand Strategy”, https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fora85&div=67&id=&page, (Erişim: 16.04.2019).
70. Ohkura, M., Konuma, A., Murai, S., Aoto, T. (2008). “Systematic Study for “Kawaii” Products (The Second Report) - Comparison of “Kawaii” Colors and Shapes”, SICE annula Conference, 20-22 August, The University Electro- Communications, Japan, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4654703, (Erişim: 16.04.2019).
71. Otero-Lopez, J. M., Pol, E. V. (2013). “Compulsive Buying and Five Factor Model of Personality: A Facet Analysis”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913002092, (Erişim: 13.02.2019).
72. Özsoy, E., Erol, E., Korkutat, A.A., Şeker, M. (2014). “Kişilik Modelleri Boyutlarının Karşılaştırılması: A Tipi ve B Tipi Kişilik ve Beş Faktör Kişilik Modeli”, Uluslararası Hakemli Beşeri ve Akademik Bilimler Dergisi, C.3, S.9: 104-116.
73. Paunonen, S. V., Ashton, M.C. (2001). “Big Five Factors and Facets and The Prediction of Behavior”, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-18127-012, (Erişim: 10.02.2020).
74. Papanek, V. (1995). The Green Imperative: Natural Design fort he Real World, London: Thames and Hudson.
75. Park, C.W., Gratiana, P., Jia, H.M. (2013) ,"I’Ll Keep the Cuddly One: Effects of Cuteness Versus Elegance on Product Retention", https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v41/acr_v41_15254.pdf, (Erişim: 05.05.2020).
76. Pittenger, D. (2004). “The Limitations of Extracting Typologies From Trait Measures of Personality”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886903004082, (Erişim: 05.05.2020).
77. Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A. (2013). Organizational Behavior, (15th Edition), Edinburgh: Pearson.
78. Scott, M.L., Nenkov, G.Y. (2016). “Using Consumer Responsibility Reminders To Reduce Cuteness-Induced Indulgent Consumption”, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs11002-014-9336-8, (Erişim: 06.05.2020).
79. Solomon, M.R. (2013). Consumer Behavior Buying, Having and Being, (10th Edition), Edinburgh: Pearson.
80. Solomon, M.R., Bamossy, G.J., Askegaard, S.T., Hogg, M.K. (2013). Consumer Behaviour A European Perspective, (5th Edition), Edinburgh: Pearson.
81. Soltani, A., Johannes, P., Young, J., Sun, Z. (2018). “Exploring City Branding Strategies And Their Impacts on Local Tourism Success, The Case Study of Kumamoto Prefecture, Japan”, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10941665.2017.1410195, (Erişim: 01.05.2020).
82. Storey, A.E., Walsh, C.J., Quinton, R.L., Wynne-Edwards, K.E. (2000). “Hormonal Correlates of Paternal Responsiveness in New And Expectant Fathers. Evolution and Human Behavior”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513899000422, (Erişim: 01.05.2020).
83. Sweeny, J.C., Soutar, G.N. (2001). “Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022435901000410, (Erişim: 03.03.2018).
84. Tai, K., Zheng, X., Narayanan, J. (2011). “Touching a Teddy Bear Mitigates Negative Effects of Social Exclusion to Increase Prosocial Behavior”, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550611404707, (Erişim: 02.04.2020).
85. Taylor, A. (2011). “10 Cutest Cars in America”, Fortune, www.archive.fortune.com/galleries/2011/autos, (Erişim:10.10.2017).
86. Wang, T. (2014). “Motivational Antecedents and Behavioral Consequences of Cuteness in Marketing”, (The Doctor of Philosophy in Marketing Thesis), The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, https://repository.ust.hk/ir/Record/1783.1-72531, (Erişim:10.10.2017).
87. Wen, M. L.Y., Li, H.S. (2013). “A Study on The Relationship Amidst Health Consciousness, Ecological Affect And Purchase Intention of Green Production”, https://www.ijoi-online.org/attachments/article/34/FINAL%20ISSUE%20VOL%205%20NUM%204%20APRIL%202013.pdf#page=124, (Erişim: 23.05.2020).
88. Yoo, B., Donthu, N. (2001). “Developing and Validating A Multidimensional Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale”, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296399000983, (Erişim: 23.04.2017).
89. Zhipeng, X., Tao, W., Jing, Z. (2018). “A Literature Review of Cuteness in Marketing”, https://qks.sufe.edu.cn/J/WJGL/Article/Details/A0wgjjygl-40-5-xiezhipeng, (Erişim: 20.06.2020).