BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

DAVRANIŞSAL EKONOMİ YAKLAŞIMLARININ ÜRÜN İLGİLENİM SEVİYESİNE GÖRE İNCELENMESİ

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 12, 21 - 46, 01.12.2013

Öz

İnsanların karar verirken her zaman “en iyi”yi aramadıklarını, bazen “iyi”nin de onlar için yeterli olabildiğini, irrasyonel kararlar da verebildiğini belirten “davranışsal ekonomi”, ekonominin temel varsayımı olan “homo ekonomikus”u sorgulamaktadır. Beklenti kuramı ile geniş yankı bulan bu çalışma alanı, belirsizlik ve risk altında karar verme durumlarında bireylerin irrasyonel kararlar verebileceğini ya da başka bir ifade ile beklenen fayda kuramında belirtildiği şekilde karar vermeyebileceğini belirtmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, davranışsal ekonomi alanında gerçekleştirilen araştırmaların pazarlama bakış açısıyla yeniden uygulanması durumunda ortaya çıkan karar verme davranışını gözlemlemektir. Çalışma, davranışsal ekonomi yazınında gerçekleştirilen çalışmalardan yola çıkarak dört ana konuyu; çerçeveleme etkisi, referansa bağlılık, zihinsel muhasebe ve batık maliyet hatasını pazarlama bakış açısıyla yeniden değerlendirmektedir. Davranışsal ekonomi konularında ürün ilgilenim seviyesine göre sonuçların farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını görebilmek amacıyla, yaklaşımlarda yüksek ilgi duyulan ve düşük ilgi duyulan ürünler kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada varsayımsal seçim soruları içeren anketler kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle tüketicilere uygulanmıştır. Böylece davranışsal ekonomi yaklaşımlarının tüketici davranışı açısından neler ifade edebileceğinin yanı sıra, bu davranışın ürün ilgilenim düzeyine göre değişip değişmediği irdelenmiştir. Çalışmada sonuç olarak söz konusu dört ana konu ile ilgili bulguların ürün ilgilenim seviyesine göre farklılaştığı görülmüştür

Kaynakça

  • Akın, Z. ve Urhan, B. (2010). “İktisat Deneysel Bir Bilim Olmaya mı Başlıyor?”, İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 25(288), 9-28.
  • Arkes, H. R. ve Blumer, C. (1985). “The Psychology of Sunk Cost”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 123-140.
  • Batra, R. ve Ahtola, O. (1991). “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Con- sumer Attitudes”, Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.
  • Bayraktaroğlu, G. (2004). “Kolayda Mallarda Marka Bağlılığını Etkileyen Faktörler, Hazır Kahve Üzerine Bir Çalışma”z Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fa- kültesi, Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 11(2), 69-84.
  • Buda, R. ve Zhang, Y. (2000). “Consumer Product Evaluation: The Interactive Effect of Message Framing, Presentation Order, and Source Credibility”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(4), 229-242.
  • Camerer, C. (1999). “Behavioral Economics: Reunifying Psychology and Economics”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(19), 10575-10577.
  • Dhar, R. ve Wertenbroch, K. (2000). “Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods”, Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 60-71.
  • Dholakia, U. M. (1997). “An Investigation of the Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Product Involvement”, Advances in Consumer Research, 24(1), 159-167.
  • Heath, T., Chatterjee, S. ve France, K. R. (1995). “Mental Accounting and Changes in Price: The Frame Dependence of Reference Dependence”, Journal of Consumer Re- search, 22(1), 90-97.
  • Ho, T. H., N. Lim, ve Camerer, C. (2006). “Modeling the Psychology of Consumer and Firm Behavior with Behavioral Economics”, Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 307-331.
  • Kahneman, D. (2003). “A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Ra- tionality”, American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.
  • Kahneman, D. ve Tversky, A. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk”, Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.
  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. ve Thaler, R. H. (1991). “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias”, The Journal of Economics Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.
  • Khan, U. ve Dhar, R. (2010). “Price-Framing Effects on the Purchase of Hedonic and Utilitarian Bundles”, Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1090-1099.
  • Laibson, D. ve Zeckhauser, R. (1998). “Amos Tversky and The Ascent of Behavioral Eco- nomics”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16(1), 7-47.
  • Levin, I. P. ve Gaeth, G. J. (1988). “How Consumers Are Affected By the Framing of At- tribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product”, Journal of Con- sumer Research, 15, 374-378.
  • Lin, L.-Y. ve Chen, C.-S. (2006). “The Influence of the Country-of-Origin Image, Product Knowledge and Product Involvement on Consumer Purchase Decisions: an Em- pirical Study of Insurance and Catering Services in Taiwan”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(5), 248-265.
  • McAfee, R.P., Mialon, H. M. ve Mialon, S. H. (2010). “Do Sunk Costs Matter?”, Economic Inquiry, 48(2), 323-336.
  • Mill, John S. (1844). Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, Londra: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.
  • Perdue, B. C. ve Summers, J. O. (1986). “Checking The Success of Manipulations in Mar- keting Experiments”, Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 317-326.
  • Pinker, Stephen (1997). How The Mind Works, New York:Norton.
  • Quester, P. G. ve Smart, J. (1998). “The Influence of Consumption Situation and Product Involvement Over Consumers’ Use of Product Attribute”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(3), 220-238.
  • Ratchford, B. T. (1987). “New Insights About the FCB Grid”, Journal of Advertising Re- search, 27, 24-38.
  • Sekaran, Uma (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, ABD: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Shafir, E. ve Thaler, R. H. (2006). “Invest Now, Drink Later, Spend Never: On the Mental Accounting of Delayed Consumption”, Journal of Economic Psychology, 27, 694- 712.
  • Simon, H. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
  • Suh, J.-C. ve Youjae, Y. (2006). “When Brand Attitudes Affect the Customer Satisfaction- Loyalty Relation: The Moderating Role of Product Involvement”, Journal of Con- sumer Psychology, 16(2), 145-155.
  • Thaler, R. H. (1980). “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 39-60.
  • Thaler, R. H. (1985). “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice”, Marketing Science, 4(3), 99-214.
  • Tversky, A. ve Kahneman, D. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice”, Science, 211( 4481), 453-458.
  • Vaughn, R. (1986). “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited”, Journal of Advertising Research, 27, 55-66.
  • Von Neumann, J. ve Morgenstern, O. (1944). The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, ABD: Princeton University.
  • Wilkinson, N. (2008). An Introduction to Behavioral Economics, Çin: Palgrave Macmillan.

AN EXAMINATION OF BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS APPROACHES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT LEVEL

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 12, 21 - 46, 01.12.2013

Öz

Behavioral economics, which indicates that human beings do not always search for “the best” and that sometimes “good” will be enough for them, interrogates the fundamental assumption of economics, the “homo economicus”. Prospect theory, which caused a breakthrough in the behavioral economics field, states that human beings can make irrational decisions under risk and uncertainty or in other words, they may not always make the decisions specified in the expected utility theory. This study aims to observe consumer decision making behavior that results through the reinterpretation of previous studies from the marketing perspective. In this study, four topics of behavioral economics that come into the prominence; framing effect, reference dependence, mental accounting and sunk cost fallacy are evaluated. To evaluate whether the results differ according to product involvement levels, both high involvement and low involvement products are used in the study. Questionnaires which contain hypothetical choice questions are applied to consumers via convenience sampling method. Thus, besides the contributions of these behavioral economics topics to consumer behavior literature, whether this behavior will change according to product involvement levels will also be scrutinized. As a result, it has been found that findings related to aforementioned four topics differ according to the product involvement levels

Kaynakça

  • Akın, Z. ve Urhan, B. (2010). “İktisat Deneysel Bir Bilim Olmaya mı Başlıyor?”, İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 25(288), 9-28.
  • Arkes, H. R. ve Blumer, C. (1985). “The Psychology of Sunk Cost”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 123-140.
  • Batra, R. ve Ahtola, O. (1991). “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Con- sumer Attitudes”, Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.
  • Bayraktaroğlu, G. (2004). “Kolayda Mallarda Marka Bağlılığını Etkileyen Faktörler, Hazır Kahve Üzerine Bir Çalışma”z Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fa- kültesi, Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 11(2), 69-84.
  • Buda, R. ve Zhang, Y. (2000). “Consumer Product Evaluation: The Interactive Effect of Message Framing, Presentation Order, and Source Credibility”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(4), 229-242.
  • Camerer, C. (1999). “Behavioral Economics: Reunifying Psychology and Economics”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(19), 10575-10577.
  • Dhar, R. ve Wertenbroch, K. (2000). “Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods”, Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 60-71.
  • Dholakia, U. M. (1997). “An Investigation of the Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Product Involvement”, Advances in Consumer Research, 24(1), 159-167.
  • Heath, T., Chatterjee, S. ve France, K. R. (1995). “Mental Accounting and Changes in Price: The Frame Dependence of Reference Dependence”, Journal of Consumer Re- search, 22(1), 90-97.
  • Ho, T. H., N. Lim, ve Camerer, C. (2006). “Modeling the Psychology of Consumer and Firm Behavior with Behavioral Economics”, Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 307-331.
  • Kahneman, D. (2003). “A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Ra- tionality”, American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.
  • Kahneman, D. ve Tversky, A. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk”, Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.
  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. ve Thaler, R. H. (1991). “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias”, The Journal of Economics Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.
  • Khan, U. ve Dhar, R. (2010). “Price-Framing Effects on the Purchase of Hedonic and Utilitarian Bundles”, Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1090-1099.
  • Laibson, D. ve Zeckhauser, R. (1998). “Amos Tversky and The Ascent of Behavioral Eco- nomics”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16(1), 7-47.
  • Levin, I. P. ve Gaeth, G. J. (1988). “How Consumers Are Affected By the Framing of At- tribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product”, Journal of Con- sumer Research, 15, 374-378.
  • Lin, L.-Y. ve Chen, C.-S. (2006). “The Influence of the Country-of-Origin Image, Product Knowledge and Product Involvement on Consumer Purchase Decisions: an Em- pirical Study of Insurance and Catering Services in Taiwan”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(5), 248-265.
  • McAfee, R.P., Mialon, H. M. ve Mialon, S. H. (2010). “Do Sunk Costs Matter?”, Economic Inquiry, 48(2), 323-336.
  • Mill, John S. (1844). Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, Londra: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.
  • Perdue, B. C. ve Summers, J. O. (1986). “Checking The Success of Manipulations in Mar- keting Experiments”, Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 317-326.
  • Pinker, Stephen (1997). How The Mind Works, New York:Norton.
  • Quester, P. G. ve Smart, J. (1998). “The Influence of Consumption Situation and Product Involvement Over Consumers’ Use of Product Attribute”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(3), 220-238.
  • Ratchford, B. T. (1987). “New Insights About the FCB Grid”, Journal of Advertising Re- search, 27, 24-38.
  • Sekaran, Uma (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, ABD: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Shafir, E. ve Thaler, R. H. (2006). “Invest Now, Drink Later, Spend Never: On the Mental Accounting of Delayed Consumption”, Journal of Economic Psychology, 27, 694- 712.
  • Simon, H. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
  • Suh, J.-C. ve Youjae, Y. (2006). “When Brand Attitudes Affect the Customer Satisfaction- Loyalty Relation: The Moderating Role of Product Involvement”, Journal of Con- sumer Psychology, 16(2), 145-155.
  • Thaler, R. H. (1980). “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 39-60.
  • Thaler, R. H. (1985). “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice”, Marketing Science, 4(3), 99-214.
  • Tversky, A. ve Kahneman, D. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice”, Science, 211( 4481), 453-458.
  • Vaughn, R. (1986). “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited”, Journal of Advertising Research, 27, 55-66.
  • Von Neumann, J. ve Morgenstern, O. (1944). The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, ABD: Princeton University.
  • Wilkinson, N. (2008). An Introduction to Behavioral Economics, Çin: Palgrave Macmillan.
Toplam 33 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Sumeyra Duman Kurt Bu kişi benim

Mustafa Tanyeri Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Aralık 2013
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2013 Cilt: 6 Sayı: 12

Kaynak Göster

APA Duman Kurt, S., & Tanyeri, M. (2013). DAVRANIŞSAL EKONOMİ YAKLAŞIMLARININ ÜRÜN İLGİLENİM SEVİYESİNE GÖRE İNCELENMESİ. Pazarlama Ve Pazarlama Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(12), 21-46.