Dijital Çağda Tüketici İkna Süreçleri: Bilişsel, Motivasyonel ve Davranışsal Yaklaşımlar

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 4, 43 - 58, 30.12.2025

Gülçin Erdoğan , Zehra Bozbay

Öz

İkna, mesaj, kaynak ve alıcı arasındaki karmaşık etkileşimlerle bireylerin tutum ve davranışlarını şekillendiren çok boyutlu bir süreçtir. Bu makale, klasik retorik temelleri, sosyal-psikolojik modelleri ve dijital çağın ikna üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Aristoteles’in ethos, pathos ve logos kavramları tarihsel bir temel sunarken, Yale Tutum Değişimi Programı kaynağın güvenilirliği, mesajın içeriği ve alıcı farklılıklarının önemini vurgulamaktadır. Derinlemesine İşleme Modeli ve Sezgisel-Sistematik Model gibi bilişsel yaklaşımlar ile Sosyal Yargı Teorisi ve Bilişsel Uyumsuzluk Teorisi, motivasyonun, bilişsel kapasitenin ve değerlerin mesajın işlenmesini nasıl etkilediğini göstermektedir. Sosyal medya platformları, yapay zeka destekli kişiselleştirilmiş içerikler, sosyal medya etkileyicisi pazarlaması gibi güncel konular modern ikna süreçlerini daha karmaşık hale getirmekte ve tüketici seçiciliğini artırmaktadır. Tutum aşılaması ve psikolojik tepkisellik gibi direnç mekanizmaları ise ikna sonuçlarını şekillendirmektedir. Bu çalışma, klasik, psikolojik ve dijital perspektifleri birleştirerek ikna süreçlerine bütüncül bir bakış sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İkna , Derinlemesine İşleme Modeli , Sezgisel-Sistematik Model , Planlı Davranış Teorisi , Bilişsel Uyumsuzluk Teorisi

Consumer Persuasion Processes in the Digital Age: Cognitive, Motivational, and Behavioral Approaches

Öz

Persuasion is a multidimensional process that shapes individuals’ attitudes and behaviors through complex interactions among the message, the source, and the audience. This paper examines classical rhetorical foundations, social-psychological models, and the influence of the digital era on persuasion. Aristotle’s concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos provide a historical foundation. The Yale Attitude Change Program emphasizes the importance of source credibility, message characteristics, and audience differences. Cognitive approaches, including the Elaboration Likelihood Model and the Heuristic–Systematic Model, along with Social Judgment Theory and Cognitive Dissonance Theory, demonstrate how motivation, cognitive capacity, and values influence message processing. Contemporary developments, such as social media platforms, AI-driven personalized content, and influencer marketing, make modern persuasion more complex and increase consumer selectivity. Resistance mechanisms, including inoculation and psychological reactance, further shape persuasion outcomes. By integrating classical, psychological, and digital perspectives, this study offers a comprehensive view of persuasion processes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Persuasion , Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) , Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) , Theory of Planned Behavior , Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Kaynakça

• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall.
• Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude structure and behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 241–274). Erlbaum.
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Albarracin, D., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2001). Elaborative and nonelaborative processing of a behavior-related communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(6), 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201276005
• Albarracín, D., Kumkale, G. T., & Poyner-Del Vento, P. (2017). How people can become persuaded by weak messages presented by credible communicators: Not all sleeper effects are created equal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.06.009
• Allyn, J., & Festinger, L. (1961). The effectiveness of unanticipated persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(1), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048493
• Anderson, L. R., & McGuire, W. J. (1965). Prior reassurance of group consensus as a factor in producing resistance to persuasion. Sociometry, 28(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786084
• Araujo, T. (2018). Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.051
• Aristoteles. (2019). Retorik (M. H. Doğan, Çev.; 1. basım). İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
• Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(2), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047195
• Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2017). Social psychology and human nature (4th ed., Brief). Cengage Learning.
• Bleier, A., & Eisenbeiss, M. (2015). The importance of trust for personalized online advertising. Journal of Retailing, 91(3), 390–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.04.001
• Bongard Blanchy, K., Rossi, A., Rivas, S., Doublet, S., Koenig, V., & Lenzini, G. (2021, June). “I am definitely manipulated, even when I am aware of it. It’s ridiculous!” — Dark patterns from the end user perspective. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 763–776). https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462086
• Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2017, November). Why people use chatbots. In International Conference on Internet Science (pp. 377–392). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_30
• Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 384–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041006
• Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
• Burgoon, M., Pfau, M., & Birk, T. S. (1995). An inoculation theory explanation for the effects of corporate issue/advocacy advertising campaigns. Communication Research, 22(4), 485–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650950220040
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 805–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
• Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing in the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
• Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olsen, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Erlbaum.
• Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). Guilford Press.
• Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. Sage.
• Cornelis, E., Cauberghe, V., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2014). Regulatory congruence effects in two-sided advertising: The mediating role of processing fluency and processing depth. European Journal of Marketing, 48(7/8), 1451–1465. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2012-0094
• Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1086/209370
• De Hoog, N., Stroebe, W., & de Wit, J. B. F. (2007). The impact of vulnerability to and severity of a health risk on processing and acceptance of fear-arousing communications: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 11(3), 258–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11.3.258
• Djafarova, E., & Rushworth, C. (2017). Exploring the credibility of online celebrities' Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions of young female users. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.009
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1975). An attribution analysis of communicator characteristics on opinion change: The case of communicator attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 136–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076850
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
• Evans, A. T., & Clark, J. K. (2012). Source characteristics and persuasion: The role of self-monitoring in self-validation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 383–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.002
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593
• Festinger, L., & Maccoby, N. (1964). On resistance to persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(4), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0049073
• Festinger, L. (1980). Retrospections on social psychology. Oxford University Press.
• Filieri, R. (2015). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e WOM. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1261–1270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.006
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes toward objects as predictors of single and multiple behavior criteria. Psychological Review, 81(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035872
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison Wesley.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
• Gerlich, M. (2023). The power of virtual influencers: Impact on consumer behaviour and attitudes in the age of AI. Administrative Sciences, 13(8), 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13080178
• Gilovich, T., Keltner, D., Chen, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2015). Social psychology (4th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
• Golden, J. L., Berquist, G. F., & Coleman, W. E. (2000). The rhetoric of Western thought (7th ed.). Kendall/Hunt.
• Granberg, D. (1993). Political perception. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 70–112). Duke University Press.
• Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.109.1.3
• Hamill, R., Wilson, T. D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1980). Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from atypical cases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(4), 578–589. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.4.578
• Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.308
• Haugtvedt, C. P., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1086/209393
• Hermann, E., & Puntoni, S. (2024). Artificial intelligence and consumer behavior: From predictive to generative AI. Journal of Business Research, 180, 114720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114720
• Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2014). Social psychology (7th ed.). Pearson Australia.
• Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on mass communication (Vol. 3). Princeton University Press.
• Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1086/266350
• Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press.
• Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2003). Inferring the importance of arguments: Order effects and conversational rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00509-7
• Janis, I. L. (1954). Personality correlates of susceptibility to persuasion. Journal of Personality, 22(4), 504–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1954.tb01870.x
• Karmarkar, U. R., & Tormala, Z. L. (2010). Believe me, I have no idea what I’m talking about: The effects of source certainty on consumer involvement and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), 1033–1049.https://doi.org/10.1086/648381
• Keller, P. A. (1999). Converting the unconverted: The effect of inclination and opportunity to discount health-related fear appeals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.403
• Khan, R. F., & Sutcliffe, A. (2014). Attractive agents are more persuasive. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(2), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2013.839904
• Kiesler, C. A., & Kiesler, S. B. (1969). Conformity. Addison Wesley.
• Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1989). Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 416–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.416
• Kumkale, G. T., & Albarracín, D. (2004). The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 143–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.143
• Leventhal, H. (1970). Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 119–186). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60091-X
• Madanchian, M. (2024). The impact of artificial intelligence marketing on e commerce sales. Systems, 12(10), 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12100429
• McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defence in producing immunity against persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042026
• McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). Academic Press.
• McGuire, W. J. (1986). The vicissitudes of attitudes and similar representational constructs in twentieth-century psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16(2), 89–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420160202
• Miller, N., & Campbell, D. T. (1959). Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0049330
• Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaber, R. J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.4.615
• Leventhal, H., Singer, R., & Jones, S. (1965). Effects of fear and specificity of recommendation upon attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022089
• Lumsdaine, A. A., & Janis, I. L. (1953). Resistance to “counterpropaganda” produced by one-sided and two-sided “propaganda” presentations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 17(3), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1086/266464
• McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). Academic Press.
• OECD. (2022). Dark commercial patterns. OECD Digital Economy Papers (No. 336). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/44f5e846 en
• O'Keefe, D. J. (2015). Persuasion: Theory and research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Perloff, R. M. (2017). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the twenty-first century (6th ed.). Routledge.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915–1926. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1915
• Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. W. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Academic Press.
• Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41–72). Guilford Press.
• Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Strathman, A. J., & Priester, J. R. (2005). To think or not to think: Exploring two routes to persuasion. In T. C. Brock & M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 81–116). Sage Publications.
• Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
• Quick, B. L., Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2013). Reactance theory. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion (pp. 167–183). SAGE Publications.
• Rhodes, N., & Wood, W. (1992). Self-esteem and intelligence affect influenceability: The mediating role of message reception. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.156
• Riemer, H., Shavitt, S., Koo, M., & Markus, H. R. (2014). Preferences don’t have to be personal: Expanding attitude theorizing with a cross-cultural perspective. Psychological Review, 121(4), 619–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037666
• Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and psychological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In J. Cacioppo & R. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp. 153–176). Guilford Press.
• Schwarz, N., Newman, E., & Leach, W. (2016). Making the truth stick & the myths fade: Lessons from cognitive psychology. Behavioral Science & Policy, 2(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/237946151600200110
• Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. W. B. Saunders.
• Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1967). Attitude as an individual’s own categories: The social judgement–involvement approach to attitude and attitude change. In C. W. Sherif & M. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, ego-involvement, and change (pp. 105–139). Wiley.
• Silvia, P. J. (2006). Reactance and the dynamics of disagreement: Multiple paths from threatened freedom to resistance to persuasion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(5), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.309
• Swani, K., Milne, G. R., & Slepchuk, A. N. (2021). Revisiting trust and privacy concern in consumers’ perceptions of marketing information management practices: Replication and extension. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 56(1), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2021.03.001
• Walster, E., & Festinger, L. (1962). The effectiveness of “overheard” persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(6), 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041172
• Worchel, S., Cooper, J., & Goethals, G. R. (1988). Understanding social psychology (4th ed.). Dorsey Press.
• Zehnle, M., Hildebrand, C., & Valenzuela, A. (2025). Not all AI is created equal: A meta analysis revealing drivers of AI resistance across markets, methods, and time. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 42(3), 729–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2025.02.005