SOSYAL ZEKÂ VE İNSAN İLİŞKİLERİNDE GÜVEN UNSURU

Öz

Bu araştırmanın temel konusu sosyal zekâ ve güven arasındaki ilişkidir. Çalışmada katılımcıların sosyal zekâ düzeyi ve güven düzeyi arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesi ve bazı değişkenler (cinsiyet, yaş, eğitim düzeyi, gelir düzeyi, politik yelpaze ve dini inanç) ile aralarındaki ilişkinin tespit edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada nicel araştırma yöntemi benimsenmiş ve veri toplama tekniği olarak da anket tekniği kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemi, kolayda örnekleme tekniğiyle oluşturulmuştur. Araştırma için hazırlanan anket çevrim içi ortamda 324 katılımcıya uygulanmıştır. Bulgulara göre, “Tromso Sosyal Zekâ” ölçeğinin toplam puan ortalaması 59,50±9,253 ve “Güven” ölçeğinin toplam puan ortalaması 52,22±12,228’dir. Analizler sonucunda sosyal zekâ ölçeği toplam puanı ile güven ölçeği toplam puanı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki tespit edilmemiştir. “Güven” ölçeği ile Tromso Sosyal Zekâ ölçeğinde “Sosyal Beceri” alt boyutu ve “Sosyal Farkındalık” alt boyutu arasında pozitif yönde düşük düzeyde anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu görülmektedir. Öte yandan, yaş ve politik yelpazenin hem sosyal zekâ hem de güven düzeyi ile aralarında ilişkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Güven
• Güvensizlik
• Sosyal Zekâ

Social Intelligence And Trust In Human Relations

Öz

The main subject of this research is the relationship between social intelligence and trust. In the study, it was aimed to determine the relationship between the social intelligence level and trust level of the participants and to determine the relationship between them and some variables (gender, age, education level, income level, political spectrum and religious belief). Quantitative research method was adopted in the research and questionnaire technique was used as data collection technique. The sample of the study was created by convenience sampling technique. The questionnaire prepared for the research was applied to 324 participants in an online environment. According to the findings, the total mean score of the "Tromso Social Intelligence" scale was 59.50±9.253 and the total mean score of the "Trust" scale was 52.22±12,228. As a result of the analysis, no significant relationship was found between the total score of the social intelligence scale and the total score of the trust scale. On the other hand, it is seen that there is a low level of positive correlation between the "Trust" scale and the "Social Skills" sub-dimension and "Social Awareness" sub-dimension in the Tromso Social Intelligence scale. On the other hand, it has been determined that age and political spectrum are correlated with both social intelligence and trust level.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Trust
• Distrust
• Social Intelligence

Kaynakça

1. Akça E. vd. (2019). Ebelik Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Zekâ Düzeyleri İle Meslek Algıları Arasındaki İlişki. Çukurova Medikal Journal, 44(2), 621-631.
2. Ahmad, W. ve Sun, J. (2017). Modeling Consumer Distrust Of Online Hotel Reviews. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77-90.
3. Albrecht, K. (2006). Social Intelligence The New Science of Success. BusinessBookReview™ Reviewed by Lydia Morris Brown, 23(1), 1-11.
4. Belton, D., Ebbert, A. ve Infurna, F.C. (2016). Social Intelligence. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, 1-5.
5. Björqvist, K., Österman, K. Ve Kaukiainen, A. (2000). Social Intelligence−Empathy= Aggression?. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(2), 191-200.
6. Carl, B. ve Billari, C. F. (2014). Generalized Trust and Intelligence in the United States. PLoS ONE, 9(3), 1-10.
7. Carreras, M. R. vd. (2014). Personality and Social Psychology: Aggression and PProsocial Behaviors in Social Conflicts Mediating the Influence of Cold Social Intelligence and Affective Empathy on Children’s Social PreferenceScandinavian. Journal of Psychology, 55, 371-379.
8. Coşkun, R., Altunışık, R. ve Yıldırım, E. (2019). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri SPSS Uygulamalı. Sakarya Yayıncılık, Sakarya.

9. Chujor, C.J. ve Cecilia, E.A. (2017). Emotional And Social Intelligence As Predictions Of Occupational Stress Among Civil Servants In Rivers State. European Journal of Educational and Development Psychology, 5(3), 15-26.
10. Doğan, T. ve Çetin, B. (2009). Tromso Sosyal Zekâ Ölçeği Türkçe Formunun Faktör Yapısı, Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 7(1), 241-268.
11. Düşükcan, M. (2021). Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Zekâ Düzeylerinin İletişim Becerilerine Etkisi. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 31(1), 217-230.
12. Estreder Y. vd. (2021). The Positive Spiral Between Problem-Solving Management and Trust: A Study in Organizations for Individuals With Intellectual Disability. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(617622), 1-9.
13. Falahi Z. vd. (2020). The Model of Social Trust Based on Social Intelligence, Social Identity, and Social Isolation Based on the Moderating Role of Gender and Family Economic Status on Senior high school students in Tehran. Iranian Journal of Educational Sociology, 3(1),106- 118.
14. Garske, J. (1975). Interpersonal Trust and Construct Complexity For Positively and Negatively Evaluated Persons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1(4), 616-619.
15. Garske, J. (1976). Personality and Generalized Expectancies For Interpersonal Trust. Psychological Report, 39(2), 649–650.
16. Girgin, M. ve Bayar, A. (2019). Türk Toplumundaki Güven İndeksinin Düşük Olmasının Nedenlerinin İncelenmesi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(2), 58-71.
17. Gurtman, M. ve Lion, C. (1982). Interpersonal Trust and Perceptual Vigilance for Trustworthiness Descriptors. Journal of Research in Personality, 16(1), 108–117.
18. Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationship. New York: Bantam Books.
19. Heidarabadi, A, Sarukhani, B. ve Valadbigi, A. (2012). A Study of the Types of Social Trust and the Elements Influencing It: The Case of the Iranian Northern Town of Sari. Asian Social Science, 8(1), 183-193.
20. Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano J., M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin ve B. Puranen (eds.). (2022). World Values Survey: Round Seven - Country-Pooled Datafile Version 3.0. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat.
21. Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The Connecting Link Between Organizational Theory And Philosophical Ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379-403.
22. İlhan, M. ve Çetin, B. (2014). Sosyal ve Kültürel Zekâ Arasındaki İlişkinin Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli ile İncelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Education, 3(2), 4-15.
23. Jones, G.R. ve Georg, J. M. (1998). The Experience And Evolution Of Trust: Implications For Cooperation And Teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531-546.
24. Kanimozhi T. ve Vasimalairaja, M. (2018). Role Of Social Intelligence In Student’s Educational Development. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, 6(1), 137-140.
25. Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., ve Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438-458.
26. Lewis, J. D., ve Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as Social Reality. Social Forces, 63, 967-985.
27. Luhmann, N. (2000). ‘Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives, in Gambetta, Diego (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Electronic Edition, chapter 6, 94-107.
28. McAllister, D.(1995). “Affect And Cognition Based Trust As Foundations For Interpersonal Cooperation In Organization”. Academy Of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
29. Mayer, R., Davis J.H. ve Schoorman, F.D (2007). “Integration Model Of Organizational Trust”. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.
30. Oğuzhan, Y.S. (2021). Sosyal Zekâ İle Yaşam Tatmini Arasındaki Kişilik Özelliklerinin Düzenleyici Rolü Üzerine Bir Araştırma, International Journal Of Management and Administration, 5(9), 164-175.
31. Patel, P.K. (2014). A New Success Formula: Social Intelligence. International Journal for Research in Education (IJRE), 3(6), 33-43.
32. Roos G, Roos J. (2000). Measuring Your Company’s Intellectual Performance. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 413-426.
33. Rousseau, D., Sitkin, M., Burt, S.B. vd. (1998), “Not So Different After At All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust”. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-405.
34. Silvera, D., Martinussen, M., Dahl, T. I. (2001). The Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale, a self‐report measure of social intelligence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 313-319.
35. Robinson S.L. (1996). Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574-599.
36. Sadiku, M. N. O., Alam, S ve Musa, S. M. (2019). Social Intelligence: A Primer. International Journal of Research - Granthaalayah, 7(9), 213-217.
37. Sögüt, S., Cangöl, E., Güven, S. (2021). Ebelerin Sosyal Zekâ Düzeyleri İle Meslek Algılarının Belirlenmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Sağlık Hizmetleri Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 9(1), 167-175.
38. Thorndike, E.L. (1920). Intelligence and Its Use. Harper’s Mag, 140, 227-235.
39. Yamagishi, T. ve Kikuchi, M. (1999). Trust, Gullibility, and Social Intelligence. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 145-161.
40. Yamagishi, T. ve Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129-166.
41. Welch, M.R. vd. (2001). Determinants And Consequences Of Social Trust, http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/732/1/WelchRiveraConwayetalEPRINT.pdf Erişim: 24.04.2022.
42. Zhang, Y. A. Vd. (2008). How do I trust thee? The Employee-Organization Relationship, Supervisory Support, And Middler Manager Trust In The Organization. Wiley InterScience, 47(1), 111-132.