TÜRKİYE’DE TARIMSAL ÜRÜN İHRACATI YAPAN FİRMALARIN BİLİŞ DÜZEYİ AÇISINDAN İNCELENMESİ

Yıl 2015, , 63 - 68, 01.12.2015

Gökhan Çınar Ferruh Işın Göksel Armağan

https://doi.org/10.24181/tarekoder.272312

Cited By: 1

Öz

Son dönemlerde birçok farklı alanda yapılan araştırmalarda davranışsal ve bilişsel faktörlere giderek daha fazla atıf yapılmaktadır. Zihinsel süreçlerin kararların oluşması üzerindeki önemli etkisi, bu alana olan ilginin artmasının temel nedenidir. Bu araştırmanın temel amacını Türkiye’de tarımsal dış ticaret alanında faaliyet gösteren firmaların, bilişsel düşünce tarzlarının ortaya konulması oluşturmaktadır. Buna göre firmaların bilişsel düşünce eğilimi rasyonel ve sezgisel düşünce olmak üzere iki grup altında incelenmiştir. Firmaların bu eğilimlerinin çeşitli özelliklerine göre gruplandırılmasında ise çoklu uyum testlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular rasyonel düşünen firmaların ihracat hacminin, sezgisel düşünen firmalara kıyasla daha az olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar firma davranışlarını ön görebilme ve buna bağlı olarak daha etkin politikalar geliştirebilme açısından önemlidir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tarımsal dış ticaret firmaları, bilişsel düşünce tarzı, rasyonel ve sezgisel düşünce

ANALYSIS OF THE FIRMS THAT EXPORTED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT IN TURKEY IN TERMS OF COGNITION LEVEL

Öz

Recently, researchers have increasingly referred to behavioral and cognitive factors in the researches carried out in many different fields. The important impact of mental process on making a decision is the main reason of increasing the attention on this field. The main purpose of this research is to reveal cognition thinking styles of the firms carrying on a business in foreign trade. So, cognitive thinking tendency of the firms is analyzed into two groups as rational and heuristic thinking. Multi-purpose suit test is used in order to classify these tendencies by various features. The results have shown that export volume of rational thinking firms is less than export volume of intuitional thinking firms. The results are important in terms of foreseeing firm behaviors and developing more effective policies

Anahtar Kelimeler

Agricultural foreign trade, cognitive thinking style, rational and heuristic thinking

Kaynakça

• Acedo, F., and Florin, J. 2006. An entrepreneurial cognition perspective on the internationalization of SMEs, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(1):49–67.
• Allinson, C. W. and Hayes, J. 2000. The Cognitive Style Index: A measure of intuition analysis for organizational research, Journal of Management Studies, 33(1):119- 135.
• Alpar, R., 2011. Uyum Analizi. Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Yöntemler. Detay Yayın. Ankara. s: 355-380.
• Amal, M., and Rocha F. F. A. 2010. Internationalization of small-and medium-sized enterprises: a multi case study,European Business Review,22(6):608-623.
• Armstrong, S. J., and Hird, A. 2009. Cognitive style and entrepreneurial drive of new and mature business owner- managers, Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(4): 419-430.
• Baldacchino, L., Ucbasaran, D., Cabantous, L., and Lockett, A. 2015. Entrepreneurship Research on Intuition: A Critical Analysis and Research Agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2): 212-231.
• Barbosa, S. Gerhardt, M., W. and Kickul, J. 2007. The Role of Cognitive Style and Risk Preference on Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(4):86-104.
• Baron, R. A. 2000. Counterfactual thinking and venture formation: The potential effects of thinking about “what might venturing, 15(1):79-91. of business
• Baron, R.A. and Ward, T. 2004. Expanding entrepreneurial cognition’s toolbox: Potential contributions from the field of cognitive science, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28:553-573.
• Baron, R.A. 2004. The Cognitive Perspective: a Valuable Tool For Answering Entrepreneurship’s Basic “Why” Questions, Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2):221- 239.
• Basadur, M., and Hausdorf, P. A. 1996. Measuring divergent thinking attitudes related to creative problem solving and innovation Journal, 9(1), 21-32. Research
• Busenitz, L., W. and Barney. J. B. 1997. Differences Between Entrepreneurs and Managers in Large Organizations: Biases and Heuristics in Strategic Decision Making, Journal of Business Venturing 12:9-30
• Camerer, C. 1999. Behavioral economics: Reunifying psychology and economics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(19):10575-10577.
• Carland, J. C. and Carland, J. W. 1996. Managers, Small Business Owners and Entrepreneurs: The Cognitive Dimension, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 4(2):55-66.
• Chen, M. H., Chang, Y. Y., and Lo, Y. H. 2015. Creativity cognitive style, conflict, and career success for creative entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 906- 910. Dane, E. and Pratt,
• M.G. 2009. Conceptualising review of and
• trends, International
• Organizational Psychology, 24: 1–40. of Industrial
• Dutta, D. K., & Thornhill, S. 2008. The evolution of growth intentions: Toward a cognition-based model, Journal of Business Venturing, 23(3): 307-332. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj,
• H. 1996. Individual differences in intuitive-experiential
• and analytical-rational thinking styles, Journal of
• Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 390–405.
• Forlani, D. and Mullins, J. 2000. Perceived risks and choices in entrepreneurs’ new venture decisions, Journal of Business Venturing, 15(4):305–322.
• Grégoire, D. A., Cornelissen, J., Dimov, D., and Burg, E. 2015. The Mind in the Middle: Taking Stock of Affect and International Reviews, 17(2):125-142. in of Management
• Kahneman, Daniel and Riepe. M.W. 1998. Aspects of Investor Psychology, Journal of Portfolio Management, 24(4):52- 65.
• Karabey, C. N. 2013. Girişimsel Düşünceyi Anlamak: Düşünme Tarzı ve Risk Tercihinin Girişimsel Öz- yetkinlik ve Girişimcilik Niyeti İle İlişkisi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3):143-159.
• Keh, H., Foo, M. and Lim, B. 2002. Opportunity Evaluation Under Risky Conditions: The Cognitive Processes of Entrepreneurs, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27(2):125–148.
• Malkoç, G., 2012.Psikoloji. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları. Eskişehir. 96-132.
• Miran, B., 2002. Temel İstatistik. Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi, İzmir, 288s.
• Newbold, P., 1995, Statistics for Business ve Economics. Prentice-Hall International, New Jersey, 867p
• Oyson III, M. J., and Whittaker, H. 2015. Entrepreneurial cognition and behavior in the discovery and creation of international opportunities. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 303-336.
• Sadler-Smith, E. 2015. The Role of Intuition in Entrepreneurship and Business Venturing Decisions, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, (ahead-of-print):1-14pp.
• Schoemaker, P.J.H. 1982. The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations, Journal of Economic Literature, 20(2):511-531.
• Tomak, S. 2010. Girişimci Hevristikleri: Bir Kavramsal Çözümleme, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2):145-166.
• Zahra, S. A., Korri, J. S., and Yu, J. 2005. Cognition and international entrepreneurship: implications for research on exploitation, International business review, 14(2): 129- 146. recognition and Sorumlu Yazar: Gökhan ÇINAR [e-mail] Geliş Tarihi : 09/11/2015 Kabul Tarihi : 25/12/2015