SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Tansu IŞIKAY, (Doğuş Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi,)
Ahmet BAŞCI (Marmara Üniversitesi, İşletme Fakültesi,)
Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi
14 6
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 42 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 63 - 90 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.14780.muiibd.763919 İndeks Tarihi: 20-04-2021

SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz:
Tüketici – marka özdeşleşmesi çalışmalarının 2000’li yıllar içerisinde pazarlama literatüründe yoğunlukkazandığı görülmektedir. Tüketici – marka özdeşleşmesi, tüketicilerin kimliklerini ifade etmek içinmarkaların sembolik anlamlarını kendilerine nasıl atfettiklerinin anlaşılması açısından büyük önemesahiptir. Bu sembolik anlamlar benlik – marka arasındaki bağlantıları içerdiğinden tüketici – markailişkilerin anlaşılmasında oldukça önemlidir. Temelde sosyal kimlik teorisine dayanan tüketici – markaözdeşleşmesi, markaların tüketicilerin kendilerini sınıflandırılması için olanak sağladığı ve bu markasınıflandırmalarının, marka kullanıcıları arasında olası farklılıklara yol açtığını varsaymaktadır. Çalışmanıntemel amacı sosyal kimlik teorisi açısından tüketici – marka özdeşleşmesini incelemek, tüketici – markaözdeşleşmesi ve literatür araştırması sonucunda belirlenen öncüller arasındaki ilişkiyi analiz etmektir.Araştırma modelinde tüketici – marka özdeşleşmesi belirli unsurlar açısından incelenmiştir. Bu amaçdoğrultusunda prestij, marka ayırt ediciliği, markanın sosyal faydası ve hatırlanabilir marka deneyimleriolarak belirlenen öncüllerin marka çekiciliği ve tüketici-marka özdeşleşmesi üzerindeki etkileri ortayakonmuştur. Ayrıca marka çekiciliği değişkeninin tüketici – marka özdeşleşmesi üzerindeki etkileriincelenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelime:

THE CONSUMER – BRAND IDENTIFICATION IN TERMS OF SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY AND A RESEARCH

Öz:
Consumer – brand identification studies seem to be concentrated in the marketing literature during the 2000s. Consumer – brand identification has great importance in terms of understanding how consumers have attributed the symbolic meanings of brands to their identities. These symbolic meanings are important in the understanding of consumer-brand relations since they include the connections between self-brand. Consumer – brand identification, which basically is based on the theory of social identity, assumes that brands allow consumers to classify themselves and that such brand categorization leads to possible differences between brand users. The main aim of the study is to examine the consumer – brand identification in terms of the theory of social identity, consumer – brand identification and analyzing the relationship between the identified antecedents as a result of the literature search. In the research model, consumer – brand identification has been examined in terms of certain factors. For this purpose, brand prestige, brand distinctiveness, brand social benefits and memorable brand experience antecedents determinates as, the effects on brand attractiveness and consumer-brand identification have been revealed. In addition, the effects of brand attractiveness variable on consumer – brand identification have been examined.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • AAKER, D. (2003). The Power of the Branded Differentiator. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1), 83 – 87.
  • AGRES, S. J., & Dubitsky, T. M. (1996). Changing needs for Brands. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(1), 21-30.
  • ASHFORTH , B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization . Academy of Management Review, 20-39.
  • BAEK, T. H., Kim, J., & Yu, H. J. (2010). The Differential Roles of Brand Credibility and Brand Prestige in Consumer Brand Choice. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 662 – 678.
  • BAGOZZI, R. (1995). Reflections on Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 23(4), 273-277.
  • BAGOZZI, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 45-61.
  • BAGOZZI, R. P., Bergami, M., Marzocchi, G. L., & Morandin, G. (2012). Customer–Organization Relationships:Development and Test of a Theory of Extended Identities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 63-76.
  • BALL, D., & Tasaki, L. H. (1992). The Role and Measurement of Attachment in Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(2), 155-172.
  • BELK , R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168.
  • BERGAMI, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555-577.
  • BHATTACHARYA , C., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-Company Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Relationships with Companies. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 76-88.
  • BHATTACHARYA , C., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-Company Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Relationships with Companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88.
  • BHATTACHARYA, C., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59, 46-57.
  • BREWER, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology, 17(5), 475-482.
  • CARLSON, B. D., Donavan, D. T., & Kevin , J. C. (2009). Consumer-brand relationships in sport: brand personality and identification. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 37(4), 370 – 384.
  • De CHERNATONY, L., Mcdonald, M., & Wallace, E. (2011). Creating Powerful Brands (4 b.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • DICK, R. v. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: Linking theory and research from social and organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 265-283.
  • ELBEDWEIHY, A. M., Jayawardhena, C., Elsharnouby, M. H., & Elsharnouby, T. H. (2016). Customer relationship building: The role of brand attractiveness and consumer–brand identification. Journal of Business Research, 69, 2901-2910.
  • ELBEDWEIHY, A., & Jayawardhena, C. (2012). Consumer-Brand Identification: Conceptualization, Antecedents and Consequences. Academy of Marketing Annual Conference, 1-7.
  • ELLEMERS, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self Categorization, Commitment to the Group, and Group Self-Esteem as Related but Distinct Aspects of Social Identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.
  • ESCALAS, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1/2), 168-180.
  • ESCALAS, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You Are What They Eat: The Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339-348.
  • ESCALAS, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389.
  • GONZALEZ-Benito, O., Martınez-Ruiz, M. P., & Molla-Descals, A. (2008). Latent segmentation using storelevel scanner data. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 1(17), 37 – 47.
  • HALL, D., Schneider , B., & Nygren, H. (1970). Personal Factors in Organizational Identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 176-190.
  • HAYES, J. B., Alford, B. L., Silver, L., & York, R. P. (2006). Looks matter in developing consumer-brand relationships. 15(5), 306-315.
  • HE, H., Harris, L. C., Wang, W., & Haiderd, K. (2016). Brand identity and online self-customisation usefulness perception. Journal of Marketing Manegement , 32(13-14), 1308-1332.
  • HE, H., Li, Y., & Harris, L. (2012). Social identity perspective on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 65, 648-657.
  • HE, Y., Chen, Q., Lee, R. P., Wang, Y., & Pohlmann, A. (2017). Consumers’ Role Performance and Brand Identification: Evidence from a Survey and a Longitudinal Field Experiment. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 1-11.
  • HOGG, M. A., Terry , D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255-269.
  • JOSIASSEN, A. (2011). Consumer Disidentification and Its Effects on Domestic Product Purchases: An Empirical Investigation in the Netherlands. Journal of Marketing, 75, 124-140.
  • KIM, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S.-B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese Psychological Research, 43(4), 195-206.
  • KREINER, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1-27.
  • KUENZEL, S., & Halliday, S. V. (2008). Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand identification. Journal of Product & Brand Management,, 293-304.
  • KUENZEL, S., & Halliday, S. V. (2010). The chain of effects from reputation and brand personality congruence to brand loyalty: The role of brand identifi cation. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 18, 167-176.
  • LAKANIE, P. A., & Mojarrad, N. (2015). The Antecedents and Concequences of Brand Prestıge in Smartphone Industry in Iran. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(4), 16-41.
  • LAM, S. K. (2012). Identity-motivated marketing relationships: research synthesis, controversies, and research agenda. Academy of Marketing Science, 2, 72-87.
  • LAM, S. K., Ahearne, M., Mullins, R., Hayati, B., & Schillewaert, N. (2013). Exploring the dynamics of antecedents to consumer–brand identification with a new brand. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 234-252.
  • LAM, S., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand is introduced: A social identity theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74, 128-146.
  • LUHTANEN, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One’s Social Identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302-318.
  • MAEL, F. (1988). Organizational identification: Construct redefinition and a field application with organizational alumni. Wayne State University,Michigan: Detroit.
  • MAEL, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.
  • MARIN, L., & de Maya, S. R. (2013). The role of affiliation, attractiveness and personal connection in consumercompany identification. European Journal of Marketing, 47(3/4), 655 – 673.
  • McCRACKEN, G. (1989). Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310-321.
  • McQUISTON, D. H. (2004). Successful branding of a commodity product: The case of RAEX LASER steel. Industrial Marketing Management, 33, 345 – 354.
  • MICHEAL, Hogg, M., Turner, J. C., & Schulze, C. N. (1986). Social Categorization, Intergroup Behavior: Two Experiments. Revista de Psicologia Social, 24.
  • MOJARRAD, N., & Lakanie, P. A. (2015). Determining and Prioritizing the Key Indicators to Choose a Hotel From the Iranıan Perspective. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(3), 49-75.
  • MUNIZ, A. M., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412 – 432.
  • O’CASS, A., & Frost, H. (2002). Status brands: Examining the effects of non-productrelated. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11(2), 67-88.
  • PARK, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1-17.
  • ROMANIUK, J., Sharp, B., & Ehrenberg, A. (2007). Evidence concerning the importance of perceived brand differentiation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 15(2), 42-54.
  • SARUHAN, Ş. C., & Özdemirci, A. (2011). Bilim, Felsefe veMetodoloji (2 b.). İstanbul: Beta.
  • SIRGY, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287-300.
  • SO, K. K., King, C., Hudson, S., & Meng, F. (2017). The missing link in building customer brand identification: The role of brand attractiveness. Tourism Management, 59, 640-651.
  • SOPHONSIRI, S., & Polyorat, K. (2009). The impact of brand personality dimensions on brand association and brand attractiveness: the case study of KFC in Thailand. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 5(2), 51-62.
  • STOKBURGER-SAUER, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer–brand identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 406-418.
  • STRYKER, S., & Serpe, R. (1982). Commitment, Identity Salience, and Role Behavior: Theory and Research Example. W. Ickes, & E. Knowles içinde, Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior (s. 199-218). New York: Springer. Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice. Journal of Biosocial Science Suppl, 173-91.
  • TAJFEL, H. (1982). Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.
  • TAJFEL, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. W. Austin, & S. Worchel içinde, The social psychology of intergroup relations (s. 33-47). Monterey,CA: Brooks/Cole.
  • TAJFEL, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel içinde, Psychology of Intergroup Relations (s. 6-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
  • THOMPSON, C. J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic value of the Doppelg€anger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 50 – 64 .
  • TIAN, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2014). Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50-66.
  • TURNER, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity:some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(1), 5-34.
  • TURNER, J. C., & Onorata, R. S. (1999). Social identity, personality and the self-concept: A self – categorization perspective. T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John içinde, The psychology of the social self (s. 11-46). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • TURNER, J. C., Tajfel, H., & Brown, R. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187-204.
  • VIGNERON, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1-15.
  • WEIGOLD, M. F., Flusser, S., & Ferguson, M. A. (1992). Direct Response Advertising: The Contributions of Price, Information, Artwork, and Individual Differences to Purchase Consideration. Journal of Direct Marketing, 6(2), 32-39.
  • WOLTER, J. S., Brach, S., Cronin Jr, J. J., & Bonnd, M. (2016). Symbolic drivers of consumer–brand identification and disidentification. Journal of Business Research, 69, 785-793.
APA Işıkay T, Başcı A (2020). SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. , 63 - 90. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
Chicago Işıkay Tansu,Başcı Ahmet SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. (2020): 63 - 90. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
MLA Işıkay Tansu,Başcı Ahmet SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. , 2020, ss.63 - 90. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
AMA Işıkay T,Başcı A SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. . 2020; 63 - 90. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
Vancouver Işıkay T,Başcı A SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. . 2020; 63 - 90. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
IEEE Işıkay T,Başcı A "SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA." , ss.63 - 90, 2020. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
ISNAD Işıkay, Tansu - Başcı, Ahmet. "SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA". (2020), 63-90. https://doi.org/10.14780.muiibd.763919
APA Işıkay T, Başcı A (2020). SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 42(1), 63 - 90. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
Chicago Işıkay Tansu,Başcı Ahmet SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 42, no.1 (2020): 63 - 90. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
MLA Işıkay Tansu,Başcı Ahmet SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, vol.42, no.1, 2020, ss.63 - 90. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
AMA Işıkay T,Başcı A SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 2020; 42(1): 63 - 90. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
Vancouver Işıkay T,Başcı A SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 2020; 42(1): 63 - 90. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
IEEE Işıkay T,Başcı A "SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA." Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 42, ss.63 - 90, 2020. 10.14780.muiibd.763919
ISNAD Işıkay, Tansu - Başcı, Ahmet. "SOSYAL KİMLİK KURAMI AÇISINDAN TÜKETİCİ – MARKA ÖZDEŞLEŞMESİ VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA". Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 42/1 (2020), 63-90. https://doi.org/10.14780.muiibd.763919
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
17-04-2024 18:55

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları