Elfin TATAROĞLU

5418

Davranışsal İktisat Yaklaşımlarının Politik Pazarlama Karması Aracılığıyla Seçmen Tercihi Üzerindeki Etkisi Çerçeveleme ve Karar Verme

Davranışsal İktisat Yaklaşımlarının Politik Pazarlama Karması Aracılığıyla Seçmen Tercihi Üzerindeki Etkisi Çerçeveleme ve Karar Verme

The issue of human being as a rational being has been a source of interest for researchers in philosophy, economy, psychology and many other fields for centuries. In this context, it is a scientific reality based on theories in behavioral economics that people do not always act rationally, and that the perception of gain-loss changes according to the way the problems are presented and framed in an environment of uncertainty. It is possible to say that behavioral economics, which emerges from the perspective of the science of psychology, is effective in every situation and field where people and decision making are concerned. In recent years, studies that benefit from behavioral economics approaches in the fields of marketing, finance, law and politics have increased. In this context, investigating the effect of voters, whom we can see as consumers, on decision processes through political marketing mix elements will contribute to the understanding of voter preferences that may be seen as irrational. The aim of this study is to contribute to the literature with a multidisciplinary approach by making an in-depth literature review on the effect of the Framing Effect theory, which is one of the behavioral economics approaches, on the preferences of the voters through political marketing mix tools. At the same time, it will be investigated how the political marketing elements manipulate the preferences of the voters according to the way they are used by political parties and candidates, and it will be examined whether the voters make rational choices. By carrying out a conceptual study on how these tools affect the preferences, gain-loss framing, and risk perception of the masses, it is aimed to present a roadmap for developing technology, social media and neuromarketing techniques and the way this effect is used in political marketing in the future.
Keywords:

Behavioral economics, political marketing mix, voter behavior framing effect,

PDF

___

  • Adler, N. J. & Gundersen, A. (2001). International dimensions of organizational behavior, Cincinnati, OH: South-Western, s. 398.
  • Alcalde-Unzu, J. Ballester, M.A. & Nieto, J. (2012). Freedom of choice: John Stuart Mill and the tree of life, Sayı. 3, 209–226 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13209-011-0053-8
  • Altunöz, U., & Altunöz, H. (2019). Davranışsal Ekonomi (Nörofinans), Şeçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.
  • Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control, Psychological Bulletin, 82, no. 4, July, 463-496.
  • Aktan, C. C. (2021). Yeni İktisat Okulları ve İktisadi Düşünce, Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara.
  • Aktan, C. C., & Yavuzaslan, K. (2020). Davranışsal İktisat: Bireylerin İktisadi Karar ve Tercihlerinde Zihinsel, Duygusal ve Psikolojik Faktörlerin Analizi. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 12(2), 100-120.
  • Aslan, M. M. (2015). Siyasal iletişim ve din: Seçmen davranışında dinî inançların rolü üzerine bir araştırma, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya.
  • Black, D. (1958). The Theory of Committees and Elections, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Blais, A. (2000). To Vote or Not to Vote, The Merits and limits of rational choice Theory, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
  • Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance, Academic Press, New York.
  • Bongrad, M. (1992). Politikada Pazarlama, Çeviren: Fatoş Ersoy, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Campbell, A., Philip E. C., Warren E. M. & Donald E. S. (1980). [1960], The American Voter, University of Chicago Press, Midway Reprint, Chicago, U.S.A.
  • Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture, Blackwell, Oxford.
  • Cho, S., & Endersby, J. W. (2003). Issues, the spatial theory of voting, and British general elections: A comparison of proximity and directional models. Public Choice, 114(3), 275-293.
  • Chong, D. (1993). How People Think, Reason, and Feel about Rights and Liberties. American Journal of Political Science 37:867-99.
  • Davis, O. A., Hinich, M. J. & Ordeshook, P. C. (1970). An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process, American Political Science Review 64 (2): 426-448.
  • Dean, D. & Croft, R. (2009). Reason and Choice: A Conceptual Study of Consumer Decision Making and Electoral Behavior, Journal of Political Marketing, 8:2, 130-146, DOI: 10.1080/15377850902813386
  • Della Bitta, A. J., & Norberg, P. A. (2013). Price Discount Perception: Consumers' Numeric Interpretation of Semantic Price Claims.
  • Demirtaş, M. C. (2015). Seçmen davranışlarına etki eden faktörlerin siyasal pazarlama açısından analizi: İzmir ilinde çok değişkenli bir inceleme, Yayımlanmış Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
  • Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy, Harper Collins Publishers, New York.
  • Druckman, J. N. (1999). The limits of political manipulation: Psychological and strategic determinants of framing. University of California, San Diego.
  • Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political behavior, 23(3), 225-256.
  • Elster, J., (1977). Ulysses and the sirens: A theory of imperfect rationality, Social Science Information XVI, no. 5, 469-526.
  • Enelow, J. M. & Hinich, M. J. (1982). Ideology, Issues, and the Spatial Theory of Elections. American Political Science Review 76: 493-501.
  • Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification o f a Fractured Paradigm, Journal of Communication, 43: 51-58.
  • Entman, R. M., & Usher, N. (2018). Framing in a fractured democracy: Impacts of digital technology on ideology, power and cascading network activation. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 298-308.
  • Gamliel, E. & Herstein, R. (2007). The effect of framing on willingness to buy private brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(6), 334-339.
  • Ganzach, Y. & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment. Journal of Business Research, 32(1), 11-17.
  • Greenwald, AC., Beach, CR. & Young, B. (1987), Increasing voting behavior by asking people if they expect to vote, Journal of Applied Psychology 72:315–8.
  • Hänggli, R. & Kriesi, H. (2012). Frame construction and frame promotion (strategic framing choices), American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 260-278.
  • Harrop, M. & Miller, W. (1987). Election and Voters a Comparative Introduction, McMillan, London.
  • Hayek, F. A. (1952). The Sensory Order An Inquiry into the Foundations of Theoretical Psychology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Henneberg, S.C.M. (2002). Understanding Political Marketing: The Idea of Political Marketing, Greenwood Publishing Group.
  • Hochschild, J. L. (1981). What's Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambrige.
  • Huang, W. H. (2016). How Consumers Respond To Missing A Guantity Discount With Multiple Price Breaks, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15, 411–419.
  • Hume, D. (1978). A Treatise of human nature, L. A. Selby- Bigge, P. H. Nidditch (Eds.), Clarendon Press, Oxford.
  • İslamoğlu, A.H. (2002). Siyaset Pazarlaması Toplam Kalite Yaklaşımı, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Hızlı ve Yavaş Düşünme, Çev. Deniztekin,O.Ç.,Deniztekin,F.N., Varlık Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrica, 47(2), 363-391. 146.
  • Kalender, A. (1998). Seçmen Tercihini Etkileyen Propaganda ve İletişim Faktörleri: Türk Seçmen Davranışı Üzerine Bir Araştırma (Konya Örneği), Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi. Sos. Bil. Enst.
  • Kalender, A. (2005). Siyasal İletişim, Çizgi Kitabevi, İstanbul.
  • Khalil, E. L. (1990). Rationality And Social Labor In Marx, Critical Review, 4(1-2), 239-265
  • Kotler, P. (1972). A generic concept of marketing, Journal of marketing, 36(2), 46-54.
  • Kotler, P. & Sidney J. L. (1969). Broadening The Concept of Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 33 (1): 10-15.
  • Klapper, J. T. (1960). The Effects o f Mass Communication, The Free Press, New York.
  • Kotler, P. & Kotler, N. (1999). Generating Effective Candidates, Campaigns, and Causes, Handbook of Political Marketing, Thousand Oaks Sage, California.
  • Kwon, K. H., Chadha, M., & Pellizzaro, K. (2017). Proximity and terrorism news in social media: A construal-level theoretical approach to networked framing of terrorism in Twitter. Mass Communication and Society, 20(6), 869-894.
  • Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice. In The People’S Choice, Columbia University Press.
  • Le, H., Boynton, G. R., Shafiq, Z., & Srinivasan, P. (2019, August). A postmortem of suspended Twitter accounts in the 2016 US presidential election. In 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) (pp. 258-265). IEEE.
  • Lee, J. & Xu, W. (2018). The more attacks, the more retweets: Trump’s and Clinton’s agenda setting on Twitter. Public Relations Review, 44, 201–213.
  • Lees-Marshement, J. (2001). The Marriage Of Politics and Marketing, Political Studies, 49 (1): 692-713.
  • Levin, I. P. & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of consumer research, 15(3), 374-378.
  • Levin, I. P. Schneider, S. L. & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
  • Locke, J. (2004). İnsan anlığı üzerine bir deneme, Çev. V. Hacıkadiroğlu, Kabalcı Yayınevi, İstanbul.
  • Loewenstein, G. (2001). The creative destruction of decision research, Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 499–503.
  • Lupia, A. & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need To Know?, Cambridge University Press, New York.
  • Mayer, N. D., & Tormala, Z. L. (2010). “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 36(4), 443-454.
  • Mc Gann, A.F. (1989). Siyasi Reklamlarda Gelişme. Dünya Dosyası, Özel Sayfalar 45, s. 16.
  • McKelvey, R. D., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1986). Information, Electoral Equilibria, and the Democratic Ideal. Journal o f Politics 48. 909-937.
  • Moseley, A. & Stoker, G., (2013), Nudging citizens? Prospects and pitfalls confronting a new heuristic, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 4-10.
  • Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. The Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1055-1078.
  • Olson, M. (2009). The logic of collective action (Vol. 124). Harvard University Press.
  • O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2001). The Marketing of Political Marketing, European Journal of Marketing, 35 (9/10): 1047 – 1057
  • Page, B. I. & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The Rational Public: Fifty Years o f Trends in Americans ’ Policy Preferences, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Parasız, İ. (2006). İktisada giriş. Ezgi Kitabevi, Bursa.
  • Pronin, E. (2008). How we see ourselves and how we see others, Science, 320, 1177–1180.
  • Pronin, E. & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 565–578.
  • Rabinowitz, G. & Macdonald, S. E. (1989). A Directional Theory of Issue Voting, American Political Science Review, 81 (1): 93-121.
  • Riker, W. H. (1996). The Strategy o f Rhetoric: Campaigning fo r the American Constitution. Edited by Randall L. Calvert, John Mueller, and Rick K. Wilson. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Sahly, A., Shao, C., & Kwon, K. H. (2019). Social media for political campaigns: An examination of Trump’s and Clinton’s frame building and its effect on audience engagement. Social Media+ Society, 5(2), 2056305119855141.
  • Savoy, J. (2018). Trump’s and Clinton’s style and rhetoric during the 2016 presidential election. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 25, 168–189.
  • Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of communication, 50(2), 93-109.
  • Schelling, T.C. (1978). Egonomics, or the art of self-management, The American Economic Review, 63, no. 2, Mayıs, 290-294.
  • Scitovsky, T. (1976). The joyless economy, Oxford University Press, New York.
  • Simon, H.. (1955). Behavioral Model of Rational Choice, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69 (1): 99-118.
  • Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A. & Tetlock, E. P. (1991). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Stone, G. P. (1954). City shoppers and urban identification: Observations on the social psychology of urban life, American Journal of Sociology, 60(1), 36–59.
  • Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.
  • Stein, R., Ackerman, J. & Bargh, J. (2012). Rebels without a clue: Nonconscious motivation for autonomy preservation moderates social decision biases, In Z. Gürhan-Canli, C. Otnes, R. Zhu (Eds), NA – Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 40, pp. 701–702).
  • Stutzer A, Goette L & Zehnder M. (2006). Active decisions and pro-social behaviour: a field experiment in blood donation, In: Working paper No. 279, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Hayekian behavioral economics, Behavioural Public Policy, 1-19.
  • Thaler, D. J. (2015). Issue voting with hearts and minds: Explaining heterogeneity in directional and proximity voting. Dissertation, Michigan State University.
  • Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1):39-60.
  • Thaler, R.. (1985). Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice, Marketing Science, 4(3):199-214.
  • Thomas, A. K. & Millar, P.R. (2012). Reducing the framing effect in older and younger adults by encouraging analytic processing, Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67, 139-149
  • Torlak, Ö. (2002). Bir Politik Pazarlama Aracı Olarak Hükümet Pazarlaması. Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 14 (1): 33-47.
  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science, 1124-1131.
  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1985). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, In Behavioral decision making, (pp. 25-41). Springer, Boston, MA.
  • Vlatković, S. (2018). New communication forms and political framing: Twitter in Donald Trump's presidential campaign. AM Časopis za studije umetnosti i medija, (16), 123-134.
  • Yu, H. (2012). Producing More Persuasive Antiviolance Messages for College Students: Testing the Effects of Framing, Information Sources, and Positive/Negative Fact Appeal. Journal of Interpersonal Violance, 27(9). 1631-1654.
  • Weber, M. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, İngilizceye çeviren: H.H. Gerth ve C.W. Mills, New York, Oxford University Press, s.293 -Aktaran: Zeynep B. Uğur ve Afife Artık, s. 18.
  • Wilkinson, N. & Klaes, M. (2017). An Introduction to Behavioral Economics, Palgrave Macmillan, Londra.
Management and Political Sciences Review-Cover
  • ISSN: 2636-8684
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2018
  • Yayıncı: Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Davranışsal İktisat Yaklaşımlarının Politik Pazarlama Karması Aracılığıyla Seçmen Tercihi Üzerindeki Etkisi Çerçeveleme ve Karar Verme

Elfin TATAROĞLU

Stratejik Yönetim Açısından Yöneticilik Özellikleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Hüseyin ERKUL, Hafize SEÇTİM, Özlem AKI

Örgüt Kültürünün Çalışan Motivasyonu Üzerindeki Etkisi

Fatma ÖZDEN

Örgüt Kültürünün Örgüt Yapısına Etkisi: Çanakkale’deki Küresel Otomotiv Markalarının Yerel Bayileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Ali Şahin ÖRNEK, Tuba YILDIZDOĞDU DAL, Güngör Buse KIŞ