BİR İKTİDAR ALANI OLARAK ÇEVRİMİÇİ GÖZETLEME VE İLGİLİ TÜKETİCİ TUTUMLARI

Year 2017, 16. UIK Special Issue, 253 - 272, 16.09.2017

Ayla Özhan Dedeoğlu , Miray Baybars

https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.321964

Abstract

Bireylerin sürekli olarak gözetlenmesi
yoluyla pazarlamacılar lehine yaratılan güç ve iktidar alanı, literatürdeki
gözetleme kavramına da yeni bir bakış açısıyla yaklaşılmasını gerektirmektedir.
Sürekli, yayılmacı ve sınırsız gözetleme, literatürde Bauman ve Lyon (2013)
tarafından geliştirilen “akışkan gözetim” kavramıyla karşılığını bulmuştur.
İnternet kullanıcıları, internetin ve dolayısıyla gözetlemenin kendilerine
sunduğu imkânların yanı sıra gözetlemenin tehdit edici doğasına yönelik
farkındalık ve yaklaşım geliştirip davranışlarını düzenleyerek, gözetlemeye
ilişkin tehditlere meydan okuyabilmektedir. İnternet kullanıcılarının söz
konusu gözetlemeye yönelik farkındalıkları ve çevrimiçi gözetlenmeye karşı
duygusal, bilişsel ve davranışsal düzeydeki tutumların ne şekilde oluştuğunun
anlaşılmasına yönelik tasarlanan bu çalışmada, internet kullanıcılarının
gözetlenmeye yönelik orta seviyede farkındalığa sahip olduğu sonucuna
ulaşılmıştır. Kullanıcıların gözetlemeye ilişkin orta seviyede farkındalığa
sahip olmalarına, duydukları rahatsızlığa ve bilişsel ve duygusal olarak
olumsuz tutumlarına rağmen davranışsal tutum bileşenlerinin daha kısıtlı ortaya
koydukları görülmüştür. Arkadaş gözetlemesi ve firma gözetlemesi kavramlarının
ayrı ele alındığı ve kullanıcılar tarafından da farklı değerlendirildiği
çalışmada, eğitim, yaş gibi demografik değişkenlerin de farkındalık ve tutumlara
yönelik anlamlı farklılıklara işaret ettiği bulunmuştur. 

Keywords

Tüketici tutumları, çevrimiçi gözetim

References

• Acquisti, A. (2004). Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. In Fifth ACM conference on electronic commerce, New York, ss: 21-29)
• Alkibay S. ve Demirgüneş, B. K. (2016), Evaluating Trust And Perceived Risk Dimensions In Online Clothing Shopping. Research Journal of Business and Management, 3(2):157-172.
• Arvidsson, A. (2004) ‘On the ‘Pre-History of the Panoptic Sort’: Mobility in Market Research’,Surveillance & Society, 1(4): 456–74.
• Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. UK: Polity Press.
• Bauman, Z. ve Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid Surveillance: A Conversation. UK:Polity Press.
• Bellman, S., Johnson, E. J., Kobrin, S. J. ve Lohse, G. L. (2004). International differences in information privacy concerns: a global survey of consumers. The Information Society, 20 (5): 313-324.
• Benson, V. , Saridakis, G. ve Tennakoon, H. (2015), Information disclosure of social media users: Does control over personal information, user awareness and security notices matter?, Information Technology & People, 28(3): 426-441.
• Bergström, A. (2015), Online privacy concerns: A broad approach to understanding the concerns of different groups for different uses, Computers in Human Behavior, 53 (2015):419–426.
• Bordoni, C. (2013). Liquid Surveillance – When Panopticon Is In The Web. https://www.socialeurope.eu/2013/06/liquid-surveillance-when-panopticon-is-in-the-web/, Erişim tarihi: 15 Şubat 2017.
• Chen, B. X. (2011). Customers Sue Apple Over iPhone Location-Data Collection. https://www.wired.com/2011/04/iphone-customers-lawsuit-data/, Erişim tarihi: 17 Şubat 2017.
• Çelik, H. (2008), What determines Turkish customers' acceptance of internet banking?, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 26(5): 353 – 370.
• Dinev, T., Hart, P. ve Mullen, M. R. (2008), Internet privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance – An empirical investigation, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17 (2008): 214–233.
• Dinev, T., Massimo, B., Christian, C. ve Vincenzo, R. (2005). Internet Users’ Privacy Concerns and Attitudes towards Government Surveillance – An Exploratory Study of Cross-Cultural Differences between Italy and the United States (2005). BLED 2005 Proceedings. 30. http://aisel.aisnet.org/bled2005/30, Erişim Tarihi: 17 Şubat 2017.
• Dinev, T., Xu, H., ve Smith, H. J. (2009). Information privacy values, beliefs and attitudes: An empirical analysis of Web 2.0 privacy. Proceedings Of The 42nd Hawaii International Conference On System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
• Doster, L. (2013). Fear of Missing Out: Is Voyeurism the Real Motive Behind Teen Consumption of Social Media?, in E -European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 10, eds. Gert Cornelissen, Elena Reutskaja, and Ana Valenzuela, Duluth,MN:Association for Consumer Research, 146-147.
• Eastin M. S., Brinson, N. H., Doorey, A. ve Wilcox, G. (2016), Living in a big data world: Predicting mobile commerce activity through privacy concerns, Computers in Human Behavior, 58 (2016):214-220.
• Eisenmann T.R., Parker, G., Alstyne, M.W.V. (2006). Strategies for two-sided markets, Harvard Business Review, 84(10): 92–101.
• Fodor M.ve Brem, A. (2015). Do privacy concerns matter for Millennials? Results from an empirical analysis of Location-Based Services adoption in Germany, Computers in Human Behavior, 53: 344–353.
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage Books.
• Foucault, M. (2011). Özne ve İktidar. Seçme Yazılar 2. 3. Basım. Ayrıntı: İstanbul. (Özgün eser 1994 tarihlidir).
• Fuchs, C. (2011a). New Media, Web 2.0 and Surveillance. Sociology Compass, 5/2 (2011): 134–147.
• Fuchs, C. (2011b). Web 2.0, Prosumption, and Surveillance, Surveillance & Society, 8(3): 288-309.
• Gençöz, T. (2000). Pozitif ve Negatif Duygu Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15(46), 19-26.
• Hong W. ve Thong, J. Y. L. (2013). Internet Privacy Concerns: An Integrated Conceptualizatıon and Four Empirical Studies, MIS Quarterly, 37(1): 275-298.
• Hoofnagle, C. J., King, J., Li, S. ve Turow, J. (2010). How Different are Young Adults from Older Adults When it Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policies?, SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1589864 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1589864., Erişim Tarihi: 2 Nisan 2017.
• Hsu, C.L. ve Lin, J. C. C. (2016). An empirical examination of consumer adoption of Internet of Things services: Network externalities and concern for information privacy perspectives, Computers in Human Behavior, 62 (2016):516-527.
• Humphreys, A., ve Grayson, K. (2008). The Intersecting Roles of Consumer and Producer: A Critical Perspective on Co-Production, Co-Creation and Prosumption, Sociology Compass, 2: 963-80
• Humphreys, A. ve Grayson, K. (2008). The Intersecting Roles of Consumer and Producer: A Critical Perspective on Co-production, Co-creation and Prosumption, Sociology Compass, 2: 1-18.
• Budak, J., Anić, I.D. ve Rajh, I. (2013). Public attitudes towards privacy and surveillance in Croatia, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26:1-2, 100-118, DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2013.723404
• Campbell, J. E. ve Carlson, M. (2002). Panopticon.com: Online Surveillance and the Commodification of Privacy, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(4):586-606, DOI: 10.1207/s15506878jobem4604_6
• Joinson, A. N., Reips, U.-D., Buchanan, T. ve Paine Schofield, C. B. (2010). Privacy, trust, and self-disclosure online. Human-Computer Interaction, 25: 1–24. doi:10.1080/07370020903586662
• Kitzmann, A. (2003), That Different Place: Documenting the Self within Online Environments, Biography, 26 (January): 48-65.
• Köseoğlu Ö. ve Köker, N. E. (2015), Consumer Privacy in New Media: A Study of University Students in Turkey, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2): 588-598.
• Lee, A. (2012). The Individual and Everyday Surveillance, The Australian Sociological Association Annual Conference, TASA 2012 Conference Paper, https://www.tasa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Lee-Ashlin.pdf
• Lee, A. ve Cook, P. S. (2015), The conditions of exposure and immediacy: Internet surveillance and Generation Y, Journal of Sociology, 51(3): 674–688.
• Lyon, D. (2011). Surveillance, Power and Everyday Life. A Chapter for the oxford Handbook of Information and Communication Technologies. pp: 107-120, eds: Kalantzis-Cope, Phillip, Gherab-Martin, Karim, Palgrave Macmillan UK
• Madden, M. ve Rainie, L. (2015). Pew Research Center, “Americans’ Attitudes About Privacy, Security and Surveillance.”, 20 Mayıs 2015, Pew Research Center, http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/, Erişim Tarihi: 20 Mart 2017.
• McKnight D. H., Vivek, C., ve Kacmar, C. (2002), Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology, Information Systems Research, 13(3): 334–359.
• McMullan, T. (2015). What does the panopticon mean in the age of digital surveillance?. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-bentham. Erişim tarihi: 9 Şubat 2017.
• McStay, A. (2011). Profiling Phorm: an autopoietic approach to the audience-as-commodity. Surveillance & Society 8(3): 310-322.
• O’Donnell, K. ve Cramer, H. (2015). People’s Perceptions of Personalized Ads. International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2). WWW 2015 Companion, May 18–22, 2015, Florence, Italy.
• Oulasvirta, A., Suomalainen, T., Hamari, J., Lampinen, A. ve Karvonen, K. (2014). Transparency of Intentions Decreases Privacy Concerns in Ubiquitous Surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10): 633-638.
• Palmas, K. (2011). Predicting What You’ll Do Tomorrow: Panspectric Surveillance and the Contemporary Corporation. Surveillance & Society, 8(3): 338-354.
• Plangger, K. A. (2015). Customer Surveillance: Consumer Attitudes and Management Strategies. Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for&the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Segal Graduate School Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University.
• Pridmore, J. ve Zwick, D. (2011). Editorial: Marketing and the Rise of Commercial Consumer Surveillance. Surveillance & Society 8(3): 269-277.
• Richards, N.M. (2013). The Dangers of Surveillance. Harvard Law Review, 126(7): 1934-1965.
• Sharma, S. ve Crossler, R. E. (2014), Disclosing too much? Situational factors affecting information disclosure in social commerce environment, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 13:305–319
• Tsai, J. Y., Egelman, S., Cranor, L., ve Acquisti, A. (2011). The effect of online privacy information on purchasing Behavior: An experimental study. Information Systems Research, 22(2): 254-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0260.
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., ve Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6): 1063-1070.
• Xu, H., Dinev, T.; Smith, H. J., ve Hart, P. (2008). Examining the Formation of Individual's Privacy Concerns: Toward an Integrative View, ICIS 2008 Proceedings. Paper 6. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2008/6
• Zehir, C., Şehitoğlu, Y., Narcıkara, E. ve Zehir, S. (2014). E-S-Quality, Perceived Value and Loyalty Intentions Relationships in Internet Retailers. 10th International Strategic Management Conference, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150(2014):1071 – 1079
• Zwick D. ve Bonsu, S. K. ve Darmody, A. (2008). Putting Consumers to Work: ‘Co-creation’ and new marketing governmentality, Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(2): 163–196.