Vol. 9 No. 1 (2021): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

Abusive supervision, cyberloafing, and productivity at work: A study on bank employees

Seda Güğerçin
Dr., Adana
Mustafa Fedai Çavuş
Prof. Dr., Kırgızistan-Turkiye Manas University

Published 2021-03-25

Keywords

  • İşteki Üretkenlik;,
  • Yıkıcı Yönetim;,
  • Sanal Kaytarma,
  • Siber Kaytarma;,
  • Sanal Aylaklık;
  • Productivity at work;,
  • Abusive supervision;,
  • Cyberloafing,
  • Cyberslacking

How to Cite

Güğerçin, S., & Çavuş, M. F. (2021). Abusive supervision, cyberloafing, and productivity at work: A study on bank employees. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 9(1), 164-185. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v9i1.1745

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to explore the relationships between cyberloafing, abusive supervision, and productivity at work through an empirical research within the framework of Social Exchange Theory. The data of the research were gathered from public and private bank employees working in Adana by survey method. The data, which was provided within the scope of the research, was examined with confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. In the study results, it is seen that abusive supervision positively affects cyberloafing and has negative effects on productivity at work. In addition, both dimensions of cyberloafing are found to be negatively correlated with productivity at work. Due to the results, it is recommended to prevent abusive supervision by giving informative training to managers about the possible harmful effects of abusive supervision. Additionally, organizations can impose restrictive policies and follow specific cyberloafing behaviors that they see as a threat to productivity and take additional precautions as needed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Achakul, C. ve Yolles, M. (2013). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in personality: Assessing knowledge profiling and the work preference inventory in a Thai population. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 10(3), 196-217.
  2. Akgeyik, T., Güngör, M., Uşen Ş. ve Omay, U. (2007). İş yerinde psikolojik taciz fenomeni: Uluslararası deneyimler ve perspektifler. Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi, 53, 232-254.
  3. Albayrak, A. S. (2005). Çoklu doğrusal bağlantı halinde en küçük kareler tekniğinin alternatifi yanlı tahmin teknikleri ve bir uygulama. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 1(1), 105-126.
  4. Anandarajan, M., Paravastu, N. ve Simmers, C. A. (2006). Perceptions of personal web usage in the workplace: AQ-methodology approach. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(3), 325-335.
  5. Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y. ve Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191-201.
  6. Aslan, S. (2016). Türkiye’de sosyal sermaye bileşenlerinden güven hakkında bir değerlendirme. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 17(2), 181-204.
  7. Bassman, E. ve London, M., (1993) Abusive Managerial Behaviour, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 14(2), 18-24.
  8. Bollen, K. A. (2005). Structural equation models. Encyclopedia of biostatistics. (7.bs.) New York: John Wiles & Sons.
  9. Blanchard, A. L. ve Henle, C. A. (2008). Correlates of different forms of cyberloafing: The role of norms and external locus of control. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1067-1084.
  10. Blau, P.M. (1964). Social Exchange Theory. New York. John Wiley & Sons.
  11. Buyruk Akbaba, A. N. (2019). Effects of cyberloafing on productivity and Cost: a field study. Verimlilik Dergisi, 3, 161-179.
  12. Buyruk, H. (2018). Gelişen Teknolojiler, Değişen İşgücü Nitelikleri ve Eğitim. OPUS–Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(14), 599-632.
  13. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırmanın temelleri (9. bs.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  14. Camus, D. (2007). Publishing productivity measures in ONS. Economic & Labour Market Review, 1(7), 19-21.
  15. Candan, H. ve İnce, M. (2016). A research on the relationship between cyberloafing and organisational commitment of police department personnel. Niğde University Journal of Economics & Administrative Sciences, 9(1), 229-235.
  16. Chiu, S.F. ve Peng J.C. (2008). The relationship between psychological contract breach and employee deviance: the moderating role of hostile attributional style Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 73 (3), 426-433.
  17. Choi, W., Kim, S. L. ve Yun, S. (2019). A social exchange perspective of abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: Investigating the moderating effects of psychological contract fulfillment and self-enhancement motive. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(3), 305-319.
  18. Churchill Jr, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.
  19. Coker, B. L. (2011). Freedom to surf: The positive effects of workplace Internet leisure browsing. New Technology, Work and Employment, 26(3), 238-247.
  20. Cropanzano, R. ve Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
  21. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Multivariate statistics for the social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  22. Davis-Blake, A., Broschak, J. P. ve George, E. (2003). Happy together? How using nonstandard workers affects exit, voice, and loyalty among standard employees. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 475-485.
  23. Demir B., I., Ürek, D. ve Uğurluoğlu, Ö. (2017). Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sanal Kaytarma Davranışlarının İşte Üretkenliklerine Etkisi. AJIT-e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 8(30), 291 -303.
  24. Endicott, J. ve Nee, J. (1997). Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS): a new measure to assess treatment effects. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 33(1), 13.
  25. Ergül, H. (1999). Uzaktan Öğretimde Kalite Verimlilik ve Üretkenlik. Kurgu Dergisi, 16, 283-296.
  26. Ertürk, E.(2014). Sosyal mübadele teorisi bağlamında güç mesafesi ve örgütsel adalet algılamalarının örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı üzerindeki etkisi (Doktora Tezi) Ulusal Tez Merkezi’nden erişildi. (Tez No: 377783.).
  27. Ezeh, L. N. Etodike, C. E. ve Chukwura, E. N. (2018). Abusive supervision and organisational cynicism as predictors of cyber-loafing among federal civil service employees in Anambra state, Nigeria. European Journal of Human Resource Management Studies, 1(2), 19-36.
  28. Fornell C. ve D. F. Larcker. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39-50, 1981.
  29. Johnson, R. A. ve Wichern, D. W. (2002). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, (5.bs.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  30. Ghadi, I., Alwi N.H., Bakar K.A. ve Talib O. (2012). Construct Validity Examination of Critical Thinking Dispositions for Undergraduate Students in University Putra Malaysia. Higher Education Studies, 2(2), 138-145.
  31. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
  32. Guo, L., Zhao, H., Cheng, K. ve Luo, J. (2020). The relationship between abusive supervision and unethical pro-organisational behavior: linear or curvilinear?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 369-381.
  33. Gündüz, Y. ve Dedekorkut, S. E. (2014). Yıkıcı Liderlik. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(1), 95-104.
  34. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M. ve Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review.2-24.
  35. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. ve Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  36. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. ve Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: An introduction. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective.. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  37. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition. Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 1, 2.
  38. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M. ve Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 252-263.
  39. Harvey, S., ve Keashly, L. (2003). Predicting the risk for aggression in the workplace: Risk factors, self-esteem and time at work. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 31(8), 807-814.
  40. Hoe, S.L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76-83.
  41. Holguin, E. S. (2016). Strategies functional managers use to control cyberloafing behaviors (Doktora Tezi, Walden University, Minnesota). Erişim Adresi: http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations. (UMI No. 10141379)
  42. Hoyle R.H. (1995). Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  43. Hu, L. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Coventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
  44. Hussain, S. ve Parida, T. (2017). Exploring cyberloafing behavior in South-central Ethiopia: A close look at Madda Walabu University. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 9(2), 10-16.
  45. Jandaghi, G., Alvani, S. M., Zarei Matin, H. ve Fakheri Kozekanan, S. (2015). Cyberloafing management in organisations. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 8(3), 335-349.
  46. Jiang, H. (2020). Understanding the Mental Recovery Effect of Cyberloafing: Attention Replenishment and Task-Set Inertia. Cham: Springer.
  47. Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one's supervisor and one's organisation: Relationships among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organisational Psychology and Behavior, 30(4), 525-542.
  48. Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (5.bs.) Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  49. Kaplan, M. ve Çetinkaya, A. (2014). Sanal Kaytarma ve Demografik Özellikler Açısından Farklılıklar: Otel İşletmelerinde Bir Araştırma. Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 25 (1), 26-34.
  50. Kaplan, M. ve Öğüt, A. (2012). Algılanan Örgütsel Adalet İle Sanal Kaytarma Arasindaki İlişkinin Analizi: Hastane Çalışanları Örneği. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 1-13.
  51. Keklik, B., Kılıç, R., Yıldız, H. ve Yıldız, B. (2015), Sanal kaytarma davranışlarının örgütsel öğrenme kapasitesi üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi, Business and Economics Research Journal, 6(3), 129-144.
  52. Kim, S. L., Kim, M. ve Yun, S. (2015). Knowledge sharing, abusive supervision, and support: A social exchange perspective. Group & Organization Management, 40(5), 599-624.
  53. King, M. F., ve Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 79-103.
  54. Klotz, A. C. ve Buckley, M. R. (2013). A historical perspective of counterproductive work behavior targeting the organisation. Journal of Management History, 19(1), 114-132.
  55. Koay, K. Y. ve Soh, P. C. H. (2018). Does cyberloafing really harm employees' work performance?: An overview. Cham: Springer.
  56. Kobu, B., 1987. Üretim Yönetimi. İ.Ü. İşletme Fakültesi Yayın No: 181, İstanbul.
  57. Kurt, M. (2011, Eylül) Siber Aylaklık Davranışlarının Karşılaştırmalı Olarak İncelenmesi. Fırat Universitesi 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium, Elazığ.
  58. Kuschnaroff, F. ve Bayma, F. (2014) Critical Analysis of Cyberslacking in Organizational Structures. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 2, 70-90.
  59. Lim, V. K. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralising and organisational justice. Journal of organisational behavior: the international Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organisational Psychology and Behavior, 23(5), 675-694.
  60. Lim, V. K., Teo, T. S. ve Loo, G. L. (2002). How do I loaf here? Let me count the ways. Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 66-70.
  61. Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., Brees, J. R., Huang, L. ve Carson, J. E. (2018). Perceived organisational obstruction: A mediator that addresses source–target misalignment between abusive supervision and OCBs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1283-1295.
  62. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R. ve Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 120-137.
  63. Mashal H. (2017). Uncontrolled workplace breaks and productivity. (Doktora Tezi, Walden University, Minnesota). Erişim Adresi: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3309/
  64. Mercado, B.K., Giordano, C. ve Dilchert, S. (2017). A meta-analytic investigation of cyberloafing. Career Development International, 22(5),546-564.
  65. Merydith, S. P., Prout, H. T. ve Blaha, J. (2003). Social desirability and behavior rating scales: An exploratory study with the child behavior checklist/4–18. Psychology in the Schools, 40(2), 225-235.
  66. Miller, A. L. (2012). Investigating social desirability bias in student self-report surveys. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(1), 30-47.
  67. Mitchell, M. S. ve Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159.
  68. Moody, G. D. ve Siponen, M. (2013). Using the theory of interpersonal behavior to explain non-work-related personal use of the Internet at work. Information & Management, 50(6), 322-335.
  69. Mysammy (2013, 21 Mayıs). Cyberloafing Infographic: Personal internet use at work infographic. Erişim Adresi: www.mysammy.com/cyberloafing-personal-Internet-use-at-work-infographic
  70. Niaei, M., Peidaei, M. M. ve Nasiripour, A. A. (2014). The relation between staff cyberloafing and organisational commitment in organisation of environmental protection. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 33(2534), 1-13.
  71. Oravec, J. A. (2002). Constructive approaches to Internet recreation in the workplace. Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 60-63.
  72. Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R., ve Dubois, C. L. (1991). Outlier detection and treatment in I/O psychology: A survey of researcher beliefs and an empirical illustration. Personnel Psychology, 44(3), 473-486.
  73. Orhunbilge, N. (2000). Uygulamalı Regresyon ve Korelasyon Analizi. İstanbul: Avcıol Basım Yayın.
  74. Örücü, E. ve Yıldız, H. (2014). İşyerinde Kişisel İnternet ve Teknoloji Kullanımı: Sanal Kaytarma. Ege Academic Review, 14(1), 99-114.
  75. Özince, E. (2008). Finansal Sektör - Uluslararası Gelişmeler ve Türkiye Deneyimi. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 40, 24-44.
  76. Özkalp, E., Aydın, U. ve Tekeli, S. (2012). Sapkın örgütsel davranışlar ve çalışma yaşamında yeni bir olgu: Sanal kaytarma (cyberloafing) ve iş ilişkilerine etkileri. Çimento İşveren Sendikası Dergisi, 26(2), 18-33.
  77. Piotrowski, C. (2012). Cyberloafing: A content analysis of the emerging literature. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(3-4), 259-262.
  78. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. ve Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
  79. Rahimnia, F. ve Mazidi, A. R. K. (2015). Functions of control mechanisms in mitigating workplace loafing; evidence from an Islamic society. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 671-681.
  80. Robinson, S. L. ve Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management journal, 38(2), 555-572.
  81. Raykov, T. ve Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis (2.bs.). New York: Routledge.
  82. Saalfield, P. (2005, 19 Temmuz). Internet misuse costs businesses $178 billion annually. Erişim Adresi: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2671119/internet-misuse-costs-businesses--178-billion-annually.html.
  83. Saleh, M., Daqqa, I., AbdulRahim, M. B. ve Sakallah, N. (2018). The effect of cyberloafing on employee productivity. International journal of advanced and applied sciences, 5(4), 87-92.
  84. Sao R, Chandak S, Patel B ve Bhadade P. (2020). Cyberloafing: Effects on employee job performance and behaviour. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 8 (5): ISSN: 2277-3878.
  85. Serdar, E., ve Özsoy, E. (2019). İstismarcı yönetim: bir literatür taraması. İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 1-11.
  86. Sezici, E. ve Güven, Ö. Z. (2017). İstismarcı yönetici algısının kaytarma üzerindeki etkisinde duygusal tükenmenin aracılık rolü: Otel işletmelerinde bir inceleme. Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 28(1), 58-68.
  87. Shaddiq, S., Haryono, S., Muafi, M. ve Isfianadewi, D. (2021). Antecedents and Consequences of Cyberloafing in Service Provider Industries: Industrial Revolution 4.0 and Society 5.0. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(1), 157-167.
  88. Sharma, S. K. ve Gupta, J. N. D. (2004). Improving workers' productivity and reducing internet abuse. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44 (2), 74-78.
  89. Shiu, E., Pervan, S. J., Bove, L. L. ve Beatty, S. E. (2011). Reflections on discriminant validity: Reexamining the Bove et al. (2009) findings. Journal of Business Research, 64(5), 497-500.
  90. Singer, E. (2004). Confidentiality, risk perception, and survey participation. Chance, 17(3), 30-34.
  91. Skarlicki, D. P. ve Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434.
  92. Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R. ve Gee, J. (2004). When Social Accounts Backfire: The Exacerbating Effects of a Polite Message or an Apology on Reactions to an Unfair Outcome 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 34(2), 322-341.
  93. Tabachnick, B.G. ve Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6.bs.). Boston: Allyn ve Bacon.
  94. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
  95. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A. ve Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123.
  96. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organisations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289.
  97. Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E. ve Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 279-294.
  98. Thau, S. ve Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1009-1031.
  99. Toprak M.A. (2005, Kasım). Çalışanların Bakışı Açısından Verimlilik, Temel Değerler, Başarı Faktörleri: Bir Alan Araştırması, V. Ulusal Üretim Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  100. Turnley W.H. ve Feldman D.C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Human Relations, 52 (7), 895-922.
  101. Türkiye Katılım Bankaları Birliği (2020, Ocak). Sektör Bilgileri. Erişim Adresi: https://www.tkbb.org.tr/banka-genel-bilgileri
  102. Türkiye Bankalar Birliği (2020, Ocak). İstatistiki Raporlar. Erişim Adresi: https://www.tbb.org.tr/tr/bankacilik/banka-ve-sektor-bilgileri/istatistiki-raporlar/59
  103. Uğuz, Ş., İnanç, B. Y., Yerlikaya, E. E. ve Aydın, H. (2004). Endicott işte üretkenlik ölçeği’nin (EİÜÖ) Türk toplumunda geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 15(3), 209-214.
  104. Ülbeği, İ. D., Özgen, H. M. ve Özgen, H. (2014). Türkiye’de istismarcı yönetim ölçeğinin uyarlaması: Güvenirlik ve geçerlik analizi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(1), 1-12
  105. Valle, M., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S. ve Harting, T. (2019). Abusive supervision, leader-member exchange, and moral disengagement: A moderated-mediation model of organisational deviance. The Journal of social psychology, 159(3), 299-312.
  106. Vitak, J., Crouse, J. ve LaRose, R. (2011). Personal internet use at work: Understanding cyberslacking. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1751-1759.
  107. Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W. ve Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: The mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(1), 43-60.
  108. Weissenfeld, K., Abramova, O. ve Krasnova, H. (2019, Şubat). Antecedents for cyberloafing–A literature review., 14th International Conference on Wirtschafts informatik, Almanya.
  109. Yağcı, M. ve Yüceler, A. (2016). Kavramsal boyutlarıyla sanal kaytarma. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 2(2), 531-540.
  110. Yeşilyurt C. (2009) Türkiye'deki iktisat bölümlerinin göreceli performanslarının veri zarflama analizi yöntemiyle ölçülmesi: KPSS 2007 verilerine dayalı bir uygulama, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(4), 135-147.
  111. Yıldız, H., Yıldız, B. ve Ateş H. (2014). Sanal kaytarma davranışlarının sergilenmesinde örgütsel adalet algısının rolü var mıdır?. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 10(2).
  112. Yıldız, H., Yıldız, B., ve İyigün, N. Ö. (2016). Psikolojik sözleşme algısının sanal kaytarma davranışları üzerindeki etkisi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 47, 147-165.
  113. Yılmaz, E. ve Koğar, H. (2015). Uç değerle baş etmede kullanılan farklı tekniklerin bazı istatistiksel analiz sonuçları üzerindeki etkisi. Başkent University Journal of Education, 2(1), 61-67.
  114. Zaiţ, A. ve Bertea, P. (2011). Methods for testing discriminant validity. Management & Marketing Journal, 9(2), 217-224.