Belediye otobüs şoförlerinde öfke ve sosyodemografik özelliklerle ilişkisi

Year 2019, Volume: 44 Issue: 4, 1292 - 1302, 29.12.2019

Makbule Tokur Kesgin

https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.515998

Cited By: 5

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma belediye otobüs şoförlerinin sosyo demografik özellikleriyle öfke düzeyi ile öfke ifade tarzları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır. 

Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma 95 otobüs şoförü ile yürütülmüştür. Veriler anket formu ve Sürekli öfke- öfke ifade tarzı ölçeği ile toplanmıştır. 

Bulgular: Puan ortalamaları; sürekli öfke 16,67±4,29, öfke içe 15,05±3,31, öfke kontrol 25,12±4,97, öfke dışa 12,48±2,94 olarak bulunmuştur. Meslekte çalışma yılı ile sürekli öfke, öfkeyi ifade etmekte zorlanma ile öfke kontrol ve öfke dışa arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki vardır. Bir diğer ilişki işteki sorunlar nedeniyle aile yaşamında öfkeli olma ile sürekli öfke, öfke kontrol, öfke dışa arasındadır. Öfke kontrolü eğitimi alma ile öfke dışa arasında da anlamlı bir ilişki vardır. Sigara içme süresi (yıl) ile öfke kontrol, kurumda çalışma yılı ile öfke dışa arasında pozitif anlamlı bir ilişki vardır. Diğer çalışmalarla tutarlı olarak bu çalışma da mesleki deneyimin artmasının öfke düzeyini azalttığını, kurumda çalışma yılı arttıkça öfkenin daha kolay ifade edilebildiğini göstermiştir. Bu çalışmada işteki sorunların aile yaşamına öfke olarak yansıması incelenen farklı bir konudur. 

Sonuç: Çalışmanın bulguları şoförlerin öfke düzeyini ve öfke ifadesini etkileyen sosyodemografik özelliklere dair kanıtlar sunmaktadır. Araştırma sonuçları öfkeyi doğru ifade edebilme ve öfke kontrolü konusunda otobüs şoförlerine yönelik müdahaleler planlarken dikkate alınabilir.  

Keywords

Anger, transportation, motor vehicles, demographic factors

The anger in municipal bus drivers and its relationship with sociodemographic characteristics

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to examine the relationship between anger level and anger expression styles with the socio-demographic factors of municipal bus drivers. 

Materials and Methods: The study was carried out with 95 bus drivers. The data were collected by means of question forms, State-trait anger, and anger expression scales. 

Results: The mean score were found to be: Trait anger 16,67±4,29, anger-in 15,05±3,31, anger management 25,12±4,97, and the anger-out 12,48±2,94. There is also a significant relationship between receiving anger management training and anger-out. There is a positive significant relationship between smoking duration (years) and anger control, years at work and anger-out. As being in consistency with other studies, the study has revealed that while the level of professional experiences increases the level of anger is decreased and when the years of working is higher in an institution, anger can be expressed more easily.  The reflection of the problems at work as anger in the family life is a different subject examined. Conclusion: This study provides evidence of socio-demographic characteristics affecting the level of anger and anger expression of drivers. The results of the study can be taken into account when planning interventions for bus drivers in terms of expressing anger correctly and anger control.

Keywords

Anger, transportation, motor vehicles

References

• 1. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Road Traffic Injuries and Deaths-A Global Problem. https://www.cdc.gov/features/globalroadsafety/index.html. (accessed Oct 2018).
• 2. World Health Organization. World health statistics 2018: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals. Geneva: World Health Organization. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272596/9789241565585-eng.pdf?ua=1. (accessed Oct 2018).
• 3. Turkish Statistical Institute. Transportation statistics 2017. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1051. Accessed Oct 26, 2018.
• 4. Santos JA, Lu JL. Occupational safety conditions of bus drivers in Metro Manila, the Philippines. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2016;22(4): 508-13.
• 5. Alam K, Mahal A. The economic burden of road traffic injuries on households in South Asia. PLoS ONE 2016;11(10): e0164362.
• 6. Karkee R, Lee AH. Epidemiology of road traffic injuries in Nepal, 2001–2013: systematic review and secondary data analysis. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e010757.
• 7. Mohanan M. Causal Effects of Health Shocks on Consumption and Debt: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Bus Accident Injuries. Rev Econ Stat 2013;95(2), 673-81.
• 8. Precht L, Keinatha A, Kremsb JF. Effects of driving anger on driver behavior – Results from naturalistic driving data. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 2017;45:75-92.
• 9. Zhang T, Chan AHS, Ba Y, Zhang W. Situational driving anger, driving performance and allocation of visual attention. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 2016;42(2):376-88.
• 10. Jeon M, Walker BN, Gable TM. The effects of social interactions with in-vehicle agents on a driver's anger level, driving performance, situation awareness, and perceived workload. Appl Ergon 2015;50:185-99.
• 11. Kayaoğlu M. Anger control with questions and case studies. Nesil publishing. İstanbul, 2016. (Turkish)
• 12. Bumgarner DJ, Webb JR, Dula CS. Forgiveness and adverse driving outcomes within the past five years: Driving anger, driving anger expression, and aggressive driving behaviors as mediators. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 2016;42(2):317-31.
• 13. Qu W, Dai M, Zhao W, Zhang K, Ge Y. Expressing anger is more dangerous than feeling angry when driving. PLoS One 2016;11(6):e0156948.
• 14. Zhang T, Chan AHS. The association between driving anger and driving outcomes: Ameta-analysis of evidence from the past twenty years. Accid Anal Prev 2016; 90:50-62.
• 15. Wegman F. The future of road safety: A worldwide perspective. IATSS Research 2017;40(2):66-71.
• 16. Salmon PM, Read GJM, Beanland V, Thompson J, Filtness AJ, Hulme A et al. Bad behaviour or societal failure? Perceptions of the factors contributing to drivers' engagement in the fatal five driving behaviours. Applied Ergonomics 2019;74:162-71.
• 17. Zhang Y, Houston R, Wu C. Psychometric examination and validation of the aggressive driving scale (ADS). Aggress Behav 2016; 42(4):313-23.
• 18. Mina S, Verma R, Balhara YP, Ul-Hasan S. Road rage: prevalence pattern and web based survey feasibility. Psychiatry J. 2014; 897493:1-7.
• 19. İçmeli C. Özçetin A, Bahçebaşı T, Ataoğlu A. Anger and anger expression among drivers of public transportation and trailer truck/truck drivers. Duzce University Journal of the Institute of Health Sciences 2011;1(2):18-23. (Turkish)
• 20. Ge Y, Zhang Q, Zhao W, Zhang K, Qu W. Effects of trait anger, driving anger, and driving experience on dangerous driving behavior: A moderated mediation analysis. Aggress Behav 2017;43(6):544-52.
• 21. Brandenburg S, Oehl M, Seigies K. German taxi drivers' experiences and expressions of driving anger: Are the driving anger scale and the driving anger expression inventory valid measures? Traffic Inj Prev. 2017;18(8):807-12.
• 22. Chung YS, Wong JT. Developing effective professional bus driver health programs: an investigation of self-rated health. Accid Anal Prev 2011;43(6):2093-103.
• 23. Wu X, Wang Y, Peng Z, Chen Q. A questionnaire survey on road rage and anger-provoking situations in China. Accid Anal Prev 2018;111:210-221.
• 24. Oyeleke JT, Bada V, Ajibewa OD. Socio-demographic factors, personality traits and job stress as predictors of driving anger behavior among drivers in Ijebuode, Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2016;6(4):162-169.
• 25. Sulman MJM, Stephens AN, Yong M. Anger, aggression and road rage behaviour in Malaysian drivers. Transportation Research Part F:Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 2015;29:70-82.
• 26. Yang J, Du F, Qu W, Gong Z, Sun X. Effects of personality on risky driving behavior and accident involvement for Chinese drivers. Traffic Inj Prev 2013;14(6):565-71.
• 27. Spielberger CD, Jacobs G, Russell S, Crane RS. Assessment of anger: the state trait anger scale. (Eds JN Butcher, CD Spielberger):161-189. Advances in personality assessment; Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1983.
• 28. Özer K. Trait anger and anger expression scales pre work. Turkish Journal of Psychology 1994;9(31):26-35. (Turkish)
• 29. Jeon M, Walker BN, Yim J-B. Effects of specific emotions on subjective judgment, driving performance, and perceived workload. Transportation Research Part F:Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 2014;24:197-209.
• 30. Hu TY, Xie X, Han XY, Ma XQ. How do passengers influence drivers' propensities for angry driving? Different effects of supervisors versus friends. Accid Anal Prev 2012; 49:429-38.
• 31. Feng Z, Yang M, Ma C, Jiang K, Lei Y, Huang W et al. Driving anger and its relationships with type A behavior patterns and trait anger: Differences between professional and non-professional drivers. PLoS One 2017;12(12):e0189793.
• 32. Bushman BJ, Steffgen G, Kerwin T, Whitlock T, Weisenberger JM. Don’t you know I own the road?” The link between narcissism and aggressive driving. Transportation Research Part F:Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 2018;52:14-24.
• 33. Korn L, Weiss Y, Rosenbloom T. Driving violations and health promotion behaviors among undergraduate students: Self-report of on-road behavior. Traffic Inj Prev. 2017;18(8):813-19.
• 34. Pimenta AM, Assunção AÁ. Thermal discomfort and hypertension in bus drivers and chargers in the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Appl Ergon 2015;47:236-41.
• 35. Vingilis E, Pederson LL, Seeley J, Ialomiteanu AR, Wickens CM, Ferrence R, Mann RE. Is there a link between motor vehicle collisions and being a cigarette smoker in Canada? Analysis of survey data from Ontario from 2002 to 2014. Traffic Inj Prev. 2018;19(4): 364-70.
• 36. Roseborough JEW, Wiesenthal DL. Roadway justice – Making angry drivers, happy drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2014;24:1-7.