Tıbbi Hatalara Yönelik Tutumlar ile Proaktif Davranış Arasındaki İlişkide Yapay Zekâya Yönelik Genel Tutumun Moderatör Rolü

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, sosyal bilişsel teori çerçevesinde tıbbi hata tutumları (tıbbi hata nedenleri ve tıbbi hata yaklaşımları) ile proaktif davranış arasındaki ilişkide yapay zekâya yönelik genel tutumun moderatör rolünü incelemektir. Yöntem: Araştırma nicel araştırma yaklaşımıyla yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın örneklemini, kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle ulaşılan 399 sağlık çalışanı oluşturmuştur. Araştırma verileri, zaman gecikmeli veri toplama yöntemi kullanılarak iki farklı zamanda toplanmış; iki veri toplama sürecinden elde edilen veriler eşleştirildikten sonra analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırma sonucunda, tıbbi hata nedenleri ile tıbbi hata yaklaşımlarının proaktif davranış üzerinde pozitif ve anlamlı etkiye sahip olduğu bulgulanmıştır. Benzer şekilde, yapay zekâya yönelik genel tutumun da proaktif davranışı pozitif yönde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Bununla birlikte, moderasyon analizi sonuçları, tıbbi hata nedenleri ile tıbbi hata yaklaşımlarının proaktif davranış üzerindeki etkisinde yapay zekâya yönelik genel tutumun moderatör rolü üstlendiğini göstermektedir. Buna göre, yapay zekâya yönelik genel tutumun yüksek olduğu durumlarda, tıbbi hata nedenleri ve tıbbi hata yaklaşımlarının proaktif davranış üzerindeki pozitif etkisinin zayıfladığı bulgulanmıştır. Özgün Katkı: Araştırma, Sosyal Bilişsel Kuramın sağlık hizmetlerinde yapay zekâ gibi gelişmekte olan teknolojilere yönelik tutumlar bağlamında genişletilmesine katkı sunmaktadır. Bulgular, bireysel bilişsel faktörlerin davranış üzerindeki etkisinin bağlama göre farklılaşabileceğini ortaya koymakta ve tıbbi hata tutumu ile yapay zekâya yönelik genel tutumun sağlık çalışanlarının proaktif davranışlarıyla ilişkisini açıklayan literatüre katkı sağlamaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay zekaya yönelik genel tutum
• Tıbbi hatalara yönelik tutum
• Proaktif davranış
• Sosyal bilişsel teori
• Sağlık çalışanları

Destekleyen Kurum

Gümüşhane Üniversitesi

Etik Beyan

Bu araştırma için Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu’ndan 25/06/2026 tarihli ve 2025/06 nolu toplantısında E-95674917-108.99-340370 sıra sayılı kararı ile izin alınmıştır.

Moderating Role of General Attitude Towards Artificial Intelligence in The Relationship Between Attitudes Towards Medical Error and Proactive Behavior

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this study is the investigation of the moderating role of general attitudes towards artificial intelligence in the relationship between medical error attitudes (causes of medical errors and medical error approaches) and proactive behaviour, within the context of social cognitive theory. Methodology: The study was conducted using a quantitative research approach. The study sample included 399 healthcare workers identified using convenience sampling. The research data were collected at two different points in time using a time-lagged data collection method; analyses were carried out after the data obtained from the two data collection processes were matched. Findings: The research found that both the causes of medical errors and medical error approaches have a positive and significant effect on proactive behaviour. Similarly, it was found that general attitudes towards artificial intelligence also have a positive effect on proactive behaviour. However, the results of the moderation analysis indicate that general attitudes towards artificial intelligence act as a moderator in the effect of the causes of medical errors and medical error approaches on proactive behaviour. Accordingly, it was determined that where general attitudes towards artificial intelligence are high, the positive effect of the causes of medical errors and medical error approaches on proactive behaviour is weakened. Originality: This study contributes to extending Social Cognitive Theory in the context of attitudes toward emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence in healthcare. The findings demonstrate that the influence of individual cognitive factors on behaviour differs across contexts and contribute to the literature by explaining the relationship between attitudes toward medical errors, general attitudes toward artificial intelligence, and the proactive behaviour of healthcare professionals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• General attitude towards artificial intelligence
• Attitude towards Medical error
• Proactive behaviour
• Social cognitive theory
• Health workers

Destekleyen Kurum

Gümüşhane University

Etik Beyan

Permission for this research was obtained from the Gümüşhane University Ethics Committee with decision number E-95674917-108.99-340370, dated 25/06/2026 and numbered 2025/06.

Kaynakça

1. Al Murshidi, G., ElSayary, A., Ragab, K., & Al Zaabi, A. (2025). Understanding teachers’ adoption of AI: Insights from innovation diffusion and social cognitive theories. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 24, Article 35, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.28945/5643
2. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
3. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
4. Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31(2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104263660
5. Bandura, A. (2010). Social-cognitive theory. In R. B. Ewen, An introduction to theories of personality (7th ed.). Psychology Press.
6. Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43–50.
7. Batuk, B., Kaya, A., Yıldırım, O., & Türk, N. (2024). Investigation of variables predicting university students’ acceptance levels of generative artificial intelligence. 25. Uluslararası Psikolojik Danışmanlık ve Rehberlik Kongresi, Ankara.
8. Bekar, F. (2022). İşin anlamlılığı ve işe yabancılaşmanın proaktif davranış ile ilişkisi: İşte kendini geliştirmenin aracılık etkisi [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü.

9. Bekar, F. (2025). The Moderating Role of General Attitude Toward Artificial Intelligence in the Effect of Job Stress on Proactive Behavior. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 49, 313-328. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.1716295
10. Bekar, F. (2026). The Moderating Role of Attitude Toward Artificial Intelligence in the Effect of Work Alienation on Employee Performance: A Study on Academics. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 61(2), 1460-1475. https://doi.org/10.63556/tisej.2026.1812
11. Bozkurt, S. (2023). Process makro ile aracılık, düzenleyicilik ve durumsal aracılık etki analizleri (SPSS uygulamalı). Ekin Yayınevi.
12. Chen, X., Wang, Y., & Sun, X. (2025). Exploring factors in AI-based healthcare services adoption: Integrating cognitive, social and technical perspectives. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. Advance online publication, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-05-2025-0834
13. Chi, C., Gong, G., Zhang, X., Cai, X., Chen, J., & Jiang, H. (2025). Safety performance behaviors of hospital nurses from the perspective of social cognition theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1676200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1676200
14. Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281–1303. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.28165855
15. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
16. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304
17. Cummings, M. L. (2015). Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems. In D. Harris & W.-C. Li (Eds.), Decision making in aviation (pp. 289–294). Routledge.
18. Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
19. Dingel, J., Kleine, A. K., Cecil, J., Sigl, A. L., Lermer, E., & Gaube, S. (2024). Predictors of health care practitioners’ intention to use AI-enabled clinical decision support systems: meta-analysis based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Journal of medical internet research, 26, e57224, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.2196/57224.
20. Du, Y., Yang, C., Zhao, Y., & Xia, Y. (2024). How The Workplace Usage of AI in China Influences Proactive Behaviour? The Role of Pride and Shame. Asia Pacific Business Review, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2024.2409800
21. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., ... & Williams, M. D. (2021). Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002
22. Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7
23. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
24. Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
25. Fyhr, A., Ternov, S., & Ek, Å. (2017). From a reactive to a proactive safety approach: Analysis of medication errors in chemotherapy using general failure types. European Journal of Cancer Care, 26(1), e12348. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12348
26. George, D., Amar-Singh, H. S. S., & Hassali, A. (2018). Medication error reporting: Underreporting and acceptability of smartphone application for reporting among health care professionals in Perak, Malaysia. Cureus, 10(6), e2746. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2746
27. Golzar, J., Noor, S., & Tajik, O. (2022). Convenience sampling. International Journal of Education & Language Studies, 1(2), 72-77. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijels.2022.162981
28. Gouveia, V. V., Moura, H. M. D., Oliveira, I. C. V. D., Ribeiro, M. G. C., Rezende, A. T., & Brito, T. R. D. S. (2018). Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ): Evidence of construct validity and internal consistency. Psico-USF, 23(3), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712018230306
29. Gökçe, E., Doğan, A., & Özer, D. (2025). The relationship between medical error attitudes of surgical nurses and evidence-based work environment. Journal of Patient Safety, 21(3), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001311
30. Grand View Research. (2023). AI in healthcare market summary. 20.05.2026, Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/artificial-intelligence-ai-healthcare-market
31. Grassini, S. (2023). Development and validation of the AI attitude scale (AIAS-4): A brief measure of general attitude toward artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1191628, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1191628
32. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438
33. Grober, E. D., & Bohnen, J. M. (2005). Defining medical error. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 48(1), 39–44.
34. Güleç, D., & Seren Intepeler, Ş. (2013). Tıbbi hatalarda tutum ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi, 15(3), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.69487/hemarge.695715
35. Gürbüz, S. (2019). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: Felsefe–yöntem–analiz (5. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
36. Hao, F., Wang, Z., Ma, L., Zhao, H., Liu, X., Zhao, X., Zhang, N., & Li, X. (2026). How to promote student creativity through AI in higher education: The role of students' attitude and digital competencies. Frontiers in Public Health, 14, 1772946, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1772946
37. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
38. İntepeler, Ş. S., & Dursun, M. (2012). Tıbbi hatalar ve tıbbi hata bildirim sistemleri. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(2), 129–135.
39. Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (5. baskı). Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
40. Karaman, M. (2023). Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi: Kavramsal bir çalışma. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.29131/uiibd.1279602
41. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
42. Koca, E., Aksoy, H., Tarhan, D., Çiftlik, E. E., Oktay, K., Öztürk, A., & Gündüz, M. (2021). Medical safety reporting system necessity and analysis of Turkey 2016 data: A health policy report. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, 32(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.3233/JRS-194018
43. Lai, A. Y., Wee, K. Z., & Frimpong, J. A. (2024). Proactive behaviors and health care workers: A systematic review. Health Care Management Review, 49(3), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000409
44. Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Social cognitive theory. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models (2nd ed., pp. 127–169). Open University Press.
45. Makary, M. A., & Daniel, M. (2016). Medical error—The third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ, 353, i2139,1-5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139
46. Merkebu, J., Battistone, M., McMains, K., McOwen, K., Witkop, C., Konopasky, A., Torre, D., Holmboe, E., & Durning, S. J. (2020). Situativity: A family of social cognitive theories for understanding clinical reasoning and diagnostic error. Diagnosis, 7(3), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2019-0100
47. Nadarzynski, T., Miles, O., Cowie, A., & Ridge, D. (2019). Acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI)-led chatbot services in healthcare: A mixed-methods study. Digital Health, 5, 2055207619871808, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207619871808
48. Nield, S., Prothero, M. M., Merrill, K., & Ruda, P. (2026). Nurse practitioners' perspectives on medical errors and caregiver support. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 82(4), 3028–3036. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.70008
49. Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886
50. Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
51. Raheem, R., Junais, E., Rassal, R. Y., Srinivasamurthy, S. K., & Patni, M. M. (2025). Examining medication error knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes among students at a medical and health science university in a cross-sectional survey. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 0976500X, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0976500X251336868
52. Rather, R. A., Raisinghani, M., Gligor, D., Parrey, S. H., Russo, I., & Bozkurt, S. (2023). Examining tourist citizenship behaviors through affective, cognitive, behavioral engagement and reputation: Symmetrical and asymmetrical approaches. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, 103451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103451
53. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Health. (2024). Health statistics yearbook 2024. General Directorate of Health Information Systems. 20.04.2026, Retrieved from https://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR-114952/saglik-istatistikleri-yilligi-2024.html
54. Rodziewicz, T. L., Houseman, B., Vaqar, S., & Hipskind, J. E. (2024). Medical error reduction and prevention. StatPearls Publishing.
55. Schepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2020). Initial validation of the general attitudes towards artificial ıntelligence scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 1, 1 -13, 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100014
56. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary educational psychology, 60, 101832, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
57. Schwappach, D. L. B., & Richard, A. (2018). Speak up-related climate and its association with healthcare workers’ speaking up and withholding voice behaviours: A cross-sectional survey in Switzerland. BMJ Quality & Safety, 27(10), 871–880. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007388
58. Sunarti, S., Rahman, F. F., Naufal, M., Risky, M., Febriyanto, K., & Masnina, R. (2021). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Opportunities and risk for future. Gaceta Sanitaria, 35(Suppl. 1), S67–S70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.12.019
59. Tarafdar, M., Beath, C. M., & Ross, J. W. (2019). Using AI to enhance business operations. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(4), 37–44.
60. Tucker, A. L., & Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Why hospitals don’t learn from failures: Organizational and psychological dynamics that inhibit system change. California Management Review, 45(2), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166165
61. Türk, N., Batuk, B., Kaya, A., & Yıldırım, O. (2025). What makes university students accept generative artificial intelligence? A moderated mediation model. BMC Psychology, 13: 1257, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03559-2
62. Vanamali, D. R., Gara, H. K., & Dronamraju, V. A. (2025). Evaluation of knowledge, attitudes, and practices among healthcare professionals toward role of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 73(4), e6–e12.
63. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
64. World Health Organisation. (2021). Global patient safety action plan 2021–2030: Towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care. 20.05.2026, Retrieved from World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240032705
65. World Health Organisation. (2023, September 11). Patient safety. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/patient-safety
66. Wu, C. H., Parker, S. K., Wu, L. Z., & Lee, C. (2018). When and why people engage in different forms of proactive behavior: Interactive effects of self-construals and work characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 293-323. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1064
67. Yazıcı, A. M., & Sivaslıoğlu, F. (2024). The moderating role of general attitude towards artificial intelligence in the impact of digital transformation on employee satisfaction. Journal of Research in Business, 9(2), 335–364. https://doi.org/10.54452/jrb.1406459
68. Young, J. S., Stokes, J. B., Denlinger, C. E., & Dubose, J. E. (2007). Proactive versus reactive: The effect of experience on performance in a critical care simulator. American Journal of Surgery, 193(1), 100–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.08.066
69. Zhang, J., Patel, V. L., Johnson, T. R., & Shortliffe, E. H. (2004). A cognitive taxonomy of medical errors. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 37(3), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2004.04.004