Keywords
driver behavior
driver training
safety culture
mindfulness
How to Cite
Abstract
Traffic etiquette can be conceptualized as following the rules without fear of traffic control and punishment, acquiring unwritten behaviors that require mutual understanding in traffic, and making these behaviors a habit. It can be said that education, which is one of the elements that make up traffic safety, is one of the most important tools to shape "traffic etiquette". In this context, the General Directorate of Private Education Institutions of the Ministry of National Education added the "traffic etiquette" course to the Private Driving Courses Education Curriculum in 2015. There is no measurement tool for traffic etiquette in the related literature. The aim of the study is to develop a measurement tool that will enable us to obtain more detailed information about traffic etiquette, and to examine its validity and reliability values. For this purpose, a total of 55 statements that could be scale items were determined, taking into account the main topics covered in the book titled “Traffic Etiquette” and the relevant literature, previously written by Hatipoğlu and Yasak (2016), and these were adapted to Likert type scale format and sample was applied. As a result of the analysis, a four-factor scale (Basic Values, Empathy and Interpersonal Communication, Violations of Rights, and To Warn Each Other) consisting of 33 items was obtained. Cronbach's alpha values of the factors ranged between .60 and .89. In the study, Driver Anger Scale, Driver Behaviors Scale and Interpersonal Relationship Styles Scale were used as concurrent validity criteria. As a result of the correlation analysis, significant and expected relations were found between MDAS and these scales. When the analyzes are evaluated, it can be said that MDAS is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used in the fields of traffic psychology and training of driver candidates.
References
Abdu, R. A., Shinar, D. ve Meiranc, N. (2012). Situational (state) anger and driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15(5), 575-580.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Testing for the factorial validity of a theoretical construct (s. 74-82); Testing for the factorial validity of scores from a measuring instrument (s. 108-114). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2. baskı) içinde. Routledge.
Bowlin, S. L. ve Baer, R. A. (2012). Relationship between mindfulness, self-control, and psychological functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 411-415.
Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(4), 584-594.
de Winter, J. C. F. ve Dodou, D. (2010). The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire as a predictor of accidents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 41(6), 463-470
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R. ve Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological Reports, 74, 83-91.
Dimitriou, H. T. ve Gakenheimer, R. (2012). Urban transport in the developing world. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Dingus, T. A., Guo, F., Lee, S., Antin, J. F., Perez, M., Buchanan-King, M., ve Hankey, J. (2016). Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(10), 2636–2641.
Doğan, N., Soysal, S. ve Karaman, H. (2017). Aynı örnekleme açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanabilir mi? Ö. Demirel ve S. Dinçer (Eds.), Küreselleşen dünyada eğitim içinde (s. 374-400). Pegem Akademi.
DSÖ (2004). World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Geneva: World Health Organization.
DSÖ (2013). Global status report on road safety. Geneva: World Health Organization.
DSÖ (2018). Global Status Report on Road Safety. Geneva: World Health Organization.
EGM (2019). Trafik Kaza ve Denetim İstatistikleri Raporu, Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü, Rapor No:27, ISBN: 978-605-7822-05-5. https://onlineislemler.egm.gov.tr/SiteAssets/Sayfalar/trafik/Arac_Surucu.pdf
Erkuş, A. (2013). Kağıt kaleme dayanan veri toplama araçları. Davranış bilimleri için bilimsel araştırma süreci (4. baskı) içinde (s.149-168). Seçkin Yayınevi.
Eşiyok, B.,Yasak, Y. ve Korkusuz, İ. (2007). Trafikte Öfke İfadesi: Sürücü Öfke İfadesi Envanteri'nin geçerlik ve güvenilirliği. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 18(3), 231-243.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3. baskı) içinde. Sage.
Hatipoğlu, S. ve Yasak, Y. (2016). Trafik adabı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Özel Öğretim Kurumları Yayınları.
Hatipoğlu, S. ve Yasak, Y. (2019). Yol kullanıcılarında trafik adabı kavramı: Pilot çalışma, Ankara örneği. Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 27, 485-500.
Henson, R. K. ve Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393-416.
Hu, L. ve 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.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144-156.
Lewin, I. (1982). Driver training: A perceptual-motor skill approach. Ergonomics, 25, 917-924.
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Path models in factor, path, and structural equation analysis. Latent variable models (4. baskı) içinde (s. 202-254). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MEB (2017). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Özel Motorlu Taşıt Sürücüleri Kursu Yönetmeliği. https://ookgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_03/08114705_MTSK-YONETMELIK.pdf.
Nordfjærn, T. ve Şimşekoğlu, Ö. (2014). Empathy, conformity, and cultural factors related to aberrant driving behaviour in a sample of Urban Turkish drivers. Safety Science, 68, 55–64.
Nunnally, J. C. ve Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3. baskı). McGraw-Hill.
Özkan, T. ve Lajunen, T. (2005). A new addition to DBQ: Positive driver behaviours scale. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(4), 355–368.
Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J. ve Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics, 33(10-11), 1315–1332.
Sousanis, J. (2011). World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units. WardsAuto, https://www.wardsauto.com/news-analysis/world-vehicle-population-tops-1-billion-units.
Sümer, N. (2003). Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: Testing a contextual mediated model. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(6), 949–964.
Sümer, N., Lajunen, T. ve Özkan, T. (2002). Sürücü davranışlarının kaza riskindeki rolü: İhlaller ve hatalar. Uluslararası Trafik ve Yol Güvenliği Kongresi, Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi.
Şahin, N.H., Durak, A. ve Yasak, Y. (1994). Kişilerarası İlişki Tarzları Ölçeği: Psikometrik özellikleri. VIII. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresi, 21-23 Eylül, İzmir, Sözel Bildiri.
Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4. baskı). Allyn & Bacon.
TÜİK (2019). https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Karayolu-Trafik-Kaza-Istatistikleri-2020-37436
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Kalkınma Bakanlığı. On Birinci Kalkınma Planı (2019-2023). https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ Karayolu Trafik Guvenligi Calisma Grubu Raporu.pdf. (Son erişim tarihi: 26 Şubat 2021)
Yasak, Y. ve Eşiyok, B. (2009). Anger amongst Turkish drivers: Driving Anger Scale and its adapted, long and short version. Safety Science, 47(1), 138-144.
Yasak, Y., Durak Batıgün, A. ve Eşiyok, B. (2016). Trafik ve stres: stres ile trafikte öfke ifadesi arasındaki ilişkide sürücü öfke düşüncelerinin aracı rolü. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 31(78), 13-21.
Yasak, Y., Durak Batıgün, A. ve Hatipoğlu, S. (2022). Trafik adabı ile yürütücü (prefrontal) işlevler, bilgece farkındalık, sürücü öfke ifadesi ve sürücü davranışları arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Basılmamış Rapor. TÜBİTAK 1002 Hızlı Destek Programı, 121K741 No’lu Proje.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2022 Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi