SAĞLIK ÇALIŞANLARININ PROAKTİF KİŞİLİK YAPILARI İLE DUYGUSAL BULAŞMA DURUMLARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN İNCELENMESİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

(1)

91

Yazar / Author: Nurdan Oral Kara

^v

Vergili

^vi

Prof. Dr. Ramazan Erdem

^vii

olgusunu inceleyer

tir.

- fark

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

nurdankarasdu@gmail.com assli_vergili@hotmail.com ,

raerdem@yahoo.com

(2)

92 1.

1.1. Proakt

kleridir. Ki ilik denildi belirli bir durumda veya belirli olaylar

kar s nda ki inin tak nd tavr n davran l

akla gelmektedir (Tolan,

Proaktivite konu

-95).

d

(3)

93 nde

Bir

u etkilenme sonucunda

otoma

elerini,

(4)

94 Anderson vd., 2003).

2.

2.1.

2.2.

Anket formu

derecelendirebilmek a

(5)

95 -tekrar test 2.3. Veri Analizi

-

Tablo 1. -

N %

Cinsiyet Erkek 59

102

36.6 63.4

Medeni Durum Evli

Bekar

145 16

90.1 9.9

31-41 42-55

17 78 63 2

10.6 48.8 39.4 1.3 Lise

Lisans

Doktora

22 68 55 10 6

13.7 42.2 34.2 6.2 3.7

(6)

96

Meslek Doktor

H -Ebe

6 2 51 29 63 10

3.8 1.3 32.0 18.2 39.6 5.0

Toplam 161 100

sosyo-

-41 ve %3.7 doktora

Tablo 2

Madde

No N Ortalama

( X )

Standart Sapma

(Sd )

1 161 3.60 1.14

2 160 3.01 1.05

3 isiyatif 154 2.96 1.16

4 159 3.64 1.05

5 161 3.51 1.15

6 161 4.20 0.99

7 161 3.95 0.81

8 161 3.77 0.91

9 160 3.75 0.96

10 161 3.31 0.96

11 160 4.19 0.73

12 161 3.57 1.08

13 160 3.16 1.07

14 ederim. 161 3.89 0.88

15 yimdir 160 3.20 1.05

16 161 3.27 0.96

(7)

97

17 161 4.09 0.86

Tablo 2

96 puan ile ler 3.59 genel

Tablo 3. Du

(8)

98 Tablo 3

Tablo 4 KMO: 0.780 Barlett Testi: 572,711

No

Mutluluk 2 Moralim bozukken mutlu biriyle berabe 0.856

3 0.537

1 0.783

4 0.636

14 0.794

5 0.615

Sevgi

6 kaplar. 0.843

9 0.875

12 0.841

7 0.712

10 0.711

11 0.665

13 0.686

ifadeler 8 15

(9)

99 Tablo 4

boyutta

-

Tablo 5

Grup N X SS t p

Proaktif 102 3.5341 0.6241 -1.838 0.076

(10)

100

Erkek 59 3.7101 0.5619

Duygusal

102 3.1921 0.4236

3.470 0.01

Erkek 59 2.9434 0.4622

- Tablo 4

Hatfield, 1992).

Tablo 6

Grup N X SS t p

Proaktif

Evli 145 3.6618 0.6330

0.438 0.662

Bekar 16 3.5916 0.6051

Duygusal

Evli 145 3.1247 0.4441

-2.025 0.045

Bekar 16 2.8854 0.4898

Tablo 6

p=0.045<0.05).

-Way ANOVA analizi

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 3.5986 0.6063 1,000

(11)

101

Tablo 7

*p< 0,05 ; **p < 0,01 (N=161)

incelenmektedir.

enmeye

Bu durumda ay

2 3.1009 0.4530 0.241** 1,000

3 F1:Mutluluk 3.2236 0.6468 - 0.504** 1,000

4 2.8180 0.6210 0.179* 0.871** 0.267** 1,000

5 F3:Sevgi 3.1287 0.7427 0.235** 0.605** 0.227** 0.300** 1,000 6 3.4462 0.5157 - 0.748** 0.302** 0.562** 0.231** 1,000

(12)

102

:

Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 97-104

Anderson, R. A., Corazzini, K. N., ve McDaniel, R. R. (2004). Complexity science and the Dynamics of climate and communication: Reducing nursing home turnover. The Gerontologist, 44(3), 378-388.

Barsade, G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675.

Bateman, T. S. ve Crant, J. M. (1993), The Proactive Component of Organizational Behavior: A Measure and Correlates, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.

Covey, S. R. (20

Duygu- si Sosyal Bilimler

-48.

Darwin, C. (1872/1965), The expression of the emotions in man and animals.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Original work published 1872).

Diener, E., Larsen, R. J.ve Emmons, R. A.(1984), Person 3 Situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 580 592.

Doherty, R. W. (1997), The Emotional Contagion Scale: A measure of

individual differences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21(2), 131-154.

(13)

103 Hatfield, E., Cacioppo,)., ve Rapson, R. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo,J., ve Rapson, R. (1992). Primitive emotional contagion.

In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Jung, C. G. (1968). Analytical psychology: Its theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B. (1999), Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment, Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1): 58- 74.

SAĞLIK ÇALIŞANLARININ PROAKTİF KİŞİLİK YAPILARI İLE DUYGUSAL BULAŞMA DURUMLARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN İNCELENMESİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

91

Yazar / Author: Nurdan Oral Kara

Vergili

Prof. Dr. Ramazan Erdem

92 1.

1.1. Proakt

kleridir. Ki ilik denildi belirli bir durumda veya belirli olaylar

kar s nda ki inin tak nd tavr n davran l

akla gelmektedir (Tolan,

-95).

d

93

nde

Bir

u etkilenme sonucunda

otoma

elerini,

94 Anderson vd., 2003).

2.

2.1.

2.2.

Anket formu

derecelendirebilmek a

95

-tekrar test 2.3. Veri Analizi

-

96

sosyo-

-41 ve %3.7 doktora

97

Tablo 2

96 puan ile ler 3.59 genel

98 Tablo 3

99

Tablo 4

boyutta

-

100

- Tablo 4

Hatfield, 1992).

Bekar 16 2.8854 0.4898

Tablo 6

p=0.045<0.05).

-Way ANOVA analizi

101

incelenmektedir.

enmeye

Bu durumda ay

102

Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 97-104

Anderson, R. A., Corazzini, K. N., ve McDaniel, R. R. (2004). Complexity science and the Dynamics of climate and communication: Reducing nursing home turnover. The Gerontologist, 44(3), 378-388.

Barsade, G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675.

Bateman, T. S. ve Crant, J. M. (1993), The Proactive Component of Organizational Behavior: A Measure and Correlates, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.

Covey, S. R. (20

Duygu- si Sosyal Bilimler

-48.

Darwin, C. (1872/1965), The expression of the emotions in man and animals.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Original work published 1872).

Diener, E., Larsen, R. J.ve Emmons, R. A.(1984), Person 3 Situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 580 592.

Doherty, R. W. (1997), The Emotional Contagion Scale: A measure of

individual differences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21(2), 131-154.

103

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo,)., ve Rapson, R. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo,J., ve Rapson, R. (1992). Primitive emotional contagion.

In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Jung, C. G. (1968). Analytical psychology: Its theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B. (1999), Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment, Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1): 58- 74.

Kevrekidis, P., Skapinakis, P.,Damigos, D. ve Mavreas, V. (2008), Annals of General Psychiatry, 7(4), 1-6.

Lee, S. M., Peterson, S. J. (2000), Culture, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Global Competitiveness, Journal of World Business, 35 (4): 401-416.

Reik, T. (1948). Listening with the third ear: The inner experience of a psychoanalyst. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux

Siebert, S. E., Crant, J. M. ve Kraimer, M. L. (1999), Proactive Personality and Career Success, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (3): 416- 427.

Tosun, E. (2012),

Uygulama, tan