SOHBET BOTLARINA YÖNELİK TUTUMLARIN VE KULLANIM ALIŞKANLIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ: PSİKOLOJİ LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ANKET ÇALIŞMASI

Elvan Arıkan İyilikci; Halil Mert Yurt; Elif Eymen Keysan; Nihal Ağaoğulları; Hazal Dallar; Leyla Sena Güven; Meryem Sude Özkan; Melissa Şahin; Zeynep Günhan; Ece Baykuşak; Gülin Kaça

doi:10.35379/cusosbil.1647141

EN TR

Abstract

EXAMINING ATTITUDES TOWARD CHATBOTS AND CHATBOT USAGE PATTERNS: A SURVEY STUDY OF UNDERGRADUATE PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the frequency and purposes of chatbot (CB) use as well as levels of trust and anthropomorphism toward these tools among undergraduate psychology students in Türkiye. The secondary aim of the study is to examine the relationships between these variables and students' need for cognition and artificial intelligence (AI) literacy levels. Accordingly, participants were administered a survey developed by the research team on CB usage processes and perspectives on AI, along with the Need for Cognition Scale and the AI Literacy Scale. Based on a cross-sectional research design, data were collected from a total of 371 undergraduate psychology students aged between 18 and 35 years. The findings indicate that undergraduate psychology students primarily use CBs for academic purposes, assignment/report writing, translation, and general information searches. Participants were found to have a moderate level of trust in CBs, while their anthropomorphism levels were observed to be low. Additionally, CB usage frequency was positively correlated with user trust, AI literacy, and positive attitudes toward AI in certain aspects. In addition, higher levels of trust were associated with a reduced need to verify information generated by chatbots. However, neither the need for cognition nor AI literacy showed a significant relationship with the need to verify chatbot-generated information. Another important finding was that participants with stronger anthropomorphic tendencies reported more positive feelings toward chatbots.. In conclusion, this study, examining chatbot usage processes from various perspectives, is expected to provide valuable insights for future research on AI-human interactions.

Keywords

SOHBET BOTLARINA YÖNELİK TUTUMLARIN VE KULLANIM ALIŞKANLIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ: PSİKOLOJİ LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ANKET ÇALIŞMASI

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de psikoloji lisans eğitimi alan öğrencilerin sohbet botu (SB) kullanım sıklıkları ve amaçları ile bu araçlara yönelik güven ve antropomorfizm düzeylerinin araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın ikincil amacı ise söz konusu değişkenlerin düşünme ihtiyacı ve yapay zekâ (YZ) okuryazarlığı düzeyleriyle ilişkilerini incelemektir. Bu doğrultuda, katılımcılara araştırma ekibi tarafından geliştirilen SB kullanım süreçleri ve yapay zekâya ilişkin görüşler anketi, Düşünme İhtiyacı Ölçeği ve YZ Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Kesitsel desene dayanan çalışma kapsamında, 18 ile 35 yaş aralığında yer alan toplam 371 Psikoloji Bölümü lisans öğrencisinden veri toplanmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçları, psikoloji lisans öğrencilerinin SB’leri daha çok akademik bilgi edinme, ödev/rapor yazımı, çeviri ve genel bir konuda bilgi arama amaçlarıyla kullandıklarını göstermektedir. Katılımcıların SB’lere genel olarak orta düzeyde güven duydukları, ancak antropomorfizm düzeylerinin düşük olduğu gözlenmiştir. Ayrıca, SB kullanım sıklığının belirli yönlerden kullanıcı güveni, YZ okuryazarlığı ve YZ’ye yönelik olumlu tutumlarla pozitif korelasyon gösterdiği bulunmuştur. Buna ek olarak, güven düzeyi arttıkça SB tarafından üretilen bilgileri teyit etme ihtiyacının azaldığı belirlenmiştir. Ancak, düşünme ihtiyacı ve YZ okuryazarlığının bilgiyi teyit etme ihtiyacı ile anlamlı bir ilişkiye sahip olmadığı görülmüştür. Çalışmanın bir diğer önemli bulgusu, antropomorfizm eğilimi daha yüksek olan katılımcıların SB’lere karşı daha fazla olumlu duygu hissetmeleridir. Sonuç olarak, sohbet botu kullanım süreçlerini pek çok yönden ele alan bu çalışmanın, yapay zekâ-insan etkileşimi üzerine yapılacak gelecekteki araştırmalara kaynak oluşturması umut edilmektedir.

Keywords

Thanks

Çalışmanın veri toplama sürecine katkıları için Doç. Dr. Aycan KAPUCU, Araş. Gör. Dr. ELİF YÜVRÜK GÖKDAĞ, Doç. Dr. Osman İYİLİKCİ, Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Tülay YILDIRIM İZMİTLİGİL ve Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Yıldız ÖZKILIÇ’a; ayrıca çalışmanın birçok aşamasına fikirleriyle katkı sunan Ebrar AKTAŞ ve Gülistan ŞAHİN’e teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

References

Abdaljaleel, M., Barakat, M., Alsanafi, M., Salim, N. A., Abazid, H., Malaeb, D., Mohammed, A. H., Hassan, B. A. R., Wayyes, A. M., Farhan, S. S., Khatib, S. E., Rahal, M., Sahban, A., Abdelaziz, D. H., Mansour, N. O., AlZayer, R., Khalil, R., Fekih-Romdhane, F., Hallit, R., & Hallit, S. (2024). A multinational study on the factors influencing university students’ attitudes and usage of ChatGPT. Scientific Reports, 14, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52549-8
Adıguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. (2023). Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep429. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13152
Ahmadi, R., & Tekemen, H. (2024). Akdeniz üniversitesi öğrencilerinin ChatGPT'nin günlük kullanımına ilişkin eğilimleri. Sosyolojik Bağlam 5(3), 446-480.
Akdeniz, M., & Özdinç, F. (2021). Eğitimde yapay zeka konusunda Türkiye adresli çalışmaların incelenmesi. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 912–932. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.938734
Aktay, S., Gök, S., & Uzunoğlu, D. (2023). ChatGPT in education. Türk Akademik Yayınlar Dergisi (TAY Journal), 7(2), 378–406.
Al-Abdullatif, A. M., & Alsubaie, M. A. (2024). ChatGPT in learning: Assessing students’ use intentions through the lens of perceived value and the influence of AI literacy. Behavioral Sciences, 14(9), 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090845
Ali, F., Zhang, Q., Tauni, M. Z., & Shahzad, K. (2023). Social chatbot: My friend in my distress. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(7), 1702–1712. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2150745
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500

Balakrishnan, J., Abed, S. S., Jones, P. (2022). The role of meta-UTAUT factors, perceived anthropomorphism, perceived. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 180, 121692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121692
Başer Seçer, M. (2024). Sağlık alanında öğrenim gören üniversite öğrencilerinin sağlıkta yapay zekâ uygulamaları ve ChatGPT farkındalığı, yapay zekâ kullanımına yönelik görüşleri ve teknostres düzeylerinin incelenmesi: kesitsel bir çalışma. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Health Sciences/Türkiye Klinikleri Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(4), 856–866. https://doi.org/10.5336/healthsci.2024-104224
Békés, V., & K. Aafjes-van Doorn (2026). Who wants to have an AI therapist? Acceptance of using artificial intelligence for mental health interventions among clinicians, patients and the general community. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 33(1), e70220. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.70220.
Brandtzaeg, P. B., Skjuve, M., & Følstad, A. (2022). My AI friend: How users of a social chatbot understand their human–AI friendship. Human Communication Research, 48(3), 404–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac008
Buçinca, Z., Malaya, M. B., & Gajos, K. Z. (2021, 22 Nisan). To trust or to think: Cognitive forcing functions can reduce overreliance on AI in AI-assisted decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 188, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449287
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. ve Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.
Caporael, L. R., & Heyes, C. M. (1997). Why anthropomorphize? Folk psychology and other stories. R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Ed.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals (s. 59–76). State University of New York Press.
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2023). The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and millennial generation teachers? Smart Learning Environments, 10, 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3
Chan, C. K. Y., & Zhou, W. (2023). An expectancy value theory (EVT) based instrument for measuring student perceptions of generative AI. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00284-4
Choudhury, A., & Shamszare, H. (2023). Investigating the impact of user trust on the adoption and use of ChatGPT: Survey analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e47184. 10.2196/47184 https://doi.org/10.2196/47184
Ciechanowski, L., Przegalinska, A., Magnuski, M., & Gloor, P. (2019). In the shades of the uncanny valley: An experimental study of human–chatbot interaction. Future Generation Computer Systems, 92, 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.01.055
Croes, E. A., & Antheunis, M. L. (2021). Can we be friends with Mitsuku? A longitudinal study on the process of relationship formation between humans and a social chatbot. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(1), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520959463
Çelebi, C., Demir, U., & Karakuş, F. (2023a). Yapay zekâ okuryazarlığı konulu çalışmaların sistematik derleme yöntemiyle incelenmesi. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 535–560. https://doi.org/10.51119/ereegf.2023.67
Çelebi, C., Yılmaz, F., Demir, U., & Karakuş, F. (2023b). Artificial intelligence literacy: An adaptation study. Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning, 4(2), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.52911/itall.1401740
Çınar Yağcı, Ş., & Aydın Yıldız, T. (2023). ChatGPT, yabancı dil öğrencisinin güvenilir yapay zekâ sohbet arkadaşı mıdır? RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 37, 1315–1333. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1407539
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
De Gennaro, M., Krumhuber, E. G., & Lucas, G. (2020). Effectiveness of an empathic chatbot in combating adverse effects of social exclusion on mood. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3061. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03061
De Winter, J. , Dodou, D., & Eisma, Y. B. (2024). Personality and acceptance as predictors of ChatGPT use. Discover Psychology, 4(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-024-00161-2
Dokukina, I., & Gumanova, J. (2020). The rise of chatbots – new personal assistants in foreign language learning. Procedia Computer Science, 169, 542–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.02.212
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2012). Spot the difference: distinguishing between two kinds of processing. Mind & Society, 11, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-012-0104-2
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780542000005
Fabella, F. E. (2023). Attitudes toward the positive and negative features of ChatGPT by selected first year college students. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, 5, 1632–1639. https://doi.org/10.56726/IRJMETS45426
Farhi, F., Jeljeli, R., Aburezeq, I., Dweikat, F. F., Al-shami, S. A., & Slamene, R. (2023). Analyzing the students' views, concerns, and perceived ethics about ChatGPT usage. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100180
Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846
Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S.M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S
Gado, S., Kempen, R., Lingelbach, K., & Bipp, T. (2022). Artificial intelligence in psychology: How can we enable psychology students to accept and use artificial intelligence? Psychology Learning & Teaching, 21(1), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/14757257211037149
Gezgin, D. M. (2024, 4 Nisan). Chatbot use in educatıon: a study on deep and surface learning approaches of university students. Balkan 11th International Conference On Social Sciences, 638–650.
Gezgin, D. M., Mert, S., Kesici, A. İ., & Yıldırım, S. (2024). Understanding university students' intentions to use chatbots in computer programming education: A quantitative study. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 14(2), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1426980
Gülgöz, S., & Sadowski, C. J. (1995). Düşünme ihtiyaci ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlaması ve öğrenci başarısı göstergeleri ile korelasyonu [Turkish adaptation of the Need for Cognition Scale and its correlation with academic performance measures]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 10(35), 15–24.
Hidayati, N. N., & Nihayah, D. H. (2024). Google Translate, ChatGPT or Google Bard AI: A study toward non-English department college students’ preference and translation comparison. Inspiring: English Education Journal, 7(1), 14-33. https://doi.org/10.35905/inspiring.v7i1.8821
Huisman, M., Ranschaert, E., Parker, W., Mastrodicasa, D., Koci, M., Pinto De Santos, D., Coppola, F., Morozov, S., Zins, M., Bohyn, C., Koç, U., Wu, J., Veean, S., Fleischmann, D., Leiner, T., & Willemink, M. J. (2021). An international survey on AI in radiology in 1,041 radiologists and radiology residents part 1: Fear of replacement, knowledge, and attitude. European Radiology, 31(9), 7058–7066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-07781-5
Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Khan, S., & Khan, I. H. (2023). Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT tool towards ameliorating the education system. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 3(2), 100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115
Jenneboer, L., Herrando, C., & Constantinides, E. (2023). The impact of chatbots on customer loyalty: A systematic literature review. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 18(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer17010011
Kabak, T., & Kırbaş, İ. (2023). ChatGPT with risks And opportunities. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(2), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.29048/makufebed.1271477
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Kakabayeva, D., Abibulayeva, A., Orazbayeva, K., & Naviy, L. (2025). AI as a simulated client: Impact on educational psychology students’ therapeutic skills. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 7(2), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2025.10
Kang, E., & Kang, Y. A. (2023). Counseling chatbot design: The effect of anthropomorphic chatbot characteristics on user self-disclosure and companionship. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(11), 2781–2795. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2163775
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kaya, F., Aydin, F., Schepman, A., Rodway, P., Yetişensoy, O. & Kaya, M. D. (2024). The roles of personality traits, AI anxiety, and demographic factors in attitudes toward artificial intelligence. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(2), 497–514, https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2151730
Kox, E. S., & Beretta, B. (2024). Evaluating generative AI incidents: An exploratory vignette study on the role of trust, attitude and AI literacy. Fabian Lorig vd. (Ed.), HHAI 2024: Hybrid Human AI Systems for the Social Good (s. 188–198). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA240194
Kuang, J., Pope, A., & Zhang, Y. (2026). Psychotherapists’ trust, distrust, and generative AI practices in psychotherapy: qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 28, e88932. https://doi.org/10.2196/88932
Kumar, A. H. (2023). Analysis of ChatGPT tool to assess the potential of its utility for academic writing in biomedical domain. Biology, Engineering, Medicine and Science Reports, 9(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.5530/bems.9.1.5
Lee, J., Lee, D., & Lee, J. gil. (2024). Influence of rapport and social presence with an AI psychotherapy chatbot on users’ self-disclosure. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(7), 1620–1631. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2146227
Lee, Y. C., Yamashita, N., Huang, Y., & Fu, W. (2020). "I hear you, I feel you": Encouraging deep self-disclosure through a chatbot. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376175
Li, B., Jiang, J., Ma, L., Huang, Y., & Wu, X. (2024). Mitigating university students’ reliance on ChatGPT. Proceedings of the 2024 8th International Seminar on Education, Management and Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-297-2_31
Lu, Y., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2019). Exploring the emotional antecedents and outcomes of technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.056
Marangunic, N. ve Granic, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1
Markus, A., Pfister, J., Carolus, A., Hotho, A., & Wienrich, C. (2024). Effects of AI understanding-training on AI literacy, usage, self-determined interactions, and anthropomorphization with voice assistants. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100176
Marrone, R., Taddeo, V., & Hill, G. (2022). Creativity and artificial intelligence – a student perspective. Journal of Intelligence, 10(3), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030065
Miserandino, M. (2024). Authentic and creative assessment in a world with AI. Teaching of Psychology, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283241260370
Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of social issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Carney, P. (1999). Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing Systems. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1093–1109.
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
Nguyen, D. M., Chiu, Y. T. H., ve Le, H. D. (2021). Determinants of continuance intention towards banks’ chatbot services in Vietnam: A necessity for sustainable development. Sustainability, 13(14), 7625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147625
Nordheim, C. B., Følstad, A., & Bjørkli, C. A. (2019). An initial model of trust in chatbots for customer service - findings from a questionnaire study. Interacting with Computers, 31(3), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwz022
Pandey, S., & Sharma, S. (2023). A comparative study of retrieval-based and generative-based chatbots using deep learning and machine learning. Healthcare Analytics, 3, 100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.health.2023.100198
Polyportis, A., & Pahos, N. (2024). Understanding students’ adoption of the ChatGPT chatbot in higher education: the role of anthropomorphism, trust, design novelty and institutional policy. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2317364
Rahman, M. M., & Watanobe, Y. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13(9), 5783. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095783
Reuter, M., Kirchhoff, B. M., Franke, T., Radüntz, T., & Peifer, C. (2025). To trust or not to trust a human(-like) AI—A scoping review and conjoint analyses on factors influencing anthropomorphism and trust. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 79, 402–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41449-025-00481-6
Rogers, M. P., Hillberg, H. M., & Groves, C. L. (2024, Mart). Attitudes towards the use (and misuse) of ChatGPT: A preliminary study. Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, 1147–1153. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630784
Sallam, M., Salim, N. A., Barakat, M., Al-Mahzoum, K., Al-Tammemi, A. B., Malaeb, D., Hallit, R., & Hallit, S. (2023). Assessing health students' attitudes and usage of ChatGPT in Jordan: Validation study. JMIR Medical Education, 9, e48254. https://doi.org/10.2196/48254
Sallam, M. (2023). ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: Systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare, 11(6), 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887
Sarıoğlu, E. B., & Güregen, E. P. (2024). Duygusal yalnızlığa bir çözüm olarak ChatGPT: Kişilerarası iletişimin yeni aracı. Türkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cumhuriyetin 100. Yılında Geleceğin İletişimi Özel Sayısı, 81–107. https://doi.org/10.17829/turcom.1360418 Schepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2023). The general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale (GAAIS): Confirmatory validation and associations with personality, corporate distrust, and general trust. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(13), 2724–2741. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2085400
Schmidt, S., Cabrera Lozoya, D., Kiropoulos, L., Conway, M., & D’Alfonso, S. (2025). Psychology student and mental health practitioner experiences of and perspectives on Client101, a virtual client chatbot training tool. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), 1293. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07668-9
Shoufan, A. (2023). Exploring students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: Thematic analysis and follow-up survey. IEEE Access, 11, 38805–38818. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3268224
Singh, E., Vasishta, P., & Singla, A. (2024). AI-enhanced education: exploring the impact of AI literacy on generation Z’s academic performance in northern India. Quality Assurance in Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-02-2024-0037
Smith, M. G., Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2025). Can generative AI chatbots emulate human connection? A relationship science perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science: a Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 20(6), 1081–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251351306
Smith, S. M., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Need for cognition and choice framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199612)9:4<283::AID-BDM241>3.0.CO;2-7
Spatola, N., & Chaminade, T. (2022). Cognitive load increases anthropomorphism of humanoid robot. The automatic path of anthropomorphism. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 167, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102884
Spatola, N., & Wudarczyk, O. A. (2021). Ascribing emotions to robots: Explicit and implicit attribution of emotions and perceived robot anthropomorphism. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106934
Spatola, N., & Wykowska, A. (2021). The personality of anthropomorphism: How the need for cognition and the need for closure define attitudes and anthropomorphic attributions toward robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 106841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106841
Strzelecki, A. (2024). Students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: An extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Innovative Higher Education, 49, 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09686-1
Sundar, S. S., Waddell, T. F., & Jung, E. H. (2016). The Hollywood robot syndrome media effects on older adults' attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451771
Susnjak, T., & McIntosh, T. R. (2024). ChatGPT: The end of online exam integrity? Education Sciences, 14(6), 656. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060656
Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 973. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
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
Wang, B., Patrick Rau, P. L., & Yuan, T. (2023). Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: Validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale. Behaviour & Information Technology, 42(9), 1324–1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2072768
Wang, F., Cheung, A. C. K., Neitzel, A. J., & Chai, C. S. (2024). Does chatting with chatbots improve language learning performance? A meta-analysis of chatbot-assisted language learning. Review of Educational Research, 95(4), 623–660. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241255621
Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005
Weizenbaum, J. (1966). Eliza—A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168
Yıldız Durak, H., & Onan, A. (2023). Eğitimde chatbot kullanmaya ve öğrenmeye yönelik davranışsal niyet ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(3), 1162-1172. https://doi.org/10.38151/akef.2023.104
Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: a systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Behaviour-Personality Assessment in Psychology

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Elvan Arıkan İyilikci ^*
0000-0002-1631-1044
Türkiye

Halil Mert Yurt
0009-0003-8016-5103
Türkiye

Elif Eymen Keysan
0009-0000-3530-0095
Türkiye

Nihal Ağaoğulları
0000-0001-7081-8703
Türkiye

Hazal Dallar
0009-0001-6645-1563
Türkiye

Leyla Sena Güven
0009-0008-1805-6383
Türkiye

Meryem Sude Özkan
0009-0009-7401-4484
Türkiye

Melissa Şahin
0009-0006-6832-7087
Türkiye

Zeynep Günhan
0009-0002-0661-3003
Türkiye

Ece Baykuşak
0009-0002-2309-0865
Türkiye

Gülin Kaça
0000-0001-5621-8621
Türkiye

Publication Date

July 20, 2026

Submission Date

March 4, 2025

Acceptance Date

June 23, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 35

DOI

https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1647141

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA44CA34RU

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Arıkan İyilikci, E., Yurt, H. M., Keysan, E. E., Ağaoğulları, N., Dallar, H., Güven, L. S., Özkan, M. S., Şahin, M., Günhan, Z., Baykuşak, E., & Kaça, G. (2026). SOHBET BOTLARINA YÖNELİK TUTUMLARIN VE KULLANIM ALIŞKANLIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ: PSİKOLOJİ LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ANKET ÇALIŞMASI. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 35. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1647141

AMA

1.Arıkan İyilikci E, Yurt HM, Keysan EE, et al. SOHBET BOTLARINA YÖNELİK TUTUMLARIN VE KULLANIM ALIŞKANLIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ: PSİKOLOJİ LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ANKET ÇALIŞMASI. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2026;35. doi:10.35379/cusosbil.1647141

Chicago

Arıkan İyilikci, Elvan, Halil Mert Yurt, Elif Eymen Keysan, et al. 2026. “SOHBET BOTLARINA YÖNELİK TUTUMLARIN VE KULLANIM ALIŞKANLIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ: PSİKOLOJİ LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ANKET ÇALIŞMASI”. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 35 (July). https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1647141.

EndNote

Arıkan İyilikci E, Yurt HM, Keysan EE, Ağaoğulları N, Dallar H, Güven LS, Özkan MS, Şahin M, Günhan Z, Baykuşak E, Kaça G (July 1, 2026) SOHBET BOTLARINA YÖNELİK TUTUMLARIN VE KULLANIM ALIŞKANLIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ: PSİKOLOJİ LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ANKET ÇALIŞMASI. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 35

IEEE

[1]E. Arıkan İyilikci et al., “SOHBET BOTLARINA YÖNELİK TUTUMLARIN VE KULLANIM ALIŞKANLIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ: PSİKOLOJİ LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ANKET ÇALIŞMASI”, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 35, July 2026, doi: 10.35379/cusosbil.1647141.

ISNAD

Arıkan İyilikci, Elvan - Yurt, Halil Mert - Keysan, Elif Eymen - Ağaoğulları, Nihal - Dallar, Hazal - Güven, Leyla Sena - Özkan, Meryem Sude et al. “SOHBET BOTLARINA YÖNELİK TUTUMLARIN VE KULLANIM ALIŞKANLIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ: PSİKOLOJİ LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ANKET ÇALIŞMASI”. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 35 (July 1, 2026). https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1647141.

JAMA

1.Arıkan İyilikci E, Yurt HM, Keysan EE, Ağaoğulları N, Dallar H, Güven LS, Özkan MS, Şahin M, Günhan Z, Baykuşak E, Kaça G. SOHBET BOTLARINA YÖNELİK TUTUMLARIN VE KULLANIM ALIŞKANLIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ: PSİKOLOJİ LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ANKET ÇALIŞMASI. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2026;35. doi:10.35379/cusosbil.1647141.

MLA

Arıkan İyilikci, Elvan, et al. “SOHBET BOTLARINA YÖNELİK TUTUMLARIN VE KULLANIM ALIŞKANLIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ: PSİKOLOJİ LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ANKET ÇALIŞMASI”. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 35, July 2026, doi:10.35379/cusosbil.1647141.

Vancouver

1.Elvan Arıkan İyilikci, Halil Mert Yurt, Elif Eymen Keysan, Nihal Ağaoğulları, Hazal Dallar, Leyla Sena Güven, Meryem Sude Özkan, Melissa Şahin, Zeynep Günhan, Ece Baykuşak, Gülin Kaça. SOHBET BOTLARINA YÖNELİK TUTUMLARIN VE KULLANIM ALIŞKANLIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ: PSİKOLOJİ LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ANKET ÇALIŞMASI. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2026 Jul. 1;35. doi:10.35379/cusosbil.1647141

The rules that must be followed when writing articles to be sent to the journal are summarized below:

1. Çukurova University Journal of Social Sciences Institute is a refereed journal published in Continuous Publication Model.

2. The article to be sent must not have been published anywhere before.

3. Articles can be published in Turkish, English, French or German. If the article is written in English, French or German, a Turkish abstract and title must be included.

4. Articles must be written in accordance with the Turkish Language Association spelling rules.

5. Articles must be written in Microsoft Word 2003 or later versions and sent online via the internet.

6. The title of the article must be appropriate to the text, centered; short and clear; written in capital letters.

7. The author's name must be centered in the article; if there is more than one author, their names must be written side by side. Information about the authors (University name, Faculty name, e-mail address, Orcid No) must be given in a footnote.

8. The first page of the article should consist of only ABSTRACT and ABSTRACT, and this page should be created by placing it in the Article Template (see Article Template)

9. Paper size in articles: A-4 vertical, page structure bottom: 2.5 cm, top: 2.5 cm, left: 2.5 cm, right: 2.5 cm, header: 3 cm, footer: 3 cm, font: Times New Roman, point: 10, line spacing: single. The entire article should not exceed 8000 words.

10. Footnotes should be written in Times New Roman font, 8 point and line spacing “single”. Footnotes should not be used except for notes on old-lettered text studies and important explanations about the study.

11. The abstract should be written in 8 point and Times New Roman font. It should consist of one paragraph (even if it consists of several paragraphs, it should fit into one paragraph), and line spacing should be set to “single”. It should consist of at least 150 and at most 200 words. The abstract should be placed in capital letters on the left side of the text.

12. In original articles, sections should be organized as follows:
INTRODUCTION (maximum 3 pages)
LITERATURE REVIEW
METHOD
RESEARCH FINDINGS
CONCLUSION

13. The main section headings above should be written in bold, capital letters, aligned to the left. Headings should not be numbered, and there should be no paragraph indentation.

14. Subsection headings should be written in bold, with the first letter of each word capitalized, and should start 0.5 cm. indentation. All paragraph indents should be aligned.

15. If tables are to be included in the text, they should be shown as follows: “Table 1.”. The name of the table should be written centered above the table, with the first letter of each word capitalized, and should not be italicized. In figures, it should be written centered under the figure, with the word “Figure 1.” capitalized. Figures and graphics should be drawn on the computer; photos or pictures should have high resolution and should be numbered.

16. If hypotheses will be included in the study, the hypothesis indication should be as follows: “H1:”. Hypotheses should not be written in italics.

17. The sources used in the article should be given under the title “RESOURCES” after the “RESULTS” section. It should be prepared with Times New Roman font, 10 points, right-left 0, hanging 1.25, and line spacing “single”. 1 line space should be left after each source.

18. The sources in the article should be written in accordance with APA 7 (https://apastyle.apa.org/) style.

Guidelines for writing articles to be sent to the journal:

1. The Journal of Institute of Social Sciences of Çukurova University is a peer-reviewed journal published Continious Publication Model.
2. Papers must be submitted on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere.
3. The articles can be written in Turkish, English, French or German. If the article has been written in English, French or German, a summary in Turkish must also be included.
4. The articles should be written in accordance with the spelling rules of the Turkish Language Association.
5. Articles should be written in Microsoft Word 2003 or higher and they should be submitted through the online system.
6. Use a concise and clearly written title that reflects the paper's content. Use capital letters and center alignment.
7. Author names should be center aligned on the article; if there is more than one author, their names should be written side by side. Authorship information (University name, Faculty name, e-mail address, ORCID number) should be given in the footnote.
8. The first page of the article should consist of only SUMMARY and ABSTRACT using the Article Template (see Article Template).
9. Please adhere to the following formatting guidelines: a. Paper size: A-4 vertical b. Page layout: bottom 2.5 cm, top: 2.5 cm, left: 2.5 cm, right: 2.5 cm, header: 3 cm, footer: 3 cm.
c. Font: Times New Roman

Ethical Principles

This guideline should be carefully reviewed by all researchers who will submit a study to the Journal.

Çukurova University Journal of Social Sciences Institute is a peer-reviewed journal published in accordance with the ethical principles and rules specified below, with the aim of publishing qualified scientific articles in the field of Social Sciences.
Articles sent to Çukurova University Journal of Social Sciences Institute are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process.
The journal is published electronically with free access.
The journal only accepts articles through the Dergi Park system.
Çukurova University Journal of Social Sciences Institute is a journal aware of the fact that information must be easily accessible in order for scientific studies to advance, and supports the initiative to make refereed journal literature open access, as stated in the Budapest Open Access Declaration, and offers all published articles in an environment where everyone can read and download them, free of charge.
In this declaration, open access is used in the sense that “scientific literature can be accessed, read, saved, copied, printed, scanned, linked to full text, indexed, transferred to software as data and used for any lawful purpose via the Internet without financial, legal and technical barriers”.
Considering the role of knowledge sharing in the advancement of science, open access is of great importance for researchers and readers. For this reason, articles in this journal can be used as long as the author and original source are cited. Permission from authors or publishers is not required.
It is aimed that all stakeholders (author, editor, referee, publisher and reader) who present a scientific study contribute to the correct advancement of science. In accordance with this goal, compliance with scientific ethical principles is important in scientific studies prepared.
These ethical principles have been accepted by us based on the guidelines prepared by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and are presented below with some of them, with the recommendation that stakeholders adopt them as well.
Accordingly, the ethical responsibilities, roles and duties of authors, journal editor, referees and publisher are included in our Journal. In addition, information is provided regarding plagiarism and unethical behaviors in Çukurova University Social Sciences Institute Journal. The sources used while preparing these policies are stated at the end of the guide.

Author(s)
• Articles sent to Çukurova University Social Sciences Institute Journal must be original studies in the field of Social Sciences.

All sources used in the articles (authors, online pages, personal interviews, etc.) must be cited correctly and appropriately.

• It must be stated that the articles sent to the journal have not been sent to another journal and the Copyright Transfer Form must be filled out.

People who have not contributed to the article intellectually should not be listed as authors.

• Conflicts of interest regarding the submitted article must be stated and the reason must be explained.

• Authors may be asked to submit the raw data of their work to the editorial board during the refereeing process, in which case the authors are expected to share their raw data with the editorial board. Authors are obliged to keep the data related to a published article for 5 years.

• Authors must inform the editor and the editorial board when they detect an error in their work and cooperate for the correction or retraction process.

Authors cannot use language and attitudes that degrade or belittle any individual, community or institution in their articles.

Referees
All articles sent to Çukurova University Journal of Social Sciences are evaluated with a double-blind refereeing process. Double-blind refereeing means that authors are kept confidential from referees and referees are kept confidential from authors in order to ensure an impartial, objective and independent evaluation process.
Articles are sent to the referees for evaluation through the Dergi Park system.
Referees are required to fill out a form that includes the contribution of the article they are evaluating to their field, their decisions on whether the article is publishable or not, and the reasons for these decisions.
The ethical responsibilities and roles of referees of Çukurova University Journal of Social Sciences are as follows:
• Referees are required to referee articles related to their fields of expertise only.
• Referees are expected to agree to referee articles that do not have any conflicts of interest. If referees discover any conflicts of interest, they must inform the editor and decline to referee the relevant article.

• Referees must evaluate articles impartially and objectively.

• Referees are required to fill out the Referee Evaluation Form for the articles they evaluate, and

İmtiyaz Sahibi (Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Adına)

Hüseyin GÜLER

Econometric and Statistical Methods, Statistics

Editor

Mustafa YAŞAR

Psychological Counseling Education, Adult Education, Early Childhood Education, Educational Psychology

Mizanpaj Editörü

Mustafa Can KIZGINDEMIR

Information Systems User Experience Design and Development, Visual Communication Design, Graphic Design, Video Design, Web Design

Son Okuyucu

Ayşenur SÖYÜ

Psychology of Religion, Religious Studies (Other)

Alan Editörü

C. Hakan ÇUHADAR

Music, Interpretation in Western Classical Music, Theories of Music, Musicology and Ethnomusicology

Marella BODUR ÜN

Comparative Political Movement, Gender and Politics, Political Sociology, European Union-Turkiye Relations, Globalisation, International Relations Theories

Engin ÇETIN

Turkish Language and Literature, Old Turkic Language (Orhon, Uyghur, Karahan), Historical North East Turkish Language (Khwarezm, Kipchak, Chagatai)

Ebru ÖZGÜR GÜLER

Econometric and Statistical Methods, Quantitative Decision Methods

NÖ

Nurcihan ÖZDOĞAN

Equity and Trusts Law

EK

Ebru KAYA

English As A Second Language

AB

Ayten Pınar BAL

Education, Curriculum and Instration , Mathematics Education

Nuran ÖZTÜRK

Turkish Islamic Literature, Classical Turkish Literature of Ottoman Field

Fehime Yeşim GÜRANI

Built Environment and Design, Interior Architecture , Sustainable Architecture

Fatma ŞAHIN

Archaeological Science, Ceramics in Archeology, Early Bronze Age Archeology, Neolithic Age Archeology, The Archaeology of Middle Bronze Age

Aydın ÇAM

Cinema Sociology, Cinema Theories, Cinema History

Birsel AYBEK

Education

AB

Almıla BURGAÇ ÇIL

International Economics

Raziye GÜNAY BILALOĞLU

Early Childhood Education

Mustafa MAVAŞOĞLU

Applied Linguistics and Educational Linguistics

Özlem USLU

Fine Arts Education, Museum Education, Photography, Interdisciplinary Art, Installation

İÜ

İlksun Didem ÜLBEĞI

Industrial Organisation, Entrepreneurship, Organizasyon, Organisation and Management Theory, Organisational Planning and Management, Organisational Behaviour, Strategy, Management and Organisational Behaviour (Other)