Counselor, Friend, Assistant: The Socio-Cognitive Role of Artificial Intelligence from the Perspective of University Students

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, as a dynamic element of the digital transformation process, are radically transforming learning and social interaction practices in the higher education ecosystem. This study aims to examine the interaction of university students with AI technologies from a phenomenological perspective, covering cognitive, emotional, and ethical dimensions. Conducted using a qualitative research method, in-depth interviews were held with 41 university students from different disciplines identified through the snowball sampling technique. The findings obtained through thematic analysis revealed that students position AI not merely as technical software, but as an assistant managing their academic processes, a consultant rationalizing their decisions, and a friend helping them cope with feelings of loneliness. The results of the research show that students maintain a paradoxical balance between "instrumental distance" and "socio-emotional engagement" in their AI experiences. While participants emphasize the productivity-enhancing effect of AI in areas such as fast access to information and time management, they also harbor serious ethical concerns regarding privacy violations and the risk of cognitive atrophy. The experience of AI as a "non-judgmental interlocutor," especially in times of stress and crisis, proves that technology has moved into the center of life as a socio-cognitive partner. These findings suggest that higher education institutions should expand AI literacy to include ethical and psychosocial dimensions and restructure digital ethics curricula according to this new human-machine partnership.

Keywords

• Artificial Intelligence
• University Students
• Socio-Cognitive Impact
• Counseling Role
• Perception of Friendship
• Communication with Artificial Intelligence

Supporting Institution

KTO Karatay University

Project Number

yok

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval dated 03/09/2025 was obtained from KTO Karatay University Ethics Committee with decision number 2025/053.

Thanks

We would like to thank the researchers who designed the study and the volunteer participants who contributed to the research process.

Danışman, Arkadaş, Asistan: Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Perspektifinden Yapay Zekânın Sosyo-Bilişsel Rolü

Abstract

Dijital dönüşüm sürecinin en dinamik unsurlarından biri olan Yapay Zekâ (YZ) teknolojileri, yükseköğretim ekosisteminde öğrenme ve sosyal etkileşim pratiklerini kökten dönüştürmektedir. Bu çalışma, üniversite öğrencilerinin YZ teknolojileriyle kurdukları etkileşimi, bilişsel, duygusal ve etik boyutlarıyla fenomenolojik bir perspektiften incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nitel araştırma yöntemiyle yürütülen çalışma kapsamında, kartopu örnekleme tekniği ile belirlenen farklı disiplinlerden 41 üniversite öğrencisiyle derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Tematik analiz sonucunda elde edilen bulgular, öğrencilerin YZ’yi salt teknik bir yazılımın ötesinde; akademik süreçlerini yöneten bir asistan, kararlarını rasyonalize eden bir danışman ve yalnızlık hissiyle baş etmelerine yardımcı olan bir arkadaş olarak konumlandırdıklarını ortaya koymuştur. Araştırma sonuçları, öğrencilerin YZ deneyimlerinde "araçsal bir mesafe" ile "sosyo-duygusal bağlılık" arasında paradoksal bir denge kurduklarını göstermektedir. Katılımcılar bilgiye hızlı erişim ve zaman yönetimi gibi konularda YZ’nin verimlilik artırıcı etkisini vurgularken, aynı zamanda mahremiyet ihlalleri ve bilişsel körelme riskine dair ciddi etik kaygılar taşımaktadır. Özellikle stres ve kriz anlarında YZ’nin "yargılamayan bir muhatap" olarak deneyimlenmesi, teknolojinin sosyo-bilişsel bir ortak olarak hayatın merkezine yerleştiğini kanıtlamaktadır. Bu bulgular, yükseköğretim kurumlarının YZ okuryazarlığını etik ve psikososyal boyutları da kapsayacak şekilde genişletmesi ve dijital etik müfredatlarını bu yeni insan-makine ortaklığına göre yeniden yapılandırması gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Yapay Zeka
• Üniversite Öğrencileri
• Sosyo-Bilişsel Etki
• Danışmanlık Rolü
• Arkadaşlık Algısı
• Yapay Zeka ile İletişim

Supporting Institution

KTO Karatay Üniversitesi

Project Number

yok

Ethical Statement

KTO Karatay Üniversitesi Etik Kurulundan 2025/053 karar sayısı ile 03/09/2025 tarihli etik onay alınmıştır.

Thanks

Çalışmayı tasarlayan araştırmacılara ve araştırma sürecinde katkı sağlayan gönüllü katılımcılara teşekkür ederiz.

References

1. Amosun, T. S., Chu, J., Rufai, O. H., Muhideen, S., Shahani, R., Gonlepa, M. K., & Abubakar, A. M. (2022). WeChat usage during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: The mediating role of online self-disclosure on quality of friendship and well-being. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 71(3), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-09-2020-0136
2. 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
3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
4. Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G.-J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002
5. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
6. Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission. (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and data in teaching and learning for educators. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/153756
7. Fang, C. M., Liu, A. R., Danry, V., Lee, E., Chan, S. W. T., Pataranutaporn, P., Maes, P., Phang, J., Lampe, M., Ahmad, L., & Agarwal, S. (2025). How AI and human behaviors shape psychosocial effects of chatbot use: A longitudinal randomized controlled study. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2503.17473
8. Fitzpatrick, K. K., Darcy, A., & Vierhile, M. (2017). Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): A randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 4(2), e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.7785

9. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
10. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903.
11. High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2759/346720
12. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
13. Kim, M., Lee, S., Kim, S., Heo, J., Lee, S., Shin, Y. B., Cho, C. H., & Jung, D. (2025). Therapeutic potential of social chatbots in alleviating loneliness and social anxiety: Quasi-experimental mixed methods study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27. e65589. https://doi.org/10.2196/65589
14. Kurtaliqi, F., Zaman, M., & Sohier, R. (2022). The psychological reassurance effect of mobile tracing apps in Covid-19 era. Computers in Human Behavior, 131, 107210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107210
15. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
16. Liu, Z., Vobolevich, A., & Oparin, A. (2023). The influence of AI ChatGPT on improving teachers’ creative thinking. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(12), 124-139. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.12.7.
17. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
18. Merino-Campos, C. (2025). The impact of artificial intelligence on personalized learning in higher education: A systematic review. Trends in Higher Education, 4(2), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu4020017
19. Merrill, K., Mikkilineni, S., & Dehnert, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence chatbots as a source of virtual social support: Implications for loneliness and anxiety management. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1549, 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15400
20. Morris, R. R., Kouddous, K., Kshirsagar, R., & Schueller, S. M. (2018). Towards an artificially empathic conversational agent for mental health applications: System design and user perceptions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(6), e10148. https://doi.org/10.2196/10148
21. 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
22. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
23. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation. Cambridge University.
24. Skjuve, M., Følstad, A., Fostervold, K. I., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2021). My chatbot companion—A study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 149, 102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601
25. Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2022). AI in education: Perceptions and ethical considerations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(6), 1081–1099. https://www.pewresearch.org
26. Smith, M. G., Bradbury, T., & Karney, B. (2025). Can generative AI chatbots emulate human connection? A relationship science perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(6), 1081–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251351306
27. Ta, V., Griffith, C., Boatfield, C., Wang, X., Civitello, M., Bader, H., DeCero, E., & Loggarakis, A. (2020). User experiences of social support from companion chatbots in everyday contexts: Thematic analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(3), e16235. https://doi.org/10.2196/16235
28. Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other (Rev. and expanded ed.). Basic Books.
29. Wang, A., Zhang, Y., Wang, A., & Zheng, W. (2025). The impact of AI-based painting technology on children’s creative thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 16. 1598210. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1598210
30. Xie, T., & Pentina, I. (2022). Attachment theory as a framework to understand relationships with social chatbots: A case study of Replika. Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2046–2055. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2022.258
31. Xie, T., & Pentina, I. (2022). Attachment theory as a framework to understand relationships with social chatbots: A case study of Replika. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2022.258
32. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
33. Zhang, K., Xie, Y., Chen, D., Ji, Z., & Wang, J. (2025). Effects of attractions and social attributes on peoples’ usage intention and media dependence towards chatbot: The mediating role of parasocial interaction and emotional support. BMC Psychology, 13, Article 986. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03284-w
34. Zhang, Y., Zhao, D., Hancock, J. T., Kraut, R., & Yang, D. (2026). Interaction with AI companions and psychological well-being. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02516-2