Psikolojik Sıkıntı ve Yapay Zeka Bağımlılığı: Dışadönüklüğün Düzenleyici Rolü

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, psikolojik sıkıntı ile yapay zekâ bağımlılığı arasındaki ilişkide dışadönüklüğün düzenleyici rolünü incelemektir. Araştırmaya kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen 438 üniversite öğrencisi (%24,9 erkek; yaş ortalaması = 21,65, SS = 3,65) katılmıştır. Veri toplama sürecinde Yapay Zekâ Bağımlılık Ölçeği, Depresyon Anksiyete Stres Ölçeği-Kısa Form (DASS-21) ve On Maddelik Kişilik Envanteri kullanılmıştır. Değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler Pearson ve Spearman korelasyon analizleri ile incelenmiş; araştırmanın temel hipotezi ise Hayes PROCESS Macro (Model 1) kullanılarak yürütülen koşullu etki analizi ile test edilmiştir. Bulgular, psikolojik sıkıntı ile yapay zekâ bağımlılığı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir. Moderasyon analizi sonuçları, psikolojik sıkıntının yapay zekâ bağımlılığı üzerindeki etkisinin dışadönüklük düzeyine bağlı olarak değiştiğini ortaya koymuştur. Dışadönüklüğün düşük olduğu durumlarda bu ilişki anlamlı değilken, yüksek dışadönüklük düzeylerinde psikolojik sıkıntının yapay zekâ bağımlılığı üzerindeki etkisinin pozitif ve anlamlı olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca dışadönüklüğün yapay zekâ bağımlılığı üzerinde doğrudan negatif yönde anlamlı bir etkisi olduğu bulunmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular, yapay zekâ bağımlılığı ile psikolojik sıkıntı arasındaki ilişkinin bireysel farklılıklar bağlamında ele alınması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Özellikle dışadönüklüğün bu ilişkide kritik bir düzenleyici rol oynadığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ bağımlılığı literatürüne katkı sağlayarak, bu alandaki sınırlı ampirik bulguların genişletilmesine yardımcı olmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• psikolojik sıkıntı
• yapay zeka
• yapay zeka bağımlılığı
• bağımlılık
• dışadönüklük

Etik Beyan

Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etik Kurulu’ndan etik kurul onayı (Sayı: 68282350/2025/18) alınmıştır.

Psychological Distress and Artificial Intelligence Dependency: The Moderating Role of Extraversion

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the moderating role of extraversion in the relationship between psychological distress and artificial intelligence dependency. A total of 438 university students (24.9% male; mean age = 21.65, SD = 3.65) participated in the study through convenience sampling. Data were collected using the Scale for Dependence on Artificial Intelligence, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-Short Form, and the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. The relationships among variables were examined using Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses, and the main hypothesis of the study was tested through conditional process analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Macro (Model 1). The findings indicated a significant relationship between psychological distress and artificial intelligence dependency. The results of the moderation analysis revealed that the effect of psychological distress on artificial intelligence dependency varied depending on the level of extraversion. While this relationship was not significant at low levels of extraversion, it became positive and significant at higher levels. Additionally, extraversion was found to have a direct and significant negative effect on artificial intelligence dependency. These findings suggest that the relationship between psychological distress and artificial intelligence dependency should be considered within the framework of individual differences. Extraversion appears to play a critical moderating role in this relationship. This study contributes to the literature on artificial intelligence dependency by expanding the limited empirical evidence in this emerging field.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial ıntelligence
• artificial ıntelligence dependency
• dependency
• psychological distress
• extraversion

Etik Beyan

Ethical approval was obtained from the Pamukkale University Social and Human Sciences Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee (Approval No: 68282350/2025/18).

Kaynakça

1. Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A metaanalytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004
2. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1289–1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.018
3. Atak, H. (2013). On maddelik kişilik envanteri’nin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması. Nöropsikiyatri Arşivi, 50(4), 312–319. https://doi.org/10.4274/npa.y6128
4. Bansal, G., Nawal, A., Chamola, V., & Herencsar, N. (2024). Revolutionizing visuals: The role of generative AI in modern image generation. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications, 20(11), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3689641
5. Brand, M., Wegmann, E., Stark, R., Müller, A., Wölfling, K., Robbins, T. W., & Potenza, M. N. (2019). The Interaction of PersonAffect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model for addictive behaviors: Update, generalization, and specification of process mechanisms. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 104, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.032
6. Burr, C., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020). The ethics of digital well-being: A thematic review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2313–2343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00175-8
7. Chuma, E. L., & Oliveira, G. G. D. (2023). Generative AI for business decision-making: A case of ChatGPT. Management Science and Business Decisions, 3(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.52812/msbd.63
8. Ciudad-Fernández, V., Von Hammerstein, C., & Billieux, J. (2025). People are not becoming “AIholic”: Questioning the “ChatGPT addiction” construct. Addictive Behaviors, 166, 108325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2025.108325

9. Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(2), 247–253.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003 Dagnino, F. M., Fante, C., Guerrieri, V., & Passarelli, M. (2026). Addicted, attached, or just delegating? A scoping review on “problematic artificial intelligence use”. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1900953. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1900953 Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 491–517. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002046
10. Elhai, J. D., Dvorak, R. D., Levine, J. C., & Hall, B. J. (2017). Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology. Journal of Affective Disorders, 207, 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.030
11. 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
12. 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. Mind and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
13. Giannakos, M., Azevedo, R., Brusilovsky, P., Cukurova, M., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernandez-Leo, D., Jarvela, S., Mavrikis, M., & Rienties, B. (2025). The promise and challenges of generative AI in education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(11), 2518–2544. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2394886
14. Giray, L. (2024). Negative effects of generative AI on researchers: Publishing addiction, Dunning-Kruger effect and skill erosion. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 7(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.38
15. Goh, A. Y., Hartanto, A., & Majeed, N. M. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence dependency: Scale development, validation, and its motivational, behavioral, and psychological correlates. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 20, 100845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100845
16. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
17. Hao, X., Demir, E., & Eyers, D. (2024). Exploring collaborative decision-making: A quasiexperimental study of human and generative AI interaction. Technology in Society, 78, 102662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102662
18. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
19. Ho, J. Q. H., Hartanto, A., Koh, A., & Majeed, N. M. (2025). Gender biases within Artificial Intelligence and ChatGPT: Evidence, sources of biases and solutions. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 4, 100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100145
20. Hu, M., Chua, X. C. W., Diong, S. F., Kasturiratna, K. T. A. S., Majeed, N. M., & Hartanto, A. (2025). AI as your ally: The effects of AI-assisted venting on negative affect and perceived social support. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 17(1), Article e12621. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12621
21. Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and methodological critique of internet addiction research: Towards a model of compensatory internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059
22. Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(3), 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030311
23. Lee, H. P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-22). https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778
24. Liu, B., & Sundar, S. S. (2018). Should machines express sympathy and empathy? Experiments with a health advice chatbot. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(10), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0110
25. Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u
26. Malfacini, K. (2025). The impacts of companion AI on human relationships: risks, benefits, and design considerations. Ai & Society, 40(7), 5527-5540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02318-6
27. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). Guilford Press.
28. Meng, J., & Dai, Y. (2021). Emotional support from AI chatbots: Should a supportive partner self-disclose or not?. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(4), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab005
29. Montag, C., Sindermann, C., Becker, B., & Panksepp, J. (2021). An affective neuroscience framework for digital phenotyping and digital addiction. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 14, 100391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2021.100391
30. Morales-García, W. C., Sairitupa-Sanchez, L. Z., Morales-García, S. B. & Morales-García, M. (2024). Development and validation of a scale for dependence on artificial intelligence in university students. Front. Educ. 9, 1323898. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1323898
31. Naqbi, H. A., Bahroun, Z., & Ahmed, V. (2024). Enhancing work productivity through generative Artificial Intelligence: A comprehensive literature review. Sustainability, 16(3), 1166. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031166
32. 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
33. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
34. Salah, M., Abdelfattah, F., & Al Halbusi, H. (2024). The good, the bad, and the GPT: Reviewing the impact of generative artificial intelligence on psychology. Current Opinion in Psychology, 59, 101872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101872
35. Sarıçam, H. (2018). The psychometric properties of Turkish version of Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) in health control and clinical samples. Journal of Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research, 7(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.5455/JCBPR.274847
36. Savaş, B. Ç. (2024). Yapay zekâya bağımlılık ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Sport for All and Recreation, 6(3), 306-315. https://doi.org/10.56639/jsar.1509301
37. Shaji, G. (2023). The potential of generative AI to reform graduate education. Partners Universal International Research Journal, 2(4), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10421475
38. Siddals, S., Torous, J., & Coxon, A. (2024). “It happened to be the perfect thing”: Experiences of generative AI chatbots for mental health. Npj Mental Health Research, 3(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44184-024-00097-4
39. Sieja, M., & Wach, K. (2023). Revolutionary Artificial Intelligence or rogue technology? The promises and pitfalls of ChatGPT. International Entrepreneurship Review, 9(4), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2023.0904.07
40. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B9780-12-387691-1.00002-8
41. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
42. Wang, G., Wang, W., Yang, D., & Ren, J. (2026). Generative AI, cognitive offloading, and learner agency in higher education: A scoping review. Behav Sci, 16(7), 1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16071150
43. Zhang, S., Zhao, X., Zhou, T., & Kim, J. H. (2024). Do you have AI dependency? The roles of academic self-efficacy, academic stress, and performance expectations on problematic AI usage behavior. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00467-0
44. Zhou, T., & Zhang, C. (2024). Examining generative AI user addiction from a C-A-C perspective. Technology in Society, 78, Article 102653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102653