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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Generative Chatbot
• User Trust
• Anthropomorphism
• Need for Cognition
• Artificial Intelligence Literacy

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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• üretken sohbet botu
• kullanıcı güveni
• antropomorfizm
• düşünme ihtiyacı
• yapay zeka okuryazarlığı

Teşekkür

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.

Kaynakça

1. 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
2. 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
3. Ahmadi, R., & Tekemen, H. (2024). Akdeniz üniversitesi öğrencilerinin ChatGPT'nin günlük kullanımına ilişkin eğilimleri. Sosyolojik Bağlam 5(3), 446-480.
4. 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
5. Aktay, S., Gök, S., & Uzunoğlu, D. (2023). ChatGPT in education. Türk Akademik Yayınlar Dergisi (TAY Journal), 7(2), 378–406.
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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

9. 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
10. 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
11. 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.
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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.
40. 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
41. 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.
42. 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
43. 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
44. 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
45. 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
46. 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
47. 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
48. 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
49. 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
50. 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
51. 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
52. 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
53. 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
54. 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
55. 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
56. 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
57. 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
58. 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
59. 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
60. 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
61. 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
62. Miserandino, M. (2024). Authentic and creative assessment in a world with AI. Teaching of Psychology, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283241260370
63. 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
64. 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
65. 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.
66. 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
67. 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
68. 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
69. 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
70. 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
71. 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
72. 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
73. 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
74. 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
75. 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
76. 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
77. 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
78. 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
79. 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
80. 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
81. 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
82. 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
83. 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
84. 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
85. 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
86. 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
87. Susnjak, T., & McIntosh, T. R. (2024). ChatGPT: The end of online exam integrity? Education Sciences, 14(6), 656. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060656
88. 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
89. 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
90. 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
91. 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
92. 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
93. 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
94. 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
95. 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
96. 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