Etkileşim kurduğumuz kim? Yapay zekaya atfedilen roller

Öz

Bireyler, içinde bulunduğu gelişim dönemine özgü çatışmalar yaşayabilmektedir. Bu çatışmalar, bireylerin kişilik gelişimini ve çevresiyle kurduğu etkileşimi biçimlendirmektedir. Günümüzde yaygınlaşan yapay zekâ uygulamaları, genç yetişkinlerin etkileşim kurduğu bir unsur olarak günlük hayatta yer edinmiştir. Bu araştırma, yapay zekâ uygulamalarıyla etkileşimde olan genç yetişkinlerin, yapay zekâ araçlarını kullanım deneyimlerine göre yapay zekâya atfettikleri rol, beklenti ve cinsiyet algılarını incelemek amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada, karma yöntem gömülü (embedded) desen kullanılmıştır. Çalışma yaşları 20-35 aralığında olan bireylerle yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada nitel araştırma için 20, nicel araştırma için 115 kişiden oluşan iki çalışma grubu kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın nitel bölümünde, katılımcılar ile çevrim içi ortamda yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Nicel bölümde ise araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan kısa cevaplı anket aracılığı ile veri toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde nitel veriler için içerik analizi nicel veriler için yüzde ve frekans kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, katılımcıların yapay zekâya çeşitli cinsiyet rolleri atfettiklerini ve bu atıfların, yapay zekâdan beklentilerini şekillendirdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Çalışmanın sonuçları, yapay zekânın eğitim-öğretim ve ruh sağlığı alanında etik ve kontrollü kullanımına yönelik düzenlemelere ihtiyaç duyulduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay zekâ uygulamaları
• atfedilen cinsiyet
• beklenti
• roller
• metafor

Etik Beyan

Araştırma için, Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Girişimsel Olmayan Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu’ndan etik kurul izin başvurusu yapılıp GO 2026/2842 karar numarası ile onay alındıktan sonra uygulamaya geçilmiştir.

Who are we interacting with? Roles attributed to artificial intelligence

Öz

Individuals may experience conflicts specific to their current stage of development. These conflicts shape personality development and influence individuals’ interactions with their environment. Artificial intelligence (AI) applications, which have become increasingly widespread, are now an integral part of daily life and represent a significant aspect of young adults’ interactions with technology. This study aimed to examine the roles, expectations, and gender perceptions that young adults attribute to AI based on their experiences using these applications. A mixed-methods embedded design was employed. The study included individuals aged 20–35 years and consisted of two groups: 20 participants in the qualitative phase and 115 participants in the quantitative phase. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted online. In the quantitative phase, data were collected using a short-answer questionnaire developed by the researchers. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis, whereas quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages). The findings revealed that participants attributed various gender roles to AI and that these attributions shaped their expectations of AI. The results highlight the need for policies and guidelines to ensure the ethical and responsible use of AI in the fields of education and mental health.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial intelligence applications
• gender attribution
• expectations
• roles
• metaphors

Etik Beyan

For this study, an ethics committee approval application was submitted to the Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee at Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, and the study was implemented after receiving approval under decision number GO 2026/2842.

Kaynakça

1. Ağmaz, R. F., & Ergüleç, F. (2024). Perceptions of teacher candidates on artificial intelligence in education: A metaphorical analysis. Journal of the Ereğli Faculty of Education, Necmettin Erbakan University, 6(2), 589–605. https://doi.org/10.51119/ereegf.2024.97
2. Ahn, J., Kim, J., & Sung, Y. (2022). The effect of gender stereotypes on artificial intelligence recommendations. Journal of Business Research, 141, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.007
3. Bernotat, J., Eyssel, F., & Sachse, J. (2021). The (fe)male robot: How robot body shape impacts first impressions and trust towards robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00562-7
4. Brandtzaeg, P. B., Følstad, A., & Skjuve, M. (2025). Emerging AI individualism: How young people integrate social AI into everyday life. Communication and Change, 1(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44382-025-00011-2
5. Bulut, M. A., Davarcı, M., Bozdoğan, N. K., & Sarpkaya, Y. (2024). Impacts of artificial intelligence on education. National Education Journal, 4(3), 976–986. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10909352
6. Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264–75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510
7. Coen Collins, A. (2026). Garbage in, garbage out? How the monster of AI art reflects human fault, bias, and capitalism in contemporary culture. AI & SOCIETY, 41(5), 4655–4689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02799-5
8. Craiut, M.-V., & Iancu, I. R. (2022). Is technology gender neutral? A systematic literature review on gender stereotypes attached to artificial intelligence. Human Technology, 18(3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2022.18-3.6

9. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
10. Cui, M., Chen, X., Sun, P., Ma, K., Xu, X., & Yan, L. (2026). The impact of loneliness on university students’ attitudes toward generative AI: The mediating role of meaning in life and the moderating roles of academic engagement and gender. Current Psychology, 45(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08646-6
11. Dündar, A. H., Atmaca, M., & Güçlü Umur, A. N. (2026). Mental health in emerging adulthood: The role of identity confusion and mentalization. Uluslararası Psiko-Sosyal Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(10), 198–216. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21175139
12. Dushimimana, F., & Nkurunziza, A. (2026). Artificial intelligence and intimacy development in university students: A gender-based systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology Research, 8(2), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.33545/26648903.2026.v8.i2a.141
13. Eriçok, B., Karataş, F., & Yüce, E. (2024). Metaphor perceptions of pre-service teachers regarding artificial intelligence (AI). Kocaeli University Journal of Education, 7(2), 607–630. https://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.1511500
14. Erikson, E. H. (1976). Reflections on Dr. Borg’s life cycle. Daedalus, 105(2), 1–28.
15. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
16. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/147059580111002
17. Imamguluyev, R. (2024). Artificial intelligence 2050: Predictions, challenges, and innovations. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5(9), 2933–2941. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.5.0924.2663
18. Jin, F., Sun, L., Pan, Y., & Lin, C.-H. (2025). High heels, compass, spider-man, or drug? Metaphor analysis of generative artificial intelligence in academic writing. Computers & Education, 228, 105248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105248
19. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2017). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications. Routledge.
20. Kim, J., Merrill, K., Jr., & Collins, C. (2021). AI as a friend or assistant: The mediating role of perceived usefulness in social AI vs. functional AI. Telematics and Informatics, 64, 101694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101694
21. Luckin, R., & Holmes, W. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
22. Lunetti, C., Favini, A., & Trotta, E. (2025). Can artificial intelligence enhance European emerging adults’ psychological adjustment? A scoping review. Behavioral Sciences, 15(11), 1483.doi.org https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15111483
23. Manasi, A., Panchanadeswaran, S., Sours, E., & Lee, S. (2022). Mirroring the bias: Gender and artificial intelligence. Gender, Technology and Development, 26(3), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2022.2128254
24. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
25. 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
26. Ooi, K.-B., Tan, G. W.-H., Al-Emran, M., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Capatina, A., Chakraborty, A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Huang, T.-L., Kar, A. K., Lee, V.-H., Loh, X.-M., Micu, A., Mikalef, P., Mogaji, E., Pandey, N., Raman, R., Rana, N. P., Sarker, P., Sharma, A., … Wong, L.-W. (2023). The potential of generative artificial intelligence across disciplines: Perspectives and future directions. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 65(1), 76–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2023.2261010
27. Park, Y., Chang, S. J., & Kim, E. (2025). Artificial intelligence in critical care nursing: A scoping review. Australian Critical Care: Official Journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses, 38(4), 101225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2025.101225
28. Philipsen, R., Brauner, P., Biermann, H., & Ziefle, M. (2022). I am what I am – roles for artificial intelligence from the users’ perspective. Artificial Intelligence and Social Computing, 28, 108–118. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1001453
29. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
30. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
31. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695840
32. Sun, F., & Ye, R. (2023). Moral considerations of artificial intelligence. Science & Education, 32(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00282-3
33. Üçler, N., & Şahin, Z. B. (2025). Reproduction of gender inequality in artificial intelligence applications: Hidden biases in coding and data sets. Communication Studies in the New Century, 3(12), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.66009/yyicd.2026.11
34. Uzun, Y., Tümtürk, A., & Öztürk, H. (2021). Today and used in the future artificial intelligence. 1st International Conference on Applied Engineering and Natural Sciences (ICAENS), Konya, Turkey.
35. Vatansever, A. N., Çoban, S., Çoban, E. Y., & Şen, K. (2025). A literature review on artificial ıntelligence and ıts applications in education. International Primary Education Research Journal, 9(2), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.38089/iperj.2025.219
36. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view1. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
37. Yenigün Altın, Ş. Y., & Taşdelen, H. (2025). Gender biases in artificial intelligence models: A quantitative study on ChatGPT and Copilot. Journal of the Faculty of Communication, Akdeniz University, (49), 310–331. https://doi.org/10.31123/akil.1629516
38. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Seçkin Yayıncılık.