Digital Skepticism: A Systematic Literature Review

Öz

The present study aims to examine the existing body of research on digital skepticism through a systematic literature review. Specifically, the analysis focuses on the definitions of digital skepticism provided in the literature, their distribution over time, the variety of journals in which they were published, the distribution of author numbers and countries of origin, the methodological approaches employed (qualitative vs. quantitative), and the research variables investigated in the studies. For this purpose, databases including Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Sage Journals, Emerald, Google Scholar, and TR Dizin were utilized. The search was limited to articles using the keywords “dijital şüphecilik” and “digital skepticism.” A total of 21 articles were identified. The majority of these articles concentrated on skepticism toward media, news, and information, while two studies addressed skepticism emerging with artificial intelligence. The first study on digital skepticism wasmpublished in 2007, with limited progress in subsequent years, but an increase was observed in 2023, reaching three studies in 2025. Among the 12 studies analyzed in detail, two were published in Communication Research, while the rest appeared in different journals. Regarding authorship, most articles were co-authored by two researchers, with the United States being the leading country in terms of contributions. Methodologically, nine of the studies adopted a quantitative design, while three employed qualitative approaches. The findings also reveal that digital skepticism has been examined in relation to diverse variables such as trust, persuasion knowledge, expectation violation, artificial intelligence systems, purchase intention, and brand advocacy. Overall, the results demonstrate that digital skepticism remains an underexplored concept in the literature, with notable gaps particularly in the field of marketing. By systematically identifying these limitations, this study provides valuable theoretical and practical insights that may guide future research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital skepticism
• Online Skepticism
• Systematic Literature Review

Dijital Şüphecilik: Sistematik Literatür Taraması

Öz

Bu araştırmada, dijital şüphecilik konusuna ilişkin mevcut çalışmaların sistematik literatür taraması çerçevesinde incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Makalelerde yer alan dijital şüphecilik tanımları, yıllara göre dağılımları, yayımlandıkları dergilere göre çeşitlenmeleri, yazar sayısı ve ülke bazlı dağılımları, araştırma tasarımlarının (nitel-nicel) özellikleri ile çalışmalarda ele alınan araştırma değişkenleri detaylı bir şekilde analiz edilmiştir. Bu çalışma için veri tabanı olarak Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, Sage Journals, Emerald, Google Scholar ve TR Dizin kullanılmıştır. Bu veri abanlarında yer alan makaleler “dijital şüphecilik” ve “digital skepticism” anahtar kelimeleri ile sınırlı tutulmuştur. Toplam 21 adet makaleye ulaşılmıştır. Makalelerin çoğu medya, haber ve bilgiye yönelik şüphecilik üzerinde yoğunlaşırken, 2 makale yapay zekâ ile ortaya çıkan şüphecilik konusunu ele almıştır. Dijital şüphecilik ile ilgili ilk çalışma 2007 yılında yapılmış, ilerleyen yıllarda sınırlı sayıda olan çalışmalar 2023 yılında artmış, 2025’te 3 makaleye ulaşmıştır. Şüphecilik ile ilgili incelenen 12 makalenin 2’si Communication Research dergisinde yayımlanırken, diğerleri farklı dergilerde yayımlanmıştır. Yazar dağılımına bakıldığında çoğunun 2 yazarlı makalelerden oluştuğu, ülke bazında ise Amerika’nın öne çıktığı görülmektedir. İncelenen makalelerin 9’u nicel 3’ü nitel yöntemle gerçekleştirilmiştir. İncelenen makalelerde şüphecilik konusunun güven, ikna bilgisi, beklenti ihlali, yapay zekâ sistemleri, satın alma niyeti, marka savunuculuğu gibi çeşitli değişkenlerle ele alındığı görülmüştür. Elde edilen sonuçlar, dijital şüphecilik kavramının literatürde sınırlı biçimde çalışıldığını, pazarlama alanındaki yeri açısından önemli boşlukların bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Bu araştırma, literatürdeki eksiklikleri sistematik biçimde ortaya koyması bakımından hem teorik hem de uygulamalı araştırmalar için yönlendirici bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital şüphecilik
• Online Şüphecilik
• Sistematik Literatür Taraması

Kaynakça

1. Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (2009). Deception in the Marketplace: The Psychology of Deceptive Persuasion and Consumer Self-Protection. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805527
2. Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers' use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of consumer research, 27(1), 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1086/314309
3. Carlson, M. (2021). Skepticism and the digital information environment. SATS, 22(2), 149-167. DOI: 10.1515/sats-2021-0008
4. Creswell, J. (2017). Eğitim araştırmaları: Nicel ve nitel araştırmanın planlanması, yürütülmesi ve değerlendirilmesi (s.109). EDAM.
5. Çınar, N. (2022). Sistematik derleme metodolojisi ve yazımı. Akademisyen Kitabevi.
6. Ein-Gar, D., Shiv, B., & Tormala, Z. L. (2012). When blemishing leads to blossoming: the positive effect of negative ınformation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 846–859. https://doi.org/10.1086/660807
7. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New media & Society, 9(2), 319-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015
8. Isaac, M. S., & Grayson, K. (2017). Beyond skepticism: Can accessibility experiences influence consumers’ attitudes toward advertising claims? Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 895–912. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw063

9. Isaac, M. S., & Grayson, K. (2020). Priming skepticism: Unintended consequences of one‐sided persuasion knowledge access. Psychology & Marketing, 37(3), 466-478.
10. Kbaier, E., Salminen, J., & Jansen, B. J. (2025). “A glimpse into the AI”: exploring the effect of consumers’ chatbot interaction experience on brand attachment and advocacy with the moderating role of AI skepticism. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-01-2025-0003
11. Korotkova, N., Benders, J., Mikalef, P., & Cameron, D. (2023). Maneuvering between skepticism and optimism about hyped technologies: Building trust in digital twins. Information & Management, 60(4), 103787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2023.103787
12. Ladak, A., & Caviola, L. (2025). Digital sentience skepticism. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wvbya_v1 Lee, J., & Choi, Y. (2019). Social media skepticism and the evaluation of ınformation on social media: the role of message sidedness and source expertise. Journal of Promotion Management, 25(5), 715–735.
13. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.
14. Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03 Rains, S. A. (2007). The impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility and influence in computer-mediated group communication: A test of two competing hypotheses. Communication Research, 34(1), 100–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206296084
15. Rath, M., & Delere, M. (2020). Media skepticism as a prejudice-attitudes of German prospective teachers towards digital media. IATED, 5851-5858.
16. Ritzhaupt, A. D., Kohnen, A. M., Wusylko, C., Wang, X., Dawson, K., & Sommer, M. (2023). The role of skepticism among adolescents’ online information literacy skills. Information and Learning Sciences, 124(11/12), 425-441. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-02-2023-0010
17. Shrestha, S., Limbu, S. K., Shrestha, S., & Basnet, A. (2025). The awareness paradox: why better knowledge of digital marketing boosts appreciation without reducing skepticism. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(4), 281-289. https://doi.org/10.3126/nprcjmr.v2i4.78378
18. Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research, 30(5), 504–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203253371
19. Wentzel, D., Tomczak, T., & Herrmann, A. (2010). The moderating effect of manipulative intent and cognitive resources on the evaluation of narrative ads. Psychology Marketing, 27(5), 510-530. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20341
20. Yaylagul, S., & Cakir, F. (2018). Skepticism toward social media advertising: A research on social media users. Research on Communication, 177-186.