Hibrit Dijital Aktörlerle Etkileşim Deneyimleri: ‘KızlarSoruyor’ Yapay Zekâ Fenomenleri Üzerine Nitel Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu çalışma, sohbet botlarının dinamik yanıt üretimi ile sanal etkileyicilerin persona temelli temsilini birleştirerek yanıtları platform topluluğu önünde süreklilik taşıyan bir persona performansına dönüştüren yapay zekâ temelli sistemleri ‘hibrit dijital aktörler’ olarak kavramsallaştırmaktadır. Kullanıcıların bu aktörlerle etkileşim deneyimleri KızlarSoruyor Yapay Zekâ Fenomenleri örneği üzerinden incelenmiştir. Keşfedici nitel araştırma kapsamında bu fenomenlerle etkileşim deneyimi bulunan 25 kullanıcıyla derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiş ve veriler nitel içerik analiziyle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, insan benzerliği ve yakınlığın çoğunlukla rahatsızlık ya da tedirginlikle birlikte görülmediğini; buna karşın insan ilişkisine benzer bağın sınırlı kaldığını göstermektedir. Güven, konu ve algılanan riske göre değişirken doğrulama genel güven bildiren katılımcılarda da sürmektedir. Persona, görsel kimlik, tematik uzmanlık ve platform dili fenomenleri diğer sohbet botlarından ayırırken bellek ve kişiselleştirme başlıca geliştirme beklentileridir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• hibrit dijital aktörler
• yapay zekâ fenomenleri
• sohbet botları
• sanal etkileyiciler
• insan-makine iletişimi

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Proje Numarası

1919B012477457

Etik Beyan

Araştırma, Fenerbahçe Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları Etik Kurulu’nun 10.02.2025 tarihli ve 2025/2-7 protokol numaralı onayı doğrultusunda yürütülmüştür.

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma, TÜBİTAK 2209/A- Üniversite Öğrencileri Yurt İçi Araştırma Projeleri Destek Programı kapsamında desteklenmektedir. Bu kapsamda TÜBİTAK’a teşekkürlerimizi sunarız. Ayrıca Kızlar Soruyor Yapay Zekâ Fenomenleri ile etkileşim kuran kullanıcılara ulaşmamızda destek sağlayan Kızlar Soruyor platformuna teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

User Interaction Experiences With Hybrid Digital Actors: A Qualitative Study of ‘Kızlar Soruyor’ AI Influencers

Öz

This study conceptualizes ‘hybrid digital actors’ as AI-based systems that combine chatbots’ dynamic response generation with virtual influencers’ persona-based representation, transforming responses into a sustained persona performance visible to the platform community. Users’ experiences were examined through the case of Kızlar Soruyor AI Influencers. An exploratory qualitative study involved in-depth interviews with 25 users who had interacted with the influencers; the data were analyzed through qualitative content analysis. Findings indicate that perceived human likeness and closeness were generally not accompanied by discomfort or unease, whereas bonds resembling human relationships remained limited. Trust varied by topic and perceived risk, while verification continued among participants reporting general trust. Persona, visual identity, domain-specific expertise, and platform language distinguished these influencers from other chatbots; memory and personalization emerged as the primary improvement areas.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• hybrid digital actors
• AI influencers
• chatbots
• virtual influencers
• human-machine communication

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Proje Numarası

1919B012477457

Etik Beyan

The study was conducted in accordance with the approval granted by the Fenerbahçe University Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee, dated 10 February 2025, with protocol number 2025/2-7.

Teşekkür

This study is supported within the scope of the TÜBİTAK 2209/A University Students Research Projects Support Program. In this regard, we would like to express our gratitude to TÜBİTAK. We also extend our thanks to the Kızlar Soruyor platform for facilitating our access to users who interacted with the Kızlar Soruyor Artificial Intelligence Influencers.

Kaynakça

1. Alboqami, H. (2023). Trust me, I’m an influencer! - Causal recipes for customer trust in artificial intelligence influencers in the retail industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 72, Article 103242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103242
2. Araujo, T. (2018). Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 183-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.051
3. Audrezet, A., Koles, B., Guidry Moulard, J., Ameen, N., & McKenna, B. (2025). Virtual influencers: Definition and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 200, Article 115647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115647
4. Berryman, R., Abidin, C., & Leaver, T. (2021). A topography of virtual influencers. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5210/spir.v2021i0.12145
5. Bilgici Oğuz, C., & Özkök Şişman, Ö. (2022). Sanal etkileyicilerin sosyal medya paylaşımlarının antropomorfik biçimler bağlamında incelenmesi. TRT Akademi, 7(14), 104-133. https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.1013407
6. Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2017). Why people use chatbots. I. Kompatsiaris, J. Cave, A. Satsiou, G. Carle, A. Passani, E. Kontopoulos, S. Diplaris, & D. McMillan (Ed.), Internet science: 4th International Conference, INSCI 2017, Thessaloniki, Greece, November 22–24, 2017, proceedings içinde (ss. 377-392). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_30
7. Buchanan, J., & Hickman, W. (2024). Do people trust humans more than ChatGPT? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 112, Article 102239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2024.102239
8. Ceyhan Günay, A. (2026). The effect of digital empathy on purchase intention: An integrated behavioral MCDM study of virtual influencers and chatbots. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18(1), 461-482. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2026.2191

9. 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
10. Di Dalmazi, M., Peggiani, G., & Lamberti, L. (2026). What makes virtual influencers effective: The role of different types of anthropomorphism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 38(13), 159-176. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2025-0707
11. Dibble, J. L., Hartmann, T., & Rosaen, S. F. (2016). Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12063
12. Ergül, E., Eyrek, A., & Güregen, E. P. (2025). Who am I talking to?: Memory of chatbots and personalized chat interaction. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 50, 339-356. https://doi.org/10.31123/akil.1709303
13. Gottfried, J., Bishop, W., Anderson, M., Faverio, M., Park, E., & McClain, C. (2026, 17 Haziran). Americans and AI 2026: Chatbots, smart devices and views on impact. Pew Research Center. 20 Ağustos 2026 tarihinde https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/06/17/americans-and-ai-2026-chatbots-smart-devices-and-views-on-impact/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
14. Gutuleac, R., Baima, G., Rizzo, C., & Bresciani, S. (2024). Will virtual influencers overcome the uncanny valley? The moderating role of social cues. Psychology & Marketing, 41(7), 1419-1431. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21989
15. Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human-Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691
16. Jung, Y., Chen, C., Jang, E., & Sundar, S. S. (2024). Do we trust ChatGPT as much as Google Search and Wikipedia? Extended abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems içinde (Article 111, ss. 1-9). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3650862
17. Kang, J. (2026). Linguistic humanization in conversational AI: A systematic–narrative review of humor, empathy, tone, and imperfection in relational communication. AI & Society, 41(4), 3997-4008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02738-4
18. Kätsyri, J., Förger, K., Mäkäräinen, M., & Takala, T. (2015). A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: Support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 390. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00390
19. KızlarSoruyor. (tarih yok-a). KızlarSoruyor yardım. 20 Ağustos 2026 tarihinde https://www.kizlarsoruyor.com/yardim adresinden erişilmiştir.
20. ———. (tarih yok-b). Yapay zekâ fenomenleri sorularına cevap veriyor. 20 Ağustos 2026 tarihinde https://www.kizlarsoruyor.com/yapay-zeka-cevapliyor adresinden erişilmiştir.
21. Kim, T. H., & Im, H. (2026). Mental and physical humanlikeness in artificial intelligence influencers: Effects on humanness, eeriness, and consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 25(1), 102-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.70060
22. Krämer, N. C., Kühn, T., & Horstmann, A. C. (2025). My AI is not my (virtual) friend: When anthropomorphic design cues in human-chatbot interactions do not foster trust. Proceedings of the 25th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents içinde (Article 19, ss. 1-8). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3717511.3747077
23. Kühne, R., & Peter, J. (2023). Anthropomorphism in human-robot interactions: A multidimensional conceptualization. Communication Theory, 33(1), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtac020
24. Lee, C. T., & Shen, Y.-C. (2025). Artificial humanity: A multi-method exploration of user responses to AI influencer affordances in short video platform. Telematics and Informatics, 98, Article 102245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2025.102245
25. Lew, Z., & Walther, J. B. (2023). Social scripts and expectancy violations: Evaluating communication with human or AI chatbot interactants. Media Psychology, 26(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2022.2084111
26. Li, J., & Kweon, S. (2026). Modelling user trust in chatbots: The role of anthropomorphic cues and social responses in information services. Information Research, 31(2), 129-151. https://doi.org/10.47989/ir31261439
27. Li, Y., Sun, Y., Xu, Y., & Yu, J. (2023). Blibug: AI Vtuber based on Bilibili Danmuku interaction. Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition içinde (ss. 387-390). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3591196.3596618
28. Loveys, K., Fricchione, G., Kolappa, K., Sagar, M., & Broadbent, E. (2019). Reducing patient loneliness with artificial agents: Design insights from evolutionary neuropsychiatry. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(7), Article e13664. https://doi.org/10.2196/13664
29. Maeda, T., & Quan-Haase, A. (2024). When human-AI interactions become parasocial: Agency and anthropomorphism in affective design. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency içinde (ss. 1068-1077). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658956
30. Mrad, M., Ramadan, Z., Tóth, Z., Nasr, L., & Karimi, S. (2025). Virtual influencers versus real connections: Exploring the phenomenon of virtual influencers. Journal of Advertising, 54(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2024.2393711
31. 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
32. Ng, S. W. T., & Zhang, R. (2025). Trust in AI chatbots: A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics, 97, Article 102240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2025.102240
33. Öksüz, B., & Ormancı, M. (2025). Yapay zeka destekli sanal etkileyiciler: Türkiye’deki sanal etkileyicilere yönelik kullanıcı tepkileri üzerine bir araştırma. Intermedia International e-Journal, 12(22), 76-101. https://doi.org/10.56133/intermedia.1544872
34. Pentina, I., Hancock, T., & Xie, T. (2023). Exploring relationship development with social chatbots: A mixed-method study of Replika. Computers in Human Behavior, 140, Article 107600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107600
35. Phillips, E. K., & de Visser, E. J. (2026). Humanlikeness as design, anthropomorphism as inference: A conceptual framework for human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Cognition, 5, Article 1786256. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2026.1786256
36. Rehman, A. U., Hassan, S. H., & Behera, R. K. (2026). Attractiveness vs similarity: How attributes of AI-based virtual influencers impact credibility, parasocial interaction and purchase intentions of social-media users. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 38(2), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-01-2025-0144
37. 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
38. 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, Article 102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601
39. Sorosrungruang, T., Ameen, N., & Hackley, C. (2024). How real is real enough? Unveiling the diverse power of generative AI-enabled virtual influencers and the dynamics of human responses. Psychology & Marketing, 41(12), 3124-3143. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22105
40. Stein, J.-P., Breves, P. L., & Anders, N. (2024). Parasocial interactions with real and virtual influencers: The role of perceived similarity and human-likeness. New Media & Society, 26(6), 3433-3453. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221102900
41. Stinkeste, C., & Skantze, G. (2025). Linguistic anthropomorphism in chatbots: Effects of style, topic, and interaction on users’ perceptions and behaviors. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI ’25) içinde (ss. 321-331). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3765766.3765773
42. 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), Article e16235. https://doi.org/10.2196/16235
43. Ta-Johnson, V. P., Boatfield, C., Wang, X., DeCero, E., Krupica, I. C., Rasof, S. D., Motzer, A., & Pedryc, W. M. (2022). Assessing the topics and motivating factors behind human-social chatbot interactions: Thematic analysis of user experiences. JMIR Human Factors, 9(4), Article e38876. https://doi.org/10.2196/38876
44. Telari, A., Gabbiadini, A., & Riva, P. (2026). Can humans feel connected to AI? Perceived responsiveness drives social connection with AI chatbots. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 43(9), 2579–2600. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075261438164
45. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2026). İstatistiklerle Türkiye, 2025. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/api/tr/data/downloads?p=vDLpOPFcQDv22dRVIr6dULkqynxsPy9u6I5pc7vSmFzptqvIlmSHzzqJS2w8RMqjcVqZTFwqI0k4KMHg0Xyb8RAN9OvlyRTxeOa3NgiK1SQ%3D&t=y
46. Wu, W., & Lingel, J. (2025). “I am Neuro, who are you?”: Performances of authenticity in an experimental AI livestream. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251406904
47. Xie, Z., & Xie, Y. (2025). Would you share secrets with a chatbot? A longitudinal study on the relationship between virtual companionship and privacy disclosure. Aslib Journal of Information Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-10-2024-0803