تجربه زیسته نوجوانان ایرانی از تعامل با هوش مصنوعی مولد: استخراج راهبردهای بهره‌وری متعادل و مرزبندی شده

سلگی, مریم

doi:10.22054/qccpc.2026.94859.3722

تجربه زیسته نوجوانان ایرانی از تعامل با هوش مصنوعی مولد: استخراج راهبردهای بهره‌وری متعادل و مرزبندی شده

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسنده

مریم سلگی

استادیار گروه فلسفه و حکمت اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه الزهرا ، تهران، ایران

https://doi.org/10.22054/qccpc.2026.94859.3722

چکیده

هدف پژوهش حاضر واکاوی تجربه زیسته نوجوانان از کاربرد هوش مصنوعی مولد و روشن‌کردن چگونگی تعامل آنان با فرصت‌ها، وابستگی‌ها و مرزهای این فناوری بود. پژوهش با رویکرد کیفی و تحلیل مضمون بازاندیشانه براون و کلارک انجام شد. داده‌ها از مصاحبه‌های نیمه‌ساختاریافته با ۱۴ نوجوان ۱۴ تا ۱۸ ساله (۹ دختر و ۵ پسر) به دست آمد. تحلیل رفت‌وبرگشتی داده‌ها به تولید ۵۰ کد اولیه، ۱۸ زیرمضمون، شش مضمون اصلی و یک مضمون مرکزی انجامید. مضامین اصلی عبارت بودند از: «کارآیی و سازماندهی امور روزمره»، «خلط جایگاه ابزاری و انسانی»، «بهره وری به شرط هزینه های شناختی»، «اعتماد مشروط و حفظ مرجعیت انسانی»، «حفظ هوش مصنوعی در جایگاه مناسب» و «آینده‌ای دووجهی». مضمون مرکزی «تعاملات کارآمدِ مرزگذاری شده» نشان داد نوجوانان نه پذیرندگان منفعل فناوری‌اند و نه کاربران کاملاً مستقل؛ آنان پیوسته میان سرعت و تلاش، حمایت و جایگزینی، صمیمیت و اصالت، اعتماد و تردید و استفاده و مقاومت مرزبندی می‌کنند. هوش مصنوعی برای یادگیری، تصمیم‌گیری و بیان هیجان فضایی سریع و بدون قضاوت فراهم می‌کرد، اما هم‌زمان نگرانی‌هایی درباره برون‌سپاری شناختی، کاهش خلاقیت، حریم خصوصی، اطلاعات نادرست، اضطراب معرفتی و وجودی و تضعیف روابط انسانی پدید می‌آورد.
بر این اساس، آموزش سواد هوش مصنوعی باید از مهارت فنی فراتر رود و قضاوت معرفتی، خودتنظیمی، حفاظت از داده، تشخیص مرز کمک و جایگزینی و ارجاع مسائل پرخطر به متخصص انسانی را دربر گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

نوجوانان

هوش مصنوعی مولد

چت‌بات

برون‌سپاری شناختی

تحلیل مضمونی بازاندیشانه

موضوعات

پژوهش های مشاوره ای مبتنی بر فرهنگ ایرانی اسلامی

عنوان مقاله English

The Lived Experience of Iranian Adolescents in Interacting with Generative Artificial Intelligence: Extracting Strategies for Balanced and Bounded Utilization

نویسنده English

Maryam Solgi

Department of Philosophy and Islamic Wisdom, Faculty of Theology, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding author). Email: m.solgi@alzahra.ac.ir

چکیده English

1. Introduction
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has increasingly become part of adolescents' everyday experiences and is being used for learning, content creation, problem-solving, entertainment, and emotional interaction. Despite its potential to improve access to information and support cognitive processes, its use may also be associated with reduced cognitive effort, dependency, misinformation, diminished creativity, and ambiguity regarding the boundary between human and machine interaction. The present study aimed to understand how Iranian adolescents make meaning of their experiences of interacting with generative AI and to identify strategies for balanced and bounded use of this technology.
2. Methodology
This qualitative study employed a reflexive thematic analysis approach. Participants were 14 adolescents aged 14–18 years from Tehran Province who were selected through purposive sampling. Eligibility criteria included being an adolescent, having direct experience using at least one generative AI tool, and being willing to describe that experience. Participants were recruited through schools in coordination with relevant school personnel. Data were collected through qualitative interviews and analyzed through an iterative process involving movement between the data, codes, and themes. To enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, the criteria of credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability were considered throughout the research process.
3. Findings
The analysis resulted in six main themes: (1) efficiency and organization of everyday activities, (2) blurring of instrumental and human positions, (3) productivity at the cost of cognitive effort, (4) conditional trust and preservation of human authority, (5) keeping AI in its appropriate place, and (6) a dual-sided future. The findings indicated that adolescents used generative AI for learning, summarization, planning, coding, content creation, and emotional support. They valued its speed, constant accessibility, and nonjudgmental interaction. At the same time, they expressed concerns about replacing personal effort with AI, reduced creativity, dependency, misinformation, and threats to privacy. Their trust in AI was conditional and varied according to the nature and potential consequences of the task. In areas such as physical and mental health, adolescents maintained the importance of human experts. They also established personal boundaries regarding the amount and type of AI use to preserve their autonomy, creativity, and privacy. However, fatigue, time pressure, and academic demands sometimes led them to cross these boundaries.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
The findings were integrated into the central theme of "effective, bounded interactions." This theme indicates that adolescents' experiences with generative AI cannot be reduced to a simple acceptance–rejection dichotomy. Rather, the consequences of AI use depend largely on its position within the adolescent's cognitive and relational processes. When AI is used after an initial effort, it can function as a cognitive scaffold and provide constructive feedback; when used before personal effort, it may replace learning and weaken cognitive agency. Although the natural language of AI can create a sense of social presence and being understood, adolescents still distinguish between simulated empathy and genuine human emotional experience. Thus, productive use of AI does not necessarily require avoiding the technology; instead, it involves maintaining AI in the position of a supporting tool rather than a substitute for human thinking and judgment. AI literacy education in schools, particularly through the strategy of "effort–question–verification," along with teaching information verification, privacy protection, and appropriate referral to human experts, may contribute to more balanced use among adolescents. The study was limited by its small purposive sample, reliance on self-reported data, and the absence of direct observation of adolescents' actual interactions with AI systems. Future research could use more diverse samples, longitudinal designs, and the perspectives of adolescents, parents, and teachers to examine how adolescents' patterns of AI use and boundary-setting change over time.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Adolescents

Generative Artificial Intelligence

Chatbot

Agency

Cognitive Offloading

Reflexive Thematic Analysis

اسفندیاری، شهرام و قمری، پرهام (۱۴۰۳). مروری نظام‌مند بر تأثیر مدل‌های هوش مصنوعی مولد (ChatGPT و Gemini) در آموزش زبان انگلیسی: فرصت‌ها و چالش‌ها. پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناختی در زبان‌های خارجی، ۱۴ (۴)، ۶۱۱–۶۴۱.

اسمعیلی، معصومه و قاسمی‌نیائی، فاطمه (۱۴۰۴). مطالعه مروری چالش‌ها و فرصت‌های استفاده از هوش مصنوعی در مشاوره و روان‌درمانی. مجله روان‌شناسی و روان‌پزشکی شناخت، ۱۲ (۵)، ۱۶۷–۱۸۳.

خدادوستان شهرکی، سعید و شارقی بروجنی، مریم (1404). آموزش بر مبنای هوش مصنوعی: مفهوم‌سازی و بررسی آمادگی معلمان برای هوش مصنوعی. کنفرانس بین‌المللی پژوهش‌های مدیریت، تعلیم و تربیت در آموزش‌وپرورش، تهران، دوره 6.

رضایی نور، جلال و خبازان، بنت‌الهدی (۱۴۰۳). شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی فرصت‌ها و چالش‌های هوش مصنوعی در مدیریت دانش بر اساس مدل هیکس با استفاده از روش تحلیل رابطه خاکستری با تأکید بر چت‌جی‌پی‌تی، چت‌بارد و چت‌بینگ. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، ۳۹ (۳)، ۹۸۳–۱۰۱۸. https://doi.org/10.22034/jipm.2024.2014672.1424

سعیدی، علی؛ قربانی، علیرضا و می‌بودی، حامد (۱۴۰۳). بررسی استفاده از چت‌جی‌پی‌تی در آموزش عالی: چالش‌ها و راهکارها. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، ۴۰ (۲)، ۳۵۵–۳۷۳.

سلطان محمدی، عطیه و پورسیدآقایی، زهرا سادات (1402). آسیب‌شناسی پدیدارشناسانه هویت جنسیتی دختران نوجوان در فضای مجازی. فصلنامه فرهنگ مشاوره و روان‌درمانی، 14(54)، 61-84.

شمالی احمدآبادی، مهدی و برخورداری احمدآبادی، عاطفه (۱۴۰۳). ساخت و اعتباریابی پرسشنامه نگرش به هوش مصنوعی دانش‌آموزان ایرانی. آموزش‌پژوهی، ۱۰ (۳)، ۵۰–۵۹.

محمدی احمدآبادی، سعیده؛ زندوانیان نائینی، احمد؛ برزگر بفروئی، کاظم؛ حسنی، حسین و کرمی، زهره (1405). مطالعه دیدگاه مدیران پیرامون ابعاد و مؤلفه‌های پرخطر دانش آموزان مدارس متوسطه: پژوهش داده بنیاد. فصلنامه فرهنگ مشاوره و روان‌درمانی، 17(67)، 187-217.

محمدزاده ونستان، سهیلا و عابدی، رحیم (1403). بررسی نقش توانمندسازی‌های هوش مصنوعی و آمادگی هوش مصنوعی شرکت‌ها در پذیرش سیستم مدیریت روابط با مشتری ادغام‌شده با هوش مصنوعی. مدیریت بازرگانی، 16(1)، 58-34.

هانلین، مایکل؛ آندریاس، کاپلان؛ حاجی وند، امین؛ خوش‌منظر، علی و سیاری زهان، صابر (1402). تاریخچه مختصری از هوش مصنوعی: گذشته، حال و آینده هوش مصنوعی. تمدن حقوقی، 6(18)، 90-73.

محمدپور، احمد. (1392). ضد روش (زمینه‌های فلسفی و رویه‌های عملی در روش‌شناسی کیفی). چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات جامعهشناسان.

Reference

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.

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623.

Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., et al. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv:2108.07258.

boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.

Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2017). Why people use chatbots. In Internet Science (pp. 377–392). Springer.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3–26.

Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264–75278.

Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

Croes, E. A. J., & 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.

de Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., et al. (2016). Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(3), 331–349.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., et al. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642.

Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.

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.

Firth, J., Torous, J., Stubbs, B., et al. (2019). The “online brain”: How the Internet may be changing our cognition. World Psychiatry, 18(2), 119–129.

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.

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., et al. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28, 689–707.

Grassini, S. (2023). Shaping the future of education: Exploring the potential and consequences of AI and ChatGPT in educational settings. Education Sciences, 13(7), 692.

Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70–86.

Ho, A., Hancock, J., & Miner, A. S. (2018). Psychological, relational, and emotional effects of self-disclosure after conversations with a chatbot. Journal of Communication, 68(4), 712–733.

Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434.

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.

Inkster, B., Sarda, S., & Subramanian, V. (2018). An empathy-driven, conversational artificial intelligence agent (Wysa) for digital mental well-being: Real-world data evaluation. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(11), e12106.

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389–399.

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., et al. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274.

Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 537–550.

Kretzschmar, K., Tyroll, H., Pavarini, G., Manzini, A., & Singh, I. (2019). Can your phone be your therapist? Young people’s ethical perspectives on the use of fully automated conversational agents. The Lancet Digital Health, 1(4), e141–e142.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Laranjo, L., Dunn, A. G., Tong, H. L., et al. (2018). Conversational agents in healthcare: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(9), 1248–1258.

Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.

Livingstone, S., & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657–670.

Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410.

Lucas, G. M., Gratch, J., King, A., & Morency, L.-P. (2014). It’s only a computer: Virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 94–100.

Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.

Nesi, J. (2020). The impact of social media on youth mental health: Challenges and opportunities. North Carolina Medical Journal, 81(2), 116–121.

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13.

Odgers, C. L., & Jensen, M. R. (2020). Annual research review: Adolescent mental health in the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(3), 336–348.

OECD. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD.

Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from 2011 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 7893–7925.

Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. Cambridge University Press.

Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.

Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity.

Sehgal, N. K., Kambhamettu, H., Matam, S. P., Ungar, L., & Guntuku, S. C. (2025, April). Exploring Socio-Cultural challenges and opportunities in designing mental health chatbots for adolescents in India. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-7).‏

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, 102601.

Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778.

Stoilova, M., Nandagiri, R., & Livingstone, S. (2021). Children’s understanding of personal data and privacy online: A systematic evidence mapping. Information, Communication & Society, 24(4), 557–575.

Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., et al. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 15.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357.

Tosti, B., Corrado, S., & Mancone, S. (2024). Using Chatbots and Conversational Agents for the Promotion of Well-being and Mental Health in Adolescents: Limitations and Perspectives. Journal of Inclusive Methodology and Technology in Learning and Teaching, 4(1).‏

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.

Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press.

UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.

UNICEF. (2021). Policy guidance on AI for children (Version 2.0). UNICEF Office of Global Insight and Policy.

Vaidyam, A. N., Wisniewski, H., Halamka, J. D., Kashavan, M. S., & Torous, J. B. (2019). Chatbots and conversational agents in mental health: A review of the psychiatric landscape. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 64(7), 456–464.

Valkenburg, P. M., Meier, A., & Beyens, I. (2022). Social media use and its impact on adolescent mental health: An umbrella review of the evidence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 58–68.

Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154.

Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA—A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36–45.

World Health Organization. (2021). Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health. WHO.

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39.