Bireylerin Beslenme İle İlişkili Yapay Zeka Konusunda Tutum, Alışkanlık, Kaygı ve Okur Yazarlık Durumlarının Değerlendirilmesi
Evaluation of Individuals' Attitudes, Habits, Anxiety And Literacy Status Towards Nutrition-Related Artifıcial Intelligence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51271/jashso.34Keywords:
yapay zeka, yapay zeka okuryazarlığı, kaygı, tutum, diyetisyenAbstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate individuals' current levels of artificial intelligence (AI) literacy, anxiety, and general attitudes from a holistic perspective, with a particular focus on their implications in the field of nutrition and dietetics. Materials and Methods:
This cross-sectional study was conducted with male and female participants aged between 18 and 65 years. Data were collected through an online questionnaire comprising sections on: sociodemographic information, anthropometric measurements, dietary habits, use of artificial intelligence and technology, attitudes towards AI, the General Attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale, the AI Literacy Scale, and the AI Anxiety Scale. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 26.0). Results:
The majority of participants were young adults (58.1%) and university graduates (68.5%). Dietitians were the most preferred source of dietary advice (83.3%). While AI experience was common (79.8%), regular use remained low (22.8%). Trust in dietitians was notably higher compared to trust in AI-based tools. No significant differences were found based on gender or education level; however, individuals working in the natural sciences reported significantly lower AI-related anxiety (p < 0.05). Younger participants demonstrated more positive attitudes toward AI. A positive correlation was found between positive attitudes and AI literacy, whereas a negative correlation was observed between negative attitudes and AI-related anxiety (p < 0.05). Conclusion:
Despite the widespread experience with AI-based applications, the lack of trust in their ability to replace dietitians is noteworthy. This suggests that, despite technological advancements, human-centered expertise remains a priority. In summary, while AI may potentially take on a greater role in the future of dietetic practice, it is more likely to be adopted as a complementary tool that enhances the profession when used ethically and in alignment with professional standards.
References
1. Kaul V, Enslin S, Gross SA. History of artificial intelligence in medicine. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;92(4):807-12.
2. De Vries A, Bliznyuk N, Pinedo P. Invited review: Examples and opportunities for artificial intelligence (AI) in dairy farms. Appl Anim Sci. 2023;39(1):14-22.
3. Korteling JE, van de Boer-Visschedijk GC, Blankendaal RAM, Boonekamp RC, Eikelboom AR. Human- versus artificial intelligence. Front Artif Intell. 2021;4:1-12.
4. Esmaeily R, Razavi MA, Razavi SH. A step forward in food science, technology and industry using artificial intelligence. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2024;143:1-12.
5. Atwal K. Artificial intelligence in clinical nutrition and dietetics: A brief overview of current evidence. Nutr Clin Pract. 2024;39(1):1-7.
6. Yu KH, Beam AL, Kohane IS. Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Nat Biomed Eng. 2018;2(10):719-31.
7. Joshi S, Bisht B, Kumar V, Singh N, Jameel Pasha SB, Singh N, et al. Artificial intelligence assisted food science and nutrition perspective for smart nutrition research and healthcare. Syst Microbiol Biomanuf. 2024;4:86-101.
8. Ashton LM, Adam MT, Whatnall M, Rollo ME, Burrows TL, Hansen V, et al. Exploring the design and utility of an integrated web-based chatbot for young adults to support healthy eating: a qualitative study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023;20(1):1-15.
9. Detopoulou P, Voulgaridou G, Moschos P, Levidi D, Anastasiou T, Dedes V, et al. Artificial intelligence, nutrition, and ethical issues: A mini-review. Clin Nutr Open Sci. 2023;50:46-56.
10. Cohen Y, Valdés-Mas R, Elinav E. The role of artificial intelligence in deciphering diet-disease relationships: Case studies. Annu Rev Nutr. 2023;43:225-50.
11. Filiz E, Güzel Ş, Şengül A. Sağlık profesyonellerinin yapay zeka kaygı durumlarının incelenmesi. Int J Acad Value Stud. 2022;8(8):47-55.
12. Schepman A, Rodway P. Initial validation of the general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale. Comput Hum Behav Rep. 2020;1:100014.
13. Kaya F, Aydin F, Schepman A, Rodway P, Yetişensoy O, Demir Kaya M. The roles of personality traits, AI anxiety, and demographic factors in attitudes toward artificial intelligence. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2024;40(2):497-514.
14. Çelebi C, Yılmaz F, Demir U, Karakuş F. Artificial intelligence, AI literacy, digital literacy, AI literacy scale. Öğretim Teknol Hayat Boyu Öğrenme Derg. 2023;9(2):1-12.
15. Wang B, Rau PLP, Yuan T. Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale. Behav Inf Technol. 2023;42(9):1324-37.
16. Wang YY, Wang YS. Development and validation of an artificial intelligence anxiety scale: an initial application in predicting motivated learning behavior. Interact Learn Environ. 2022;30(4):619-34.
17. Terzi R. An adaptation of artificial intelligence anxiety scale into Turkish: Reliability and validity study. Int Online J Educ Teach. 2020;7(4):1618-35.
18. Armutat S, Wattenberg M, Mauritz N. Artificial intelligence: Gender-specific differences in perception, understanding, and training interest. 2024;1-12.
19. Ofosu-Ampong K. Gender differences in perception of artificial intelligence-based tools. J Digit Art Humanit. 2023;4(2):52-6.
20. Russo C, Romano L, Clemente D, Iacovone L, Gladwin TE, Panno A. Gender differences and artificial intelligence: The moderating role of artificial intelligence anxiety. Front Psychol. 2025;16:1559457.
21. Chen J, He M, Sun J. AI anxiety and knowledge payment: the roles of perceived value and self-efficacy. BMC Psychol. 2025;13(1):208.
22. Lund BD, Mannuru NR, Agbaji D. AI anxiety and fear: Perspectives of information science students and professionals towards artificial intelligence. J Inf Sci. 2024;50(1):1-12.
23. Shum NYE, Lau HPB. Perils, power and promises: Latent profile analysis on the attitudes towards artificial intelligence (AI) among middle-aged and older adults in Hong Kong. Comput Hum Behav Artif Humans. 2024;2(2):100091.
24. Güner E, Ülker MT. Can artificial intelligence replace dietitians? A conversation with ChatGPT. J Food Nutr Gastronomy. 2024;1:1-10.
25. Kelly JT, Collins PF, McCamley J, Ball L, Roberts S, Campbell KL. Digital disruption of dietetics: Are we ready? J Hum Nutr Diet. 2021;34(1):134-46.
