Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This study aims to examine the associations between attitudes toward artificial intelligence, critical thinking tendencies, and social intelligence levels among students at the Faculty of Sports Sciences, and to investigate whether these variables differ according to gender and department of study. The participants in this quantitative research study, designed using a correlational survey model, consisted of 407 students (54.8% female, 45.2% male) enrolled in the 2025–2026 academic year in the departments of physical education and sports teaching, coaching education, and recreation at the Faculty of Sports Sciences of a state university. The data collection tools used were the “Personal Information Form,” the “Artificial Intelligence Attitude Scale,” the “Critical Thinking Tendency Scale (EMI),” and the “Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale.” In the statistical analysis of the data, independent samples t -test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson correlation analysis, and linear regression analysis were used. When the findings were examined, no differences were found in students’ attitudes toward artificial intelligence, critical thinking tendencies, and social intelligence levels based on gender ( p 0.05); however, significant differences were found based on the variables of the department in which they were studying ( p 0.05). Furthermore, positive and significant relationships were found between attitudes toward artificial intelligence and critical thinking tendencies and social intelligence ( p 0.05). Moreover, it was revealed that attitudes toward artificial intelligence were significantly associated with critical thinking tendencies ( R 2 = 0.03, p 0.05) and social intelligence ( R 2 = 0.04, p 0.05), although the proportion of explained variance was relatively small. In conclusion, attitudes toward artificial intelligence are positively but modestly associated with critical thinking tendencies and social intelligence, and these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the cross-sectional design.
ÖNAL et al. (Mon,) studied this question.