SavedAdd your journal

Journals / GAB Akademi / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1

Digital Extended Self and Psychological Ownership in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: An Attempt at Theoretical Bricolage

Dijital Genişletilmiş Benlik ve Yapay Zekâ Çağında Psikolojik Sahiplik: Teorik Bir Brikolaj Denemesi

Rana Ebrar Kepek(KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ İMAM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0005-5608-2783
Çetin Çildir(KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ İMAM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6358-7919
Seçil Fettahlıoğlu(KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ İMAM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9725-213X
Pages
59–69
Publication Date
2026-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that psychological ownership in AI-supported production processes differs from the traditional labor-value relationship and is closely linked to the user’s level of active participation in the process.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the ownership relationship individuals establish with generative artificial intelligence outputs using the theoretical bricolage method, by considering the theory of the digital extended self alongside the concept of psychological ownership.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Positioned within a qualitative research paradigm, this study brings together conceptual tools from various disciplines to analyze the transformation of the relationship between self and ownership in the age of artificial intelligence.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that psychological ownership in AI-supported production processes differs from the traditional labor-value relationship and is closely linked to the user’s level of active participation in the process.
🔬Design:Teorik Makale
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dijital Genişletilmiş Benlik · Psikolojik Sahiplik · Üretken Yapay Zekâ

Abstract

This study examines the ownership relationship individuals establish with generative artificial intelligence outputs using the theoretical bricolage method, by considering the theory of the digital extended self alongside the concept of psychological ownership. Positioned within a qualitative research paradigm, this study brings together conceptual tools from various disciplines to analyze the transformation of the relationship between self and ownership in the age of artificial intelligence. The findings indicate that psychological ownership in AI-supported production processes differs from the traditional labor-value relationship and is closely linked to the user’s level of active participation in the process. The integration of AI outputs into the digital extended self occurs depending on the individual’s cognitive labor, level of control, and creative intervention in the production process. The study conceptualizes the ownership paradox emerging in co-production processes with AI and offers recommendations for empirical investigations in future research.

Özet

Bu çalışma, dijital genişletilmiş benlik teorisi ile psikolojik sahiplik kavramını birlikte ele alarak bireylerin üretken yapay zekâ çıktılarıyla kurdukları sahiplik ilişkisini teorik brikolaj yöntemiyle incelemektedir. Nitel araştırma paradigması içinde konumlanan bu çalışma, farklı disiplinlerden gelen kavramsal araçları bir araya getirerek yapay zekâ çağında benlik ve mülkiyet arasındaki ilişkinin dönüşümünü analiz etmektedir. Bulgular, yapay zekâ destekli üretim süreçlerinde psikolojik sahipliğin geleneksel emek-değer ilişkisinden farklılaştığını ve kullanıcının sürece aktif katılım düzeyi ile yakından ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Yapay zekâ çıktılarının dijital genişletilmiş benliğe entegrasyonu, bireyin üretim sürecindeki bilişsel emeğine, kontrol düzeyine ve yaratıcı müdahalesine bağlı olarak gerçekleşmektedir. Çalışma, yapay zekâ ile ortak üretim süreçlerinde ortaya çıkan sahiplik paradoksunu kavramsallaştırmakta ve gelecek araştırmalar için ampirik incelemelere yönelik öneriler sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kepek, R. E., Çildir, Ç., Fettahlıoğlu, S. (2026). Digital Extended Self and Psychological Ownership in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: An Attempt at Theoretical Bricolage. GAB Akademi, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 59–69. https://ajindex.com/articles/1615179

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. Abdullah, F., ve Ward, R. (2016). Developing a General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in human behavior, 56, 238-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036
  2. Artut, S. (2019). Yapay zekâ olgusunun güncel sanat çalışmalarındaki açılımları. İnsan ve İnsan, 6(22), 767-783.
  3. Atasoy, O., ve Morewedge, C. K. (2018). Digital goods are valued less than physical goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1343-1357. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx102
  4. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
  5. Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of consumer research, 40(3), 477-500. https://doi.org/10.1086/671052
  6. Belk, R. W. (2014). Digital consumption and the extended self. Journal of Marketing Management,30(11-12), 1101-1118. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2014.939217
  7. Berry, K. S. (2006). Research as bricolage: Embracing relationality, multiplicity and complexity. Qualitative Inquiry, 11-26.
  8. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. In We are data. New York University Press.
  9. Denzin, N. K., ve Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
  10. Draxler, F., Werner, A., Lehmann, F., Hoppe, M., Schmidt, A., Buschek, D., ve Welsch, R. (2024). The AI ghostwriter effect: When users do not perceive ownership of AI-generated text but self-declare as authors. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 31(2), 1-40.
  11. Elitaş, T., ve Elitaş, S. K. (2023). Post-Truth Çağda Artırılmış Bolluk Hayali ve Artırılmış Yokluk Gerçeği. Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(52), 282-294.
  12. Elitaş, T., ve Keskin, S. (2014). Sanal aidiyet bağlamında zihinsel diaspora: Facebook örneği. Atatürk İletişim Dergisi, (7), 161–186.
  13. Faccia, A., Ridon, M., ve Cavaliere, L. P. L. (2024). The AI application for an automated education system. In Innovation in the university 4.0 system based on smart technologies (1st ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003425809-12
  14. Gaidartzi, A., ve Stamatoudi, I. (2025). Authorship and ownership issues raised by AI-generated works: A comparative analysis. Laws, 14(4), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14040057
  15. Hermann, E. (2025). Illusion, dilution, or loss: Psychological ownership and GenAI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29(3), 215-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.12.011
  16. Hoffman, D. L., ve Novak, T. P. (2018). Consumer and object experience in the internet of things: An assemblage theory approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1178-1204. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx105
  17. Honarvar, R., ve Sepehrinia, M. (2025). Refashioning Belk's theory of digital extended self for a datafied society: A review and research agenda. SAGE Open, 15(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251357241
  18. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Company.
  19. Joseph, J. (2025). The algorithmic self: How AI is reshaping human identity, introspection, and agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1645795.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1645795
  20. Joshi, N., ve Vogel, D. (2025, July). Writing with ai lowers psychological ownership, but longer prompts can help. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (pp. 1-17).
  21. Keskin, S. (2024). İnsan-Sonrası Sinemada Karakterin Soysuzlaşması, Köken Estetiği ve Artırılmış-Yokluk. Filmvisio, (3), 135-157. https://doi.org/10.26650/Filmvisio.2024.0006
  22. Kim, J., Han, S., ve Hong, J. (2025). Psychological ownership in AI-mediated content creation: The role of autonomy and self-investment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 185, 103-118.
  23. Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 679–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700601
  24. Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). On to the next level: Continuing the conceptualization of the bricolage. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(3), 323-350.
  25. Kincheloe, J. L., ve Berry, K. S. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualizing the bricolage. Open University Press.
  26. Lee, H. P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., ve Wilson, N. (2025, April). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-22). https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778
  27. Liu, Y. (2025). Generative AI as a co-creator: Redefining human-machine collaboration. AI ve Society, 40(2), 215-230. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.17774
  28. Pierce, J. L., ve Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the organizational context: Theory, research evidence, and application. In Psychological Ownership and the Organizational Context. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  29. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., ve Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4378028
  30. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., ve Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of general psychology, 7(1), 84-107.
  31. Pratt, M. G., Sonenshein, S., ve Feldman, M. S. (2020/2022). Moving beyond templates: A bricolage approach to conducting trustworthy qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120927466
  32. Puntoni, S., Reczek, R. W., Giesler, M., ve Botti, S. (2021). Consumers and artificial intelligence: An experiential perspective. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 131-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920953847
  33. Rogers, M. (2012). Contextualizing theories and practices of bricolage research. The Qualitative Report, 17(7), 1-17.
  34. Schneider-Kamp, P., ve Godono, A. (2025). AI integration in cognitive and creative processes: Implications for self-perception. Computers in Human Behavior, 158. 108-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02319-5
  35. Shen, H., Shen, L., Wu, W., ve Zhang, K. (2025, April). Ideationweb: Tracking the evolution of design ideas in human-ai co-creation. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-19).
  36. Sinclair, G., ve Tinson, J. (2017). Psychological ownership and music streaming consumption. Journal of Business Research, 71, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.002
  37. Strauss, C. L. (1962). Savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Szulc, L. (2019). Profiles, identities, data: Making abundant and anchored selves in a platform society. Communication Theory, 29(3), 257-276.
  38. Ünal, A. (2022). Hukuk ve ahlak perspektifinden yapay zekâ: Bir eleştirel analiz yaklaşımı. Academic Perspective Procedia, 5(1), 229-239.
  39. Watkins, R. D., Denegri-Knott, J., ve Molesworth, M. (2016). The relationship between ownership and possession: Observations from the context of digital virtual goods. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(1-2), 44-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1089308
  40. Xu, Y., Cheng, M., ve Kuzminykh, A. (2024, June). What makes it mine? Exploring psychological ownership over human-AI co-creations. In Proceedings of the 50th Graphics Interface Conference (pp. 1-8). https://doi.org/10.1145/3670947.3670974
  41. Yurdigül, Y., ve Yıldırım, A. (2021). Gerçeklik algısına bir müdahale aracı olarak sentetik medya teknolojileri. İletişim ve Diplomasi, (5), 105-121.
  42. Ogunsola, O. (2026). Evaluating How Personalized AI Agents Influence Decision-Making, Self-Presentation, and Digital Identity Management: A Literature Review. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 8(1), 56-74.