SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 73

Turkish validity and reliability study of cyber paranoia and fear scale

Siber paranoya ve korku ölçeğinin Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması

Ece Zeybek Yılmaz(ISTANBUL GELISIM UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-6708-9017
Ayhan Bayram(BOLU ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0640-8106
Pages
151–157
Publication Date
2026-04-30
🏛️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)

Statistical findings revealed that these two dimensions explained 49.163% of the total variance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to determine the validity and reliability levels of the Cyber Paranoia and Fear Scale, developed by Mason et al.(2014), within a Turkish sample.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research focused on a sample of 250 academics from various universities, utilizing a non-probability convenience sampling method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Statistical findings revealed that these two dimensions explained 49.163% of the total variance.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:akademisyenler · siber korku · siber paranoya

Abstract

This study aims to determine the validity and reliability levels of the Cyber Paranoia and Fear Scale, developed by Mason et al.(2014), within a Turkish sample. Designed to measure the emotional and cognitive impacts of digital threats, this scale serves as a critical tool for identifying whether personal anxieties reach a clinical or social level of paranoia. The research focused on a sample of 250 academics from various universities, utilizing a non-probability convenience sampling method. The scale, consisting of 11 items and two sub dimensions, was administered using a four-point Likert system. This specific rating structure was maintained to prevent neutral responses, thereby ensuring participants committed to a clear stance. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 24 and Amos 24. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses verified two primary sub-dimensions with eigenvalues greater than one: “Cyber paranoia” and “Cyber fear”. Statistical findings revealed that these two dimensions explained 49.163% of the total variance. Furthermore, the fit indices obtained demonstrated that the scale was structurally highly consistent and bore a high degree of similarity to the original scale structure. Consequently, this adaptation study has contributed to the academic literature by establishing the Cyber Paranoia and Fear Scale as a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used in research in Turkey.

Özet

Bu çalışma, dijitalleşen dünyada bireylerin karşılaştığı psikolojik zorlukları anlamlandırmak amacıyla Mason ve arkadaşları (2014) tarafından geliştirilen Siber Paranoya ve Korku Ölçeği’nin Türkiye örneklemindeki geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik düzeyini belirlemeyi hedeflemektedir. Siber dünyadaki tehditlerin bireyler üzerindeki duygusal ve bilişsel etkilerini ölçmeyi amaçlayan bu ölçek, kişisel korku ve endişelerin klinik veya sosyal anlamda bir paranoya seviyesine ulaşıp ulaşmadığını saptamak için kritik bir araç olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Araştırma, metodolojik olarak çeşitli üniversitelerde görev yapan 250 akademisyenden oluşan bir örneklem grubuna odaklanmıştır. Veri toplama sürecinde olasılıksız kolaylık örnekleme yöntemi benimsenmiş ve 11 madde ile 2 alt boyuttan oluşan ölçek katılımcılara sunulmuştur. Katılımcıların belirsiz veya tarafsız kalarak verilerin niteliğini etkilemesini önlemek amacıyla, orijinal yapıdaki Likert tipi cevap anahtarı korunarak dörtlü bir derecelendirme sistemi kullanılmıştır. Bu sayede bireylerin kendilerine en yakın hissettikleri görüşe net bir şekilde yönelmeleri sağlanmıştır. Toplanan verilerin analizi, SPSS 24 ve Amos 24 istatistik yazılımları kullanılarak titizlikle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapılan keşifsel ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri sonucunda, öz değerleri birin üzerinde olan “siber paranoya” ve “siber korku” adlı iki temel alt boyut doğrulanmıştır. İstatistiki bulgular, bu iki boyutun toplam varyansın %49,163’ünü açıkladığını ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca elde edilen uyum indeksleri, ölçeğin yapısal olarak son derece tutarlı olduğunu ve orijinal ölçek yapısıyla yüksek derecede benzerlik taşıdığını kanıtlamıştır. Sonuç olarak, bu adaptasyon çalışması ile Siber Paranoya ve Korku Ölçeği’nin Türkiye’deki araştırmalarda kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu akademik literatüre kazandırılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yılmaz, E. Z., Bayram, A. (2026). Turkish validity and reliability study of cyber paranoia and fear scale. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 73, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1789115

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Ahmad, T. (2020). Corona virus (COVID-19) pandemic and work from home: Challenges of cybercrimes and cybersecurity. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3568830
  2. Akdemir, N. (2020). Examining the impact of fear of cybercrime on internet users’ behavioral adaptations, privacy calculus and security intentions. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 11(40), 606–648. https://doi.org/10.35826/ijoess.2737
  3. Akdeniz, B., & Doğan, A. (2024). Cyberbullying: Definition, prevalence, effects, risk and protective factors. Current Approaches in Psychiatry, 16(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1325195
  4. Arpaci, I., Abdeljawad, T., Baloğlu, M., Kesici, Ş., & Mahariq, I. (2020). Mediating effect of internet addiction on the relationship between individualism and cyberbullying: Cross-Sectional questionnaire study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(5), e16210. https://doi.org/10.2196/16210
  5. Apter, E. (2006). On oneworldedness: Or paranoia as a world system. American Literary History, 18(2), 365–389. https://doi.org/10.1093/alh/ajj022
  6. Barnes, J., Cote, J., Cudeck, R., & Malthouse, E. (2001). Factor analysis: Checking assumptions of normality before conducting factor analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1–2), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/1480486
  7. Bennetts, A., Stopa, L., & Newman-Taylor, K. (2022). What can experimental studies tell us about paranoia and anxiety? A systematic review with implications for theory and clinical practice. Psychological, Social and Integrative Approaches, 14(2), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17522439.2021.1909112
  8. Bhave, D. P., Teo, L. H., & Dalal, R. S. (2020). Privacy at work: A review and a research agenda for a contested terrain. Journal of Management, 46(1), 127–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319878254
  9. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  10. Dikmen, M., & Tuncer, M. (2017). Scholar's perceptions and struggle methods against cyberbullying. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 31, 675–686. https://doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.1806
  11. Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
  12. Freeman, D., & Freeman, J. (2008). Paranoia: The 21st century fear. Oxford University Press.
  13. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  14. Gençöz, T. (1998). Fear: Causes, consequences and ways to deal with. Crisis Journal, 6(2), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1501/Kriz_0000000068
  15. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
  16. Jolliffe, I. T., & Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 374(2065), 20150202. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0202
  17. Kaya, A. Y., & Ata, F. (2022). New media and digital paranoia: Extreme skepticism in digital communication. In H. Aker,& M. Aiken (Eds.), Handbook of research on cyberchondria, health literacy, and the role of media in society’s perception of medical information (pp. 330–343). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8674-7.ch020
  18. Kayış, A. (2010). Reliability analysis. In Ş. Kalaycı (Ed.), SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques (pp. 404–419). Asil Publishing.
  19. Keles, B., McCrae, N., & Grealish, A. (2020). A systematic review: The influence of social media on depression, anxiety and psychological distress in adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1590851
  20. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618
  21. Lam, L. W. (2012). Impact of competitiveness on salespeople’s commitment and performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1328–1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026
  22. Laplante, P., & DeFranco, J. (2010). Another ode to paranoia. IT Professional, 12(3), 57–59. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2010.82
  23. MacManus, S. A., Caruson, K., & McPhee, B. D. (2013). Cybersecurity at the local government level: Balancing demands for transparency and privacy rights. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(4), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2012.00640.x
  24. Mason, O. J., Stevenson, C., & Freedman, F. (2014). Ever-present threats from information technology: The cyber-paranoia and fear scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1298. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01298
  25. Nicholas, D., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Watkinson, A., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Herman, E., Xu, J., Abrizah, A., & Świgoń, M. (2017). Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices. Learned Publishing, 30(3), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1102
  26. Polst, S., Kelbert, P., Feth, D. (2019). Company Privacy Dashboards: Employee Needs and Requirements. In: Moallem, A. (eds) HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust. HCII 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11594. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22351-9_29
  27. Rajmohan, S. (2016). Hyper vigilance and paranoia: Problematizing self on social media. Literary Endeavour, 7(1), 43–49.
  28. Rilho, A. M. V. (2019). Nothing to hide, nothing to fear: The moderating effect of fear on AI empowered technology intention of use [Master's thesis, University Institute of Lisbon]. ISCTE Repository. https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/handle/10071/19489
  29. Schuett, R. (2020, September 4). Fear and Freud in politics: Critical notes on Mearsheimer's structural realism. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2020/09/04/fear-and-freud-in-politics-critical-notes-on-mearsheimers-structural-realism/
  30. Shahid, M. (2021). The effect of perceptions about internet privacy concerns on cyber paranoia and cyber fear [Unpublished master’s thesis], Forman Christian College.
  31. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
  32. Statham, V., Emerson, L. M., & Rowse, G. (2019). A systematic review of self-report measures of paranoia. Psychological Assessment, 31(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000645
  33. Şahin, M. (2019). Fear, anxiety and anxiety disorders. Eurasian Journal of Researches in Social and Economics (EJRSE), 6(10), 117–135.
  34. Veliz, C. (2021). Privacy and digital ethics after the pandemic. Nature Electronics. 4(1), 10-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-00536-y
  35. Wright, M. F. (2016). Cybervictims’ emotional responses, attributions, and coping strategies for cyber victimization: A qualitative approach. Safer Communities, 15(3), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-03-2016-0006
  36. Zimaitis, I., Degutis, M., & Urbonavicius, S. (2020). Social media use and paranoia: Factors that matter in online shopping. Sustainability, 12(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030904
  37. Zorlu, F., & Ünübol, H. (2018). The multidimensional orientation toward dying and death inventory: Validity and reliability in a Turkey sample. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 19(2), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.300390
  38. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Public Affairs.
  39. Kaya, A. Y., & Ata, F. (2022). New media and digital paranoia: Extreme skepticism in digital communication. In H. Aker,& M. Aiken (Eds.), Handbook of research on cyberchondria, health literacy, and the role of media in society’s perception of medical information (pp. 330–343). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8674-7.ch020