SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Research on Education and Psychology / 2026 / Volume: 10

Pseudoscientific Beliefs, Social Influence Sensitivity, and Future Anxiety: A Multi-Group Analysis based on Social Media Status Checking Frequency

Mustafa Sarıtepeci(NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EREĞLİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-6984-0652
Aleyna Doğrucan(NECMETTIN ERBAKAN UNIVERSITY)0009-0000-1582-6743
Şevval Kavak(NECMETTIN ERBAKAN UNIVERSITY)0009-0008-2376-4202
Hakan Ulum(NECMETTIN ERBAKAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1398-6935
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-08-25
🏛️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 showed that as future anxiety increased, students reported stronger tendencies toward social learning-social proof and social comparison, yet social learning-social proof was not associated with pseudoscientific belief dimensions in the overall model.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study examined future anxiety, social influence sensitivity, and differences related to others' social media status or story-checking frequency (OSMSSCF) as correlates of university students' pseudoscientific beliefs.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data collected from 331 university students were analyzed with PLS-SEM, followed by multigroup comparisons.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings showed that as future anxiety increased, students reported stronger tendencies toward social learning-social proof and social comparison, yet social learning-social proof was not associated with pseudoscientific belief dimensions in the overall model.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Future anxiety · Pseudoscientific beliefs · Social influence

Abstract

The present study examined future anxiety, social influence sensitivity, and differences related to others' social media status or story-checking frequency (OSMSSCF) as correlates of university students' pseudoscientific beliefs. Data collected from 331 university students were analyzed with PLS-SEM, followed by multigroup comparisons. The findings showed that as future anxiety increased, students reported stronger tendencies toward social learning-social proof and social comparison, yet social learning-social proof was not associated with pseudoscientific belief dimensions in the overall model. By contrast, social comparison was linked to higher levels of belief in “astrology,” “fortune-telling and mediumship,” and “quantum thinking,” whereas its association with “sending messages to the universe” was not statistically significant in the full sample. Group comparisons showed that OSMSSCF reliably differentiated only one part of this pattern: belief in sending messages to the universe was predicted by social learning-social proof among students with low OSMSSCF, and by social comparison among those with high OSMSSCF, whereas the remaining associations did not differ reliably between the groups. Overall, the findings suggest that future anxiety may primarily fuel pseudoscientific beliefs through social comparison, and that the frequency with which students monitor others on social media is more closely related to the underlying social influence mechanism of a specific belief than to the overall strength of these relationships.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sarıtepeci, M., Doğrucan, A., Kavak, Ş., Ulum, H. (2026). Pseudoscientific Beliefs, Social Influence Sensitivity, and Future Anxiety: A Multi-Group Analysis based on Social Media Status Checking Frequency. Research on Education and Psychology, Volume: 10. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1961891

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Albarracín, D. (2022). Processes of persuasion and social influence in conspiracy beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 48, 101401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101463
  2. Ansari, A.M., Aakansha, B., Charmi, P., Riya, S., Rajvir, D., & Shivamsinh, R. (2024). Prevalence of depression, anxiety and stress and its correlation with professional help-seeking behaviour among undergraduate university students: A cross-sectional study. Psychology & Psychological Research International Journal, 9(4), 000445. https://doi.org/10.23880/pprij-16000445
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  4. Blancke, S., & Boudry, M. (2021). Pseudoscience as a negative outcome of scientific dialogue: A pragmatic-naturalistic approach to the demarcation problem. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 34(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2022.2057777
  5. Bondani, M., Galano, S., Malgieri, M., Onorato, P., Sciarretta, W., & Testa, I. (2024). Development and use of an instrument to measure pseudoscientific beliefs in quantum mechanics: The PSEUDO-QM scale. Research in Science & Technological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2024.2390847
  6. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
  7. Çetinkaya, E., & Taşar, M. F. (2018). Development of pseudoscience belief scale (PBS): Validity and reliability study. Trakya Journal of Education, 8(3), 497–512. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/481687
  8. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 51(3), 629. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408
  9. Dyer, K. D., & Hall, R. E. (2019). Effect of critical thinking education on epistemically unwarranted beliefs in college students. Research in Higher Education, 60(3), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9513-3
  10. Fasce, A. (2021). The scam of pseudoscience. Metode Science Studies Journal, 8, 122–123. https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.8.21092
  11. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
  12. García-Arch, J., & Ballestero-Arnau, M. (2022). Disproven but still believed: The role of information and individual differences in the prediction of topic-related pseudoscience acceptance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(2), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3914
  13. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1086/586910
  14. Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
  15. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  16. Hallford, D., Seydavi, M., & Akbari, M. (2024). The perceived functions and phenomenological characteristics of future thinking and clinically significant generalized anxiety disorder symptoms. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(3), e2978. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2978
  17. Hansson, S. O. (2024). Scientific expertise is needed to identify pseudoscience. Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum, 12(1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.11590/abhps.2024.1.05
  18. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  19. Kästner, A., Lücker, P., Hannich, A., Schmeyers, L., Lücker, J., & Hoffmann, W. (2022). COVID-19-related future anxiety is associated with the health-related quality of life in school-aged children and adolescents—A cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1003876
  20. Laura, C., Costa, C., Santiago, G., Graziela, R., & Chambel, M. J. (2024). Prevalence and risk factors for anxiety, stress and depression among higher education students in Portugal and Brazil. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 17, 100825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100825
  21. Li, A., & Toll, M. (2021). Effects of graduating during economic downturns on mental health. Annals of Epidemiology, 55, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.12.005
  22. Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Ammirati, R. J. (2015). Science versus pseudoscience. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, 1–7.
  23. Lundström, M., & Jakobsson, A. (2009). Students’ ideas regarding science and pseudoscience in relation to the human body and health. Science & Education, 18(5), 655–673.
  24. MacCoun, R. J. (2012). The burden of social proof: Shared thresholds and social influence. Psychological Review, 119(2), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027121
  25. Mahner, B. (2013). Science and pseudoscience: How to demarcate after the (alleged) demise of demarcation problem? In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 29–43). University of Chicago Press.
  26. Majima, Y. (2015). Belief in pseudoscience, cognitive style and science literacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(4), 552–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3136
  27. Majima, Y., Walker, A. C., Turpin, M. H., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2022). Culture as a moderator of epistemically suspect beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 745580. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.745580
  28. Mermelstein, S., & German, T. C. (2021). Counterintuitive pseudoscience propagates by exploiting the mind’s communication evaluation mechanisms. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 739070. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.739070
  29. Mirtz, T. A. (2008). The attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of university students on health-related scientific and pseudoscientific concepts (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas.
  30. Oyibo, K., & Vassileva, J. (2019). The relationship between personality traits and susceptibility to social influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.032
  31. Pouwels, J. L., Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2021). Peer influence in adolescence: Public-health implications for COVID-19. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(8), 585–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.001
  32. Regnoli, G. M., Tiano, G., & De Rosa, B. (2024). Serial mediation models of future anxiety and Italian young adults psychological distress: The role of intolerance of uncertainty and non-pathological worry. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(6), 1834–1852. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14060121
  33. Sarıtepeci, M. (2020). Sosyal etkiye duyarlık ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. In 1. Ulusal Eğitiminde Dijital Dönüşüm Sempozyumu, 24–26 October 2020, pp. 38–40.
  34. Sarıtepeci, M., Duran, A., Yildiz Durak, H., & Ulum, H. (2026). Developing an Educational GenAI Usage Motivation Scale: A Comparative Study of Factor Structures Generated by Artificial Intelligence and Human Experts. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2026.2666587
  35. Sarıtepeci, M., & Kurnaz, M. F. (2024). Antecedents and consequences of FoMO for neuroticism, openness and social influence: Investigating the moderating effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 225, 112657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112657
  36. Sherman, L. E., Payton, A. A., Hernandez, L. M., Greenfield, P. M., & Dapretto, M. (2016). The power of the like in adolescence: Effects of peer influence on neural and behavioral responses to social media. Psychological Science, 27(7), 1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616645673
  37. Shermer, M. (Ed.). (2002). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (2 Vol.). ABC-CLIO.
  38. Shermer, M. (2013). Science and pseudoscience: The difference in practice and the difference it makes. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 203–224). University of Chicago Press.
  39. Shin, J. Y. (2019). “Will I find a job when I graduate?”: Employment anxiety, self-compassion, and life satisfaction among South Korean college students. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 19(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-018-9378-1
  40. Sinatra, G. M., & Hofer, B. K. (2021). Science denial: Why it happens and what to do about it. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190944681.001.0001
  41. Tobacyk, J. J. (2004). A revised paranormal belief scale. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 23(1), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2004.23.1.94
  42. Tsai, C. Y., Shein, P. P., Jack, B. M., Wu, K. C., Chou, C. Y., Wu, Y. Y., … & Huang, T. C. (2012). Effects of exposure to pseudoscientific television programs upon Taiwanese citizens’ pseudoscientific beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.610132
  43. Valkenburg, P. M., Pouwels, J. L., Beyens, I., van Driel, I. I., & Keijsers, L. (2021). Adolescents’ social media experiences and their self-esteem: A person-specific susceptibility perspective. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(2). https://assets.pubpub.org/8z51ssaw/21628805689684.pdf
  44. Van Mulukom, V., Pummerer, L. J., Alper, S., Bai, H., & Albarracín, D. (2022). Antecedents and consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 301, 114908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114912
  45. Wang, S., Chong, Z. Y., Zhang, C., & Xu, W. (2024). Longitudinal associations between anxiety and depressive symptoms in adolescence, early adulthood, and old age: Cross-Lagged panel network analyses. Depression and Anxiety, 2024(1), 6205475. https://doi.org/10.1155/da/6205475
  46. Zaleski, Z. (1996). Future anxiety: Concept, measurement, and preliminary research. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00070-0
  47. Zaleski, Z., Sobol-Kwapinska, M., Przepiorka, A., & Meisner, M. (2019). Development and validation of the Dark Future scale. Time & Society, 28(1), 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X16678257