ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
The social anatomy of AI anxiety: gender, generations, and technological exposure.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-associated academic writing anxiety in AI-assisted contexts: evidence from Chinese EFL postgraduate students.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Psychological decoupling in responses to AI: emotional reactivity and behavioral discourse in digital environments.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence anxiety: a narrative review of psychiatric conceptualization and clinical management.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2026Article
- The predictive effects of AI anxiety on 21st-century skills and lifelong learning tendencies: a study of pre-service teachers in Northern Cyprus.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Public anxiety surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) carries significant clinical, educational, and policy implications. However, evidence regarding the multidimensional structure of AI-related anxiety and its demographic and experiential correlates remains fragmented. This study synthesizes validated measures into a coherent framework to examine how psychological and sociodemographic factors shape AI-related anxieties. Method: A cross-sectional survey of adults (N = 1,151) assessed nine dimensions of AI-related anxiety --general AI anxiety, technoparanoia, technophobia, AI interaction anxiety, job-replacement anxiety, sociotechnical blindness, cybernetic-revolt fear, technology self-efficacy, and AI learning orientation --adapted from established scales. Dimensionality was evaluated using common-factor exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring, Promax rotation; KMO = .89; Bartlett's p < .001), supported by parallel analysis and scree inspection. A 70/30 hold-out confirmatory factor analysis assessed structural validity. Reliability (Cronbach's α, McDonald's ω), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) were calculated to examine internal consistency and convergent validity, while discriminant validity used the Fornell -Larcker and HTMT criteria. Group differences were tested using t-tests and ANOVA with Holm -Bonferroni correction and effect sizes. Hierarchical regression models controlled for age, gender, marital status, employment, and AI-use status. Results: The nine-factor structure was supported (64.17% variance explained). CFA indicated good fit (CFI = .943, TLI = .936, RMSEA = .045 [90% CI .041 -.049], SRMR = .046). All scales demonstrated strong reliability (α, ω ≥ .80), convergent validity (CR ≥ .83; AVE ≥ .51), and discriminant validity. After correction for multiple comparisons, gender differences remained for technoparanoia, AI learning orientation, and AI interaction anxiety (small effects, Cohen's d ≈ .18 -.21). AI users exhibited higher general AI anxiety, technoparanoia, and sociotechnical blindness (d ≈ .17 -.29). Age-group differences were non-significant. Hierarchical regression showed that sociotechnical blindness and technoparanoia were the strongest positive predictors of general AI anxiety, while technology self-efficacy and AI learning orientation were negative predictors. Discussion: AI-related anxiety is a reliable and multidimensional construct, driven more by psychological dispositions and technology experience than by demographic characteristics. The findings suggest actionable pathways for mitigating anxiety, including targeted AI literacy initiatives, strengthening self-efficacy, and transparent communication regarding sociotechnical impacts. These interventions may support informed and equitable AI integration across clinical, educational, and policy contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.