Talking to Gen Z About Media and Pseudoscience: Trends and Perceptions

Abstract

This paper explores Gen Z’s understanding of science and pseudoscience, assessing, at the same time, their media literacy skills. Drawing on the relevant literature and elaborating on the findings from five focus groups studies in remote areas of Greece and Portugal, it sheds light on how young people perceive science. Through a synthesis of the insights garnered from the participants’ personal experiences, this study endeavors to offer valuable advice and recommendations for designing education material that is tailor-made to address the needs of generation Z. By adopting these suggestions, policymakers and educational experts can advance scientific literacy, cultivate critical thinking, and nurture an environment of evidence-based decision-making for young people.

1. Introduction

Since ancient Greek times, when Aristotle distinguished between episteme (scientific knowledge) and mere doxa (opinion) asserting that apodictic certainty forms the foundation of science, the acceptance of pseudoscience acceptance and denial of science have been a philosophical challenge to the development of a coherent distinction between science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience and science denial, as multifaceted and impactful phenomena in society, render this distinction both a theoretical concern, and one with practical consequences.

According to the Cambridge dictionary, pseudoscience can be defined as a system of thought or a theory that is not formed in a scientific way. On the other hand, science is the study of a particular subject using scientific methods.

In a 2012 tweet, Donald Trump asserted that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”. This claim has garnered almost 80 K retweets and elicited thousands of responses, with the majority being emotional reactions. Among those responses, only a small minority offered fact-based rebuttals [1]. The reason intelligent individuals embrace irrational beliefs or pseudoscientific myths is that they fall prey to cognitive biases and psychological factors, such as confirmation bias, pattern-seeking behavior, and the allure of simplistic explanations for complex phenomena [2].

Generation Z, born roughly between 1996 and the early 2010s, has grown up in an era saturated with information from diverse sources, largely facilitated by the Internet and social media. They tend to favor digital platforms for content consumption, and their communication style is predominantly visual, relying heavily on keyword-spotting [3,4]. As Gen Z individuals have an 8 s attention span, they prefer short-form audio–visual content, such as videos on TikTok and YouTube platforms [5,6]. Portugal and Greece are among the four countries in southern Europe that use short-form, online news videos to receive information, weekly [7]. “Seeing is believing” is the main motivation for using videos, according to the Digital News Report of Reuters Institute [7] (p. 16). Streaming services are popular with this generation, which prefers mobile screens to traditional TV—but it has not abandoned it entirely. Additionally, social media plays an important role in informing and entertaining this generation, with a preference for user-generated content and interactive content [8,9,10]. As a digital-native generation, Gen Z has never experienced a world without the Internet and individuals often define themselves through their digital identities.

While access to information offers many benefits, it has also contributed to the proliferation of pseudoscientific myths among this demographic. Pseudoscience, characterized by claims presented as scientific but lacking empirical evidence or methodological rigor, can be particularly appealing to generation Z due to their digital proficiency and propensity for questioning established norms [11].

For this reason, the aim of this study is to examine some of the prevalent pseudoscientific myths expressed by members of generation Z in Portugal and Greece. While the outcomes of this research may not apply to every individual of this demographic, they can serve as useful generalizations and potentially be used for designing educational tools and media literacy campaigns. This study is based on the uses and gratifications theory, investigating how people use media to satisfy specific needs. It emphasizes audience agency and media choice rather than passive consumption [12]. Moreover, it draws on the cognitive theory exploring stereotyping and cognitive biases that affect perception, memory, and decision-making processes [13].

1.1. Generation Z and Media

According to the global research conducted by the Oliver Wyman Forum [14], generation Z may trust print and broadcast news, but 60% acquire their news from social media and the platforms’ many influencers and creators, in part because they appreciate multiple viewpoints.

Greek audiences have the least trust in news across global markets (23%), according to the annual Digital News Report of Reuters Institute, devaluing traditional media; in contrast, Portugal has one of the highest trust ratings (6th out of 47th place globally) [15]. In comparison to Greece, young Portuguese audiences have a stronger relationship with television [15,16], whereas in Greece, young people have abandoned this source of information [15]. Regarding the most-popular news sources, social media in Portugal scores below television, whereas in Greece, social media is the primary source of information [7,16].

In countries with a low trust of media, such as Greece, generation Z distrusts traditional authorities and mainstream media, leading individuals to seek alternative sources of information through social media influencers or their peers [7,17]. The loss of trust in the authorities, as well as in traditional media and journalism in general, fuels the growing influence of fake news and pseudoscience hoaxes [18]. Moreover, they tend to be skeptical of traditional sources of authority, including governments, corporations, and established scientific institutions [10]. More specifically, in Greece, scientists (61.8%), family (49.4%), and friends (39.5%) are the sources young people trust the most for current affairs. This is followed by education (33.6%), social media (31.4%), and traditional media (29%), while trust in politicians and the Church is relatively low (6.8% and 3.8%, respectively) [10].

Even though members of generation Z (Gen Z) are considered digital natives, their media literacy skills are not inherently strong [18,19]. While their brains are digitally wired, having been born and raised in a digital world, digital proficiency remains a skill that requires practice and development [20].

They often struggle to distinguish facts from conspiracy theories, half-truths, and outright lies that pervade social media [14]. Younger social media users are at a greater risk of being exposed to fake news compared to older generations, as they use social media more frequently. This problem has been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic [21].

According to the most recent annual Reuters Institute Digital News Report of 2024 [7], young Greeks are increasingly using Instagram and TikTok to receive news updates. More specifically, the most popular news source for younger people is video-led platforms, such as Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok (21%) [21]. It is noteworthy that more than 3.5 million users, aged 18 years and above, use the TikTok platform in Greece [22]. In Portugal, it was the most downloaded app during COVID-19 (500,000 in three months) and remains popular, as young Portuguese audiences actively contribute to, enjoy learning from, and create short-form videos on the platform [23].

1.2. Generation Z and Pseudoscience Myths

A significant area of study focuses on combating misinformation among younger groups. The researchers extensively explored the effectiveness of fact-checking, corrections, and debunking strategies [24]. An important finding suggests that delivering correction messages featuring arguments that expose prior misinformation as false (“debunking”) can effectively counteract misinformation [24].

One of the most significant insights into generation Z comes from Deloitte’s annual survey [25], which includes over 22,000 Gen Z and millennial respondents across 44 countries, examining their lifestyles and work attitude. According to the Deloitte Foundation [25], the top concerns of generation Z include climate change, mental health and well-being, environmental sustainability, diversity, inclusion, and economic inequality. These issues reflect the generation’s strong focus on social justice, environmental sustainability, and overall societal well-being. Additionally, generation Z is deeply concerned about access to high-quality education and job opportunities, as well as the impact of technological advancements on society and the job market.

In the European context, a large-scale, three-year study on 19,000 young Millennials and members of Gen Z in Europe was published in 2022. The research study reported that the primary concerns of young individuals revolve around job stability, health, and climate change. The COVID-19 pandemic has notably increased anxieties among young people regarding education, training, and securing satisfactory employment opportunities. Despite 59% expressing their satisfaction with remote work and study arrangements, a striking 61% of young Europeans experience mental health challenges [26].

Another pseudoscience topic that is not adopted by generation Z members is related to climate change denialism. The research on younger generations indicates that Gen Z’ers are more likely to accept scientific consensus on issues like climate change [27]. Worldwide, people from this population are more active than older generations in addressing climate change [28]. Indeed, climate change anxiety is impacting decisions from family planning, to diet, fashion, jobs, and more. According to a Deloitte survey for 2023 [29], climate change is one of the top-three concerns of generation Z worldwide. The other two are survival issues (cost of living and unemployment) [29]. Many individuals from generation Z are deeply concerned about environmental issues, such as pollution and biodiversity loss. They perceive science as essential to understanding and addressing these challenges, and they may be more likely to support environmentally friendly policies and technologies. In the case of Greece, this generation appears to be less concerned about this issue, but even in this case, it has been on the rise in recent years. The research of the Poulantzas Institute [30] shows that, among issues that concern the young cohorts (with an age range of 17–39 years old), the climate crisis emerges third, behind low wages and unemployment.

Another pseudoscience topic is the anti-vaccination movement. Fueled by misinformation spread on social media platforms, it has gained traction with the general population, leading to hesitations to take vaccines and thus outbreaks of preventable diseases. In a study conducted on 10.000 adults in Generation Z, in the USA and UK, 77% of Gen Z’ers who said they fact-check their news, believe at least one COVID-19-related conspiracy theory [14]. Despite this fact, according to the nationally representative longitudinal data (20 December 2020 to 23 July 2021) from the Understanding America Study (UAS), apparently, in younger audiences, there was no great hesitancy toward vaccinations [31]. The same phenomenon was also noticed in Europe. In Greece, the younger population showed a positive response toward vaccinations [32], whereas in Portugal, the highest percentage of the population was fully vaccinated, also among young people, aged 12–35 years old [33].

Affected by the pandemic crisis, members of Gen Z have started to pay increased attention to mental well-being [34]. The healthy lifestyle that they are into has also been linked to their positive attitude toward vaccinations [35]. Also, increasingly distrustful of mainstream medicine, Gen Z’ers are embracing a more holistic approach that improves their mental well-being, and they follow TikTok influencers for medical advice [12]. Practices like mindfulness, meditation, and energy healing garner attention from generation Z as ways to improve mental and physical well-being. While there is scientific evidence supporting some aspects of these practices, these topics reflect generation Z’s curiosity, skepticism, and desire for alternative perspectives in navigating the complexities of the modern world.

Many people in generation Z are drawn to alternative healing modalities, like crystal-healing and energy medicine, which lack scientific evidence but are promoted as ways to balance energy and improve well-being. The allure of these approaches and the desire for self-empowerment may contribute to the popularity of these practices. #WitchTok, for example, is a TikTok trend that involves users sharing content related to crystals, crystal-healing, and their spiritual and metaphysical properties [36].

What is worth noticing is, among others, the importance of spiritual practices for younger people in comparison to the religious beliefs that are favored by the older population [24]. Moreover, despite being based on ancient beliefs and lacking empirical evidence, astrology remains popular among generation Z [37]. Social media platforms have facilitated the dissemination of astrological content, appealing to individuals seeking guidance, self-discovery, and a sense of belonging based on their astrological sign [38]. This trend in young audiences is related to turning to astrology as a means of self-improvement, introspection, and personal growth, some of the main concerns of generation Z [39].

1.3. Science Communication Appealing to Generation Z

Pseudoscience myths have far-reaching impacts on society and individuals, underscoring the importance of promoting scientific literacy and critical thinking. Addressing pseudoscience myths among generation Z requires a multifaceted approach involving education, media literacy, and community engagement. Schools and educational institutions should prioritize teaching critical thinking skills and scientific literacy from an early age, empowering individuals to evaluate information critically and distinguish between scientific evidence and pseudoscience [40].

From a societal angle, the wide embrace of pseudoscience by Gen Z can undermine confidence in established scientific agreements and public health initiatives, potentially resulting in adverse outcomes, like disease outbreaks and environmental harm. On an individual level, subscribing to pseudoscientific notions can lead to financial exploitation, with individuals investing in ineffective or even hazardous products and services endorsed by proponents of pseudoscience. Moreover, leaning on pseudoscientific beliefs may impede critical thinking capabilities and scientific understanding, diminishing one’s capacity to distinguish reliable information from falsehoods. Permitting false scientific assertions, regardless of their absurdity, to circulate unopposed by evidence or reason is more detrimental than confronting them [1].

Generation Z is drawn to science communication efforts that make scientific concepts accessible and engaging, such as science-themed social media accounts, YouTube channels, and podcasts [41]. They often view science communicators and advocates as influencers who play a crucial role in promoting scientific literacy and raising awareness about important scientific issues.

Due to a lack of media literacy education and the prevalence of misinformation online, some individuals in generation Z may trust unreliable sources for scientific information, such as blogs, influencers, or memes, without verifying the accuracy of the information. Even though they have little confidence in the reliability of this information, Gen Z individuals prioritize social media’s recognizable personalities, engaging content, and satisfying interaction format over the gradual credibility they perceive they would receive from traditional media outlets and search engines. In doing so, they run the risk of fostering echo chambers for misinformation and disinformation, despite being well-aware of these issues [40].

This generation tends to be more influenced by information from individuals within their community rather than by the credibility of the source of scientific material. According to the research by the Oliver Wyman Forum [40], over 40% of Gen Z’ers begin their search for information on TikTok or Instagram.

For fact-checking, Gen Z’ers trust people like them twice as much as mainstream news [14]. They typically place the highest trust in the medical community, but also exhibit a general trust in personal connections, policymakers, and educators [11]. Nevertheless, the impact of science denial on audiences seems to be more pronounced in the absence of a science advocate to counter the claims [42].

Exploring and assessing pseudoscientific assertions serves as a tactic for science educators to cultivate critical thinking skills among students, amidst the deluge of information they encounter [43]. Allowing young populations to scrutinize and test such claims constitutes an initial measure in dispelling a belief in them. Moreover, it is imperative for them to substitute these claims with plausible alternatives. Given the impracticality of educators addressing every pseudoscientific assertion, they can develop a capacity for the critical evaluation of all claims, whether encountered in academic settings or beyond [44]. The content provided should seek to provide opportunities for critical thinking, scientific inquiry, and dialog about evidence-based approaches to understanding the world around them.

According to Opat et al. [41], narrative communication is more effective at capturing the interest of Generation Z compared to logical–scientific communication. Moreover, to engage with this demographic on its preferred platforms, content should be both informative and entertaining [42].

According to an EU research of 2020 [34], it will take another 15 years before this generation, along with Millennials (born between 1981 and 1995/1996), forms the majority of the voting-age population across the EU. Their views, expectations, and attitudes will increasingly influence policy design. For this reason, this study can be used as an opportunity to gather insights to better understanding this generation and creating materials that align with their media consumption patterns.

2. Materials and Methods

The aim of the focus groups was to recognize Gen Z’s media use patterns related to science news and to identify the most discussed science news and pseudoscientific myths in this age group. The questions were structured in the following three categories, according to the relevant research questions:

RQ1. Which media sources are used by Gen Z to obtain informed about scientific topics?

RQ2. Which factors influence their opinion about these topics?

RQ3. Which science/pseudoscience topics are of concern to them?

In response to the knowledge gained from the literature review, five focus groups were created in March 2024 to provide a deeper examination of the different perspectives of Gen Z on pseudoscience and the dynamics that create a post-truth environment. The focus group was selected as a commonly used methodological tool in social research, which allowed the researchers to collect in-depth qualitative data from the group in a short amount of time [45]. The collection of the data used in this study was carried out in accordance with the specifications of the Ethics and Ethics Committee of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

The public and civic organizations involved in the research project “SHAZAAM” [“Science Hoaxes to Avoid Alienation in generation Z”], funded by the European Media and Information Fund, were actively involved in the selection of the participants. The youth organizations were selected with the criterion to work with the Gen Z target group of this project. Greek “Polianna Politistiki Anazitisi Lesvou”, from Lesvos Island, works with NEET local youths and refugees, developing critical thinking through art. “StartUpGreece”, located on Crete Island, empowers youths to deal with social inclusion. Great impacts on Portuguese youths also include “Teatro Metaphora” and “Aware In”, two youth organizations on the isolated Madeira Island in the Atlantic Ocean. “Teatro Metaphora” is in Camara de Lobos, an area with younger people on the island, focusing on environmental education and the development of critical thinking. “Aware In” is located in the west part of Madeira. One more public organization was involved in the participants’ selection: the Municipality of Fundão, a remote mountainous location in inland Portugal.

The criteria for participant selection prioritized age, diversity, and interest in the topic, aiming to achieve a balanced and representative sample. Each focus group was designed to consist of 9 to 25 people, ensuring a manageable group size conducive to a meaningful discussion.

Each focus group targeted local communities in isolated areas of Greece and Portugal. On Madeira Island, a total of 18 participants from the class of the Education Sciences of the University of Madeira were selected. Participants from rural areas of the island and the capital were involved and separated into 2 focus groups of 9 people, which took place at the University of Madeira. Recruitment specifically targeted 19 members of generation Z (ranging from 9th-grade students to 11th-grade students) residing in Fundão, Portugal, and studying in Agrupamento de Escolas do Fundão (the Fundão School Group). They were recruited with the aid of the Municipality of Fundão. In Lesvos Island, 27 members of generation Z were recruited with the aid of Polianna, after an open call through social media for people who were interested in scientific topics. In Creta Island, 22 people of generation Z residing in Chania, Greece, were recruited with the aid of Startup Greece through an online open call to youth volunteers of their NGO.

The focus group sessions were conducted online at a pre-arranged time frame. The session lasted 1.5 h, allowing sufficient time for introductions, an icebreaker, discussions, and feedback. The researchers took part online, while participants were on site in Portugal and online in Greece. Two facilitators from local educational institutions/organizations were also present at each session.

The five focus-group sessions were conducted online by three media researchers from the School of Journalism and Media at Aristotle University in Thessaloniki. All of them were experienced in qualitative research methodologies, ensuring a structured yet flexible approach to the conversation.

The discussion was guided by a predetermined set of topics and questions drawing from the state-of-the-art research and designed to explore the participants’ perceptions, experiences, and insights regarding pseudoscience hoaxes. To mitigate interpretative bias, more than one moderator facilitated the discussion. The facilitators used neutral, open-ended questions to avoid influencing the participants’ responses. After each answer, the researchers shared their interpretations with the participants to ensure the analysis accurately reflected their intended meaning and viewpoints. To reduce the risk of biased interpretations, during the subsequent analysis, two additional researchers were included to prevent the facilitators from introducing their own biases, and data from different sources were combined [triangulation]. In coding a focus-group analysis, the researchers identified key themes or patterns in the participants’ responses by categorizing them into predefined codes. Each segment of data was assigned a code, which represented specific ideas or concepts. This process helped to organize the data, making it easier to identify trends and draw conclusions. The focus-group session was audio-recorded with the participants’ consent to ensure the discussion was accurately captured. In addition to audio-recording, detailed notes were taken by the moderators.

Audio-recordings and notes from the focus-group session were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative data analysis techniques. Each location was assigned a specific letter: F for Fundão, MD for Madeira, L for Lesvos, and CH for Chania. Each participant was provided a letter and a number [i.e., F1, F2, F3, F4]. Thematic analysis was employed to identify recurring patterns, themes, and insights emerging from the discussion. Data analysis was conducted systematically, with a focus on identifying both consensus viewpoints and divergent perspectives among the participants.

3. Results

This section presents the findings from the focus-group discussion, summarizing the key insights, themes, and recommendations. It is structured to provide a clear and coherent narrative of the findings, supported by direct quotes and illustrative examples from the participants. By bringing together Gen Z members from two countries, this section aims to uncover the underlying factors driving the spread of pseudoscience hoaxes, assess their impact on public perception and decision-making, and explore strategies to mitigate their influence.

3.1. Science/Pseudoscience Topics

At the beginning of the focus-group discussion, the need to clarify what constitutes a science topic arose. Participants were unsure about what qualifies as a scientific topic and what does not. When asked what science means to them, responses included “something that is based on research [L3] and “something that can be studied and is based on facts” [L1]. The session then proceeded with the pre-arranged questionnaire.

The main scientific topics that participants identified as scientific included nature, the environment, psychology, astronomy, mathematics, and more. In the Fundão region, where the group was particularly active in the discussion, topics related to space science, astronomy, biology, nature, and the universe were specifically mentioned.

It is worth noting that, in many cases, participants’ engagement in the focus-group discussion changed when the environment was mentioned. Even those who remained silent before became interested and actively participated when environmental concerns were brought up. Participants spoke passionately, and no one expressed a disbelief in climate change: “It’s obviously real” [F5], “It’s a fact” [F13], and “We don’t have to believe and don’t believe—it’s a fact” F15.

Additionally, young people are actively engaged in climate change prevention in their daily lives. Most mentioned that they recycle, use public transportation, and eat sustainably, but they acknowledge that individual actions are not enough. They emphasize the need for action at a higher governmental level to drive meaningful change. This perspective aligns with the international research, which shows that climate change anxiety influences decisions ranging from family planning to diet, fashion, and career choices [28].

The other topics that are highlighted in the literature review and pointed out in the previous research do not align with the findings of this study [astrology, flat earth theory, etc.]. On Lesvos Island, only two participants mentioned that they believed in alternative-medicine practices, expressing their objections to the use of the term “alternative”. No participant mentioned that they believed in astrology or relevant topics. In Fundão, participants mentioned the trend to rely on influencers and life coaches for health, and especially mental health issues, but no belief in alternative practices emerged. Only one out of 18 people stated that he/she believed in astrology [F7]. In Madeira, while participants generally expressed a trust in scientific information and providers, there were instances where beliefs in alternative practices emerged. For example, MD4 talked about Reiki, highlighting an openness to alternative medicine and holistic healing modalities.

On the island of Chania, the participants acknowledged the value of alternative-medicine techniques in many cultures, emphasizing the importance of traditional medicine. Only one participant [CH3] mentioned adopting new physical-exercise habits after viewing relevant social media posts.

The future of AI and the ethical aspects of it in our everyday lives were also topics that concerned young adults, according to the results. On Chania Island, social media and the Internet in general were indicated as fields for possible misinformation spread, which can also worsen due to the misuse of generative AI content without filtering. For this reason, some of them considered as a conspiracy theory the argument that robots will take over the job industry. Also, two participants mentioned the #woke trend on TikTok that life is a simulation, but they were not sure if they believed it. In Fundão, three out of 27 participants expressed a concern for AI usage in everyday life.

While, in general, the findings for different focus groups did not alter according to the region, a difference was also observed due to the location regarding some conspiracy theories. In Madeira and Fundão, no participant believed in the 5G conspiracy theory, which, apparently, is not popular in Portugal. In Fundão, only three out of 18 knew about microchip theories [about COVID-19, mainly], but no-one mentioned they believed them. In Greece, all participants were aware of conspiracy theories that view 5G and microchips as tools for surveillance, but no-one believed them. CH4 stated the need to distinguish between good and bad uses of technology, while CH6 attributed such scenarios to misinformation and a fear of technology. Participants were aware of conspiracy theories also on Lesvos Island.

3.2. Media Use/Information Sources

Offline sources, such as books from school or local libraries, were mentioned by participants in Madeira University, Chania, and Lesvos focus groups. Surprisingly, encyclopedias were also mentioned. Scientific books were considered the most trustworthy source of information by the participants. M17 emphasized using research materials for work-related purposes, highlighting a preference for academic and scholarly sources, while MD6 made the remark that “only peer-reviewed articles are to be trusted”.

Journal papers were also mentioned, especially thanks to the review procedure before publication. CH1 stated: “If I need to find a trustworthy piece of information, I will search into books or encyclopedias”. Google Scholar and scientific podcasts were mentioned. MD12 said, “I read books, I look for information on scientific papers, for example, on Google Scholar”.

The findings align with the literature review, according to which, while some individuals from generation Z may place trust in scientists and scientific journals, the majority opts to obtain their news from social media platforms, choosing the convenient way: “I would like my source of information to be research articles or magazines, but the truth is my main source of information is social media or my friends, and then I filter according to my knowledge” [L5]. L1 says: “I know that scientific journals are the really trustworthy ones, but if I want light information, I will search on Google News, BBC and CNN”. “I learn most of my outside school information from YouTube”, says F16. The results indicate that they make an effort to double-check and read more sources only if they are highly interested. Otherwise, they just believe in the most-convenient source.

In the Fundão focus group, the participants were younger members of generation Z. The sources of their information focused on social media [TikTok, Instagram, YouTube] where funny videos were specifically mentioned [F8]. Also, other digital sources were mentioned, such as Spotify podcasts, the Reddit platform, and Netflix documentaries [three of 18]. It was interesting that YouTube came up as the main source of scientific information for half of the group. Traditional media were rarely mentioned—only two participants pointed out TV as the main source of scientific information.

In Madeira, after having mentioned scientific sources, they admitted that TikTok and YouTube were also the most popular social media choices: “TikTok’s format is great and changes the way we consume information,” MD9 said. Additionally, MD15 mentioned, “I prefer videos over all other kinds of formats”.

An important outcome worth highlighting is that the preferred sources of information changed according to the thematic and/or level of interest in the topic. “I use social media, but I try not to fall to all information that appears”, said F4, while F7 clarified: “For a first level information I would be happy just to check to social media but if I truly care about the topic, I will search on different sources to be sure it’s true”. On Chania Island, participants also identified the level of engagement with each specific topic as the fundamental factor for choosing the source for obtaining information.

Almost every participant mentioned the Internet as the most-used source, including news websites and social media. One participant highlighted Twitter, especially for the availability of citizens’ opinions as well, along with official statements. Specifically, CH2 mentioned: “I turn to Twitter because I can find the audience’s point of view, apart from the official opinion”. This was also noticed on Madeira Island: the preferred sources of information for young adults changed according to the themae and/or the level of interest in the topic. TikTok was mentioned as an informative source that replaced YouTube, due to the easily consumed content.

It is worth mentioning that none of the participants in this group mentioned a preference for traditional media sources, such as television, radio, or newspapers. The news sites of big media organizations and news portals, such as Yahoo and Google news, were the main sources of scientific news consumption. Three participants mentioned that they used TikTok for science news. L12 explains: “TikTok’s information is delivered in an easy-going way that is short and not tiring. I search there first, and this gives me the motivation to search further on other online platforms”.

According to the findings, the media use of the participants varies noticeably. Due to the rapid change in media consumption habits, we notice a difference in media use even between members of the same generation. Older members of Gen Z that were living on Lesvos Island appeared to use sources like Yahoo, Bloomberg, Google Search, or news sites, whereas younger members of Gen Z at Fundao high school stated that they relied mainly on social media sources. L3 mentions: “I grew up with Instagram, people before me with Facebook, people after me with TikTok”, whereas L13 explains: “I use it more because I have had it since I was a kid and I have built the timeline that I want, liking the pages that I want, etc.”.

In the Chania region, all participants indicated using social media platforms for accessing scientific information, with Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube being the most popular choices. Additionally, one participant mentioned utilizing Reddit for this purpose, showcasing the diversity of platforms used for scientific content consumption.

For Lesvos Island, the most-used social media platforms were Facebook [10/27], TikTok [7/27], YouTube [10/27], and Reddit [3/27]. Also, Twitter and LinkedIn were mentioned [3/27]. This was an interesting result because Facebook was not mentioned as the most popular source in other FGs. Another interesting result is that Facebook is mentioned as an informative source, indicating that Instagram is mainly used for networking. Also, Twitter was mentioned by one participant as a highly reliable platform, due to verification signs [L11].

3.3. Influence Factors

In general, young people search social media for recommendations, using them for word-to-mouth suggestions. It is also noteworthy that word of mouth is one of the most respected sources of information. In this research, participants mentioned that they use social media for good movies, good music, healthy habit suggestions, etc. Thus, the need to provide people with content based on tips, advice, shared experiences, and good practices came up as important.

As far as the question of whether they changed their opinions/attitudes/practices due to information on scientific topics on social media, many of them mentioned that they changed some of their well-being habits [going to the gym more often, eating better, drinking water, changing skincare]. One participant also mentioned that social media trends affected his/her relationship with nature: “Social media changed my solitary habits that I did not get out of the house—now I go for walks and spend time outside” [F11]. On Chania Island, participants reported an effect on their beliefs about environmental protection and recycling after finding relevant information on social media. However, they underlined the danger of misleading information regarding mental health issues and dietary habits.

Gen Z participants seemed highly concerned about the trustworthiness of science issues but also, due to the hustle of their everyday lives, were not willing to spend more time on searching for more trustworthy sources. “To search deep for something, articles are the best option, but it’s hard to find something because they are long, information is not easy to find, and sometimes you can find things that are contradictory” [F16].

To the question of whether they preferred to be informed by their peers/friends or scientists, all of them answered that they trust science, but it is more accessible and friendly to use the information they receive from their bubble. They are more easily convinced by a scientist than by a friend. “We tend to believe our friends and family, but I tend to search about a topic and not get influenced by them” [F12] and “I trust scientists—what my friends and colleagues say is an opinion” [F6].

For this reason, influencers are a big part of their content sources. Participants seem to find their content by looking for real-life experiences, not facts. Their content seems trustworthy if a lot of people say that it is: “If there is a creator, not a giant, but with lots of people watching, I would believe that they are credible. If I watch them for a long time, and they still have the reputation that they are right, I will still believe it is credible” [F8].

In every focus group, none of the participants stated that they were 100% sure that the sources they used were trustworthy. In the Fundão region, while mentioning the science sources they followed, participants highlighted the importance of being trustworthy. People who read books [F11] were 90% sure. A total of 10 out of 18 people were “not sure” about the sources of their information. People who were less confident about their sources were those who received informed from TikTok, Instagram, and Reddit: “I don’t find them trustworthy; they mix up information etc.” [F1]. This complies with the previous scientific research that highlights the fact that print media are considered highly trustworthy by generation Z, even though they are not used as a primary source of information.

On Lesvos Island, regarding the concerns about misinformation and fake news, all participants admitted that they do not trust social media even though they use them. L1 says that “I am 100% suspicious of the reliability of every piece of information” [L1]. On the other hand, they show a high level of trust in educational organizations, a result that complies with the trust students of Fundão showed to their school. L5 admits: “Every time I get information; I know that it can be just an opinion without being scientifically proven. The only reliable source of information I had in my life was the university”.

Overall, all participants mentioned that they had a high level of trust in scientists. It is important who says what when it comes to believing information. Another result was that they had no doubt about the scientific content that they learned in school. “If I learn them in school, I am sure they are credible” [F15].

All participants stated that, even though they did not trust online information sources, they rarely double-checked claims by fact-checking them—only in special cases where the topic was of high interest, as mentioned above. They count on their own judgment to decide if scientific information is true or a scam. L10 says: “Regarding a scientific topic, I will understand how reliable it is by myself. I count on myself for that”, while L16 points out: “It is important who is gonna post the information, sure but you never can be sure. Thus, I trust my mind”.

This indicates a higher need for media literacy and critical thinking skills, as these individuals will be educated on how to access scientific information themselves.

The findings also indicate the need for scientific content that is shorter, more comprehensible, and in general, better suited to the media usage of generation Z. F16 explains: “If it’s difficult I try to find no overwhelming sites. Then if I don’t, I just leave”. F6 says: “I try to double check, but I don’t have time. I search online and I find what is more logical, I think by myself, and I choose what to believe”.

This is important but also explains the ease with which fake news is spread—it indicates the need for media literacy. Also, this is why “how-to” videos are very popular in this demographic, according to the focus-group results. As pointed out in Oliver Neuman’s and Podara’s research, too, people highly value shared experiences and life information, thus social media’s recognizable personalities talking in a relatable way is considered more credible than information spread via traditional media outlets and search engines.

4. Discussion

Following the findings of the focus groups, several insights were gleaned regarding participants’ information-seeking behavior, sources of trust, and beliefs. The implications and recommendations of designing educational material follow, based on the implications of the findings.

The proliferation of pseudoscience hoaxes poses a considerable challenge to both public understanding and the integrity of genuine scientific discourse. Pseudoscience hoaxes encompass a spectrum of misinformation, ranging from dubious health claims to purported supernatural phenomena, often masquerading as legitimate scientific endeavors. These hoaxes not only undermine the credibility of established scientific knowledge but also have the potential to mislead and exploit unsuspecting individuals.

The findings align with the recent research that focused only on Greece, according to which scientists (61.8%), family (49.4%), and friends (39.5%), and not social media, are the three main sources young people trust the most for becoming informed [10]. Our study found that participants rely heavily on digital sources for scientific information, highlighting the need to enhance digital literacy skills to critically assess online content. Traditional media outlets, such as television, radio, and newspapers, were not identified as primary sources of information or entertainment, which is consistent with the previous research on this cohort [8,17,44,46,47]. Based on these findings, it is essential to incorporate educational materials or training focusing on digital literacy, helping participants differentiate between credible sources and misinformation while navigating online platforms responsibly. Additionally, maintaining a balance between facts and storytelling is crucial to avoiding the trend of sensationalizing information, which can undermine its substance [45,48].

While the Internet is a popular source of information, it is noticeable that scientific sources are perceived as the most trustworthy. Encouraging the use of diverse information sources, including both digital and print materials, can enhance the depth and reliability of the information accessed. One recommendation would be to develop campaigns or initiatives promoting the value of books and academic resources alongside digital platforms, emphasizing the importance of cross-referencing information from multiple sources.

The participants mentioned that they use a variety of sources to obtain their information, ranging from Reddit and funny YouTube videos to TikTok shorts and books from school libraries. TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram were mentioned as the main sources of everyday information. This corresponds to the research conducted by Oliver Wyman Forum [12], which shows that people in generation Z mostly acquire their news from social media and its many influencers and creators, in part because they appreciate multiple viewpoints. It is recommended to use a diverse range of platforms for each topic to raise one’s awareness about science and gain a greater understanding of this audience.

Also, it was highlighted that older members of Gen Z tend to use sources like Yahoo, Bloomberg, Google search, or news sites, whereas younger members of Gen Z (as noticed in the previous FG) rely mainly on social media sources. Facebook is mentioned as an informative source, so its use in this project may have to be re-evaluated. Also, there is a decision to be made about the kind of information that will be created in the next phase of the project: either using social media to catch the attention of young people, or longer storytelling forms, such as YouTube videos or podcasts, to raise a greater awareness of debunked topics. The research proves that long, explanatory formats, like podcasts, are popular with this generational cohort, with an emphasis on narrative storytelling of specific themes [41,45,47].

The focus-group results also reveal that, while young people do use social media as a source of scientific information, they express significant concern regarding the trustworthiness of the platform. They will put the effort to double-check something, only if it is of high interest. They tend to count on their social-bubble YouTube influencers for easily consumable information. Thus, it is highly recommended to use scientists to debunk scientific hoaxes, which are highly valued by this generation. When a science advocate refuted denialist arguments by presenting scientific evidence or exposing their logical flaws, the influence of denialism decreased substantially. Regarding the most popular science and pseudoscience topics, the findings align with the literature review, only in the case of climate change. This corresponds to the state of the art (SOTA), according to which climate change is one of the topics that highly concerns generation Z [13,28,29].

Addressing misinformation on social media is critical to ensure accurate and reliable information dissemination. It can be effective to provide users with engaging tools, such as educational games, to identify and report misinformation effectively.

5. Conclusions

Media literacy tools that promote critical thinking are key to the dissemination of scientific knowledge. According to the focus-group results, how-to videos on debunking science-related fake news and distinguishing between opinions and facts are particularly useful for this generation. Additionally, learning how to identify and debunk fake news provided by influencers or social media is just as important as creating debunking videos.

Young people trust facts, but they are often overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information. People tend to pay more attention to shared experiences than to scientific facts. This is significant, but also explains why fake news spreads so easily, highlighting the need for media literacy through storytelling techniques beyond merely reporting facts. Also, according to the state of the art (SOTA), correction videos that rely solely on truth-based arguments are less effective than debunking videos that actively dismantle false claims [1,2,24].

The findings also indicate the need for scientific content that is shorter, more comprehensible, and, in general, better suited to the media consumption habits of generation Z. Additionally, there is a need to provide content that includes tips, advice, and best practices. Participants trust scientists over friends for scientific information, demonstrating a strong reliance on expert knowledge. Strengthening trust in scientific expertise is essential for promoting evidence-based decision-making. Creating videos featuring scientists debunking common pseudoscience hoaxes could be a more effective way to foster a better engagement between scientists and the public. The main limitations of this research stemmed from the online moderation of the focus groups. In an online setting, managing turn-taking among participants was challenging due to delays in audio/video transmission, while online moderation may have inhibited spontaneous interactions and the natural flow of conversations compared to face-to-face settings. Additionally, some participants were less engaged in the discussion, leading to reduced participation levels. Furthermore, online moderation resulted in the loss of important nonverbal cues, such as body language and facial expressions, which were crucial for understanding the participants’ reactions and emotions.

However, the geographic concentration of this study’s sample presents notable limitations regarding generalizability. Since four of the focus groups involved participants from islands (Lesbos, Crete, and Madeira) and the fifth from a rural, inland region (Fundão), it has to be taken into account that the participants predominantly represented peripheral contexts with potentially distinct media ecosystems and scientific information access. Under these circumstances, the participants’ media consumption patterns may differ significantly from urban or mainland populations.

The participants’ selection process may be the benchmark for further studies, since it exclusively relied on local youth organizations affiliated with the “SHAZAAM” project. In this recruitment approach, the potential selection bias has to be noted, since the participants may have shared similar values or viewpoints regarding media consumption and critical thinking, mainly because of their prior engagement with these organizations. Common areas of interest may have created a sample that potentially overrepresented certain members of generation Z while underrepresenting those who are less engaged with civic participation. Moreover, some minor technical issues also resulted in the disruption of the flow of the focus-group discussion, leading in some cases to delays.

Future research should expand the geographical scope to include more diverse regions. Additionally, incorporating quantitative measures alongside qualitative methods can offer deeper insights into the prevalence and impact of media literacy on Gen Z’s perceptions of science and pseudoscience. Longitudinal studies can also elucidate how these attitudes evolve over time.