Abstract
The 21st century is characterized by digital transformation, which affects economic processes and social life, and results in the parallel existence of life in both online and offline spheres. Thus, the concept of citizenship should no longer be restricted to its traditional understanding, but expanded to digital citizenship as well, and it should be adapted to the challenges of the 21st century. Thus, we need to analyze responsible digital citizenship, and our research is aimed at the question of how to assess this. As a pilot, we conducted a survey among university students to understand the focal points in this field. Our results confirm that most students can be considered responsible digital citizens, and can also be classified according to various aspects of responsible digital citizenship.
1 Introduction
There is no doubt that digitalization1 is one of the most significant megatrends nowadays, and it seems to be the next step in globalization (Lee et al. 2019). Digital transformation is reshaping economic processes, the labor market, and the social existence of all humans. COVID-19 accelerated digital transformation by spurring a new momentum in 3D printing technologies for producing face masks (Zimmerling – Chen 2021) or encouraging senior citizens in Singapore to use virtual event platforms (Perdana – Mokhtar, 2022).
Digitalization has pervaded the entire economy and digital transformation is essential for all actors to preserve their competitiveness (Mergel et al. 2019). Thus, a number of industries are applying emerging technologies that create completely new ways of meeting existing needs and reshape traditional market supply chains (Schwab 2016; Watanabe et al. 2021). For example, data created by consumers is the main source of economic value formation, which is verified by the success of the five largest companies by stock value: Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft (Lammi – Pantzar 2019). Alibaba also developed its digital business model and, for instance, it introduced Alipay to ease financial transactions (Li 2020; Schmuck – Benke 2020). Tencent, a Chinese IT start-up, invested a lot in its digital transformation, and the new-born demand for online streaming and the online office related to the COVID pandemic positively affected the company (Jun et al. 2022). Like the big Western companies, they also build on data created by customers.
The massive boom of digital technologies has also fundamentally reshaped the labor market, resulting in its polarization (Güvercin 2022). Digitalization first reduces the employment of workers who have competency in routine tasks and increases the employment of those who have competence in non-routine tasks (Goos et al. 2020). However, as an increasing number of tasks and activities can be performed with minimal human intervention, workers performing non-routine tasks are also increasingly at risk if they do not retrain and re-educate themselves (Nissim – Simon 2021). Digital technologies also change the way work is performed. Jobs have become digital, virtual, and mobile.
The ever-increasing spread of digitalization and the appearance of newer and newer technologies do not only bring benefits for the economy and society but also threats and fears (e.g. robots). Digital media technologies have drastically reshaped the forms of social interaction. The Internet has become a vital space for interaction and informal learning (Sadiku et al. 2018). It has become inevitable for everyone to participate in the digital world. There is pressure from the economy, the labor market, and interconnected society to participate in the modern, interconnected, digital world. The impacts differ by sectors, companies, job types, job quality, level of economic development, social status (see Zimmermann 2020). This participation, however, threatens our personal data, identity, health, social interactions, and the balance between online and offline life.
Thus, the concept of citizenship should no longer be restricted to its traditional understanding but expanded to digital citizenship as well. Although the traditional approaches focusing on rights and responsibilities are still valid, there are already efforts to redefine the concept of citizenship adapted to the 21st century and the Digital Age (Kim – Choi 2018). Thus, the question is no longer whether we are digital citizens, but whether we are responsible digital citizens. It is always a question where responsibility stems from: from consumers, from producers or from government. Responsible behavior can, for example, be influenced by central regulations (prohibition of using certain websites, limitations on using banking applications). We find it as an external intervention and not the decision of the individual. In this paper, we aim to assess individuals' decisions and not how these are influenced or limited by external regulations. Thus, in this study, we focus on the consumer side of responsible digital citizenship, and we work out a method how their responsible attitude to digital citizenship can be assessed. Therefore, our research is aimed at how we can assess responsible digital citizenship. We have analyzed this topic among the students at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration at the University of Szeged (Hungary).
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we detail digital citizenship and responsible digital citizenship. Then, we introduce the existing methods for analyzing digital citizenship, which are the basis for our primary research. Following this, we present the methodology applied in the primary research. The study concludes with a summary of the results and possible future directions for research.
2 Digital citizenship
2.1 Concepts
Nowadays, citizenship can be defined as a kind of membership within a well-defined (geographical) area where those present have rights and obligations. The people who live here have common values, language, culture, and historical events, and they live and act according to common political- and economical rules (Udvari et al. 2021). Digital citizenship differs from citizenship in several aspects. While the area of citizenship can be well-defined geographically, the area of digital citizenship is the online sphere which crosses geographical, political, and cultural borders as well. The vast group of people who are considered digital citizens are much more diverse than those who hold common citizenship. Digital citizens speak different languages and have different values and cultural backgrounds.
The concept of digital citizenship is relatively new and still emerging. Cobbe (2019), Ribble (2011), and Cooney et al. (2018) have defined the concept of digital citizenship, and while they have common elements, the definitions vary from scholar to scholar. We have categorized the definitions of digital citizenship according to their main emphasis, and we have determined three clearly distinct groups (Table 1).
List and categories of definitions of digital citizenship
| Author(s) | Definition | Category |
| Mossberger et al. (2008) | Digital citizens are “those who use the internet regularly and effectively – that is, on a daily basis”. | use and utilize digital technology |
| Cobbe (2019) | A digital citizen is “any individual who in the course of their daily lives partakes in some way in the modern internet-connected world”. | use and utilize digital technology |
| Hintz et al. (2017) | Digital citizenship is “the (self-)enactment of people's role in society through the use of digital technologies”. | use and utilize digital technology |
| use the Internet to participate in social activities | ||
| Cooney et al. (2018) | “Digital Citizenship can be described as the norms of appropriate, responsible behavior when engaging with others via Information Communication Technology.” | responsible manner of using digital technology |
| Farmet (2011) | “Digital citizenship means the ability to use technology safely, responsibly, critically, and pro-actively to contribute to society.” | responsible manner of using digital technology |
| Ribble et al. (2004) | “Digital citizenship can be defined as the norms of behavior with regard to technology use.” | responsible manner of using digital technology |
| Ribble – Bailey (2007) | “Digital citizenship can be defined as the norms of appropriate, responsible behavior with regard to technology use.” | responsible manner of using digital technology |
| Citron – Norton (2011) | Digital citizenship refers to “the ways in which online activity has the potential to deepen civic engagement.” | using the Internet to participate in activities based on politics, economics, social issues, and culture |
| Ribble (2011) | Explains the concept of digital citizenship through its nine elements, “digital access, digital commerce, digital communication, digital literacy, digital etiquette, digital law, digital rights and responsibilities, digital health and wellness, and digital security”. | responsible manner of using digital technology |
| using the Internet to participate in activities based on politics, economics, social issues, and culture |
Source: the authors.
According to the first and widest approach, digital citizens are people who use and utilize digital technology. This group emphasizes the characteristics of using digital tools and behavior in various digital environments, e.g., Mossberger et al. (2008), Cobbe (2019), and Hintz et al. (2017). In the second group, ethics is also emphasized (Cooney et al. 2018; Farmer 2011; Ribble et al. 2004; Ribble – Bailey 2007; Ribble 2011). To them, digital citizenship is connected to responsible behavior in the online environment and the digital citizen is defined as a person who uses digital technologies in a responsible manner. Although the definitions that make up the third group include both the use of technology and responsible behavior in the online environment, they add an additional aspect, participation in activities oriented towards politics, economics, social issues, and culture (Citron – Norton 2011; Ribble 2011; Hintz et al. 2017). According to these authors, a digital citizen uses the Internet with the aim of participating in activities based on politics, economics, social issues, and/or culture (Choi et al. 2017).
In our opinion, anyone who uses and utilizes digital technologies and participates in the online sphere should be considered a digital citizen. Therefore, we interpret the concept in the widest sense and define digital citizenship as daily participation in the modern, Internet-connected world through the usage and utilization of digital technologies. The key word is “participates”, which refers to the activity itself regardless of how it is performed and what the results of it are. This participation can occur either with good or bad intentions, and can result in either positive or negative consequences. The concept of digital citizenship in our approach only encompasses accessibility and technical skills or abilities. Therefore, we define the main characteristics of a digital citizen based on their technical skills defined and verified by Choi et al. (2017), and state that a digital citizen:
- -is able to use digital technologies to achieve his/her aims, for example sending a message, making a video, or setting an alarm;
- -is able to access the Internet through digital technologies (for example, using smartphones, tablets, or laptops) at any time;
- -uses the Internet on a daily basis;
- -is able to use the Internet to communicate, find information, and download applications that are useful for him/her.
These characteristics distinguish digital citizens from Internet users. Frequency is the key term: according to the metadata glossary of the World Bank (2022), everybody can be considered an Internet user who used the Internet within the last three months, while digital citizens have Internet access at any time and use the Internet on a daily basis.
2.2 Methods of analyzing digital citizenship
Only a limited number of methods exist for the examination of digital citizenship. To our knowledge, the most common method is the Digital Citizenship Scale model consisting of between two and nine factors. However, these Digital Citizenship Scales differ between scholars based on the target group and the listed components of digital citizenship (Table 2).
Analytical methods and models of digital citizenship
| Author(s) | Purpose | Analytical method | Model | Main target group |
| Ribble (2011) | Support technology coaches, leaders, and administrators | not detailed in the original study | 9 factors | Mainly technology leaders and teachers |
| Isman – Gungoren (2013) | Create a Digital Citizenship Scale | Independent Sample t-Test and One Way ANOVA | comparison | Students in secondary schools and higher education |
| Nordin et al. (2016) | Create a Digital Citizenship Questionnaire | Confirmatory Factor Analysis | 5 factors | Undergraduate students |
| Choi et al. (2017) | Create a Digital Citizenship Scale | Exploratory, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis | 5 factors | Adults (older than college students) |
| Kim – Choi (2018) | Create a Digital Citizenship Scale | Exploratory, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis | 5 factors | Adolescents |
Source: the authors.
Ribble (2011), the most prominent scholar of digital citizenship research, constructed a 9-factor model, whose components are digital access, digital consumption, digital communication, digital literacy, digital etiquette, laws and regulations related to digital use, digital rights and responsibilities, digital health, and digital security. Isman and Gungoren (2013) created another Digital Citizenship Scale to compare the level of digital citizenship for students in secondary school and higher education. Nordin et al. (2016) aimed to create a questionnaire for the assessment of undergraduate students' use of digital technology. Their 5-factor model consists of components that are connected to responsible behavior in the digital environment, namely related to etiquette, responsibility, health/wellbeing, commerce, and security. Choi et al. (2017) conducted both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in order to create a Digital Citizenship Scale. As a result, they created a 5-factor model, consisting of aspects designated as Internet political activism, technical skills, local/global awareness, critical perspective, and networking. A similar 5-factor model was developed by Kim and Choi (2018) with factor analyses, but their target group was adolescents.
Since Nordin et al. (2016) and Choi et al. (2017) worked with target groups similar to ours while also focusing on responsibility, we considered their models as a starting point in our primary research.
3 Responsible digital citizenship
Digitalization and digital transformation may contribute to improving the wellbeing of individuals (e.g. with digital health applications), but it also raises the question of digital use and overuse, including digital addiction (Almourad et al. 2021). Thus, in our judgment, responsibility does not necessarily go hand in hand with the ability to use and utilize digital technologies. According to our approach, responsibility in being a digital citizen should be considered as the next, deeper level of digital citizenship.
3.1 The need for responsibility in the digital world
Digitization has many benefits, but its potential dangers should not be overlooked. Harmful patterns of digital technology use, such as losing the ability to focus, fear of missing out, damage to health, and digital addiction, can also occur (Almourad et al. 2021). The negative consequences and disadvantages of using digital technology are supported by a great deal of research. Thomée et al. (2011) proved that frequent mobile phone use can cause stress, sleep disturbance, and depression among young adults. The strong relationships people have with their smartphones may also deprive them of the time spent for breaks, reflection, and engaging in meaningful, deep conversations (Schwab 2016; Drucker – Gumpert 2012). Social media use can easily turn into social media addiction, which can significantly influence employee strain and task performance (Khan et al. 2021). According to their results, social media addiction increases work-technology conflict and negatively impacts the self-esteem of users. The increasing use of digital games negatively affects a child's social, emotional, and cognitive development, which can lead to a troubled child-parent relationship, parental neglect, loneliness, and anxiety in the child (Keya et al. 2020). Hadlington and Scase (2018) drew attention to several further negative impacts caused by increasing time spent online, including fear of missing out, Internet addiction, introversion, and neuroticism.
Listing the results of these few pieces of research is enough to demonstrate how important it is to be responsible in the digital world. This is why it is necessary to talk about responsible digital citizenship in today's digitalized world.
3.2 The differences between a digital citizen and a responsible digital citizen
As we have just defined the term, being a digital citizen simply means that a person participates in the Internet-connected world by using and utilizing digital technologies. Responsible digital citizenship is a narrower classification within digital citizenship, and it includes not only participation but also conducting oneself responsibly in the digital world (Fig. 1).
The differences between a digital citizen and a responsible digital citizen
Source: the authors.
Citation: Society and Economy 45, 2; 10.1556/204.2022.00028
The differences between a digital citizen and a responsible digital citizen
Source: the authors.
Citation: Society and Economy 45, 2; 10.1556/204.2022.00028
The differences between a digital citizen and a responsible digital citizen
Source: the authors.
Citation: Society and Economy 45, 2; 10.1556/204.2022.00028
The 5-factor model created by Nordin et al. (2016) is the closest to this approach, as all of its factors describe responsible behavior in the digital environment. As this model is well constructed and verified by analysis, we have taken it as a basis for determining the characteristics of a responsible digital citizen. However, we have also added new elements based on the literature introduced so far as well as on reliable websites (Bencie 2017; CISA 2020) that deal with responsible behavior in the digital environment. The main characteristics of a responsible digital citizen are as follows:
- ₋ethical behavior in the online sphere, for example: respecting others in the online environment (not engaging in bullying behavior); respecting copyrights; not abusing the anonymity of the Internet; not encouraging online fights; sensible debating (stating reasons if in disagreement with something/someone); and not posting information about others without their permission.
- ₋health awareness about using digital technologies, such as: using a footrest and an adjustable chair when working on a computer; taking care to view the screen from a proper distance and at a height parallel to the eyes; placing the keyboard in a proper position for one's arms; and being aware of balance between online and offline life, including frequent breaks.
- ₋shopping online responsibly and safely, including: checking the actual existence and reliability of the seller; making sure to get a copy of the transaction; checking the final price and currency before purchase; using credit cards instead of debit cards for payment; checking for “https” in the URL; not shopping on public Wi-Fi servers; not saving personal and/or financial data on the websites; and not using the same password for online shop websites as those used to log onto personal/work PCs.
- ₋protection of personal and financial data, which means: updating the browser and the software on devices; creating strong passwords; using multi-factor authentication; not sharing financial/security information (e.g., PIN codes) in communication applications or websites; and not turning off the firewall and/or antivirus software.
The characteristics of a responsible digital citizen and their categorization mentioned and illustrated above is not a verified structure, and not even one that is presumed. The introduction of these characteristics is aimed at providing assistance for the authors' preparation for their primary research.
4 How to assess responsible digital citizenship?
Based on the above issues, we created a questionnaire on responsible digital citizenship and conducted a survey to test it (Fig. 2). We conducted a pilot questionnaire survey among the students at the University of Szeged's Faculty of Economics and Business Administration (Hungary). For the analysis of patterns, we applied principal component analysis and cluster analysis.
Research model
Source: the authors.
Citation: Society and Economy 45, 2; 10.1556/204.2022.00028
Research model
Source: the authors.
Citation: Society and Economy 45, 2; 10.1556/204.2022.00028
Research model
Source: the authors.
Citation: Society and Economy 45, 2; 10.1556/204.2022.00028
4.1 Research framework
As the current university students are digital natives (Turner 2015; Hernandez-de-Menendez et al. 2020), in our survey we focused on them, and our target group consists of the students of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of the University of Szeged, including all levels of educational programs.
As for the research method, we chose a questionnaire survey, because of its availability, ability to survey a high number of respondents simultaneously, and because it provides quantitative, numerical data. The structure and the content of the questionnaire were based on Choi et al. (2017) and Nordin et al. (2016), supplemented with certain additional elements focusing on responsibility in the digital world.2 To check whether the respondents were indeed digital citizens, we took the research of Choi et al. (2017) as a basis, and we defined six basic statements (filter questions) about the characteristics of a digital citizen. Based on the true or false answers to these statements, we were able decide whether a respondent was a digital citizen or not. We based the characteristics of a responsible digital citizen on the 5-factor model created by Nordin et al. (2016). They were transferred to the questionnaire in the form of statements, and the respondents had to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale how often these situations/behaviors were true for them. The questionnaire was available in Hungarian and in English, so both the Hungarian and foreign students of the Faculty could respond between 6th and 16th April 2021. The questionnaire was shared on the official online platforms of the university.
4.2 The sample and the analytical methods
We received 139 responses (6.79% response rate). Based on the filter questions, we excluded the nine respondents that did not belong to the target group. We also left out seven more respondents as they were not digital citizens. In the end, the final database suitable for analysis consisted of a sample of 123 respondents. The sample was not representative.
First, we conducted a principal component analysis (PCA) to explore the main components of responsible digital citizenship by reducing the large number of variables to a smaller number of components. PCA is a statistical test that is classified as factor analysis, and which can be used for extracting the most important information from a data set. The purpose of this is to derive a small number of linear combinations (principal components), that retain as much of the information from the original variables as possible (Martinez et al. 2006). We checked the three conditions that PCA has to meet (Hair et al. 2014): (1) the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) criterion to check whether or not the data is suitable for factor analysis; (2) the communality to assess whether the variables correspond to acceptable levels of explanation; (3) whether the total variance reaches at least 60%.
On the first run of the analysis, we received an acceptable model, but with a 10-component solution. In order to reduce this number and increase the reliability of the model, we excluded the two variables that did not fit the minimum criteria as well as the one that barely fulfilled the criteria. Naming the components occurred based on a rotated component matrix and the significant factor loadings. A rotated component matrix contains rotated factor loadings, which represent the correlation between the original variables and the components, and plays a key role in understanding the nature of a particular component (Hair et al. 2014). As a result, we received nine principal components for measuring responsible digital citizenship (Table 3).
The components and their associated variables
| Name of the component | Variables correlating to the specific component | Factor loadings |
| 1. Responsible online shopping | When shopping online, I make sure that the company/seller has a physical address and phone number, and I also check for reviews. | 0.811 |
| When shopping online, I make sure that I get a copy of the transaction. | 0.806 | |
| When shopping online, I pay attention to the currency in use and the total price of the goods and services being paid for. | 0.618 | |
| I look for the lock icon on the browser's status bar and I make sure the website URL begins with “https” rather than “http” before making an online purchase. | 0.530 | |
| 2. Health awareness when using a computer | I make sure my eyes are parallel to the computer screen and keep them at a proper distance from the screen. | 0.830 |
| I place my keyboard properly and make sure my forearms are horizontal and my wrists are straight. | 0.743 | |
| I use a footrest and an adjustable chair that supports my back when working on a computer. | 0.579 | |
| 3. Having up-to-date protection | I use two-factor or multi-factor authentication when I provide financial/security information, like bank card data, PIN codes, etc. | 0.839 |
| I make sure that my internet-connected devices are free from malware and viruses by running the most current versions of software, apps, and browsers. | 0.694 | |
| 4. Irresponsible use of online shopping websites (no data protection) | I allow the websites where I shop to remember my personal information. | 0.786 |
| I use the same passwords for online shopping websites that I use for logging on to my home/work computer. | 0.722 | |
| I have shopped when using public Wi-Fi. | 0.494 | |
| 5. Inappropriate behavior | I have abused the anonymity of the Internet. | 0.841 |
| I have encouraged online fights. | 0.824 | |
| 6. Careless methods of using the Internet | I turn off the firewall and/or the antivirus software on my PC. | 0.727 |
| I use password management software. | 0.647 | |
| I have shared financial/security information in an email, or communication applications/webpages. | 0.627 | |
| 7. Respectful behavior towards others | I respect copyrights. | 0.848 |
| I respect other people in the online environment and do not engage in bullying behavior. | 0.729 | |
| 8. Safe Internet use in terms of data protection | I use a credit card rather than a debit card, or at least if I possess a debit card only, I use payment processors such as PayPal. | 0.704 |
| When I create a password, I make sure that it is strong and not linked to my personal data. | 0.663 | |
| 9. Taking precautions to reduce eye strain | I take frequent breaks (e.g., every 1–1.5 h) to reduce eye strain. | 0.815 |
Source: the authors.
Second, we applied cluster analysis as an appropriate method to classify a sample of entities (individuals) into mutually exclusive groups based on similarities among the entities (Hair et al. 2014). Using the new components, we applied hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) that is suggested for cases where the sample size is moderate (under 300–400) and the researcher has no information about the clusters in advance (Hair et al. 2014). We chose the most commonly used Ward's method clustering algorithm (with Squared Euclidean Distance) that focuses on minimizing standard deviations (Hair et al. 2014). Both the agglomeration schedule and the dendrogram suggested a 2-cluster solution in the first place, but a 3-cluster solution also seemed reasonable. Since the 2-cluster solution would have given us one cluster with 114 respondents and one with nine respondents, we chose the 3-cluster solution with the distribution of 43 respondents in the first, 71 in the second, and 9 in the third cluster.
4.3 Results
4.3.1 Descriptive statistics
The sample size was 123 respondents, of which 79 respondents were Hungarian and 44 non-Hungarian. We did not find significant difference between the answers of the Hungarian and the non-Hungarian respondents, therefore we examined the answers together. 66% of the sample was female and 34% was male. The respondents averaged 23 years of age, and most of them (77%) were between 19 and 26. All respondents were students of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, with 57% of them being undergraduates, 33% studying for master's degrees, and 11% working towards a PhD.
The sample is disproportionate in terms of the training programs within the Faculty (Table 4). More than half of the respondents were studying on the Business Administration and Management (BSc) and International Economy and Business (MSc) programs, each representing 26% of the sample, thus giving both undue weight. We were not able to reach students in the master's program for finance.
Distribution of respondents by training program
| Training program | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
| Business Administration and Management (BSc) | 32 | 26% |
| Commerce and Marketing (BSc) | 16 | 13% |
| Finance and Accounting (BSc) | 13 | 11% |
| Tourism and Catering (BSc) | 9 | 7% |
| Business Development (MSc) | 5 | 4% |
| International Economy and Business (MSc) | 32 | 26% |
| Marketing (MSc) | 3 | 2% |
| PhD | 13 | 11% |
| Total | 123 | 100% |
Source: the authors.
As for ethical issues in the online space, respondents proved to be quite responsible (Table 5). Most of the respondents always respect copyrights and other people participating in the online sphere. Inappropriate, aggressive behavior is not at all typical of the respondents, most of whom have never behaved in this manner, but there are some who did so rarely. The only weak point for the respondents in this sense is that on average it can be asserted that they only sometimes debated in a meaningful way, while most of the time they did not. The problem here is that not stating reasons for disagreement with something/someone may lead to the discussion becoming a meaningless quarrel.
Description of responses
| Variable | Mean | Median | Mode | Std. Dev. |
| Ethics | ||||
| I provide reasoning when I disagree with something/someone on the Internet. | 2.93 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 1.45 |
| I respect copyrights. | 4.21 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 0.96 |
| I respect other people online and do not engage in bullying behavior. | 4.76 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 0.83 |
| I have abused the anonymity of the Internet. | 1.43 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.79 |
| I have encouraged online fights. | 1.33 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.72 |
| Health awareness | ||||
| I use a footrest and an adjustable chair that supports my back when working on a PC. | 2.56 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 1.36 |
| I make sure my eyes are parallel to the computer screen and at a proper distance from it. | 2.77 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 1.33 |
| I take frequent breaks to reduce eye strain. | 3.17 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 1.19 |
| I place my keyboard properly, making sure my forearms are horizontal and my wrists are straight. | 2.44 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.28 |
| I manage my balance between online and offline life by monitoring the time spent in front of the screen using an application/method developed for this purpose. | 2.20 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.20 |
| Online purchasing | ||||
| When shopping online, I pay attention to the currency in use and the total price of the goods and services being paid for. | 4.78 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 0.65 |
| When shopping online, I make sure that I get a copy of the transaction. | 4.39 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 0.92 |
| When shopping online, I make sure that the seller has a physical address and phone number, and I check for reviews. | 3.85 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 1.24 |
| I look for the lock icon on the browser's status bar and I make sure the website URL begins with “https” rather than “http” before purchasing online. | 2.59 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.54 |
| I use a credit card rather than a debit card, or at least if I possess a debit card only, I use payment processors. | 2.91 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 1.56 |
| I have shopped when using public Wi-Fi. | 1.50 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.87 |
| I allow the websites where I shop to remember my personal information. | 2.55 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 1.25 |
| I use the same passwords for online shopping websites that I use for logging on to my PC. | 2.31 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.42 |
| Security | ||||
| I make sure that my Internet-connected devices are free from malware and viruses by running the most current versions of software, apps, and browsers. | 3.76 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 1.13 |
| When I create a password, I make sure that it is strong and not linked to my personal data. | 4.04 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 1.10 |
| I use password management software. | 1.98 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.31 |
| I use two-factor (two-step) or multi-factor authentication when I provide financial/security information. | 3.82 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 1.31 |
| I have shared financial/security information in an email or communication application/webpage (e.g., Messenger). | 1.69 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.03 |
| I turn off the firewall and/or the antivirus software on my PC. | 1.78 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.11 |
| I change my passwords. | 2.53 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 1.11 |
Source: the authors.
The respondents need to develop in terms of attention to their health, and they cannot be considered responsible digital citizens in this respect. On average, all five behaviors describing health awareness occur only between the “rarely” and “sometimes” frequencies, which is a bad result because these actions/behaviors to maintain health should be followed always or at least often. Respondents did not show responsibility regarding their balance between online and offline life and positioning their arms appropriately while using a PC. In these two cases, not only is the average frequency low, but the frequency of most respondents was “never” (see the Mode columnin Table 5). In addition, the majority of respondents also perform at or below the second value, which refers to the frequency “rarely” (see the Median column).
In terms of responsibility in the field of online shopping, respondents were considered to be moderately responsible digital citizens. Some correct forms of behavior and decision-making appear always or at least frequently with almost all respondendents. However, checking “https” in the URL and using a credit card instead of a debit card is not typical behavior for respondents. Most of them have never followed the behavior described in these two statements. However, it is a good sign that most of the respondents have never shopped using public Wi-Fi. There is also room for improvement in terms of saving personal data on websites. Respondents on average engage in this activity sometimes, but it is never a good choice.
Respondents are mostly responsible with the security of their data and devices. On average, the respondents frequently updated their Internet-connected devices, created strong passwords, and used two-factor or multi-factor authentication. Regarding the latter two, this behavior is not only often, but always true. Furthermore, it is not typical for respondents to share financial/security information on communication websites/applications or to turn off the firewall and/or the antivirus software on their PC. The only problem with security is that the majority of respondents rarely change their passwords.
4.3.2 The clusters
We identified three clusters through the application of hierarchical cluster analysis. As the clusters can only be described alongside variables where the standard deviation of a cluster is lower than the total deviation of the sample, we created a simplified table for the sake of transparency. Table 6 contains only those means where the standard deviation of the cluster was lower than the total standard deviation for the given variable. As we used standardized variables, the means of the clusters vary between −1 and 1. We divided this interval into 4 groups.
Comparison of the means of the clusters with the sample's mean, by components
 |
Source: the authors.
The first cluster included 43 respondents. These respondents' health awareness during computer use is far above the average for the sample, which means they take measures for their health more frequently than the respondents in the other clusters. However, they are below the average of the sample in terms of taking precautions to reduce eye strain. It can be also said of them that they represent the most ethical behavior, as they are above the average regarding respectful behavior toward others and below the average in the frequency of inappropriate behavior. However, their irresponsibility is reflected in their below average conduct for safe Internet use in terms of data protection. Therefore, we designated this group of respondents “health-conscious and respectful, but only moderately secure digital citizens”.
The second cluster represents the largest part of the sample, 71 respondents. The behavior of the respondents in this cluster is more responsible than the average in terms of respectful behavior towards others and avoiding inappropriate, aggressive behavior. Furthermore, they are above the average in responsible behavior when purchasing online, with the irresponsible use of online shopping websites being below average for them. As far as the protection of their health and data are concerned, they do not perform as well on the scale of responsible digital citizenship. Considering their health awareness and staying up to date in data protection, they come in below the average level of responsibility for the sample. Moreover, they use the Internet in a careless, unsafe manner more frequently than the average of the respondents. Based on this, the behavior of these respondents is responsible towards others as well as when shopping online, but at the same time, they are irresponsible in terms of protecting their health and data. We designated them as “digital citizens that are attentive in interactions, but irresponsible in conduct that affects only them”.
The third cluster is the smallest (9 respondents), as well as being the most volatile and controversial. It can be confidently stated that they are more experienced than the total sample on average in terms of health awareness. In addition, they are above the average for maintaining up-to-date protection as well as in terms of data protection and safely using the Internet. Their problem is that they are also above the average in using the Internet in a careless manner and in using shopping websites in an irresponsible manner. It can be stated that although they are attentive to their health and stay up to date in data protection, they still use the Internet irresponsibly. For this reason, the group has been designated “aspiring but sometimes still irresponsible digital citizens”.
Demographically, the clusters are mixed for the most part (Table 7). There is no difference in regards to average age or in terms of training. The health-conscious and respectful, but only moderately secure digital citizens form the cluster that is most mixed demographically. The gender distribution is the most balanced among these respondents, with a 58% female to 42% male ratio. Furthermore, although the proportions are the most equally distributed in this cluster according to the level of education, it has the highest proportion of students at postgraduate levels (54%), i. e. master's degree and PhD students, which is higher than the average of the full sample (43%). Finally, this cluster has the highest proportion of respondents that are working alongside their studies (49%), compared to only 41% for the full sample.
Demographic characteristics of the clusters
| Cluster | Gender | Level of program | Current life status | ||||
| Female | Male | Under-graduate | Master's degree | PhD | Studying | Studying and working | |
| Health-conscious and respectful, but only moderately secure digital citizens | 58% | 42% | 47% | 42% | 12% | 51% | 49% |
| Digital citizens that are attentive in interactions, but irresponsible in conduct that affects only them | 77% | 23% | 61% | 30% | 10% | 63% | 37% |
| Aspiring but sometimes still irresponsible digital citizens | 11% | 89% | 78% | 11% | 11% | 67% | 33% |
Source: the authors.
The group of digital citizens that are attentive in interactions, but irresponsible in conduct that affects only them, is represented mainly by females (77%). Regarding the level of their educational program, this cluster is average. The distribution of respondents by the level of the program they are studying in is very similar to the distribution of the full sample. There were slightly more respondents whose status was “studying” (63%), and fewer (37%) who responded “studying and working” than in the full sample.
Aspiring but sometimes still irresponsible digital citizens are mainly males (89%). Their other demographic characteristics are that this group includes the highest proportion of undergraduate students (78%) and those with the “student” status (67%) not working jobs.
As a result of the analysis of the characteristics of the clusters, we can assume that there is a correlation between health awareness and a higher level of education as well as working while studying. The first cluster was far above average in terms of health awareness and had a significantly higher proportion of respondents with a higher level of education (master's degree and PhD students) as well as those working in addition to their studies, compared to the total sample and the other two clusters. Other demographic characteristics that were collected did not prove to be significant factors regarding responsibility.
4.4 Limitations of the research
The questionnaire is appropriate to measure responsible digital citizenship. However, limitations arise both from the sample and the research methods applied. The sample was not representative, and in addition, one group of students in the target group, the students in the master's degree program in finance, could not be reached at all. Alongside this, both principal component analyses and hierarchical cluster analyses are highly subjective methods. There is no single, best solution, but instead several possible good solutions. Therefore, these analytical methods should be used primarily as exploratory techniques, where the results are valid for the sample only and no conclusions can be drawn from the sample that apply to the full population.
5 Conclusions and recommendations
Participation in the modern, interconnected, digital world is becoming increasingly inevitable due to its numerous positive effects and promising solutions that save time and make our lives easier and more enjoyable. As a result, the concept of citizenship should be expanded to include digital citizenship, making human beings responsible not only for their offline actions but also for their online participation. In this light, our research aimed at assessing responsible digital citizenship through a pilot survey among university students.
We included 123 people from the target group in a questionnaire survey. According to the overall profile outlined, the respondent students generally behave as responsible digital citizens, with the exception of health awareness. Based on their self-reporting, they proved to be quite responsible regarding the ethical issues in the online space and in the field of data and device security. Regarding shopping online, respondents were moderately responsible. The students could improve their responsibility in the digital world by focusing on improving their weak points, such as using credit cards instead of debit cards and checking for the https designation in the URL during online shopping; learning that saving personal data on websites is not safe; the importance of changing passwords at least yearly; and taking care of their health when using a computer, including sitting properly, viewing the monitor from a proper distance, taking regular breaks, and holding their arms properly.
By conducting a principal component analysis, 9 components of responsible digital citizenship were explored. Based on these components, the cluster analysis revealed three clusters among the respondents: (1) “health-conscious and respectful, but only moderately secure digital citizens”, (2) “digital citizens that are attentive in interactions, but irresponsible in conduct that affects only them”, (3) “aspiring, but sometimes still irresponsible digital citizens”.
The practical benefit of our research is the 9-component model we created, which is suitable for both measuring responsible digital citizenship and forming clusters. Measuring students' digital responsibility can highlight critical points and help develop educational material that improves responsibility, such as digital etiquette. Forming clusters among students can help manage students at different stages of digital responsibility, as action plans could be prepared for each cluster to improve the responsibility of the students and stabilize the balance between online and offline life. As a further research area, we also believe it is worthwhile to measure the digital responsibility of educators, since they must be trained as well. Research and programs such as this could help educational institutions produce students for the labor market who are even more digitally competent and responsible. Measuring and assessing responsible digital citizenship in a country would support government actions, giving indication on the fields they need to intervene in with education (and we suppose not with prohibitions).
The results provided information on a single Hungarian university, and it would be worth to expand the survey to other universities. Digital transformation stands at different levels in different countries (see, for instance, the DESI indicator for various countries), thus, the analysis and comparison of different countries from the point of view of responsible digital citizenship is also an important further research area.
Bibliography
Almourad, M. B. – Alrobai, A. – Skinner, T. – Hussain, M. – Ali, R. (2021): Digital Wellbeing Tools through Users Lens. Technology in Society 67: 101778.
Bencie, L. (2017): Why You Really Need to Stop Using Public Wi-Fi. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/05/why-you-really-need-to-stop-using-public-wi-fi, accessed 30/03/2021.
Choi, M. – Glassman, M. – Cristol, D. (2017): What it Means to Be a Citizen in the Internet Age: Development of a Reliable and Valid Digital Citizenship Scale. Computers & Education 107: 100–112.
CISA (2020): Shopping Safely. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/tips/ST07-001, accessed 30/03/2021.
Citron, D. – Norton, H. (2011): Intermediaries and Hate Speech: Fostering Digital Citizenship for Our Information Age. Boston University Law Review 91: 1435–1484.
Cobbe, J. (2019): Big Data, Surveillance, and the Digital Citizen. Thesis for Dissertation. Belfast: Queen’s University.
Cooney, C. – Nugent, K. – Howard, K. G. (2018): Embedding Digital Citizenship in Higher Education Institutes. ISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education 10(2): 360.1–360.8.
Drucker, S. J. – Gumpert, G. (2012): The Impact of Digitalization on Social Interaction and Public Space. Open House International 37(2): 92–99.
Farmer, L. (2011): Digital Citizen. http://ecitizenship.csla.net, accessed 30/03/2021.
Goos, M. – Rademakers, E. – Röttger, R. (2020): Routine-Biased Technical Change: Individual-Level Evidence from a Plant Closure. Research Policy 50(7): 1–17.
Güvercin, D. (2022): Digitalization and Populism: Cross-Country Evidence. Technology in Society 68: 101802.
Hadlington, L. – Scase, M. O. (2018): End-user Frustrations and Failures in Digital Technology: Exploring the Role of Fear of Missing Out, Internet Addiction and Personality. Heliyon 4(11): e00872.
Hair, J. F. – Black, W.C. – Babin, B. J. – Anderson, R.E. (2014): Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Hernandez-de-Menendez, M. – Escobar Díaz, C.A. – Morales-Menendez, R. (2020): Educational Experiences with Generation Z. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing 14(3): 847–859.
Hintz, A. – Dencik, L. – Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2017): Digital Citizenship and Surveillance Society: Introduction. International Journal of Communication 11(2017): 731–739.
Isman, A. – Gungoren, O. C. (2013): Being Digital Citizen. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 106: 551–556.
I-SCOOP (2021): Digitization, Digitalization and Digital Transformation: The Differences. https://www.i-scoop.eu/digital-transformation/digitization-digitalization-digital-transformation-disruption/, accessed 26/02/2021.
Jun, C. – Cheng, Y. – Ng, A. – Hou, H. (2022): Tencent’s Corporate Strategic Organizational Digital Management and Digital Transformation: A Case Study .Journal of Business and Social Sciences 2: 1–15.
Keya, F. D. – Rahman, M. M. – Nur, M. T. – Pasa, M. K. (2020): Parenting and Child’s (Five Years to Eighteen Years) Digital Game Addiction: A Qualitative Study in North-Western Part of Bangladesh. Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2: 100031.
Khan, N. A. – Khan, A. N. – Moin, M. F. (2021): Self-regulation and Social Media Addiction: A Multi-Wave Data Analysis in China. Technology in Society 64: 101527.
Kim, M. – Choi, D. (2018): Development of Youth Digital Citizenship Scale and Implication for Educational Setting. Educational Technology & Society 21(1): 155–171.
Lammi, M. – Pantzar, M. (2019): The Data Economy: How Technological Change Has Altered the Role of the Citizen-Consumer. Technology in Society 59(November 2019): 1–8.
Lee, Y-Y. – Falahat, M. – Siam B-K. (2019): Impact of Digitalization on the Speed of Internationalization. International Business Research 12(4): 1–11.
Li, F. (2020): Leading Digital Transformation: Three Emerging Approaches for Managing the Transition. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 40(6): 809–817.
Martinez, I. N. – Moran, J. M. – Pena, F. J. (2006): Two-step Cluster Procedure after Principal Component Analysis Identifies Sperm Subpopulations in Canine Ejaculates and its Relation to Cryoresistance. Journal of Andrology 27(4): 596–603.
Mergel, I. – Edelmann, N. – Haug, N. (2019): Defining Digital Transformation: Results from Expert Interviews. Government Information Quarterly 36(4): 1–16.
Mossberger, K. – Tolbert, C. – McNeal, R. (2008): Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Nissim, G. – Simon, T. (2021): The Future of Labor Unions in the Age of Automation and at the Dawn of AI. Technology in Society 67: 1–9.
Nordin, M. S. – Ahmad, T. B. T. – Zubairi, A. M. – Ismail, N. A. H. – Rahman, A. H. A. – Trayek, F. A. A. – Ibrahim, M. B. (2016): Psychometric Properties of a Digital Citizenship Questionnaire. International Education Studies 9(3): 71–80.
Perdana, A. – Mokhtar, I. A. (2022): Seniors’ Adoption of Digital Devices and Virtual Event Platforms in Singapore during Covid-19. Technology in Society 68: 101817.
Ribble, M. – Bailey, G. – Ross, T. (2004): Digital Citizenship: Addressing Appropriate Technology Behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology 32(1): 6–11.
Ribble, M. – Bailey, G. (2007): Digital Citizenship in Schools. Washington, DC: ISTE2.
Ribble, M. (2011): Digital Citizenship in Schools. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
Sadiku, M. N. O. – Tembely, M. – Musa, S. (2018): Digital Citizenship. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering 8(5): 18–20.
Schwab, K. (2016): The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What it Means, How to Respond. Economy, Culture & History Japan Spotlight Bimonthly 2016(July/August): 3–5.
Schmuck, R. – Benke, M. (2020): An Overview of Innovation Strategies and the Case of Alibaba. Procedia Manufacturing 51(2020): 1259–1266.
Thomée, S. – Härenstam, A. – Hagberg, M. (2011): Mobile Phone Use and Stress, Sleep Disturbances, and Symptoms of Depression Among Young Adults – A Prospective Cohort Study. BMC Public Health 11(66).
Тurner, A. (2015): Generation Z: Technology and Social Interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology 71(2): 103–113.
Udvari, B. – Vízi, N. – Szabó H. L. (2021): Global Citizenship Among Hungarian University Students. Magyar Tudomány 182(9): 1210–1219.
Watanabe, C. – Akhtar, W. – Tou, Y. – Neittaanmaki, P. (2021): Amazon’s Initiative Transforming a Non-contact Society – Digital Disruptionleads the Way to Stakeholder Capitalization. Technology in Society 65: 101596.
World Bank (2022): World Bank Metadata Glossary: Internet Users. https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/millennium-development-goals/series/IT.NET.USER.P2, accessed 23/11/2022.
Zimmerling, A. – Chen, X. (2021): Innovation and Possible Long-Term Impact Driven by COVID-19: Manufacturing, Personal Protective Equipment and Digital Technologies. Technology in Society 65: 101541.
Zimmermann, K. F. (2020): Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics. Cham: Springer.
Appendix 1: Responsible digital citizenship questionnaire
Technical skills
Please indicate whether the following statements are true or false for you.
| True | False | |
| I can access the Internet through digital technologies (e.g., smartphones, tablets, PCs, laptops) whenever I want. | ||
| I use the Internet on a daily basis. | ||
| I can use the Internet to find the information I need. | ||
| I can use the Internet to find and download applications that are useful to me. | ||
| I can use the Internet to communicate with others. | ||
| I am able to use digital technologies (e.g., smartphones, tablets, laptops) to achieve my aims (sending a message, making a video, setting an alarm, etc.). | ||
| I post original messages, audio, pictures, or videos on the Internet to express my feelings/thoughts/ideas/opinions. |
E-etiquette
2. Please indicate how often the situations/behaviors described below are true for you.
| Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Frequently | Always | |
| I provide reasoning when I disagree with something/someone on the Internet (e.g., when I argue on social media, I state the reasons for my statements). | |||||
| I respect copyrights. | |||||
| I respect other people in the online environment and do not engage in bullying behavior. | |||||
| I have abused the anonymity of the Internet (e.g., creating a fake profile). | |||||
| I have encouraged online fights (e.g., trolling, sending offensive comments). | |||||
| I post information about others without their permission. |
Health
3. Please indicate how often the situations/behaviors described below are true for you.
| Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Frequently | Always | |
| I use a footrest and an adjustable chair that supports my back when working at a computer. | |||||
| I make sure my eyes are parallel to the computer screen and keep them at a proper distance from the screen. | |||||
| I take frequent breaks (e.g., every 1–1.5 h) to reduce eye strain. | |||||
| I place my keyboard properly, making sure my forearms are horizontal and my wrists are straight. | |||||
| I manage my balance between online and offline life by monitoring the time spent in front of the screen using an application/method developed for this purpose. |
Shopping online
4. Please indicate how often the situations/behaviors described below are true for you.
| Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Frequently | Always | |
| When shopping online, I pay attention to the currency in use and the total price of the goods and services being paid for. | |||||
| When I shopping online, I make sure that I get a copy of the transaction (confirmatory email/pdf, bill, etc.). | |||||
| When I shopping online, I make sure that the company/seller has a physical address and phone number, and I also check for reviews. | |||||
| I look for the lock icon on the browser's status bar and I make sure the website URL begins with “https” rather than “http” before making an online purchase. | |||||
| I use a credit card rather than a debit card, or at least if I only have a debit card, I use payment processors such as PayPal. | |||||
| I have shopped when using a Public Wi-Fi. | |||||
| I allow the websites where I shop to remember my personal information. | |||||
| I use the same passwords for online shopping websites that I use for logging on to my home/work computer. |
Security
5. Please indicate how often the situations/behaviors described below are true for you.
| Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Frequently | Always | |
| I make sure that my internet-connected devices are free from malware and viruses by running the most current versions of software, apps, and browsers. | |||||
| When I create a password, I make sure that it is strong (containing numbers and capital and lowercase letters) and is not linked to my personal data (name, place and date of birth, the name of my pet, etc.). | |||||
| I use password management software. | |||||
| I use two-factor (two-step) or multi-factor authentication when I provide financial/security information, like bank card data, PIN codes, etc. | |||||
| I have shared financial/security information in emails, or on communication applications/webpages (e.g., Messenger). | |||||
| I turn off the firewall and/or the antivirus software on my PC. |
6. I change my passwords:
□ never
□ every 3 years or even less frequently
□ every 1–2 years
□ every 6–11 months
□ more frequently than every 6 months
Demographic questions
7. Gender:
□ Female
□ Male
8. Age:
_______________
9. I am currently:
□ studying
□ working
□ looking for a job (not studying)
□ working and studying
□ inactive
10. I am studying at:
□ the University of Szeged
□ Another University
11. Faculty:
□ Faculty of Economics and Business Administration (GTK)
□ Faculty of Law and Political Sciences (ÁJTK)
□ Faculty of Medicine (ÁOK)
□ Béla Bartók Faculty of Arts (BBMK)
□ Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (BTK)
□ Faculty of Health Sciences and Social Studies (ETSZK)
□ Faculty of Dentistry (FOK)
□ Faculty of Pharmacy (GYTK)
□ Juhász Gyula Faculty of Education (JGYPK)
□ Faculty of Agriculture (MGK)
□ Faculty of Engineering (MK)
□ Faculty of Science and Information Science (TTIK)
12. Level of Program:
□ FOSZK
□ BA/BSc
□ MA/MSc
□ PhD
13. Program:
□ Business Administration and Management (BSc)
□ Commerce and Marketing (BSc)
□ Finance and Accounting (BSc)
□ International Economy and Business (MSc, English program)
□ Marketing (MSc)
□ Finance (MSc)
□ Business Development (MSc)
□ PhD
□ I am not studying at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
Digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation are often used interchangeably in an incorrect manner. See I-SCOOP (2021).
