Beyond Competence: The Shocking Trust Deficit in Modern Digital Citizens

Beyond Competence: The Shocking Trust Deficit in Modern Digital Citizens | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Beyond Competence: The Shocking Trust Deficit in Modern Digital Citizens Ahmet Tuncay Erdem, Senem Altan, Yavuz Selim Balcıoğlu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8806775/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The study aimed to examine digital citizenship beyond just knowing how to use digital tools. It focused on three key parts: digital competence (the skills and knowledge required to use digital platforms), digital trust (how much individuals feel safe and confident using these systems), and digital anxiety (the worry or stress related to using such technologies). A survey of 653 Köln residents used the Digital Citizenship Scale. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) and K-means clustering grouped respondents by scores. The study discovered three distinct groups of digital citizens: Digital Outsiders, Competent Skeptics, and Digital Balancers. These findings underline that even with strong digital skills, some people remain cautious and skeptical about the safety of digital services. Research implications are that digital skills improvement isn't enough; address security concerns to boost confidence. Policymakers should enhance skills and build trust via security and data transparency, ensuring online competence and security. Competence Citizens Digital Citizens Digital Competence Trust Deficit Figures Figure 1 Introduction Digital citizenship enables individuals to understand their responsibilities and rights online, increasing their positive impact on healthy living (Hussainy & R, 2021 ). In this context, it can be stated that digital citizenship contributes to the safe and conscious realization of individuals' online interactions (Manzuoli et al., 2019 ). Digital citizenship helps individuals create conscious digital societies (Wulandari, 2021 ). As digital technology continues to permeate every aspect of business life, it is increasingly important for people to have the knowledge and skills of digital citizenship, as well as to demonstrate responsible and ethical digital citizenship (Hussainy & R, 2021 ). Digital citizenship; refers to the responsible and ethical use of digital technology, including the internet, social media, and other digital communication tools (Manzuoli et al., 2019 ). In an environment where cyberbullying, online harassment and misinformation are common, it is of great importance for digital citizenship that individuals understand the impact of their online actions and act in a way that promotes a safe digital environment (Karsenti, 2019 ; Sørensen, 2022 ). Digital citizenship is essential as digital technology has become an integral part of business life, emphasizing responsible and ethical online behavior to combat cyberbullying and misinformation. (Dode & Dode, 2015 ). In this context, digital citizenship encourages individuals to act ethically online and to use digital technologies responsibly (Machfiroh et al., 2017 ). Digital technology poses new challenges that require digital citizenship skills to address risks and promote responsible behavior in virtual spaces (Ghosn-Chelala, 2019 ). Online responsibility and skills determine levels of digital citizenship, influence social, ethical, and legal aspects, and enhance digital competence and trust (Peart et al., 2020 ). The research is important in terms of emphasizing awareness of rights and responsibilities by examining the dimensions of digital citizenship and developing a perspective for effective online participation (Mahdi, 2018 ). Digital citizenship involves using online skills to reduce costs and improve services, while also taking into account social, ethical, and legal aspects. It requires an awareness of rights and responsibilities such as intellectual property and online privacy. (Manzuoli et al., 2019 ). Transition to online services requires local governments to improve citizens' digital skills, ensure their safety and ethical use, support responsible digital behavior, and establish secure platforms and regulations for the development of e-government services (Sarantis et al., 2022 ). Equal access to digital technology and education is essential to minimize the digital divide and promote social and economic equity. Governments and educational institutions should invest resources to develop digital competence among all citizens (Faustino & Kaur, 2023 ). Digital empowerment is essential for responsible citizenship, which requires investment in education and resources to bridge the digital divide, and building digital trust and accountability is vital for an informed and inclusive society (Ilomäki et al., 2016 ) In this context, the development of digital citizenship education programs can help individuals make their online interactions safer by increasing their digital literacy skills (Yue et al., 2019 ). Investing in cybersecurity, taking into account the risks and threats associated with digital technologies, and promoting digital responsibility through education and awareness campaigns are of paramount importance in terms of protecting personal data and ensuring digital trust in order to increase digital citizenship skills and motivation (Aldaajeh et al., 2022 ; Copeland, 2020 ). Research Questions: RQ1 : What distinct profiles of digital citizenship emerge when analyzing the interrelationships between digital competence, trust, and anxiety among German residents, and how prevalent is each profile in the population? RQ2 : To what extent does digital competence correlate with digital trust, and what factors might explain the apparent disconnect between skill levels and confidence in digital systems? RQ3 : How do demographic factors (age, education level, gender) influence membership in different digital citizenship profiles, and what implications do these patterns have for targeted digital inclusion policies? These research questions create a clear roadmap for your analysis while highlighting the most intriguing aspects of your findings - particularly the unexpected relationship between high competence and low trust that characterizes your largest participant group. 1. Literature review 1. 1. Digital Citizenship and Its Components Digital citizenship involves using the internet responsibly and ethically, understanding digital information, and participating online for personal and societal benefits (Copeland, 2020 ). Effective communication and using e-government services include skills that emphasize ethical behavior and responsibility in digital interactions (Bortea, 2020 ). Digital literacy is essential to digital citizenship, which involves finding, evaluating, and using online information responsibly. It includes media literacy and digital skills. (Yue et al., 2019 ). Online security is referred to as another important component that focuses on protecting personal information and recognizing online fraud (Cassim, 2015 ). Digital rights and responsibilities are mainly specified, which include respecting copyright and intellectual property and understanding the legal and ethical implications of online activities (Taddeo et al., 2017 ). Awareness of one's digital footprint and its long-term impacts is vital for responsible digital citizenship. Overall, digital citizenship recognizes the global nature of the digital world, respects diverse cultures and perspectives, and promotes global digital rights and responsibilities, cultural exchanges, and a sense of global digital citizenship (Karsenti, 2019 ). 1.1.1. Digital Competence Digital competence includes the skills and knowledge needed to use digital tools effectively and responsibly, including critical thinking, media literacy, and communication skills (Sharma & Sharma, 2022 ). Digital competence is of great importance in order to access information, communicate with others and participate in the digital world, and improve citizen-government interactions in both personal and professional contexts in the digital world (Henseruk, 2019 ). Digital empowerment helps recognize and prevent online risks by fostering an inclusive digital society for both individual and societal progress, and fosters positive online relationships and communities (Lazinina, 2022 ). The development of digital competence requires a combination of training methodologies and practical experience. Organizing various training programs aimed at increasing digital competence can contribute to increasing individuals' technical skills, media literacy and critical thinking skills, and developing legal and ethical codes related to digital technology. (Napal Fraile et al., 2018 ). Engaging in practices that involve the effective use of digital tools and media in everyday life enables individuals to seamlessly integrate their knowledge and skills into practical contexts, supporting individuals to keep up with the latest trends and developments in digital technology. The main objective of digital competency training is to increase commitment to lifelong learning and the capacity to adapt to emerging technologies and tools (Cortés et al., 2019 ). Innovations such as the Internet of Things, Society 5.0, and the Internet of Services emphasize the necessity of raising the digital literacy levels of individuals in the contemporary world. The development of digital competencies is critical for individuals to take part in the digital world more effectively and responsibly (Nyikes, 2018 ). 1.1.2. Digital Trust Digital trust refers to the trust that individuals have in the safety and security of online tools and platforms used in both personal and professional settings. Especially as digital technology becomes more integrated into everyday life, it becomes even more important for fostering relationships and creating a safe digital society (Kovba & Moiseenko, 2021 ). High digital literacy is not enough to guarantee high digital trust. The decrease in people's trust in digital platforms will increase their reluctance to use these tools and hinder the development of digital society. With the increase in digital trust, there will be more frequent use of digital technologies and platforms (Liu et al., 2020 ). Digital security measures increase the online interactions of people and organizations, providing a secure environment against various cyber dangers such as hacking and identity theft. (Alami et al., 2019 ). Increasing digital security measures also contribute to improving awareness of digital citizenship (Copeland, 2020 ). Meeting digital security standards ensures transparency in data processing, encouraging open communication on security issues. With the rise of IoT and connected technologies, the need for reliable digital platforms has become a priority for individuals and organizations, necessitating the development of effective policies and tools (Saleem et al., 2018 ). Transparency and accountability are the keys to digital trust, and with the joint effort of all stakeholders, creating a secure digital environment and supporting sustainable digital citizenship practices, and developing strategies to increase digital security are critical in building the digital society (Hesselman et al., 2020 ). 1.1.3. Digital Anxiety Digital anxiety stems from the use of digital technologies such as computers and smartphones, leading to stress and discomfort due to too much online information. This anxiety can lead to stress, burnout, and a tense mental state, which is exacerbated by a constant online presence and lack of face-to-face communication (Kummer et al., 2017 ). The pressure felt by the widespread use of smartphones and social media, and the constant notifications and updates to individuals increase digital anxiety. This anxiety can lead to mental health problems such as anxiety disorders, depression, insomnia, and even addiction due to negative online interactions and anonymity (Hoge et al., 2017 ). In order to manage digital anxiety, it is of great importance for individuals to review their digital habits and balance their online interactions. Increased digital anxiety can lead to digital isolation by reducing the motivation to participate in digital activities. From this point of view, digital citizenship education plays an important role in encouraging individuals to develop strategies to help them cope with digital anxiety and to establish healthy online interactions. (Pfaffinger et al., 2020 ). Improving digital literacy; Managing digital consumption and balancing online interactions stands out as an important strategy in reducing digital anxiety. Promoting digital hygiene and a sense of security in digital technologies is expressed as an effective method to reduce the negative effects of digital anxiety (Blackburn & Goetter, 2020 ). Taking digital anxiety into account not only supports individuals to lead a healthy digital life but also enables the development of digital citizenship skills. In this context, digital citizenship increases individuals' ability to manage digital anxiety, helping them to maintain a healthier and more balanced online presence and benefit more from the digital world. (Pfaffinger et al., 2020 ). 1. 2. Competence-Trust Gap Theory A central theoretical element in the paper is the observed "competence-trust gap." This idea posits that even if individuals are proficient in using digital technologies (high digital competence), they might not necessarily feel secure or have high digital trust. This challenges earlier theories that assumed a direct relationship between digital skills and trust. In simpler terms, just because someone is good at using technology doesn’t mean they automatically believe that the digital platforms they use are safe. The Competence-Trust Gap Theory suggests that a gap between perceived competence and actual competence can lead to a trust deficit. This theory is relevant in the context of digital citizenship, where the rapid evolution of digital technologies and the complexities of digital interactions can exacerbate the gap between what digital citizens are expected to know and what they know. This gap can lead to a trust deficit, as individuals may not trust digital platforms or each other due to perceived incompetence or misinformation. Trust in digital environments is influenced by perceived competence, honesty, openness, and reliability. These factors are essential for building trust in relationships, organizations, and communities (Shockley-Zalabak, 2025 ). Digital competence, defined as knowledge, skills, attitudes, abilities, and strategies to use digital technologies effectively, is crucial for lifelong learning and active digital citizenship (Santos et al., 2022 ). The concept of hyper personal-ness in digital communication suggests that digital platforms can enhance social competence and trust by providing realistic and intimate interactions, even in socially distanced contexts (Bouchillon, 2022 ). The transformation of trust in digital societies involves a shift from personal to impersonal, role-based, and institutional trust. This shift can lead to weaker, shorter, and more fragile social ties, contributing to a trust deficit (Poerbantoro et al., 2024 ). Economic and social trust is fragile, and a culture of mistrust can have long-lasting negative effects. This is evident in the context of public leadership and economic confidence (Santos et al., 2022 ). In digital democracies, challenges such as political pluralism, information access, and political biases can hinder the acquisition of political competence, further contributing to the trust deficit. To address the competence-trust gap, it is essential to implement institutional measures that promote the acquisition of digital competence and political competence among citizens (Pariente, 2024 ). Digital transformation in government can play a role in rebuilding citizen trust by enhancing transparency, accountability, and performance (Mahmood, 2022 ). While the Competence-Trust Gap Theory provides a useful framework for understanding the trust deficit in digital citizens, it is important to consider other factors that may contribute to this issue. For instance, the rapid pace of technological change and the increasing complexity of digital interactions can create challenges for individuals to keep up with new competencies. Additionally, the role of digital literacy and education in bridging the competence gap should not be overlooked. Addressing these broader issues can help create a more comprehensive understanding of the trust deficit in modern digital citizens. 2. Methodology 2.1. Research Design This study employed a quantitative cross-sectional survey design to examine digital citizenship patterns among residents in Köln, Germany. The research utilized latent class analysis (LCA) to identify distinct profiles of digital citizens based on their competence, trust, and anxiety levels related to digital services and technologies. 2.2. Participants and Sampling The sample consisted of 653 individuals residing in Köln, Germany. Participants were recruited through stratified random sampling to ensure adequate representation across demographic variables. The sample included diverse age groups, education levels, and gender distribution reflective of the local population demographics. 2.3. Instrumentation Data was collected using the Digital Citizenship Scale (DCS), a validated instrument designed to measure three key dimensions of digital citizenship by Tutar et. al, ( 2024a ): Digital Competence (15 items) : Measured participants' skills, abilities, and knowledge related to using digital services. Items assessed aspects such as using e-government services, applying to official institutions online, knowledge of internet security, and self-perceived digital literacy. Sample items included "I benefit from the online services of institutions" and "I think my digital literacy is high." Digital Trust (5 items) : Assessed participants' confidence in digital services, particularly regarding data security, reliability of information, and adequacy of institutional web resources. Sample items included "I think my personal data is not safe in the virtual environment" and "I do not find security sufficient in internet applications." Digital Anxiety (3 items) : Evaluated participants' concerns and apprehensions about using digital technologies for official and personal purposes. Sample items included "I am afraid of using technology because I am afraid of making mistakes" and "I have concerns about using information technologies in my official transactions." All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The DCS demonstrated good internal consistency in the current sample with Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.89 for Digital Competence, 0.82 for Digital Trust, and 0.78 for Digital Anxiety. 2.4. Data Collection Procedure The survey was administered both online and in-person to maximize response rates and ensure inclusion of participants with varying levels of digital access. Online surveys were distributed via municipal email lists and community forums, while paper surveys were made available at community centers, libraries, and government service centers. Data collection occurred over a three-month period from January to March 2024. All participants provided informed consent, and the study protocol was approved by the relevant institutional ethics committee. 2.5. Data Analysis The data analysis process consisted of several stages: 1. Preliminary Analysis : Data were screened for missing values, outliers, and normality. Missing data (less than 5%) were handled using multiple imputation techniques. Mean scores were calculated for each of the three dimensions (Digital Competence, Digital Trust, and Digital Anxiety) for each participant. 2. Latent Class Analysis : K-means clustering was employed to identify distinct profiles of digital citizens based on their mean scores across the three dimensions. To determine the optimal number of clusters: o Multiple solutions with 2-7 clusters were tested o The silhouette coefficient method was used to evaluate cluster quality o Both statistical criteria and theoretical interpretability were considered 3. Cluster Validation : The stability and validity of the cluster solution were assessed through: o Split-sample validation o Discriminant analysis o Comparison of within-cluster and between-cluster variances 4. Profile Characterization : Once the optimal cluster solution was identified, each cluster was characterized by: o Mean scores on the three digital citizenship dimensions o Demographic composition (age, gender, education level) o Response patterns on individual scale items 5. Statistical Software : All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 27.0 and the R statistical package (version 4.1.2) with the 'mclust' library for latent class modeling. 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive Statistics The final analysis included data from 653 participants residing in Köln, Germany. The sample comprised 52.4% female and 47.6% male participants. Age distribution showed 24.7% were 18–25 years old, 31.5% were 26–35, 22.8% were 36–45, 14.2% were 46–55, and 6.8% were 56 and above. Regarding education, 7.2% had primary education, 23.6% completed high school, 18.5% held associate degrees, 36.4% had bachelor's degrees, 12.1% had master's degrees, and 2.2% had doctoral degrees. 3.2. Scale Reliability Internal consistency analysis confirmed good reliability for all three dimensions of the Digital Citizenship Scale. The Digital Citizenship Scale, developed by Tutar et al., ( 2024a ), consists of 3 dimensions and 23 statements. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.89 for Digital Competence (15 items), 0.82 for Digital Trust (5 items), and 0.78 for Digital Anxiety (3 items). 3.3. Dimension Scores Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the three dimensions across the entire sample. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Digital Citizenship Dimensions (N = 653) Dimension Mean SD Min Max Skewness Kurtosis Digital Competence 3.59 0.69 1.53 4.73 -0.48 -0.22 Digital Trust 2.50 0.62 1.40 3.80 0.14 -0.73 Digital Anxiety 3.05 0.51 2.00 4.00 -0.07 -0.55 Overall, participants reported moderate to high levels of digital competence (M = 3.59, SD = 0.69), relatively low levels of digital trust (M = 2.50, SD = 0.62), and moderate levels of digital anxiety (M = 3.05, SD = 0.51). This pattern suggests a potential disconnect between participants' ability to use digital technologies and their confidence in these systems. 3.4. Latent Class Analysis 3.4.1. Determination of Optimal Cluster Solution To identify the optimal number of clusters, solutions ranging from 2 to 7 clusters were evaluated using multiple criteria. Table 2 summarizes the statistical indicators for each solution. Table 2 Cluster Solution Evaluation Metrics Number of Clusters Silhouette Coefficient Within-Cluster Sum of Squares Between-to-Within Ratio BIC 2 0.280 25.52 0.38 1845.23 3 0.353 15.73 0.62 1796.47 4 0.286 13.15 0.57 1814.92 5 0.315 10.12 0.54 1828.36 6 0.334 8.36 0.51 1847.11 7 0.308 7.65 0.48 1862.79 The three-cluster solution was selected as optimal based on: Highest silhouette coefficient (0.353), indicating better separation between clusters Substantial improvement in within-cluster sum of squares from two clusters Highest between-to-within ratio (0.62), demonstrating good cluster separation Lowest Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) value, suggesting the best balance of fit and parsimony Theoretical interpretability of the resulting profiles 3.4.2. Cluster Profiles The three-cluster solution revealed distinct profiles of digital citizenship, as shown in Table 3 . Table 3 Cluster Means on Digital Citizenship Dimensions Cluster Label Size (%) Digital Competence Mean (SD) Digital Trust Mean (SD) Digital Anxiety Mean (SD) 1 Digital Outsiders 96 (14.7%) 2.24 (0.41) 2.04 (0.38) 2.87 (0.32) 2 Competent Skeptics 307 (47.0%) 3.86 (0.37) 2.14 (0.41) 2.79 (0.44) 3 Digital Balancers 250 (38.3%) 3.78 (0.42) 3.12 (0.36) 3.45 (0.39) 3.4.3. Cluster Characteristics Cluster 1: Digital Outsiders (14.7%) This group exhibited low levels of digital competence (M = 2.24, SD = 0.41) and digital trust (M = 2.04, SD = 0.38), with moderate digital anxiety (M = 2.87, SD = 0.32). Item-level analysis revealed that this cluster particularly struggled with "using e-government pages" (M = 1.83), "internet banking applications" (M = 1.76), and "knowledge about internet security" (M = 1.92). Demographically, this cluster had overrepresentation of younger participants (18–25: 42.7%) and those with lower educational attainment (primary education: 23.9%, high school: 38.5%). Cluster 2: Competent Skeptics (47.0%) The largest cluster demonstrated high digital competence (M = 3.86, SD = 0.37), low digital trust (M = 2.14, SD = 0.41), and moderate digital anxiety (M = 2.79, SD = 0.44). This group scored particularly high on "I apply to official institutions via the internet" (M = 4.56) and "I actively use the e-government page" (M = 4.88), but showed significant concern regarding "personal data safety" (M = 1.63) and "security in internet applications" (M = 1.63). This cluster had a higher proportion of individuals with advanced education (bachelor's degree: 42.3%, master's degree: 18.2%) and middle-aged participants (26–35: 36.8%, 36–45: 28.3%). Cluster 3: Digital Balancers (38.3%) This cluster displayed high digital competence (M = 3.78, SD = 0.42), moderate digital trust (M = 3.12, SD = 0.36), and moderate-to-high digital anxiety (M = 3.45, SD = 0.39). Unlike Competent Skeptics, this group reported higher trust in digital services while simultaneously maintaining heightened vigilance, as evidenced by their elevated anxiety scores. They scored highest on "I actively use the e-government page" (M = 4.77) and indicated more confidence in the statement "My personal data is safe enough in internet applications" (reverse scored, M = 3.23). This cluster included more participants from older age groups (46–55: 22.4%, 56 and above: 12.4%) and higher education levels (master's degree: 16.8%, PhD: 4.8%). 3.4.4. Discriminant Analysis Discriminant analysis was conducted to validate the cluster solution and determine which variables best differentiated between clusters. Two discriminant functions were extracted, accounting for 100% of the variance. The first function (eigenvalue = 2.84, explained variance = 74.2%) primarily separated Digital Outsiders from the other two clusters based mainly on digital competence. The second function (eigenvalue = 0.99, explained variance = 25.8%) distinguished Competent Skeptics from Digital Balancers primarily based on digital trust and anxiety. The discriminant analysis correctly classified 93.7% of cases into their respective clusters, confirming the validity of the three-cluster solution. Demographic Associations with Cluster Membership Chi-square tests revealed significant associations between cluster membership and demographic variables: 1. Age: χ²(8, N=653) = 42.67, p < .001, Cramer's V = 0.18 o Digital Outsiders had more representation in the 18-25 age group o Competent Skeptics were overrepresented in the 26-45 range o Digital Balancers had higher proportions in the 46 and above categories 2. Education : χ²(10, N=653) = 51.23, p < .001, Cramer's V = 0.20 o Digital Outsiders had more participants with primary and high school education o Competent Skeptics showed higher proportions of bachelor's and associate degrees o Digital Balancers had more representation of master's and doctoral degrees 3. Gender : χ²(2, N=653) = 7.84, p = .020, Cramer's V = 0.11 o Digital Outsiders had a slightly higher proportion of females (58.3%) o Competent Skeptics showed a more balanced gender distribution (50.5% female) o Digital Balancers had a slightly higher proportion of males (52.8%) Item-Level Analysis An examination of responses to individual items within each cluster provided additional insights: Digital Competence Items Table 4 presents the top three highest and lowest scored items for each cluster. Table 4 Highest and Lowest Scored Digital Competence Items by Cluster Cluster Highest Scored Items Mean Lowest Scored Items Mean Digital Outsiders 1. I have the equipment to use online applications 2. I benefit from online services 3. Digital technologies make work easier 2.80 2.40 2.40 1. I use internet banking applications 2. I think my digital literacy is high 3. I actively use e-government page 1.76 1.80 1.83 Competent Skeptics 1. I actively use e-government page 2. I apply to institutions via internet 3. I benefit from online services 4.88 4.56 4.31 1. I think my digital literacy is high 2. Digital technologies make work easier 3. e-applications provide equality 3.06 3.19 3.31 Digital Balancers 1. I actively use e-government page 2. I benefit from online services 3. I actively benefit from e-municipality services 4.77 4.15 3.92 1. Digital technologies make work easier 2. I think my digital literacy is high 3. I have sufficient knowledge about internet security 3.08 3.36 3.38 This item-level analysis reveals that despite differing overall competence levels, all clusters showed relative weaknesses in self-perceived digital literacy and skepticism about digital technologies making work easier. Trust and Anxiety Items Analysis of the specific trust and anxiety items showed consistent patterns across clusters, with trust in data security being the lowest trust item across all groups. 3.4.5. Factor Analysis of Digital Citizenship Dimensions To understand the underlying structure of the Digital Citizenship Scale, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. The three-factor model (competence, trust, anxiety) showed good fit: χ²(227) = 612.8, p < .001; CFI = .93; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .052 (90% CI: .047–.057); SRMR = .048. Factor loadings ranged from .58 to .84 for Digital Competence items, .65 to .81 for Digital Trust items, and .72 to .86 for Digital Anxiety items. The correlation between Digital Competence and Digital Trust factors was positive but modest (r = .24), supporting the finding that high competence does not necessarily imply high trust. Digital Anxiety showed significant negative correlations with both Digital Competence (r = − .31) and Digital Trust (r = − .48). 3.5. Summary of Findings The latent class analysis revealed three distinct profiles of digital citizens: Digital Outsiders (14.7%) : Characterized by low digital competence and trust with moderate anxiety, this group represents individuals struggling with digital inclusion. Competent Skeptics (47.0%) : The largest group exhibited high digital competence but low trust, suggesting a critical stance toward digital services despite having the skills to use them effectively. Digital Balancers (38.3%) : This group combined high digital competence with moderate trust and anxiety, representing a more balanced approach to digital citizenship. The most striking finding was the "competence-trust gap" observed in the Competent Skeptics cluster, indicating that digital skill development does not automatically lead to increased trust in digital systems. The prevalent low trust scores across all clusters suggest a broader societal issue regarding confidence in digital services and data security. 4. Discussion Digital citizenship is about more than just having the skills to use computers and the internet. It also includes having confidence and trust in digital systems and managing any stress or anxiety that comes with using them (Rogers-Whitehead, 2019 ; Hawamdeh & Hamayel, 2022 ). When we talk about digital citizenship, think of it as being a part of an online community where you not only know how to use technology but also understand your rights and responsibilities when you are online. One of the key discussions in the paper is the "competence-trust gap." This means that even if someone is very good at using digital tools (high competence), they might still feel uneasy or distrustful about digital platforms, especially concerning data security. In everyday life, imagine a person who is very skilled at using apps, online banking, or digital services but still worries about how secure their personal information is. This gap shows that technical know-how does not always translate into feeling safe when using technology (Adhari et al., 2024 ; Okoye, 2024 ; Tutar et al., 2024b ). The study identified three different profiles of digital citizens, but the discussion mainly revolves around two important groups: Digital Outsiders and Competent Skeptics. Digital Outsiders This group, representing around 15% of the people sampled, struggles with both digital skills and trust. They may find it difficult to navigate digital services and feel left out or insecure online. Competent Skeptics Making up nearly half the participants, these individuals are well-versed in digital skills but have serious concerns about digital trust. They know how to use technology, yet they are wary of security issues like data privacy and safe online transactions. 5. Conclusion The paper identified three distinct profiles of digital citizens based on their levels of competence, trust, and anxiety. The paper was conducted in Köln, Germany, and involved 653 participants. The research used a survey combined with quantitative techniques to understand how people use digital services. This study particularly examined three key areas: digital competence (skills), digital trust (confidence in digital systems), and digital anxiety (feelings of worry regarding technology use). The study identified a three-cluster solution as the best representation of the underlying differences among digital citizens. The three clusters were determined after evaluating various metrics like the silhouette coefficient, within-cluster sum of squares, between-to-within ratios, and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The study shows that being good at digital tools (digital competence) does not mean that a person feels safe or trusts digital systems. Someone may have the necessary skills but may still be concerned about online safety and data security. This idea is captured by the “competence-confidence gap,” where the most skilled users may still be skeptical of digital platforms. In this vein, it has been determined that digital citizenship is more than a mere skill. Digital competence, meaning the ability to use digital services effectively, does not automatically create confidence in the safety of these systems (Ilomäki et al.,2011). This difference is called the "competence-trust gap." Even people with strong digital skills may still feel uncertain or mistrustful about data security and overall system reliability. One group, known as Digital Outsiders, makes up about 14.7% of the sample. They displayed low digital competence and low trust in digital platforms, while their digital anxiety was moderate. This group included a higher number of younger individuals and those with lower educational attainment, highlighting issues related to digital inclusion, where certain groups struggle more with using online services securely (Morgan et al., 2022 ). The largest group, called Competent Skeptics, represented nearly half of the participants (47%). Members of this cluster had high digital competence but did not trust online systems, particularly when it came to personal data safety or security in internet applications. This finding clearly emphasizes that having the skills does not eliminate concerns about digital security. The analysis further concludes that digital anxiety, which involves worry or stress from digital technology use, is moderately present across all groups, suggesting that even those who are adept with technology can feel uneasy or overwhelmed by the digital environment (Schneier, 2015 ). This points out the importance of not only teaching digital skills but also providing support to manage digital stress and improve overall well-being online. The findings suggest that when designing policies or educational programs to improve digital citizenship, governments and institutions should consider strategies that address both skill enhancement and the improvement of trust in digital systems (Kumpikaitė-Valiūnienė et al., 2021 ; Zeike et al., 2019 ). This could involve clearer communication on data security measures, reducing privacy risks, and implementing reliable digital security practices. When people feel safe and understand the security measures, they are more willing to engage actively with digital services. The research has some limitations. The study was conducted solely in Köln, Germany, with a specific sample of 653 individuals. Because the data comes from one urban area, its findings might not generalize to other regions or countries. This limitation means that applying the conclusions about digital citizenship profiles (such as the "competence-trust gap") to all digital citizens worldwide should be done carefully. In practice, other locations might show different patterns due to diverse cultural, economic, and infrastructural differences. This design restricts the ability to see how digital competence, trust, and anxiety develop or change over time. While the study does provide a snapshot of digital citizenship among residents of Köln, it cannot account for fluctuations or long-term trends. In real-world applications, policies or educational programs based solely on this study might overlook how digital behaviors evolve, suggesting that future work could benefit from longitudinal studies. The study hints at broader societal issues, such as the overall skepticism toward digital services, which could be influenced by factors not captured within the survey (e.g., recent digital security breaches, media reports, cultural perceptions). This limitation suggests that while the study provides valuable insights, stakeholders should integrate other sources of information when crafting strategies to improve digital trust and competence, ensuring a comprehensive approach. 6. Managerial Implications Managers should recognize that users can be grouped into distinct digital citizenship profiles, such as Competent Skeptics and Digital Outsiders. For example, platforms might require different strategies: one aimed at highly skilled users who remain wary of security (Competent Skeptics), and another focused on engaging users with lower digital competence (Digital Outsiders) through enhanced guidance and support. By customizing features and communication according to these profiles, managers can improve user satisfaction and safety in digital interactions. The paper highlights a prevalent "competence-trust gap," where high digital skills do not necessarily lead to high trust in digital services (Prokop & Tepe, 2021 ; Velasquez et al., 2008 ). Managers should prioritize building trust through transparent data practices, robust cybersecurity measures, and clear communication about data protection. Simple actions like regular security updates and easy-to-understand privacy policies could make users feel more confident and secure when using digital services (Mongia, 2024 ; El-Annan & Hassoun, 2024 ). Digital competence is crucial, yet it is only part of the equation; user education programs should also address trust and anxiety issues. Managers can implement training sessions or online tutorials that not only teach technical skills but also emphasize the importance of security practices (Huttayavilaiphan, 2024 ; Duda & Dziurzyński, 2019 ). For instance, practical workshops on navigating e-government platforms effectively, while explaining how data is protected, can help reduce digital anxiety and improve overall satisfaction. The dynamic nature of digital interaction means that behaviors and trust levels can change over time, influenced by external events or technological advancements (Kim, 2014 ; Msanjila, 2015 ). Managers should establish feedback systems and continuous improvement processes to track changes in user behavior and satisfaction. Routine surveys and user engagement analytics can help identify when modifications or new features are necessary to maintain high performance and trust in digital services. A comprehensive approach should involve not only technological improvements but also policy adjustments and community outreach (Tutar & Erdem, 2024 ; Marcial et al., 2024 ). Managers in both public and private sectors must coordinate with policymakers to create standards that foster reliability and security, ensuring that digital services are both effective and trustworthy. 7. Theoretical Implications The paper underlines that digital citizenship involves multiple layers, including digital competence, trust, and anxiety. This theoretical framework shows that being good with digital tools (competence) does not automatically lead to feeling safe or confident online (trust) (Adorjan & Ricciardelli, 2018 ; Kumar et al., 2020 ; Mahmoud et al., 2021 ). The study’s approach helps to clarify how these different dimensions interact. By using this comprehensive view, researchers can better predict how individuals behave online, which supports theories that digital citizenship is more than just technical skills. One key theoretical implication is the observed "competence-trust gap." Despite high levels of skill in using digital tools, many users remain skeptical about the security and reliability of these digital platforms (Flew, 2019 ; Nwaiwu et al., 2020 ; Peluso, 2023 ). This challenges previous models that assumed that improving technical skills would naturally build trust. Instead, it suggests theories must consider that trust is influenced by additional factors such as perceived risk and experiences with online security. The study finds that digital anxiety is negatively correlated with both digital competence and trust. This introduces a theoretical nuance: anxiety plays a mediating role and can dampen the positive effects of competence on trust. In simple terms, even if someone is skilled online, fear or unease (anxiety) can still interfere with how much they trust digital environments (Hwang, 2005 ; Chen et al., 2021 ; Khoa & Nguyen, 2022 ). This requires new theories to include emotional factors in models of digital citizenship. The theoretical insights imply that digital citizenship education should address not only technical skills but also issues of trust and anxiety. Policies and educational programs must be designed with the understanding that increasing digital competence alone is not enough if users do not feel secure online (Gardenier et al., 2024 ; Sørensen, 2022 ; Manzuoli et al., 2019 ). This integrated approach can guide future theoretical work on how education and policy interventions impact digital behavior holistically. Overall, the paper’s theoretical contributions encourage researchers to look beyond traditional measures of digital skills. It calls for a broader analytical lens that includes emotional and psychological dimensions when studying how citizens engage with digital technologies. Declarations Author Contribution ATE, SA, and YSB made substantial contributions to this study. For writing and editing activities, ATE contributed 35%, SA 35% and YSB 30%. For data analysis, ATE and SA each contributed 35%, and YSB contributed 30%. All authors participated in revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and approved the final version for submission. Data Availability The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is available in the Open Science Framework (OSF). The data are currently under restricted access during the peer-review process and can be accessed via a view-only link.[**https://osf.io/uxhds/overview?view_only=e4156b5951cb4e449b8428cca6450fe4**](https:/osf.io/uxhds/overview?view_only=e4156b5951cb4e449b8428cca6450fe4) References Adhari, N. R., Sundawa, D., & Darmawan, C. (2024). Counteracting the Negative Impact of Digital Technology through Strengthening Digital Citizenship Competencies as a Form of Strengthening the Values of Defending the Nation of the Young Generation. KnE Social Sciences , 288–301. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i19.16508 Adorjan, M., & Ricciardelli, R. (2018). Cyber-risk and youth: Digital citizenship, privacy and surveillance . Routledge. Alami, H., Gagnon, M.-P., Ag Ahmed, M. A., & Fortin, J.-P. (2019). Digital health: Cybersecurity is a value creation lever, not only a source of expenditure. Health Policy and Technology . https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HLPT.2019.09.002 Aldaajeh, S. H., Saleous, H., Alrabaee, S., Barka, E., Breitinger, F., & Choo, K.-K. (2022). The role of national cybersecurity strategies on the improvement of cybersecurity education. Computers & Security . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2022.102754 Blackburn, A. M., & Goetter, E. M. (2020). Treatment of Anxiety Disorders in the Digital Age . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30687-8_16 Bortea, A. N. (2020, July 13). The Ethics of Public Administration in the Digital Economy . https://doi.org/10.18662/LUMPROC/GEKOS2020/26 Bouchillon, B. C. (2022). Competence, Presence, Trust, and Hyperpersonal-ness . https://doi.org/10.5771/9781793622143 Cassim, F. (2015). Protecting Personal Information in the Era of Identity Theft: Just how Safe is our Personal Information from Identity Thieves? Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal . https://doi.org/10.4314/PELJ.V18I2.02 Chen, Y., Wu, J., Ma, J., Zhu, H., Li, W., & Gan, Y. (2021). The mediating effect of media usage on the relationship between anxiety/fear and physician-patient trust during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychology & Health , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2021.1900573 Copeland, J. (2020). The Challenges of Digital Citizenship . https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1766-6.CH004 Cortés, J., García, S., Ortega, J., Torres, A., & Zamorán, M. (2019, July 1). Development of digital competencies for professional performance in university students . https://doi.org/10.21125/EDULEARN.2019.1838 Dode, A., & Dode, E. (2015). The Values of Civic Education through Information Technology. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies . https://doi.org/10.5901/AJIS.2015.V4N2S2P15 Duda, E., & Dziurzyński, K. (2019). Digital competence learning in secondary adult education in Finland and Poland . 6 (2), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.6822 El-Annan, S. H., & Hassoun, R. (2024). Enhancing Consumer Trust Through Transparent Data Practices and Ethical Data Management in Business. Advances in Logistics, Operations, and Management Science Book Series , 105–148. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-8357-5.ch005 Faustino, A., & Kaur, I. (2023). Educational Technology for Equality: A Review. Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports . https://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2023/v17i7498 Flew, T. (2019). Trust in the digital economy: Towards a framework for comparative analysis . https://eprints.qut.edu.au/127220/ Gardenier, A. M., van Est, R., & Royakkers, L. M. M. (2024). Technological Citizenship in Times of Digitization: An Integrative Framework. Digital Society . https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-024-00106-1 Ghosn-Chelala, M. (2019). Exploring sustainable learning and practice of digital citizenship: Education and place-based challenges. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice . https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197918759155 Hawamdeh, M., & Hamayel, H. J. (2022). Methods Used in Digital Citizenship: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Digital Educational Technology , 2 (3), ep2207. https://doi.org/10.30935/jdet/12520 Henseruk, H. (2019). Digital competence as one of the professionally important competencies of future teachers . Electronic Scientific Professional Journal “Open Educational E-Environment of Modern University” , (6), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.28925/2414-0325.2019.6.816 Hesselman, C., Grosso, P., Holz, R., Kuipers, F. A., Xue, J. H., Jonker, M., de Ruiter, J., Sperotto, A., van Rijswijk-Deij, R., Moura, G. C. M., Pras, A., & Laat, C. (2020). A Responsible Internet to Increase Trust in the Digital World. Journal of Network and Systems Management . https://doi.org/10.1007/S10922-020-09564-7 Hoge, E. A., Bickham, D. S., & Cantor, J. (2017). Digital Media, Anxiety, and Depression in Children. Pediatrics . https://doi.org/10.1542/PEDS.2016-1758G Hussainy, S. S., & R, S. J. (2021). A study on factors affecting digital citizenship among college faculties in india . https://doi.org/10.20319/PIJTEL.2021.43.4961 Huttayavilaiphan, R. (2024). Digital Competence and Anxiety in Thai University English Education: Impacts on Teachers and Students. World Journal of English Language . https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v15n1p225 Hwang, Y. (2005). Investigating the Effects of Percieved Web Quality on eTrust, Mediated by Hedonic Needs and Anxiety. Americas Conference on Information Systems , 34. https://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/amcis/amcis2005.html#Hwang05 Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2016). Digital competence --- an emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-014-9346-4 Karsenti, T. (2019). Acting as ethical and responsible digital citizens: The teacher’s key role . https://doi.org/10.18162/FP.2019.A167 Khoa, B. T., & Nguyen, M. H. (2022). The moderating role of anxiety in the relationship between the perceived benefits, online trust, and personal information disclosure in online shopping. International Journal of Business and Society , 23 (1), 444–460. https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.4624.2022 Kim, D. J. (2014). A Study of the Multilevel and Dynamic Nature of Trust in E-Commerce from a Cross-Stage Perspective. International Journal of Electronic Commerce , 19 (1), 11–64. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415190101 Kovba, D. M., & Moiseenko, Y. Y. (2021). The Digital Society in the 21st Century: Security Issue. KnE Social Sciences . https://doi.org/10.18502/KSS.V5I2.8387 Kumar, B., AbuAlhaija, M., Alqasmi, L., & Dhakhri, M. (2020, December). Smart cities: A new age of digital insecurity. In 2020 9th International Conference System Modeling and Advancement in Research Trends (SMART) (pp. 267–272). IEEE. Kummer, T.-F., Recker, J. C., & Bick, M. (2017). Technology-induced anxiety. Information & Management . https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IM.2016.04.002 Kumpikaitė-Valiūnienė, V., Aslan, I., Duobienė, J., Glińska, E., & Anandkumar, V. (2021). Influence of digital competence on perceived stress, burnout and well-being among students studying online during the COVID-19 lockdown: A 4-country perspective. Psychology research and behavior management , 1483–1498. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S325092 Lazinina, E. V. (2022). Communicative competence in the conditions of digitalization as a characteristic of the subject of digital society. Sovremennye Issledovaniya Sotsialnykh Problem . https://doi.org/10.12731/2077-1770-2022-14-1-64-80 Liu, X., Yuan, C., Hafeez, M., & Faisal, Ch. M. N. (2020). Digital Trust Mediated by the Platform in the Sharing Economy from a Consumer Perspective . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49829-0_50 Machfiroh, R., Sapriya, S., & Komalasari, K. (2017, January 1). Digital Citizenship - A Review of Citizenship Education . https://doi.org/10.5220/0007107408730877 Mahdi, H. R. (2018). The Awareness of the Digital Citizenship among the Users of Social Networks and its Relation to Some Variables. The International Journal of Learning . https://doi.org/10.18576/IJLMS/060102 Mahmoud, A. B., Reisel, W. D., Fuxman, L., & Mohr, I. (2021). A motivational standpoint of job insecurity effects on organizational citizenship behaviors: A generational study. Scandinavian journal of psychology , 62 (2), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12689 Mahmood, M. (2022). Transformation of Government and Citizen Trust in Government (pp. 432–444). IGI Global eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3706-3.ch022 Manzuoli, C. H., Sánchez, A. V., & Bedoya, E. D. (2019). Digital citizenship: A theoretical review of the concept and trends. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET , 18 (2), 10–18. Marcial, D. E., Palama, J. C. L., Bucog, F. P., Seraspe, B. J. L., & Launer, M. A. (2024). Digital trust and social interactions among employees in the workplace (pp. 97–108). Informa. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032633749-10 Msanjila, S. S. (2015). A Tool for Rational Assessment of Dynamic Trust in Networked Organizations. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering , 2 (10). Mongia, M. (2024). Building Trust: Data Governance and Security in Edge-Cloud Integration. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research , 6 (6). https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i06.32060 Morgan, A., Sibson, R., & Jackson, D. (2022). Digital demand and digital deficit: conceptualising digital literacy and gauging proficiency among higher education students. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , 44 (3), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2022.2030275 Napal Fraile, M., Peñalva-Vélez, A., & Mendióroz Lacambra, A. M. (2018). Development of Digital Competence in Secondary Education Teachers’ Training. Education Sciences . https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI8030104 Nwaiwu, F., Kwarteng, M. A., Jibril, A. B., Buřita, L., & Pilík, M. (2020). Impact of security and trust as factors that influence the adoption and use of digital technologies that generate, collect and transmit user data . https://doi.org/10.34190/ICCWS.20.016 Nyikes, Z. (2018). Contemporary Digital Competency Review. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems . https://doi.org/10.7906/INDECS.16.1.9 Okoye, A. (2024). Digital Citizenship Practices and Implementation of Learning Modalities in the Higher Education Institutions under the New Normal in General Santos City. JPAIR Institutional Research Journal , 23 (1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.7719/irj.v23i1.905 Pariente, R. M. (2024). Deliberation in digital democracies: Is the ideal of a competent citizenry feasible? Daimon: Revista Internacional de Filosofía , 93 , 19–35. https://doi.org/10.6018/daimon.611681 Peart, M. T., Gutiérrez-Esteban, P., & Cubo-Delgado, S. (2020). Development of the digital and socio-civic skills (DIGISOC) questionnaire. Educational Technology Research and Development . https://doi.org/10.1007/S11423-020-09824-Y Peluso, D. M. (2023). The Digital Divide and Futurist Imaginings of Zelle-ous Resistors. Social Inclusion , 11 (3), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i3.6867 Pfaffinger, K. F., Reif, J. A. M., Spieß, E., & Berger, R. (2020). Anxiety in a digitalised work environment . https://doi.org/10.1007/S11612-020-00502-4 Poerbantoro, H., Sukamto, S., Andini, R., Handayani, T., & Sulistyawati, D. R. (2024). Trust (Amanah) Competence. Journal Research of Social Science, Economics, and Management , 3 (12), 2196–2202. https://doi.org/10.59141/jrssem.v3i12.699 Prokop, C., & Tepe, M. (2021). Talk or type? The effect of digital interfaces on citizens’ satisfaction with standardized public services. Public Administration . https://doi.org/10.1111/PADM.12739 Rogers-Whitehead, C. (2019). Digital Citizenship . https://doi.org/10.5771/9781475848274 Saleem, J., Hammoudeh, M., Raza, U., Adebisi, B., & Ande, R. (2018, June 26). IoT standardisation: challenges, perspectives and solution. International Conference on Future Networks . https://doi.org/10.1145/3231053.3231103 Santos, S., Lucas, M., & Bem-Haja, P. (2022). Bridging the digital competence gap: Tell us what you need. In International Conferences ICT, Society, and Human Beings . Sarantis, D., Soares, D., Susar, D., & Aquaro, V. (2022, October 4). Local e-Government Development: Results of an international survey. International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance . https://doi.org/10.1145/3560107.3560167 Sharma, R., & Sharma, D. (2022). Digital literacy and competence for educators. Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science & English Language . https://doi.org/10.21922/srjhsel.v10i50.10160 Schneier, B. (2015). Secrets and lies: digital security in a networked world . John Wiley & Sons. Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2025). Bridging the Trust Gap . 166–172. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003533894-28 Sørensen, T. B. (2022). Digital citizenship: A study in concept and dimensions. Journal of Juridical and Political Science . https://doi.org/10.55716/jjps.2022.s.4.3 Taddeo, M., Taddeo, M., Floridi, L., & Floridi, L. (2017). The Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47852-4_2 Tutar, H., & Erdem, A. T. (2024). Kurumsal Dijital Olgunluk Ölçeği (KUDOM): Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi , 16 (2), 1145–1165. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2024.1848 Tutar, H., Erdem, A. T., & Şahin, N. (2024a). Digital Citizenship Scale (DCS): Validity and Reliability Study. Alanya Academic View, 8(1), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1337114 Tutar, H., Erdem, A. T., & Şahin, N. (2024b). Digital competence scale (DCS): Validity and reliability study. Selcuk University Journal of Social Sciences Vocational School, 27(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.1375960 Velasquez, N. F., Weisband, S. P., & Durcikova, A. (2008). Designing tools for system administrators: an empirical test of the integrated user satisfaction model. USENIX Large Installation Systems Administration Conference , 1–8. https://www.usenix.org/events/lisa08/tech/full_papers/velasquez/velasquez.pdf Wulandari, E. (2021). Digital Citizenship Education: Shaping Digital Ethics in Society 5.0. Universal Journal of Educational Research . https://doi.org/10.13189/UJER.2021.090507 Yue, A., Nekmat, E., & Beta, A. R. (2019). Digital Literacy Through Digital Citizenship: Online Civic Participation and Public Opinion Evaluation of Youth Minorities in Southeast Asia. Media and Communication . https://doi.org/10.17645/MAC.V7I2.1899 Zeike, S., Bradbury, K., Lindert, L., & Pfaff, H. (2019). Digital leadership skills and associations with psychological well-being. International journal of environmental research and public health , 16 (14), 2628. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142628 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 17 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 17 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 11 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 09 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 09 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 06 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8806775","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":604568705,"identity":"2a1ab687-94ba-472f-b85a-2d85caebfa76","order_by":0,"name":"Ahmet Tuncay Erdem","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ahmet","middleName":"Tuncay","lastName":"Erdem","suffix":""},{"id":604568706,"identity":"cd152892-d625-474e-b87f-6e1489e3143a","order_by":1,"name":"Senem Altan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Doğuş University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Senem","middleName":"","lastName":"Altan","suffix":""},{"id":604568707,"identity":"e66222dd-52a3-4e48-a6ba-e7fafc64b793","order_by":2,"name":"Yavuz Selim Balcıoğlu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Doğuş University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yavuz","middleName":"Selim","lastName":"Balcıoğlu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-06 12:08:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8806775/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8806775/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104557880,"identity":"f2dce3ff-fbf5-4292-9e35-72dd7bb1e9a7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-13 09:33:10","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":260007,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003evisualizes the mean scores of each cluster across the three dimensions (The figure is created by the authors)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8806775/v1/1a76af16875bea484bec94f5.png"},{"id":104781868,"identity":"c1b8bbdc-6957-4ea9-9cf2-c05ca90f2b38","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-17 07:56:29","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1285483,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8806775/v1/323d03f9-5873-43be-88e5-bdf149eaf75f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Beyond Competence: The Shocking Trust Deficit in Modern Digital Citizens","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDigital citizenship enables individuals to understand their responsibilities and rights online, increasing their positive impact on healthy living (Hussainy \u0026amp; R, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, it can be stated that digital citizenship contributes to the safe and conscious realization of individuals' online interactions (Manzuoli et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Digital citizenship helps individuals create conscious digital societies (Wulandari, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs digital technology continues to permeate every aspect of business life, it is increasingly important for people to have the knowledge and skills of digital citizenship, as well as to demonstrate responsible and ethical digital citizenship (Hussainy \u0026amp; R, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Digital citizenship; refers to the responsible and ethical use of digital technology, including the internet, social media, and other digital communication tools (Manzuoli et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In an environment where cyberbullying, online harassment and misinformation are common, it is of great importance for digital citizenship that individuals understand the impact of their online actions and act in a way that promotes a safe digital environment (Karsenti, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Sørensen, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital citizenship is essential as digital technology has become an integral part of business life, emphasizing responsible and ethical online behavior to combat cyberbullying and misinformation. (Dode \u0026amp; Dode, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, digital citizenship encourages individuals to act ethically online and to use digital technologies responsibly (Machfiroh et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Digital technology poses new challenges that require digital citizenship skills to address risks and promote responsible behavior in virtual spaces (Ghosn-Chelala, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Online responsibility and skills determine levels of digital citizenship, influence social, ethical, and legal aspects, and enhance digital competence and trust (Peart et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The research is important in terms of emphasizing awareness of rights and responsibilities by examining the dimensions of digital citizenship and developing a perspective for effective online participation (Mahdi, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital citizenship involves using online skills to reduce costs and improve services, while also taking into account social, ethical, and legal aspects. It requires an awareness of rights and responsibilities such as intellectual property and online privacy. (Manzuoli et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Transition to online services requires local governments to improve citizens' digital skills, ensure their safety and ethical use, support responsible digital behavior, and establish secure platforms and regulations for the development of e-government services (Sarantis et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual access to digital technology and education is essential to minimize the digital divide and promote social and economic equity. Governments and educational institutions should invest resources to develop digital competence among all citizens (Faustino \u0026amp; Kaur, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Digital empowerment is essential for responsible citizenship, which requires investment in education and resources to bridge the digital divide, and building digital trust and accountability is vital for an informed and inclusive society (Ilomäki et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) In this context, the development of digital citizenship education programs can help individuals make their online interactions safer by increasing their digital literacy skills (Yue et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Investing in cybersecurity, taking into account the risks and threats associated with digital technologies, and promoting digital responsibility through education and awareness campaigns are of paramount importance in terms of protecting personal data and ensuring digital trust in order to increase digital citizenship skills and motivation (Aldaajeh et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Copeland, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResearch Questions:\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRQ1\u003c/b\u003e: What distinct profiles of digital citizenship emerge when analyzing the interrelationships between digital competence, trust, and anxiety among German residents, and how prevalent is each profile in the population?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRQ2\u003c/b\u003e: To what extent does digital competence correlate with digital trust, and what factors might explain the apparent disconnect between skill levels and confidence in digital systems?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRQ3\u003c/b\u003e: How do demographic factors (age, education level, gender) influence membership in different digital citizenship profiles, and what implications do these patterns have for targeted digital inclusion policies?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese research questions create a clear roadmap for your analysis while highlighting the most intriguing aspects of your findings - particularly the unexpected relationship between high competence and low trust that characterizes your largest participant group.\u003c/p\u003e \n\n "},{"header":"1. Literature review","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e1. 1. Digital Citizenship and Its Components\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital citizenship involves using the internet responsibly and ethically, understanding digital information, and participating online for personal and societal benefits (Copeland, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Effective communication and using e-government services include skills that emphasize ethical behavior and responsibility in digital interactions (Bortea, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Digital literacy is essential to digital citizenship, which involves finding, evaluating, and using online information responsibly. It includes media literacy and digital skills. (Yue et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Online security is referred to as another important component that focuses on protecting personal information and recognizing online fraud (Cassim, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital rights and responsibilities are mainly specified, which include respecting copyright and intellectual property and understanding the legal and ethical implications of online activities (Taddeo et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Awareness of one's digital footprint and its long-term impacts is vital for responsible digital citizenship. Overall, digital citizenship recognizes the global nature of the digital world, respects diverse cultures and perspectives, and promotes global digital rights and responsibilities, cultural exchanges, and a sense of global digital citizenship (Karsenti, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Heading\"\u003e1.1.1. Digital Competence\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital competence includes the skills and knowledge needed to use digital tools effectively and responsibly, including critical thinking, media literacy, and communication skills (Sharma \u0026amp; Sharma, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Digital competence is of great importance in order to access information, communicate with others and participate in the digital world, and improve citizen-government interactions in both personal and professional contexts in the digital world (Henseruk, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Digital empowerment helps recognize and prevent online risks by fostering an inclusive digital society for both individual and societal progress, and fosters positive online relationships and communities (Lazinina, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe development of digital competence requires a combination of training methodologies and practical experience. Organizing various training programs aimed at increasing digital competence can contribute to increasing individuals' technical skills, media literacy and critical thinking skills, and developing legal and ethical codes related to digital technology. (Napal Fraile et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Engaging in practices that involve the effective use of digital tools and media in everyday life enables individuals to seamlessly integrate their knowledge and skills into practical contexts, supporting individuals to keep up with the latest trends and developments in digital technology.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe main objective of digital competency training is to increase commitment to lifelong learning and the capacity to adapt to emerging technologies and tools (Cortés et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Innovations such as the Internet of Things, Society 5.0, and the Internet of Services emphasize the necessity of raising the digital literacy levels of individuals in the contemporary world. The development of digital competencies is critical for individuals to take part in the digital world more effectively and responsibly (Nyikes, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Heading\"\u003e1.1.2. Digital Trust\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital trust refers to the trust that individuals have in the safety and security of online tools and platforms used in both personal and professional settings. Especially as digital technology becomes more integrated into everyday life, it becomes even more important for fostering relationships and creating a safe digital society (Kovba \u0026amp; Moiseenko, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh digital literacy is not enough to guarantee high digital trust. The decrease in people's trust in digital platforms will increase their reluctance to use these tools and hinder the development of digital society. With the increase in digital trust, there will be more frequent use of digital technologies and platforms (Liu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Digital security measures increase the online interactions of people and organizations, providing a secure environment against various cyber dangers such as hacking and identity theft. (Alami et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Increasing digital security measures also contribute to improving awareness of digital citizenship (Copeland, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeeting digital security standards ensures transparency in data processing, encouraging open communication on security issues. With the rise of IoT and connected technologies, the need for reliable digital platforms has become a priority for individuals and organizations, necessitating the development of effective policies and tools (Saleem et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Transparency and accountability are the keys to digital trust, and with the joint effort of all stakeholders, creating a secure digital environment and supporting sustainable digital citizenship practices, and developing strategies to increase digital security are critical in building the digital society (Hesselman et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Heading\"\u003e1.1.3. Digital Anxiety\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital anxiety stems from the use of digital technologies such as computers and smartphones, leading to stress and discomfort due to too much online information. This anxiety can lead to stress, burnout, and a tense mental state, which is exacerbated by a constant online presence and lack of face-to-face communication (Kummer et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The pressure felt by the widespread use of smartphones and social media, and the constant notifications and updates to individuals increase digital anxiety. This anxiety can lead to mental health problems such as anxiety disorders, depression, insomnia, and even addiction due to negative online interactions and anonymity (Hoge et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In order to manage digital anxiety, it is of great importance for individuals to review their digital habits and balance their online interactions. Increased digital anxiety can lead to digital isolation by reducing the motivation to participate in digital activities. From this point of view, digital citizenship education plays an important role in encouraging individuals to develop strategies to help them cope with digital anxiety and to establish healthy online interactions. (Pfaffinger et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImproving digital literacy; Managing digital consumption and balancing online interactions stands out as an important strategy in reducing digital anxiety. Promoting digital hygiene and a sense of security in digital technologies is expressed as an effective method to reduce the negative effects of digital anxiety (Blackburn \u0026amp; Goetter, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Taking digital anxiety into account not only supports individuals to lead a healthy digital life but also enables the development of digital citizenship skills. In this context, digital citizenship increases individuals' ability to manage digital anxiety, helping them to maintain a healthier and more balanced online presence and benefit more from the digital world. (Pfaffinger et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003e1. 2. Competence-Trust Gap Theory\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eA central theoretical element in the paper is the observed \"competence-trust gap.\" This idea posits that even if individuals are proficient in using digital technologies (high digital competence), they might not necessarily feel secure or have high digital trust. This challenges earlier theories that assumed a direct relationship between digital skills and trust. In simpler terms, just because someone is good at using technology doesn’t mean they automatically believe that the digital platforms they use are safe.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Competence-Trust Gap Theory suggests that a gap between perceived competence and actual competence can lead to a trust deficit. This theory is relevant in the context of digital citizenship, where the rapid evolution of digital technologies and the complexities of digital interactions can exacerbate the gap between what digital citizens are expected to know and what they know. This gap can lead to a trust deficit, as individuals may not trust digital platforms or each other due to perceived incompetence or misinformation. Trust in digital environments is influenced by perceived competence, honesty, openness, and reliability. These factors are essential for building trust in relationships, organizations, and communities (Shockley-Zalabak, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Digital competence, defined as knowledge, skills, attitudes, abilities, and strategies to use digital technologies effectively, is crucial for lifelong learning and active digital citizenship (Santos et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The concept of hyper personal-ness in digital communication suggests that digital platforms can enhance social competence and trust by providing realistic and intimate interactions, even in socially distanced contexts (Bouchillon, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe transformation of trust in digital societies involves a shift from personal to impersonal, role-based, and institutional trust. This shift can lead to weaker, shorter, and more fragile social ties, contributing to a trust deficit (Poerbantoro et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Economic and social trust is fragile, and a culture of mistrust can have long-lasting negative effects. This is evident in the context of public leadership and economic confidence (Santos et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In digital democracies, challenges such as political pluralism, information access, and political biases can hinder the acquisition of political competence, further contributing to the trust deficit. To address the competence-trust gap, it is essential to implement institutional measures that promote the acquisition of digital competence and political competence among citizens (Pariente, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Digital transformation in government can play a role in rebuilding citizen trust by enhancing transparency, accountability, and performance (Mahmood, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the Competence-Trust Gap Theory provides a useful framework for understanding the trust deficit in digital citizens, it is important to consider other factors that may contribute to this issue. For instance, the rapid pace of technological change and the increasing complexity of digital interactions can create challenges for individuals to keep up with new competencies. Additionally, the role of digital literacy and education in bridging the competence gap should not be overlooked. Addressing these broader issues can help create a more comprehensive understanding of the trust deficit in modern digital citizens.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employed a quantitative cross-sectional survey design to examine digital citizenship patterns among residents in K\u0026ouml;ln, Germany. The research utilized latent class analysis (LCA) to identify distinct profiles of digital citizens based on their competence, trust, and anxiety levels related to digital services and technologies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Participants and Sampling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample consisted of 653 individuals residing in K\u0026ouml;ln, Germany. Participants were recruited through stratified random sampling to ensure adequate representation across demographic variables. The sample included diverse age groups, education levels, and gender distribution reflective of the local population demographics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Instrumentation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData was collected using the Digital Citizenship Scale (DCS), a validated instrument designed to measure three key dimensions of digital citizenship by Tutar et. al, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eDigital Competence (15 items)\u003c/em\u003e: Measured participants' skills, abilities, and knowledge related to using digital services. Items assessed aspects such as using e-government services, applying to official institutions online, knowledge of internet security, and self-perceived digital literacy. Sample items included \"I benefit from the online services of institutions\" and \"I think my digital literacy is high.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eDigital Trust (5 items)\u003c/em\u003e: Assessed participants' confidence in digital services, particularly regarding data security, reliability of information, and adequacy of institutional web resources. Sample items included \"I think my personal data is not safe in the virtual environment\" and \"I do not find security sufficient in internet applications.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eDigital Anxiety (3 items)\u003c/em\u003e: Evaluated participants' concerns and apprehensions about using digital technologies for official and personal purposes. Sample items included \"I am afraid of using technology because I am afraid of making mistakes\" and \"I have concerns about using information technologies in my official transactions.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The DCS demonstrated good internal consistency in the current sample with Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.89 for Digital Competence, 0.82 for Digital Trust, and 0.78 for Digital Anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Data Collection Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe survey was administered both online and in-person to maximize response rates and ensure inclusion of participants with varying levels of digital access. Online surveys were distributed via municipal email lists and community forums, while paper surveys were made available at community centers, libraries, and government service centers. Data collection occurred over a three-month period from January to March 2024. All participants provided informed consent, and the study protocol was approved by the relevant institutional ethics committee.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5. Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data analysis process consisted of several stages:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003ePreliminary Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e: Data were screened for missing values, outliers, and normality. Missing data (less than 5%) were handled using multiple imputation techniques. Mean scores were calculated for each of the three dimensions (Digital Competence, Digital Trust, and Digital Anxiety) for each participant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eLatent Class Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e: K-means clustering was employed to identify distinct profiles of digital citizens based on their mean scores across the three dimensions. To determine the optimal number of clusters:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Multiple solutions with 2-7 clusters were tested\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo The silhouette coefficient method was used to evaluate cluster quality\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Both statistical criteria and theoretical interpretability were considered\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eCluster Validation\u003c/strong\u003e: The stability and validity of the cluster solution were assessed through:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Split-sample validation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Discriminant analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Comparison of within-cluster and between-cluster variances\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. \u003cstrong\u003eProfile Characterization\u003c/strong\u003e: Once the optimal cluster solution was identified, each cluster was characterized by:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Mean scores on the three digital citizenship dimensions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Demographic composition (age, gender, education level)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Response patterns on individual scale items\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5. \u003cstrong\u003eStatistical Software\u003c/strong\u003e: All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 27.0 and the R statistical package (version 4.1.2) with the \u0026apos;mclust\u0026apos; library for latent class modeling.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Descriptive Statistics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final analysis included data from 653 participants residing in K\u0026ouml;ln, Germany. The sample comprised 52.4% female and 47.6% male participants. Age distribution showed 24.7% were 18\u0026ndash;25 years old, 31.5% were 26\u0026ndash;35, 22.8% were 36\u0026ndash;45, 14.2% were 46\u0026ndash;55, and 6.8% were 56 and above. Regarding education, 7.2% had primary education, 23.6% completed high school, 18.5% held associate degrees, 36.4% had bachelor's degrees, 12.1% had master's degrees, and 2.2% had doctoral degrees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Scale Reliability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternal consistency analysis confirmed good reliability for all three dimensions of the Digital Citizenship Scale. The Digital Citizenship Scale, developed by Tutar et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e), consists of 3 dimensions and 23 statements. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.89 for Digital Competence (15 items), 0.82 for Digital Trust (5 items), and 0.78 for Digital Anxiety (3 items).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Dimension Scores\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents descriptive statistics for the three dimensions across the entire sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics for Digital Citizenship Dimensions (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;653)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMax\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Trust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Anxiety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, participants reported moderate to high levels of digital competence (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.59, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.69), relatively low levels of digital trust (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.50, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.62), and moderate levels of digital anxiety (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.05, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.51). This pattern suggests a potential disconnect between participants' ability to use digital technologies and their confidence in these systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Latent Class Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.1. Determination of Optimal Cluster Solution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo identify the optimal number of clusters, solutions ranging from 2 to 7 clusters were evaluated using multiple criteria. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the statistical indicators for each solution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCluster Solution Evaluation Metrics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of Clusters\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSilhouette Coefficient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin-Cluster Sum of Squares\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetween-to-Within Ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBIC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.280\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1845.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.353\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1796.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.286\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1814.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.315\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1828.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.334\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1847.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.308\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1862.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe three-cluster solution was selected as optimal based on:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighest silhouette coefficient (0.353), indicating better separation between clusters\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubstantial improvement in within-cluster sum of squares from two clusters\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighest between-to-within ratio (0.62), demonstrating good cluster separation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLowest Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) value, suggesting the best balance of fit and parsimony\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical interpretability of the resulting profiles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.2. Cluster Profiles\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe three-cluster solution revealed distinct profiles of digital citizenship, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCluster Means on Digital Citizenship Dimensions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCluster\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLabel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSize (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Competence\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026gt;Mean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Trust\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026gt;Mean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Anxiety\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026gt;Mean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Outsiders\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e96 (14.7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.24 (0.41)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.04 (0.38)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.87 (0.32)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetent Skeptics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e307 (47.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.86 (0.37)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.14 (0.41)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.79 (0.44)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Balancers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e250 (38.3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.78 (0.42)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.12 (0.36)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.45 (0.39)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.3. Cluster Characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eCluster 1: Digital Outsiders (14.7%)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis group exhibited low levels of digital competence (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.24, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.41) and digital trust (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.04, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.38), with moderate digital anxiety (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.87, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.32). Item-level analysis revealed that this cluster particularly struggled with \"using e-government pages\" (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.83), \"internet banking applications\" (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.76), and \"knowledge about internet security\" (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.92). Demographically, this cluster had overrepresentation of younger participants (18\u0026ndash;25: 42.7%) and those with lower educational attainment (primary education: 23.9%, high school: 38.5%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eCluster 2: Competent Skeptics (47.0%)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe largest cluster demonstrated high digital competence (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.86, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.37), low digital trust (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.14, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.41), and moderate digital anxiety (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.79, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.44). This group scored particularly high on \"I apply to official institutions via the internet\" (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.56) and \"I actively use the e-government page\" (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.88), but showed significant concern regarding \"personal data safety\" (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.63) and \"security in internet applications\" (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.63). This cluster had a higher proportion of individuals with advanced education (bachelor's degree: 42.3%, master's degree: 18.2%) and middle-aged participants (26\u0026ndash;35: 36.8%, 36\u0026ndash;45: 28.3%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eCluster 3: Digital Balancers (38.3%)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis cluster displayed high digital competence (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.78, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.42), moderate digital trust (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.12, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.36), and moderate-to-high digital anxiety (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.45, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.39). Unlike Competent Skeptics, this group reported higher trust in digital services while simultaneously maintaining heightened vigilance, as evidenced by their elevated anxiety scores. They scored highest on \"I actively use the e-government page\" (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.77) and indicated more confidence in the statement \"My personal data is safe enough in internet applications\" (reverse scored, M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.23). This cluster included more participants from older age groups (46\u0026ndash;55: 22.4%, 56 and above: 12.4%) and higher education levels (master's degree: 16.8%, PhD: 4.8%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.4. Discriminant Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscriminant analysis was conducted to validate the cluster solution and determine which variables best differentiated between clusters. Two discriminant functions were extracted, accounting for 100% of the variance. The first function (eigenvalue\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.84, explained variance\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;74.2%) primarily separated Digital Outsiders from the other two clusters based mainly on digital competence. The second function (eigenvalue\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.99, explained variance\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;25.8%) distinguished Competent Skeptics from Digital Balancers primarily based on digital trust and anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe discriminant analysis correctly classified 93.7% of cases into their respective clusters, confirming the validity of the three-cluster solution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eDemographic Associations with Cluster Membership\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChi-square tests revealed significant associations between cluster membership and demographic variables:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. \u003cem\u003eAge:\u003c/em\u003e \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(8, N=653) = 42.67, p \u0026lt; .001, Cramer\u0026apos;s V = 0.18\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Digital Outsiders had more representation in the 18-25 age group\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Competent Skeptics were overrepresented in the 26-45 range\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Digital Balancers had higher proportions in the 46 and above categories\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cem\u003eEducation\u003c/em\u003e: \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(10, N=653) = 51.23, p \u0026lt; .001, Cramer\u0026apos;s V = 0.20\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Digital Outsiders had more participants with primary and high school education\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Competent Skeptics showed higher proportions of bachelor\u0026apos;s and associate degrees\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Digital Balancers had more representation of master\u0026apos;s and doctoral degrees\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cem\u003eGender\u003c/em\u003e: \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(2, N=653) = 7.84, p = .020, Cramer\u0026apos;s V = 0.11\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Digital Outsiders had a slightly higher proportion of females (58.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Competent Skeptics showed a more balanced gender distribution (50.5% female)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo Digital Balancers had a slightly higher proportion of males (52.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eItem-Level Analysis\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e An examination of responses to individual items within each cluster provided additional insights:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eDigital Competence Items\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents the top three highest and lowest scored items for each cluster.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighest and Lowest Scored Digital Competence Items by Cluster\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCluster\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighest Scored Items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLowest Scored Items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Outsiders\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. I have the equipment to use online applications\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2. I benefit from online services\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3. Digital technologies make work easier\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.80\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2.40\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. I use internet banking applications\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2. I think my digital literacy is high\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3. I actively use e-government page\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.76\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1.80\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetent Skeptics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. I actively use e-government page\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2. I apply to institutions via internet\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3. I benefit from online services\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.88\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4.56\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. I think my digital literacy is high\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2. Digital technologies make work easier\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3. e-applications provide equality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.06\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3.19\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Balancers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. I actively use e-government page\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2. I benefit from online services\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3. I actively benefit from e-municipality services\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.77\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4.15\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Digital technologies make work easier\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2. I think my digital literacy is high\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3. I have sufficient knowledge about internet security\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.08\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3.36\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;br\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis item-level analysis reveals that despite differing overall competence levels, all clusters showed relative weaknesses in self-perceived digital literacy and skepticism about digital technologies making work easier.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eTrust and Anxiety Items\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the specific trust and anxiety items showed consistent patterns across clusters, with trust in data security being the lowest trust item across all groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.5. Factor Analysis of Digital Citizenship Dimensions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo understand the underlying structure of the Digital Citizenship Scale, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. The three-factor model (competence, trust, anxiety) showed good fit: χ\u0026sup2;(227)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;612.8, p \u0026lt; .001; CFI = .93; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .052 (90% CI: .047\u0026ndash;.057); SRMR = .048. Factor loadings ranged from .58 to .84 for Digital Competence items, .65 to .81 for Digital Trust items, and .72 to .86 for Digital Anxiety items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe correlation between Digital Competence and Digital Trust factors was positive but modest (r = .24), supporting the finding that high competence does not necessarily imply high trust. Digital Anxiety showed significant negative correlations with both Digital Competence (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.31) and Digital Trust (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.48).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Summary of Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe latent class analysis revealed three distinct profiles of digital citizens:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDigital Outsiders (14.7%)\u003c/b\u003e: Characterized by low digital competence and trust with moderate anxiety, this group represents individuals struggling with digital inclusion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCompetent Skeptics (47.0%)\u003c/b\u003e: The largest group exhibited high digital competence but low trust, suggesting a critical stance toward digital services despite having the skills to use them effectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDigital Balancers (38.3%)\u003c/b\u003e: This group combined high digital competence with moderate trust and anxiety, representing a more balanced approach to digital citizenship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most striking finding was the \"competence-trust gap\" observed in the Competent Skeptics cluster, indicating that digital skill development does not automatically lead to increased trust in digital systems. The prevalent low trust scores across all clusters suggest a broader societal issue regarding confidence in digital services and data security.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eDigital citizenship is about more than just having the skills to use computers and the internet. It also includes having confidence and trust in digital systems and managing any stress or anxiety that comes with using them (Rogers-Whitehead, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Hawamdeh \u0026amp; Hamayel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). When we talk about digital citizenship, think of it as being a part of an online community where you not only know how to use technology but also understand your rights and responsibilities when you are online.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the key discussions in the paper is the \"competence-trust gap.\" This means that even if someone is very good at using digital tools (high competence), they might still feel uneasy or distrustful about digital platforms, especially concerning data security. In everyday life, imagine a person who is very skilled at using apps, online banking, or digital services but still worries about how secure their personal information is. This gap shows that technical know-how does not always translate into feeling safe when using technology (Adhari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Okoye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Tutar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). The study identified three different profiles of digital citizens, but the discussion mainly revolves around two important groups: Digital Outsiders and Competent Skeptics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDigital Outsiders\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis group, representing around 15% of the people sampled, struggles with both digital skills and trust. They may find it difficult to navigate digital services and feel left out or insecure online.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCompetent Skeptics\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaking up nearly half the participants, these individuals are well-versed in digital skills but have serious concerns about digital trust. They know how to use technology, yet they are wary of security issues like data privacy and safe online transactions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe paper identified three distinct profiles of digital citizens based on their levels of competence, trust, and anxiety. The paper was conducted in K\u0026ouml;ln, Germany, and involved 653 participants. The research used a survey combined with quantitative techniques to understand how people use digital services. This study particularly examined three key areas: digital competence (skills), digital trust (confidence in digital systems), and digital anxiety (feelings of worry regarding technology use). The study identified a three-cluster solution as the best representation of the underlying differences among digital citizens. The three clusters were determined after evaluating various metrics like the silhouette coefficient, within-cluster sum of squares, between-to-within ratios, and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study shows that being good at digital tools (digital competence) does not mean that a person feels safe or trusts digital systems. Someone may have the necessary skills but may still be concerned about online safety and data security. This idea is captured by the \u0026ldquo;competence-confidence gap,\u0026rdquo; where the most skilled users may still be skeptical of digital platforms. In this vein, it has been determined that digital citizenship is more than a mere skill. Digital competence, meaning the ability to use digital services effectively, does not automatically create confidence in the safety of these systems (Ilom\u0026auml;ki et al.,2011). This difference is called the \"competence-trust gap.\" Even people with strong digital skills may still feel uncertain or mistrustful about data security and overall system reliability. One group, known as Digital Outsiders, makes up about 14.7% of the sample. They displayed low digital competence and low trust in digital platforms, while their digital anxiety was moderate. This group included a higher number of younger individuals and those with lower educational attainment, highlighting issues related to digital inclusion, where certain groups struggle more with using online services securely (Morgan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe largest group, called Competent Skeptics, represented nearly half of the participants (47%). Members of this cluster had high digital competence but did not trust online systems, particularly when it came to personal data safety or security in internet applications. This finding clearly emphasizes that having the skills does not eliminate concerns about digital security. The analysis further concludes that digital anxiety, which involves worry or stress from digital technology use, is moderately present across all groups, suggesting that even those who are adept with technology can feel uneasy or overwhelmed by the digital environment (Schneier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This points out the importance of not only teaching digital skills but also providing support to manage digital stress and improve overall well-being online. The findings suggest that when designing policies or educational programs to improve digital citizenship, governments and institutions should consider strategies that address both skill enhancement and the improvement of trust in digital systems (Kumpikaitė-Valiūnienė et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zeike et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This could involve clearer communication on data security measures, reducing privacy risks, and implementing reliable digital security practices. When people feel safe and understand the security measures, they are more willing to engage actively with digital services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research has some limitations. The study was conducted solely in K\u0026ouml;ln, Germany, with a specific sample of 653 individuals. Because the data comes from one urban area, its findings might not generalize to other regions or countries. This limitation means that applying the conclusions about digital citizenship profiles (such as the \"competence-trust gap\") to all digital citizens worldwide should be done carefully. In practice, other locations might show different patterns due to diverse cultural, economic, and infrastructural differences. This design restricts the ability to see how digital competence, trust, and anxiety develop or change over time. While the study does provide a snapshot of digital citizenship among residents of K\u0026ouml;ln, it cannot account for fluctuations or long-term trends. In real-world applications, policies or educational programs based solely on this study might overlook how digital behaviors evolve, suggesting that future work could benefit from longitudinal studies. The study hints at broader societal issues, such as the overall skepticism toward digital services, which could be influenced by factors not captured within the survey (e.g., recent digital security breaches, media reports, cultural perceptions). This limitation suggests that while the study provides valuable insights, stakeholders should integrate other sources of information when crafting strategies to improve digital trust and competence, ensuring a comprehensive approach.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Managerial Implications","content":"\u003cp\u003eManagers should recognize that users can be grouped into distinct digital citizenship profiles, such as Competent Skeptics and Digital Outsiders. For example, platforms might require different strategies: one aimed at highly skilled users who remain wary of security (Competent Skeptics), and another focused on engaging users with lower digital competence (Digital Outsiders) through enhanced guidance and support. By customizing features and communication according to these profiles, managers can improve user satisfaction and safety in digital interactions. The paper highlights a prevalent \"competence-trust gap,\" where high digital skills do not necessarily lead to high trust in digital services (Prokop \u0026amp; Tepe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Velasquez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eManagers should prioritize building trust through transparent data practices, robust cybersecurity measures, and clear communication about data protection. Simple actions like regular security updates and easy-to-understand privacy policies could make users feel more confident and secure when using digital services (Mongia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; El-Annan \u0026amp; Hassoun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Digital competence is crucial, yet it is only part of the equation; user education programs should also address trust and anxiety issues. Managers can implement training sessions or online tutorials that not only teach technical skills but also emphasize the importance of security practices (Huttayavilaiphan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Duda \u0026amp; Dziurzyński, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, practical workshops on navigating e-government platforms effectively, while explaining how data is protected, can help reduce digital anxiety and improve overall satisfaction. The dynamic nature of digital interaction means that behaviors and trust levels can change over time, influenced by external events or technological advancements (Kim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Msanjila, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eManagers should establish feedback systems and continuous improvement processes to track changes in user behavior and satisfaction. Routine surveys and user engagement analytics can help identify when modifications or new features are necessary to maintain high performance and trust in digital services. A comprehensive approach should involve not only technological improvements but also policy adjustments and community outreach (Tutar \u0026amp; Erdem, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Marcial et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Managers in both public and private sectors must coordinate with policymakers to create standards that foster reliability and security, ensuring that digital services are both effective and trustworthy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Theoretical Implications","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe paper underlines that digital citizenship involves multiple layers, including digital competence, trust, and anxiety. This theoretical framework shows that being good with digital tools (competence) does not automatically lead to feeling safe or confident online (trust) (Adorjan \u0026amp; Ricciardelli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Kumar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mahmoud et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The study\u0026rsquo;s approach helps to clarify how these different dimensions interact. By using this comprehensive view, researchers can better predict how individuals behave online, which supports theories that digital citizenship is more than just technical skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne key theoretical implication is the observed \"competence-trust gap.\" Despite high levels of skill in using digital tools, many users remain skeptical about the security and reliability of these digital platforms (Flew, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Nwaiwu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Peluso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This challenges previous models that assumed that improving technical skills would naturally build trust. Instead, it suggests theories must consider that trust is influenced by additional factors such as perceived risk and experiences with online security.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study finds that digital anxiety is negatively correlated with both digital competence and trust. This introduces a theoretical nuance: anxiety plays a mediating role and can dampen the positive effects of competence on trust. In simple terms, even if someone is skilled online, fear or unease (anxiety) can still interfere with how much they trust digital environments (Hwang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Khoa \u0026amp; Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This requires new theories to include emotional factors in models of digital citizenship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theoretical insights imply that digital citizenship education should address not only technical skills but also issues of trust and anxiety. Policies and educational programs must be designed with the understanding that increasing digital competence alone is not enough if users do not feel secure online (Gardenier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; S\u0026oslash;rensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Manzuoli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This integrated approach can guide future theoretical work on how education and policy interventions impact digital behavior holistically.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the paper\u0026rsquo;s theoretical contributions encourage researchers to look beyond traditional measures of digital skills. It calls for a broader analytical lens that includes emotional and psychological dimensions when studying how citizens engage with digital technologies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eATE, SA, and YSB made substantial contributions to this study. For writing and editing activities, ATE contributed 35%, SA 35% and YSB 30%. For data analysis, ATE and SA each contributed 35%, and YSB contributed 30%. All authors participated in revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and approved the final version for submission.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is available in the Open Science Framework (OSF). The data are currently under restricted access during the peer-review process and can be accessed via a view-only link.[**https://osf.io/uxhds/overview?view_only=e4156b5951cb4e449b8428cca6450fe4**](https:/osf.io/uxhds/overview?view_only=e4156b5951cb4e449b8428cca6450fe4)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdhari, N. R., Sundawa, D., \u0026amp; Darmawan, C. (2024). Counteracting the Negative Impact of Digital Technology through Strengthening Digital Citizenship Competencies as a Form of Strengthening the Values of Defending the Nation of the Young Generation. \u003cem\u003eKnE Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 288\u0026ndash;301. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i19.16508\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18502/kss.v9i19.16508\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdorjan, M., \u0026amp; Ricciardelli, R. (2018). \u003cem\u003eCyber-risk and youth: Digital citizenship, privacy and surveillance\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlami, H., Gagnon, M.-P., Ag Ahmed, M. A., \u0026amp; Fortin, J.-P. (2019). Digital health: Cybersecurity is a value creation lever, not only a source of expenditure. \u003cem\u003eHealth Policy and Technology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.HLPT.2019.09.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.HLPT.2019.09.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAldaajeh, S. H., Saleous, H., Alrabaee, S., Barka, E., Breitinger, F., \u0026amp; Choo, K.-K. (2022). The role of national cybersecurity strategies on the improvement of cybersecurity education.\u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; Security\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2022.102754\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cose.2022.102754\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlackburn, A. M., \u0026amp; Goetter, E. M. (2020). \u003cem\u003eTreatment of Anxiety Disorders in the Digital Age\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30687-8_16\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-30687-8_16\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBortea, A. N. (2020, July 13). \u003cem\u003eThe Ethics of Public Administration in the Digital Economy\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18662/LUMPROC/GEKOS2020/26\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18662/LUMPROC/GEKOS2020/26\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBouchillon, B. C. (2022). \u003cem\u003eCompetence, Presence, Trust, and Hyperpersonal-ness\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5771/9781793622143\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5771/9781793622143\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCassim, F. (2015). Protecting Personal Information in the Era of Identity Theft: Just how Safe is our Personal Information from Identity Thieves? \u003cem\u003ePotchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4314/PELJ.V18I2.02\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4314/PELJ.V18I2.02\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, Y., Wu, J., Ma, J., Zhu, H., Li, W., \u0026amp; Gan, Y. (2021). The mediating effect of media usage on the relationship between anxiety/fear and physician-patient trust during the COVID-19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003ePsychology \u0026amp; Health\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2021.1900573\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08870446.2021.1900573\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCopeland, J. (2020). \u003cem\u003eThe Challenges of Digital Citizenship\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1766-6.CH004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4018/978-1-7998-1766-6.CH004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCort\u0026eacute;s, J., Garc\u0026iacute;a, S., Ortega, J., Torres, A., \u0026amp; Zamor\u0026aacute;n, M. (2019, July 1). \u003cem\u003eDevelopment of digital competencies for professional performance in university students\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21125/EDULEARN.2019.1838\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21125/EDULEARN.2019.1838\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDode, A., \u0026amp; Dode, E. (2015). The Values of Civic Education through Information Technology.\u003cem\u003eAcademic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5901/AJIS.2015.V4N2S2P15\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5901/AJIS.2015.V4N2S2P15\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuda, E., \u0026amp; Dziurzyński, K. (2019). \u003cem\u003eDigital competence learning in secondary adult education in Finland and Poland\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 22\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.6822\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5604/01.3001.0013.6822\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEl-Annan, S. H., \u0026amp; Hassoun, R. (2024). Enhancing Consumer Trust Through Transparent Data Practices and Ethical Data Management in Business. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Logistics, Operations, and Management Science Book Series\u003c/em\u003e, 105\u0026ndash;148. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-8357-5.ch005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4018/979-8-3693-8357-5.ch005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFaustino, A., \u0026amp; Kaur, I. (2023). Educational Technology for Equality: A Review. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2023/v17i7498\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.9734/ajarr/2023/v17i7498\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlew, T. (2019). \u003cem\u003eTrust in the digital economy: Towards a framework for comparative analysis\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://eprints.qut.edu.au/127220/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://eprints.qut.edu.au/127220/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGardenier, A. M., van Est, R., \u0026amp; Royakkers, L. M. M. (2024). Technological Citizenship in Times of Digitization: An Integrative Framework. \u003cem\u003eDigital Society\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-024-00106-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s44206-024-00106-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhosn-Chelala, M. (2019). Exploring sustainable learning and practice of digital citizenship: Education and place-based challenges. \u003cem\u003eEducation, Citizenship and Social Justice\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1746197918759155\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1746197918759155\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHawamdeh, M., \u0026amp; Hamayel, H. J. (2022). Methods Used in Digital Citizenship: A Systematic Literature Review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Digital Educational Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(3), ep2207. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30935/jdet/12520\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30935/jdet/12520\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenseruk, H. (2019). \u003cem\u003eDigital competence as one of the professionally important competencies of future teachers\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eElectronic Scientific Professional Journal \u0026ldquo;Open Educational E-Environment of Modern University\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e, (6), 8\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.28925/2414-0325.2019.6.816\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.28925/2414-0325.2019.6.816\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHesselman, C., Grosso, P., Holz, R., Kuipers, F. A., Xue, J. H., Jonker, M., de Ruiter, J., Sperotto, A., van Rijswijk-Deij, R., Moura, G. C. M., Pras, A., \u0026amp; Laat, C. (2020). A Responsible Internet to Increase Trust in the Digital World.\u003cem\u003eJournal of Network and Systems Management\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/S10922-020-09564-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/S10922-020-09564-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoge, E. A., Bickham, D. S., \u0026amp; Cantor, J. (2017). Digital Media, Anxiety, and Depression in Children.\u003cem\u003ePediatrics\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1542/PEDS.2016-1758G\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1542/PEDS.2016-1758G\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHussainy, S. S., \u0026amp; R, S. J. (2021).\u003cem\u003eA study on factors affecting digital citizenship among college faculties in india\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20319/PIJTEL.2021.43.4961\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20319/PIJTEL.2021.43.4961\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuttayavilaiphan, R. (2024). Digital Competence and Anxiety in Thai University English Education: Impacts on Teachers and Students. \u003cem\u003eWorld Journal of English Language\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v15n1p225\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5430/wjel.v15n1p225\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHwang, Y. (2005). Investigating the Effects of Percieved Web Quality on eTrust, Mediated by Hedonic Needs and Anxiety. \u003cem\u003eAmericas Conference on Information Systems\u003c/em\u003e, 34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/amcis/amcis2005.html#Hwang05\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/amcis/amcis2005.html#Hwang05\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIlom\u0026auml;ki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., \u0026amp; Kantosalo, A. (2016). Digital competence --- an emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research.\u003cem\u003eEducation and Information Technologies\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-014-9346-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/S10639-014-9346-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarsenti, T. (2019).\u003cem\u003eActing as ethical and responsible digital citizens: The teacher\u0026rsquo;s key role\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18162/FP.2019.A167\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18162/FP.2019.A167\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhoa, B. T., \u0026amp; Nguyen, M. H. (2022). The moderating role of anxiety in the relationship between the perceived benefits, online trust, and personal information disclosure in online shopping. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Business and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 444\u0026ndash;460. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.4624.2022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.33736/ijbs.4624.2022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim, D. J. (2014). A Study of the Multilevel and Dynamic Nature of Trust in E-Commerce from a Cross-Stage Perspective. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Electronic Commerce\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 11\u0026ndash;64. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415190101\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2753/JEC1086-4415190101\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKovba, D. M., \u0026amp; Moiseenko, Y. Y. (2021). The Digital Society in the 21st Century: Security Issue.\u003cem\u003eKnE Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18502/KSS.V5I2.8387\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18502/KSS.V5I2.8387\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumar, B., AbuAlhaija, M., Alqasmi, L., \u0026amp; Dhakhri, M. (2020, December). Smart cities: A new age of digital insecurity. In \u003cem\u003e2020 9th International Conference System Modeling and Advancement in Research Trends (SMART)\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 267\u0026ndash;272). IEEE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKummer, T.-F., Recker, J. C., \u0026amp; Bick, M. (2017). Technology-induced anxiety.\u003cem\u003eInformation \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.IM.2016.04.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.IM.2016.04.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumpikaitė-Valiūnienė, V., Aslan, I., Duobienė, J., Glińska, E., \u0026amp; Anandkumar, V. (2021). Influence of digital competence on perceived stress, burnout and well-being among students studying online during the COVID-19 lockdown: A 4-country perspective. \u003cem\u003ePsychology research and behavior management\u003c/em\u003e, 1483\u0026ndash;1498. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S325092\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2147/PRBM.S325092\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLazinina, E. V. (2022). Communicative competence in the conditions of digitalization as a characteristic of the subject of digital society.\u003cem\u003eSovremennye Issledovaniya Sotsialnykh Problem\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.12731/2077-1770-2022-14-1-64-80\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.12731/2077-1770-2022-14-1-64-80\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, X., Yuan, C., Hafeez, M., \u0026amp; Faisal, Ch. M. N. (2020).\u003cem\u003eDigital Trust Mediated by the Platform in the Sharing Economy from a Consumer Perspective\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49829-0_50\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-49829-0_50\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMachfiroh, R., Sapriya, S., \u0026amp; Komalasari, K. (2017, January 1).\u003cem\u003eDigital Citizenship - A Review of Citizenship Education\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5220/0007107408730877\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5220/0007107408730877\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMahdi, H. R. (2018). The Awareness of the Digital Citizenship among the Users of Social Networks and its Relation to Some Variables.\u003cem\u003eThe International Journal of Learning\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18576/IJLMS/060102\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18576/IJLMS/060102\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMahmoud, A. B., Reisel, W. D., Fuxman, L., \u0026amp; Mohr, I. (2021). A motivational standpoint of job insecurity effects on organizational citizenship behaviors: A generational study. \u003cem\u003eScandinavian journal of psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e(2), 267\u0026ndash;275. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12689\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/sjop.12689\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMahmood, M. (2022). \u003cem\u003eTransformation of Government and Citizen Trust in Government\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 432\u0026ndash;444). IGI Global eBooks. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3706-3.ch022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4018/978-1-6684-3706-3.ch022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManzuoli, C. H., S\u0026aacute;nchez, A. V., \u0026amp; Bedoya, E. D. (2019). Digital citizenship: A theoretical review of the concept and trends. \u003cem\u003eTurkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(2), 10\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarcial, D. E., Palama, J. C. L., Bucog, F. P., Seraspe, B. J. L., \u0026amp; Launer, M. A. (2024). \u003cem\u003eDigital trust and social interactions among employees in the workplace\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 97\u0026ndash;108). Informa. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781032633749-10\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781032633749-10\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMsanjila, S. S. (2015). A Tool for Rational Assessment of Dynamic Trust in Networked Organizations. \u003cem\u003eWorld Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(10).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMongia, M. (2024). Building Trust: Data Governance and Security in Edge-Cloud Integration. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal For Multidisciplinary Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(6). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i06.32060\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i06.32060\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorgan, A., Sibson, R., \u0026amp; Jackson, D. (2022). Digital demand and digital deficit: conceptualising digital literacy and gauging proficiency among higher education students. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Higher Education Policy and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 258\u0026ndash;275. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2022.2030275\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1360080X.2022.2030275\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNapal Fraile, M., Pe\u0026ntilde;alva-V\u0026eacute;lez, A., \u0026amp; Mendi\u0026oacute;roz Lacambra, A. M. (2018). Development of Digital Competence in Secondary Education Teachers\u0026rsquo; Training.\u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI8030104\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/EDUCSCI8030104\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNwaiwu, F., Kwarteng, M. A., Jibril, A. B., Buřita, L., \u0026amp; Pil\u0026iacute;k, M. (2020). \u003cem\u003eImpact of security and trust as factors that influence the adoption and use of digital technologies that generate, collect and transmit user data\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.34190/ICCWS.20.016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.34190/ICCWS.20.016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNyikes, Z. (2018). Contemporary Digital Competency Review.\u003cem\u003eInterdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7906/INDECS.16.1.9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7906/INDECS.16.1.9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOkoye, A. (2024). Digital Citizenship Practices and Implementation of Learning Modalities in the Higher Education Institutions under the New Normal in General Santos City. \u003cem\u003eJPAIR Institutional Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 40\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7719/irj.v23i1.905\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7719/irj.v23i1.905\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePariente, R. M. (2024). Deliberation in digital democracies: Is the ideal of a competent citizenry feasible? \u003cem\u003eDaimon: Revista Internacional de Filosof\u0026iacute;a\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e93\u003c/em\u003e, 19\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.6018/daimon.611681\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.6018/daimon.611681\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeart, M. T., Guti\u0026eacute;rrez-Esteban, P., \u0026amp; Cubo-Delgado, S. (2020). Development of the digital and socio-civic skills (DIGISOC) questionnaire.\u003cem\u003eEducational Technology Research and Development\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/S11423-020-09824-Y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/S11423-020-09824-Y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeluso, D. M. (2023). The Digital Divide and Futurist Imaginings of Zelle-ous Resistors. \u003cem\u003eSocial Inclusion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 41\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i3.6867\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17645/si.v11i3.6867\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePfaffinger, K. F., Reif, J. A. M., Spie\u0026szlig;, E., \u0026amp; Berger, R. (2020).\u003cem\u003eAnxiety in a digitalised work environment\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/S11612-020-00502-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/S11612-020-00502-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoerbantoro, H., Sukamto, S., Andini, R., Handayani, T., \u0026amp; Sulistyawati, D. R. (2024). Trust (Amanah) Competence. \u003cem\u003eJournal Research of Social Science, Economics, and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(12), 2196\u0026ndash;2202. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.59141/jrssem.v3i12.699\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.59141/jrssem.v3i12.699\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eProkop, C., \u0026amp; Tepe, M. (2021). Talk or type? The effect of digital interfaces on citizens\u0026rsquo; satisfaction with standardized public services. \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/PADM.12739\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/PADM.12739\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers-Whitehead, C. (2019). \u003cem\u003eDigital Citizenship\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5771/9781475848274\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5771/9781475848274\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaleem, J., Hammoudeh, M., Raza, U., Adebisi, B., \u0026amp; Ande, R. (2018, June 26). IoT standardisation: challenges, perspectives and solution.\u003cem\u003eInternational Conference on Future Networks\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1145/3231053.3231103\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1145/3231053.3231103\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSantos, S., Lucas, M., \u0026amp; Bem-Haja, P. (2022). Bridging the digital competence gap: Tell us what you need. In \u003cem\u003eInternational Conferences ICT, Society, and Human Beings\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSarantis, D., Soares, D., Susar, D., \u0026amp; Aquaro, V. (2022, October 4). Local e-Government Development: Results of an international survey.\u003cem\u003eInternational Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1145/3560107.3560167\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1145/3560107.3560167\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharma, R., \u0026amp; Sharma, D. (2022). Digital literacy and competence for educators.\u003cem\u003eScholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science \u0026amp; English Language\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21922/srjhsel.v10i50.10160\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21922/srjhsel.v10i50.10160\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchneier, B. (2015). \u003cem\u003eSecrets and lies: digital security in a networked world\u003c/em\u003e. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShockley-Zalabak, P. (2025). \u003cem\u003eBridging the Trust Gap\u003c/em\u003e. 166\u0026ndash;172. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781003533894-28\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781003533894-28\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eS\u0026oslash;rensen, T. B. (2022). Digital citizenship: A study in concept and dimensions.\u003cem\u003eJournal of Juridical and Political Science\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.55716/jjps.2022.s.4.3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.55716/jjps.2022.s.4.3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaddeo, M., Taddeo, M., Floridi, L., \u0026amp; Floridi, L. (2017). \u003cem\u003eThe Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47852-4_2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-47852-4_2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTutar, H., \u0026amp; Erdem, A. T. (2024). Kurumsal Dijital Olgunluk \u0026Ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eği (KUDOM): Ge\u0026ccedil;erlilik ve G\u0026uuml;venirlik \u0026Ccedil;alışması. \u003cem\u003eİşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1145\u0026ndash;1165. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2024.1848\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20491/isarder.2024.1848\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTutar, H., Erdem, A. T., \u0026amp; Şahin, N. (2024a). Digital Citizenship Scale (DCS): Validity and Reliability Study. Alanya Academic View, 8(1), 310\u0026ndash;327. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1337114\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29023/alanyaakademik.1337114\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTutar, H., Erdem, A. T., \u0026amp; Şahin, N. (2024b). Digital competence scale (DCS): Validity and reliability study. Selcuk University Journal of Social Sciences Vocational School, 27(1), 31\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.1375960\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29249/selcuksbmyd.1375960\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVelasquez, N. F., Weisband, S. P., \u0026amp; Durcikova, A. (2008). Designing tools for system administrators: an empirical test of the integrated user satisfaction model. \u003cem\u003eUSENIX Large Installation Systems Administration Conference\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.usenix.org/events/lisa08/tech/full_papers/velasquez/velasquez.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.usenix.org/events/lisa08/tech/full_papers/velasquez/velasquez.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWulandari, E. (2021). Digital Citizenship Education: Shaping Digital Ethics in Society 5.0.\u003cem\u003eUniversal Journal of Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.13189/UJER.2021.090507\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.13189/UJER.2021.090507\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYue, A., Nekmat, E., \u0026amp; Beta, A. R. (2019). Digital Literacy Through Digital Citizenship: Online Civic Participation and Public Opinion Evaluation of Youth Minorities in Southeast Asia. \u003cem\u003eMedia and Communication\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17645/MAC.V7I2.1899\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17645/MAC.V7I2.1899\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZeike, S., Bradbury, K., Lindert, L., \u0026amp; Pfaff, H. (2019). Digital leadership skills and associations with psychological well-being. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of environmental research and public health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(14), 2628. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142628\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph16142628\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"society","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Society](https://link.springer.com/journal/12115)","snPcode":"12115","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/12115/3","title":"Society","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Competence, Citizens, Digital Citizens, Digital Competence, Trust Deficit","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8806775/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8806775/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe study aimed to examine digital citizenship beyond just knowing how to use digital tools. It focused on three key parts: digital competence (the skills and knowledge required to use digital platforms), digital trust (how much individuals feel safe and confident using these systems), and digital anxiety (the worry or stress related to using such technologies). A survey of 653 K\u0026ouml;ln residents used the Digital Citizenship Scale. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) and K-means clustering grouped respondents by scores. The study discovered three distinct groups of digital citizens: Digital Outsiders, Competent Skeptics, and Digital Balancers. These findings underline that even with strong digital skills, some people remain cautious and skeptical about the safety of digital services. Research implications are that digital skills improvement isn't enough; address security concerns to boost confidence. Policymakers should enhance skills and build trust via security and data transparency, ensuring online competence and security.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Beyond Competence: The Shocking Trust Deficit in Modern Digital Citizens","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-13 09:33:00","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8806775/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-03-18T00:39:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-17T14:03:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"47997333489597741341548558002687601872","date":"2026-03-11T14:30:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-11T05:46:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-09T04:54:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-09T04:53:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Society","date":"2026-02-06T11:29:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"society","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Society](https://link.springer.com/journal/12115)","snPcode":"12115","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/12115/3","title":"Society","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"698315c5-2620-4eb8-9aa9-efa8f1340a13","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 13th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-17T23:53:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-13 09:33:00","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8806775","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8806775","identity":"rs-8806775","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}