The ability to effectively use digital technology and problem-solve are critical skills for maintaining democratic health, particularly as civil society and the modern digital landscape continuously evolve. However, information on whether individuals have the critical problem-solving skills to use digital technology and confidently affect change is yet to be further explored. Using data from the 2017 Program for International Assessment of Adult Competencies (n = 2749), we examined the associations between digital problem-solving skills and the three levels (low, neutral, high) of external political efficacy in the U.S. adult population. We used multinomial logistic regression and found a positive association between digital problem-solving skills and external political efficacy, while explanations for the three levels of efficacy are nuanced. Continuous development of digital problem-solving skills through adult education has implications for political efficacy, and ultimately for the promotion of a variety of civic engagement in the adult life stages.
BarnettL. (2018). Service-learning as a tool for increasing political efficacy and civic engagement at a Hispanic-serving institution. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 17(3), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047173418809707
3.
BeckerG. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education (3 ed). The University of Chicago Press.
4.
BorgonoviF.PokropekA. (2017). Mind that gap: The mediating role of intelligence and individuals’ socio-economic status in explaining disparities in external political efficacy in 28 countries. Intelligence, 62, 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.03.006
5.
BoulianneS.OserJ.HoffmannC. P. (2023). Powerless in the digital age? A systematic review and meta-analysis of political efficacy and digital media use. New Media and Society, 25(9), 2512–2536. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231176519
6.
BradyD.SchwartzE. P. (1995). Ideology and interests in congressional voting: The politics of abortion in the US Senate. Public Choice, 84(1), 25–48.
7.
CampbellA.GurinG.MillerW. E. (1954). The voter decides. Row, Peterson, and Co.
8.
ChanR. C. H.MakW. W. S.ChanW.LinW. (2020). Effects of social movement participation on political efficacy and well-being: A longitudinal study of civically engaged youth. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(5), 1981–2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00303-y
DeMarisA. (2004). Regression with social data: Modeling continuous and limited response variables. BaldingD. J.CressieN. A. C.FisherN. I.JohnstoneI. M.KadaneJ. N.MolenberghsG.RyanL. M.ScottD. W. (Eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
11.
García del HornoR.RicoG.HernándezE. (2023). Do they feel like they don’t matter? The rural-urban divide in external political efficacy. West European Politics, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2023.2261085
12.
GoerresA. (2007). Why are older people more likely to vote? The impact of ageing on electoral turnout in europe. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9(1), 90–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856x.2006.00243.x
GrotlüschenA. (2017). The narrative of 'equality of chances’ as an approach to interpreting PIAAC results on perceived political efficacy, social trust and volunteering and the quest for political literacy. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 9(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela0211
15.
Haren ConelyL. M.CordieL. A. (2023). The learning democracy: The relationship between adult informal learning, lifelong learning mindset, and civic engagement. Adult Learning, 34(3), 142–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595231161345
16.
HosmerD. W.LemeshowS. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3 ed). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
LindeJ.PetersY. (2020). Responsiveness, support, and responsibility: How democratic responsiveness facilitates responsible government. Party Politics, 26(3), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068818763986
20.
MartinJ. D.MartinsR. J.NaqviS. (2018). Media use predictors of online political efficacy among Internet users in five Arab countries. Information, Communication and Society, 21(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1266375
National Research Council. (2012). Improving adult literacy instruction: Supporting learning and motivation. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13469
23.
NCES. (2019a). Program for the international assessment of adult Competencies (PIAAC) U.S. 2017 sample public-use file (PUF). NCES.
24.
NCES. (2019b). U.S. Program for the international assessment of adult Competencies (PIAAC) 2012/2014/2017: Main study, national supplement, and PIAAC 2017 technical report. NCES. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020224.pdf
25.
OECD. (2009). PIAAC problem solving in technology-rich environments: A conceptual framework. (OECD education work papers, issue. O. E. C.-O. A. Development.
PalczyńskaM.RynkoM. (2021). ICT skills measurement in social surveys: Can we trust self-reports?Quality and Quantity, 55(3), 917–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01031-4
30.
PattieC.SeydP.WhiteleyP. (2003). Citizenship and civic engagement: Attitudes and behaviour in britain. Political Studies, 51(3), 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00435
31.
PratsM.MeunierA. (2021). Political efficacy and participation: An empirical analysis in European countries. OECD working papers on public governance Issue. O. Publishing.
32.
RadovanovićD.HoganB.LalićD. (2015). Overcoming digital divides in higher education: Digital literacy beyond Facebook. New Media and Society, 17(10), 1733–1749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815588323
33.
RainieL.Keeters.PerrinA. (2019). Trust and distrust in America. P. R. Center.
34.
RasmussenS. H. R.NørgaardA. S. (2018). When and why does education matter? Motivation and resource effects in political efficacy. European Journal of Political Research, 57(1), 24–46.
35.
ReichertF. (2016). How internal political efficacy translates political knowledge into political participation: Evidence from Germany. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v12i2.1095
36.
RhodesC. M.CordieL.WootenM. (2019). An examination of social capital among U.S. Adults: Patterns that facilitate social well-being as measured by PIAAC. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.2.1
37.
RoseA. D.SmithT. J.Ross-GordonJ. M.ZarestkyJ.LopesT.SmithM. C.GrotlüschenA.FleigeM. (2019). Adults' civic engagement in the U.S. And Germany: Evidence from the PIAAC survey. P. Gateway.
38.
SaalL. K.YamashitaT.ShawD. M.PerryK. H. (2020). An exploration of U.S. adults’ information processing skills and political efficacy. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 26(2), 178–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971419852750
39.
SchullerT.PrestonJ.HammondC.Brassett-GrundyA.BynnerJ. (2004). The Benefits of Learning: The impact of education on health, family life and social capital. Routledge.
40.
SchulzW. (2005). Political efficacy and expected political participation among lower and upper secondary students. A comparative analysis with data from the IEA civic education study. ECPR General Conference.
Van DijkJ. A. G. M. (2009). The digital divide in Europe. In ChadwickA.HowardP. N. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of Internet policies (pp. 288–304). Routledge.
43.
Vera-ToscanoE.RodriguesM.CostaP. (2017). Beyond educational attainment: The importance of skills and lifelong learning for social outcomes. Evidence for Europe from PIAAC. European Journal of Education, 52(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12211
XiaoX.BorahP.SuY. (2021). The dangers of blind trust: Examining the interplay among social media news use, misinformation identification, and news trust on conspiracy beliefs. Public Understanding of Science, 30(8), 977–992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521998025
