Digital technologies increasingly shape the way we communicate, collaborate and participate in society. People lacking digital literacy are, therefore, prone to exclusion in today’s digital world. To identify digital divides and vulnerable groups in Germany, we first developed a comprehensive framework for the measurement of digital literacy that future research can build on. Subsequently, we used cluster analyses to create a typology of German internet users based on their digital literacy. We found that literacy levels between types differed significantly and that digital divides are associated with differences in sociodemographic variables as well as with the use of and certain attitudes towards digital technologies. Our typology offers valuable insights about digital divides in Germany and can therefore serve as a baseline for digital education policies.
AbdulkareemAKRamliRM (2021) Does digital literacy predict e-government performance? An extension of Delone and Mclean information system success model. Electronic Government, an International Journal17(4): 466–493.
2.
AntonioATuffleyD (2015) Bridging the age-based digital divide. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence (IJDLDC)6(3): 1–15.
3.
AttewellP (2001) Comment: the first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education74(3): 252–259.
4.
BachmannRHertweckF (2023) The gender gap in digital literacy: a cohort analysis for Germany. Applied Economics Letters32(5): 608–613.
5.
BawdenD (2001) Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Journal of Documentation57(2): 218–259.
6.
BawdenD (2008) Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In: LankshearCKnobelM (eds) Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices. Lausanne: Peter Lang, pp. 17–32.
7.
BuchanMCBhawraJKatapallyTR (2024) Navigating the digital world: development of an evidence-based digital literacy program and assessment tool for youth. Smart Learning Environments11(1): 8.
CarolineACounMJGunawanA, et al. (2025) A systematic literature review on digital literacy, employability, and innovative work behavior: emphasizing the contextual approaches in HRM research. Frontiers in Psychology15: 1448555.
10.
CattsRLauJ (2008) Towards information literacy indicators. Report, UNESCO, Paris.
11.
ChoJDe ZunigaHGRojasH, et al. (2003) Beyond access: the digital divide and Internet uses and gratifications. IT & Society1(4): 46–72.
12.
CliffordIKluzerSTroiaS, et al. (2020) DigCompSat. A self-reflection tool for the European digital framework for citizens. Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
13.
CullenR (2001) Addressing the digital divide. Online Information Review25(5): 311–320.
14.
DiMaggioPHargittaiECelesteC, et al. (2004) From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use: A Literature Review and Agenda for Research on Digital Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
15.
DodelMMeschG (2018) Inequality in digital skills and the adoption of online safety behaviors. Information, Communication & Society21(5): 712–728.
FeolaEI (2016) Digital literacy and new technological perspectives. Universal Journal of Educational Research4(9): 2174–2180.
19.
FerrariA (2013) DIGCOMP: a framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
20.
FerrariAPunieYRedeckerC (2012) Understanding digital competence in the 21st century: An analysis of current frameworks. In: Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 7563. 21st century learning for 21st century skills (ed RavenscroftALindstaedtSKloosCDHernández-LeoD), Saarbrücken, Germany, 18–21 September 2023, pp. 79–92. Berlin: Springer.
21.
GrizzleAPerez TorneroJM (2016) Media and information literacy against online hate, radical, and extremist content. In: SinghJKerrPHamburgerE (eds) Media and Information Literacy: Reinforcing Human Rights, Countering Radicalization and Extremism. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, pp. 179–202.
22.
HaddonLCinoDDoyleMA, et al. (2020) Children’s and young people’s digital skills: a systematic evidence review. Report, KU Leuven, Belgium.
23.
HargittaiEDobranskyK (2017) Old dogs, new clicks: digital inequality in skills and uses among older adults. Canadian Journal of Communication42(2): 195–212.
24.
HelsperE (2021) The Digital Disconnect: The Social Causes and Consequences of Digital Inequalities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
HelsperEEynonR (2013) Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European Journal of Communication28(6): 696–713.
26.
HeponiemiTVirtanenLKaihlanenAM, et al. (2024) Use and changes in the use of the internet for obtaining services among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal population-based survey study. New Media & Society26(6): 3146–3167.
27.
HietajärviLMascheroniGWaechterN, et al. (2024) Latent profiles of adolescents’ digital skills across six European countries. New Media & Society27: 5915–5937.
28.
International Telecommunication Union (2018) Measuring the Information Society Report. Geneva: ITU Publications.
29.
KimHSKilHJShinA (2014) An analysis of variables affecting the ICT literacy level of Korean elementary school students. Computers & Education77(1): 29–38.
30.
Kutlu-AbuNArslanR (2023) Evolving trend of media literacy research: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Media Literacy Education15(1): 85–98.
31.
LankshearCKnobelM (2008) Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices. Lausanne: Peter Lang.
32.
LiuLCoureyKAKinseyD, et al. (2025) Navigating the Digital Horizon: A Proposed Framework and Strategies for Assessing Digital Literacy. Report, ETS Research Institute, Princeton, NJ, July.
33.
LivingstoneS (2004) Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. The Communication Review7(1): 3–14.
34.
MartinA (2008) Digital literacy and the “digital society”. In: LankshearCKnobelM (eds) Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices. Lausanne: Peter Lang, pp. 151-176.
35.
MartinAGrudzieckiJ (2006) DigEuLit: concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences5(4): 249–267.
36.
Martínez-BravoMCSádaba ChalezquerCSerrano-PucheJ (2022) Dimensions of digital literacy in the 21st century competency frameworks. Sustainability14(3): 1867.
37.
Martínez-CantosJL (2017) Digital skills gaps: a pending subject for gender digital inclusion in the European Union. European Journal of Communication32(5): 419–438.
38.
Media Perspektiven (2022) Media Perspektiven Basisdaten Daten zur Mediensituation in Deutschland 2021. Report, February.
39.
Mejías-AcostaARegnaultDAVargas-CanoE, et al. (2024) Assessment of digital competencies in higher education students: development and validation of a measurement scale. Frontiers in Education9: 1497376.
40.
MorrisonC (2018) Copyright and digital literacy: rules, risk and creativity. In: ReedyKParkerJ (eds) Digital Literacy Unpacked. London: Facet Publishing, pp. 97–108.
41.
MoscadelliAAlboraGBiamonteMA, et al. (2020) Fake news and Covid-19 in Italy: results of a quantitative observational study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17(16): 5850.
42.
NeyerFJFelberJGebhardtC (2012) Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft. Diagnostica58(2): 87–99.
43.
ParkS (2011) Access to digital devices and its relationship to digital media literacy. In: Record of the communication policy research forum, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 7–8 November.
44.
ParkS (2012) Dimensions of digital media literacy and the relationship with social exclusion. Media International Australia142(1): 87–100.
45.
RagneddaMRuiuML (2017) Social capital and the three levels of digital divide. In: RagneddaMMuschertG (eds) Theorizing Digital Divides. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 21–34.
46.
ReddyPSharmaBChaudharyK (2020) Digital literacy: a review of literature. International Journal of Technoethics (IJT)11(2): 65–94.
47.
Schulze-HeulingLWildSVestA (2021) Digital competences of prospective engineers and science teachers: a latent profile and correspondence analysis. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST)9(4): 760–782.
48.
TsaiHYSShillairRCottonSR (2017) Social support and “playing around” an examination of how older adults acquire digital literacy with tablet computers. Journal of Applied Gerontology36(1): 29–55.
49.
Van DeursenAJVan DijkJ (2019) The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society21(2): 354–375.
50.
Van DeursenAJVan DijkJPetersO (2011) Rethinking Internet skills: the contribution of gender, age, education, Internet experience, and hours online to medium-and content-related Internet skills. Poetics39(2): 125–144.
51.
Van DijkJ (2020) The Digital Divide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
52.
Van LaarEVan DeursenAJVan DijkJ, et al. (2017) The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: a systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior72: 577–588.
53.
VargoCJGuoLAmazeenMA (2017) The agenda-setting power of fake news: a big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New Media & Society20(5): 2028–2049.
54.
VuorikariRKluzerSPunieY (2022) DigComp 2.2: the Digital Competence Framework for Citizens–With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
55.
WitteJMannonS (2010) The Internet and Social Inequalities. Abingdon: Routledge.
56.
YueANekmatEBetaAR (2019) Digital literacy through digital citizenship: online civic participation and public opinion evaluation of youth minorities in Southeast Asia. Media and Communication7(2): 100–114.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
