Digital citizenship, a multidimensional concept that encompasses digital literacy, online ethics, and civic engagement, promotes young people’s responsible, respectful, and safe participation in digital society. Precisely defining the values and behaviors that shape its ethical dimension is thus essential for understanding youth digital engagement. In this study, we aimed to develop and validate a self-report measure to assess online ethical values and behaviors and to examine their interrelations. A sample of 529 Spanish youth (61.4 percent women, aged 13–23 years) completed a self-report measure. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a five-factor structure (57.1 percent variance explained): Online Respect, Online Responsibility, Tolerance for Diversity, Prosocial Cyberbystander, and Online Self-Development. We also aimed to analyze the relationships between these online values and the associated variables. We found significant correlations with higher empathy, lower cyberhate perpetration, and increased online ethical behaviors, including prosocial bystander interventions in cases of cyberhate. Women, non-heterosexual youth, and older participants (18–23 years) reported higher ethical values, with no significant group differences in self-reported online ethical behaviors. These findings provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between online ethical values in youth and their actual practices, highlighting the importance of incorporating socio-emotional and sociodemographic factors into prevention strategies aimed at preventing unethical online behaviors. The newly developed scale offers a practical tool for assessing and enhancing digital citizenship interventions, addressing the growing need for responsible and respectful online engagement.
RibbleMS, BaileyGD, RossTW. Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior. Learn Lead Technol, 2004; 32(1):6.
2.
SnyderSE. Teachers’ Perceptions of Digital Citizenship Development in Middle School Students Using Social Media and Global Collaborative Projects. PhD Thesis. Walden University; 2016.
3.
WaltersMG, GeeD, MohammedS. A literature review: Digital citizenship and the elementary educator. Int J Technol Educ, 2019; 2(1):1–21.
4.
ChenLL, MirpuriS, RaoN, et al.Conceptualization and measurement of digital citizenship across disciplines. Educ Res Rev, 2021; 33:100379; doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100379
5.
MossbergerK, TolbertCJ, McNealRS. Digital Citizenship. The Internet, Society, and Participation. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA; 2008.
6.
SimsekE, SimsekA. New literacies for digital citizenship. Contemp Educ Technol, 2013; 4(2):126–137; doi: 10.30935/cedtech/6097
7.
International Society for Technology in Education. ISTE standards for students. 2016. Available from: https://iste.org/standards/students [Last accessed: March16, 2025].
8.
JonesLM, MitchellKJ. Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship. New Media Soc, 2016; 18(9):2063–2079; doi: 10.1177/1461444815577797
9.
EmejuluA, McGregorC. Towards a radical digital citizenship in digital education. Crit Stud Educ, 2019; 60(1):131–147; doi: 10.1080/17508487.2016.1234494
10.
HenryN, VasilS, WittA. Digital citizenship in a global society: A feminist approach. Fem Media Stud, 2022; 22(8):1972–1989; doi: 10.1080/14680777.2021.1937269
11.
ChoiM, GlassmanM, CristolD. What it means to be a citizen in the internet age: Development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale. Comput Educ, 2017; 107:100–112; doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.002
12.
HarrisonT, PolizziG. (In)civility and adolescents’ moral decision making online: Drawing on moral theory to advance digital citizenship education. Educ Inf Technol, 2022; 27(3):3277–3297; doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10710-0
Touriñan-LópezJM. Educacion en valores, educacion intercultural y formacion para la convivencia pacifica. Eduga Rev Galega Ensino, 2005(;47):1367–1418; doi: 10.4272/978-84-9745-282-3
15.
WangY-Y, WangY-S, WangY-M. What drives students’ Internet ethical behaviour: An integrated model of the theory of planned behaviour, personality, and Internet ethics education. Behav Inf Technol, 2022; 41(3):588–610; doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2020.1829053
16.
ZelenkovskiK, ProdanovaJ, KocarevL. Exploring citizen perceptions and values for a responsible society. Soc Sci Q, 2024; 105(2):296–310; doi: 10.1111/ssqu.13353
17.
KimM, ChoiD. Development of youth digital citizenship scale and implication for educational setting. J Educ Technol Soc, 2018; 21(1):155–171.
18.
RibbleM, BaileyG. Digital Citizenship in Schools. 2nd ed.. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE): Washington, DC; 2011.
19.
ZhanJ, YangY, LianR. The relationship between cyberbullying victimization and cyberbullying perpetration: The role of social responsibility. Front Psychiatry, 2022; 13:995937; doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.995937
20.
ChoiM. A concept analysis of digital citizenship for democratic citizenship education in the internet age. Theory Res Soc Educ, 2016; 44(4):565–607; doi: 10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549
21.
SherrodLR, FlanaganC, YounissJ. Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities for youth development: The what, why, when, where, and who of citizenship development. Appl Dev Sci, 2002; 6(4):264–272; doi: 10.1207/S1532480XADS0604_14
22.
Valdés-CuervoAA, Morales-ÁlvarezA, Parra-PérezLG, et al.Assessment of an adolescent digital citizenship scale: Examining dimensionality, measurement invariance and external validity. Relieve, 2024; 30(1); doi: 10.30827/relieve.v30i1.25367
23.
KimS, HanY. Different trajectories of citizenship across latent classes of adolescent online risk behavior. Child Youth Serv Rev, 2020; 109:104731.
24.
International Society for Technology in Education I. ISTE Standards for Students. 2019. Available from: https://iste.org/standards/students [Last accessed: March16, 2025].
25.
OkkaB. Medical students’ ethical use of information and communication technologies. Ijemst, 2024; 12(4):861–873; doi: 10.46328/ijemst.4561
26.
Pua’atAA, YunusNM. A study on awareness, exposure and attitude towards digital citizenship among university students in Malaysia. IMBR, 2023; 15(1(I)SI):190–203; doi: 10.22610/imbr.v15i1(I)SI.3397
27.
SilkeC, BradyB, DolanP, et al.Social values and civic behaviour among youth in Ireland: The influence of social contexts. Ir J Sociol, 2020; 28(1):44–64; doi: 10.1177/0791603519863295
28.
BatsonCD. These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related but Distinct Phenomena. In: The social Neuroscience of Empathy. (DecetyJ, IckesW. eds.) MIT Press: Cambridge, MA; 2009; pp. 3–15.
29.
DavisMH. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Cat Sel Doc Psychol, 1980; 10:85.
30.
VilladangosJM, ErrastiJM, AmigoI, et al.Characteristics of empathy in young people measured by the Spanish validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Psicothema, 2016; 28(3):323–329; doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.6
31.
SoralW, MalinowskaK, BilewiczM. The role of empathy in reducing hate speech proliferation. Two contact-based interventions in online and off-line settings. Peace Confl, 2022; 28(3):361–371; doi: 10.1037/pac0000602
32.
WachsS, BilzL, WettsteinA, et al.Associations between witnessing and perpetrating online hate speech among adolescents: Testing moderation effects of moral disengagement and empathy. Psychol Violence, 2022; 12(6):371–381; doi: 10.1037/vio0000426
33.
Gómez-GutiérrezJLG, EspinosaVF, HarrisonT. Un enfoque de cibersabiduría para la educación en ciudadanía digital: Percepciones de adolescentes españoles. Bordón, 2024; 76(2):173–196; doi: 10.13042/Bordon.2024.100155
34.
Gámez-GuadixM, WachsS, WrightM. “Haters back off!” Psychometric properties of the coping with cyberhate questionnaire and relationship with well-being in Spanish adolescents. Psicothema, 2020; 32(4):567–574; doi: 10.7334/psicothema2020.41
35.
WachsS, CostelloM, WrightMF, et al.“DNT LET ‘EM H8 U!”: Applying the routine activity framework to understand cyberhate victimization among adolescents across eight countries. Comput Educ, 2021; 160:104026; doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104026
36.
KunstM, Porten-CheéP, EmmerM, et al.Do “good citizens” fight hate speech online? Effects of solidarity citizenship norms on user responses to hate comments. J Inf Technol Polit, 2021; 18(3):258–273; doi: 10.1080/19331681.2020.1871149
37.
ChangS-H, ShuY, LinY-H, et al.“I believe”,”I think”, then “I will”? investigating the mediator role of ethical judgment between internet ethical self-efficacy and ethical behavioral intention. Comput Human Behav, 2019; 101:387–393; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.013
38.
RossiG, LenziM, SharkeyJD, et al.Factors associated with civic engagement in adolescence: The effects of neighborhood, school, family and peer contexts. Journal Community Psychology, 2016; 44(8):1040–1058; doi: 10.1002/jcop.21826
39.
SearsonM, HancockM, SoheilN, et al.Digital citizenship within global contexts. Educ Inf Technol, 2015; 20(4):729–741; doi: 10.1007/s10639-015-9426-0
40.
LuC, GuMM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of factors and outcomes of digital citizenship among adolescents. Asia Pac J Educ, 2025; 45(4):1130–1145; doi: 10.1080/02188791.2023.2296352
41.
ShiG, ChanKK, LinX-F. A systematic review of digital citizenship empirical studies for practitioners. Educ Inf Technol, 2023; 28(4):3953–3975; doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11383-z
42.
HiebertA, Kortes-MillerK. Finding home in online community: Exploring TikTok as a support for gender and sexual minority youth throughout COVID-19. J LGBT Youth, 2023; 20(4):800–817; doi: 10.1080/19361653.2021.2009953
43.
CoganJJ. Citizenship Education for the 21st Century: Setting the Context. In: Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education. (CoganJJ, DerricottR. eds.) Kogan Page: London; 2000; pp. 1–21.
44.
ListerR. What Is Citizenship? In: Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. (CamplingJ. ed) Macmillan Education UK: London; 1997; pp. 13–41; doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-26209-0_2
45.
MarshallTH. Citizenship and Social Class. In: The Welfare State Reader. 2nd Ed. (PiersonP, CastlesFG. eds.) Polity Press: Cambridge, UK; 2006; pp. 30–40.
46.
MouffeC. Democratic Citizenship and the Political Community. In: Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship and Community. (MouffeC. ed.) Routledge: London, UK; 1992; pp. 70–82.
HardySA, BeanDS, OlsenJA. Moral identity and adolescent prosocial and antisocial behaviors: Interactions with moral disengagement and self-regulation. J Youth Adolesc, 2015; 44(8):1542–1554; doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0172-1
49.
OrtizJMP. La educación en valores y su práctica en el aula. Editorial CCS: Madrid; 2003.
50.
SchwartzMS. Universal moral values for corporate codes of ethics. J Bus Ethics, 2005; 59(1–2):27–44; doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-3403-2
51.
SchwartzMS. Teaching behavioral ethics: Overcoming the key impediments to ethical behavior. J Manag Educ, 2017; 41(4):497–513; doi: 10.1177/1052562917701501
52.
AtifY, ChouC. Digital citizenship: Innovations in education, practice, and pedagogy. J Educ Technol Soc, 2018; 21(1):152–154.
53.
Fernández-PradosJS, Lozano-DíazA, Ainz-GalendeA. Measuring digital citizenship: A comparative analysis. Informatics MDPI, 2021; 8(1):18; doi: 10.3390/informatics8010018
54.
JørringL, ValentimA, Porten-CheéP. Mapping a changing field: A literature review on digital citizenship. Digit Cult Soc, 2018; 4(2):11–38; doi: 10.14361/dcs-2018-0203
55.
PangrazioL, Sefton-GreenJ. Digital rights, digital citizenship and digital literacy: What’s the difference? J New Approaches Educ Res, 2021; 10(1):15–27; doi: 10.7821/naer.2021.1.616
56.
Al-ZahraniA. Toward digital citizenship: Examining factors affecting participation and involvement in the internet society among higher education students. IES, 2015; 8(12):203; doi: 10.5539/ies.v8n12p203
57.
HuiB, CampbellR. Discrepancy between learning and practicing digital citizenship. J Acad Ethics, 2018; 16(2):117–131; doi: 10.1007/s10805-018-9302-9
58.
IsmanA, Canan GungorenO. Digital citizenship. Turk Online J Educ Technol, 2014; 13(1):73–77.
59.
NordinMS, AhmadTBT, ZubairiAM, et al.Psychometric properties of a digital citizenship questionnaire. IES, 2016; 9(3):71–80; doi: 10.5539/ies.v9n3p71
60.
PeartMT, Gutiérrez-EstebanP, Cubo-DelgadoS. Development of the digital and socio-civic skills (DIGISOC) questionnaire. Education Tech Research Dev, 2020; 68(6):3327–3351; doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09824-y
61.
ZychI, FarringtonDP, JolliffeD, et al.Empathy in Polish and Spanish children and adolescents: Validation of the basic empathy scale and its relation to bullying, cyberbullying, and other antisocial behaviours. In: Empathy versus Offending, Aggression and Bullying. (JolliffeD, FarringtonDP. Eds.) Routledge: London; 2021; pp. 188–199.
62.
DarleyJM, LatanéB. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1968; 8(4):377–383; doi: 10.1037/h0025589
63.
SargiotiA, KuldasS, FoodyM, et al.Dublin anti-bullying self-efficacy models and scales: Development and validation. J Interpers Violence, 2023; 38(7–8):5748–5773; doi: 10.1177/08862605221127193
64.
JenkinsLN, NickersonAB. Bullying participant roles and gender as predictors of bystander intervention. Aggress Behav, 2017; 43(3):281–290; doi: 10.1002/ab.21688
ReinardJC. Communication Research Statistics. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA; 2006.
67.
OsborneJW, CostelloAB. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pan Pac Manag Rev, 2009; 12(2):131–146; doi: 10.7275/jyj1-4868
68.
Lloret-SeguraS, Ferreres-TraverA, Hernández-BaezaA, et al.El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: Una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Analesps, 2014; 30(3):1151–1169; doi: 10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361
69.
HuL, BentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling, 1999; 6(1):1–55; doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
70.
CohenJ. Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychol Bull, 1992; 112(1):155–159.
71.
PardoA, RuizMA. Inferencia con una variable categórica y una cuantitativa. Respuestas dicotómicas. In: PardoA, San MartínR., eds. Análisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud II. Síntesis: Madrid, 2012:165–203.
72.
PettM, LackeyN, SullivanJ. Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research. SAGE Publications: Thousands Oaks, CA; 2003.
73.
ClarkL, WatsonD. Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychol Assess, 2019; 31(12):1412–1427; doi: 10.1037/pas0000626
74.
BickhamDS, MoukalledS, InyartHK, et al.Evaluating a middle-school digital citizenship curriculum (Screenshots): Quasi-experimental study. JMIR Ment Health, 2021; 8(9):e26197; doi: 10.2196/26197
75.
BrandauM, DilleyT, SchaumleffelC, et al.Digital citizenship among appalachian middle schoolers: The common sense digital citizenship curriculum. Health Educ J, 2022; 81(2):157–169; doi: 10.1177/00178969211056429
76.
GerişA, ÖzdenerN. The illusions on digital citizenship: What we know and what we do? Acta Educ Gen, 2021; 11(3):125–151; doi: 10.2478/atd-2021-0024
77.
JonesLM, MitchellKJ, BeselerCL. The impact of youth digital citizenship education: Insights from a cluster randomized controlled trial outcome evaluation of the be internet awesome (BIA) curriculum. Contemp School Psychol, 2024; 28(4):509–523; doi: 10.1007/s40688-023-00465-5
78.
BanduraA. Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Moral Educ, 2002; 31(2):101–119; doi: 10.1080/0305724022014322
79.
ClaravallEB, Evans-AmaluK. Self-regulation, empathy, and compassion: A critical triad to develop anti-racist digital citizenship in the time of pandemic. J Int Soc Stud, 2020; 10(2):44–59.
80.
PiccoliV, CarnaghiA, GrassiM, et al.Cyberbullying through the lens of social influence: Predicting cyberbullying perpetration from perceived peer-norm, cyberspace regulations and ingroup processes. Comput Human Behav, 2020; 102:260–273; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.001
81.
SulerJ. The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychol Behav, 2004; 7(3):321–326.
82.
LauricellaAR, HerdzinaJ, RobbM. Early childhood educators’ teaching of digital citizenship competencies. Comput Educ, 2020; 158:103989; doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103989
83.
XuS, YangHH, MacLeodJ, et al.Interpersonal communication competence and digital citizenship among pre-service teachers in China’s teacher preparation programs. J Moral Educ, 2019; 48(2):179–198; doi: 10.1080/03057240.2018.1458605
84.
SilkeC, BradyB, BoylanC, et al.Empathy, social responsibility, and civic behavior among irish adolescents: A socio-contextual approach. J Early Adolesc, 2021; 41(7):996–1019; doi: 10.1177/0272431620977658
85.
JugertP, EcksteinK, NoackP, et al.Offline and online civic engagement among adolescents and young adults from three ethnic groups. J Youth Adolesc, 2013; 42(1):123–135; doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9805-4
86.
PastorY, Pérez-TorresV, Thomas-CurrásH, et al.A study of the influence of altruism, social responsibility, reciprocity, and the subjective norm on online prosocial behavior in adolescence. Comput Human Behav, 2024; 154:108156; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108156
87.
PopaNL, AssanteGM. Explanatory factors of digital citizenship among university students. A cross-national dataset. Data Brief, 2024; 57:111011; doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2024.111011
88.
DunawayM, MachariaM. The effect of digital citizenship on negative online behaviors and learning outcomes in higher education. J Inf Syst Educ, 2021; 32(4):294–307.
89.
ZhongJ, ZhengY, HuangX, et al.Study of the influencing factors of cyberbullying among Chinese college students incorporated with digital citizenship: From the perspective of individual students. Front Psychol, 2021; 12:621418; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.621418
90.
EstanyolE, MontañaM, Fernández-de-CastroP, et al.Digital competence among young people in Spain: A gender divide analysis. Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación, 2023; 31(74):113–123; doi: 10.3916/C74-2023-09
91.
DonosoT, RubioM, VilàR. La adolescencia ante la violencia de género 2.0: Concepciones, conductas y experiencias. Rev Complut Educ, 2018; 21(1):109–134; doi: 10.5944/educxx1.20180
92.
Gámez-GuadixM, InceraD. Homophobia is online: Sexual victimization and risks on the internet and mental health among bisexual, homosexual, pansexual, asexual, and queer adolescents. Comput Human Behav, 2021; 119:106728; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106728
93.
Martínez-BacaicoaJ, Alonso-FernándezM, WachsS, et al.Prevalence and motivations for technology-facilitated gender- and sexuality-based violence among adults: A mixed-methods Study. Sex Roles, 2023; 89(11–12):670–684; doi: 10.1007/s11199-023-01412-7
94.
SnaychukLA, O’NeillML. Technology-facilitated sexual violence: Prevalence, risk, and resiliency in undergraduate students. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma, 2020; 29(8):984–999; doi: 10.1080/10926771.2019.1710636
95.
JenkinsH, CarpentierN. Theorizing participatory intensities: A conversation about participation and politics. Convergence Int J Res New Media Technol, 2013; 19(3):265–286; doi: 10.1177/1354856513482090
96.
KammerJ, AtisoK, BorteyeEM. Student experiences with digital citizenship: A comparative cultural study. Libri, 2021; 71(3):279–291; doi: 10.1515/libri-2020-0174
97.
ChoiM, ParkH-J. Korean adolescents’ profiles of digital citizenship and its relations to internet ethics: Implications for critical digital citizenship education. Camb J Educ, 2023; 53(4):567–586; doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2023.2191929
98.
Lavie DinurA, AharoniM, KarnielY. Safe online ethical code for and by the “net generation”: Themes emerging from school students’ wisdom of the crowd. Jices, 2021; 19(1):129–145; doi: 10.1108/JICES-02-2020-0021
99.
ZverevaE. Digital ethics in higher education: Modernizing moral values for effective communication in cyberspace. Online J Commun Media Technol, 2023; 13(2):e202319; doi: 10.30935/ojcmt/13033
100.
ChoiM, CristolD. Digital citizenship with intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy driven digital citizenship education. Theory Pract, 2021; 60(4):361–370; doi: 10.1080/00405841.2021.1987094
101.
PrasetiyoWH, SariBI, Mahadir NaiduNB, et al.Students’ digital citizenship in ubiquitous technology: A comprehensive model based on DC-REP framework, internet attitudes, computer self-efficacy, and internet skills. Educ Inf Technol, 2024; 29(17):23185–23224; doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12761-5
