IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v11y2023i1p110-128_8.html

Digital literacy and online political behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Guess, Andrew M.
  • Munger, Kevin

Abstract

Digital literacy is receiving increased scholarly attention as a potential explanatory factor in the spread of misinformation and other online pathologies. As a concept, however, it remains surprisingly elusive, with little consensus on definitions or measures. We provide a digital literacy framework for political scientists and test survey items to measure it with an application to online information retrieval tasks. There exists substantial variation in levels of digital literacy in the population, which we show is correlated with age and could confound observed relationships. However, this is obscured by researchers’ reliance on online convenience samples that select for people with computer and internet skills. We discuss the implications of these measurement and sample selection considerations for effect heterogeneity in studies of online political behavior. We argue that there is no universally applicable formula for selecting a given non-probability sample or operationalization of the concept of digital literacy; instead, we conclude, researchers should make theoretically informed arguments about how they select both sample and measure.

Suggested Citation

  • Guess, Andrew M. & Munger, Kevin, 2023. "Digital literacy and online political behavior," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 110-128, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:11:y:2023:i:1:p:110-128_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847022000176/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bonica, Adam & Grumbach, Jacob M., 2025. "Old money: Campaign finance and gerontocracy in the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 249(C).
    2. Ziyang Zhou & Ziwei Li & Guangyan Chen & Jinpeng Zou & Mingling Du & Fang Wang, 2024. "Digital Literacy Level and Formal Credit Constraints: Probit Analysis of Farm Households’ Borrowing Behavior in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Tsang Kai Hung & Mu Tian & Jie Wu, 2025. "Trickle-down politics: exploring the social learning process of supervisor political skill and its impact on subordinate," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(5), pages 742-771, November.
    4. Li, Peng & Li, Qinghai & Du, Shanxing, 2024. "Does digital literacy help residents avoid becoming victims of frauds? Empirical evidence based on a survey of residents in six provinces of east China," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 364-377.
    5. Valentin Guigon & Marie Claire Villeval & Jean-Claude Dreher, 2024. "Metacognition biases information seeking in assessing ambiguous news," Post-Print hal-04848999, HAL.
    6. Shi Chen & Sabariah Mohamed Salleh & Mohd Azul Mohamad Salleh & Fei Zhou, 2025. "Construction of an evaluation index system for teacher education students’ information literacy: an empirical analysis of Chinese postgraduate programs," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Joshua P. Darr, 2023. "How Sticky Is Pink Slime? Assessing the Credibility of Deceptive Local Media," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 707(1), pages 109-124, May.
    8. Olga Pasitselska, 2024. "Frontline Knowledge: Digital Media Literacy of Older Adults in Ukraine," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:11:y:2023:i:1:p:110-128_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.