IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/iptwpa/jrc103332.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Background Review for Developing the Digital Competence Framework for Consumers: A snapshot of hot-button issues and recent literature

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This report presents the results of a study of the requirements for developing a Digital Competence Framework in the context of a digital marketplace in the EU. Consumer digital competence is defined as the competence consumers need to function actively, safely and assertively in the digital marketplace. This framework will define the skills, knowledge and attitudes that consumers need to navigate the complex digital environment. The research project to create the Digital Competence Framework for Consumers is a joint action of DG Justice and Consumers (JUST), and the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the Commission's science and knowledge service. The work, carried out between 2015-2016, aimed to achieve the goals set out by the European Commission in its two recent Communications: "A New Skills Agenda For Europe - Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness" (European Commission, 2016) and "A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe" (European Commission, 2015). Both these Communications focus on the importance of citizens' digital skills and their capacity to participate more deeply in our digital society and economy. The study presented in this report is designed to elicit user requirements in order to support the development of the Digital Competence Framework for Consumers. The study was commissioned by the Joint Research Centre and it is a result of collaborative work between the authors of the report. Further consultation on requirements was carried out with DG JUST in which experts on various topics gave their input and contributed to the text. The literature and the hot-button issues described in this report reflect the state-of-play in 2015, when the study was carried out. The methodology used to clarify the requirements for a consumer digital competence framework had four main steps. First, a 'broad-but-shallow' look into important emerging issues in the field of online shopping and advertisement was taken. In this phase of the study, a number of European Commission working documents on the issue were reviewed. The focus was also on current relevant literature, both academic and grey literature. Second, the existing terms and major work in consumer competence was reviewed and links were made to behavioural insights. It emerged that lack of digital competence can make consumers vulnerable in today's complex digital environment. Third, part of the work consisted of testing the suitability of the existing Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp) in an expert workshop to further prompt requirements for the new framework. Lastly, to finalise the process of requirement gathering, a gap analysis was conducted on a number of prominent sources of educational material for consumer competence. The study found that the DigComp framework was a suitable starting point and confirms that it could be adapted to the new context of the digital marketplace. However, the analysis also showed that not all competencies are covered by the existing framework, in particular with regards to emerging digital trends and issues outlined. The final product of the project, the Digital Competence Framework for Consumers, is described in a JRC Science for Policy publication by Brecko & Ferrari (2016). All information is available also at the JRC Science Hub.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Fielder & Riina Vuorikari & Nuria Rodriguez-Priego & Yves Punie, 2016. "Background Review for Developing the Digital Competence Framework for Consumers: A snapshot of hot-button issues and recent literature," JRC Research Reports JRC103332, Joint Research Centre.
  • Handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc103332
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC103332
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacoby, Jacob & Speller, Donald E & Berning, Carol A Kohn, 1974. "Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load: Replication and Extension," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(1), pages 33-42, June.
    2. Alessandro Acquisti & Curtis Taylor & Liad Wagman, 2016. "The Economics of Privacy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(2), pages 442-492, June.
    3. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    4. Scammon, Debra L, 1977. ""Information Load" and Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 4(3), pages 148-155, December.
    5. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2002. "Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 460-501, June.
    6. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manel Baucells & Cristina Rata, 2006. "A Survey Study of Factors Influencing Risk-Taking Behavior in Real-World Decisions Under Uncertainty," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 163-176, September.
    2. Dorian Jullien, 2013. "Asian Disease-type of Framing of Outcomes as an Historical Curiosity," GREDEG Working Papers 2013-47, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    3. Feng, Cecilia (Qian) & Wang, Tawei, 2019. "Does CIO risk appetite matter? Evidence from information security breach incidents," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 59-75.
    4. Mark J Hurlstone & Stephan Lewandowsky & Ben R Newell & Brittany Sewell, 2014. "The Effect of Framing and Normative Messages in Building Support for Climate Policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Ropret Homar, Aja & Knežević Cvelbar, Ljubica, 2021. "The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    6. Enrique Fatas & Tibor Neugebauer & Pilar Tamborero, 2007. "How Politicians Make Decisions: A Political Choice Experiment," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 167-196, October.
    7. Delgado, Laura & Shealy, Tripp, 2018. "Opportunities for greater energy efficiency in government facilities by aligning decision structures with advances in behavioral science," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3952-3961.
    8. Fabian Thomas & Estelle Midler & Marianne Lefebvre & Stefanie Engel, 2019. "Greening the common agricultural policy: a behavioural perspective and lab-in-the-field experiment in Germany," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 367-392.
    9. Sicilia, Maria & Ruiz, Salvador, 2010. "The Effect of Web-Based Information Availability on Consumers' Processing and Attitudes," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 31-41.
    10. Víctor Alberto Pena & Alina Gómez-Mejía, 2019. "Effect of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic and optimism bias in stock market forecasts," Revista Finanzas y Politica Economica, Universidad Católica de Colombia, vol. 11(2), pages 389-409, November.
    11. McCaffery, Edward J. & Baron, Jonathan, 2004. "Framing and taxation: Evaluation of tax policies involving household composition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 679-705, December.
    12. Nuria Rodríguez-Priego & René van Bavel, 2016. "The Effect of Warning Messages on Secure Behaviour Online: Results from a Lab Experiment," JRC Research Reports JRC103188, Joint Research Centre.
    13. Jean Roisse Rodrigues Ferreira, 2022. "Decision-Making under Risk: Conditions Affecting the Risk Preferences of Politicians in Digitalization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-12, March.
    14. Yan Sun & Barbara Mellers, 2016. "Trade-upgrade framing effects: Trades are losses, but upgrades are improvements," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(6), pages 582-588, November.
    15. Anish Nagpal & Adwait Khare & Tilottama Chowdhury & Lauren Labrecque & Ameet Pandit, 2011. "The impact of the amount of available information on decision delay: The role of common features," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 405-421, November.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:6:p:582-588 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. René van Bavel & Nuria Rodríguez-Priego, 2016. "Testing the Effect of the Cookie Banners on Behaviour," JRC Research Reports JRC103997, Joint Research Centre.
    18. Kaiser Karen, 2011. "Variety Aversion and Information Overload: An Experimental Approach," Working Papers 2011-01, Banco de México.
    19. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Persson, Petra, 2018. "Attention manipulation and information overload," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 78-106, May.
    21. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Digitally-competent educational organisations; innovation in education; European Framework for Digitally-Competent Educational Organisations; educational policy; digital learning technologies; self-assessment questionnaire; ICT for learning and skills;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I20 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - General
    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy
    • I29 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ipt:iptwpa:jrc103332. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Publication Officer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipjrces.html .

    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.