The Impact of Digital Safety Competence on Cognitive Competence, AI Self-Efficacy, and Character
Source abstract
Abstract
Although there are studies on digital competence in higher education, there are very few studies on digital safety competence. This study aims to explore the impact of digital safety competence on students’ higher-order thinking and AI-related outcomes. Using a cross-sectional design, 159 university students completed an online questionnaire to measure cognitive competence, Al self-efficacy, AI ethics, and moral competence. Results showed that digital safety competence was positively and significantly related to cognitive competence, AI self-efficacy, AI ethics, and moral competence (p < 0.05). Our study extends the literature by highlighting the role of digital safety competence. Educators and university policy makers may consider incorporating digital competence, especially in the area of safety, into their teaching and learning strategies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Education and Learning Interventions · Technology and Data Analysis · Technostress in Professional Settings
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Funding
University Grants Committee, Hong Kong · Hong Kong Polytechnic University
References (99)
Show source-provided references
1. Evaluating digital literacy levels among students in two private universities in Panama10.46932/sfjdv4n5-003 ↗
2. UNESCO (2025, April 12). AI and Education: Guidance for Policy-Makers. UNESCO, 2021. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, 2020. Digital Library UNESDOC. Available online: http://en.unesco.org/.
3. Evaluation of an artificial intelligence literacy course for university students with diverse study backgrounds10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100026 ↗
4. Tools for assessing teacher digital literacy: A review10.1007/s40692-022-00257-5 ↗
5. Measuring digital literacy across three age cohorts: Exploring test dimensionality and performance differences10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103968 ↗
6. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., and Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with Eight Proficiency Levels and Examples of Use, Publications of the European Union.
7. Experts’ views on digital competence: Commonalities and differences10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.008 ↗
8. Pre-adolescents’ digital competences in the area of safety. Does frequency of social media use mean safer and more knowledgeable digital usage?10.1007/s10639-020-10302-4 ↗
9. Kindarji, V., and Wong, W.H. (2023). Digital Literacy Will Be Key in a World Transformed by AI, Schwartz Reisman Institute. Available online: https://srinstitute.utoronto.ca/news/digital-literacy-will-be-key-in-a-world-transformed-by-ai.
10. OECD (2021). Beyond Academic Learning: First Results from the Survey of Social and Emotional Skills, OECD Publishing.
11. Factors affecting students’ academic performance: Self-efficacy, digital literacy, and academic engagement effects
12. Mejías-Acosta, A., D’Armas Regnault, M., Vargas-Cano, E., Cárdenas-Cobo, J., and Vidal-Silva, C. (2024). Assessment of digital competencies in higher education students: Development and validation of a measurement scale. Front. Educ., 9.10.3389/feduc.2024.1497376 ↗
13. Adaptation of higher education students’ digital skills survey to Russian universities10.29333/ejmste/12558 ↗
14. Wulan, R., Sintowoko, D.A.W., Resmadi, I., and Yenni, S. (2022, January 1). Digital Skills in Education: Perspective from Teaching Capabilities in Technology. Proceedings of the 9th BCM International Conference, Bandung, Indonesia.10.1201/9781003372486-80 ↗
15. Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital Competence in Practice: An Analysis of Frameworks, Publications Office of the EU. Available online: https://ifap.ru/library/book522.pdf.
16. Riina, V., Stefano, K., and Yves, P. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens—With New Examples of Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes, Joint Research Centre. JRC Research Reports JRC128415.
17. Digital competence development in schools: A study on the association of problem-solving with autonomy and digital attitudes10.1186/s40594-025-00534-6 ↗
18. Assessment of students’ digital competences in primary school: A systematic review10.1007/s10639-022-11020-9 ↗
19. Ethical Leadership and Team Ethical Voice and Citizenship Behavior in the Military: The Roles of Team Moral Efficacy and Ethical Climate10.1177/1059601120920050 ↗
20. Positive youth development: Current perspectives
21. Security as an emerging dimension of Digital Literacy for education: A systematic literature review
22. A holistic approach to the design of artificial intelligence (AI) education for K-12 schools10.1007/s11528-021-00637-1 ↗
23. Carr, N. (2020). The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, WW Norton and Company.
24. AI in higher education: Unveiling academicians’ perspectives on teaching, research, and ethics in the age of ChatGPT
25. ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
26. Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y ↗
27. The rapid rise of generative AI and its implications for academic integrity: Students’ perceptions and use of chatbots for assistance with assessments10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100273 ↗
28. Tryst with the unknown: Navigating an unplanned transition to online examinations10.1108/QAE-12-2021-0197 ↗
29. AI in essay-based assessment: Student adoption, usage, and performance10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100288 ↗
30. Intelligent (2023). Nearly 1 in 3 College Students Have Used ChatGPT on Written Assignments, Intelligent. Available online: https://intelligent.com.
31. Generative AI and the future of higher education: A threat to academic integrity or reformation? Evidence from multicultural perspectives10.1186/s41239-024-00453-6 ↗
32. Hey ChatGPT, give me a title for a paper about degree apathy and student use of AI for assignment writing10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100950 ↗
33. Students’ perceptions of ‘AI-giarism’: Investigating changes in understandings of academic misconduct10.1007/s10639-024-13151-7 ↗
34. Chang, C.Y., and Kuo, H.C. (Educ. Inf. Technol., 2025). The development and validation of the digital literacy questionnaire and the evaluation of students’ digital literacy, Educ. Inf. Technol., in press.10.1007/s10639-024-13216-7 ↗
35. Redecker, C., and Punie, Y. (2017). Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu), European Union. Available online: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC107466.
36. Could AI Ethical Anxiety, Perceived Ethical Risks and Ethical Awareness About AI Influence University Students’ Use of Generative AI Products? An Ethical Perspective10.1080/10447318.2024.2323277 ↗
37. The digital age students: Exploring leadership, freedom, and ethical online behavior: A quantitative study
38. Santoni de Sio, F. (2024). Human Freedom in the Age of AI, Routledge. [1st ed.].10.4324/9781003303244 ↗
39. Burns, T., and Gottschalk, F. (2019). Educating 21st Century Children: Emotional Well-Being in the Digital Age, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing.10.1787/b7f33425-en ↗
40. Using multilevel analysis to examine the relationship between upper secondary students’ Internet safety awareness, social background and academic aspirations10.3390/fi6040717 ↗
41. Ahmad, M.A., Teredesai, A., and Eckert, C. (2020, January 27–30). Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in AI At Scale: Lessons from National Programs. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Barcelona, Spain.10.1145/3351095.3375690 ↗
42. Microsoft (2025, April 12). Responsible and Trusted AI. Available online: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cloud-adoption-framework/innovate/best-practices/trusted-ai.
43. Critical thinking and higher education: A historical, theoretical and conceptual perspective10.47941/jep.1565 ↗
44. Lu, K., Zhu, J., Pang, F., and Shadiev, R. (2024). Understanding the relationship between college students’ artificial intelligence literacy and higher-order thinking skills using the 3P model: The mediating roles of behavioral engagement and peer interaction. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.10.1007/s11423-024-10434-1 ↗
45. The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and millennial generation teachers?10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3 ↗
46. First-year students AI-competence as a predictor for intended and de facto use of AI tools for supporting learning processes in higher education10.1186/s41239-024-00452-7 ↗
47. Analysis of the Digital Citizenship Practices among University Students in Pakistan
48. Fry, P.S. (1992). Fostering Children’s Cognitive Competence Through Mediated Learning Experiences: Frontiers and Futures, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.
49. Vygotsky, L.S., and Cole, M. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press.
50. Demetriou, A., Spanoudis, G.C., Greiff, S., Makris, N., Panaoura, R., and Kazi, S. (2022). Changing priorities in the development of cognitive competence and school learning: A general theory. Front. Psychol., 13.10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954971 ↗
51. Cognitive competence as a positive youth development construct: A conceptual review
52. Facione, P.A., Gittens, C.A., and Facione, N.C. (2020). Think Critically, Pearson. [3rd ed.].
53. Fjeldheim, S., Kleppe, L.C., Stang, E., and Storen-Vaczy, B. (2024). Digital competence in social work education: Readiness for practice. Soc. Work Educ., 1–17.10.1080/02615479.2024.2334800 ↗
54. Digital competence in social work practice and education: Experiences from Norway10.1080/2156857X.2021.1899967 ↗
55. How to harness the potential of ChatGPT in education?
56. Lee, H.P.H., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., and Wilson, N. (2025). The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects from a Survey of Knowledge Workers, Microsoft.10.1145/3706598.3713778 ↗
57. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman.
58. Artificial intelligence self-efficacy: Scale development and validation10.1007/s10639-023-12015-w ↗
59. AI advocates and cautious critics: How AI attitudes, AI interest, use of AI, and AI literacy build university students’ AI self-efficacy10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100340 ↗
60. Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: Validity and reliability of the artificial intelligence literacy scale10.1080/0144929X.2022.2072768 ↗
61. Impacts of an AI-based chatbot on college students’ after-class review, academic performance, self-efficacy, learning attitude, and motivation10.1007/s11423-022-10142-8 ↗
62. What drives college students to use AI for L2 learning? Modeling the roles of self-efficacy, anxiety, and attitude based on an extended technology acceptance model10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104442 ↗
63. Cabezas-González, M., Casillas-Martín, S., and García-Valcárcel Muñoz Repiso, A. (2024). Influence of the use of video games, social media, and smartphones on the development of digital competence with regard to safety. Comput. Sch., 1–20.10.1080/07380569.2024.2409688 ↗
64. Holmes, W., and Porayska-Pomsta, K. (2023). The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Routledge.10.4324/9780429329067 ↗
65. O’Dea, X., Ng, D.T.K., O’Dea, M., and Shkuratskyy, V. (2024). Factors affecting university students’ generative AI literacy: Evidence and evaluation in the UK and Hong Kong contexts. Policy Futures Educ., 14782103241287401.10.1177/14782103241287401 ↗
66. Kittredge, A.K., Hopman, E.W., Reuveni, B., Dionne, D., Freeman, C., and Jiang, X. (2025). Mobile language app learners’ self-efficacy increases after using generative AI. Front. Educ., 10.10.3389/feduc.2025.1499497 ↗
67. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Ethics: Ethics of AI and Ethical AI10.4018/JDM.2020040105 ↗
68. Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Materials10.1002/adma.202208683 ↗
69. ChatGPT risks in academia: Examining university educators’ challenges in Jordan10.1007/s10639-024-13009-y ↗
70. (2019). European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. Key Competences for Lifelong Learning, Publications Office of the European Union. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/569540.
71. Skov, A. (2025, April 12). The Digital Cometence Wheel. Center for Digital Dannelse. Available online: https://digital-competence.eu/.
72. Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8 ↗
73. The digital competence of Chinese university students: A survey study10.54097/jeer.v2i1.5132 ↗
74. Digital competence as a protective factor against gaming addiction in children and adolescents: A cross-sectional study in Hong Kong
75. Digital capability, digital learning, and sustainable behaviour among university students in Taiwan: A comparison design of integrated mediation-moderation models
76. General education program in a new 4-year university curriculum in Hong Kong: Findings based on multiple evaluation strategies10.1515/ijdhd-2015-0459 ↗
77. Long, D., and Magerko, B. (2020, January 25–30). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1145/3313831.3376727 ↗
78. Ma, C.M.S., Shek, D.T.L., Fan, I.Y.H., Zhu, X.X., Hu, X.G., Chan, K., Yick, K.L., Chu, R.W.C., and Lui, R.W.C. The Relationship Between the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and Student Engagement: Insights from AI Self-Efficacy, AISE. Under peer review.
79. Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices10.1007/BF02293808 ↗
80. Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety10.1177/0013164413495237 ↗
81. Bollen, K.A., and Long, J.S. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage.
82. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives10.1080/10705519909540118 ↗
83. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16 ↗
84. Shi, Y., and Qu, S. (2022). The effect of cognitive ability on academic achievement: The mediating role of self-discipline and the moderating role of planning. Front. Psychol., 13.10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1014655 ↗
85. The investigation of the creative thinking levels and the critical thinking disposition of pre-service elementary teachers
86. Karakuş, İ. (2024). University students’ cognitive flexibility and critical thinking dispositions. Front. Psychol., 15.10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1420272 ↗
87. Students’ digital technology attitude, literacy and self-efficacy and their effect on online learning engagement10.1186/s41239-023-00437-y ↗
88. The impact of digital skills on educational outcomes: Evidence from performance tests10.1080/03055698.2016.1148588 ↗
89. Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review10.1002/cae.22255 ↗
90. Emotional engagement and student satisfaction: A study of Chinese college students based on a nationally representative sample10.1007/s40299-019-00437-5 ↗
91. Technology Enhanced Learning in higher education; motivations, engagement and academic achievement10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.004 ↗
92. The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147 ↗
93. Yang, Y. (2024). Influences of digital literacy and moral sensitivity on artificial intelligence ethics awareness among nursing students. Healthcare, 12.10.3390/healthcare12212172 ↗
94. Kwak, Y., Ahn, J.W., and Seo, Y.H. (2022). Influence of AI ethics awareness, attitude, anxiety, and self-efficacy on nursing students’ behavioral intentions. BMC Nurs., 21.10.1186/s12912-022-01048-0 ↗
95. ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study exploring early adopters’ utilization and perceptions
96. Social disparities in hazardous alcohol use: Self-report bias may lead to incorrect estimates10.1093/eurpub/ckv190 ↗
97. Measuring digital literacies: Junior high-school students’ perceived competencies versus actual performance10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.030 ↗
98. Exploring the impact of generative AI-based technologies on learning performance through self-efficacy, fairness & ethics, creativity, and trust in higher education10.1007/s10639-024-12949-9 ↗
99. Knowledge, attitudes, and perceived ethics regarding the use of ChatGPT among generation Z university students10.1007/s40979-024-00157-4 ↗