Search

The Impact of Digital Literacy on Residents' Subjective Well-being: a Qualitative Theoretical Framework Based on the Capability Approach

Author(s)

Dongning Zhang*

Affiliation(s)

School of Political Science and Law, University of Jinan, Jinan, Shandong, China *Corresponding Author.

Abstract

Digital access alone does not necessarily improve residents' subjective well-being. Based on the capability approach, this article conceptualizes digital literacy as a conversion capability that enables residents to transform digital resources into meaningful welfare outcomes. It develops a qualitative theoretical framework explaining how digital literacy affects subjective well-being through four mechanisms: information access and decision quality, social capital and relational embeddedness, economic opportunity and digital agency, and psychological empowerment. The analysis shows that digital literacy may enhance well-being by reducing uncertainty, strengthening social connections, expanding opportunities, and increasing perceived control. However, its welfare effects are shaped by age, urban-rural location, socioeconomic status, and platform governance. Under conditions of information overload, unequal opportunities, algorithmic opacity, and weak institutional support, digital participation may also intensify anxiety, comparison pressure, exclusion, and unequal returns. This article therefore shifts attention from digital connection itself to residents' capacity to convert digital participation into substantive well-being.

Keywords

Digital Literacy; Subjective Well-being; Capability Approach

References

[1]Hargittai E. Second-level digital divide: Mapping differences in people's online skills[J]. arXiv preprint cs/0109068, 2001. [2]Scheerder A, Van Deursen A, Van Dijk J. Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second-and third-level digital divide[J]. Telematics and informatics, 2017, 34(8): 1607-1624. [3]Gilster P, Glister P. Digital literacy[M]. New York: Wiley Computer Pub., 1997. [4]Eshet Y. Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era[J]. Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia, 2004, 13(1): 93-106. [5]Ng W. Can we teach digital natives digital literacy?[J]. Computers & education, 2012, 59(3): 1065-1078. [6]Diener E. Subjective well-being[J]. Psychological bulletin, 1984, 95(3): 542. [7]Diener E, Suh E M, Lucas R E, et al. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress[J]. Psychological bulletin, 1999, 125(2): 276. [8]Van Dijk J A G M. The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society[M]. Sage publications, 2005. [9]Robinson L, Cotten S R, Ono H, et al. Digital inequalities and why they matter[J]. Information, communication & society, 2015, 18(5): 569-582. [10]DiMaggio P, Hargittai E, Neuman W R, Robinson J P. Social implications of the Internet[J]. Annual Review of Sociology, 2001, 27: 307-336. [11]Eppler M J, Mengis J. The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines[J]. The information society, 2004, 20(5): 325-344. [12]Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes[J]. Human Relations, 1954, 7(2): 117-140. [13]Kraut R, Patterson M, Lundmark V, et al. Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?[J]. American psychologist, 1998, 53(9): 1017. [14]Sen A. Development as Freedom[M]. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999. [15]Granovetter M S. The strength of weak ties[J]. American journal of sociology, 1973, 78(6): 1360-1380. [16]Putnam R D. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community[M]. Simon and schuster, 2000. [17]Ryan R M, Deci E L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being[J]. American psychologist, 2000, 55(1): 68. [18]Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change[J]. Psychological review, 1977, 84(2): 191.