1 Introduction

Do students consider it as problematic to surf the internet when they are supposed to do other tasks, such as studying? Do students see the manifold problems if they send pictures or videos of their friends without their permission, or if they accept insecure privacy settings led by manipulative interface designs like so-called dark patterns? Beyond, do students reflect on the consequences of unethical behaviors for their future and their future careers? Current developments of new technologies such as generative artificial intelligence (AI) show the relevance and urgency of these questions (Bond et al., 2024).

The use of digital media requires not only theoretical and applied skills (Scherer & Siddiq, 2019), but also concerns the knowledge of socially appropriate action, sometimes called information ethics, media ethics, or digital ethics (e.g. Ess, 2020; Hamiti et al., 2014; Ki & Ahn, 2006; Véliz, 2024). Reflecting on normative appropriateness of behavior in the digital world becomes increasingly important for the development of young people and the promotion of public welfare in shaping the digital future (García-Peñalvo, 2021). Influencing factors might be pedagogical or legal norms as well as standards of information security. According to Floridi (2018), digital ethics is described as the branch of ethics that studies and evaluates moral problems relating to data and information, algorithms, and their associating practices and infrastructures, with the aim of formulating and supporting morally good solutions.

Current studies address students’ perceptions of digital ethics in higher education, mostly with a very narrow focus, ranging from cyberbullying (e.g., Gümüş et al., 2023) to virtual learning (e.g.,Zvereva, 2023).

The current study pursues a broader quantitative approach and investigates higher education students’ perceptions regarding two main themes: problematic behaviors in dealing with digital media, which highlight areas of potential irresponsible use,, and perceptions regarding the relevance they ascribe to digital competences for ethical issues, reflecting how prepared they feel to address moral challenges in digital contexts—together providing a comprehensive understanding essential for fostering responsible and ethical digital engagement. The study focuses on students in fields with significant social responsibilities—such as education, law, and computer science. The key question in the current study is how students differ in their perceptions regarding problematic media behaviors as well as in the relevance they ascribe to digital competences for ethical issues.

2 Literature review

2.1 Problematic media behaviors

Problematic media behaviors like excessive social media use, media use during learning, and posting inappropriate content are well-known phenomenon among students. Such behaviors might have detrimental effects on affective and cognitive variables (Miller, 2020; Vorderer et al., 2016). For example, Flanigan and Titsworth (2020) examined how digital distractions during lectures impacted university students’ ability to take effective notes and retain information. The question is how ethically aware students are about such inappropriate behaviors. Lareki et al. (2017) who investigated how adolescents perceive problematic media behaviors concluded that “the risks do not only occur due to lack of knowledge of the tools that can increase computer safety but are also the result of not obeying the rules and ethical principles that govern a society” (p. 401). In consequence, it is important to understand how higher education students in study subjects of high relevance to society like teacher education, law, or computer science perceive such problematic media behaviors. For example, for teachers it is essential to ethically guide their students (Cronqvist, 2024) and this, of course, holds for the digital context as well.

2.2 Ethical dimensions of digital competences

The extent to which and the forms in which ethical competences are conceptualized as an integral part of digital literacy or digital competence varies between current theoretical conceptualizations (e.g., European Commission, 2020; Frau-Meigs et al., 2017; Richardson & Milovidov, 2017, 2019). For instance, the EU framework DigComp 2.0: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (Ferrari,2013) admitted that “there are several aspects of digital competence that are delicate and controversial, for instance all the activities that might include/foresee legal and ethical issues” (Ferrari, 2013, p. 12). The significance of ethical aspects and ethical guidelines is repeatedly emphasized, with a call for everyone to develop an understanding of new and emerging technologies that “will help them to engage positively, critically and safely with this technology, and be aware of potential issues related to ethics, environmental sustainability, data protection and privacy, children’s rights, discrimination and bias, including gender bias and disability and ethnic and racial discrimination” (European Commission, 2020, p. 15).

At the national German level, where the current study is located, the most important concept of digital competences, issued by the Conference of Education Ministers (KMK, 2016) defines six competence areas: searching and processing, communicating and cooperating, producing and presenting, protecting and acting safely, solving problems and acting as well as analyzing and reflecting. Although not explicitly mentioned, all competence areas might inherit ethical issues. For example, when presenting new content online, the content creator should take responsibility and think about the adequacy of the content for individuals of, for example, different age groups. Similarly, data security can also have an ethical component when thinking about who might get access to sensitive data. Another influential framework in the German context referring to higher education, businesses and public authorities, is that of the German Stifterverband (2021), is a joint initiative started by companies and foundations, which explicitly names digital ethics as one of five key digital skills.

In sum, in major current position papers on the European as well as the German national level, ethical dimensions are regarded as an important part of digital competences. Therefore, in this study, we focus on the relevance of digital competences for ethical aspects. This means the ability to critically scrutinize digital information and the effects of one’s own digital actions as well as to make corresponding ethical decisions. Due to the results regarding gender differences in digital competences (cf., Gnambs, 2021; Händel et al., 2022), the current study considers gender as a potential variable regarding the relevance students ascribe to digital competences for ethical aspects. At the higher education level, the promotion of digital ethics might be relevant in different fields of study that qualify for professions with high responsibility for public welfare like medicine, teacher education, law, computer science, engineering, or business administration. These study programs aim not only to professionalize students in terms of expert knowledge and skills but also to equip them with the meta skills needed in their future profession. The current study focuses on teacher education, law, and computer science.

2.3 The development of digital ethics in different professions

As a basis for the development of digital ethics in higher education, it is important to be aware of the beliefs that guide students’ self-evaluations regarding the use of digital tools. Based on students’ beliefs, education can develop these beliefs and, in the long term, competences further (González-Mujico & Fernández-Costales, 2025).

Students choose their studies reflectively, influenced by their subjective preferences (Watt et al., 2017). To boost reflective and ethical attitudes, it is important to know which attitudes and beliefs students bring with them at the beginning of their studies and how they develop during higher education as professional ethical guidelines concerning digitalization might shape students’ perceptions.

Within the concept of professionalism (Evetts, 2014), the need for ethical decision making and ethical competence (Menzel, 2016) is seen as particularly relevant for professions that deal with the public welfare and existential concerns of individuals. Teacher education, law studies, and computer science studies refer to – at different levels – codices, competence frameworks, or guidelines for ethically reflected and responsible attitudes. For instance, in DigCompEdu, the EU’s competence framework for educational professionals (Redecker, 2017; Vuorikari et al., 2022), both reflective practice and responsible use are mentioned several times with the aim to promote students’ “critical skills and digital citizenship” (Redecker, 2017, p. 12).

2.3.1 Digital ethics in teacher education studies

Prospective teachers will not only be role models in their future profession regarding their own ethically conscious use of media (Van Stekelenburg et al., 2024; Warnick et al., 2016), but they will also have the responsibility of educating and sensitizing young people to the risks associated with media use, such as sharing sensitive data or images of others (Rubach & Backfisch, 2023; Wohlfart & Wagner, 2023).

Professional development for in-service teachers focuses on both teaching with and teaching about technology (Fraillon et al., 2020; Guggemos & Seufert, 2021; Milton et al., 2021). Currently, research is emerging that focuses on the ethical dimension of the implementation of new technology, which seems driven by current developments like ChatGPT used for educational purposes. Chu et al. (2023) define technology ethics in the educational field as “a set of ethical guidelines and legal standards that instructors are expected to follow when using various technological tools in the classroom for teaching and learning purposes” (p. 3). Furthermore, current developments of the well-established TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) especially focus on the ethical aspect of the use of digital tools (Asamoah, 2019; Celik, 2023; Deng & Zhang, 2023).

From an empirical perspective, to study these ethical considerations in practice, the study by Van Stekelenburg et al. (2024) used focus group interviews with higher education teachers from the study programs of initial teaching education, business services, and information and communication technology. The interviews revealed similar ideas across the study programs about what should be addressed in the development of students’ ethical competences, namely the development of students’ awareness, skills, and professional behavior. However, there seems to be a gap between the need for digital ethics and the curricula as well as teachers’ skills (Amankwa, 2021). For example, in a content analysis of study plans for university degrees in Spain, Novella-García and Cloquell-Lozano (2021) found that digital competences themselves were present in more than three quarters of the study plans. However, only one quarter of the study plans also included the ethical dimensions. Currently, future teachers may receive little training in digital ethics. This is alarming, especially against the background of the study results by Chu et al. (2023) who found that, amongst others, technology ethics significantly affected the pre-service teacher’s digital teaching competence.

2.3.2 Digital ethics in law studies

Digital ethics is essential for legal professionals, particularly regarding the ethical use of digital evidence or the misuse of digital data, such as cybersecurity breaches or cyberbullying (Ruslan, 2023). For example, legal counsellors and lawyers play a critical role in advising clients on complying with data protection laws or cybersecurity. Namely, judges are responsible for interpreting and applying laws related to digital misconduct, such as cyberbullying, ensuring that justice is served while considering the ethical dimensions of digital behavior and data protection. Therefore, digital ethics should be considered in law studies.

For law students, the standardization and evaluation of behavior constitute the core of their professional domain. Conversely, the question arises as to the extent to which they apply this mode of thinking to everyday situations involving the individual use of digital media as well as others’ behaviors with new media (McPeak, 2019). Currently, there is a noticeable lack of in-depth studies specifically addressing the digital ethics of lawyers or law students. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to anticipate that aspiring lawyers are particularly aware of the potential of digital media for legal conflicts and generally presume—whether rightly or wrongly—that their conduct aligns with established rules (Browning, 2024).

However, legal professional ethics in general is a much-discussed topic in the English-speaking world (see e.g. Hazard & Dondi, 2004; Herring, 2023), also in relation to the internet and social media (Jacobowitz, 2020; McPeak, 2019). What it means to be an ethical legal professional. Ethical frameworks for legal professionalism in the 21 st century discuss what it means to be an ethical legal professional as well as the importance of ethics in the law curriculum (Heineman et al., 2014; see also Evers & Townsley, 2017).

2.3.3 Digital ethics in computer science studies

Digital ethics is crucial in computer science studies due to the significant societal impact of technology (Kreth et al., 2022). This relates to data privacy, to the development of unbiased AI, or to maintaining cybersecurity. Integrating digital ethics into computer science education prepares students to responsibly navigate and address these challenges, fostering innovation that benefits society (Jarzemsky et al., 2023).

Although the efforts for integrating ethics into computer science have been ongoing for the last decades (Miller, 1988, Martin, 1999, Quinn, 2006), the integration of ethical aspects is an essential and current issue. The ongoing extensive development of new technology, for example, in the field of AI, largely impacts society. This accordingly increases the need for computer science programs to cope with digital ethics as a dedicated topic of computer science (CC2020 Task Force, 2020). According to a current survey study with 61 universities across 23 European countries, two thirds of the universities teach computer ethics as part of computer science or related programs (Stavrakakis et al., 2022). A current development is that leading US universities such as Harvard and Stanford have integrated embedded ethics in their computer science courses (Vakil, 2018)Footnote 1. Major computer science curricula like the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Curriculum emphasize the importance of the topic and demand for the inclusion of ethical matters into computer science education (CC2020 Task Force., 2020). Increasingly, such concepts of embedded ethics in computer science curricula are discussed by German scientific associations as well (see e.g., Gesellschaft für Informatik, 2018; Löffelholz & Dittes, 2021).

2.4 The current study

In an increasingly digital world, it is essential not only to possess digital skills but also to understand how we assess certain behaviors of others as well as of ourselves, meaning that beyond technical ability, we need the critical awareness to evaluate what is appropriate and ethical in online interactions. In higher education, efforts are undertaken to prepare future professionals for these challenges, such as incorporating digital ethics into educational curricula. Still, given that technology ethics significantly impacts pre-service teachers’ digital teaching competence (Chu et al., 2023), it is concerning that future teachers often receive limited training in digital ethics. Overall, we still know relatively little about young people’s attitudes toward ethically significant aspects of the digital space or about individual or subject-specific differences. Knowledge about interindividual differences in relation to ethical aspects in digital spaces forms the basis for the development of curricula and targeted measures. Studying digital ethics in teacher education, law, and computer science is especially relevant because these fields intersect directly with public welfare, societal norms, and technological advancement. Teachers influence how young people understand and use digital tools responsibly, lawyers navigate ethical implications of digital behavior and data protection, and computer scientists create the technologies that shape digital realities. Each domain has explicit professional standards or guidelines that call for ethically informed decision-making. Focusing on these areas allows researchers and educators to understand how ethical awareness can be developed in professions with a high impact on digital society and public trust. Hence, the current exploratory study investigates four main research questions related to higher students’ perceptions of problematic online behaviors, the relevance of digital competences, correlations with students’ ethical awareness as well as internet use, and, finally, subject-specific patterns.

  • RQ1: How do students perceive problematic behaviors in dealing with digital media?

  • RQ2: What significance do students attribute to digital competences for ethical issues?

  • RQ3a: Do students’ perceptions of problematic media behaviors correlate with students’ self-reported ethical awareness and personal internet use?

  • RQ3b: Does students’ perceived relevance of digital competences for ethical issues correlate with students’ self-reported ethical awareness and personal internet use?

  • RQ4a: Are there subject-specific differences in the perceptions of problematic media behaviors between teacher education, law, and computer science students?

  • RQ4b: Are there subject-specific differences in the perceived relevance of digital competences for ethical issues between teacher education, law, and computer science students?

3 Method

To investigate the four research questions, a cross-sectional online questionnaire study was conducted. Undergraduate students enrolled in either a teacher education program, a law program, or a computer science program at a German university were invited via e-mail to participate in an online survey. Students were informed that the online survey would take approximately 20 min. The online survey was carried out in the German language and administered via the survey tool Unipark Questback EFS (unipark.com). Participation in the project was voluntary, anonymous, and followed the guidelines of data protection. Participants’ privacy was protected, all data was anonymized; and students who did not participate were not disadvantaged. Informed consent of the participants was obtained by virtue of survey completion. Ethics approval was not required as per applicable institutional and national guidelines and regulations. In detail, no experimental or harmful conditions were realized; the online survey only contained individuals’ opinions as well as self-evaluation items. Participants were informed about the objectives of the survey before it was administered.

3.1 Sample

Participants of the study were undergraduate students enrolled in either a teacher education program, a law program, or a computer science program at one German university. The interdisciplinary team of authors of the study invited all students enrolled in their lectures via e-mail to participate in the survey. Overall, N = 470 students participated in the survey. Due to missing values (dropout), nine students had to be excluded from further analyses. The final sample consisted of 461 students. On average, they were enrolled in their fourth semester (M = 3.67, SD = 3.41). Table 1 indicates frequencies regarding gender, study program, and first language.

Table 1 Sample characteristics
Full size table

3.2 Instruments

The main survey was composed of two questionnaire parts. First, participants were asked to indicate their perceptions of risk behaviors regarding digital technologies. Second, participants indicated the relevance of digital competences regarding ethical issues.

Beforehand, students indicated their personal internet use in hours on a regular working day. In addition, students were asked to self-estimate how ethically aware they are on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all ethically aware to 7 = very ethically aware.

3.2.1 Perception of risk behaviors regarding digital technologies

To assess students’ perception of risk behaviors regarding digital technologies, we adapted and translated a questionnaire originally developed by Lareki et al. (2017). The questionnaire was composed of five subscales: Posting, management of data, relationships, habits of use, and contents and downloads. The original questionnaire had been developed for the use among teenagers and included items on parents’ permission to use media. As our sample related to German adult higher education students, we had to delete all those items that referred to parents. The final questionnaire consequently comprised 19 items (one item had to be excluded due to low reliability) that described problematic behaviors. For each item, participants were asked to indicate how problematic they think the described behavior is. To do so, they should rate each item on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = not at all problematic to 5 = very problematic. The number of items per sub-scale, their internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) as well as a sample item was: posting (4 items, α = 0.74, sample item: “posting photos/videos of friends without their permission”), management of data (4 items, α = 0.69, sample item: “disclosing personal passwords to third persons”), relationships (4 items, α = 0.71, sample item: “adding people unknown to them to social media”), habits of use (4 items, α = 0.66, sample item: “gaming/browsing in time set aside for other tasks”), and contents and downloads (3 items, α = 0.72, sample item: “accessing inappropriate contents”). Cronbach’s α is questionable for two scales and acceptable for three scales.

3.2.2 Relevance of digital competences for ethical issues

In addition, we aimed to assess students’ perceptions on the relevance of digital competences for ethical issues. To do so, we adapted a questionnaire scale based on the German official concept for competences in the digital world (KMK, 2016). Overall, the scale comprised 24 items in six sub-scales that correspond to the six competence areas by KMK (2016) outlined above (one item of the searching and processing subscale had to be deleted due to low internal consistency). For each item, students should indicate how much the described competence relates to ethical issues on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 4 = very much. The sub-scales, Cronbach’s α, and sample items were: searching and processing (2 items, α = 0.63, sample item: “clarify work and search interests, develop search strategies, identifying relevant sources”), communicating and cooperating (5 items, α = 0.65, sample item: “use digital tools to bring together information, data and resources”), producing and presenting (2 items, α = 0.65, sample item: “plan, design and present media products”), protecting and acting safely (5 items, α = 0.68, sample item: “data security, misuse, youth and consumer protection”), solving problems and acting (4 items, α = 0.80, sample item: “use digital tools and media for learning, working and problem solving”), and analyzing and reflecting (2 items, α = 0.69, sample item: “analyze and evaluate media, e.g., know the design elements and effects of digital media”). With only few items per scale, Cronbach’s α is questionable for two scales most of the scales.

3.3 Data analysis

To answer research questions RQ1 and RQ2, that is, the perception of problematic behaviors as well as the significance of digital competences for ethical issues, descriptive analyses were performed. Research question RQ3, that is, the question regarding potential correlates of problematic media behaviors (RQ3a) as well as the perceived relevance of digital competences for ethical issues (RQ3b) with students’ self-reported ethical awareness and personal internet use, was investigated via Pearson’s correlations. Finally, to investigate subject-specific differences in the perceptions of problematic media behaviors and the perceived relevance of digital competences for ethical issues between teacher education, law, and computer science students (RQ4), multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) were performed. The influence of the independent variable study subject was investigated on the five dependent variables regarding risk behaviors and on the six dependent variables regarding competences, each statistically controlling gender as a covariate because male and female students might not only differ with regard to study subject choices and their digital competences (cf., Gnambs, 2021), but also in their perceptions regarding digital ethics (cf., Saritepeci et al., 2024).

4 Results

4.1 How do students perceive problematic media behaviors and digital competences regarding ethical issues? (RQ1, RQ2)

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics on the variables of interest. On average, regarding the perception of risk behaviors (RQ1), students indicated mean values above the scale mean of M = 3.00 for all five given media behaviors. In detail, accessing or downloading inappropriate contents, was regarded least problematic while posting inappropriate content online and via social media, scored the highest. Regarding the perceived relevance of digital competences for ethical issues (RQ2), solving problems and acting as well as producing content received the lowest scores, while communicating and cooperating, analyzing and reflecting, and protecting and acting safely (e.g., privacy or data security issues) received the highest scores.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the dependent variables regarding perception of risk behavior (RQ1) as well as relevance of competences for ethical issues (RQ2)
Full size table

4.2 Correlations of perception of risk behaviors and digital competences with ethical awareness and personal internet use (RQ3a, b)

On average, students estimated themselves as not very ethically aware (M = 2.88, SD = 1.81, range = 1–7). Significant but only small correlations were found between the questionnaire scales and the personal judgment of ethical awareness; see middle column of Table 3. That is, students with higher self-estimated ethical awareness showed slightly more critical perceptions regarding risk behaviors than students with lower ethical awareness. Similarly, students with higher self-estimated ethical awareness reported partly higher relevance of digital competences for ethical issues than students with lower self-estimated ethical awareness. However, only four out of six correlations were significant, and all correlations can be regarded as low.

Students said that they use the internet for M = 4.98 h per day, SD = 3.89. No correlations were found between the perceptions of risk with the extent of internet use; see right column of Table 3. Regarding the relevance of digital competences for ethical issues, searching and processing as well as solving problems and acting correlated significantly, but only slightly, with the extent of internet use.

Table 3 Correlations (Pearson’s r) with ethical awareness and hours of internet use
Full size table

4.3 Differences between study subjects (RQ4)

To investigate whether students of the three study programs teacher education, law, and computer science differed in their perceptions regarding risk behaviors and the relevance of digital competences for ethical issues, we performed two analyses of covariance. As gender and enrolled semester were not equally distributed among the three study programs, we first tested whether the dependent variables differed regarding gender or semester. We found significant gender differences regarding the dependent variables. Therefore, gender was considered as a covariate in the subsequent analyses.

Table 4 Descriptive statistics, M (SD) for each subject of study
Full size table

Multivariate tests on the perceived relevance of risk behavior found significant effects of the covariate gender (p <.001, eta² = 0.07; each with higher values for female students) as well as the independent variable study program (p =.002, eta² = 0.03). The covariate gender as well as the main effect were significant for all subscales except for relationships (significant effects only for study program) and posting and management of data (significant effects only for gender). Effect sizes were all small, see Table 5.

Regarding study programs, for each of the significant main effects (relationships, habits of use, and contents and downloads), computer science students perceived the respective behavior as most problematic, followed by teacher education students, while law students scored lowest; see Table 4 for descriptive statistics per study program.

Table 5 Results of the multivariate covariance analyses testing for differences between study program under control of gender
Full size table

Multivariate tests on the perception of digital competences for ethical issues found significant effects of the covariate gender (p <.001, eta² = 0.07) as well as the independent variable study program (p <.001, eta² = 0.05; cf. Table 5). Significant effects regarding the covariate gender were found for the competences searching and processing, communicating and cooperating and solving problems and acting, each with higher values for female students than for male students. The between-subject effects were significant only for the competence protecting and acting safely. Highest ethical relevance to security (protecting and acting safely) was ascribed by computer science students followed by teacher educations students, while again law students scored lowest (see Table 4).

5 Discussion

This explorative study investigated ethical awareness concerning digital media among higher education students regarding different study programs. As is usually the case in the chosen subjects) (see Barone, 2011), more female students were enrolled in teacher education programs whereas more male students were enrolled in computer sciences programs.

Higher education students are savvy about digital ethics (RQ1)

Not surprisingly, higher education students perceived problematic media behaviors for what they were. Regarding the perceptions on problematic behaviors, the pattern of results for the whole sample seems to be comparable with the original study by Lareki et al. (2017) with adolescents from Spain. Still, students from non-western countries might have quite different perceptions and values, probably influenced by country-specific regulations, for example regarding data security but also regarding the use of specific social media apps. In line with Lareki et al. (2017) who developed and validated the questionnaire used in this study, the most problematic media behaviors was seen in inadequate social media postings (RQ1).

The role of digital competences for ethical issues (RQ2)

The current study asked students to judge the relevance of digital competences for ethical issues and found that competences regarding one’s own security (i.e., protecting and acting safely) were considered most relevant while analyzing and reflecting were considered of little relevance for ethical issues. This suggests that students tend to prioritize self-centered concerns—such as choosing strong passwords as an example for protecting and acting safely—over more socially oriented attitudes like producing and presenting content responsibly. Such a focus on personal security reflects an emphasis on protecting oneself rather than engaging in broader ethical reflection or considering the impact of one’s actions on others. This pattern aligns with findings from studies among US-American adolescents (James, 2014). However, two other competences, namely communicating and cooperation as social skills as well as analyzing and reflecting as a critical thinking skill were also regarded as relevant when it comes to ethical issues (RQ2). Overall, the results indicate that higher education students differed in their perceptions of which digital competences are relevant for ethical issues.

Internet use time or ethical awareness are barely correlated to student’ perceptions (RQ3)

Students’ self-perceived ethical awareness seems to be only slightly related to their perceptions (RQ3a, b) and nearly no correlations were found between the variables of interest and individual time spent on the internet. This could be interpreted to mean that students with higher internet use tended neither toward careless nor highly cautious perceptions. As media use time in earlier studies was negatively correlated with problematic behaviors (Lareki et al., 2024) or negative experiences such as fear of missing out (Gori et al., 2023), the low correlations found in our study are rather encouraging. They show that higher media usage time did not necessarily coincide with unreflective perceptions.

Computer science students are most savvy about digital ethics (RQ4)

Finally, in the study of subject-specific differences (RQ4), gender was considered as a covariate because of gender-specific study subject choices and gender-specific differences in digital competences or in perceptions regarding digital ethics (cf., Bachmann & Hertweck, 2023; Gnambs, 2021; Saritepeci et al., 2024). Female students considered digital competences as more relevant regarding ethical issues than male students did. In addition, female students considered inappropriate behaviors as more problematic than male students did.

Still, even when statistically controlling for gender, significant differences between the respondents’ study programs were found for risk behaviors regarding three out of five questionnaire scales (relationships, habits of use as well as contents and downloads). In each case, computer science students perceived the inappropriate behavior as most problematic. No differences were found regarding posting, which were regarded as highly problematic by students of all study programs. However, it remains an open question whether female students are generally more ethically aware, or if the study programs that attract students of different genders partly influence their perceptions.

Only one significant difference related to the study program was found regarding the perceived relevance of digital competences for ethical issues, namely protecting and acting safely. Future studies will be needed to replicate these findings. For example, computer science students perceived protecting and acting safely as more ethically relevant than students in teacher education or law programs. A potential explanation is that computer science students indicated higher relevance due to their deeper technical insight into the far-reaching effects these processes can have – but this assumption remains to be further tested and discussed. Nonetheless, training in digital ethics remains essential for all students, including computer science students (Petrie-Wyman et al., 2021).

5.1 Limitations of the Study

This study was a first explorative study on higher education students’ perceptions regarding problematic media behaviors as well as on the significance students attribute to digital competences for ethical issues. Hence, several limitations of the study must be discussed.

First, to investigate our research questions, we had to adapt established measurements to German language and/or to the context of higher education. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was partly low. Accordingly, the items should be improved regarding internal consistency when used in future studies.

Second, the sample emerged only from one institution of one country and future research needs to investigate whether our results can be replicated in other educational as well as cultural contexts. For example, the study by Milton et al. (2021) revealed differences in pre-service teachers of different European countries. Furthermore, the three chosen study subjects of teacher education, law, and computer science are – of course – not the only relevant disciplines regarding digital ethics in the individual but also societal context. For example, in medicine, where patient files and medical data are increasingly stored and managed digitally, medical students must be trained not only in the ethics of their discipline (e.g., triage) but also in the ethical challenges posed by digital technologies.

5.2 Implications for future research

As the current data does not reveal whether students differed in their perceptions before they had enrolled in their study programs or whether the study program itself contributed to students’ perceptions, comparisons of students before and after their first semesters in the respective study programs are needed.

For future research, it would be interesting to investigate if students’ perceptions also lead to behavioral differences. This would extend our study results which are limited to self-reported ethical awareness, self-reported internet usage times, as well as individual perceptions. Future studies could study if students who perceive inappropriate behavior as problematic also behave in a more ethically aware manner or whether the knowledge about problematic behaviors does not preserve problematic behavior itself (cf., knowledge-action gap in learning with technology; Greener, 2018).

6 Conclusion

Our study investigated ethical awareness and the perceived importance of digital skills for ethical behavior in the use of digital media among higher education students of different study disciplines, namely, teacher education, law, and computer science. We found that higher education students differed not only in their perceptions of various types of problematic media behaviors, but also with respect to the study programs in which they were enrolled. Relevant stakeholders in the context of higher education like students and educators (cf., European Commission, 2020) but also future employers in the domains under investigation should take these results as a starting point to reflect on needed future skills in digital ethics. For example, law students’ perceptions regarding problematic media behaviors were most modest compared to teacher education and computer science students. As an implication of the study, training higher education students on ethical issues (Lareki et al., 2024; Novella-García & Cloquell-Lozano, 2021) in the three fields of study, with a specific focus on law students seems reasonable given their future responsibility in making judgments on such matters in their professional lives. Such training could include case-based learning to analyze real-world dilemmas but also interdisciplinary workshops that promote dialogue across fields. These formats will encourage critical reflection and prepare students for ethical decision-making in their future professions.