Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 7 no. 8 (2026)

Algorithmic Literacy, Digital Literacy, and Perceived Digital Self-Efficacy as Predictors of Social Media Engagement Among Filipino Emerging Adults in the City of Manila

Maria Alexandra C. Odvina | Renee Maxine S. Lazaro | Yashas N. Sah | Edmond Jacob C. Sy | Andrew C. Lim Un | Myla M. Arcinas

Discipline: Publicity Studies

 

Abstract:

The rapid spread of recommender algorithms has made the competencies that govern how young people interpret and act in digital spaces a pressing concern. This study examined levels of algorithmic and digital literacy, as well as perceived digital self-efficacy, among Filipino emerging adults and tested whether these competencies predicted their social media engagement. Using a descriptive-correlational and predictive design, a researcher-adapted survey was administered through non-probability sampling to 77 eligible emerging adults from the City of Manila. Given the non-probability sampling and ordinal data, levels were summarized using the median (Mdn) and interquartile range; associations were tested with Spearman's rank-order correlation; and predictors were identified through median (quantile) regression. Respondents showed a very high level of algorithmic literacy (Mdn = 4.50) and high levels of digital literacy (Mdn = 4.11), perceived digital self-efficacy (Mdn = 4.20), and social media engagement (Mdn = 3.83). All three competencies were significantly and positively associated with engagement: algorithmic literacy (ρ = .30, p = .003), digital literacy (ρ = .39), and perceived digital self-efficacy (ρ = .41), the latter two at p < .001. In the median regression, however, digital literacy was the only significant unique predictor of engagement (b = 0.47, p = .003); perceived digital self-efficacy and algorithmic literacy did not contribute uniquely once digital literacy was accounted for. Practical digital competence, rather than algorithm awareness or digital confidence alone, appears to most directly account for how emerging adults engage online, underscoring the value of competency-based digital citizenship programs.



References:

  1. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
  4. Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086
  5. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211. https://doi.org/10.2307/249688
  6. Cotter, K., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2020). Algorithmic knowledge gaps: A new horizon of (digital) inequality. International Journal of Communication, 14, 745-765. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/12450
  7. Di Gangi, P. M., & Wasko, M. M. (2016). Social media engagement theory: Exploring the influence of user engagement on social media usage. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 28(2), 53-73. https://doi.org/10.4018/JOEUC.2016040104
  8. Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2016). Social media engagement behavior: A uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3-4), 261-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095222
  9. Eslami, M., Rickman, A., Vaccaro, K., Aleyasen, A., Vuong, A., Karahalios, K., Hamilton, K., & Sandvig, C. (2015). "I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to [her]": Reasoning about invisible algorithms in news feeds. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 153-162). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702556
  10. Gran, A.-B., Booth, P., & Bucher, T. (2021). To be or not to be algorithm aware: A question of a new digital divide? Information, Communication & Society, 24(12), 1779-1796. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1736124
  11. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people's online skills. First Monday, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942
  12. Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. The Aspen Institute.
  13. Kemp, S. (2024, February 21). Digital 2024: The Philippines. Data Reportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-philippines
  14. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065-1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
  15. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
  16. Swart, J. (2021). Experiencing algorithms: How young people understand, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news selection on social media. Social Media + Society, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211008828
  17. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13(6), 893-911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774
  18. Zarouali, B., Boerman, S. C., & de Vreese, C. H. (2021). Is this recommended by an algorithm? The development and validation of the algorithmic media content awareness scale (AMCA-scale). Telematics and Informatics, 62, Article 101607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101607
  19. 14.) Mapping Teenage Rebellion, Autonomy, and Parent-Child Conflict in Southeast Asian

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic