Between autonomy and social needs of the young audience: a critical revision of digital maturity concept

The integration of media technologies into our daily routines is inevitable, greatly influenced by the ‘culture of constant updating’ (Bucher, 2018). While adults’ dependence on digital media is widely accepted, the way in which young people experience digital environments is often controversial. Some argue in favor of young people’s need for autonomy and their right to access digital spaces; however, there is also a growing tendency to restrict their access to social media platforms, even at a national policy level. These contradictory views highlight disputes about public perceptions of young people’s maturity as ‘native’ digital audiences. This paper proposes addressing such challenges by recognizing digital technology as socially beneficial infrastructure. From this perspective, digital maturity is a multi-layered construct encompassing the ability to use technology autonomously, overcome challenges in digital environments and establish socially responsible interactions (Laaber et al., 2023). However, the paper challenges the conceptual model of the original study on digital maturity and its methodological premises. First, we propose a theoretical shift whereby the core dimensions of digital maturity — autonomous technology use, responsible social interaction, and coping with digital challenges — are understood as reflections of the diverse roles of media technologies in everyday life across generations (see Bengtsson et al., 2022). As these capabilities are not inherent to the digital context, young people encounter individual and structural divides within their own generation. This implies that, when considered within the context of deep mediatization (Couldry & Hepp, 2016; Hepp, 2019), digital maturity is a multifaceted rather than a singular phenomenon.

The paper aims to provide empirical reinforcement of this thesis. A quantitative study of 1,544 secondary school students, conducted in 2024, identified four types of digital maturity. The first type, self-regulatory maturity, is characterized by high levels of autonomous technology use and low tendencies to seek support when problems arise. Reflective digital maturity is on the contrary characterized by high autonomy within digital environments and the ability to seek support. Socially responsible digital users understand the structural limitations of ubiquitous technologies and do not impose personal burdens on others. Individualized digital maturity refers to users who find it difficult to regulate their impulses towards others, yet who are highly autonomous in digital environments. The findings also suggest that, although young users experience a high degree of sovereignty within digital environments and exhibit independence in their digital activities, they simultaneously feel confined within the digital realm. Therefore, digital maturity should be also accompanied by in-depth qualitative research. To this end, the study draws on a larger set of focus group interviews with 41 secondary school students to explore young people’s feelings about the pleasures and obstacles of digital autonomy, as well as their social needs in digital spaces. The paper argues that addressing these needs is crucial for improving our understanding of ‘alternative types of digital maturity’ among young people. Finally, the study aims to combine an original developmental approach to digital maturity with audience perspectives on the experiences of young users within multiple digital environments.