Educational inequality arises when students' academic achievements are influenced by circumstances related to their social and economic background (OECD, 2018). Extensive research indicates that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often perform below their peers in areas such as computer literacy, information skills, and computational thinking (Fraillon et al., 2020). Therefore, it is crucial to explore why economically disadvantaged students are less likely to attend schools that adequately prepare them in digital skills compared to their more privileged counterparts. Numerous studies have shown that socioeconomic status (SES) plays a significant role in predicting students' digital literacy levels (e.g., Aesaert & van Braak, 2015; Fraillon et al., 2020; Hatlevik et al., 2015; Siddiq et al., 2017). While there is considerable focus on digital literacy, there has been less emphasis on digital safety. According to the Family Investment Model (Conger & Donnellan, 2007), the positive relations between SES and children's outcomes can be attributed to the fact that parents from higher SES backgrounds are more likely to invest in a range of resources and experiences for their children, including digital materials, extracurricular activities related to technology, parent-child interactions involving digital media, and fostering a supportive emotional environment (Vasilyeva et al., 2018). Conversely, parents with lower SES tend to prioritize immediate needs over such investments. Studies have consistently shown that high-SES families provide enriching home environments for digital learning and meaningful social engagements, which enhance children's digital literacy skills (e.g., Aesaert & van Braak, 2015; Fraillon et al., 2020; Hatlevik et al., 2015; Siddiq et al., 2017). Most of these studies have focused on overall digital literacy skills without measuring specific sub-skills as distinct constructs. There is limited evidence exploring the relationship between SES and children's digital safety (e.g., Livingstone et al., 2011; Wang & Xing, 2018). Therefore, one primary objective of the current study was to investigate the direct association between SES and children's digital safety.

A crucial and persistent concern revolves around understanding the potential mediating mechanisms that explain the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and children's digital safety. To enhance comprehension of how SES influences digital safety, a valuable approach is to broaden the research focus to include children's cognitive abilities that are influenced by both familial factors and digital safety. Executive functions include a range of higher-order cognitive processes that facilitate flexible and purposeful behavior (Diamond, 2013). These functions are multifaceted and typically comprise three interconnected cognitive elements: working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control (Diamond, 2013). Recent meta-analytical findings have shown a positive correlation between SES and executive functions, with a modest to moderate effect size (Lawson et al., 2018). For example, SES has been associated with children's cognitive flexibility (e.g., Morea & Calvete, 2021). Regarding the relationship between cognitive flexibility and digital safety, as far as current knowledge goes, there is a lack of studies exploring this connection. Prior research emphasizes the significant influence of cognitive flexibility on cyberbullying, a crucial aspect of digital safety. Cognitive flexibility enables individuals to generate diverse responses in cyberbullying situations (Morea & Calvete, 2022). For instance, children can opt to seek assistance instead of remaining silent or reacting aggressively online, ultimately resulting in reduced incidents of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration. By integrating these intersecting lines of research, the present study investigated the direct correlation between SES and digital safety while also exploring whether cognitive flexibility serves as a mediator in the relationship between SES and digital safety.

The current study included a total of 1,546 primary school students. The students completed the questionnaire assessing digital safety and the test measuring cognitive flexibility. Their parents completed the questionnaire measuring students’ SES. The study utilized the Digital Safety Scale to assess students' digital safety, including four subscales with a total of 36 items: safety for digital devices and content, safety for personal data and privacy, safety on health and well-being, and safety for the environment. Responses were made on a 5- point scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher values demonstrated greater levels of digital safety. An SES composite score was created from four components: parents' educational level, occupational status, family income, and home possessions. The z-standardized scores of the available components were computed, and then the average of the z-scores was calculated. Higher values indicated higher SES levels. To assess cognitive flexibility, the Dimensional Change Card Sort was used to measure children’s abilities of flexibly switching between different dimensions. The total score was calculated by adding up the scores of the three tasks. Demographic variables such as gender, number of children at home, and family structure were included as control variables. Initially, Cronbach’s alphas for each measurement were calculated and descriptive statistics and correlational analysis were conducted in SPSS 28.0.0. To address RQ1, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to investigate the direct relationship between SES and students’ digital safety. To address RQ2, a mediation analysis was conducted to examine the mediating role of cognitive flexibility in the association between SES and students’ digital safety. Model fit was evaluated using four goodness-of-fit indices (Kline, 2015): chi-square (χ2) tests (p > .05), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI, > 0.9), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI, > 0.9), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA, < 0.06). The Full Information Maximum Likelihood technique was employed to manage missing data, as it is known for offering unbiased parameter estimates by utilizing all accessible data (Allison, 2012). The SEMs and mediation analysis were carried out in Mplus 8.8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017).

The results demonstrated a positive relationship between SES and digital safety. In particular, students from more affluent SES backgrounds tended to demonstrate elevated levels of digital safety. This sheds light on the critical role that economic background plays in shaping students' online security practices. Students hailing from more privileged SES backgrounds exhibited higher levels of digital safety, emphasizing the influence of socioeconomic factors on digital behaviors and risk management strategies. Furthermore, the results showed a positive link between SES and cognitive flexibility, with cognitive flexibility in turn being linked to digital safety. Consequently, cognitive flexibility was identified as a mediator in the relationship between SES and digital safety. This study underscores the intricate interplay between socioeconomic status, cognitive abilities, and online safety behaviors. This highlights the importance of considering not only external factors such as SES but also internal cognitive processes in understanding and promoting digital safety among students. To leverage these insights effectively, educational initiatives must adopt a comprehensive approach that addresses both cognitive skills and socioeconomic disparities. Programs designed to enhance cognitive flexibility and critical thinking skills, especially among students from disadvantaged backgrounds, can empower individuals to make safer and more informed choices in their online interactions. By bridging the gap in cognitive capacities and socioeconomic resources, these interventions have the potential to promote digital safety equitably across diverse student populations, fostering a more secure and inclusive digital environment for all.

Aesaert, K., & van Braak, J. (2015). Gender and socioeconomic related differences in performance based ICT competences. Computers & Education, 84, 8–25. Allison, P. D. (2012). Handling missing data by maximum likelihood. SAS Global Forum: Statistics and Data Analysis. Statistical Horizons. Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175–199. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2020). Preparing for life in a digital world: IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018 international report. Springer. Hatlevik, O. E., Ottestad, G., & Throndsen, I. (2015). Predictors of digital competence in 7th grade: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 220–231. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press. Lawson, G. M., Hook, C. J., & Farah, M. J. (2018). A meta‐analysis of the relationship between socioeconomic status and executive function performance among children. Developmental Science, 21(2), e12529. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full Findings. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. Morea, A., & Calvete, E. (2021). Cognitive flexibility and selective attention’s associations with internalizing symptoms in adolescents: Are they reciprocal? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(5), 921–934. Morea, A., & Calvete, E. (2022). Understanding the perpetuation of cyberbullying victimization in adolescents: The role of executive functions. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 1–13. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. OECD. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. Paris: OECD Publishing. Siddiq, F., Gochyyev, P., & Wilson, M. (2017). Learning in Digital Networks–ICT literacy: A novel assessment of students' 21st century skills. Computers & Education, 109, 11–37. Vasilyeva, M., Dearing, E., Ivanova, A., Shen, C., & Kardanova, E. (2018). Testing the family investment model in Russia: Estimating indirect effects of SES and parental beliefs on the literacy skills of first-graders. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 11–20. Wang, X., & Xing, W. (2018). Exploring the influence of parental involvement and socioeconomic status on teen digital citizenship: A path modeling approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 186–199.