Digital Access, Digital Literacy, and Afterlife Preparedness: Societal Contexts of Digital Afterlife Traces

The paper investigates how digital access (first-level divide) and digital literacy (second-level divide) shape individuals’ preparedness to manage their digital remains (digital afterlife), and whether such preparedness affects non-digital life outcomes, specifically perceived wellbeing (third-level divide). The context is the growing persistence of digital traces beyond one’s biological life and the limited regulatory protection over posthumous data. The purpose is to conceptualize digital afterlife preparedness as a capacity-building process within the framework of digital inequalities and to test a sequential-compound model linking socio-demographics to access, access to literacy, literacy to readiness (general and privacy-specific), and readiness to wellbeing. The study is important because commercial platforms and algorithmic ecosystems can exploit posthumous data, and uneven preparedness may reinforce broader social inequalities.

The background outlines regulatory gaps (e.g., limited scope of fiduciary access laws in the United States) and platform practices (e.g., legacy contacts) that largely place responsibility on individuals post-mortem. Prior work highlights posthumous privacy concerns, the emergence of a digital afterlife industry, and socio-cultural practices around grief and bereavement now mediated by platforms. The paper distinguishes institutional vs. interpersonal privacy and emphasizes how platform terms shape posthumous data uses beyond familial access. The conceptual framework draws on first-, second-, and third-level digital divides and introduces sequential and compound exclusion: disadvantages cascade from access to literacy to outcomes and also accumulate within levels. Hypotheses propose: H1a—access positively predicts readiness; H1b—socio-demographics predict access (disparities by education, income, race, gender, age); H2—access indirectly affects readiness via literacy; H3a—readiness positively predicts wellbeing with literacy’s effects mediated by readiness; H3b—general vs. privacy-specific readiness have distinct mediating roles; H4—effects of readiness on wellbeing are moderated by age and privacy-worry.

Data: U.S. adult online survey (Qualtrics), September 2018. Two attention checks; analytic sample n=824 of 978 completes. Demographics roughly comparable to U.S. census with fewer non-Whites (19.2% vs. ACS 27%), median income category $40–50k, 51.9% female, age 18–87 (M=46.74, SD=16.47), median education some college. Measures:

• Digital access: count of access locations (library, school, workplace, home, friend/family homes, café, community center, on-the-go); M=3.48, SD=2.23, range 1–9.
• Digital literacy: familiarity with 17 terms (1–5 each; e.g., privacy settings, phishing, malware); total score M=49.09, SD=16.96, range 14–75, α=.95.
• Digital readiness (afterlife preparedness): two dimensions. (a) General preparedness: 7 items (confidence 1–5) across platforms/devices (social media, smartphone, texts, email, PC, tablet, smart speaker); summed index M=23.40, SD=6.86, range 5–35, α=.95. (b) Privacy preparedness: single item (1–5) confidence in protecting privacy of digital remains; M=3.48, SD=1.01.
• Digital privacy-worry: index (sum of worries across services/devices; Yes=1 vs. others=0); M=1.84, SD=2.42, range 0–7, α=.92.
• Perceived wellbeing: Satisfaction With Life Scale (5 items, 1–5); summed M=16.85, SD=4.63, range 5–25, α=.895.
• Socio-demographics: age, gender, race (non-White indicator), household income, education. Analytical strategy: Descriptives and subgroup mean tests; step-wise OLS regressions mirroring hypothesized sequence: (1) socio-demographics → access; (2) access → literacy and readiness; (3) literacy → readiness; (4) readiness → wellbeing; plus interactions (readiness × age; readiness × privacy-worry). Moderated mediation tested with PROCESS: Model 6 for sequential indirect effects (access → literacy → readiness → wellbeing) and Model 14 for moderated mediation by age and privacy-worry. 10,000 bootstrap samples, 95% bias-corrected CIs.

Descriptive status and disparities:

• Readiness levels were modest: general preparedness M=23.40/35; privacy preparedness M=3.48/5; only 43% reported readiness to cope with digital remains; ~34% confident in privacy preparedness. Privacy-worry low (M=1.84/7); only 30% worried about social media traces; 12% worried across all seven forms.
• Socioeconomic disparities: Lower income (<$50k) and lower education (some college or less) groups showed consistently lower readiness, literacy, and access; non-Whites reported higher privacy-worry (M=2.30) yet lower access; older adults and women showed lower literacy and lower privacy-worry. H1—Access and its socio-demographic bases:
• Socio-demographics → Access: Age β=−.21 (p<.001), Non-White β=−.12 (p<.001), HH income β=.18 (p<.001), Education β=.09 (p<.05), Female n.s.; Adjusted R²=.108 (Table 2).
• Access → Readiness: Access positively related to general preparedness in a simple model (β=.07, p<.05; H1a), but effect disappeared when adding socio-demographics. No support for privacy preparedness (β=.03, n.s.). H1b supported: access varies by socio-demographics. H2—Indirect role of literacy between access and readiness:
• Access → Literacy: β=.24 (p<.001).
• Literacy → Readiness: General β≈.20 (p<.001; adj. R²≈.04–.05); Privacy β≈.29–.32 (p<.001; adj. R²≈.08–.10). With controls, access’s association with privacy preparedness turned negative (β=−.10, p<.01), underscoring mediation by literacy. H3—Readiness and wellbeing; compound mediation patterns:
• Readiness → Wellbeing: General β=.35 (p<.001) → .30 (p<.001) with controls; Privacy β=.34 (p<.001) → .30 (p<.01) with controls (Table 3).
• Literacy → Wellbeing: Direct β=.22 (p<.001) without readiness; with general preparedness included, reduced to β=.08 (p<.05); with privacy preparedness included, literacy effect became non-significant. Distinct mediating paths for general vs. privacy preparedness (H3b). H4—Moderation by age and privacy-worry:
• Age × Readiness: Significant interactions—overall preparedness β=−.49 (p<.001), privacy preparedness β=−.39 (p<.001); older adults’ wellbeing more sensitive to low readiness.
• Privacy-worry × Readiness: Significant for overall preparedness β=.34 (p<.001); marginal for privacy preparedness β=.19 (p≈.10). High privacy-worry amplifies the negative impact of low overall readiness on wellbeing. PROCESS (sequential and moderated mediation):
• Access’s indirect effects on wellbeing via readiness: General path b=.020 (SE=.007), CI [.008, .037]; Privacy path b=.034 (SE=.008), CI [.019, .054]; no direct effect of access.
• Moderated mediation (literacy → readiness → wellbeing): Conditional on age—general b=−.0003 (SE=.0001), CI [−.0006, −.0001]; privacy b=−.0004 (SE=.0002), CI [−.0008, −.0001]. Conditional on privacy-worry for general preparedness also significant (reported as b=.0081, SE=.0007, CI [.0005, .0034]). Overall: Results support a sequential model: socio-demographics → access → literacy → readiness → wellbeing. The key mechanism is indirect: literacy fosters readiness, which improves wellbeing; access alone is insufficient once socio-demographics are considered.

Findings substantiate the theorized sequential and compound digital divides. Socio-demographic disadvantages constrain access, which then shapes literacy; literacy is the pivotal bridge to building digital afterlife readiness, and readiness, in turn, relates to higher perceived wellbeing. Distinguishing general vs. privacy-specific readiness reveals different mediating roles: general readiness partially mediates literacy’s effect on wellbeing, while privacy readiness more fully absorbs literacy’s effect. Moderation results show that older adults and those with higher privacy-worry are especially affected by low readiness, underscoring unequal returns from digital participation and the salience of posthumous data concerns. These results highlight that relying on individuals alone to manage post-life digital traces amid platform-centric environments risks exacerbating inequalities; capacity-building (skills, literacy) beyond mere access is crucial, alongside institutional and regulatory measures to protect posthumous privacy.

The study contributes a capacity-building perspective on digital afterlife preparedness within the digital inequality framework, empirically demonstrating a sequential pathway from access to literacy to readiness to wellbeing, and showing compounded effects across general and privacy-specific readiness. It identifies literacy-driven readiness as the key mechanism connecting digital resources to non-digital wellbeing and documents amplified vulnerabilities among older adults and highly privacy-concerned users. Future research should: (1) develop and validate domain-specific knowledge measures for digital remains; (2) capture behavioral strategies and actions (beyond self-assessed readiness); (3) conduct cross-cultural comparisons; (4) update analyses for newer platform features (e.g., legacy contacts) and algorithmic environments; and (5) examine policy and platform interventions that address not only access but also skills and protections for posthumous data.

• Measurement: Readiness items were newly adapted without qualitative pretesting; privacy preparedness is a single item. Potential conflation between general digital literacy and domain-specific knowledge of digital remains.
• Temporal: Data collected in 2018; platforms and features have evolved since.
• Sample: Underrepresentation of non-Whites; income slightly below national median; limits generalizability.
• Analytical: Privacy-worry and literacy correlated (r=.14), potentially reducing power to detect some moderated mediations; some access–readiness associations became non-significant when controlling socio-demographics.
• Scope: U.S.-centric regulatory and platform context; cross-cultural applicability untested. Behavioral outcomes (actual planning/actions) not measured.