- Article
This study aims to analyze the effect of individuals’ digital capital on life satisfaction in the digital global marketing environment and to structurally verify the mediating effects of digital self-efficacy and the level of E-commerce utilization in this process. For this purpose, data from the 2023 Digital Divide Survey conducted by Statistics Korea was utilized, and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analyses were conducted. The results indicate that the sub-factors of digital capital—digital competence, digital support resources, and social capital—all have significant positive effects on digital self-efficacy. Furthermore, digital self-efficacy exerts a significant positive influence on both the level of E-commerce utilization and life satisfaction. In addition, the level of E-commerce utilization was found to have a modest but statistically significant direct effect on life satisfaction. Mediation analysis based on SEM revealed that digital self-efficacy functions as a key mediating mechanism linking digital capital to life satisfaction. While indirect effects through digital self-efficacy were consistently supported, the sequential mediation pathway involving both digital self-efficacy and E-commerce utilization level appeared relatively weak, suggesting that psychological confidence plays a more central role than behavioral usage alone. Overall, these findings suggest that digital capital extends beyond mere access to technology or frequency of use and forms a structural pathway influencing quality of life primarily through psychological empowerment and, to a lesser extent, digital behavioral engagement. This study contributes to digital divide research by presenting an integrated analytical framework connecting digital capital, digital self-efficacy, E-commerce utilization level, and life satisfaction, and provides empirical evidence supporting the importance of policies and educational interventions that enhance individuals’ digital self-efficacy alongside practical e-commerce-based digital education.
26 February 2026


![Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Source: Reconstructed by the author based on Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw [13] (p. 985).](https://mdpi-res.com/cdn-cgi/image/w=470,h=317/https://mdpi-res.com/jtaer/jtaer-21-00077/article_deploy/html/images/jtaer-21-00077-g001-550.jpg)


![PRISMA 2020 [18] flow diagram of study identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Notes. **, Records were excluded using database-embedded automation filters prior to manual screening.](https://mdpi-res.com/cdn-cgi/image/w=281,h=192/https://mdpi-res.com/jtaer/jtaer-21-00074/article_deploy/html/images/jtaer-21-00074-g001-550.jpg)
