F1000ResearchF1000Research2046-1402F1000 Research LimitedLondon, UK10.12688/f1000research.173990.1Research ArticleArticlesThe impact of social marketing practices in promoting digital etiquette: a descriptive and analytical study on a sample of Fallujah University students
[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]
HamzaReham MoatasemResourcesWriting – Original Draft PreparationWriting – Review & Editinghttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3767-34201HammadiAhmed AbbasData CurationFormal AnalysisFunding AcquisitionInvestigationMethodologySoftwareValidationWriting – Original Draft Preparationhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3767-3420a2
Department of Public Administration, College of Administration and Economics, University of Fallujah, Iraq
Department of Business Administration, College of Administration and Economics, University of Fallujah, Iraqahmedabbas@uofallujah.edu.iq
The research aims to know the role of social marketing practices in enhancing digital etiquette at the University of Fallujah, through a descriptive and analytical study on a sample of students amounting to (215) students. The research problem was the deficiency in some students' commitment to digital etiquette. The importance of the study is highlighted in analyzing the impact of social marketing tools on raising awareness of ethical values on the Internet and elsewhere. The research recommends the necessity for Iraqi universities to adopt innovative social marketing practices to enhance digital responsibility, and develop technological infrastructure and human resources in line with the modern digital environment.
Methodology
The research followed the descriptive analytical approach, and the data were collected via a questionnaire. The data were analyzed using the program (SPSS V.24) based on arithmetic means, standard deviations, the simple correlation coefficient (Pearson), and multiple linear regression testing to verify the influence relationships between the study variables.
Results
Analytical results indicate that the university regularly adopts social marketing tools and activates its four dimensions (social product, social pricing, social promotion, and social distribution), which has had a positive impact on digital transformation. The data showed an increase in the level of commitment to digital etiquette among students by (25%) according to the approved digital behavior standards, with a significant moral impact (p < 0.05) of social marketing practices in promoting positive digital behaviors and reducing irresponsible behaviors.
Conclusions
Social marketing practices play an important role in raising awareness among Fallujah University students about the importance of responsible digital behavior. The use of various methods such as awareness videos, infographics, and direct interaction with students also helped deliver ethical messages more effectively. The study confirms that social marketing is a real catalyst for social change in the digital environment.
social marketing practicesdigital etiquette.The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.Introduction
The world today is witnessing rapid transformations led by modern technology and the digitization of societies, which has made digital behavior an essential element in shaping the behavior of individuals (
Causio et al., 2025:4). Internet technologies have become an integral part of daily life, providing broad possibilities for communication, but at the same time they require high responsibility and commitment to digital etiquette as a socio-cultural phenomenon resulting from the development of digital civilization This development has contributed to reshaping traditional social values and norms, and has highlighted the need for digital etiquette as a normative and ethical regulator of communication in the virtual environment (
Issembayeva & Seyitkazy, 2025:11-12).
In light of the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research's move towards digitization, local university education is witnessing a rapid shift towards a digital environment, which has produced new practices and behaviors among students within e-learning spaces. Despite the opportunities this shift provides for interaction, creativity, and knowledge exchange, it may reveal aspects of the shortcomings in some students' commitment to digital etiquette Whether in communicating via academic platforms or in using electronic resources in a responsible and ethical manner, such as publishing inappropriate comments, sharing information without permission, etc. The US Development Bank report (2025) indicates that digital behaviors require users and developers to practice conscious and responsible behavior that protects users from misuse of technology, such as cyberbullying and exploitation of personal data, and in return promotes the development of technologies that support and enhance social welfare and human rights (
Latorre et al., 2025:7). The World Health Organization also directly confirmed this problem, as it indicated in its report issued in 2025 that: «Research has reinforced the existence of multiple online risks to the mental health, physical health, and well-being of young people, with a strong consensus that the stages of biological and cognitive development of children and adolescents make them particularly vulnerable to online harm» (
WHO, 2025, 2). This reflects the complex nature of digital behavior and highlights the need for effective interventions that promote awareness and safe use of technology.
In this context, the importance of studying social marketing practices emerges as an influential tool capable of bringing about positive behavioral changes that lead to improving the well-being of the individual and benefit society as a whole (
Galiano-Coronil et al., 2024), as its essence is based on achieving the public good and modifying negative behaviors based on behavioral, psychological and marketing sciences to solve social problems (
Shekhar and Venugopal, 2025:1-3)
Khatti-Dizabadi et al. (2024:155) agreed that social marketing practices represent (social product, social pricing, social distribution, social promotion). A social product may be a service, idea, or behavioral change, such as digital stress relief initiatives, smartphone overuse reduction systems, and digital wellbeing programs (
Arenas-Escaso et al., 2024:1-5;
Orzikulova et al., 2024:2-3), as for the social price, it is represented by the effort made to adopt the new behavior (
Kegoro, 2020:91), such as self-control to use the phone, which is an influential factor in reducing over-reliance on technology (
Li et al., 2025:2), (
Fayyaz, 2022:19) indicated that place means providing goods, services, or the appropriate environment that facilitates the adoption of the new behavior, as for (
Kegoro, 2020:9). It focused on the fact that the dimension of social promotion is measured by indicators such as adaptability and consumption time, ensuring that interventions reach the target group effectively. For example, Apple and Google have introduced a range of features and apps such as SPACE and GDW to help reduce distraction and enhance the user's digital well-being (
Almourad et al., 2021:1-3). Social promotion focuses on raising awareness by using media and awareness messages to promote healthy digital behaviors through preventive digital applications and interventions (
Saud, 2022:128;
Akbar et al., 2023:1;
Zhao et al., 2024:3;
Wu et al., 2025).
In today's interconnected world, understanding digital etiquette is essential to maintaining safe and respectful online interactions (
Ab Wahab, 2024:2), and after reviewing many studies, research and scientific literature related to the concept of digital etiquette such as the study of (
Abdul Tawab, 2020;
Al-Shehri, 2021;
Haroun and Hassouna, 2022), The researchers summarized it in five basic dimensions that represent the main axes on which digital behavior is built. The technological dimension is represented in the individual's awareness of using information technology, and his mastery of the rules of digital communication such as writing email and using platforms in a professional manner, while the ethical dimension is concerned with adhering to ethical rules derived from religion, law, and societal norms, while respecting privacy and the rights of others, avoiding abuse, protecting personal information, and reviewing content before publishing it to ensure that it is not misused (
Abdel Tawab, 2020;
Al-Shehri, 2021;
Haroun and Hassouna, 2022). The social dimension includes polite behaviors that regulate individuals' interaction within the digital environment, such as taking responsibility, effective communication, respecting other opinions, and positive participation that reflects the spirit of cooperation within the digital community (
Abdul Tawab, 2020;
Al-Shehri, 2021;
Haroun and Hassouna, 2022). Social media is a tool for instilling social values and teaching acceptable interaction styles (
Neumann & Rhodes, 2023:2), but it can present challenges such as overreliance and digital bullying in its various forms, making digital moral and social education essential to ensure respectful and responsible interaction within the digital space (
Rini et al., 2023:107). The health dimension includes the behaviors that individuals should practice while using digital technology, as part of digital etiquette, such as healthy sitting, organizing the duration of use, and paying attention to basic meals to ensure a balance between healthy living and digital use. This dimension is linked to awareness of the risks resulting from excessive use of technology, as it may lead to depression, anxiety, isolation, and sleep disorders. The World Health Organization has classified Internet addiction as one of the global problems affecting sleep, motivation, memory, relationships, and quality of life, due to its similarity to addiction to harmful substances (
Dresp-Langley & Hutt, 2022:2-4). To address these effects, healthy behavior change (HBC) interventions have emerged that adopt psychological and behavioral approaches to improve diet, physical activity, sleep, and reduce the use of harmful substances. Although traditional interventions are effective, they are expensive, making digital alternatives more scalable (
Sawyer et al., 2023:6965). Digital health awareness has also emerged as a new determinant of health, enabling individuals to use digital technologies to access health information and employ it in problem solving, reflecting the integration of health awareness with digital awareness (
Qiu et al., 2025:2). The security dimension is concerned with protecting accounts, personal information, and files from any unauthorized interference or access (
Haroun and Hassouna, 2022, p. 250) and is increasingly important in the digital higher education environment, which requires advanced awareness of cybersecurity to ensure the safe use of technologies. Information security is based on the principles of the Triangle (CIA): confidentiality, integrity, availability, non-repudiation and credibility as elements that enhance digital trust. Effective awareness of information security based on understanding personal protocols and responsibilities is also an essential element for protecting organizations, and is not limited to measuring awareness, but includes evaluating the impact of security initiatives in reducing human errors and promoting preventive behaviors (
Bognár & Bottyán, 2024:1–2). In light of the above, it is important and necessary to conduct this research in a new local and digital environment and among new users, namely students of the University of Fallujah in Iraq, with the aim of building responsible digital awareness. Here, a major important question arises that can be raised: (What is the role of social marketing practices in enhancing digital behavior?), and how, through these practices, students can be directed towards using technology and digital platforms in a responsible, healthy and safe manner, which contributes to developing a digital educational environment based on respect, awareness and commitment to digital etiquette.
MethodologyType, design and scope
This study relied on the descriptive analytical approach, due to its ability to describe and analyze the phenomena under study. First, the research variables represented in social marketing practices (social product, social pricing, social promotion, social distribution) and digital etiquette were described in its dimensions (technological dimension, ethical dimension, social dimension, health dimension, security dimension), through a questionnaire form designed for this purpose. The data were then analyzed statistically using appropriate statistical methods to extract indicators and interpret relationships between variables, allowing for a deeper understanding and clear vision of the current reality of the Iraqi universities under study.
Community and sample
The research community consists of all students of Fallujah University, as they represent the target group for studying the impact of social marketing practices in promoting digital etiquette. A comprehensive inventory method was adopted in selecting the sample, so that the sample included a large number of students to ensure the inclusion of all units related to the subject of the study and to obtain accurate data that reflects the actual reality of digital behavior among students within the university.
Procedures
According to the research design, the research followed logical and systematic steps, which facilitated the solution of the research problem. The most important research steps included the following points: conceptualizing the idea, stating the problem, designing the research, selecting the sample, collecting data, analyzing it, interpreting it, and discussing the results.
Data collection techniques and tools
Considering the dimensions and indicators of the study, the questionnaire tool was adopted as the main means of collecting data. This tool was developed to include the social marketing practices variable consisting of (24) items, distributed over its dimensions, with the adoption of the five-point Likert scale to determine the level of response. As for the digital etiquette variable, it included (30) paragraphs, distributed according to its dimensions, and using the same scale. The questionnaire was applied to the study sample members with the aim of obtaining the data necessary for statistical analysis.
Analyze the results
The study aimed to determine the impact relationship between social marketing practices and digital etiquette for a sample of Fallujah University students. The study was conducted based on questionnaire data, and according to the research variables, the following was observed:
First: Describe the opinions of the researched sample
This paragraph will describe the identifying information of the respondents, as shown in
Table 1 below:
Demographic information
Gender: Males accounted for 55% of the respondents, while females accounted for 54%. This demonstrates that the representation of males and females is equal at the university under study, as outlined in
Figure 1.
Age: It is noted that the age group (20 years and younger) obtained a percentage of 4.7%, while the age group (25-21 years) obtained a percentage of 47%, the age group (under 30 years) obtained a percentage of 32.1%, and finally the age group (30 years and older) obtained a percentage of 16.2% for respondents, as outlined in
Figure 2.
Academic qualification: It is noted that the preparatory academic qualification obtained a percentage of 28.8%, the bachelor's academic qualification obtained a percentage of 46%, while the master's academic achievement obtained a percentage of 25.2% for respondents.
The identifying information can be explained conceptually, as outlined in
Figure 3.
Describe and diagnose the study variables
The process of describing and diagnosing the study variables at the macro level and in terms of their dimensions is one of the important steps to determine the level of orientation and tendencies of the researched individuals towards those variables and dimensions. These tendencies are usually measured through the percentage of agreement and the relative importance index (Relative importance index (RII)). This index is used to know the relative importance of the paragraphs and dimensions of the study from the point of view of the research sample in the researched organization. Note that the value of this indicator falls between (0≤RII≤1) and its value can be classified into five levels according to the five-point Likard scale adopted in our study, as shown in
Table 2.
Description of the researched individuals.
Description
Division or category
Number
Ratio
Gender
Male
118
55%
Female
97
45%
Total
215
100%
Age
20 years and younger
10
4.7%
25-21 years
101
47%
Under 30 years old
69
32.1%
30 years or older
35
16.2%
Total
215
100%
Academic qualification
Preparatory
62
28.8%
Undergraduate
99
46%
Master's
54
25.2%
Total
215
100%
Percentages of identifying information about the gender variable.
Percentages of identifying information about the age variable.
Percentages of identifying information about the Academic qualification variable.
Levels of importance according to the five-point Likard scale.
Degree of relative importance
RII
High
0.8 ≤
RII ≤
1
Medium to high
0.6 ≤
RII < 0.8
Medium
0.4 ≤
RII < 0.6
Low to medium
0.2 ≤
RII < 0.4
Low
0 ≤
RII < 0.2
Describe and diagnose the independent variable social marketing
Social product
The basic statistical measures were found in order to describe and diagnose the paragraphs of the social product dimension, which included paragraphs (X1-X6).
Table 3 explains this description. The average dimension was (3.867), while the standard deviation was (0.765) and of relative importance (77.348%), as this percentage is classified as a medium to high percentage as an indicator of relative importance (RII). As for the percentages of (agreement), opinion (agreed to some extent), and (disagreement), their percentages reached (73.93%), (21.57%), and (4.50%), respectively. Note that the highest paragraph is X1 (Fallujah University provides sufficient information about its services that contribute to meeting the social needs of students and subscribers), and the lowest paragraph is X5 (Fallujah University seeks to continuously develop and improve its services to advance the social aspect of students and the surrounding society).
Figure 4 explains illustrates the of relative importance of each item in the social product.
Social pricing
Basic statistical measures were found in order to describe and diagnose paragraphs of the social pricing dimension, which included paragraphs (X7-X12).
Table 4 explains this description. The average dimension was (3.760), while the standard deviation was (0.833) and of relative importance (75.194%), as this percentage is classified as a medium to high percentage as an indicator of relative importance (RII). As for the percentages of (agreement), opinion (agreed to some extent), and (disagreement), their percentages reached (70.77%), (20.00%), and (9.23%), respectively. Note that the highest paragraph is X7 (Fallujah University offers attractive facilities and discounts to students and beneficiaries as a type of practice that supports society), and the lowest paragraph is X10 (the prices of services and activities provided by Fallujah University are proportional to the purchasing power of students and beneficiaries).
Figure 5 explains illustrates the of relative importance of each item in the social pricing.
Social promotion
Basic statistical measures were found in order to describe and diagnose paragraphs of the social promotion dimension, which included paragraphs (X13-X18).
Table 5 explains this description. The average dimension was (3.890), while the standard deviation was (0.779) and of relative importance (77.798%), as this percentage is classified as a medium to high percentage as an indicator of relative importance (RII). As for the percentages of (agreement), opinion (agreed to some extent), and (disagreement), their percentages reached (74.55%), (19.78%), and (5.67%), respectively. Note that the highest paragraph is X13 (Fallujah University displays advertisements that include sufficient information about the services and offers it provides to students and the community), and the lowest paragraph is X14 (Fallujah University is committed to credibility in advertisements directed to students and beneficiaries, as a way to avoid any marketing deception towards the community).
Figure 6 explains illustrates the of relative importance of each item in the social promotion.
Social place
Basic statistical measures were found in order to describe and diagnose paragraphs of the social space dimension, which included paragraphs (X19-X24).
Table 6 explains this description. The average dimension was (3.912), while the standard deviation was (0.796) and of relative importance (78.232%), as this percentage is classified as a medium to high percentage as an indicator of relative importance (RII). As for the percentages of (agreement), opinion (agreed to some extent), and (disagreement), their percentages reached (75.33%), (19.57%), and (5.10%), respectively. Note that the highest paragraph is X19 (Fallujah University provides extensive coverage in all regions and the services it provides, even if this requires additional costs), and the lowest paragraph is X20 (Fallujah University's website is easily accessible by students and beneficiaries).
Figure 7 explains illustrates the of relative importance of each item in the social place.
Describe and diagnose the independent variable of digital etiquette
Technological dimension
Basic statistical measures were found in order to describe and diagnose paragraphs of the technological dimension, which included paragraphs (y1-y6).
Table 7 explains this description. The average dimension was (4.044), while the standard deviation was (0.742) and of relative importance (80.884%), as this percentage is classified as a high percentage as an indicator of relative importance (RII). As for the percentages of (agreement), opinion (agreed to some extent), and (disagreement), their percentages reached (80.07%), (16.42%), and (3.52%), respectively. Note that the highest paragraph is y2 (turn on the camera or microphone during simultaneous meetings for remote communication applications, at the appropriate time), and the lowest paragraph is y6 (speak tactfully when communicating with others in remote communication applications).
Figure 8 explains illustrates the of relative importance of each item in the technological dimension.
Moral dimension
Basic statistical measures were found in order to describe and diagnose paragraphs of the moral dimension, which included paragraphs (X13-X18).
Table 8 explains this description. The average dimension was (3.733), while the standard deviation was (0.852) and of relative importance (74.667%), as this percentage is classified as a medium to high percentage as an indicator of relative importance (RII). As for the percentages of (agreement), opinion (agreed to some extent), and (disagreement), their percentages reached (65.97%), (25.02%), and (9.02%), respectively. Note that the highest paragraph is y10 (I do not publish unethical posts that offend others), and the lowest paragraph is y7 (I respect the privacy of electronic platforms and do not mishandle them).
Figure 9 explains illustrates the of relative importance of each item in the moral dimension.
Social dimension
Basic statistical measures were found in order to describe and diagnose paragraphs of the social dimension, which included paragraphs (X13-X18).
Table 9 explains this description. The average dimension was (4.018), while the standard deviation was (0.811) and of relative importance (80.357%), as this percentage is classified as a high percentage as an indicator of relative importance (RII). As for the percentages of (agreement), opinion (agreed to some extent), and (disagreement), their percentages reached (81.00%), (14.42%), and (4.58%), respectively. Note that the highest paragraph is y16 (post posters and awareness bulletins on social media), and the lowest paragraph is y13 (commit to addressing individuals in the virtual world in a decent manner).
Figure 10 explains illustrates the of relative importance of each item in the social dimension.
Health dimension
Basic statistical measures were found to describe and diagnose the health dimension items, which included items (X13-X18).
Table 10 explains this description. The average dimension was (4.126), while the standard deviation was (0.770) and of relative importance (82.512%), as this percentage is classified as a high percentage as an indicator of relative importance (RII). As for the percentages of (agreement), opinion (agreed to some extent), and (disagreement), their percentages reached (83.53%), (12.87%), and (3.60%), respectively. Note that the highest paragraph is y24 (I isolate myself from others when dealing with cyberspace), and the lowest paragraph is y19 (I am aware of the risks inherent when using digital technology).
Figure 11 explains illustrates the of relative importance of each item in the health dimension.
Security dimension
Basic statistical measures were found in order to describe and diagnose paragraphs of the security dimension, which included paragraphs (X13-X18).
Table 11 explains this description. The average dimension was (3.884), while the standard deviation was (0.824) and of relative importance (77.674%), as this percentage is classified as a medium to high percentage as an indicator of relative importance (RII). As for the percentages of (agreement), opinion (agreed to some extent), and (disagreement), their percentages reached (74.95%), (19.23%), and (5.82%), respectively. Note that the highest paragraph is y26 (when dealing with devices and cyberspace, I put passwords that are difficult to predict), and the lowest paragraph is y30 (stay away from using anonymous programs, because they obtain information without the permission of their owner).
Figure 12 explains illustrates the of relative importance of each item in the security dimension.
Frequency distributions, arithmetic means, standard deviations, and the relative importance of the social product dimension.
Paragraphs
Response
Average
Standard deviation
Response intensity %
Ranking
Totally agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Idon't agree (2)
Don't totally agree (1)
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
X1
43
20
129
60
39
18.1
3
1.4
1
0.5
3.977
0.693
79.534
1
X2
46
21.4
121
56.3
41
19.1
7
3.2
0
0
3.958
0.732
79.162
2
X3
34
15.8
122
56.7
50
23.3
8
3.7
1
0.5
3.837
0.747
76.744
4
X4
40
18.6
123
57.2
44
20.5
7
3.2
1
0.5
3.902
0.746
78.046
3
X5
31
14.3
116
54
52
24.2
12
5.6
4
1.9
3.735
0.842
74.698
6
X6
38
17.7
111
51.6
52
24.2
12
5.6
2
0.9
3.80
0.83
75.906
5
Overall rate
17.97
55.97
21.57
3.78
0.72
3.867
0.765
77.348
Total
73.93
21.57
4.50
Explains illustrates the relative importance of each item in the social product.
Description of the social pricing dimension and its results.
Paragraphs
Response
Average
Standard deviation
Response intensity %
Ranking
Totally agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Idon't agree (2)
Don't totally agree (1)
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
X7
43
20
116
54
35
16.2
18
8.4
3
1.4
3.828
0.893
76.558
1
X8
27
12.6
108
50.2
52
24.2
23
10.7
5
2.3
3.600
0.921
72.000
5
X9
32
14.9
132
61.3
41
19.1
10
4.7
0
0
3.865
0.714
77.302
4
X10
23
10.7
110
51.1
50
23.3
31
14.4
1
0.5
3.572
0.882
71.442
6
X11
39
18.1
117
54.5
44
20.5
13
6
2
0.9
3.828
0.828
76.558
2
X12
34
15.8
132
61.4
36
16.7
12
5.6
1
0.5
3.87
0.760
77.302
3
Overall rate
15.35
55.42
20.00
8.30
0.93
3.760
0.833
75.194
Total
70.77
20.00
9.23
Explains illustrates the relative importance of each item in the social pricing.
Frequency distributions, arithmetic averages, standard deviations, and the relative importance of the social promotion dimension.
Paragraphs
Response
Average
Standard deviation
Response intensity %
Ranking
Totally agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Idon't agree (2)
Don't totally agree (1)
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
X13
58
27
122
56.7
26
12.1
8
3.7
1
0.5
4.061
0.762
81.210
1
X14
28
13
98
45.6
67
31.2
19
8.8
3
1.4
3.600
0.874
72.000
6
X15
55
25.6
115
53.5
36
16.7
6
2.8
3
1.4
3.991
0.815
79.814
2
X16
51
23.7
113
52.5
41
19.1
9
4.2
1
0.5
3.949
0.798
78.976
4
X17
37
17.2
117
54.4
47
21.9
13
6
1
0.5
3.819
0.803
76.372
5
X18
40
18.6
128
59.5
38
17.7
8
3.7
1
0.5
3.92
0.74
78.418
3
Overall rate
20.85
53.70
19.78
4.87
0.80
3.890
0.799
77.798
Total
74.55
19.78
5.67
Explains illustrates the relative importance of each item in the social promotion.
Frequency distributions, arithmetic means, standard deviations, and the relative importance of the social space dimension.
Paragraphs
Response
Average
Standard deviation
Response intensity %
Ranking
Totally agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Idon't agree (2)
Don't totally agree (1)
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
X19
60
27.9
121
56.3
29
13.5
3
1.4
2
0.9
4.088
0.740
81.768
1
X20
38
17.7
102
47.4
57
26.5
15
7
3
1.4
3.730
0.882
74.604
6
X21
29
13.5
117
54.4
61
28.4
6
2.8
2
0.9
3.767
0.750
75.348
5
X22
58
27
114
53
30
14
11
5.1
2
0.9
4.000
0.837
80.000
3
X23
42
19.5
118
54.9
39
18.2
14
6.5
2
0.9
3.856
0.839
77.116
4
X24
54
25.1
119
55.3
36
16.8
6
2.8
0
0
4.03
0.73
80.558
2
Overall rate
21.78
53.55
19.57
4.27
0.83
3.912
0.796
78.232
Total
75.33
19.57
5.10
Explains illustrates the relative importance of each item in the social place.
Frequency distributions, arithmetic means, standard deviations, and the relative importance of the technological dimension.
Paragraphs
Response
Average
Standard deviation
Response intensity %
Ranking
Totally agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Idon't agree (2)
Don't totally agree (1)
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
y1
58
27
128
59.5
26
12.1
3
1.4
0
0
4.121
0.659
82.418
3
y2
83
38.6
109
50.7
21
9.7
1
0.5
1
0.5
4.265
0.690
85.302
1
y3
82
38.1
110
51.2
21
9.8
2
0.9
0
0
4.265
0.669
85.302
2
y4
59
27.4
109
50.7
42
19.5
4
1.9
1
0.5
4.028
0.767
80.558
4
y5
51
23.7
123
57.2
33
15.3
7
3.3
1
0.5
4.005
0.752
80.094
5
y6
32
14.9
89
41.4
69
32.1
22
10.2
3
1.4
3.58
0.91
71.628
6
Overall rate
28.28
51.78
16.42
3.03
0.48
4.044
0.742
80.884
Total
80.07
16.42
3.52
Explains illustrates the relative importance of each item in the technological dimension.
Frequency distributions, arithmetic averages, standard deviations, and relative importance of the ethical dimension.
Paragraphs
Response
Average
Standard deviation
Response intensity %
Ranking
Totally agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Idon't agree (2)
Don't totally agree (1)
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
y7
24
11.2
86
40
77
35.7
24
11.2
4
1.9
3.474
0.901
69.488
6
y8
28
13
95
44.2
64
29.8
26
12.1
2
0.9
3.563
0.899
71.256
4
y9
26
12.1
90
41.9
67
31.1
26
12.1
6
2.8
3.484
0.951
69.674
5
y10
63
29.3
114
53
29
13.5
7
3.3
2
0.9
4.065
0.800
81.302
1
y11
47
21.8
116
54
43
20
7
3.3
2
0.9
3.926
0.794
78.512
2
y12
40
18.6
122
56.7
43
20
9
4.2
1
0.5
3.89
0.77
77.768
3
Overall rate
17.67
48.30
25.02
7.70
1.32
3.733
0.852
74.667
Total
65.97
25.02
9.02
Explains illustrates the relative importance of each item in the moral dimension.
Frequency distributions, arithmetic averages, standard deviations, and relative importance of the social dimension.
Paragraphs
Response
Average
Standard deviation
Response intensity %
Ranking
Totally agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Idon't agree (2)
Don't totally agree (1)
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
y13
51
23.7
109
50.7
39
18.2
11
5.1
5
2.3
3.884
0.907
77.674
6
y14
68
31.6
110
51.2
25
11.6
8
3.7
4
1.9
4.070
0.865
81.396
3
y15
63
29.3
120
55.8
23
10.7
4
1.9
5
2.3
4.079
0.825
81.582
2
y16
69
32.1
121
56.3
20
9.3
3
1.4
2
0.9
4.172
0.725
83.442
1
y17
47
21.9
120
55.8
39
18.1
7
3.3
2
0.9
3.944
0.783
78.884
5
y18
48
22.3
119
55.3
40
18.6
7
3.3
1
0.5
3.96
0.76
79.162
4
Overall rate
26.82
54.18
14.42
3.12
1.47
4.018
0.811
80.357
Total
81.00
14.42
4.58
Explains illustrates the relative importance of each item in the social dimension.
Frequency distributions, arithmetic means, standard deviations, and relative importance of the health dimension.
Paragraphs
Response
Average
Standard deviation
Response intensity %
Ranking
Totally agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Idon't agree (2)
Don't totally agree (1)
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
y19
46
21.4
119
55.3
37
17.2
10
4.7
3
1.4
3.907
0.832
78.140
6
y20
68
31.6
110
51.2
29
13.4
7
3.3
1
0.5
4.102
0.785
82.046
4
y21
57
26.4
127
59.1
26
12.1
4
1.9
1
0.5
4.093
0.704
81.860
5
y22
74
34.4
113
52.6
23
10.7
5
2.3
0
0
4.191
0.714
83.814
3
y23
89
41.3
89
41.4
30
14
7
3.3
0
0
4.209
0.802
84.186
2
y24
91
42.3
95
44.2
21
9.8
8
3.7
0
0
4.25
0.78
85.024
1
Overall rate
32.90
50.63
12.87
3.20
0.40
4.126
0.770
82.512
Total
83.53
12.87
3.60
Explains illustrates the relative importance of each item in the health dimension.
Frequency distributions, arithmetic averages, standard deviations, and the relative importance of the security dimension.
Paragraphs
Response
Average
Standard deviation
Response intensity %
Ranking
Totally agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Idon't agree (2)
Don't totally agree (1)
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
y25
59
27.4
117
54.4
30
14
6
2.8
3
1.4
4.037
0.808
80.744
2
y26
58
27
122
56.7
32
14.9
2
0.9
1
0.5
4.088
0.702
81.768
1
y27
42
19.5
118
54.9
46
21.4
6
2.8
3
1.4
3.884
0.797
77.674
3
y28
43
20
111
51.6
52
24.2
5
2.3
4
1.9
3.856
0.827
77.116
4
y29
38
17.7
118
54.9
43
20
14
6.5
2
0.9
3.819
0.831
76.372
5
y30
30
14
111
51.6
45
20.9
20
9.3
9
4.2
3.62
0.98
72.372
6
Overall rate
20.93
54.02
19.23
4.10
1.72
3.884
0.824
77.674
Total
74.95
19.23
5.82
Relative importance of the security dimension.
Relative importance
From
Table 12 above, it is noted that the digital etiquette variable received the highest comparative relative importance, which amounted to (79,200%), while the social marketing variable received relative importance amounting to (77,140%) for the sample studied.
The relative importance of the study variables.
T
Dimensions
Arithmetic mean
Standard deviation
Relative importance%
Ranking
1
Social marketing
3.857
0.436
77.140
2
2
Digital etiquette
3.960
0.455
79.200
1
Fifth: Measuring the stability of the questionnaire (Reliability test)
(
Feldt & Brennan, 1989) classified the values of the reliability test into two levels. If the values are greater than (70%), they are considered high-level values, while the values that are less than (70%) are considered low-level values.
The stratified alpha coefficient was found as shown in
Table 13 below:
Measuring the stability of the study variables.
key variables
Alpha stratified coefficient for combined dimensions
Alpha stratified coefficient for combined dimensions α
st.
0.94
It is noted that the value of the stratified alpha coefficient reached 0.94, which is greater than 0.70% for the study variables. Thus, it can be said, through the stratified alpha coefficient, that there is a stability force for the study variables.
Internal consistency of study dimensions
From
Table 14, it is noted that the correlation coefficient values for the social marketing variable appeared between (0.576-0.721), which is greater than (0.3) (
Wu, M. et al. (2016)). It is also noted that the correlation coefficient values for the digital etiquette variable appeared between (0.504-0.813), which is also greater than (0.3), which indicates that there is a moral correlation between the paragraphs and the dimensions they represent.
Internal consistency of variable dimensions.
Internal consistency
Variables
sub-dimensions
Paragraph sequence
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
The degree to which the paragraph relates to the dimension
(P-value)
Social marketing
Social product
0.658
0.665
0.694
0.66
0.606
0.688
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Social pricing
0.656
0.695
0.576
0.701
0.674
0.649
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Social promotion
0.612
0.656
0.703
0.721
0.671
0.651
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Social place
0.599
0.649
0.686
0.59
0.65
0.652
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Digital etiquette
Technological dimension
0.685
0.644
0.666
0.772
0.746
0.504
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Ethical dimension
0.787
0.79
0.803
0.572
0.66
0.659
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Social dimension
0.678
0.711
0.691
0.615
0.654
0.654
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Health dimension
0.702
0.685
0.646
0.793
0.79
0.801
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Security dimension
0.656
0.677
0.77
0.813
0.8
0.729
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Common Method Bias (CMB)
One of the most important sources for testing the bias of the common method is (the lack of diversification of the sources from which data is collected, the answer is yes regardless of the question, the questions on the form are characterized by their large number, which in turn leads to the length of the questionnaire form). The (Harman single factor test) test was used in the common method bias test, which indicated (
Bagozzi & Yi, 1991) that if the value of this test is greater than (50%), this is evidence of a bias in the common method, and the value of this test was found according to SPSS software. The presence of the bias problem leads to the absence of strong correlations between variables and thus does not reflect the relationship between variables, but rather may have other reasons, which leads to obtaining misleading results.
The test value of the studied data (%CMB = 25.453), which is less than (50%), thus shows that the data does not suffer from common method bias.
Natural distribution test
When conducting hypothesis tests, it requires the verification of several hypotheses. The most important of these is to impose the return of variables to the normal probability distribution. The normal distribution test is one of the tests on which determining estimation methods and testing hypotheses are based. Failure to achieve the assumption of a normal probability distribution is a violation. In this case, traditional methods cannot be used as the most feasible method in the process of estimating and testing hypotheses. Rather, the researcher must use alternative methods that do not require the availability of this assumption. A test (Kolmogorov Smirnov) was conducted to verify this hypothesis.
From the results shown in
Table 15, it is noted that all dimensions had a P value of less than 0.05, which means that these dimensions do not return to the normal probability distribution. It can also be noted that the p value of the two variables (social marketing, digital etiquette) appeared less than 0.05, which indicates that these variables do not return to the normal probability distribution either.
Testing the normal distribution of study variables and dimensions.
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Type
Description
Statistic
N
P-value
Dimensions
Social product
0.138
215
0.000
Social pricing
0.167
215
0.000
Social promotion
0.121
215
0.000
Social place
0.132
215
0.000
Technological dimension
0.136
215
0.000
Ethical dimension
0.108
215
0.000
Social dimension
0.132
215
0.000
Health dimension
0.129
215
0.000
Security dimension
0.129
215
0.000
Variables
Social marketing
0.079
215
0.002
Digital etiquette
0.075
215
0.005
Figures 13 &
14 explains the non-return of the two main variables (social marketing and digital etiquette).
Distribution of the social marketing variable.
Distribution of the digital etiquette variable.
Confirmatory factor analysis
The aim of conducting a confirmatory factor analysis of the study variables is to know the correlation relationships between the observations (questions) and the dimension they represent, in addition to knowing the correlation relationships between the latent variables (dimensions) of the variables studied, and thus judging the suitability of the model placed by the researcher with the sample model.
Figure 15 shows the saturation values (Factor Loading) (correlation) of the observed variables (questions) with the indicative (latent) variables related to the study variables, the values of which are shown on the single-headed arrow between the question and the latent variable, as well as the values of the correlation coefficients between each pair of latent variables, the values of which are shown on the double-headed arrow.
Confirmatory factor analysis of the study variables.
The hypothetical diagram shown in the methodology section determines the significance of the model proposed by the researcher and its conformity with the study sample model. Where conformity quality indicators are verified, which are based on the acceptance limits used by most researchers (
McDonald RP, & MHR, 2002). Through matching quality indicators, it is noted that all indicators are within their acceptable limits, as shown in
Table 16 below:
Conformity quality indicators for confirmatory factor analysis.
Indicators
Value
Result
CMIN/DF
0.60
Identical
GFI
0.93
Identical
AGFI
0.92
Identical
PGFI
0.84
Identical
NFI
0.91
Identical
RFI
0.91
Identical
RMR
0.050
Identical
Standard regression coefficient values
(
Hair, et al. 2016) established saturation values determined by sample size. Through
Table 17, which shows the values of the standard regression coefficients (SRW-saturation) in addition to the probability values (P-value) accompanying them. All paragraphs appeared to be significant because the probability values (P-value) accompanying them were less than (0.05). As for the saturation values (SRW), they all appeared greater than (0.40).
Standard regression coefficient values for confirmatory factor analysis results.
Parameter
SRW
P-value
Parameter
SRW
P-value
X1
←
Social product
0.695
0.001
y1
←
Technological dimension
0.579
0.002
X2
←
0.558
0.002
y2
←
0.471
0.002
X3
←
0.55
0.002
y3
←
0.506
0.001
X4
←
0.532
0.002
y4
←
0.636
0.003
X5
←
0.454
0.002
y5
←
0.646
0.002
X6
←
0.624
0.001
y6
←
0.537
0.003
X7
←
Social pricing
0.428
0.003
y7
←
Ethical dimension
0.663
0.002
X8
←
0.49
0.002
y8
←
0.662
0.003
X9
←
0.495
0.002
y9
←
0.685
0.001
X10
←
0.627
0.003
y10
←
0.532
0.002
X11
←
0.653
0.002
y11
←
0.714
0.001
X12
←
0.716
0.002
y12
←
0.665
0.003
X13
←
Social promotion
0.54
0.001
y13
←
Social dimension
0.531
0.003
X14
←
0.518
0.003
y14
←
0.533
0.002
X15
←
0.624
0.004
y15
←
0.528
0.002
X16
←
0.625
0.003
y16
←
0.548
0.002
X17
←
0.675
0.003
y17
←
0.711
0.002
X18
←
0.486
0.004
y18
←
0.622
0.003
X19
←
Social place
0.549
0.002
y19
←
Health dimension
0.736
0.002
X20
←
0.627
0.002
y20
←
0.607
0.001
X21
←
0.57
0.005
y21
←
0.725
0.002
X22
←
0.45
0.003
y22
←
0.724
0.002
X23
←
0.508
0.002
y23
←
0.606
0.004
X24
←
0.482
0.003
y24
←
0.603
0.003
y25
←
Security dimension
0.672
0.002
y26
←
0.631
0.002
y27
←
0.662
0.004
y28
←
0.727
0.002
y29
←
0.755
0.004
y30
←
0.633
0.003
Testing study hypothesesAnalysis of impact hypotheses
Testing impact hypotheses is equivalent to testing correlation hypotheses in terms of importance, so impact hypotheses will be analyzed through regression analysis. Regression analysis determines the amount and direction of the effect of an independent variable on another dependent variable
Second main hypothesis: There is a statistically significant moral impact of social marketing practices on digital etiquette.
Table 18 below shows the results of testing the fourth main hypothesis:
Impact results of the social marketing variable in digital etiquette.
Independent variable
Direction of impact
Dependent variable
Regression coefficient Estimate(β)
Standard error of the regression coefficient Se.(β)
95% Confidence Interval
P-value
Result
Social marketing
→
Digital etiquette
1.081
0.317
0.695
1.947
0.002
Acceptance
It is noted that the effect of the social marketing variable on the digital etiquette variable is a direct effect through the positive sign of the regression coefficient Estimate (β), which is due to the social marketing variable, which has a value of (1.081), and the standard error value of the regression coefficient is (0.317). Also, both the lower (Lower) and upper (Upper) confidence limits (95%Confidence Interval), which were worth (1.947, 0.695), were similar in signals at a significant level (0.05). It is also noted that this effect is a morally significant effect through the P value of (0.002), which is less than (0.05), which means that there is a moral effect of the social marketing variable on the digital etiquette variable.
Figure 16 explains the effect of the social marketing variable on the digital etiquette variable.
Effect of social marketing on digital etiquette.
The following sub-hypotheses emerge from the fourth main hypothesis:
The first sub-hypothesis: There is a statistically significant moral impact of the social product on the dimensions of digital etiquette (technological, ethical, social, health, security).
The second sub-hypothesis: There is a statistically significant moral impact of social pricing on the dimensions of digital etiquette (technological, ethical, social, health, security).
Sub-hypothesis 3: There is a statistically significant moral impact of social promotion on the dimensions of digital etiquette (technological, ethical, social, health, security).
Fourth sub-hypothesis: There is a statistically significant moral impact of social distribution on the dimensions of digital etiquette (technological, ethical, social, health, security).
Table 19 below shows the results of testing the sub-hypotheses above:
Impact results for the dimensions of the social marketing variable in the digital etiquette variabl.
Independent variable
Direction of impact
Dependent variable
Regression coefficient Estimate(β)
Standard error of the regression coefficient Se.(β)
95% Confidence Interval
Probability value P-value
Result
Social product
→
Digital etiquette
0.522
0.132
0.307
0.809
0.003
acceptance
Social pricing
→
0.690
0.274
0.367
1.366
0.003
acceptance
Social promotion
→
0.764
0.192
0.479
1.198
0.003
acceptance
Social place
→
0.796
0.178
0.530
1.261
0.002
acceptance
It is noted that the effect of the social product dimension on the digital etiquette variable is a direct effect through the positive sign of the regression coefficient Estimate (β), which is due to the social product dimension, which has a value of (0.522), and the standard error value of the regression coefficient is (0.132). Also, both the lower (Lower) and upper (Upper) confidence limits (95% Confidence Interval), which were worth (0.809, 0.307), were similar in signals at a significant level (0.05). It is also noted that this effect is a morally significant effect through the P value of (0.003), which is less than (0.05), which means that there is a moral effect of the social product dimension in the digital etiquette variable.
It is also noted that the effect of the social pricing dimension on the digital etiquette variable is a direct effect through the positive sign of the regression coefficient Estimate (β), which is due to the social pricing dimension, which has a value of (0.690), and the standard error value of the regression coefficient is (0.274). Also, both the lower (Lower) and upper (Upper) confidence limits (95% Confidence Interval), whose values were (1.366, 0.367), were similar in signals at a significant level (0.05). It is also noted that this effect is a morally significant effect through the P value of (0.003), which is less than (0.05), which means that there is a moral effect of the social pricing dimension in the digital etiquette variable.
It is also noted that the effect of the social promotion dimension on the digital etiquette variable is a direct effect through the positive sign of the regression coefficient Estimate (β), which is due to the social promotion dimension, which has a value of (0.764), and the standard error value of the regression coefficient is (0.192). Also, both the lower (Lower) and upper (Upper) confidence limits (95% Confidence Interval), which had a value of (1.198, 0.479), were similar in signals at a significant level (0.05). It is also noted that this effect is a morally significant effect through the P value of (0.003), which is less than (0.05), which means that there is a moral effect of the social promotion dimension in the digital etiquette variable.
Finally, it is noted that the effect of the social place dimension on the digital etiquette variable is a direct effect through the positive sign of the regression coefficient Estimate (β), which is due to the social place dimension, which has a value of (0.796), and the standard error value of the regression coefficient is (0.178). Also, both the lower (Lower) and upper (Upper) confidence limits (95% Confidence Interval), which were worth (1.261, 0.530), were similar in signals at a significant level (0.05). It is also noted that this effect is a morally significant effect through the P value of (0.002), which is less than (0.05), which means that there is a moral effect of the social place dimension in the digital etiquette variable.
Figure 17 explains the effect of the dimensions of the social marketing variable on the digital etiquette variable.
Effect of social marketing dimensions on digital etiquette.
Statistical conclusions
In comparing the relative importance of the two variables studied, the digital etiquette variable appeared to be more relatively important than the social marketing variable in this study.
By measuring the stability of the questionnaire, it appeared that the value of the stratified alpha coefficient was 0.94, greater than 0.70, and this indicates the strength of stability of the dimensions studied.
By testing the bias of the common method, it became clear that there is no problem of bias in the common method.
By testing the return of the two variables to a society with a normal distribution, it became clear that the variables social marketing and digital etiquette do not have a normal probability distribution.
When conducting the confirmatory factor analysis, indicators of conformity quality were obtained, which appeared for the specified values, and no paragraph of the questionnaire was deleted.
When finding the effect, there appeared a moral effect of the social marketing variable on digital etiquette.
When finding the effect, there appeared a moral effect of all dimensions of the social marketing variable on the digital etiquette variable.
Discussion
The results of the current study reflect the increasing level of awareness among Fallujah University students of the importance of adhering to digital etiquette in light of the shift towards digital education. These results are consistent with previous literature that confirmed that digital behaviors are greatly influenced by awareness practices, media campaigns, and social marketing programs adopted by educational institutions. It is noted that the social space and social promotion dimension having the highest impact coefficients indicates the importance of providing an accessible digital environment, supported by effective awareness messages. This consistency comes with what was indicated by (
Arenas-Escaso et al., 2024) and (
Saud, 2022) about the role of digital promotion in promoting responsible behavior within cyberspace The strength of the impact of social pricing on digital behavior also confirms that the investments made by the university in digital support tools, awareness programs, and reducing service costs are linked to improving students' commitment to ethical, health, and security behaviors.
On the part of students, a strong commitment has emerged in the technological and health dimension, which is consistent with the
World Health Organization reports (2025) on the need to enhance awareness of the health risks associated with excessive use of technology, and shows students' readiness to respond to awareness initiatives.
In general, the study confirms that social marketing practices are not just promotional activities, but rather influential tools in shaping positive digital behaviors and promoting a responsible learning environment.
Recommendations
Based on the results of the study and analysis of digital reality at the University of Fallujah, the researchers recommend the following:
Enhancing the adoption by Iraqi universities of social marketing practices that contribute to enhancing digital etiquette among students, by employing innovative methods in spreading digital behavioral awareness, such as the use of multimedia, awareness videos, and infographics, in a way that enhances the delivery of ethical messages to target groups more effectively.
Strengthening partnership between academic leaders (deanships of colleges, scientific departments, electronic media division) in consolidating digital values and responsibility.
Including mandatory training programs for new students that address digital etiquette, cybersecurity, and digital identity management, ensuring early awareness building among students about how to use educational platforms and digital technologies in a safe and ethical manner.
Investing in developing technological infrastructure and modernizing digital systems and platforms within universities, ensuring improved quality of digital interaction and enhancing a responsible behavioral environment.
Building human resources capabilities by training academic and administrative cadres on digital awareness methods, to ensure an effective and sustainable impact on student behavior.
Develop periodic monitoring and evaluation systems to measure the impact of social marketing practices on improving digital behavior, and identify the strengths and weaknesses of awareness programs, which helps improve them and direct them towards students' needs.
Expanding the study of other variables affecting digital behavior, such as digital well-being, technical culture, institutional and governmental support, and psychological and social factors, to allow for a deeper understanding of digital behavior in the university environment.
Conducting similar studies in other Iraqi universities for the purpose of comparison, which contributes to developing unified educational policies that promote ethical digital behavior at the national level.
Ethical considerations
This study involved human participants and was conducted in accordance with accepted ethical research standards and the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Scientific Research Ethics Committee, University of Fallujah, Iraq (Approval No. HOF.HUM.2025.001). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, their right to withdraw at any time without consequences, and the confidentiality of their data.
Data availability
The data supporting the findings of this study are openly available in Zenodo at:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18475239,
Hammadi, A. A., & Reham, M. H. (2026). The Impact of Social Marketing Practices in Promoting Digital Etiquette A Descriptive and Analytical Study on a Sample of Fallujah University Students [Data set]. Zenodo
These data are available under the terms of the
Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 4.0 Public Domain Dedication).
Reporting guidelines
This study is an observational survey-based research and follows the STROBE reporting guidelines. No CONSORT or ARRIVE checklists are required, as the study does not involve clinical trials or animal experiments.
ReferencesAb WahabAAIMorshidiAMohammad Zen UmarWY:
Digital etiquette: An interactive guide.Politeknik Kuching Sarawak:
Ministry of Higher Education;2024.
Reference SourceAbdel TawabR:
Building a digital fitness scale for university youth.Journal of the Faculty of Social Work for Social Studies and Research.2020;19(Issue 19, Part Three):281–328.AkbarMBLawsonATurnerN:
Extending Lauterborn’s 4Cs for Social Marketing.The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Social Marketing.Cham:
Springer International Publishing;2023; pp.1–8.Al-ShehriSBS:
Digital Etiquette Among Intermediate and Secondary School Students.Comprehensive Multi-Knowledge Electronic Journal for Publishing Scientific and Educational Research (MECS).2021; (Thirty-Eight).AlmouradMBAlrobaiASkinnerT:
Digital wellbeing tools through users lens.Technol. Soc.2021;67:101778.Arenas-EscasoJFFolgado-FernándezJAPalos-SánchezPR:
Internet interventions and therapies for addressing the negative impact of digital overuse: a focus on digital free tourism and economic sustainability.BMC Public Health.2024;24(1):176.
3821875910.1186/s12889-023-17584-6BagozziRPYiY:
Multitrait–multimethod matrices in consumer research.J. Consum. Res.1991;17:426–439.BognárLBottyánL:
Evaluating online security behavior: Development and validation of a personal cybersecurity awareness scale for university students.Educ. Sci.2024;14(6):588.CausioFAGandolfiSKaurJ:
Impact of Digital Health Interventions on Health Literacy: A Systematic Review with Quality Appraisal.medRxiv.2025;2002–2025.Dresp-LangleyBHuttA:
Digital addiction and sleep.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.2022;19(11):6910.FayyazA:
Latest Trends in Social Marketing.Business and Management Horizons.2022;2022:19985.
10.5296/bmh.v10i1FeldtLSBrennanRL:
Reliability.Educational measurement.LinnRL, editor.
New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company;1989.Galiano-CoronilABlanco-MorenoSTobar-PesantezLB:
Social marketing and happiness in employment.Evidences from Glassdoor. BMC psychology.2024;12(1):444.
3915417310.1186/s40359-024-01882-8PMC11329993HairJFHultGTMRingleCMA primer, on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).2nd ed.SAGE Publications;2016.HammadiAARehamMH:
The Impact of Social Marketing Practices in Promoting Digital Etiquette A Descriptive and Analytical Study on a Sample of Fallujah University Students.[Data set].
Zenodo.2026.
10.5281/zenodo.18475239Reference SourceHarounSNHassounaIO:
Digital etiquette among teachers and their role in providing students with self-regulated learning skills.African Journal of Advanced Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences (AJASHSS).2022;245–266.IssembayevaNSeyitkazyZh:
The Formation of Digital Etiquette: Key Research Trends in the Field of Education.Educational Policy, Innovation and Digitalization in the Educational Process.2025;114(3):10–22.KegoroHOD:
Social Marketing Practices and Promotion of Health Behaviours in the Management of Pandemics in Kenya: A Meta-Analysis.2020.Khatti-DizabadiFYazdani-CharatiJFathizadehS:
Understanding the Factors Influencing Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Behavior of Office Workers: Intervention Strategies Using Social Marketing Techniques Based on Pender’s Health Promotion Model.Journal of Research and Health.2024;14(2):147–160.LatorreLRegoELeoLde:
Tech Report: Digital Ethics.Washington, DC:
Inter-American Development Bank;2025.
Reference SourceLiLWangHLiuR:
Trialing a simple mobile phone dependency intervention strategy among Chinese college students.Sci. Rep.2025;15(1):24696.
4063442010.1038/s41598-025-09864-5McDonaldRPHoMHR:
Principles and Practice in Reporting Structural Equation Analyses.Psychol. Methods.2002; Vol.7(1): PP:64–82. PUBMED.
1192889110.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64NeumannDRhodesN:
Morality in social media: A scoping review.New Media Soc.2023;26(2):1096–1126.OrzikulovaAXiaoHLiZ:
Time2stop: Adaptive and explainable human-ai loop for smartphone overuse intervention.Proceedings of the 2024 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems.2024, May; pp.1–20.QiuCSLunovaTGreenfieldG:
Determinants of Digital Health Literacy: International Cross-Sectional Study.J. Med. Internet Res.2025;27:e66631.RiniEFSRaptisPSozcuOF:
Technology and ethics in social media: A study of the phenomenon of digital bullying in the young generation.Journal of Educational Technology and Learning Creativity.2023;1(2):106–114.SaudHS:
Application of Social Marketing Mix Strategies During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Scholars' Journal.2022;122–138.SawyerCMcKeonGHassanL:
Digital health behaviour change interventions in severe mental illness: a systematic review.Psychol. Med.2023;53(15):6965–7005.
3775941710.1017/S0033291723002064ShekharSKVenugopalP:
Social marketing and consumer behavior: a bibliometric analysis.Future Business Journal.2025;11(1):85.
10.1186/s43093-025-00500-2World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe:
Addressing the digital determinants of youth mental health and well-being: Policy brief.Copenhagen:
WHO Regional Office for Europe;2025. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.WuM:
Educational measurement for applied researchers.Singapore:
Springer Nature Singapore Ltd.;2016.
10.1007/978-981-10-3302-5_2WuYXiXZhangC:
Effect of intervention on screen time in preschoolers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC Public Health.2025;25(1):2724.
4079018410.1186/s12889-025-23700-5ZhaoBYHuangLChengX:
Digital health literacy and associated factors among internet users from China: a cross-sectional study.BMC Public Health.2024;24(1).
3853917610.1186/s12889-024-18324-0PMC1097673910.5256/f1000research.191857.r487188Reviewer response for version 1VukovicDijana1Referee
Sveučilište Sjever, Varaždin, Croatia
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
This manuscript investigates the impact of social marketing practices on promoting digital etiquette among students at the University of Fallujah. The study examines four dimensions of social marketing (social product, social pricing, social promotion, and social distribution) and their relationship with digital etiquette, conceptualised through technological, ethical, social, health, and security dimensions. Using a questionnaire administered to 215 students, the authors employ descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis to test the proposed relationships.
The topic is timely and relevant, particularly given the increasing importance of responsible digital behaviour in higher education environments. The manuscript also benefits from the inclusion of recent literature and addresses a socially important issue. However, several theoretical, methodological, and statistical limitations currently reduce the scientific contribution of the study and should be addressed before indexing.
Major Comments
1. Theoretical Framework and Research Gap
Although the manuscript reviews relevant literature on social marketing and digital etiquette, the research gap is not sufficiently articulated. The introduction provides numerous definitions and previous findings but does not clearly explain what remains unknown in the literature and how the present study advances existing knowledge.
The authors should explicitly identify:
the specific gap in previous studies,
the novelty of examining social marketing and digital etiquette together,
the theoretical contribution of the study.
Furthermore, the conceptual relationship between the dimensions of social marketing and the dimensions of digital etiquette remains largely descriptive. A stronger theoretical rationale explaining why and how social marketing influences digital etiquette would strengthen the manuscript considerably.
2. Sampling Procedure and Research Design
The overall research design is appropriate for addressing the research question. However, important details regarding the sampling procedure are missing.
The manuscript should provide:
the total size of the student population,
the number of distributed questionnaires,
the response rate,
a clearer explanation of the sampling strategy.
Without this information, it is difficult to assess the representativeness of the sample and the generalisability of the findings.
3. Measurement Instrument
The questionnaire is insufficiently described. While the manuscript reports the number of items included in each construct, it does not provide enough information regarding:
the origin of the measurement scales,
scale adaptation procedures,
content validity assessment,
the wording of the questionnaire items.
The inclusion of an appendix containing the complete measurement instrument would substantially improve transparency and reproducibility.
4. Statistical Analysis
The statistical procedures employed are generally appropriate for the research objectives. However, several methodological issues require attention.
The manuscript reports non-normal data distributions based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test yet subsequently applies parametric techniques without sufficient justification. The authors should explain why the selected statistical procedures remain appropriate despite the observed deviations from normality or provide additional robustness analyses.
The confirmatory factor analysis is not reported according to current methodological standards. To strengthen the validity of the measurement model, the authors should report:
The regression analysis would also benefit from additional reporting, including:
R² values,
multicollinearity diagnostics (e.g., VIF),
effect sizes,
Assumption testing.
5. Discussion and Interpretation
The discussion section remains largely descriptive and primarily reiterates the statistical findings. Greater emphasis should be placed on interpreting the results in relation to previous research and explaining potential reasons for the observed relationships.
In particular, the authors should discuss:
why social distribution emerged as the strongest predictor,
the practical implications of the findings for universities,
similarities and differences compared with previous studies.
A deeper theoretical discussion would significantly improve the contribution of the manuscript.
6. Conclusions
The conclusions are generally supported by the reported findings. However, some statements appear broader than the empirical evidence permits. Given the cross-sectional design and single-institution sample, causal interpretations should be avoided, and the conclusions should be framed more cautiously.
The conclusion section would benefit from:
a clearer statement of theoretical contributions,
a discussion of practical implications,
a dedicated subsection addressing limitations,
recommendations for future research.
Reproducibility and Data Availability
The authors have made the dataset publicly available through a Zenodo repository, which is a significant strength of the study and supports transparency and reproducibility. However, reproducibility could be further improved by providing a codebook, detailed variable descriptions, and additional documentation of the analytical procedures.
Points That Must Be Addressed Before Indexing
The following issues should be addressed to ensure the scientific soundness of the manuscript:
Clearly define the research gap and theoretical contribution.
Provide a more detailed description of the sampling procedure and response rate.
Expand the description of the measurement instrument and scale development process.
Report additional measurement model validity indicators (CR, AVE, discriminant validity).
Justify the use of parametric analyses despite reported non-normality.
Provide more comprehensive reporting of regression model diagnostics and results.
Strengthen the discussion by comparing findings with previous studies and offering a deeper theoretical interpretation.
Revise the conclusions to better reflect the limitations of the research design and avoid overly broad claims.
Recommendation
Major Revision
The manuscript addresses an important and relevant topic and has the potential to make a useful contribution to the literature. However, substantial revisions are required, particularly in relation to methodological transparency, measurement validation, statistical reporting, and theoretical interpretation, before the manuscript can be considered for indexing
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Reviewer Expertise:
NA
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
10.5256/f1000research.191857.r487194Reviewer response for version 1ChaniagoHarmon1Refereehttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7089-5757
Bandung State Polytechnic, Bandung, Indonesia
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
The manuscript addresses a relevant topic. Digital etiquette is important in higher education. Social marketing is also a suitable perspective for studying behavioural change. The use of recent literature and the inclusion of a public data availability statement are positive elements.
However, the manuscript does not yet meet the scientific standard expected by a Q1 or top-tier journal. The main weakness lies in the mismatch between the research design and the claims made by the authors. The study uses a cross-sectional self-report survey involving 215 students from one university. This design is useful for identifying relationships between variables. It is not sufficient to prove impact, behavioural change, or causal influence.
The abstract states that students’ commitment to digital etiquette increased by 25%. This claim is not adequately supported. The study does not include baseline data, a pre-test and post-test design, an intervention, a control group, or longitudinal evidence. For this reason, the title, abstract, hypotheses, results, and conclusion present claims that go beyond what the data can support.
Major issues that must be addressed:
The manuscript has several serious weaknesses. First, the theoretical contribution is still limited. The paper uses the four dimensions of social marketing, but it does not develop a strong theory-based model. The research gap is not clear. The authors also need to explain why social marketing is the most suitable lens for understanding digital etiquette, compared with other frameworks such as behaviour change or digital citizenship.
The literature review is recent, but mostly descriptive. It does not critically compare previous studies. It also does not explain what remains unknown, what findings are inconsistent, and what new contribution this study offers. A Q1 marketing journal requires a stronger conceptual contribution.
The sampling procedure also needs major clarification. The authors mention a comprehensive inventory method, but they do not report the population size, sampling frame, response rate, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, or non-response handling. Some demographic data are inconsistent. For example, the text reports female respondents as 54%, while the table reports 45%. The age categories are also unclear.
The measurement process is not transparent enough. The paper states that social marketing was measured with 24 items and digital etiquette with 30 items. Yet, the full items, scale sources, adaptation process, translation procedure, and content validation are not fully explained. This limits replication.
The statistical analysis needs improvement. The data are non-normal, but the authors still use Pearson correlation and regression without strong justification. They should consider robust estimation, bootstrapping, or non-parametric alternatives. They also need to report standardized coefficients, R-squared, adjusted R-squared, effect sizes, VIF, residual diagnostics, and model assumptions.
The confirmatory factor analysis is incomplete. Key indicators such as chi-square, degrees of freedom, CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR, CR, AVE, and discriminant validity are missing. Several factor loadings are low. The CMIN/DF value of 0.60 is unusual and should be checked again.
The common method bias test is also insufficient. Harman’s single-factor test alone is weak, especially because the study uses one questionnaire, one source, and one time point. The authors should add stronger procedural and statistical checks.
The results section is too long and repetitive. Many frequency tables and figures are not necessary. The findings should be reorganized into concise tables for the measurement model, structural model, and robustness tests.
The discussion is still general. It repeats the results, but does not explain the mechanisms behind the findings. It also does not discuss alternative explanations, boundary conditions, or study limitations. The authors need to clearly acknowledge the limits of a single-university, cross-sectional, self-report survey.
The language also needs major editing. Some terms appear inaccurate, such as “moral impact” and “Likard scale”. Several labels are inconsistent, including social place, social space, and social distribution. The manuscript needs professional academic English editing.
In summary, the topic is relevant and the dataset may be useful. However, the current manuscript does not meet Q1 or top-tier journal standards. It also lacks the scientific clarity needed for approval. A major redesign or major rewrite is required. The authors should either reframe the study as a correlational survey or collect stronger causal evidence through an intervention, longitudinal design, or experimental or quasi-experimental design.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Reviewer Expertise:
Business, digital business, digital marketing, social marketing, consumer behaviour, small business, digital citizenship, and quantitative research methods.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.
10.5256/f1000research.191857.r487187Reviewer response for version 1ChauhanRahul1Refereehttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4833-0661
Karnavati University, Gandhinagar, India
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
This manuscript investigates the impact of social marketing practices on promoting digital etiquette among students at the University of Fallujah, Iraq. Using a questionnaire-based survey of 215 students, the authors examine the influence of four dimensions of social marketing (social product, social pricing, social promotion, and social distribution/place) on digital etiquette. The study addresses an important and timely topic given the increasing digitalization of higher education and the growing need to encourage responsible online behavior among university students.
The manuscript contributes to the emerging literature on digital citizenship and social marketing in educational settings. However, several methodological, analytical, and reporting issues should be addressed before the findings can be considered sufficiently robust.
Major Comments
Sampling and Representativeness
The manuscript states that a comprehensive inventory method was used; however, the total population of Fallujah University students is not reported. Consequently, it is difficult to assess whether the sample of 215 students is representative of the target population. The response rate should also be reported.
Statistical Analysis
The authors report that the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated non-normal distributions for the main variables (p < 0.05). Despite this finding, Pearson correlation and regression analyses were applied without sufficient justification. The authors should explain why parametric methods were considered appropriate under these conditions or consider reporting robustness checks using non-parametric techniques.
Construct Validity
Although confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted, important validity indicators are not reported. The manuscript would be strengthened by including Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and measures of discriminant validity. These statistics are commonly expected in studies involving latent constructs.
Inconsistency in Demographic Reporting
The gender percentages reported in the manuscript appear inconsistent, as males account for 55% and females account for 54%, resulting in a total exceeding 100%. The authors should carefully verify all demographic statistics and percentages.
Theoretical Framework
The study lacks a clearly articulated theoretical framework explaining how social marketing practices influence digital etiquette. The inclusion of an established theory such as the Theory of Planned Behavior, Social Cognitive Theory, Digital Citizenship Theory, or a formal Social Marketing framework would strengthen the conceptual foundation of the study.
Reporting of Effect Size
The manuscript focuses primarily on statistical significance. Measures of explanatory power such as R², adjusted R², and effect sizes should be reported and discussed to provide a clearer understanding of the practical significance of the findings.
Interpretation of Findings
Some questionnaire items require further justification. For example, the item relating to social isolation within the health dimension appears conceptually inconsistent with positive digital etiquette and may require reconsideration or further explanation.
Minor Comments
The manuscript would benefit from professional English language editing. Several grammatical errors and awkward expressions are present throughout the text.
Terminology should be standardized. The manuscript alternates between "social place," "social distribution," and "social space," which may confuse readers.
Some figure captions contain repetitive wording such as "explains illustrates." These should be revised for clarity.
The literature review would benefit from greater synthesis and a clearer identification of the research gap addressed by the study.
More detailed information regarding questionnaire development, pilot testing, and content validity procedures should be included.
Data Availability
The authors have provided access to the underlying dataset through Zenodo, which supports transparency and reproducibility. This is a positive aspect of the study.
Conclusions
The conclusions are generally consistent with the reported findings. However, because of concerns regarding sampling, construct validation, statistical justification, and reporting transparency, the conclusions should be interpreted with caution until these issues are addressed.
Recommendation
Major Revision
The study investigates a relevant topic and has potential value for higher education and digital behavior research. Nevertheless, substantial revisions are required to strengthen the methodological rigor, reporting quality, and theoretical grounding of the work before it is suitable for indexing.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Reviewer Expertise:
Marketing, Social Marketing, Consumer Behaviour, Digital Marketing, Educational Technology, Higher Education Research, Research Methodology, Quantitative Data Analysis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), Behavioral Studies, and Management Research.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.