ICT Proficiency as a Moderator of Climate Concern and Extreme Weather Expectations Among University Students of Business and Economics
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Research Question 1: Does ICT proficiency moderate the relationship between young adults’ climate anxiety and their expectations of extreme climate events?
- Research Question 2: If moderation exists, at what ICT skill threshold does the anxiety–expectation link become significant?
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Climate Change Perceptions and Psychological Concerns
2.2. Environmental Behaviour Models and Expectations of Extreme Climate Events
2.3. ICT Proficiency as a Moderating Factor
2.3.1. ICT Maturity and Digital Competencies
2.3.2. ICT Proficiency and Climate Anxiety
2.3.3. Climate Anxiety, ICT Proficiency, and Expectations of Extreme Climate Events
2.3.4. National Context(s) of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
3. Methods
3.1. Participants and Demographics
3.2. Common Method Bias
3.3. Measures
- ICT proficiency (measured using a scale based on the general ICT adoption maturity model in organizations and loosely based on Nolan [4]): ICT awareness (level 1)—essential knowledge/understanding; ICT acceptance (level 2)—willingness to use; ICT adoption—actual usage (level 3); ICT integration (level 4)—incorporation into daily life; and ICT optimization—using ICTs to enhance quality of life (level 5).
- Psychological concerns over climate change (assessed using the Short Climate Change Anxiety Scale (CCAS-C), developed by Wu et al. [1]). Participants rated statements (e.g., “Thinking about climate change makes it difficult for me to sleep or concentrate”) on a conventional 5-item Likert scale.
- Expectations of climate change impacts (adapted from Blennow et al. [5] and Akerlof et al. [6]). These expectations refer to the participants’ expectations of extreme weather conditions such as extreme heat, droughts or floods, wildfires, personal losses due to climate change, negative climate impacts on the national economy, etc. Expectations are measured on a conventional 5-item Likert scale. The formulation was further adapted by Thiery et al. [36].
3.4. Conceptual Model
- X (Independent Variable): Psychological concerns over climate change (CliCon).
- Y (Dependent Variable): Expectations of extreme climate events (CliExp).
- W (Moderator): Level of ICT proficiency (ICTSkill).
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
- We position ICT skills within the Theory of Planned Behaviour, treating them as a specific form of personal confidence. This helps explain how feelings of climate anxiety translate into specific future expectations.
- By connecting models of digital skill levels with theories of risk perception, we help clarify how ICT skills influence the ′mental processing′ of climate risks.
- Longitudinal designs could test causal sequencing: does building ICT proficiency over time strengthen the anxiety–expectation link?
- Additional moderators and mediators (e.g., political ideology, prior disaster experience, self-efficacy) should be examined to explain more of the variance in climate risk expectations.
- Cross-cultural comparisons in other regions would determine the generalizability of our moderation findings, and guide localized digital skill interventions.
- Our sample comprised solely business and economics students—future decision-makers with specific digital literacy training—so it remains unclear whether the observed ICT anxiety–expectation moderation holds among STEM majors, vocational-track students, or non-student young adults, who differ in digital skill profiles and climate anxiety.
- Future studies should compare the cohorts with different educational and socioeconomic characteristics—e.g., STEM vs. vocational students or non-student young adults—to determine how baseline digital literacy and climate anxiety profiles influence the observed moderation effect.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wu, J.; Long, D.; Hafez, N.; Maloney, J.; Lim, Y.; Samji, H. Development and validation of a youth climate anxiety scale for the Youth Development Instrument survey. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2023, 32, 1473–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nolan, R.L. Managing the computer resource: A stage hypothesis. Commun. ACM 1973, 16, 399–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burksiene, V.; Dvorak, J. E-Communication of ENGO′s for Measurable Improvements for Sustainability. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blennow, K.; Persson, J.; Tome, M.; Hanewinkel, M. Climate change: Believing and seeing implies adapting. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e50182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akerlof, K.; Maibach, E.W.; Fitzgerald, D.; Cedeno, A.Y.; Neuman, A. Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamberg, S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, P.W. Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In Psychology of Sustainable Development; Schmuck, P., Schultz, W.P., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lozano, R. Incorporation and institutionalization of sustainable development into universities: Breaking through barriers to change. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 787–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gifford, R. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Deursen, A.J.A.M.; van Dijk, J.A.G.M. The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media Soc. 2014, 16, 507–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballew, M.T.; Marlon, J.R.; Kotcher, J.E.; Maibach, E.W.; Berquist, P.; Rosenthal, S.A.; Gustafson, A.; Goldber, M.H.; Mulcahy, K.; Swim, J.K.; et al. Young Adults, Across Party Lines, Are More Willing to Take Climate Action. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. 2019. Available online: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/young-adults-climate-activism/ (accessed on 10 January 2025).
- Wardle, C.; Derakhshan, H. Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy-making. Council of Europe report. Counc. Eur. 2017, 27, 1–109. Available online: https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c (accessed on 10 January 2025).
- Scheufele, D.A.; Krause, N.M. Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 7662–7669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, E.U. What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O′Neill, S.; Nicholson-Cole, S. “Fear Won′t Do It”: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Sci. Commun. 2009, 30, 355–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belotti, F.; Donato, S.; Bussoletti, A.; Comunello, F. Youth activism for climate on and beyond social media: Insights from FridaysForFuture-Rome. Int. J. Press/Politics 2022, 27, 718–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Brodskiy, V.A.; Grabova, O.N.; Ivanova, O.E.; Boboshko, V.I.; Boboshko, N.M. Competency-Based Approach to Primary Training of Young Digital Workforce in the Digital Economy as a Foundation for Combating Climate Change. In ESG Management of the Development of the Green Economy in Central Asia. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes; Popkova, E.G., Sergi, B.S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Safi, A.S.; Smith, W.J.; Liu, Z. Rural Nevada and climate change: Vulnerability, beliefs, and risk perception. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 1041–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eppler, M.J.; Mengis, J. The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. Inf. Soc. 2004, 20, 325–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clayton, S. Psychology and climate change. Curr. Biol. 2019, 29, R992–R995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, C.; Iyer, S.; New, M.G.; Few, R.; Kuchimanchi, B.; Segnon, A.C. Interrogating’ effectiveness′ in climate change adaptation: 11 guiding principles for adaptation research and practice. Clim. Dev. 2022, 14, 853–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Deursen, A.; Helsper, E.J. A nuanced understanding of Internet use and non-use among the elderly. Eur. J. Commun. 2015, 30, 171–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kovač, N.; Żmija, K.; Roy, J.K.; Kusa, R.; Duda, J. Digital divide and digitalization in Europe: A bibliometric analysis. Equilibrium. Q. J. Econ. Econ. Policy 2024, 19, 463–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mabić, M.; Praničević, D.G.; Gašpar, D. Toward Regional Development: Digital Transformation of Higher Education Institutions. Croat. Reg. Dev. J. 2022, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiery, W.; Lange, S.; Rogelj, J.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Gudmundsson, L.; Seneviratne, S.I.; Andrijevic, M.; Frieler, K.; Emanuel, K.; Geiger, T.; et al. Intergenerational inequities in exposure to climate extremes. Science 2021, 374, 158–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cvjetković, M. Organizational use and adoption of social media through TOE framework: Empirical research on Croatian small and medium-sized enterprises. Management 2022, 28, 115–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preidienė, J. Flight ticket or Zoom meeting? Academic staff mobility in “old” and “new normality”. Management 2023, 28, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadeau, C.; Milkoreit, M.; Hylland Eriksen, T.; Hessen, D.O. Missing the (tipping) point: The effect of information about climate tipping points on public risk perceptions in Norway. Earth Syst. Dynam. 2024, 15, 969–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Beek, L.; Milkoreit, M.; Prokopy, L.S.; Hylland Eriksen, T.; Hessen, D.O. The effects of serious gaming on risk perceptions of climate tipping points. Clim. Change 2022, 170, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choudhary, H.; Bansal, N. Addressing Digital Divide through Digital Literacy Training Programs: A Systematic Literature Review. Digit. Educ. Rev. 2022, 41, 224–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Country | Freq. | % | Valid % |
---|---|---|---|
Croatia | 103 | 39.8 | 39.8 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina—Federation B&H | 104 | 40.2 | 40.2 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina—RS | 52 | 20.1 | 20.1 |
Total | 259 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Gender | Freq. | % | Valid % |
---|---|---|---|
Male | 47 | 18.1 | 18.3 |
Female | 210 | 81.1 | 81.7 |
No answer provided | 2 | 0.8 | |
Total | 259 | 100.0 |
SES (Self-Assessed) | Freq. | % | Valid % |
---|---|---|---|
Higher | 20 | 7.7 | 7.9 |
Middle | 222 | 85.7 | 87.7 |
Lower | 11 | 4.2 | 4.3 |
No answer provided | 6 | 2.3 | |
Total | 259 | 100.0 |
R | R-sq | MSE | F(3, 255) | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.230 | 0.0530 | 0.72 | 4.75 | 0.003 |
Predictor | Coefficient (B) | SE | t | p-Value | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | 4.033 | 0.4635 | 8.7003 | 0.0000 | 3.1201 | 5.9459 |
CliCon | −0.3078 | 0.2154 | −1.4293 | 0.1541 | −0.7320 | 0.1163 |
ICTSkill | −0.1123 | 0.1035 | −1.0845 | 0.2792 | −0.3161 | 0.0916 |
CliCon × ICTSkill | 0.1076 | 0.0493 | 2.1819 | 0.0300 | 0.0105 | 0.2048 |
ICTSkill | Effect of CliCon on CliExp | SE | t | p-Value | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.0000 | 0.0150 | 0.0844 | 0.1781 | 0.8588 | −0.1513 | 0.1813 |
4.0000 | 0.1227 | 0.0615 | 1.9951 | 0.0471 | 0.0016 | 0.2646 |
6.0000 | 0.3705 | 0.1363 | 2.7181 | 0.0072 | 0.1014 | 0.6396 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alfirević, N.; Klepić, Z.; Mihaljević Kosor, M. ICT Proficiency as a Moderator of Climate Concern and Extreme Weather Expectations Among University Students of Business and Economics. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114840
Alfirević N, Klepić Z, Mihaljević Kosor M. ICT Proficiency as a Moderator of Climate Concern and Extreme Weather Expectations Among University Students of Business and Economics. Sustainability. 2025; 17(11):4840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114840
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlfirević, Nikša, Zdenko Klepić, and Maja Mihaljević Kosor. 2025. "ICT Proficiency as a Moderator of Climate Concern and Extreme Weather Expectations Among University Students of Business and Economics" Sustainability 17, no. 11: 4840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114840
APA StyleAlfirević, N., Klepić, Z., & Mihaljević Kosor, M. (2025). ICT Proficiency as a Moderator of Climate Concern and Extreme Weather Expectations Among University Students of Business and Economics. Sustainability, 17(11), 4840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114840