Next Article in Journal
Self-Recycling or Outsourcing? Research on the Trade-In Strategy of a Platform Supply Chain
Previous Article in Journal
How Smart City Pilots Succeed—Based on the Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Fuzzy Sets of 35 Cities in China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Development and Validation of the New Environmental Locus of Control (NE-LOC) Scale: A Novel Measure of Internal, External, and Community Locus of Control for Sustainability

1
Department of Education, Literatures, Intercultural Studies, Languages and Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy
2
Centre for the Study of Complex Dynamics, University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy
3
Department of Human and Social Sciences, Mercatorum University, 00186 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(13), 6162; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136162
Submission received: 29 May 2025 / Revised: 30 June 2025 / Accepted: 2 July 2025 / Published: 4 July 2025

Abstract

The promotion of sustainability, especially with regard to social and urban sustainability (e.g., well-being and neighborhood revitalization), is mainly linked to human activities and behaviors. Notably, pro-environmental behaviors and actions that promote sustainability depend on the degree to which the individual attributes responsibility, namely, internal and external environmental locus of control (E-LOC). Moreover, from a collectivist perspective, the well-being of communities may also depend on their ability to take action to achieve sustainability goals. In keeping with this, we conducted two different studies to develop and validate (internally and externally) a new instrument that is able to assess internal and external E-LOC by also capturing a third dimension in respect of community E-LOC. In the first study, we performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by collecting data from 694 subjects (55.3% cis females; mean age = 30.1, sd = 12.6). In the second study, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on a sample of 1.852 subjects (57% cis females; mean age = 27.6, sd = 11.4), which demonstrated an adequate fit to the theorized model. The final form of the instrument comprises nine items subdivided into internal, external, and community NE-LOC factors. Moreover, the results pointed out significant correlations between the NE-LOC scale and engagement in pro-environmental behaviors and attitudes, pro-environmental self-identity, readiness to change for sustainability, and eco-anxiety. Therefore, the NE-LOC scale can be considered a suitable instrument for the assessment of internal and external NE-LOC, as well as to measure the attribution of collective environmental responsibility.

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, there has been an increasing debate on environmental issues, shifting from local concerns (e.g., smog and waste) to global challenges [1,2]. In the 1990s, during the so-called “Earth Decade,” powerful environmental movements highlighted the negative effects of human activities on the planet’s well-being, such as ozone depletion and global warming [3]. For instance, over 99% of scientific studies agreed that human actions drive climate change [4]. Despite this overwhelming evidence, a portion of society either disagrees with or is unaware of the scientific consensus [4,5,6], which partially explains the lack of significant behavioral change despite the wide availability of information on environmental issues [7,8,9,10,11].
Anthropogenic activities such as rapid urbanization, industrialization, and deforestation undermine both ES and the well-being of the earth and its people [10,12,13]. In response, many countries have begun urban planning initiatives, such as creating urban green spaces, to support sustainable development in order to promote both people’s well-being and the long-term health of the planet [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
However, to foster sustainable development, including sustainable urbanization and life habits, it is crucial to involve the public in the process [9,22,23]. Given the resistance to adopting pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) in society, it is essential to create strategies that both increase participation in sustainability initiatives and encourage a shift away from unsustainable lifestyles [9,24,25,26].
To promote the adoption of pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) and encourage sustainable practices, various factors need to be considered, ranging from social (e.g., social norms, influence, support, and identity) to personal (e.g., attitude and personality traits) factors, dimensions that may also be predominant or not based on the culture of reference (individualistic vs. collectivist countries) [9,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. In keeping with this, in a community, it has been observed that providing economic benefits or improving social capital has a positive effect on the engagement in pro-environmental behaviors in the context of community-based ecotourism [40]. Moreover, several scholars have pointed out how communitarian programs are able to promote not only sustainable habits, but also the activation of self-transcendent values, which may in turn positively influence individual pro-environmental behaviors [41,42,43,44,45,46,47].
Accordingly, many scholars have based their studies on finding the determinants of PEBs by applying different psychological models and frameworks, such as the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) Theory [48,49], Theory of Responsible Environmental Behavior (TREB) [50,51,52], Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM) [52,53,54], Social Learning Theory (SLT) [9,55,56], and Readiness to Change (RTC) [57,58,59,60]. However, as suggested by several authors, the locus of control construct would seem to be the most significant psychological model for analyzing, investigating, and predicting PEB implementation [61,62,63].

Environmental LOC and Pro-Environmental Behaviors

LOC is an aspect of personality that explains differences among people in how they perceive their ability to influence events in their lives [28,64]. Specifically, LOC can take two different directions: internal and external [64]. Notably, people with an internal LOC believe that events are primarily the result of their actions and decisions. In contrast, those with an external LOC believe that they have little control over events in their lives, attributing outcomes to external and uncontrollable forces [64,65].
In keeping with this, based on behavioral, volitional, and responsibility constructs, several scholars have investigated the role of LOC in the context of PEB engagement [66,67]. Environmental LOC (E-LOC) can be defined as “one’s perceptions regarding personal (internal) and external obligations and abilities with regards to bringing about pro-environmental outcomes” [68,69]. E-LOC represents a dispositional style that could mediate pro-environmental attitudes and concrete behaviors [1,67]. Literature findings have pointed out that E-LOC, especially internal E-LOC, is a crucial and predictive factor for engaging in PEBs [1,67,68,69,70]. This could be because internal E-LOC refers more explicitly to attitudes intrinsically associated with personal responsibility and the perceived degree of control over the phenomenon [1,67].
Specifically, data highlight the critical role of internal E-LOC in relation to different types of PEBs by suggesting how much individuals with an internal LOC are likely more effective in engaging in environmentally beneficial behaviors [1,71,72]. In this regard, Cleveland and colleagues [1] observed a significant link between internal E-LOC and green consumption, activism and advocacy, and recycling. Similarly, Fielding and Head [72] confirmed that attributing environmental responsibility at the community level was also positively associated with PEBs. Conversely, regarding the role of external E-LOC, there are discordant results in the literature. In fact, Nazneen and Asghar [73] identified a link between external LOC and attitudes toward energy resources, Yang and Weber [70] instead observed a positive relationship between government attribution of responsibility and feeling incentivized to implement PEBs. However, some studies have not confirmed these findings, highlighting the need to better investigate the role of external E-LOCs on PEBs [50,68,72,74]. Given these discrepancies, further investigation into external E-LOC is needed. This emphasis on the need for further investigation underscores the importance and relevance of research in this field. Considering the importance of LOC in this field of research, a review of existing scales measuring environmental locus of control is included in the following sections.

2. Instruments for the Assessment of Environmental Locus of Control

Over time, many instruments have been developed for measuring one of the most intriguing personality traits linked to pro-environmentalism: the E-LOC. To date, as mentioned before, several instruments exist for measuring the construct above by investigating only one or multiple dimensions of the phenomenon. For one-concern one-dimension instruments of E-LOC, the following questionnaires have been developed, namely, the Environmental Action Internal Control Index (EAICI) [75,76,77], the Internal Environmental Locus of Control (INELOC) [1], the Adolescent Internal Environmental Locus of Control (AINELOC) [78], and the External Environmental Locus of Control (EELOC) [79]. On the other hand, the Environmental Attitude Scale (EAS) [80], the Perceived Environmental Control Measure (PECM) [81], the Revised Perceived Environmental Control Measure (RPECM) [82], and the modified version of the Revised Perceived Environmental Control Measure (MRPECM) [83] are able to assess several and different dimensions of E-LOC.
However, as suggested by Kim and colleagues [63], many of the aforementioned scales are now outdated, and all the listed E-LOC tools exhibit significant limitations in terms of construct and content validity. The authors highlight issues with the definitions and conceptual frameworks used for E-LOC, which undermine the validity of the instruments. In fact, most of these scales focus exclusively on either the “internal” or “external” aspect of locus of control, neglecting the full spectrum of the concept. These limitations also suggest the need to develop a tool that includes the community dimension of E-LOC to better understand its impact on pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors.

3. Aims of the Study

In light of all of the above, considering the several factors (both personal and social) able to improve pro-environmental behaviors, as well as the need to update instruments assessing locus of control in the context of environmentalism, this study aimed to develop and validate a new instrument for assessing internal and external environmental locus of control, including the community dimension.
Most of the scales described above are bi-dimensional, suggesting the need to develop an instrument capable of measuring the community dimension of E-LOC. In keeping with this, this work included a third dimension, namely, the community E-LOC factor. The last dimension refers to an individual’s perception of whether or not they can rely on their community to counter and control the effects and impacts of climate change and environmental issues. From our perspective, the community E-LOC dimension would overcome the lack of currently available tools, creating a more inclusive and extensive instrument for measuring the E-LOC. Notably, this new dimension could then ensure the measurement of collective efficacy, a pivotal factor in enhancing the sense of personal self-efficacy and the enactment of collective pro-environmental behaviors [84,85,86,87]. From our standpoint, this new dimension would help quantify the community dimension of E-LOC and the development and implementation of pro-environmental community-based initiatives. To assess the validity and reliability of the new instrument, we conducted two different studies with different samples. In Study 1, we performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to assess the instrument’s dimensionality, while in Study 2, the factor structure identified in Study 1 was tested through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Moreover, internal and external validity were tested through correlation analysis by measuring the link between the environmental locus of control and dimensions in terms of pro-environmental attitudes, identity, endorsement, readiness to change, and eco-anxiety.

4. Methods

4.1. Participants

The authors determined an appropriate sample size for this study prior to beginning the recruitment phase. For the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with an anticipated 3-factor structure for the 16 items, a sample size exceeding 353 was deemed sufficient, even assuming relatively low factor loadings (λ = 0.4), in line with the guidelines provided by de Winter et al. [88]. Regarding the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the literature suggests a ratio of at least 10 participants per item [89]. In this study, after reducing the number of items from 16 to 9 through EFA, a sample size of over 90 participants was considered necessary for CFA. For the external validity assessment, a power analysis was conducted using G*Power (version 3.1.9.7) [90,91] to determine the required sample size for Pearson’s correlation. The results indicated that a sample of 782 participants would be required to achieve a statistical power of 0.80, sufficient to detect even small effect sizes (r = 0.10), as defined by Gignac and Szodorai, assuming a significance level of 0.05 [92]. With 694 participants in Study 1 and 1852 participants in Study 2, the sample sizes in both studies substantially exceed the required number of observations for the most data-intensive analyses. For both studies (1 and 2), participants were voluntarily recruited through the promotion of an anonymous online Google form survey (June–September 2023) on mainstream and well-known social networks (e.g., Facebook and Instagram). The inclusion criteria for participating in the study were (i) being 14 years or older and (ii) knowledge of the Italian language. The questionnaire required approximately 15 to 20 min, ensuring complete anonymity in accordance with the Italian law’s requirements of privacy and informed consent (Law Decree DL-101/2018) and EU regulation (2016/679).
In Study 1, the final sample was composed of 694 participants (55.3% cis females; mean age: 30.1, standard deviation: 12.6), while in Study 2, 1852 subjects (67.8% cis females; mean age: 27.6, standard deviation: 11.4).

4.2. Development of the New Environmental Locus of Control Scale

For the development of the NE-LOC scale, the main scales of the LOC [93] were adapted and modified by declining them to the environmental issue. Particularly, more items related to social dimensions linked to climate change phenomena were included.
Primarily, were identified five experts in the field of environmental psychology and were individually analyzed and rated the above items. Subsequently, focus groups (FGs) were organized by considering how this mode can improve the measurement validity and cross-cultural comparability of the instrument via a mixed-methods research design [94,95,96]. In particular, experts were involved in 10 sessions of 1 h each of FGs to find agreement on the selected items, coordinated by one of the authors of this work (A.G.). During the FGs, participants analyzed and agreed on the items supporting the presence of 3 dimensions (external, community, and internal E-LOC) in the scale. Precisely, the instrument consists of 16 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1: “strongly disagree”; 7: “strongly agree”): 6 items related to external NE-LOC, 5 items related to community NE-LOC, and 5 items related to internal NE-LOC.

4.3. Data Analysis

In Study 1, we performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in order to define the NE-LOC dimensionality. In Study 2, we validated the questionnaire structure by performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio, the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used as goodness-of-fit indices to evaluate the model fit. An acceptable fit is indicated by CFI and TLI values > 0.90 and RMSEA values < 0.08, while an optimal fit is indicated by CFI and TLI values > 0.95 and RMSEA values close to 0.06. As suggested by Byrne [97] and Hu and Bentler [98], an SRMR value < 0.08 is also recommended. Furthermore, the internal consistency was measured by calculating Cronbach’s α value for each dimension assessed by the instrument (minimally acceptable: α = 0.65; acceptable: α = 0.70; optimal: α = 0.80) [99,100]. In addition, Spearman–Brown and Guttman split-half coefficients were also calculated in order to estimate test reliability [101,102]. Finally, after CFA, based on normality distribution, we performed Pearson or Spearman correlations to test our hypotheses by also controlling the analysis by age and gender. Specifically, correlation analysis was performed to test construct validity [103]. Regarding this, the following hypotheses were developed:
E-LOC and Pro-Environmental Attitudes
Over the years, a significant body of work pointed out the crucial link between attitudes, pro-environmental behaviors, and an internal locus of control [1,65,68,71,104,105]. In particular, as suggested by the literature, internal LOC may be considered a key predictor of pro-environmental attitudes (e.g., consuming green products and recycling) [1,71,104]. However, the propensity to implement the PEBs above may depend on more than just the internal E-LOC but also on the socio-cultural context of reference [29,33]. Notably, in collectivist countries, where societies prioritize collective well-being and interconnectedness [106,107], there is a greater propensity for PEBs. Conversely, external LOC seems to have a completely inverse effect on pro-environmental attitudes by potentially hindering their adoption [50,68,74]. Based on the above theoretical references, we formulated the following null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses:
H0: 
There are no associations between NE-LOC dimensions and pro-environmental behaviors.
HA: 
Internal and community NE-LOCs are positively associated with pro-environmental attitudes, while external NE-LOC is negatively correlated with them.
E-LOC and Pro-Environmental Identity and Endorsement
Environmental identity is defined as “one part of the way in which people form their self-concept; a sense of connection to some parts of the nonhuman natural environment, based on history, emotional attachment, and/or similarity, that affects the way in which we perceive and act toward the world; a belief that the environment is important to us and an important part of who we are” [108,109]. Accordingly, the environmental identity construct can be connected with dimensions such as connectedness to nature, which involves feeling interconnected with the natural world that is expressed in an affective connection with nature [108,109,110,111]. This kind of perceived emotional attachment could also be related to both the need to protect and a sense of responsibility to nature [112,113] itself potentially identifiable in the LOC dimension. Mainly, it is possible to suppose the involvement of both internal and community E-LOCs in this kind of link; on the other hand, based on its intrinsic construct, we assumed a negative association between pro-environmental identity and external E-LOC. In light of all the above, we identified following hypotheses:
H0: 
There are no associations between NE-LOC dimensions and pro-environmental identity and endorsement.
HA: 
Internal and community NE-LOCs are positively associated with pro-environmental identity and endorsement, while external NE-LOC is negatively correlated with them.
E-LOC and Readiness to Change
In recent times, readiness to change (RTC) has been considered a per se construct that refers to “the extent to which an individual or individuals are cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace and adopt a particular plan to intentionally alter the status quo” [57,114,115]. In addition, a recent work highlighted how RTC can be considered a multidimensional construct linked to the implementation of PEBs [57,58,59,60]. Regarding the link between LOC and change commitment, the literature indicated a connection between these phenomena for both internal and external LOC. However, it has been observed that the emotional mechanisms underlying change commitment differ based on the directionality of LOC [116]. Specifically, individuals with an internal LOC are primarily motivated by moral obligation or personal desire, while those with an external LOC are more motivated by the potential costs of not committing to change [116]. Given the characteristics of RTC, we assumed that a positive and negative link might exist with internal and community LOC and external LOC, respectively, even conceptually translating it to the context of PEBs. Based on this assumption, we formulated the following third hypotheses:
HO: 
There are no associations between NE-LOC and RTC.
HA: 
Internal and community NE-LOC are positively associated with RTC, while external NE-LOC is negatively correlated with it.
E-LOC and Eco-Anxiety
Typically, anxiety is characterized by a feeling of uncontrollability and loss of control, which can lead to reduced self-efficacy and LOC [117,118,119,120,121,122]. Focusing on environmental aspects, examples of uncontrollability can be ascribed to the feeling of helplessness in the face of environmental disasters including their potential consequences, the so-called eco-anxiety [92]. Despite that there are no established definitions of eco-anxiety, the construct may refer to having “varying levels of worry associated with prolonged exposure to the direct consequences of climate change or related information” [123,124]. Investigating the association between eco-anxiety and locus of control is quite challenging. To the best of our knowledge, to date, there are no literature data that have confirmed a strict relationship between the phenomena above. However, a recent review showed that central features of anxiety, such as uncertainty, uncontrollability, and reduced perception of control, also play a crucial role in the context of eco-anxiety [121]. In keeping with this, the following fourth hypothesis was formulated:
H0: 
There are no associations between NE-LOC and eco-anxiety.
H4: 
Internal and community NE-LOCs are negatively associated with eco-anxiety, while external NE-LOC is negatively correlated with it.

4.4. Materials

For both studies (study 1 and 2), the survey included questions related to socio-demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, education, occupational status, and socio-economic status) and the new environmental locus of control scale. In addition, based on the above assumptions, the following questionnaires were used:
  • The Rotter’s Internal–External Locus of Control Scale (IELOC Scale): Consisting in a self-report instrument able to measure the directionality (internal or external) of generalized expectations [64]. IELOC is composed of 29 forced-choice items (of which 6 are fillers) with dichotomous response answers (higher scores correspond to external locus of control) [64].
  • The Climate Change Attitude Survey (CCAS): Consisting in a 15-item questionnaire scored on 5-point Likert scale (1: “strongly disagree”; 5: “strongly agree”). The instrument assesses beliefs and intentions concerning the environment, particularly focusing on climate change [125] through two different constructs: beliefs (9 items; Cronbach’s α = 0.87) and intentions (6 items; Cronbach’s α = 0.70) [125].
  • The New Ecological Paradigm-Revised (NEP-R): Consisting in an upgraded version of the New Ecological Paradigm Survey [126,127]. The instrument is characterized by 15 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1: “strongly disagree”; 5: “strongly agree”) [127] and 5 different dimensions in terms of (1) the reality of limits to growth (items 1,6, and 11), (2) anti-anthropocentrism (items 2,7, and 13), (3) fragility of nature’s balance (items 3,8, and 13), (4) rejection of exceptionalism (items 4,9, and 14), and (5) possibility of an eco-crisis (items 5, 10, and 15) [127].
  • The Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS): Consisting in a questionnaire able to assess levels of subjective traits linked to perceived emotions linked to the natural world [128]. The scale is characterized by 14 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1: “strongly disagree”; 5: “strongly agree”) and good psychometric properties (Cronbach’s α = 0.84) [128].
  • The Pro-environmental Behavior Scale (PEB): Consisting in a 19-item self-report scale characterized by 4 dimensions (conservation, environmental citizenship, food, and transportation) and a good reliability index (Cronbach’s α = 0-76) [129]. PEB’s items have different kinds of response options. Particularly, response modes of items 1 to 6 range from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“always”), while for item 7, they range from 1 (“very high”) to 3 (“low”). Items 8,9, and 12 have dichotomous response options (1: “yes”; 5: “no”), as well as items 14, 15, and 16 (1: “no”; 5: “yes”). Response answers for items 10 and 11 range from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“constantly”), items 13 is scored on 5-point Likert-scale (1: “24 or less”; 5: “40 or more), and items 17,18, and 19 are scored on a 3-point Likert scale (1: “Never”; 5: “Frequently”) [129].
  • The Readiness to Change Scale (RTC): The instrument is characterized by 29 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1: “strongly disagree”; 5: “strongly agree”) and able to assess the subject’s readiness to change (a higher score corresponds to a higher readiness to change) [57]. The scale measures 7 dimensions: perceived importance of the problem (items 1–4), motivation to change (items 5–8), self-efficacy (items 9–13), effectiveness of the proposed solution (items 14–17), social support (items 18–21), action (items 22–25), and perceived readiness (items 26–29) [57].
  • The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS-13) consists in a 13-item scale scored on a 4-point Likert scale (0: “not at all”; 3: “nearly every day”) with high reliability and validity [130]. The instrument measures eco-anxiety by declining it in 4 different dimensions: affective symptoms (items 1–4), rumination (items 5–7), behavioral symptoms (items 8–10), and anxiety concerning the personal negative impact on the planet (items 11–13) [130].

5. Results

5.1. Study 1

The EFA was used to analyze the initial set of 16 items; for this purpose, the factorization extraction method for principal axes with Promax (oblique) rotation was performed. The number of factors to be extracted was determined based on the examination of the elbow diagram combined with the Kaiser criterion, namely, the preservation of factors with eigenvalues greater than one [131,132]. Additionally, in keeping with Ferguson and Cox, factors with factorial and parallel loadings greater than 0.5 and less than 0.20, respectively, were conserved [133]. In keeping with this, a total of 10 items were retained and 6 removed. Analysis of the final set of 9 items revealed a three-factor structure that explains 54.30% of the total variance of the construct (see Table 1).

5.2. Study 2

5.2.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To investigate the factorial structure pointed out in the first study, CFA was performed on the 9 NE-LOC items by testing the three-factor structure. To improve the fit of the model, strategies in terms of adding covariances between the error terms of items of the same factor and removing underperforming items (e.g., model modification indices) were performed. Accordingly, model modification indices for the three-factor model showed a problematic cross-loading of item 2 with another factor; therefore, the item was removed. The model’s parameters were estimated by performing the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). CFA pointed out an adequate fit to the final model (9 items) (χ2 = 70.143; df = 20; p < 0.001; TLI = 0.960; CFI = 0.978; RMSEA = 0.0037; SRMR = 0.029). All factor loadings were statistically significant (p < 0.001) with a threshold ranging from 0.0271 (item 13) to 0.837 (item 10) (see Figure 1).

5.2.2. Internal Consistency and Test Reliability

Table 2 points out values related to internal consistency and test reliability for each dimension of the NE-LOC. Notably, results highlighted that the external dimension of the questionnaire had higher values concerning all the three indexes considered, by pointing out an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.688; Spearman–Brown coefficient = 0.669; Guttman split-half coefficient = 0.582).

5.2.3. Validity (Internal and External)

First, metric variables of the included variables were computed by performing descriptive statistics. Second, skewness and kurtosis values were used to assess the normality distribution (see Table 3). According to Hair [134], all variables included in the study were normally distributed, considering that skewness and kurtosis values were between ±2 and ±7, respectively (Hair, 2010). Based on this, Pearson’s correlations were performed to assess external validity.
Regarding the association between the three factors of the NE-LOC scale, correlations with the expected directionality have been found. Particularly, a positive and typical correlation between internal and community NE-LOC has been observed (r = 0.234; p < 0.001). Conversely, the analysis pointed out negative and small correlations between external E-LOC and both internal and community NE-LOC (Figure 2). Concerning the link between NE-LOC factors and other locus of control assessed by Rotter [64], no significant correlations were observed between the analyzed variables (Table 4).
Table 5 displays results related to the correlation analysis performed. Concerning the putative link between NE-LOC and pro-environmental attitudes. The results pointed out clear and consistent positive correlations between all dimensions considered (except for the “Conservation” dimension of PEB), but with different directionality. Specifically, we observed positive correlations between internal and community NE-LOC and negative correlations with external NE-LOC. In particular, in accordance with the guidelines of Gignac and Szodorai [92], large correlations were observed between the dimension “Beliefs” of the CCAS and external (r = −0.423; p < 0.001), community (r = 0.362; p < 0.001), and internal (r = 0.428; p < 0.001) NE-LOC and between the CCAS “Intentions” dimension and external (r = −0.598; p < 0.001) and internal (r = 0.403; p < 0.001) NE-LOC.
Regarding the association between NE-LOC and pro-environmental identity and endorsement, we also observed the same directional pattern. While all identity variables correlated positively with internal and community NE-LOCs, negative correlations were observed with external NE-LOC. Particularly, strong correlations between the CNS and internal NE- LOC (r = 0.367; p < 0.001) and NEP-R and external E-LOC (r = -0.478; p < 0.001) were found.
Except for the “behavioral symptoms” dimension, we also observed significant and positive correlations between two of the NE-LOC dimensions, internal and community, and the variables concerning eco-anxiety assessment. Conversely, only two of the HEAS-13 dimensions were found to be significantly correlated with the external NE-LOC with two opposite directionalities. Specifically, the results showed a positive and a negative correlation between NE-LOC and the dimensions “behavioral symptoms” and “personal impact,” respectively.
Finally, regarding the association between NE-LOC and readiness to change, correlation analysis showed positive and significant correlations (ranging from relatively small to large values) between the internal and community dimensions and all the considered RTC dimensions. On the contrary, except for the “social support” dimension, significant and negative correlations concerning the external NE-LOC dimension emerged. All the correlations between RTC dimensions and internal NE-LOC were strong. Generally, statistically significant correlations remain even when controlling for age and gender.

6. Discussion

Environmental issues are concrete global concerns affecting the well-being of the earth and people that require collective exertion to address. As suggested by the literature, the factors that can encourage people to enact pro-environmental behaviors are both personal and social [9,27,28,30,31,32,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Both assume a key role: while personal factors stimulate people to take action toward environmental issues [27], it is fundamental to recognize that context and social dimensions also strongly influence behavioral change [38]. Factors such as social identity, social self-efficacy, and social capital have been observed to be linked to pro-environmentalism enactment [38,135], highlighting the significant role of the community in this context.
Accordingly, recent studies have pointed out that the predictive value of those personal and social factors mentioned above is closely related to the target culture [29,33]. Notably, it has been observed that, in individualistic countries, PEB engagement is more conveyed by personal beliefs and concerns. On the other hand, a close link between pro-environmentalism and perceived social norms has been found in collectivistic countries [29].
Urging further research, considering the putative association between cultural context and personal or social determinants of PEBs, the importance of studying and investigating both factors to observe a comprehensive and more inclusive framework of the phenomenon emerges.
However, although E-LOC appears to be one of the most important constructs for predicting the implementation of pro-environmental behaviors [61,62,63], to date, there are no E-LOC scales that also include the collective dimension [63].
In keeping with this, this study aimed to develop and validate an instrument related to NE-LOC, including the collective dimension, by conducting two different studies. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified a 10-item solution from an initial pool of 16 items. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a three-factor structure with 3 items each, namely, external (factor 1), community (factor 2), and internal (factor 3) E-LOC.
Furthermore, most of the findings of the present work seem to support the formulated hypotheses. Specifically, it was observed that both internal and community NE-LOCs are associated with greater involvement in pro-environmental actions by supporting HA. In particular, both adequate and large correlations have been found between internal and community NE-LOC and “Beliefs” and “Intentions” dimensions; conversely, negative and strong correlations have been observed between these two dimensions and external NE-LOC (Beliefs: r = −0.423; Intentions: r = −0.598). Consistent with the literature, these results reinforce the theoretical link between a sense of internal and collective responsibility and PEB pro-activity [1,68,71,104,136,137,138,139,140].
Moreover, the HA concerning the putative link between NE-LOC and pro-environmental identity and endorsement was also supported. This is notably evident for having an internal NE-LOC and feeling connected to nature (r = 0.367; p < 0.01), as well as the belief in collective action engagement and endorsement of the new ecological paradigm (r = 0.300; p < 0.01). The first result may depend on the emotional component linked to feeling connected with nature [112,113], while the second one may depend on the concept of eco-centrism to which both the new ecological paradigm [127] and implicitly a more strictly collectivist view refer.
Furthermore, focusing on the role of emotional mechanisms, it is possible to assume that they may also have a significant impact on the link between change commitment and the tendency to attribute responsibility to oneself or collectively [116], even in the context of pro-environmentalism. This assumption is supported by our results, considering the positive correlation between readiness to change and internal and community NE-LOCs that also support the formulated HA. Moreover, the observed outcome may also depend on the sensitivity of the readiness to change scale in measuring the behaviors for which the person perceives more control [57].
Finally, we failed to address our last hypothesis related to the link between NE-LOC factors and eco-anxiety, considering that results supported the formulated H0. In contrast with the main literature data about the phenomena, we observed how higher levels of internal and community NE-LOCs positively correlate with eco-anxiety. From our perspective, this result may underscore that it may be simplistic to define eco-anxiety only as defensive escape and avoidance behaviors driven by uncertainty [141]. As suggested by Kurth and Pihkala [141], this dimension can also result in the person’s active involvement, thus supporting the result of the present study [141,142]. In summary, eco-anxiety represents a multifaceted and complex construct and can be interpreted as a form of “practical anxiety” that encourages practical engagement in behaviors of reflection and involvement [141]. Therefore, the observed link between eco-anxiety and internal and community NE-LOCs can be explained based on this conceptualization.
Lastly, the importance of measuring the community factor of the NE-LOC cannot be overstated. It is a key factor in understanding the potential determinants and factors associated with pro-environmentalism. Moreover, this understanding allows for a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon and the optimization of environmental interventions in different cultural contexts. This assumption is supported by the potential link between personal or social factors and target culture (individualistic versus collectivist countries) [29,33].
In line with this, as suggested by several pieced of literature evidence, pro-environmental behaviors are also linked to two crucial and fundamental constructs, namely, sense of agency and social learning [143,144,145,146,147]. Notably, sense of agency refers to perceiving oneself as having a role in controlling actions and their outcomes [148], and it has been observed that this kind of feeling may be improved by cooperative actions [145,149]. Moreover, in the context of sustainability, Villa and colleagues [147] pointed out that supporting people’s sense of agency may contrast with their engagement in unsustainable behaviors. On the other hand, by focusing on the role of social factors in this context, the Social Learning Theory pointed out the role of social context in the widespread adoption of pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) by suggesting that people learn behaviors by observing and imitating others [9,55,56]. In the context of environmentalism, this could lead to a collective effort in enacting sustainable behaviors, such as waste sorting, encouraging a positive change in our environment. In light of all of the above, it is therefore highlighted how the collective component has effects on individual factors and vice versa, potentially promoting a sustainable lifestyle. This assumption is also supported by the results of the present study considering that a positive and significant association emerged between the internal and community environmental locus of control. In keeping with this, given its characteristics, the potential application of the NE-LOC scale in multiple scenarios is supported.
The persistent “Climate Myth” and the perceived distance from the phenomena continue to pose challenges in public engagement [150,151]; however, the role of communitarian actions for sustainability is now well established [152].
In line with this, based on the approach of integrating values, rules, and knowledge, how different systemic components play a role in adapting to the climate crisis by implementing sustainable habits is observed [153]. In this regard, decision-making processes that guide the development of actions to counteract the consequences of climate change should take into account crucial factors such as sense of agency and social learning [9,56,144,145,149,153], as well as the role played by different actors (e.g., policymakers and civil society) by also considering the effects and benefits associated with community involvement.
In fact, public engagement is crucial in planning pro-environmental interventions and programs, from energy conservation to sustainable urbanization. Considering the several factors (personal and social) that may or may not encourage people to change their lifestyles in favor of the environment, it can be very challenging to identify the key elements that enable activating a collective and community movement [37,38,39,154], but the same elements are essential.
To support people’s perceptions of environmental issues and associated pro-environmental behaviors, it is fundamental to encourage the mobilization of social movements and collective actions and participatory processes [155,156,157] that could improve the sense of control over the above issues translating into an increase in locus of control. This may be especially important for individualistic countries compared with collectivist countries, considering the role of culture in encouraging or constraining pro-environmental behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs [29].
Therefore, the importance of measuring the degree of people’s involvement, both internal and collective, emerges. However, to date, most tools related to environmental locus of control are unable to measure the above dimension.
Accordingly, the new environmental locus of control scale could overcome this lack in the literature. In line with the above statement, measuring the degree of community NE-LOC could be very useful in different contexts by enabling the development of culturally adapted interventions and tailored environmental awareness programs.
In conclusion, the present work provides a new useful instrument to measure environmental locus of control by including the communitarian aspect. Confirmatory factor analysis pointed out a three-factor model composed of three items each. Moreover, significant correlations with the expected direction have been found between the scale’s factors and external validators. Additionally, based on the suggestions proposed by Kim and colleagues [63] for the development of new ELOC scales, different from previous ELOC scales, from our perspective, NE-LOC has the following strengths: (i) the development of the instrument includes conducting useful FGs to ensure more robust contextual and construct validity, (ii) the study investigated the relationships between ELOC and dimensions such as self-efficacy and environmental action, and (iii) the external validity analysis of the scale is supported point by point by a rationale.
Summing up, findings confirmed that the new environmental locus of control scale can be considered a suitable tool in the context of pro-environmentalism that may also support the implementation of ad hoc interventions and outreach programs.

7. Limitations and Future Perspectives

The present study has some limitations. In particular, although the sample is large, it is not representative enough to make results generalizable. Furthermore, concerning sample size, it is worth noting that using rules of thumb to determine sample size may have limitations [158,159]. In fact, the literature highlights how the appropriate sample size may depend on several modeling characteristics. Moreover, the sample consists of young adults; consequently, future studies could be useful in applying and using the NELOC scale within other kinds of populations (i.e., adolescent and older populations) [63]. In addition, despite being a widely used methodology, removing item 2 due to problematic cross-loading may have compromised the content validity or reliability of scores on the associated construct [160]. Furthermore, based on the geographic focus area of the present study and the breakdown proposed by Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Theory [161], it would be necessary to test the instrument in other geographic areas in order to observe the putative effects of different socio-cultural contexts (e.g., collectivism) on the questionnaire. In addition, based on the study design, it is not possible to establish cause-and-effect relationships between the investigated variables. Moreover, the use of self-report questionnaires could result in social desirability bias. In keeping with this, potential biases of the common method, such as response or acquiescence biases, cannot be ruled out. Finally, results pointed out low values concerning the internal consistency and test reliability of the instrument. However, Cronbach’s α value seems to be closely related to a low item numerosity of questionnaires [162]. Further studies are needed to investigate the internal consistency and test reliability of the NE-LOC scale among other samples by also considering the limitations above in terms of geographical area.
However, despite the above limitations, from our perspective, this study enriches the literature related to the investigated phenomenon and provides a valuable instrument to measure the environmental locus of control.
Notably, the instrument has the potential to significantly advance research in the field. Its ecological nature and brevity make it applicable and usable in different contexts, while the inclusion of a third dimension for assessing the community environmental locus of control opens up new possibilities for studying and analyzing factors with a strong predictive and impact value. For this purpose, future studies are needed to adapt and validate the instrument in different socio-cultural contexts with independent samples. This would not only strengthen the quality and use of the tool but also allow for the assessment of any differences in the levels of social environmental control based on the target culture by deepening the link between the two phenomena.

8. Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of the present study support the conceptualization, development, and validation of a new instrument for assessing the environmental locus of control, which also measures the communitarian aspect of this psychological construct. Notably, the findings highlighted significant associations between the environmental locus control and key dimensions for implementing and developing effective interventions to address the climate crisis. In detail, the important role of community in this framework has emerged. In keeping with this, taking into consideration other theoretical frameworks as well, this study underlined the presence of an interconnection between the individual and community, thereby strengthening the conceptual need for considering communitarian engagement in fostering climate actions. Future studies are needed to deepen and investigate the role of community, as well as internal and external environmental locus of control, by taking into account other fundamental variables and factors related to sustainability, such as sense of agency and social learning.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D., A.G. and M.F.; Data curation, A.G.; Formal analysis, M.D., A.G. and M.B.; Funding acquisition, G.V.; Investigation, M.F., S.S. and G.V.; Methodology, M.D. and A.G.; Supervision, M.D. and A.G.; Writing—original draft, M.B., M.F. and S.S.; Writing—review and editing, M.D., M.B., M.F. and G.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Comissão de Ética do Centro de Estudos Sociais (CE-CES) (University of Coimbra; date: 24 October 2022; protocol number 02319461).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to Data management rules of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Project “PHOENIX: The Rise of Citizen Voices for a Greener Europe” (grant agreement number 101037328).

Acknowledgments

We thank the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Project “PHOENIX: The Rise of Citizen Voices for a Greener Europe” (grant agreement number 101037328) for supporting and promoting this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Cleveland, M.; Kalamas, M.; Laroche, M. “It’s Not Easy Being Green”: Exploring Green Creeds, Green Deeds, and Internal Environmental Locus of Control. Psychol. Mark. 2012, 29, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Biermann, F. The Future of ‘Environmental’ Policy in the Anthropocene: Time for a Paradigm Shift. In Trajectories in Environmental Politics; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; Volume 30, pp. 61–80. ISBN 978-1-00-321332-1. [Google Scholar]
  3. Drumwright, M.E. Socially Responsible Organizational Buying: Environmental Concern as a Noneconomic Buying Criterion. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lynas, M.; Houlton, B.Z.; Perry, S. Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 114005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuce, A. Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 024024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kovaka, K. Climate Change Denial and Beliefs about Science. Synthese 2021, 198, 2355–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ahn, S.J.G.; Bailenson, J.N.; Park, D. Short- and Long-Term Effects of Embodied Experiences in Immersive Virtual Environments on Environmental Locus of Control and Behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 39, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Aarts, H.; Dijksterhuis, A. The Silence of the Library: Environment, Situational Norm, and Social Behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Grilli, G.; Curtis, J. Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviours: A Review of Methods and Approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Arora, N.K.; Fatima, T.; Mishra, I.; Verma, M.; Mishra, J.; Mishra, V. Environmental Sustainability: Challenges and Viable Solutions. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 1, 309–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vezzoli, C. Design for Environmental Sustainability. Life Cycle Design of Products; Springer London: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-1-84800-162-6. [Google Scholar]
  12. Li, X.; Xu, L. Human Development Associated with Environmental Quality in China. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Opoku, E.E.O.; Dogah, K.E.; Aluko, O.A. The Contribution of Human Development towards Environmental Sustainability. Energy Econ. 2022, 106, 105782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, Y.; Akbari, H. Analysis of Urban Heat Island Phenomenon and Mitigation Solutions Evaluation for Montreal. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 26, 438–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Duan, J.; Wang, Y.; Fan, C.; Xia, B.; de Groot, R. Perception of Urban Environmental Risks and the Effects of Urban Green Infrastructures (UGIs) on Human Well-Being in Four Public Green Spaces of Guangzhou, China. Environ. Manag. 2018, 62, 500–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tucci, F. Costruire e Abitare Green. Approcci, Strategie, Sperimentazioni per una Progettazione Tecnologica Ambientale-Green Building and Dwelling. Approaches, Strategies, Experimentation for an Environmental Technological Design. Ediz. Bilingue; Altralinea Edizioni: Florence, Italy, 2018; ISBN 978-88-948690-3-3. [Google Scholar]
  17. Grazieschi, G.; Asdrubali, F.; Guattari, C. Neighbourhood Sustainability: State of the Art, Critical Review and Space-Temporal Analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 63, 102477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jabbar, M.; Yusoff, M.M.; Shafie, A. Assessing the Role of Urban Green Spaces for Human Well-Being: A Systematic Review. GeoJournal 2022, 87, 4405–4423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bertram, C.; Rehdanz, K. The Role of Urban Green Space for Human Well-Being. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 120, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kothencz, G.; Kolcsár, R.; Cabrera-Barona, P.; Szilassi, P. Urban Green Space Perception and Its Contribution to Well-Being. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2017, 14, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Reyes-Riveros, R.; Altamirano, A.; De La Barrera, F.; Rozas-Vásquez, D.; Vieli, L.; Meli, P. Linking Public Urban Green Spaces and Human Well-Being: A Systematic Review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 61, 127105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Campbell-Arvai, V.; Lindquist, M. From the Ground up: Using Structured Community Engagement to Identify Objectives for Urban Green Infrastructure Planning. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 59, 127013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Palliwoda, J.; Priess, J.A. What Do People Value in Urban Green? Linking Characteristics of Urban Green Spaces to Users’ Perceptions of Nature Benefits, Disturbances, and Disservices. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 26, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Moloney, S.; Horne, R.E.; Fien, J. Transitioning to Low Carbon Communities—From Behaviour Change to Systemic Change: Lessons from Australia. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7614–7623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Marletto, G. An Institutional/Evolutionary Framework of Economic Change. In Creating a Sustainable Economy; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-0-203-11798-9. [Google Scholar]
  26. Henderson, K.; Loreau, M. A Model of Sustainable Development Goals: Challenges and Opportunities in Promoting Human Well-Being and Environmental Sustainability. Ecol. Model. 2023, 475, 110164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Markowitz, E.M.; Goldberg, L.R.; Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. Profiling the “Pro-Environmental Individual”: A Personality Perspective. J. Pers. 2012, 80, 81–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and Social Factors That Influence Pro-Environmental Concern and Behaviour: A Review. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Eom, K.; Kim, H.S.; Sherman, D.K.; Ishii, K. Cultural Variability in the Link Between Environmental Concern and Support for Environmental Action. Psychol. Sci. 2016, 27, 1331–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Farrow, K.; Grolleau, G.; Ibanez, L. Social Norms and Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 140, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Keizer, K.; Schultz, P.W. Social Norms and Pro-Environmental Behaviour. In Environmental Psychology; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 179–188. ISBN 978-1-119-24107-2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, S.; Xiao, W.; Fang, C.; Zhang, X.; Lin, J. Social Support, Belongingness, and Value Co-Creation Behaviors in Online Health Communities. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 50, 101398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sherman, D.K.; Updegraff, J.A.; Handy, M.S.; Eom, K.; Kim, H.S. Beliefs and Social Norms as Precursors of Environmental Support: The Joint Influence of Collectivism and Socioeconomic Status. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2022, 48, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shi, J.; Lu, C.; Wei, Z. Effects of Social Capital on Pro-Environmental Behaviors in Chinese Residents. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wan, Q.; Du, W. Social Capital, Environmental Knowledge, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pong, V.; Tam, K.-P. Relationship between Global Identity and Pro-Environmental Behavior and Environmental Concern: A Systematic Review. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1033564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tang, D.; Cai, X.; Nketiah, E.; Adjei, M.; Adu-Gyamfi, G.; Obuobi, B. Separate Your Waste: A Comprehensive Conceptual Framework Investigating Residents’ Intention to Adopt Household Waste Separation. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 39, 216–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alexis, L.; Bertoldo, R.; Fointiat, V. Systematic Review of Environmental Activism: Towards a New Orientation for Social Psychology. Eur. Psychol. 2024, 29, 153–169. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kim, D.; Kim, J. Mere Presence Effect on Pro-Environmental Behavior: Exploring the Role of Social Influence. Soc. Influ. 2024, 19, 2323718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, J.; Qu, H.; Huang, D.; Chen, G.; Yue, X.; Zhao, X.; Liang, Z. The Role of Social Capital in Encouraging Residents’ pro-Environmental Behaviors in Community-Based Ecotourism. Tour. Manag. 2014, 41, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hoffman, S.M.; High-Pippert, A. From Private Lives to Collective Action: Recruitment and Participation Incentives for a Community Energy Program. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7567–7574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Evans, L.; Maio, G.R.; Corner, A.; Hodgetts, C.J.; Ahmed, S.; Hahn, U. Self-Interest and pro-Environmental Behaviour. Nat. Clim. Change 2013, 3, 122–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dai, Y.C.; Gordon, M.P.R.; Ye, J.Y.; Xu, D.Y.; Lin, Z.Y.; Robinson, N.K.L.; Woodard, R.; Harder, M.K. Why Doorstepping Can Increase Household Waste Recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 102, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sloot, D.; Jans, L.; Steg, L. Can Community Energy Initiatives Motivate Sustainable Energy Behaviours? The Role of Initiative Involvement and Personal pro-Environmental Motivation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 57, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xu, L.; Ling, M.; Wu, Y. Economic Incentive and Social Influence to Overcome Household Waste Separation Dilemma: A Field Intervention Study. Waste Manag. 2018, 77, 522–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Xu, L.; Zhang, X.; Ling, M. Pro-Environmental Spillover under Environmental Appeals and Monetary Incentives: Evidence from an Intervention Study on Household Waste Separation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 60, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ling, M.; Xu, L. Relationships between Personal Values, Micro-Contextual Factors and Residents’ pro-Environmental Behaviors: An Explorative Study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 156, 104697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
  49. Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. 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]
  51. Hungerford, H.R.; Volk, T.L. Changing Learner Behavior Through Environmental Education. J. Environ. Educ. 1990, 21, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Inman, R.A.; Moreira, P.A.S.; Faria, S.; Araújo, M.; Cunha, D.; Pedras, S.; Lopes, J.C. An Application of the Transtheoretical Model to Climate Change Prevention: Validation of the Climate Change Stages of Change Questionnaire in Middle School Students and Their Schoolteachers. Environ. Educ. Res. 2022, 28, 1003–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Prochaska, J.O.; Velicer, W.F. The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change. Am. J. Health Promot. 1997, 12, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Groening, C.; Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q. Green Marketing Consumer-Level Theory Review: A Compendium of Applied Theories and Further Research Directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1848–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; Prentice-Hall: Oxford, UK, 1977; pp. viii–247. ISBN 978-0-13-816751-6. [Google Scholar]
  56. Tian, H.; Liu, X. Pro-Environmental Behavior Research: Theoretical Progress and Future Directions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 19, 6721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Duradoni, M.; Valdrighi, G.; Donati, A.; Fiorenza, M.; Puddu, L.; Guazzini, A. Development and Validation of the Readiness to Change Scale (RtC) for Sustainability. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Baroni, M.; Valdrighi, G.; Guazzini, A.; Duradoni, M. Eco-Sensitive Minds: Clustering Readiness to Change and Environmental Sensitivity for Sustainable Engagement. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Duradoni, M.; Baroni, M.; Fiorenza, M.; Bellotti, M.; Neri, G.; Guazzini, A. Readiness to Change and the Intention to Consume Novel Foods: Evidence from Linear Discriminant Analysis. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Duradoni, M.; Baroni, M.; Valdrighi, G.; Guazzini, A. Readiness to Change and Pro-Environmental Transportation Behaviors: A Multidimensional and Gender-Sensitive Analysis. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. 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]
  62. Patel, J.D.; Trivedi, R.H.; Yagnik, A. Self-Identity and Internal Environmental Locus of Control: Comparing Their Influences on Green Purchase Intentions in High-Context versus Low-Context Cultures. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 102003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kim, M.; Reid, A.; Rickinson, M. Measuring Environmental Locus of Control: An Analysis of Instruments and Their Psychometric Properties. Environ. Educ. Res. 2022, 28, 614–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rotter, J.B. Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement. Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl. 1966, 80, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Derdowski, L.A.; Grahn, Å.H.; Hansen, H.; Skeiseid, H. The New Ecological Paradigm, Pro-Environmental Behaviour, and the Moderating Effects of Locus of Control and Self-Construal. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Guagnano, G.A. Locus of Control, Altruism and Agentic Disposition. Popul. Environ. 1995, 17, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cleveland, M.; Kalamas, M.; Laroche, M. Shades of Green: Linking Environmental Locus of Control and Pro-environmental Behaviors. J. Consum. Mark. 2005, 22, 198–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cleveland, M.; Robertson, J.L.; Volk, V. Helping or Hindering: Environmental Locus of Control, Subjective Enablers and Constraints, and pro-Environmental Behaviors. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 249, 119394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cleveland, M.; Kalamas, M. Environmental Locus of Control. In The Psychology of Green Organizations; Robertson, J., Barling, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-0-19-999748-0. [Google Scholar]
  70. Yang, X.; Weber, A. Who Can Improve the Environment—Me or the Powerful Others? An Integrative Approach to Locus of Control and pro-Environmental Behavior in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. McCarty, J.A.; Shrum, L.J. The Influence of Individualism, Collectivism, and Locus of Control on Environmental Beliefs and Behavior. J. Public Policy Mark. 2001, 20, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fielding, K.S.; Head, B.W. Determinants of Young Australians’ Environmental Actions: The Role of Responsibility Attributions, Locus of Control, Knowledge and Attitudes. Environ. Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nazneen, L.; Asghar, M. The Role of Locus of Control in Pro Environmental Attitude and Behavior of Youth. Peshawar J. Psychol. Behav. Sci. PJPBS 2016, 2, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Giefer, M.M.; Peterson, M.N.; Chen, X. Interactions among Locus of Control, Environmental Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behaviour in China. Environ. Conserv. 2019, 46, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Smith-Sebasto, N.J. Design, Development, and Validation of an Instrument to Assess the Relationship Between Locus-of-Control of Reinforcement and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Bachelor’s Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA, 1993. Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University. Available online: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=osu1487777170405225&disposition=inline (accessed on 29 June 2025).
  76. Smith-Sebasto, N.J.; D’Costa, A. Designing a Likert-Type Scale to Predict Environmentally Responsible Behavior in Undergraduate Students: A Multistep Process. J. Environ. Educ. 1995, 27, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Smith-Sebasto, N.J.; Fortner, R.W. The Environmental Action Internal Control Index. J. Environ. Educ. 1994, 25, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Colebrook-Claude, C. Adolescent Internal Environmental Locus of Control Scale (AINELOC) Measurement Tool. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2019, 15, 64–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kalamas, M.; Cleveland, M.; Laroche, M. Pro-Environmental Behaviors for Thee but Not for Me: Green Giants, Green Gods, and External Environmental Locus of Control. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hamilton, J.P., III. Some Relationships among Knowledge, Locus of Control, Perceived Importance, and Perceived Personal Responsibility Regarding Environmental Problems. Ph.D. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  81. Champeau, R.J. Development of a Perceived Environmental Control Measure; Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife: East Lansing, MI, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  82. Sanford, C.M. Revision of the Perceived Environmental Control Measure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources, Stevens Point, WI, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  83. Smith-Sebasto, N. The Revised Perceived Environmental Control Measure: A Review and Analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1992, 23, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Bandura, A. Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2000, 9, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. van Zomeren, M.; Postmes, T.; Spears, R. Toward an Integrative Social Identity Model of Collective Action: A Quantitative Research Synthesis of Three Socio-Psychological Perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 134, 504–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. van Zomeren, M.; Spears, R.; Leach, C.W. Experimental Evidence for a Dual Pathway Model Analysis of Coping with the Climate Crisis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fritsche, I.; Masson, T. Collective Climate Action: When Do People Turn into Collective Environmental Agents? Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 42, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. de Winter, J.C.F.; Dodou, D.; Wieringa, P.A. Exploratory Factor Analysis With Small Sample Sizes. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2009, 44, 147–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Comrey, A.L. Factor-Analytic Methods of Scale Development in Personality and Clinical Psychology. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1988, 56, 754–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.-G. Statistical Power Analyses Using G*Power 3.1: Tests for Correlation and Regression Analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.-G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gignac, G.E.; Szodorai, E.T. Effect Size Guidelines for Individual Differences Researchers. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 102, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Farma, T.; Cortinovis, I. Un Questionario Sul “Locus of Control”: Suo Utilizzo Nel Contesto Italiano. [A Questionnaire on “Locus of Control”: Its Use in the Italian Context.]. Ric. Psicoter. 2000, 3, 147–155. [Google Scholar]
  94. O’Brien, K. Improving Survey Questionnaires through Focus Groups. In Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art; Sage focus editions; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1993; Volume 156, pp. 105–117. ISBN 978-0-8039-4873-0. [Google Scholar]
  95. Breen, R.L. A Practical Guide to Focus-Group Research. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 2006, 30, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Cyr, J. An Integrative Approach to Measurement: Focus Groups as a Survey Pretest. Qual. Quant. 2019, 53, 897–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  98. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Devellis, R.F. Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-5063-4156-9. [Google Scholar]
  100. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-07-047849-7. [Google Scholar]
  101. Eisinga, R.; Grotenhuis, M.T.; Pelzer, B. The Reliability of a Two-Item Scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int. J. Public Health 2013, 58, 637–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ajayi, B.K. A Comparative Analysis of Reliability Methods. J. Educ. Pract. 2017, 8, 160. [Google Scholar]
  103. Aithal, A.; Aithal, P.S. Development and Validation of Survey Questionnaire & Experimental Data—A Systematical Review-Based Statistical Approach 2020. Int. J. Manag. Technol. Soc. Sci. (IJMTS) 2020, 5, 233–251. [Google Scholar]
  104. Balderjahn, I. Personality Variables and Environmental Attitudes as Predictors of Ecologically Responsible Consumption Patterns. J. Bus. Res. 1988, 17, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Pavalache-Ilie, M.; Unianu, E.M. Locus of Control and the Pro-Environmental Attitudes. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 33, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hofstede, G.J. Culturas y Organizaciones: El Software Mental: La Cooperación Internacional y su Importancia para la Supervivencia; Alianza: Pleasant Grove, UT, USA, 1999; ISBN 978-84-206-6726-3. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6436424 (accessed on 29 June 2025).
  107. Higueras-Castillo, E.; Liébana-Cabanillas, F.J.; Muñoz-Leiva, F.; Molinillo, S. The Role of Collectivism in Modeling the Adoption of Renewable Energies: A Cross-Cultural Approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 2143–2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Clayton, S. Environmental Identity: A Conceptual and an Operational Definition. In Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 45–65. ISBN 978-0-262-03311-4. [Google Scholar]
  109. Bankole, E.T.; Adesina, B.V. Influence of Connectedness to Nature and Environmental Identity On Pro-Environmental Behaviour Among Youths. Br. J. Multidiscip. Adv. Stud. 2024, 5, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Olivos, P.; Aragonés, J.I.; Amérigo, M. The Connectedness to Nature Scale and Its Relationship with Environmental Beliefs and Identity. In Recent Hispanic Research on Sustainable Behavior and Interbehavioral Psychology; Psychology research progress; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–15. ISBN 978-1-62808-136-7. [Google Scholar]
  111. Balundė, A.; Jovarauskaitė, L.; Poškus, M.S. Exploring the Relationship Between Connectedness with Nature, Environmental Identity, and Environmental Self-Identity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sage Open 2019, 9, 2158244019841925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Perkins, H.E. Measuring Love and Care for Nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Mackay, C.M.L.; Schmitt, M.T. Do People Who Feel Connected to Nature Do More to Protect It? A Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 65, 101323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Holt, D.T.; Armenakis, A.A.; Feild, H.S.; Harris, S.G. Readiness for Organizational Change: The Systematic Development of a Scale. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2007, 43, 232–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Rafferty, A.E.; Jimmieson, N.L.; Armenakis, A.A. Change Readiness: A Multilevel Review. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 110–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Chen, J.; Wang, L. Locus of Control and the Three Components of Commitment to Change. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2007, 42, 503–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Becker, K.D.; Ginsburg, G.S.; Domingues, J.; Tein, J.-Y. Maternal Control Behavior and Locus of Control: Examining Mechanisms in the Relation Between Maternal Anxiety Disorders and Anxiety Symptomatology in Children. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2010, 38, 533–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Clark, D.A.; Beck, A.T. Cognitive Theory and Therapy of Anxiety and Depression: Convergence with Neurobiological Findings. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010, 14, 418–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Grupe, D.W.; Nitschke, J.B. Uncertainty and Anticipation in Anxiety: An Integrated Neurobiological and Psychological Perspective. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2013, 14, 488–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Jonas, E.; McGregor, I.; Klackl, J.; Agroskin, D.; Fritsche, I.; Holbrook, C.; Nash, K.; Proulx, T.; Quirin, M. Chapter Four—Threat and Defense: From Anxiety to Approach. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Olson, J.M., Zanna, M.P., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; Volume 49, pp. 219–286. [Google Scholar]
  121. Pihkala, P. Anxiety and the Ecological Crisis: An Analysis of Eco-Anxiety and Climate Anxiety. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Kaynak, H.; Turan, A.; Demir, Y. Locus of Control as a Mediator of the Relationships Between Motivational Systems and Trait Anxiety. Psychol. Rep. 2024, 127, 1533–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Jalin, H.; Sapin, A.; Macherey, A.; Boudoukha, A.H.; Congard, A. Understanding Eco-Anxiety: Exploring Relationships with Environmental Trait Affects, Connectedness to Nature, Depression, Anxiety, and Media Exposure. Curr. Psychol. 2024, 43, 23455–23468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Boluda-Verdú, I.; Senent-Valero, M.; Casas-Escolano, M.; Matijasevich, A.; Pastor-Valero, M. Fear for the Future: Eco-Anxiety and Health Implications, a Systematic Review. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 84, 101904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Christensen, R.; Knezek, G. The Climate Change Attitude Survey: Measuring Middle School Student Beliefs and Intentions to Enact Positive Environmental Change. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2015, 10, 773–788. [Google Scholar]
  126. Dunlap, R.E.; Liere, K.D.V. The “New Environmental Paradigm”. J. Environ. Educ. 1978, 9, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M. The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A Measure of Individuals’ Feeling in Community with Nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Markle, G.L. Pro-Environmental Behavior: Does It Matter How It’s Measured? Development and Validation of the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS). Hum. Ecol. 2013, 41, 905–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Hogg, T.L.; Stanley, S.K.; O’Brien, L.V.; Wilson, M.S.; Watsford, C.R. The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Scale. Glob. Environ. Change 2021, 71, 102391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kaiser, H.F. The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Cattell, R.B. The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1966, 1, 245–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Ferguson, E.; Cox, T. Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Users’Guide. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 1993, 1, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-13-813263-7. [Google Scholar]
  135. Terry, D.J.; Hogg, M.A.; White, K.M. The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Self-Identity, Social Identity and Group Norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 38, 225–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Singelis, T.M.; Triandis, H.C.; Bhawuk, D.P.S.; Gelfand, M.J. Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement. Cross-Cult. Res. 1995, 29, 240–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Torelli, C.J.; Shavitt, S. Culture and Concepts of Power. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 99, 703–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Cho, Y.-N.; Thyroff, A.; Rapert, M.I.; Park, S.-Y.; Lee, H.J. To Be or Not to Be Green: Exploring Individualism and Collectivism as Antecedents of Environmental Behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1052–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Cui, G.-Q.; Zeng, J.-Y.; Jin, C.-H. The Impact of Vertical/Horizontal Individualism and Collectivism on Ethical Consumption. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Jung, J.; Cho, S.Y. How Do Individualism and Collectivism Influence Pro-Environmental Purchasing Behavior Based on Environmental Self-Identity? Sustainability 2023, 15, 16075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kurth, C.; Pihkala, P. Eco-Anxiety: What It Is and Why It Matters. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 981814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Budolfson, M.; McPherson, T.; Plunkett, D. Philosophy and Climate Change; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021; ISBN 978-0-19-879628-2. [Google Scholar]
  143. Noguera-Méndez, P.; Molera, L.; Semitiel-García, M. The Role of Social Learning in Fostering Farmers’ pro-Environmental Values and Intentions. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 46, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Murti, R.; Mathez-Stiefel, S. Social Learning Approaches for Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 33, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Sarabi, S.; Gillebaart, M.; De Ridder, D. Turning on the We-Mode: A Systematic Review on Joint Action Principles for Promoting Collective pro-Environmental Engagement. OSF 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Zhang, C.; Wu, X.; Qian, K.; Zhao, S.; Madani, H.; Chen, J.; Chen, Y. Environmental Awareness and Social Sustainability: Insights from an Agent-Based Model with Social Learning and Individual Heterogeneity. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Villa, R.; Scattolin, M.; Ponsi, G. Neurocognitive Mechanisms Underlying Environmental Behavior: The Reciprocal Influence of Reward-Based Decision-Making and the Sense of Agency. Topoi 2025, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Loehr, J.D. The Sense of Agency in Joint Action: An Integrative Review. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2022, 29, 1089–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Hayashida, K.; Nishi, Y.; Osumi, M.; Nobusako, S.; Morioka, S. Goal Sharing with Others Modulates the Sense of Agency and Motor Accuracy in Social Contexts. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Lorenzoni, I.; Leiserowitz, A.; Doria, M.D.F.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N.F. Cross-National Comparisons of Image Associations with “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” Among Laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain1. J. Risk Res. 2006, 9, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Suthirat, K.; Takashi, M. Everyone will die anyway: Managing the cultural bias towards fatalistic thinking about global climate change in the Thai context. Asian J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2013, 2, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
  152. Broska, L.H. It’s All about Community: On the Interplay of Social Capital, Social Needs, and Environmental Concern in Sustainable Community Action. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 79, 102165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Gorddard, R.; Colloff, M.J.; Wise, R.M.; Ware, D.; Dunlop, M. Values, Rules and Knowledge: Adaptation as Change in the Decision Context. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 57, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Guo, T.; Graydon, R.C.; Bejankiwar, R.S. Informing Public Engagement Strategies to Motivate the Public to Protect the Great Lakes: Lessons Learned from the 2018 Great Lakes Basin Binational Poll. Environ. Manag. 2020, 66, 733–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Marcus, B.J.; Omoto, A.M.; Winter, P.L. Environmentalism and Community: Connections and Implications for Social Action. Ecopsychology 2011, 3, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Johnson, K.A.; Dana, G.; Jordan, N.R.; Draeger, K.J.; Kapuscinski, A.; Olabisi, L.K.S.; Reich, P.B. Using Participatory Scenarios to Stimulate Social Learning for Collaborative Sustainable Development. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269034?seq=1 (accessed on 29 June 2025). [CrossRef]
  157. Hügel, S.; Davies, A.R. Public Participation, Engagement, and Climate Change Adaptation: A Review of the Research Literature. WIREs Clim. Change 2020, 11, e645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. How to Use a Monte Carlo Study to Decide on Sample Size and Determine Power. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2002, 9, 599–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Wolf, E.J.; Harrington, K.M.; Clark, S.L.; Miller, M.W. Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2013, 73, 913–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Flora, D.B.; Flake, J.K. The Purpose and Practice of Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research: Decisions for Scale Development and Validation. Can. J. Behav. Sci. Rev. Can. Sci. Comport. 2017, 49, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Hofstede, G. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2011, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. NE-LOC: factorial structure and loading.
Figure 1. NE-LOC: factorial structure and loading.
Sustainability 17 06162 g001
Figure 2. Correlation analysis between the three factors of the E-LOC scale. Notes: *, p < 0.05; ***, p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Correlation analysis between the three factors of the E-LOC scale. Notes: *, p < 0.05; ***, p < 0.001.
Sustainability 17 06162 g002
Table 1. EFA results: factor structure, loadings, and reliability of the E-LOC.
Table 1. EFA results: factor structure, loadings, and reliability of the E-LOC.
Item No.NE-LOC Factor 1:
External
NE-LOC Factor 2:
Community
NE-LOC Factor 3:
Internal
1 (“I believe I can do my part to “contain” my impact on the environment.”) 0.564
2 (“The effects of global warming and the quality of the environment I live in are completely beyond my control.”)0.470
3 (“Everyone knows that our “climate” future is tied to uncontrollable factors.”)0.790
5 (“I am able to “plan” and “predict” my impact on the environment.”) 0.525
9 (“Environmental damage is largely determined by uncontrollable macroscopic factors.”)0.599
10 (“Climate change is a process that cannot be controlled by humans.”)0.633
11 (“To truly mitigate my impact on the environment, I believe I need the help of my community.”) 0.636
13 (“Only together with my community can I take care of the environment.”) 0.592
16 (“I believe that only with a joint effort within my community will we be able to adapt to the effects of climate change.”) 0.447
7 (“It is up to me to reduce and contain my impact on the environment.”) 0.521
Eigenvalues2.541.691.20
Explained total variance25.43%16.90%11.96%
Cumulative total variance54.30%
Table 2. Internal consistency and test reliability results.
Table 2. Internal consistency and test reliability results.
VariableCronbach’s AlphaSpearman–Brown
Coefficient
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient
NE-LOC Factor 1: External0.6880.6690.582
NE-LOC Factor 1: Community0.6190.5850.512
NE-LOC Factor 1: External0.5360.5230.464
Table 3. Descriptive statistics.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics.
VariableMin.MaxMean (sd)Skew.Kurt.
Environmental Locus of Control
External NE-LOC: Factor 13157.06 (2.602)0.488−0.320
Community NE-LOC: Factor 231511.57 (2.203)−0.4960.197
Internal NE-LOC: Factor 331511.05 (1.970)−0.5570.701
Internal validity variables
LOC°42112.23 (3.169)0.0650.210
External validity variables
PEB: Conservation163527.91 (3.598)−0.5670.331
PEB: Environmental citizenship62613.42 (3.908)0.4460.212
PEB: Food31510.19 (4.901)−0.434−1.422
PEB: Transportation31511.48 (2.798)−0.554−0.189
CCAS: Beliefs144540.01 (5.576)−1.6412.366
CCAS: Intention103024.39 (4.379)−0.8580.193
CNS: Total score227050.75 (7.472)−0.0840.064
NEP-R: Total score317555.94 (8.118)−0.139−0.717
RTC: Perception importance42015.37 (2.794)−0.6250.891
RTC: Motivation42014.74 (3.030)−0.5050.622
RTC: Self-efficacy52518.01 (3.373)−0.4260.841
RTC: Solution efficacy42014.29 (2.633)−0.2640.487
RTC: Social support42013.74 (2.776)−0.1880.417
RTC: Engagement42014.49 (2.998)−0.5620.428
RTC: Perceived readiness42014.69 (2.809)−0.3890.462
HEAS−13: Affective symptoms0124.45 (2.752)0.323−0.172
HEAS−13: Rumination092.79 (1.892)0.264−0.277
HEAS-13: Behavioral symptoms092.54 (2.248)0.653−0.240
HEAS-13: Personal impact093.00 (2.113)0.420−0.171
Notes: CCAS, Climate Change Attitude Survey; CNS, Connectedness to Nature Scale; LOC °, External Locus of Control; HEAS-13, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; NEP-R, New Ecological Paradigm-Revised; PEB, Pro-environmental Behavior Scale; RTC, Readiness to Change; sd, standard deviation; Skew., skewness; Kurt., kurtosis.
Table 4. Correlation matrix: NE-LOC dimensions linked with LOC.
Table 4. Correlation matrix: NE-LOC dimensions linked with LOC.
VariableNE-LOC
Factor 1:
External
NE-LOC Factor 2:
Community
NE-LOC
Factor 3:
Internal
LOC°−0.036
(0.089)
0.052
(0.065)
0.013
(0.018)
Notes: LOC°, locus of control [64]; (…), correlation analysis controlled by age and gender.
Table 5. Correlation matrix: E-LOC dimensions linked to pro-environmental attitudes, identity, endorsement, readiness to change, and eco-anxiety.
Table 5. Correlation matrix: E-LOC dimensions linked to pro-environmental attitudes, identity, endorsement, readiness to change, and eco-anxiety.
VariableNE-LOC Factor 1:
External
NE-LOC Factor 2:
Community
NE-LOC Factor 3:
Internal
Pro-environmental attitudes
PEB: Conservation−0.145 **
(−0.147 **)
0.079
(0.040)
0.258 ***
(0.240 ***)
PEB: Environmental citizenship−0.134 **
(−0.143 **)
0.148 ***
(0.141 **)
0.286 ***
(0.285 ***)
PEB: Food−0.206 ***
(−0.203 ***)
0.151 ***
(0.116 *)
0.172 ***
(0.133 **)
PEB: Transportation−0.089 *
(−0.072)
0.175 ***
(0.180 ***)
0.132 **
(0.131 **)
CCAS: Beliefs−0.423 ***
(−0.396 ***)
0.362 ***
(0.346 ***)
0.428 ***
(0.421 ***)
CCAS: Intention−0.598 ***
(−0.567 ***)
0.282 ***
(0.275 ***)
0.403 ***
(0.395 ***)
Pro-environmental identity and endorsement
CNS: Total score−0.206 ***
(−0.209 ***)
0.183 ***
(0.170 ***)
0.367 ***
(0.353 ***)
NEP-R: Total score−0.478 ***
(−0.448 ***)
0.300 ***
(0.268 ***)
0.267 ***
(0.243 ***)
Readiness to change
RTC: Perception importance−0.214 ***
(−0.202 ***)
0.358 ***
(0.337 ***)
0.420 ***
(0.415 ***)
RTC: Motivation−0.155 ***
(−0.142 ***)
0.325 ***
(0.304 ***)
0.407 ***
(0.398 ***)
RTC: Self-efficacy−0.096 **
(−0.114 ***)
0.165 ***
(0.157 ***)
0.416 ***
(0.418 ***)
RTC: Solution efficacy−0.127 ***
(−0.115 ***)
0.238 ***
(0.214 ***)
0.455 ***
(0.456 ***)
RTC: Social support−0.007
(−0.024)
0.185 ***
(0.179 ***)
0.367 ***
(0.372 ***)
RTC: Engagement−0.130 ***
(−0.132 ***)
0.228 ***
(0.206 ***)
0.433 ***
(0.431 ***)
RTC: Perceived readiness−0.211 ***
(−0.196 ***)
0.248 ***
(0.225 ***)
0.397 ***
(0.389 ***)
Eco-anxiety
HEAS-13: Affective symptoms0.036
(0.062)
0.146 **
(0.107 *)
0.135 **
(0.106 *)
HEAS-13: Rumination−0.068
(−0.065)
0.121 **
(0.096 *)
0.233 ***
(0.226 ***)
HEAS-13: Behavioral symptoms0.094 *
(0.114 *)
0.051
(0.021)
0.120 **
(0.098 *)
HEAS-13: Personal impact−0.129 **
(−0.123 **)
0.168 ***
(0.132 **)
0.220 ***
(0.196 ***)
Notes: CCAS, Climate Change Attitude Survey; CNS, Connectedness to Nature Scale; HEAS-13, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; NEP-R, New Ecological Paradigm-Revised; PEB, Pro-environmental Behavior Scale; RTC, Readiness to Change; (…), correlation analysis controlled by age and gender; *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Guazzini, A.; Baroni, M.; Fiorenza, M.; Sprugnoli, S.; Valdrighi, G.; Duradoni, M. Development and Validation of the New Environmental Locus of Control (NE-LOC) Scale: A Novel Measure of Internal, External, and Community Locus of Control for Sustainability. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136162

AMA Style

Guazzini A, Baroni M, Fiorenza M, Sprugnoli S, Valdrighi G, Duradoni M. Development and Validation of the New Environmental Locus of Control (NE-LOC) Scale: A Novel Measure of Internal, External, and Community Locus of Control for Sustainability. Sustainability. 2025; 17(13):6162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136162

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guazzini, Andrea, Marina Baroni, Maria Fiorenza, Sofia Sprugnoli, Giulia Valdrighi, and Mirko Duradoni. 2025. "Development and Validation of the New Environmental Locus of Control (NE-LOC) Scale: A Novel Measure of Internal, External, and Community Locus of Control for Sustainability" Sustainability 17, no. 13: 6162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136162

APA Style

Guazzini, A., Baroni, M., Fiorenza, M., Sprugnoli, S., Valdrighi, G., & Duradoni, M. (2025). Development and Validation of the New Environmental Locus of Control (NE-LOC) Scale: A Novel Measure of Internal, External, and Community Locus of Control for Sustainability. Sustainability, 17(13), 6162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136162

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop