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
Abstract
1. Introduction
Environmental LOC and Pro-Environmental Behaviors
2. Instruments for the Assessment of Environmental Locus of Control
3. Aims of the Study
4. Methods
4.1. Participants
4.2. Development of the New Environmental Locus of Control Scale
4.3. Data Analysis
4.4. Materials
- 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
5.2. Study 2
5.2.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
5.2.2. Internal Consistency and Test Reliability
5.2.3. Validity (Internal and External)
6. Discussion
7. Limitations and Future Perspectives
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- 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]
- 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]
- Drumwright, M.E. Socially Responsible Organizational Buying: Environmental Concern as a Noneconomic Buying Criterion. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Kovaka, K. Climate Change Denial and Beliefs about Science. Synthese 2021, 198, 2355–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Grilli, G.; Curtis, J. Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviours: A Review of Methods and Approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Vezzoli, C. Design for Environmental Sustainability. Life Cycle Design of Products; Springer London: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-1-84800-162-6. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Xu, L. Human Development Associated with Environmental Quality in China. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Bertram, C.; Rehdanz, K. The Role of Urban Green Space for Human Well-Being. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 120, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Shi, J.; Lu, C.; Wei, Z. Effects of Social Capital on Pro-Environmental Behaviors in Chinese Residents. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, Q.; Du, W. Social Capital, Environmental Knowledge, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [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]
- Hungerford, H.R.; Volk, T.L. Changing Learner Behavior Through Environmental Education. J. Environ. Educ. 1990, 21, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Prochaska, J.O.; Velicer, W.F. The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change. Am. J. Health Promot. 1997, 12, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; Prentice-Hall: Oxford, UK, 1977; pp. viii–247. ISBN 978-0-13-816751-6. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Rotter, J.B. Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement. Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl. 1966, 80, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Guagnano, G.A. Locus of Control, Altruism and Agentic Disposition. Popul. Environ. 1995, 17, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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).
- 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]
- Smith-Sebasto, N.J.; Fortner, R.W. The Environmental Action Internal Control Index. J. Environ. Educ. 1994, 25, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colebrook-Claude, C. Adolescent Internal Environmental Locus of Control Scale (AINELOC) Measurement Tool. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2019, 15, 64–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Smith-Sebasto, N. The Revised Perceived Environmental Control Measure: A Review and Analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1992, 23, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2000, 9, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Gignac, G.E.; Szodorai, E.T. Effect Size Guidelines for Individual Differences Researchers. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 102, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Breen, R.L. A Practical Guide to Focus-Group Research. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 2006, 30, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cyr, J. An Integrative Approach to Measurement: Focus Groups as a Survey Pretest. Qual. Quant. 2019, 53, 897–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-07-047849-7. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Ajayi, B.K. A Comparative Analysis of Reliability Methods. J. Educ. Pract. 2017, 8, 160. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Balderjahn, I. Personality Variables and Environmental Attitudes as Predictors of Ecologically Responsible Consumption Patterns. J. Bus. Res. 1988, 17, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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).
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Perkins, H.E. Measuring Love and Care for Nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Rafferty, A.E.; Jimmieson, N.L.; Armenakis, A.A. Change Readiness: A Multilevel Review. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 110–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Pihkala, P. Anxiety and the Ecological Crisis: An Analysis of Eco-Anxiety and Climate Anxiety. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Liere, K.D.V. The “New Environmental Paradigm”. J. Environ. Educ. 1978, 9, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Kaiser, H.F. The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattell, R.B. The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1966, 1, 245–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferguson, E.; Cox, T. Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Users’Guide. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 1993, 1, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Torelli, C.J.; Shavitt, S. Culture and Concepts of Power. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 99, 703–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Kurth, C.; Pihkala, P. Eco-Anxiety: What It Is and Why It Matters. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 981814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budolfson, M.; McPherson, T.; Plunkett, D. Philosophy and Climate Change; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021; ISBN 978-0-19-879628-2. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Loehr, J.D. The Sense of Agency in Joint Action: An Integrative Review. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2022, 29, 1089–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Hofstede, G. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2011, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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 | ||
Eigenvalues | 2.54 | 1.69 | 1.20 |
Explained total variance | 25.43% | 16.90% | 11.96% |
Cumulative total variance | 54.30% |
Variable | Cronbach’s Alpha | Spearman–Brown Coefficient | Guttman Split-Half Coefficient |
---|---|---|---|
NE-LOC Factor 1: External | 0.688 | 0.669 | 0.582 |
NE-LOC Factor 1: Community | 0.619 | 0.585 | 0.512 |
NE-LOC Factor 1: External | 0.536 | 0.523 | 0.464 |
Variable | Min. | Max | Mean (sd) | Skew. | Kurt. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental Locus of Control | |||||
External NE-LOC: Factor 1 | 3 | 15 | 7.06 (2.602) | 0.488 | −0.320 |
Community NE-LOC: Factor 2 | 3 | 15 | 11.57 (2.203) | −0.496 | 0.197 |
Internal NE-LOC: Factor 3 | 3 | 15 | 11.05 (1.970) | −0.557 | 0.701 |
Internal validity variables | |||||
LOC° | 4 | 21 | 12.23 (3.169) | 0.065 | 0.210 |
External validity variables | |||||
PEB: Conservation | 16 | 35 | 27.91 (3.598) | −0.567 | 0.331 |
PEB: Environmental citizenship | 6 | 26 | 13.42 (3.908) | 0.446 | 0.212 |
PEB: Food | 3 | 15 | 10.19 (4.901) | −0.434 | −1.422 |
PEB: Transportation | 3 | 15 | 11.48 (2.798) | −0.554 | −0.189 |
CCAS: Beliefs | 14 | 45 | 40.01 (5.576) | −1.641 | 2.366 |
CCAS: Intention | 10 | 30 | 24.39 (4.379) | −0.858 | 0.193 |
CNS: Total score | 22 | 70 | 50.75 (7.472) | −0.084 | 0.064 |
NEP-R: Total score | 31 | 75 | 55.94 (8.118) | −0.139 | −0.717 |
RTC: Perception importance | 4 | 20 | 15.37 (2.794) | −0.625 | 0.891 |
RTC: Motivation | 4 | 20 | 14.74 (3.030) | −0.505 | 0.622 |
RTC: Self-efficacy | 5 | 25 | 18.01 (3.373) | −0.426 | 0.841 |
RTC: Solution efficacy | 4 | 20 | 14.29 (2.633) | −0.264 | 0.487 |
RTC: Social support | 4 | 20 | 13.74 (2.776) | −0.188 | 0.417 |
RTC: Engagement | 4 | 20 | 14.49 (2.998) | −0.562 | 0.428 |
RTC: Perceived readiness | 4 | 20 | 14.69 (2.809) | −0.389 | 0.462 |
HEAS−13: Affective symptoms | 0 | 12 | 4.45 (2.752) | 0.323 | −0.172 |
HEAS−13: Rumination | 0 | 9 | 2.79 (1.892) | 0.264 | −0.277 |
HEAS-13: Behavioral symptoms | 0 | 9 | 2.54 (2.248) | 0.653 | −0.240 |
HEAS-13: Personal impact | 0 | 9 | 3.00 (2.113) | 0.420 | −0.171 |
Variable | NE-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) |
Variable | NE-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 symptoms | 0.036 (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 symptoms | 0.094 * (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 ***) |
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
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
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 StyleGuazzini, 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 StyleGuazzini, 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