Next Article in Journal
Emissions of Conventional and Electric Vehicles: A Comparative Sustainability Assessment
Previous Article in Journal
Agricultural and Food Product Assessment—Methodological Choices in Sustainability Reporting Using the LCA Method
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 15
10.3390/su17156838
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

From Values to Action: The Roles of Green Self-Identity, Self-Efficacy, and Eco-Anxiety in Predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviours in the Italian Context

by
Raffaele Pasquariello
,
Anna Rosa Donizzetti
*,
Cristina Curcio
,
Miriam Capasso
and
Daniela Caso
Department of Humanities, University of Naples Federico II, 80133 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6838; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156838
Submission received: 3 July 2025 / Revised: 21 July 2025 / Accepted: 23 July 2025 / Published: 28 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Sustainability and Applications)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Human activity is recognised as a major contributor to changes in Earth’s climate, land surface, oceans, ecosystems, and biodiversity. These alterations are largely due to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, mass pollution, and land degradation. In light of these environmental challenges, examining the psychological determinants of pro-environmental behaviour has become increasingly important. Study’s Aim: To provide a comprehensive model evaluating the structural relationships among biospheric values, green self-identity, green self-efficacy, and eco-anxiety to investigate the underlying mechanisms relating to the adoption of various pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs). Methods: An online self-report questionnaire was completed by 510 Italian participants (aged 18–55, M = 35.18, SD = 12.58) between November and December 2023. Data analysis was performed using R statistical software, employing Structural Equation Modelling. Results: The results indicate that eco-anxiety, green self-efficacy, and green self-identity are significant positive predictors of PEBs. Furthermore, green self-identity significantly influences eco-anxiety and green self-efficacy, while biospheric values are a major trigger for both green self-efficacy and green self-identity, but not for eco-anxiety. Conclusions: These findings suggest that while eco-anxiety can be an adaptive motivator for PEBs, biospheric values foster a green self-identity and self-efficacy, which in turn drive pro-environmental actions. The study concludes that encouraging biospheric values and strong green self-identity is crucial for promoting sustainable behaviours.

1. Introduction

Human activity has significantly altered Earth’s climate, land surface, oceans, ecosystems, and biodiversity [1]. Greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, mass pollution, and land degradation are only some of the negative consequences of these activities. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human activities have caused the warming of the climate system [2]. The primary driver is the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, unsustainable land use, consumption and production patterns [2]. For example, since the mid-20th century, it is suggested that human activity has driven more frequent and intense heatwaves, while heavy precipitation has also become more frequent and intense over many land areas, attributable to human influence [3], which has also contributed to increased agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions. Moreover, it is likely that major tropical cyclones have become proportionally more common globally in recent decades, and the chance of compound extreme events, like concurrent heatwaves and droughts, has probably increased due to human influence since the 1950s [2].
Within environmental psychology, a significant area of investigation explores psychosocial antecedents of pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) [4,5]. PEBs are broadly defined as actions consciously undertaken by individuals with the clear intention of minimising their negative impact on the natural and built environment, or to benefit the environment. Research has shown that PEBs are not unidimensional constructs but rather present different types and dimensions [6]. These behaviours can range from recycling and reducing energy consumption to supporting environmental policies and activism [7]. Such actions can be carried out both in the private sphere, such as recycling, purchasing eco-friendly products, saving water and energy, and in the public sphere, such as encouraging others to care for the environment, belonging to environmental groups, signing petitions, voting for green parties, or participating in demonstrations [8,9]. Other specific examples of PEBs could include green travel, e-waste recycling, reducing food waste, recycling, purchasing green products, and volunteering for environmental projects [6,10]. Moreover, in the study of pro-environmental behaviour, various specific types have been identified, for example, “activist” behaviour (public actions to influence larger populations), and “avoider” behaviour (boycotting environmentally harmful products) [11]. Understanding what drives people to engage with PEBs and the main barriers to their adoption is crucial for promoting behavioural change and improving environmental protection and sustainable development.
Contextually, research has identified several key psychosocial factors influencing PEBs. Increasingly, researchers are attending to the role of emotional responses, such as eco-anxiety, understanding that distress and concern about environmental degradation may profoundly impact how individuals relate to and act upon environmental issues [12]. Beyond emotional responses, green self-efficacy, or the belief in one’s capability to successfully perform pro-environmental actions, is recognised as critical for translating intentions into actual behaviour [13]. Following this, individuals’ green self-identity, the degree to which being pro-environmentalism is integrated into one’s self-concept, has emerged as a powerful predictor of consistent environmental engagement [14]. Underlying these factors are fundamental biospheric values, which refer to the extent to which individuals prioritise the welfare of nature and the environment [14]. These values are considered foundational, shaping broader environmental attitudes and intentions [15].
While previous studies have independently examined the roles of eco-anxiety [16], green self-efficacy [17], green self-identity [6], or the role of biospheric values [18] in predicting pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs), this study is among the first to integrate these psychosocial dimensions into a single, comprehensive structural model. The innovative contribution lies in unpacking the sequential relationships among these variables—particularly, how biospheric values influence cognitive (green self-efficacy, green self-identity) and emotional (eco-anxiety) mechanisms, which in turn shape behavioural outcomes. Unlike prior research that focused on eco-anxiety in isolation or as a simple predictor, we position it within a dynamic network of identity, values, and self-efficacy. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the first to empirically test these interrelationships in an Italian context.
Therefore, this study aims to investigate a comprehensive model that evaluates the structural relationships among eco-anxiety, green self-efficacy, green self-identity, biospheric values, and pro-environmental behaviours.

2. Theoretical Background

A wide array of theoretical frameworks has strongly shaped the study of pro-environmental behaviours. Among those, two influential frameworks have been the Value–Belief–Norm (VBN) theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Both models have provided essential insights into the psychological mechanisms underpinning sustainable action. The VBN theory posits a value-driven, norm-activation pathway in which biospheric values influence environmental beliefs, awareness of consequences, and personal moral obligations, ultimately guiding behaviour through the activation of personal norms. Meanwhile, the TPB explains behaviour through more rational, planned processes, specifically, the influence of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control (PBC) on behavioural intention and action.
While these classical models have been instrumental in understanding PEBs, growing evidence suggests that identity-based and emotional processes also play a critical role in motivating environmental action. To this, we incorporate biospheric values as a foundational element in line with VBN, yet rather than progressing through norms, our model focuses on motivational (green self-identity, green self-efficacy) and emotional (eco-anxiety) factors that better reflect contemporary understandings of environmental engagement.
Similarly, while TPB includes perceived behavioural control as a determinant of intention, our model diverges by treating green self-efficacy not as a general control belief but as a domain-specific sense of agency shaped by values and self-identity. Furthermore, by introducing eco-anxiety into the model, we acknowledge that emotions, particularly concern and distress about climate change, can motivate or even inhibit behavioural engagement, a dimension largely absent from TPB.

2.1. The Nuanced Role of Eco-Anxiety

In recent times, a growing body of research has begun to examine the impact of climate change on people’s mental health and the anxiety-related outcomes stemming from awareness of these problems, even in the absence of direct personal experience [12,19]. Eco-anxiety, a term often used interchangeably with climate anxiety by some scholars, is a multidimensional construct [12]. It consists of persistent feelings of worry regarding environmental degradation and the impacts of climate change on our planet as a whole [20], such as affective (e.g., nervousness), ruminative (e.g., inability to stop thinking about climate change), and behavioural/social components (e.g., difficulties in social situations due to environmental concerns) [20]. The literature suggests a multifaceted role for eco-anxiety. Eco-anxiety can compromise individuals’ well-being [21] and their commitment to approaching climate-friendly behaviours. For instance, while habitual worry about global warming has been positively associated with PEBs, higher levels of eco-anxiety have sometimes predicted lower levels of PEBs and well-being. This phenomenon, where overwhelming anxiety hinders engagement, is sometimes termed “eco-paralysis” [22], meaning that excessive eco-anxiety can be dysfunctional and obstruct climate-friendly behaviours.
On the other hand, if eco-anxiety translates into PEBs and climate-positive actions, it can be considered adaptive. Indeed, several studies have found a positive correlation between eco-anxiety and engagement in PEBs [23]. For example, Shao and Yu [16] investigated the relationship between media coverage of climate change, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behaviour, as well as the role of resilience, and found that a more moderate, adaptive level of eco-anxiety resulting from long-term attention to climate news may promote behavioural engagement. This connection could be understood through the lens of coping strategies. On the matter, Ágoston and colleagues [24], for example, while investigating various eco-coping mechanisms used by individuals, found out that most of the participants successfully mobilised various coping strategies to alleviate anxiety, and some of these strategies proved to be adaptive, including from an ecological perspective, in addition to alleviating the symptoms of eco-anxiety.
Given the literature investigated, we hypothesise the following:
H1. 
Eco-anxiety positively predicts pro-environmental behaviours.

2.2. Green Self-Efficacy

According to Bandura [25], self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in their own capability to complete a task, meaning that shifts in self-efficacy levels, when combined with adequate motivation and skills, can forecast enduring changes in behaviour. Individuals differ in the areas where they develop their sense of efficacy and the degree to which they cultivate it in those particular areas. Therefore, the system of efficacy beliefs is not a universal characteristic but rather a collection of distinct self-beliefs linked to particular areas of activity [26]. Contextually, green self-efficacy (GSE) refers to an individual’s confidence in their ability to successfully perform specific pro-environmental actions, overcome barriers, and contribute to environmental conservation efforts [27].
Many studies have established a positive relationship between GSE and pro-environmental behaviours [17,28,29,30]. For example, Huang [31], while investigating the impact of media consumption related to global warming on individuals’ engagement in pro-environmental behaviour, found out that environmental self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of three types of pro-environmental behaviour: Accommodating Environmental Behaviour, for example, discussing global warming or climate change with others; Promotional Environmental Behaviour, aimed at persuading others to change behaviour to mitigate global warming; and Proactive Environmental Behaviour, meaning all those environmental activities that individuals may engage in within the private sphere. Similarly, Kim and Lee [32] found out that self-efficacy was a significant predictor not only for green idea-generation behaviour (e.g., trying to learn more about the environment at work, finding ways of working that are better for the environment, and offering ideas to reduce their company’s impact on the environment) but also for green idea-promotion behaviour (e.g., applying new ideas to reduce environmental impact, helping create green processes and products, and performing environmental tasks not required by a company).
Hence, we formulated the following hypothesis:
H2. 
Green self-efficacy positively influences pro-environmental behaviours.

2.3. Green Self-Identity, Eco-Anxiety, Green Self-Efficacy and Pro-Environmental Behaviour

Drawing from Identity Theory [33], self-identity is a stable feature by which individuals define themselves in relation to a specific behaviour [34]. The strength of this connection is determined by how salient the role identity is, with a more prominent identity better predicting behavioural intention [35]. Specifically, green self-identity, referring to how individuals see themselves as environmentally friendly [36], is a stable construct predicting intentions and pro-environmental behaviours [37]. Those with a green identity often demonstrate this through actions, such as recycling [38] or purchasing eco-products [39]. Green self-identity has also been identified as a predictor of purchase intention for environmentally sustainable products and a driver of environmentally friendly behaviours more broadly [40]. Similarly, Hansmann and Binder [41] have shown that green self-identity was the strongest predictor of pro-environmental behaviours when taking into account both public and private sphere contexts (e.g., as consumers and as environmental activists, respectively). Furthermore, as noted by Capasso and colleagues [42], pro-environmental self-identity not only directly increased the intention to eat less meat but also indirectly influenced this intention by positively shaping attitudes towards this specific sustainable action.
Drawing from the reviewed literature, we propose the following:
H3a. 
Green self-identity positively influences pro-environmental behaviours.
Moreover, several studies position environmental identity as a significant predictor of eco-anxiety. For example, Pinho [43] showed how environmental identity and climate change perceptions positively predicted higher levels of climate change anxiety, while in a study by Smith and colleagues [44], pro-environmental self-identity was also found to positively influence all measured aspects of eco-distress, including climate change worry, climate change anxiety, both from a cognitive–emotional impairment and functional perspective, and solastalgia. This predictive relationship implies a directional influence, where a more strongly developed identification with environmentalism or the natural world renders an individual more susceptible to experiencing eco-anxiety, suggesting that individuals who integrate environmental concerns more deeply into their self-concept are more likely to experience affective distress related to these issues. Given the literature on the matter, we hypothesise the following:
H3b. 
Green self-identity is positively associated with the level of eco-anxiety.
Finally, direct conceptual links between green self-identity and green self-efficacy have been found evident in studies indicating that individuals who self-identify as ‘green’ tend to report an enhanced sense of control over their environmental behaviours, a perception closely aligned with self-efficacy or perceived behavioural control (PBC) [45,46]. This is in line with the Identity-Based Motivation [47], suggesting that a salient GSI can motivate individuals to actively seek experiences and develop skills that build GSE. Similarly, the Self-Completion Theory [48] suggests that if an individual tends towards a specific self-identity but perceives it as incomplete (e.g., due to a lack of demonstrated environmental competence or insufficient past green behaviours), they may be motivated to engage in challenging environmental tasks. Successfully navigating these challenges would build GSE. In this scenario, the GSI (as a motivational force stemming from perceived incompleteness) drives engagement in activities that, in turn, foster GSE.
Given the theoretical contribution found above, we hypothesise the following:
H3c. 
Green self-identity is positively associated with the level of self-efficacy.

2.4. Biospheric Values

Values are defined by Schwartz’s Value Theory [49] as desirable trans-situational goals varying in importance, which serve as a guiding principle in the life of a person or other social entity. Values are relatively stable cognitive structures that transcend specific situations and influence a broad spectrum of beliefs and behaviours. Within Schwartz’s model, biospheric values align closely with the higher-order value type of “universalism,” and in particular, everything concerning nature and the environment. Biospheric values are formally defined as a value orientation wherein individuals “evaluate phenomena based on the costs or benefits to ecosystems or the biosphere”. This orientation reflects an “inherent concern for the environment and the earth’s biological system”, emphasising the intrinsic worth of nature and the importance of ecosystems and biodiversity for their own sake, not merely for their utility to humans [50]. Moreover, biospheric values are a fundamental starting point in the Value–Belief–Norm model by Stern, Dietz, and colleagues for explaining environmentally significant behaviour [51].
Contextually, high levels of worry about climate change often stem from the perception that it threatens what one cares about [52]. For some, this concern focuses on distant issues like people in other countries, nature, and future generations rather than primarily personal threats and often includes moral or ethical considerations [53]. This broader concern is frequently found in individuals who strongly prioritise universal values (such as global justice and equality) and the well-being of nature and animals [54]. For example, Helm and colleagues [55] compared different forms of environmental concern regarding their impact on perceived stress and coping, hypothesising and confirming that biospheric concern would have the strongest impact. This idea is also supported by the abovementioned Value–Belief–Norm theory, since the more strongly people endorse biospheric values the more they are aware of the negative environmental consequences of their behaviour, and the more they feel they can help reduce these problems by acting in a pro-environmental way, as also argued by Steg [56]. Based on the established relation between biospheric values and eco-anxiety, we hypothesise the following:
H4a. 
Biospheric values are positively associated with the level of eco-anxiety.
Furthermore, in the space of environmental psychology, it is well-established that biospheric values are typically conceptualised as foundational to the development of a green self-identity (GSI) [57,58]. For example, in the Value–Identity–Personal norm (VIP) model [36] it is explicitly posited that green self-identity is influenced by biospheric values, meaning that individuals who deeply care about nature (strong biospheric values) are more likely to see themselves as environmentally friendly and to internalise this “green” label as part of their self-concept, being also confirmed in a study by Wang and colleagues [18] in which personal biospheric values relate to pro-environmental actions via environmental self-identity in a cross-cultural study. Therefore, we hypothesise the following:
H4b. 
Biospheric values are positively associated with the level of green self-identity.
Moreover, research indicates a positive association between biospheric values and green self-efficacy (GSE), where individuals with stronger concerns for the environment also tend to have greater confidence in their ability to undertake pro-environmental actions. More specifically, individuals with a stronger commitment to nature and the environment are likely more willing to accept the burdens associated with eco-friendly actions, which in turn can make them see these actions as more achievable [59,60].
Furthermore, biospheric values were positively related to this sense of personal capability when investigating predictors of climate change actions [61]. This implies that a deep concern for the environment can strengthen a person’s conviction that they can personally contribute to green solutions, which in turn fortifies their resolve to act. Finally, given the abovementioned referenced literature, this relationship has been hypothesised as follows:
H4c. 
Biospheric values are positively associated with the levels of green self-efficacy.

2.5. The Present Study

The present study aims to address existing gaps in environmental psychology research by investigating the complex structural relationships between biospheric values, green self-identity, green self-efficacy, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) adoption. Prior research has explored some individual links between these variables [31,41,55], but a comprehensive understanding of their sequential influence on PEBs is still needed. Specifically, this study will explore the specific role of eco-anxiety within this network, examining its relationship with deeply held values, environmental identity and green self-efficacy. By exploring these interconnected pathways through a comprehensive model, this study seeks to provide a more holistic understanding of the psychosocial factors that underpin pro-environmental engagement.
The hypothesised model, including all proposed relationships, is illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection and Survey

Using a medium-sized effect (δ = 0.30, which indicates the smallest correlation between latent variables that the researcher aims to detect based on sample and model [62]), alpha = 0.05, power = 0.80, and taking into account the number of observed (48) and latent (5) variables, an a priori power analysis for Structural Equation Models was conducted using Soper’s calculator for SEM models [63]. The analysis indicated that a minimum sample size of 150 would have been appropriate to achieve the specified effect.
Between November and December 2023, 609 participants gave their informed consent to participate and anonymously completed the online self-report questionnaire (Supplementary Materials) created with Google Forms, via informal channels (e.g., Facebook groups). To be eligible for participation, participants needed (1) to be of legal age (age > 18), (2) to be residents of Italy. The questionnaire was designed to assess all the psychological variables of interest, with the items presented in a set order. The first section gathered data on pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs). This was followed by sections assessing psychosocial factors in the following sequence: green self-identity, green self-efficacy, eco-anxiety, and then biospheric values. The final section collected demographic information from the participants. All items throughout the questionnaire were mandatory, which ensured that there were no missing values in the data collected. Those who failed attention checks that were included in our questionnaire were excluded from our final analysis.

3.2. Sample Characteristics

Our final sample consisted of 510 Italian participants aged between 18 and 55 (M = 35.18; SD = 12.58). The participant pool showed a slight majority of individuals identifying as women, at 53.9%. In terms of marital status, 54.1% reported being in a relationship. Regarding occupation, 37.5% of participants were employed workers, 14.5% were self-employed, and 34.3% were students. When asked about their socioeconomic status, 67.1% described their economic resources as adequate, while 21.6% reported them as low. In terms of educational attainment, 45.3% held a high school diploma, and 42.4% had a university degree. Political orientation was varied, with 38.2% identifying as left-wing, 38% as apolitical, and 10.2% as right-wing. Religiosity data indicated that 50.8% identified as non-practising Catholics, 15.9% as practising Catholics, 15.5% as agnostic, and 15.3% as atheist. Most participants (85.1%) resided in the Campania region.

3.3. Measures

Pro-environmental behaviours were assessed using the “Integrated Pro-Environmental Behaviours Scale” (I-PEBS), which consists of 18 items. Responses to the items were collected on a 5-point Likert scale from “Never” to “Always” (e.g., “Recycling special waste (e.g., batteries, waste oil, and medications)” [64]). The I-PEBS scale, a novel tool for assessing PEBS adoption validated in the Italian context, was employed in this study to provide a more comprehensive measure of a range of these behaviours. Although the pro-environmental behaviour scale (PEBS) by Markle [65] was recognised as relatively comprehensive, the I-PEBS scale integrates some key pro-environmental behaviours that are well-established in the literature, such as those concerning waste reduction (e.g., preferring reusable products to disposable ones, using shopping bags, and eating leftover food), recycling, and preferring local and seasonal vegetable products. Furthermore, the I-PEBS aimed to incorporate behaviours addressing more recent environmental concerns, like the use of clothing from the fast fashion industry and the recycling of hazardous waste. Moreover, the PEBS presented a mix of “yes/no” response alternatives, 5-point Likert scales, 3-point Likert scales with specific alternatives (like “Hot,” “Warm,” “Cold”), and even specific numerical ranges for items like car fuel consumption. This use of different response alternatives made PEBS difficult to use. The I-PEBS addressed this by standardising it to a uniform Likert scale response format, which was anticipated to make the instrument easier to use and improve its reliability, alongside the addition of the aforementioned behavioural items.
Green self-identity was evaluated with three items on a 5-point Likert scale from “Completely disagree” to “Completely agree” (e.g., “I think of myself as a green consumer”; [66]).
Environmental self-efficacy was recorded on a scale that comprised 10 items (e.g., “I can help mitigate environmental problems in my community if they arise”; [67]) measured on a 10-point Likert scale from “Not at all” to “Completely”.
Eco-anxiety was measured with 13 items (e.g., “Feeling anxious about the impact of your personal behaviours on the earth”; [68]) measured on a 4-point scale from “Not at all” to “Nearly every day”.
Biospheric values were registered with four items, and participants were asked how important those values were for them (e.g., “Protecting the environment”; [69]) on a scale from 1 to 5 (“Completely disagree” to “Completely agree”).
Regarding socio-demographic information, participants were asked to provide their age, gender, marital status, occupation, socioeconomic status, study title, political orientation, religious affiliation, and geographic area of residence.

3.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using R software (Via RStudio version 2024.04.1 + 748). For each variable assessed, descriptive statistics were calculated. Pearson’s correlations were calculated to measure the strength of the association among the pairs of variables. The parcelling technique was employed to achieve a better ratio between the number of cases and the parameters being estimated, as well as to lessen measurement error. This method aggregates two or more items used to measure each construct [70]. For pro-environmental behaviours, the 18 items were grouped into six parcels, each corresponding to one of the six underlying factor dimensions. For eco-anxiety, the 13 items were combined into four parcels as follows: Parcel 1 included items 1–3, Parcel 2 included items 4–6, Parcel 3 included items 7–9, and Parcel 4 grouped items 10–13. For green self-efficacy, the 10 items were grouped into three parcels: Parcel 1 included items 1–3, Parcel 2 included items 4–6, and Parcel 3 included items 7–10. The biospheric values construct, assessed with four items, was grouped into two parcels, each comprising two items (items 1–2 and 3–4, respectively). Finally, for green self-identity, no parcelling was applied due to the limited number of items (3). For each scale, internal consistency was verified by computing Cronbach’s alpha, and scoring was assessed considering the average of single items’ scores. Moreover, the lavaan package [71] was used to test the hypothesised model (H1–4) with a full structural equation model (SEM; [72]) based on maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and a Satorra–Bentler scaled test statistic.
The impact of demographics and non-psychological variables on pro-environmental behaviours has also been explored, more specifically, age, identifying as a woman, being in a relationship, work occupation, having adequate economic resources, having a university degree or higher, being apolitical, being Catholic, and being from the Campania region. Variables that showed a significant impact on our outcome variable (pro-environmental behaviours) have been included as controlling factors in the main analysis: age (t(500) = 4.37, p < 0.001), identifying as a woman (t(500) = 4.23, p < 0.001), being Catholic (t(500) = −4.15, p < 0.001), being from the Campania region (t(500) = −2.33, p = 0.020), and having a university degree or higher (t(500) = 3.61, p < 0.001). To evaluate to what extent the data observed supported the hypothesised model, several fit indices were considered: Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Adequate fit is defined by CFI and TLI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.06, and SRMR ≤ 0.08 [73].
Finally, to assess for common method bias (CMB), Harman’s single-factor test was performed in SPSS 29. The analysis incorporated all individual items from the study’s core constructs, utilising Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for extraction. Following Harman’s test protocol [74], components were extracted using the standard eigenvalue greater than 1 criterion and the solution was not rotated. Subsequently, the variance accounted for by the first unrotated component was examined.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive analyses and Pearson’s correlations among variables are displayed in Table 1. Participants showed quite high levels of green self-identity and biospheric values, and, among considered variables, eco-anxiety showed lower levels than the mean value of the scale. In the correlation analysis, all variables were found to be significantly and positively correlated with one another.

4.2. Structural Model

Reliability was assessed through Cronbach’s α, whose values were all greater than 0.7 (Table 1). Analysis of the collinearity statistics showed that each variable had tolerance values greater than 0.20 and VIF coefficients less than 5.0, indicating the absence of several multicollinearity issues [75]. To assess the potential presence of common method bias (CMB), we conducted Harman’s single-factor test by performing an unrotated Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on all items used in the study. The analysis yielded seven components with eigenvalues greater than 1, indicating the presence of multiple underlying factors. Importantly, the first unrotated component accounted for only 24.24% of the total variance—well below the commonly used 50% threshold for concern—suggesting that CMB is unlikely to be a significant issue in our data [74]. Concerning the proposed hypothesis, a full SEM analysis was performed to validate the extended model framework.
Analysis showed that the model suited the data sufficiently well, as all considered indexes pointed to an acceptable fit of the global model (CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.08). Concerning our control variables, identifying as a woman, being Catholic, and age were significant predictors of pro-environmental behaviours (respectively, β = 0.19, p < 0.001; β = −0.14, p < 0.01; β = 0.22, p < 0.001). Regarding structural relationships, not all the hypotheses have been confirmed. As for the first hypothesis, eco-anxiety has been confirmed as a significant predictor of pro-environmental behaviours. Moreover, green self-efficacy has been found to have a significant impact on pro-environmental behaviours. Furthermore, green self-identity has been found to be a significant predictor not only of our pro-environmental behaviours, but also of eco-anxiety and green self-efficacy. As for our most distal variable, biospheric values have been proven to be a major trigger for both green self-efficacy and green self-identity, but, differently from our initial hypothesis, not for eco-anxiety.
Finally, the variables included in the proposed model accounted for a more than satisfactory proportion of the variance in the outcome, specifically, pro-environmental behaviours evaluated (R2 = 76%). The results of the hypothesised relationships tested via Structural Equation Modelling are detailed in Table 2.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate a comprehensive model evaluating the structural relationships among biospheric values, green self-identity, green self-efficacy, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) in an Italian sample. The findings provide significant insights into the complex interactions of these psychosocial factors in predicting engagement in sustainable behaviours. First and foremost, our results underline the direct and positive influence of eco-anxiety on pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) (H1). This outcome strays away from the inverted U-shaped relationship proposed by Wullenkord [76], which suggests that only moderate levels of eco-anxiety elicit PEBs. Instead, our findings align more closely with the literature indicating that eco-anxiety, when not overwhelming, can be an adaptive response that motivates individuals to engage in PEBs as a coping mechanism [77]. Our results tap into the idea that this adaptive function extends to lower intensities of eco-anxiety. At these levels, coping strategies appear less focused on managing intense distress and more on actively addressing a recognised problem [78]. This interpretation would also be consistent with the concept of problem-focused coping [79], where PEBs, such as reducing one’s carbon footprint, recycling, or conserving water, do represent a direct effort to act on the source of stress by attempting to manage or alter the environmental problem causing the concern. Thus, our results suggest that even a low level of eco-anxiety can be sufficient to trigger this rational, problem-solving approach, leading to engagement in PEBs. In line with the literature, a direct link between self-efficacy and pro-environmental behaviour [75,76] (H2), and green self-identity and pro-environmental behaviour has emerged [42,80] (H3a). On the one side, our results showed that green self-efficacy emerged as a strong positive predictor of PEBs, reinforcing the well-established principle that an individual’s belief in their capability to perform specific actions is crucial for behavioural engagement [41]. However, recent evidence suggests that self-efficacy alone may not always guarantee pro-environmental action. For instance, Kosic and colleagues [8] found that while trait self-efficacy did not directly predict public-sphere pro-environmental behaviours, the social anxiety component significantly hindered individuals’ willingness to engage in them. This highlights that dispositional factors, like anxiety, in social settings may deter the effect of efficacy beliefs from translating into actual behaviour. On the other hand, green self-identity has been shown to be the strongest predictor of pro-environmental behaviours. This finding aligns with Identity Theory [33], which posits that individuals are motivated to act in accordance with their self-concept. When people perceive themselves as ‘green’ individuals, they are more likely to engage in behaviours that affirm their identity, such as recycling, conserving energy, or choosing sustainable products. This finding aligns with previous studies [81,82] that also emphasise identity as a core predictor of sustainable behaviour. Our results also indicate that green self-identity had a significant impact on eco-anxiety (H3b), meaning that individuals who strongly identify as environmentally conscious may also be more emotionally affected by eco-emotions related to environmental degradation. This relationship may reflect a heightened sense of moral obligation or vulnerability due to environmental concerns [78].
Moreover, the significant relationship between green self-identity and green self-efficacy (H3c) indicates that individuals who perceive themselves as ‘green’ are somewhat more likely to believe in their ability to act in environmentally responsible ways. This finding aligns with Bandura’s [25] theory of self-efficacy, suggesting that identity can influence efficacy through internalised beliefs about competence, supporting the view that fostering a green identity may help build personal agency in environmental contexts. Similar evidence was found by Chen & Hsieh [83], who examined environmental opinion leaders and observed that a strong environmental self-identity fostered higher environmental self-efficacy, particularly through mastery experiences and positive reinforcement in social settings. Their findings reinforce the idea that identity serves not only as a motivational driver but also as a cognitive resource that strengthens individuals’ belief in their capacity to act. Taken together, these insights suggest that green self-identity may serve as a foundational mechanism that enables individuals to translate concern into confident and sustained environmental engagement. Furthermore, our findings indicate that the foundation of environmentally conscious behaviours can be traced to biospheric values, which act as the initial driver for nearly all other relationships in the model, supporting not only the perception of one’s ability to engage in environmentally responsible actions, but also the development of an environmental identity. The stronger an individual’s environmental values, the more likely they are to consistently behave in environmentally responsible ways across different contexts [84]. More specifically, biospheric values, which emphasise concern for the environment and the intrinsic worth of nature, are foundational in shaping an individual’s environmental self-concept (H4b). Individuals who strongly endorse biospheric values are more likely to perceive environmental issues as personally relevant and central to who they are, thus fostering a green self-identity, as underlined by the Value–Identity–Personal Norm model [36], stating that green self-identity is influenced by biospheric values themselves. On the other side, people who highly prioritise biospheric values are more likely to view the costs and barriers associated with PEBS as more manageable (H4c) [85]. This stronger commitment to environmental well-being may increase their perceived capability and confidence in performing such actions. At last, unlike our initial hypothesis, biospheric values are found to not be as significant predictors of eco-anxiety (H4a). This finding stands in contrast to previous research suggesting that individuals who place high intrinsic value on the environment are more likely to experience distress when perceiving environmental threats [51,52]. While biospheric values may imply a deeper concern for the environment, this concern can be channelled through more adaptive pathways, such as identity development and perceived efficacy, rather than manifesting directly as affective anxiety. A possible interpretation of this result could reiterate back to a matter of coping strategy [79]. Those who deeply internalise biospheric values are highly motivated to address environmental threats. However, this inherent concern does not necessarily translate into debilitating anxiety. Instead, it can foster the development of adaptive coping strategies, preventing it from escalating into chronic, unconstructive eco-anxiety. Instead, it would fuel constructive engagement and reinforce a positive, action-oriented self-perception, as shown by our outcomes. However, on the other hand, another possible interpretation of this non-significant relation is that biospheric values alone may not lead to eco-anxiety unless they are paired with a low sense of control. Supporting this idea, Hogg [12] and Stanley [22] found that eco-anxiety is more strongly linked to low perceived efficacy and uncertainty, rather than to environmental values directly. That is, eco-anxiety tends to emerge when individuals feel responsible for environmental problems but simultaneously doubt their ability to make a meaningful impact. In our model, biospheric values significantly predicted both green self-identity and green self-efficacy, two factors associated with a pro-environmental constructive engagement. These may act as protective factors, helping individuals channel concern into meaningful action and reducing emotional distress [24]. While offering valuable insights into the relationships among psychosocial factors that influence pro-environmental behaviours, this study is subject to some limitations. First and foremost, the reliance on self-report questionnaires for all psychological variables introduces potential biases, such as social desirability or recall bias, which could influence the accuracy of the data collected, while the generalizability of these findings may be limited by the specific characteristics of the sample, which consisted of Italian participants, predominantly from the Campania region. Italy presents a unique sociocultural environment characterised by strong regional identities, Catholic ethical frameworks, and a growing environmental consciousness, particularly among younger generations [86]. For example, eco-anxiety is a widely recognised phenomenon in Italy, particularly among youth, reflecting increasing public awareness of climate change [87]. However, emotional and behavioural responses to environmental threats may vary across cultures due to differences in value orientations and environmental concern [88]. Replicating this research across more diverse cultural, geographical, and demographic groups would strengthen external validity.

6. Conclusions

To conclude, this study’s findings offer valuable insights for designing effective strategies to promote pro-environmental behaviours. First, the central role of biospheric values and green self-identity suggests that educational and communication interventions should not solely focus on knowledge transmission, aiming instead to foster a deeper identification with environmental values. Additionally, the significant contribution of green self-efficacy highlights the importance of enhancing individuals’ confidence in their ability to act sustainably, for instance, through experiential learning, or feedback that reinforces competence. The observed link between eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviour also carries meaningful implications on how to communicate the climate crisis humanity is going through: while moderate levels of eco-anxiety may activate constructive responses, excessively fear-based messaging could lead to emotional paralysis. Thus, it is essential that environmental messages are accompanied by actionable solutions and framed in ways that promote hope, agency, and engagement. Future research could benefit from longitudinal designs to explore how these relationships evolve over time or from cross-cultural comparisons to investigate potential sociocultural differences in environmental motivations. Furthermore, future studies might examine the role of eco-anxious coping mechanisms, assessing how they affect both the effectiveness of pro-environmental actions and individuals’ psychological well-being.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17156838/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.C., A.R.D., R.P., M.C. and C.C.; methodology, R.P., M.C., A.R.D. and D.C.; software, R.P. and M.C.; validation, R.P. and M.C.; formal analysis, R.P. and M.C.; investigation, R.P., M.C. and C.C.; data curation, R.P., M.C. and C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, R.P. and M.C.; writing—review and editing, D.C., A.R.D., R.P., M.C. and C.C.; visualization, R.P. and M.C.; supervision, A.R.D. and D.C.; project administration, D.C. and A.R.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is funded under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.3—Call for tender No. 341 of 15 March 2022 of Italian Ministry of University and Research funded by the European Union—NextGenerationEU; Project code PE00000003, Concession Decree No. 1550 of 11 October 2022 adopted by the Italian Ministry of University and Research, Project title “ON Foods—Research and innovation network on food and nutrition Sustainability, Safety and Security—Working ON Foods.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Naples Federico II (prot.39/2023 of 31 January 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Due to privacy restrictions, the data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Edo, G.I.; Itoje-akpokiniovo, L.O.; Obasohan, P.; Ikpekoro, V.O.; Samuel, P.O.; Jikah, A.N.; Nosu, L.C.; Ekokotu, H.A.; Ugbune, U.; Oghroro, E.E.A.; et al. Impact of Environmental Pollution from Human Activities on Water, Air Quality and Climate Change. Ecol. Front. 2024, 44, 874–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 °C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C Above Pre-Industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; ISBN 978-1-009-15794-0. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kirchmeier-Young, M.C.; Zhang, X. Human Influence Has Intensified Extreme Precipitation in North America. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 13308–13313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lombardi, A.; Califano, G.; Caracciolo, F.; Del Giudice, T.; Cembalo, L. Eco-Packaging in Organic Foods: Rational Decisions or Emotional Influences? Org. Agric. 2024, 14, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Canova, L.; Capasso, M.; Bianchi, M.; Caso, D. From Motivation to Mediterranean Diet Intention and Behavior: A Combined Self-Determination Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior Approach. Psychol. Health 2025, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Carfora, V.; Caso, D.; Sparks, P.; Conner, M. Moderating effects of pro-environmental self-identity on pro-environmental intentions and behaviour: A multi-behaviour study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 53, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lange, F.; Berger, S.; Byrka, K.; Brügger, A.; Henn, L.; Sparks, A.C.; Nielsen, K.S.; Urban, J. Beyond Self-Reports: A Call for More Behavior in Environmental Psychology. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 86, 101965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kosic, A.; Passafaro, P.; Molinari, M. Predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviours in the Public Sphere: Comparing the Influence of Social Anxiety, Self-Efficacy, Global Warming Awareness and the NEP. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jalaludin, J. Pro-Environmental Behavior among University Students: Integrating Norm Activation and Planned Behavior Models. Ecocycles 2025, 11, 94–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jurišević, N.; Stojadinović, M.; Končalović, D.; Josijević, M.; Gordić, D. Students’ Perceptions of Air Quality: An Opportunity for More Sustainable Urban Transport in the Medium-Sized University City in the Balkans. Tehnika 2023, 78, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ghazali, E.M.; Nguyen, B.; Mutum, D.S.; Yap, S.-F. Pro-Environmental Behaviours and Value-Belief-Norm Theory: Assessing Unobserved Heterogeneity of Two Ethnic Groups. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hogg, T.L.; Stanley, S.K.; O’Brien, L.V.; Watsford, C.R.; Walker, I. Clarifying the Nature of the Association between Eco-Anxiety, Wellbeing and pro-Environmental Behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2024, 95, 102249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Faraz, N.A.; Ahmed, F.; Ying, M.; Mehmood, S.A. The Interplay of Green Servant Leadership, Self-Efficacy, and Intrinsic Motivation in Predicting Employees’ pro-Environmental Behavior. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 1171–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Carfora, V.; Buscicchio, G.; Catellani, P. Proenvironmental Self Identity as a Moderator of Psychosocial Predictors in the Purchase of Sustainable Clothing. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 23968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Pasquariello, R.; Bianchi, M.; Mari, F.; Caso, D. Fostering Local Seasonality: An Extended Value-Belief-Norm Model to Understand Sustainable Food Choices. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024, 120, 105248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shao, L.; Yu, G. Media Coverage of Climate Change, Eco-Anxiety and pro-Environmental Behavior: Experimental Evidence and the Resilience Paradox. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 91, 102130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mouguiama-Daouda, C.; Blanchard, M.A.; Coussement, C.; Heeren, A. On the Measurement of Climate Change Anxiety: French Validation of the Climate Anxiety Scale. Psychol. Belg. 2022, 62, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Wang, X.; der Werff, E.V.; Bouman, T.; Harder, M.K.; Steg, L. I Am vs. We Are: How Biospheric Values and Environmental Identity of Individuals and Groups Can Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 618956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Vecina, M.L.; Alonso-Ferres, M.; López-García, L.; Díaz-Silveira, C. Eco-Anxiety and Trust in Science in Spain: Two Paths to Connect Climate Change Perceptions and General Willingness for Environmental Behavior. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. 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]
  21. Regnoli, G.M.; Tiano, G.; De Rosa, B. Is Climate Change Worry Fostering Young Italian Adults’ Psychological Distress? An Italian Exploratory Study on the Mediation Role of Intolerance of Uncertainty and Future Anxiety. Climate 2024, 12, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stanley, S.K.; Hogg, T.L.; Leviston, Z.; Walker, I. From Anger to Action: Differential Impacts of Eco-Anxiety, Eco-Depression, and Eco-Anger on Climate Action and Wellbeing. J. Clim. Change Health 2021, 1, 100003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pavani, J.-B.; Nicolas, L.; Bonetto, E. Eco-Anxiety Motivates pro-Environmental Behaviors: A Two-Wave Longitudinal Study. Motiv. Emot. 2023, 47, 1062–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ágoston, C.; Csaba, B.; Nagy, B.; Kőváry, Z.; Dúll, A.; Rácz, J.; Demetrovics, Z. Identifying Types of Eco-Anxiety, Eco-Guilt, Eco-Grief, and Eco-Coping in a Climate-Sensitive Population: A Qualitative Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bandura, A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Effic. Beliefs Adolesc. 2006, 5, 307–337. [Google Scholar]
  27. Le, Y.; Manh, T. Antecedents of Pro-Environmental Behaviors: A Study on Green Consumption in an Emerging Market. Int. J. Asian Bus. Inf. Manag. 2022, 13, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Menardo, E.; Brondino, M.; Pasini, M. Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Pro-Environmental Behaviours Scale (PEBS). Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 6907–6930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Innocenti, M.; Santarelli, G.; Faggi, V.; Castellini, G.; Manelli, I.; Magrini, G.; Galassi, F.; Ricca, V. Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Climate Change Anxiety Scale. J. Clim. Change Health 2021, 3, 100080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tan, S.; Li, W.; Xiaoguang, L.; Liang, C.; Wang, Y.; Sackey, N. Social Trust, Past Behavior, and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: Evidence from China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Huang, H. Media Use, Environmental Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, and pro-Environmental Behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2206–2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kim, M.; Lee, S.-M. Drivers and Interrelationships of Three Types of Pro-Environmental Behaviors in the Workplace. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 1854–1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Stryker, S. Identity Salience and Role Performance: The Relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research. J. Marriage Fam. 1968, 30, 558–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Conner, M.; Armitage, C.J. Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Review and Avenues for Further Research. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28, 1429–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Charng, H.-W.; Piliavin, J.A.; Callero, P.L. Role Identity and Reasoned Action in the Prediction of Repeated Behavior. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1988, 51, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Van Der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. The Value of Environmental Self-Identity: The Relationship between Biospheric Values, Environmental Self-Identity and Environmental Preferences, Intentions and Behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Becerra, E.P.; Carrete, L.; Arroyo, P. A Study of the Antecedents and Effects of Green Self-Identity on Green Behavioral Intentions of Young Adults. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 155, 113380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mannetti, L.; Pierro, A.; Livi, S. Recycling: Planned and Self-Expressive Behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Whitmarsh, L.; O’Neill, S. Green Identity, Green Living? The Role of pro-Environmental Self-Identity in Determining Consistency across Diverse pro-Environmental Behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Barbarossa, C.; De Pelsmacker, P. Positive and Negative Antecedents of Purchasing Eco-Friendly Products: A Comparison Between Green and Non-Green Consumers. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 134, 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hansmann, R.; Binder, C.R. Determinants of Different Types of Positive Environmental Behaviors: An Analysis of Public and Private Sphere Actions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Capasso, M.; Guidetti, M.; Bianchi, M.; Cavazza, N.; Caso, D. Enhancing Intentions to Reduce Meat Consumption: An Experiment Comparing the Role of Self- and Social pro-Environmental Identities. J. Environ. Psychol. 2025, 101, 102494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pinho, M. The Role of Parental Identity in Experiencing Climate Change Anxiety and Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Front. Psychol. 2025, 16, 1579893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Nature Relatedness May Play a Protective Role and Contribute to Eco-Distress. Available online: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/epdf/10.1089/eco.2023.0004 (accessed on 16 May 2025).
  45. Ajzen, I. Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Anisah, T.; Ernestivita, G.; Kurniawan, A. Towards Sustainable Textile Practices: Exploring the Role of Green Self-Concept and Theory of Planned Behavior in Consumer Behavior. GRENZE Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2025, 10, 2707–2714. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kosslyn, S.M. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2. [Google Scholar]
  48. Wicklund, R.; Gollwitzer, P. Symbolic Self-Completion, Attempted Influence, and Self-Deprecation. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1981, 2, 89–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schwartz, S.H. An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2012, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Martin, C.; Czellar, S. Where Do Biospheric Values Come from? A Connectedness to Nature Perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 52, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.D.; Guagnano, G.; 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]
  52. Wang, S.; Leviston, Z.; Hurlstone, M.; Lawrence, C.; Walker, I. Emotions Predict Policy Support: Why It Matters How People Feel about Climate Change. Glob. Environ. Change 2018, 50, 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lee, K.; Barnett, J. ‘Will Polar Bears Melt?’ A Qualitative Analysis of Children’s Questions about Climate Change. Public Underst. Sci. 2020, 29, 868–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Bouman, T.; Verschoor, M.; Albers, C.J.; Böhm, G.; Fisher, S.D.; Poortinga, W.; Whitmarsh, L.; Steg, L. When Worry about Climate Change Leads to Climate Action: How Values, Worry and Personal Responsibility Relate to Various Climate Actions. Glob. Environ. Change 2020, 62, 102061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Helm, S.V.; Pollitt, A.; Barnett, M.A.; Curran, M.A.; Craig, Z.R. Differentiating Environmental Concern in the Context of Psychological Adaption to Climate Change. Glob. Environ. Change 2018, 48, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Steg, L. Values, Norms, and Intrinsic Motivation to Act Proenvironmentally. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016, 41, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lee, S.; Park, J.H.; Kim, K.H.; Lee, C.-K. A Moderator of Destination Social Responsibility for Tourists’ pro-Environmental Behaviors in the VIP Model. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 20, 100610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Imaningsih, E.S.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Hamdan, H.; Marlapa, E.; Shiratina, A. Towards Green Behavior: Egoistic And Biospheric Values Enhance Green Self-Identities. J. Manaj. 2023, 27, 449–470. [Google Scholar]
  59. Azadi, Y.; Yaghoubi, J.; Gholamrezai, S.; Rahimi-Feyzabad, F. Farmers’ Adaptation Behavior to Water Scarcity in Western Iran: Application of the Values-Identity-Personal Norms Model. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 306, 109210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wagner, B.; Van Der Werff, E.; Steg, L. Values at Work: Understanding How Individual and Perceived Organisational Values Relate to Employees’ Motivation and pro-Environmental Behaviour at Work. J. Environ. Psychol. 2025, 103, 102547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Luo, L.; Kim, W. Decoding Pro-Environmental Behaviors in China through Values and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Asian J. Public Opin. Res. 2025, 13, 82–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Christopher Westland, J. Lower Bounds on Sample Size in Structural Equation Modeling. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2010, 9, 476–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. A-Priori Sample Size for Structural Equation Models References—Free Statistics Calculators. Available online: https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/references.aspx?id=89 (accessed on 16 May 2025).
  64. Curcio, C.; Capasso, M.; Pasquariello, R.; Caso, D.; Donizzetti, A.R. Validation of the Integrated Pro-Environmental Behaviours Scale (I-PEBS). Sustainability 2025, 17, 3825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. 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]
  66. Carfora, V.; Cavallo, C.; Caso, D.; Del Giudice, T.; De Devitiis, B.; Viscecchia, R.; Nardone, G.; Cicia, G. Explaining Consumer Purchase Behavior for Organic Milk: Including Trust and Green Self-Identity within the Theory of Planned Behavior. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 76, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Moeller, B.L.; Stahlmann, A.G. Which Character Strengths Are Focused on the Well-Being of Others? Development and Initial Validation of the Environmental Self-Efficacy Scale: Assessing Confidence in Overcoming Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior. J. Well-Being Assess. 2019, 3, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rocchi, G.; Pileri, J.; Luciani, F.; Gennaro, A.; Lai, C. Insights into Eco-Anxiety in Italy: Preliminary Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale, Age and Gender Distribution. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 92, 102180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. de Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to Environmental Significant Behavior: How to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic, and Biospheric Value Orientations. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 330–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Little, T.D.; Cunningham, W.A.; Shahar, G.; Widaman, K.F. To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2002, 9, 151–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rosseel, Y. Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling and More. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jöreskog, K.G. A General Method for Estimating a Linear Structural Equation System. ETS Res. Bull. Ser. 1970, 1970, i-41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. 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]
  74. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. O’brien, R.M. A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Qual. Quant. 2007, 41, 673–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wullenkord, M.C.; Tröger, J.; Hamann, K.R.S.; Loy, L.S.; Reese, G. Anxiety and Climate Change: A Validation of the Climate Anxiety Scale in a German-Speaking Quota Sample and an Investigation of Psychological Correlates. Clim. Change 2021, 168, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Innocenti, M.; Santarelli, G.; Lombardi, G.S.; Ciabini, L.; Zjalic, D.; Di Russo, M.; Cadeddu, C. How Can Climate Change Anxiety Induce Both Pro-Environmental Behaviours and Eco-Paralysis? The Mediating Role of General Self-Efficacy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2023, 20, 3085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Clayton, S. Climate Anxiety: Psychological Responses to Climate Change. J. Anxiety Disord. 2020, 74, 102263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping; Springer Publishing Company: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1984; ISBN 978-0-8261-4192-7. [Google Scholar]
  80. Hansmann, R.; Laurenti, R.; Mehdi, T.; Binder, C.R. Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Comparison of University Students and Staff from Diverse Faculties at a Swiss University. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 121864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wild, S.; Schulze Heuling, L. Exploring the role of identity in pro-environmental behavior: Cultural and educational influences on younger generations. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1459165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Gkargkavouzi, A.; Halkos, G.; Matsiori, S. Environmental behavior in a private-sphere context: Integrating theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, self-identity and habit. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 148, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chen, W.-T.; Hsieh, M.-H. Environmental Self-Identity, Self-Efficacy, and the Emergence of Green Opinion Leaders: An Exploratory Study. Heliyon 2023, 9, e17351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Lee, S.S.; Kim, Y.; Roh, T. Pro-Environmental Behavior on Electric Vehicle Use Intention: Integrating Value-Belief-Norm Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 418, 138211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ruepert, A.M.; Keizer, K.; Steg, L. The Relationship between Corporate Environmental Responsibility, Employees’ Biospheric Values and Pro-Environmental Behaviour at Work. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 54, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. D’Uggento, A.M.; Piscitelli, A.; Ribecco, N.; Scepi, G. Perceived Climate Change Risk and Global Green Activism among Young People. Stat. Methods Appl. 2023, 32, 1167–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Maran, D.A.; Begotti, T. Media Exposure to Climate Change, Anxiety, and Efficacy Beliefs in a Sample of Italian University Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. 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] [PubMed]
Sustainability 17 06838 g001
Figure 1. Hypothesised model.
Figure 1. Hypothesised model.
Sustainability 17 06838 g001
Table 1. Latent constructs’ descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlations.
Table 1. Latent constructs’ descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlations.
Mean (SD)12345
1. Pro-environmental behaviours3.10 (0.50)1
2. Green self-identity3.62 (0.82)0.58 **1
3. Green self-efficacy5.57 (1.73)0.48 **0.51 **1
4. Eco-anxiety1.41 (0.49)0.32 **0.24 **0.31 **1
5. Biospheric Values4.22 (0.72)0.38 **0.40 **0.30 **0.12 **1
Cronbach’s α 0.780.900.930.930.92
Note. ** p < 0.01.
Table 2. Regression table.
Table 2. Regression table.
βSE95% CI
Eco-Anxiety → Pro-Environmental Behaviours0.14 *0.13[0.01, 0.51]
Green Self-Efficacy → Pro-Environmental Behaviours0.31 ***0.18[0.22, 0.84]
Green Self-Identity → Pro-Environmental Behaviours0.57 ***0.21[0.62, 1.44]
Green Self-Identity → Eco-Anxiety0.25 ***0.07[0.10, 0.40]
Biospheric Values → Eco-Anxiety0.020.07[−0.11, 0.17]
Green Self-Identity → Green Self-Efficacy0.48 ***0.07[0.37, 0.64]
Biospheric Values → Green Self-Efficacy0.11 *0.06[0.01, 0.25]
Biospheric Values → Green Self-Identity0.44 ***0.07[0.35, 0.62]
Note. * p < 0.05. *** 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

Pasquariello, R.; Donizzetti, A.R.; Curcio, C.; Capasso, M.; Caso, D. From Values to Action: The Roles of Green Self-Identity, Self-Efficacy, and Eco-Anxiety in Predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviours in the Italian Context. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6838. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156838

AMA Style

Pasquariello R, Donizzetti AR, Curcio C, Capasso M, Caso D. From Values to Action: The Roles of Green Self-Identity, Self-Efficacy, and Eco-Anxiety in Predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviours in the Italian Context. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6838. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156838

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pasquariello, Raffaele, Anna Rosa Donizzetti, Cristina Curcio, Miriam Capasso, and Daniela Caso. 2025. "From Values to Action: The Roles of Green Self-Identity, Self-Efficacy, and Eco-Anxiety in Predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviours in the Italian Context" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6838. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156838

APA Style

Pasquariello, R., Donizzetti, A. R., Curcio, C., Capasso, M., & Caso, D. (2025). From Values to Action: The Roles of Green Self-Identity, Self-Efficacy, and Eco-Anxiety in Predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviours in the Italian Context. Sustainability, 17(15), 6838. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156838

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