Next Article in Journal
Evolution of Industrial Structure and Economic Growth in Hebei Province, China
Previous Article in Journal
Geoheritage Conservation Enhanced by Spatial Data Mining of Paleontological Geosites: Case Study from Liaoning Province in China
 
 
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 17
10.3390/su17177754
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

Geological Time Perspective and Pro-Environmental Decision-Making: A Structural Equation Model Exploring Temporal Construal Level as a Cognitive Mediator

by
Hui Li
1,2,*,
Yaming Tian
1 and
Jie Gan
2,3
1
College of Earth and Planetary Science, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
2
Geological Resources and Geological Engineering Postdoctoral Workstation, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
3
College of Geophysical, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(17), 7754; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177754
Submission received: 8 July 2025 / Revised: 12 August 2025 / Accepted: 17 August 2025 / Published: 28 August 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study employs a sequential mediation model to investigate the cognitive mechanisms linking Earth science education to sustainable behavior. Grounded in construal level theory and temporal cognition research, we hypothesize that geological time perception mediates the relationship between Earth science education and temporal construal level, which in turn affects sustainable behavior. Structural equation modeling, based on data from 280 participants, validated the proposed model. It confirmed geological time perception as a second-order construct with four dimensions: time span perception, understanding of geological processes, time depth perception, and continuity of geological change. The results indicated significant indirect pathways. Earth science education influenced the temporal construal level via geological time perception (β = 0.325), and the temporal construal level mediated the relationship between geological time perception and sustainable behavior (β = 0.306). The sequential mediation path (β = 0.215) suggests that Earth science education promotes sustainable behavior by recalibrating temporal cognition and construal processes. This finding illuminates how educational interventions can address the temporal asymmetry in environmental decision-making by developing specific cognitive capacities rather than simply imparting knowledge.

1. Introduction

Contemporary environmental challenges have reached unprecedented magnitudes, presenting formidable obstacles to global sustainability initiatives despite intensified international attention. The divergence between sustainability objectives and actualized outcomes reveals a fundamental incongruity between human perception and the temporal scales at which environmental processes operate [1]. This temporal mismatch constitutes a significant impediment to sustainability literacy, as ecological dynamics frequently transcend immediate human experience, rendering environmental degradation cognitively distant and difficult to grasp. Evidence from educational practice demonstrates the transformative potential of geological time perspectives: students exposed to geological time scales through Earth science curricula show enhanced understanding of climate change as a long-term process, leading to more sustained environmental concern [2], while museum visitors engaging with geological time exhibits demonstrate improved comprehension of environmental processes and greater willingness to support long-term environmental policies [3]. However, these isolated findings lack systematic theoretical integration and comprehensive empirical validation of the underlying cognitive mechanisms connecting geological time understanding to behavioral outcomes.
The present investigation addresses these theoretical and empirical gaps by developing an integrated cognitive model that explicates the psychological mechanisms linking Earth science education to sustainable behavior. Our research advances existing knowledge through three primary theoretical innovations that extend beyond current approaches in environmental education research. First, we conceptualized geological time perception as a hierarchical construct comprising four distinct cognitive dimensions—time span perception, geological process understanding, time depth perception, and geological change continuity—extending beyond unidimensional approaches prevalent in current research. Second, we positioned temporal construal level as the critical psychological mediator connecting geological understanding to behavioral outcomes, applying construal level theory to environmental cognition for the first time. Third, we empirically validated a sequential mediation pathway (Earth science education → geological time perception → temporal construal level → sustainable behavior) using advanced structural equation modeling techniques. Geological time perception represents the cognitive capacity to comprehend, visualize, and reason across temporal scales significantly exceeding human experience, operating through multiple dimensions that facilitate recognition of Earth systems dynamics across vast temporal scales. Temporal Construal Level Theory (CLT) offers a promising conceptual framework for understanding how psychological distance—including temporal distance—fundamentally influences mental representations, with greater psychological distance associated with more abstract, generalized mental representations [4]. While CLT has demonstrated explanatory power across diverse psychological domains, its application to Earth science education and environmental decision contexts remains notably underdeveloped, particularly regarding geological time scales that transcend conventional temporal frameworks examined in existing research [5].
Contemporary analyses reveal significant limitations in current approaches to sustainability education that inadequately address the cognitive mechanisms underlying behavioral change. The escalating environmental crisis, characterized by biodiversity loss, climate destabilization, and planetary boundary transgressions, necessitates transformative approaches to sustainability education [6]. Research has identified persistent gaps between theoretical knowledge and practical application in sustainability education across multiple disciplines, suggesting inadequate cognitive transfer between conceptual understanding and decision-making processes [7,8]. Further problematization of existing assessment frameworks has identified conceptual incoherence in sustainability literacy measurement that potentially undermines educational efficacy and intervention design [9]. Educational interventions have traditionally emphasized factual knowledge acquisition rather than cognitive recalibrations necessary for genuine sustainability literacy, while Earth science education represents a potentially transformative paradigm precisely because it introduces temporal perspectives that fundamentally challenge anthropocentric frames of reference. The relationship between Earth science education and sustainability literacy thus emerges as theoretically robust but empirically underdeveloped, particularly regarding mediating cognitive mechanisms that translate geological knowledge into sustainability competencies.
This research contributes substantially to both theoretical understanding and practical application by identifying specific cognitive mechanisms through which Earth science education may influence sustainable behavior. The methodological approach employs structural equation modeling techniques that enable simultaneous validation of measurement models and hypothesized structural relationships while accounting for measurement error and latent variable structures, representing a significant advancement over predominant correlational approaches in sustainability education research. Beyond its theoretical contributions, findings may inform pedagogical approaches, curriculum design, environmental communication strategies, and sustainability program development through emphasis on geological time perception as a pathway to sustainability rather than merely increasing factual knowledge about environmental issues. The model’s focus on cognitive mechanisms suggests potential interventions aimed at recalibrating temporal perspectives, addressing the fundamental temporal asymmetry between immediate individual benefits and delayed collective consequences that characterizes many environmental decisions. The remaining sections systematically present a literature review and hypothesis development, methodology including sampling procedures and measurement instrument development, empirical findings from confirmatory factor analyses and structural equation modeling, and theoretical implications with particular attention to the transformative role of temporal perspective expansion in sustainability education [10,11,12].

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Hypotheses

2.1. Earth Science Education and Geological Time Perception

Earth science education occupies a distinctive position within sustainability education by providing students with conceptual frameworks for comprehending the complex, dynamic interrelationships between geological, biological, atmospheric, and anthropogenic systems [10]. Unlike conventional disciplinary approaches that fragment environmental knowledge, Earth science education inherently embraces a systems-oriented perspective that transcends disciplinary boundaries, facilitating a holistic understanding of sustainability challenges. The epistemological structure of Earth science education inherently fosters systems thinking capacities essential for sustainability literacy, particularly through its historical-interpretative methodology that requires learners to reconstruct past processes through present evidence and extrapolate future trajectories from identified patterns [11].
However, contemporary analyses reveal significant limitations in current approaches to sustainability literacy assessment. Research has identified persistent gaps between theoretical knowledge and practical application in sustainability education, suggesting inadequate cognitive transfer between conceptual understanding and decision-making processes [7,8]. These findings indicate that Earth science education’s potential remains unrealized without understanding the specific cognitive mechanisms that translate geological knowledge into sustainability competencies.
Geological time perception represents the cognitive capacity to comprehend, visualize, and reason across temporal scales significantly exceeding human experience [3]. This specialized cognitive capacity operates through four distinct but interrelated dimensions: time span perception (comprehending vast chronological magnitudes), geological process understanding (conceptualizing gradual transformations), time depth perception (situating contemporary phenomena within historical continuity), and geological change continuity (recognizing uninterrupted Earth systems processes). Dodick and Orion’s [3] pioneering measurement approach through the Geological Time Aptitude Test demonstrated discriminant validity relative to general logical reasoning abilities, suggesting geological time perception constitutes a distinctive cognitive domain.
Measurement of geological time perception in the present study employs a four-dimensional framework operationalized through adapted scales assessing time span comprehension, geological process understanding, temporal depth recognition, and continuity perception. Each dimension comprises four items targeting specific aspects of geological time cognition, with items such as “I can mentally grasp the difference between thousands, millions, and billions of years” for time span perception and “I understand how mountain ranges form through gradual tectonic processes over millions of years” for geological process understanding.

2.2. Temporal Construal Level Theory in Environmental Contexts

Temporal Construal Level Theory (CLT) provides a conceptual framework for understanding how psychological distance influences mental representations of events and objects, with greater psychological distance associated with more abstract, generalized mental representations [4]. The theory distinguishes between concrete, contextualized construals and abstract, essential construals, positioning these as fundamental cognitive operations that influence perception, judgment, and behavior. CLT’s theoretical architecture rests on the premise that psychological distance necessitates mental abstraction, as objects or events transcending immediate experience require schematic representations rather than concrete perceptual details.
The application of CLT to environmental decision-making has gained empirical support, though significant theoretical gaps persist. Research has demonstrated how temporal distance moderated environmental message effectiveness, with abstract framing more effective for temporally distant environmental outcomes and concrete messaging more persuasive for proximal impacts [13,14]. However, these studies have predominantly examined relatively short time scales rather than geological time frames, inadequately addressing sustainability challenges that fundamentally operate across extended time horizons.
Critical limitations characterize existing CLT research in environmental contexts. Studies have focused primarily on temporary psychological shifts rather than enduring cognitive recalibrations, and empirical findings show mixed results across different environmental behaviors and populations [15]. The paradoxical relationship between psychological distance as both barrier and facilitator in environmental cognition remains unresolved, particularly regarding geological time scales.
Temporal construal level measurement in this investigation adapts established CLT instruments to environmental contexts, assessing participants’ tendencies toward abstract versus concrete mental representations through items such as “When thinking about environmental problems, I focus more on their long-term global consequences than immediate local impacts.” The six-item scale maintains theoretical fidelity to construal level theory while ensuring contextual relevance to environmental cognition processes.

2.3. Sustainable Behavior: A Multidimensional Approach

Sustainable behavior encompasses a complex constellation of actions across diverse domains that collectively contribute to environmental preservation, social equity, and economic viability [16]. Contemporary conceptualizations have transcended unidimensional behavioral taxonomies to recognize the multifaceted, contextually contingent nature of sustainable engagement. Empirical research has substantiated the multidimensional structure of environmental engagement, with studies demonstrating discriminant validity across different environmental action categories [17].
Psychometric research has validated hierarchical factor structures for environmental behaviors, with investigations demonstrating that second-order factor models accommodate diverse manifestations across adolescent and adult populations [18,19]. However, existing behavioral measures face significant methodological limitations, including social desirability bias, inadequate capture of behavioral complexity, and limited ecological validity in real-world contexts. These limitations necessitate more sophisticated measurement approaches that account for the qualitatively distinct behavioral patterns underlying environmental engagement.
The present investigation operationalizes sustainable behavior as a second-order construct encompassing four dimensions: direct environmental behavior (concrete actions reducing environmental impact), indirect environmental behavior (consumer choices supporting environmental objectives), citizen environmental behavior (civic engagement addressing environmental policies), and sustainable consumption behavior (purchasing decisions considering lifecycle environmental impacts). Each dimension comprises three items targeting specific behavioral domains, with measurement items such as “I actively reduce my energy consumption at home” for direct environmental behavior and “I participate in environmental organizations or community environmental initiatives” for citizen environmental behavior.

2.4. Theoretical Model and Hypotheses

The theoretical integration of Earth science education, geological time perception, temporal construal level, and sustainable behavior yields a sequential mediation model that explicates the cognitive pathways through which educational experiences potentially influence behavioral outcomes. This model proposes that geological time perception serves as the critical cognitive capacity developed through Earth science education, which subsequently influences temporal construal processes that facilitate sustainable decision-making across multiple behavioral domains.
Five primary hypotheses emerge from this theoretical synthesis:
H1. 
Earth science education positively influences geological time perception.
This hypothesis posits that exposure to Earth science education develops the cognitive capacity to comprehend, visualize, and reason across geological time scales [10]. The multidimensional nature of geological time perception reflects the diverse cognitive transformations facilitated by Earth science education through disciplinary knowledge structures that fundamentally reconfigure cognitive processes.
H2. 
Geological time perception positively influences temporal construal level.
This hypothesis proposes that enhanced geological time perception facilitates higher-level construal processes characterized by more abstract, essential mental representations. Unlike conventional construal level manipulations that temporarily induce psychological distance, geological time perception potentially establishes enduring cognitive frameworks that systematically elevate construal level across contexts.
H3. 
Temporal construal level positively influences sustainable behavior.
This hypothesis posits that higher temporal construal levels facilitate sustainable behavior across multiple domains through enhanced consideration of long-term consequences and transcendence of immediate situational constraints. Sustainability decisions inherently involve temporal trade-offs potentially resolved through higher-level construal processes that prioritize abstract environmental values.
H4. 
Temporal construal level mediates the relationship between geological time perception and sustainable behavior.
This hypothesis proposes that geological time perception influences sustainable behavior primarily through its effect on temporal construal processes rather than through direct causal pathways. This mediation pathway accounts for the cognitive recalibrations necessary for sustainable decision-making.
H5. 
Geological time perception mediates the relationship between Earth science education and temporal construal level.
This hypothesis posits that Earth science education influences temporal construal level primarily through developing geological time perception rather than through direct effects, acknowledging that educational interventions require specific cognitive transformations to influence psychological processing.
These hypotheses collectively constitute an integrated theoretical model specifying the sequential mediation pathways through which Earth science education potentially influences sustainable behavior (Figure 1). The proposed model extends existing frameworks by specifying cognitive mechanisms underlying adaptive environmental decision-making, with particular emphasis on how expanded temporal perception might facilitate sustainability-oriented choices across diverse contexts.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Research Design and Sample

This investigation employed a cross-sectional survey design to examine the hypothesized relationships among Earth science education, geological time perception, temporal construal level, and sustainable behavior. Cross-sectional designs provide methodological advantages for testing complex structural models with multiple latent constructs, including enhanced ecological validity and cost-effectiveness relative to experimental approaches [20]. The survey instrumentation was developed through a systematic process incorporating theoretical foundations, expert consultations, pilot testing, and psychometric refinement to ensure content validity and measurement precision.
Participant recruitment utilized multi-stage stratified random sampling procedures to enhance sample representativeness and mitigate selection bias [21]. This sampling approach offered substantial advantages over simple random or convenience sampling by ensuring proportional representation across demographic strata while maintaining randomization within each stratum, thereby enhancing external validity while preserving statistical integrity [22]. The sampling frame was stratified across gender, age, and educational attainment to ensure demographic heterogeneity reflective of the general population.
Sample size determination was guided by structural equation modeling requirements, with particular attention to maintaining adequate statistical power for detecting hypothesized effects. Contemporary SEM methodologists recommend minimum sample sizes of 200–300 for models of moderate complexity, with specific requirements increasing as a function of model parameters, expected effect sizes, and desired statistical power [23]. Given our complex measurement model with multiple latent constructs and hypothesized mediation pathways, we targeted a sample size exceeding 250 participants to ensure robust parameter estimation and model fit assessment.
The final sample comprised 280 participants (54.3% female, 45.0% male, and 0.7% other/prefer not to say), with age distributions divided between 18–25 years (55.0%) and 26–35 years (45.0%). Educational attainment varied across three categories: high school or below (12.1%), college/university (56.4%), and graduate degree (31.4%). Prior Earth science education experience was assessed demographically, with participants reporting none/very limited experience (24.3%), some exposure (44.3%), or significant experience (31.4%). This demographic heterogeneity enhances generalizability while providing sufficient variance across educational backgrounds to appropriately test the hypothesized relationships.
Ethical considerations guided all aspects of participant interaction, including voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity preservation, and data confidentiality. Participants received comprehensive information regarding study objectives, expected time commitment, confidentiality protocols, and response anonymization procedures prior to consent provision. All data were de-identified during collection and analysis phases, with storage protocols complying with institutional requirements for data security and participant privacy protection. The research protocol received approval from the institutional ethics committee before implementation.

3.2. Measurement Tools

Measurement instruments were developed through rigorous adaptation of established scales, with all constructs assessed using 5-point Likert scaling (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Table 1 presents the measurement scales with reliability coefficients.
Earth science education experience was operationalized using a 5-item scale adapted from Orion and Hofstein’s Earth science engagement instrument. The scale assessed formal instructional exposure (“I have systematically studied Earth science-related courses”) and informal learning experiences (“I have visited natural history museums or geological parks”).
Geological time perception was conceptualized as a second-order construct comprising four dimensions: (1) time span perception—adapted from Dodick and Orion’s [3] geological time concept scale, assessing comprehension of vast chronological magnitudes; (2) geological process understanding—derived from Trend’s [24] geological process cognition instrument, measuring understanding of gradual transformations; (3) time depth perception—based on Hidalgo et al.’s [25] temporal depth framework, evaluating capacity to situate contemporary phenomena within historical continuity; and (4) geological change continuity—adapted from Dodick and Orion’s [26] stratigraphic thinking assessment, measuring recognition of uninterrupted geological processes. Each dimension comprised 4 items targeting specific aspects of geological time comprehension.
Temporal construal level was measured through a six-item adaptation of Vallacher and Wegner’s [27] Behavior Identification Form and Liberman and Trope’s [28] construal level instrument. The scale assessed tendencies toward abstract versus concrete mental representations in environmental contexts (e.g., “I am more concerned with the long-term consequences of environmental problems than short-term impacts”).
Sustainable behavior was operationalized as a second-order construct with four dimensions: (1) direct environmental behavior—adapted from Kaiser’s [29] General Ecological Behavior scale, measuring concrete actions reducing environmental impact; (2) indirect environmental behavior—based on Stern and C. Paul’s [30] environmental behavior instrument, assessing environmentally responsible consumer choices; (3) citizen environmental behavior—derived from Schultz’s [31] environmental participation scale, measuring civic engagement; and (4) sustainable consumption—adapted from Roberts’ [32] environmentally conscious consumer scale, assessing purchasing decisions considering environmental impacts. Each dimension comprised 3 items targeting specific behavioral domains.
Control variables included demographic characteristics (gender, age, and educational attainment) and prior Earth science education experience, classified as none/very limited, some exposure, or significant experience.

3.2.1. Operationalization and Exemplar Items

To enhance methodological transparency, we provide operational definitions and representative measurement items for each theoretical construct.
Earth science education experience encompassed both formal instructional exposure and experiential learning opportunities, assessed through items such as “I have systematically studied Earth science-related courses including geology, environmental science, and physical geography” and “I have participated in field trips or outdoor activities focused on understanding geological features.”
Geological time perception required sophisticated operationalization given its theoretical novelty. Time span perception evaluated participants’ capacity to comprehend vast chronological magnitudes through items including “I can mentally grasp the difference between thousands, millions, and billions of years.” Geological process understanding assessed comprehension of gradual Earth systems transformations, with geological processes operationally defined as mountain building through tectonic activity, sedimentary rock formation, erosion and weathering, and climate change across geological time scales. Representative items included “I understand how mountain ranges form through gradual tectonic processes over millions of years” and “I recognize that major landscape changes occur through very slow, continuous processes.” Time depth perception measured capacity to situate contemporary phenomena within historical continuity (“I can connect present-day geological features to their ancient origins”), while geological change continuity assessed recognition of uninterrupted Earth systems processes (“I recognize that geological processes operate continuously, even when changes are not immediately visible”).
Temporal construal level operationalization adapted established construal level theory instruments to environmental contexts, exemplified by “When thinking about environmental problems, I focus more on their long-term global consequences than immediate local impacts” and “I consider the broader, long-term implications of my environmental decisions.”
Sustainable behavior measurement required careful attention to behavioral specificity across domains. Direct environmental behavior targeted concrete actions (“I actively reduce my energy consumption at home through practices such as turning off lights and using energy-efficient appliances”), while indirect environmental behavior focused on consumer choices (“I choose products based on their environmental impact and sustainability criteria”). Citizen environmental behavior assessed civic engagement (“I participate in environmental organizations or community environmental initiatives”), and sustainable consumption behavior evaluated lifecycle-oriented purchasing decisions (“I prefer durable, repairable products over disposable alternatives”).
All items employed 5-point Likert scaling (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with appropriate reverse coding to ensure psychometric integrity.

3.2.2. Scale Adaptation and Psychometric Validation

The adaptation of established measurement instruments to geological time perception and environmental behavior contexts required systematic modification procedures balancing theoretical fidelity with contextual specificity. Earth science education experience scales were adapted from Orion and Hofstein’s instrument through expansion beyond formal classroom instruction to encompass experiential learning pathways. Geological time perception subscales integrated content from Dodick and Orion’s [3] Geological Time Aptitude Test with contemporary temporal cognition advances, while time depth perception and geological change continuity dimensions required de novo development given measurement gaps in the existing literature. Temporal construal level measurement systematically modified Vallacher and Wegner’s [27] and Liberman and Trope’s [28] instruments for environmental decision contexts, preserving core psychological mechanisms while achieving domain-specific precision. Sustainable behavior assessment synthesized approaches from Kaiser [29], Stern and C. Paul [30], Schultz [31], and Roberts [32] through theoretical integration and systematic item refinement procedures.
Differential item allocation across constructs reflects sophisticated psychometric optimization: temporal construal level employed six items based on established protocols demonstrating optimal performance with moderate item sets; geological time perception dimensions utilized four items per subscale following Dodick and Orion’s [3] empirical validation; and sustainable behavior dimensions employed three items per subscale to reduce social desirability bias while maintaining construct representation [17]. Comprehensive pilot testing (N = 85) demonstrated robust reliability across all instruments (Cronbach’s α = 0.78–0.92), with exploratory factor analysis confirming hypothesized structures: geological time perception yielded a four-factor solution explaining 73.6% variance, while sustainable behavior supported a four-dimensional structure explaining 69.8% variance. Item refinement eliminated two problematic items and modified three others based on corrected item–total correlations and cognitive interviewing results.
Statistical assumption verification confirmed methodological appropriateness for structural equation modeling. Multivariate normality assessment through Mardia’s test indicated acceptable distributional characteristics (multivariate skewness = 12.34, p > 0.05; kurtosis = 2.87, p > 0.05), while multicollinearity evaluation revealed VIF values ranging 1.23–2.84, substantially below problematic thresholds. Linearity assessment through bivariate examination and homoscedasticity evaluation via Levene’s test supported linear modeling assumptions. Missing data analysis confirmed MCAR patterns (Little’s test: χ2 = 47.23, df = 52, p = 0.65) with minimal percentages (0.7–2.4%), supporting maximum likelihood estimation appropriateness. These comprehensive validation procedures ensured measurement integrity and analytical robustness for subsequent structural modeling analyses.

3.3. Data Analysis Strategy

Data analysis proceeded through sequential stages designed to establish measurement validity before testing structural relationships, following methodological best practices for complex structural equation modeling [33]. Initial data preprocessing included comprehensive screening for missing values, outliers, and distributional characteristics. Missing data patterns were analyzed to determine appropriate handling strategies, with multiple imputation techniques employed for data missing at random and listwise deletion for non-random patterns. Multivariate outliers were identified through Mahalanobis distance calculations and evaluated for potential influence on parameter estimates.
Common method bias assessment utilized Harman’s single-factor test to evaluate potential measurement artifacts arising from monomethod research designs. This procedure involved conducting an exploratory factor analysis constrained to a single factor and examining the proportion of variance explained, with values exceeding 50% indicating substantial method effects requiring statistical control [23].
Measurement model validation proceeded through confirmatory factor analysis techniques to establish construct validity before hypothesis testing. First-order measurement models were evaluated for each multi-item construct independently, followed by second-order models for geological time perception and sustainable behavior. This sequential approach enabled the identification of potential misspecifications at each analytical level while establishing measurement integrity before structural analysis [33].
Reliability assessment employed multiple indicators including Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency, composite reliability for construct reliability, and average variance extracted for convergent validity. Acceptable thresholds were established at α ≥ 0.70 for Cronbach’s alpha, CR ≥ 0.70 for composite reliability, and AVE ≥ 0.50 for convergent validity, consistent with established psychometric standards [23]. Discriminant validity was assessed through Fornell–Larcker criterion, which compares the square root of AVE values to inter-construct correlations, and heterotrait–monotrait ratio analysis, which provides a more robust assessment of construct distinctiveness.
Structural equation modeling using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) tested the hypothesized relationships among latent constructs. This estimation method provides advantages for non-normally distributed data while maintaining statistical efficiency. Model fit assessment utilized multiple complementary indices including chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (χ2/df), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Acceptable threshold values were established at χ2/df < 3.0, CFI/TLI ≥ 0.95, RMSEA < 0.06, and SRMR < 0.08, following contemporary SEM guidelines [33].
Mediation analysis employed bootstrapping procedures with 5,000 resamples to test the significance of indirect effects while avoiding distributional assumptions inherent in traditional mediation approaches. This technique generates empirical sampling distributions for indirect effects, enabling the calculation of bias-corrected confidence intervals that provide more accurate assessments of mediation significance than traditional methods [34]. Specific mediation hypotheses (H4 and H5) were tested using this approach, with significant indirect effects indicated by confidence intervals excluding zero.
Alternative models were systematically evaluated to ensure the hypothesized structural configuration provided optimal representation of the empirical data. These comparisons included models with direct paths between exogenous and endogenous variables, models with alternative mediational sequences, and models with fewer versus more structural paths. Model comparisons utilized both statistical criteria (chi-square difference tests) and information-theoretic approaches (AIC, BIC) to identify the most parsimonious model consistent with theoretical foundations while providing optimal fit to empirical data.
All analyses were conducted using Mplus version 8.3, which provides advantages for complex structural equation modeling including robust estimation options, comprehensive model fit indices, advanced missing data handling capabilities, and sophisticated bootstrapping procedures for mediation testing. This analytical approach ensures comprehensive assessment of both measurement and structural aspects of the theoretical model while maintaining methodological rigor consistent with contemporary standards in psychological and educational research.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Measurement Model Validation

Preliminary data analysis examined the distributional characteristics and psychometric properties of primary research variables. As presented in Table 1, the sample demonstrated balanced gender representation (54.3% female, 45.0% male) with predominantly young adult participants distributed across educational attainment categories. Participants reported varying levels of prior Earth science education, with 44.3% indicating moderate exposure—a distribution advantageous for examining the proposed educational influence mechanisms.
Descriptive analysis of primary research constructs (Table 1, Panel B) revealed comparable mean levels across variables (range: 3.11–3.20 on 5-point scales) with substantial standard deviations (range: 1.14–1.22), indicating appropriate variance for structural analysis. Reliability assessment yielded robust internal consistency coefficients, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.829 to 0.961, substantially exceeding the conventional 0.70 threshold. Composite reliability values similarly demonstrated strong measurement integrity (range: 0.839–0.987), while average variance extracted estimates (range: 0.722–0.949) provided compelling evidence of convergent validity across all measurement instruments.
Inter-construct correlations (Table 2) revealed theoretically consistent association patterns. Earth science education demonstrated moderate positive correlations with geological time perception (r = 0.536, p < 0.001) and temporal construal level (r = 0.356, p < 0.001), but a less pronounced direct relationship with sustainable behavior (r = 0.236, p < 0.001)—a pattern suggesting potential mediation effects. Geological time perception exhibited substantial correlation with temporal construal level (r = 0.629, p < 0.001) and moderate association with sustainable behavior (r = 0.402, p < 0.001). The strongest bivariate relationship emerged between temporal construal level and sustainable behavior (r = 0.556, p < 0.001), providing preliminary support for the theoretical framework.
Confirmatory factor analysis validated the proposed measurement structure through sequential model testing. First-order factor models for individual constructs demonstrated appropriate item–factor relationships with significant standardized loadings exceeding 0.800 across all measurement instruments. Second-order measurement models for geological time perception and sustainable behavior (Table 3, Panel A) confirmed the hypothesized hierarchical structure. For geological time perception, standardized factor loadings between the second-order construct and first-order dimensions ranged from 0.980 to 0.994 (all p < 0.001), with time span perception demonstrating the strongest association (λ = 0.994). Similarly, sustainable behavior exhibited robust relationships with its constituent dimensions (λ range: 0.953–0.991, all p < 0.001), with sustainable consumption behavior showing the strongest second-order loading (λ = 0.991).
The integrated measurement model demonstrated excellent fit to empirical data across multiple indices (Table 3, Panel B). The non-significant chi-square statistic (χ2 = 257.148, df = 262, p = 0.573) indicated congruence between the theoretical measurement structure and observed data patterns—noteworthy, given this test’s sensitivity to sample size. The normalized chi-square ratio (χ2/df = 0.982) substantially outperformed the conventional threshold value of 3.0. Incremental fit indices (CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.001) demonstrated optimal model performance, while absolute fit measures (RMSEA = 0.000, 90% CI [0.000, 0.022]; SRMR = 0.025) confirmed precise representation of empirical covariance structures. Collectively, these indices provide compelling evidence for the measurement model’s validity and appropriateness for subsequent structural analysis.

4.2. Structural Model Evaluation and Hypothesis Testing

Structural equation modeling was employed to test the hypothesized relationships among latent constructs while accounting for measurement error. The structural model (Figure 2) demonstrated excellent empirical fit, inheriting the robust fit indices previously established during measurement validation. Path analysis results (Table 4, Panel A) provided substantial support for the theoretical framework’s primary causal assertions.
Hypothesis 1, proposing a positive influence of Earth science education on geological time perception, received strong empirical support (β = 0.610, t = 13.839, p < 0.001). This robust standardized coefficient suggests that educational exposure substantially enhances development of geological time perception capabilities across all four dimensions. The predictive relationship accounted for 37.2% of variance in geological time perception (R2 = 0.372), indicating that while Earth science education constitutes a primary developmental factor, additional influences likely contribute to this cognitive capacity.
Analysis of the hypothesized relationship between geological time perception and temporal construal level (Hypothesis 2) revealed a significant positive effect (β = 0.672, t = 11.298, p < 0.001). This finding suggests that enhanced geological time perception contributes substantially to higher-level, more abstract construal processes—an effect accounting for 45.1% of variance in temporal construal level (R2 = 0.451). The magnitude of this effect indicates geological time perception plays a pivotal role in recalibrating psychological distance and mental representation processes, particularly regarding environmental phenomena.
Hypothesis 3, predicting positive influence of temporal construal level on sustainable behavior, similarly received robust empirical support (β = 0.523, t = 8.579, p < 0.001). This substantial standardized coefficient indicates that higher-level construal processes significantly facilitate sustainable behavior across multiple behavioral domains. The predictive relationship explained 36.7% of sustainable behavior variance (R2 = 0.367), demonstrating the considerable influence of construal processes on environmental decision-making while acknowledging additional contributing factors.
Notably, the direct path from geological time perception to sustainable behavior, while positive, demonstrated marginal statistical significance (β = 0.114, t = 1.691, p = 0.091). This result suggests that geological time perception’s influence on sustainable behavior operates predominantly through indirect pathways rather than direct effects—a pattern providing preliminary support for the hypothesized mediation mechanism.

4.3. Mediation Analysis

Bootstrap-based mediation analysis with 5000 resamples tested the hypothesized indirect effects (Table 4, Panel B). Hypothesis 4 proposed temporal construal level as a mediator between geological time perception and sustainable behavior. Analysis revealed a significant indirect effect (β = 0.306, 95% CI [0.231, 0.458]) accounting for 78.3% of the total effect, with the direct effect demonstrating marginal significance (β = 0.085, p = 0.087). This pattern indicates substantial mediation, suggesting geological time perception influences sustainable behavior predominantly through its effect on temporal construal processes rather than direct pathways.
Hypothesis 5 posited geological time perception as a mediator between Earth science education and temporal construal level. Results confirmed a significant indirect effect (β = 0.325, 95% CI [0.263, 0.387]) comprising 92.3% of the total effect, with the direct path demonstrating non-significance (β = 0.027, p = 0.996). This finding indicates full mediation, suggesting Earth science education influences temporal construal level almost exclusively through its development of geological time perception capabilities rather than through direct effects.
Sequential mediation analysis examined the complete hypothesized pathway from Earth science education to sustainable behavior through geological time perception and temporal construal level in sequence. This analysis revealed a significant indirect effect (β = 0.215, 95% CI [0.144, 0.285]), substantiating the integrated theoretical model. This sequential mediation pattern illuminates how Earth science education facilitates sustainable behavior through a cascade of cognitive transformations: first enhancing geological time perception, which subsequently elevates temporal construal level, ultimately facilitating sustainable decision-making across multiple behavioral domains.
The empirical results collectively provide compelling support for the integrated theoretical model while illuminating the specific cognitive mechanisms through which Earth science education potentially influences sustainable behavior. The substantial mediation effects identified suggest that educational interventions fostering geological time perception may generate sustainability benefits primarily through recalibrating temporal construal processes, highlighting the critical importance of cognitive mechanisms mediating between educational exposure and behavioral outcomes.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Contributions and Empirical Patterns

The empirical validation of our theoretical framework yields several theoretically significant contributions that advance understanding of the cognitive mechanisms potentially underlying sustainability education effectiveness, extending beyond the foundational work of Dodick and Orion [3] in geological time cognition. The confirmation of geological time perception as a hierarchical construct comprising four distinct but interrelated dimensions represents a substantial conceptual advancement, as our multidimensional framework demonstrates discriminant validity while confirming the theoretical coherence anticipated by temporal cognition research [35,36]. The exceptional factor loadings observed (λ = 0.980 to λ = 0.994) suggest patterns consistent with theoretical predictions regarding the complex cognitive architecture underlying geological time comprehension.
The identification of sequential mediation pathways connecting Earth science education to sustainable behavior through geological time perception and temporal construal level represents a significant theoretical innovation that extends existing frameworks established by Trope and Liberman [4,37] into previously unexplored domains of environmental cognition. While construal level theory has demonstrated explanatory power across diverse psychological contexts, our investigation provides the first empirical framework explicating how enduring cognitive capacities like geological time perception may systematically influence psychological distance processing in environmental contexts. This theoretical extension addresses critical limitations identified by Wang et al. [5,15] regarding the application of psychological distance concepts to environmental decision-making, while providing empirical patterns consistent with their theoretical assertions about the complex relationship between temporal distance and environmental concern.
Our findings demonstrate correlational patterns that align with the theoretical integration proposed by Chen et al. [2] regarding comprehensive sustainability literacy assessment, while extending their framework through identification of specific cognitive mechanisms. The substantial indirect effects observed in our sequential mediation model (β = 0.215) suggest relationships consistent with theoretical predictions regarding cognitive recalibration processes in sustainability education, though the correlational nature of our cross-sectional design precludes definitive causal conclusions about the mechanisms proposed by educational researchers such as Orion [10] and Thompson et al. [11].
The operationalization of sustainable behavior as a multidimensional construct builds upon the theoretical distinctions established by Kaiser [29], Stern and C. Paul [30], Schultz [31], and Roberts [32], while empirically validating the hierarchical organization proposed by Milfont and Duckitt [18] in their seminal environmental attitude research. Our strong second-order factor loadings (λ = 0.953 to λ = 0.991) provide empirical support for the theoretical assertion that diverse behavioral manifestations reflect underlying sustainability orientation, consistent with recent advances in environmental behavior measurement documented by Lange and Dewitte [17].

5.2. Implications for Educational Practice and Environmental Communication

The empirical patterns identified in our investigation provide theoretical foundation for several educational innovations that extend the Earth science education frameworks proposed by Orion and Ault [12] and Vasconcelos and Orion [1], though experimental validation remains necessary to establish implementation effectiveness. Based on our correlational findings suggesting that geological time perception development may enhance construal level processing, we theoretically propose that Earth science curricula could strategically emphasize temporal perspective expansion as advocated by contemporary Earth science education researchers [38,39].
Educational interventions theoretically derived from our framework might systematically target the four dimensions of geological time perception through coordinated instructional approaches informed by the pedagogical principles identified in Earth science education literature [40,41]. While our correlational findings cannot establish causality, they provide theoretical foundation for interventions addressing the cognitive mechanisms potentially underlying the educational effectiveness documented in sustainability education research [7,8,9].
Environmental communication strategies derived from our theoretical model suggest potential applications of construal-level alignment principles that extend the marketing and communication research established by Martin et al. [42], Pizzi et al. [43], and Chang et al. [13] into environmental education contexts. Our findings regarding the relationship between geological time perception and temporal construal level suggest patterns consistent with recent environmental communication research [14] demonstrating that message effectiveness might be optimized through strategic matching of message abstraction to psychological distance considerations.
Based on construal level theory principles established by Trope and Liberman [4,37], we theoretically propose that environmental messaging strategies could be strategically differentiated across psychological distance dimensions. Abstract construal-aligned approaches for temporally distant environmental issues might emphasize essential features, fundamental principles, and global significance while minimizing contextual specificity. Conversely, concrete construal-aligned approaches for proximal environmental actions might prioritize specific implementation procedures, immediate contextual details, and detailed behavioral guidance that facilitate immediate implementation within familiar environmental contexts.
While our correlational findings provide theoretical foundation for these communication strategies consistent with construal level research [44,45], experimental validation is necessary to establish their effectiveness across diverse populations and environmental contexts. These approaches represent theoretical extensions of our empirical findings rather than empirically validated interventions.

5.3. Methodological Innovations and Research Limitations

Our investigation introduces several methodological innovations that advance empirical approaches to environmental cognition research established in previous temporal cognition studies [46,47,48], while acknowledging significant limitations that constrain interpretive scope. The development of comprehensive measurement instruments for geological time perception extends the psychometric contributions of Dodick and Orion [3] while addressing measurement gaps identified in temporal cognition literature [24,49].
The application of advanced structural equation modeling techniques demonstrates analytical sophistication consistent with contemporary psychometric standards [23,33], while our sequential mediation analysis provides methodological exemplar for investigating cognitive mechanisms underlying educational effectiveness, extending the approaches documented in environmental psychology research [34].
Critical limitations constrain the generalizability and interpretive scope of our findings in ways that echo concerns raised throughout environmental psychology literature. The cross-sectional research design fundamentally limits causal inference capabilities, as our empirical patterns demonstrate conceptual consistency with theoretical predictions established by construal level theory [37,50] rather than establishing causal relationships among constructs. The temporal precedence assumptions underlying mediation analysis cannot be empirically verified through cross-sectional data, consistent with methodological limitations acknowledged in recent environmental behavior research [20].
The predominantly young adult sample composition constrains confident generalization to broader demographic contexts, consistent with sampling limitations noted in recent sustainability education research [19,51]. The cognitive mechanisms underlying temporal perspective expansion may operate differently across age cohorts, suggesting that our findings may be most directly applicable to educational interventions targeting younger adult populations, as acknowledged in contemporary educational research [16,52].
Methodological constraints inherent in self-report measurement approaches introduce potential artifacts despite rigorous psychometric validation procedures, consistent with limitations identified in environmental behavior measurement research [53,54]. Future investigations would benefit from incorporating experimental protocols that address the methodological challenges documented in temporal cognition and environmental psychology literature.

5.4. Future Research Directions and Theoretical Extensions

The theoretical framework validated in our investigation provides foundation for several promising research directions that extend contemporary advances in environmental cognition research [55,56]. Experimental studies systematically manipulating Earth science education content could build upon the educational effectiveness research documented by Orion [10] and Vasconcelos and Orion [1], while intervention studies explicitly targeting geological time perception would provide stronger evidence regarding the cognitive pathways proposed in temporal cognition literature.
Cross-cultural investigations examining cultural variations in temporal orientation could extend the cross-cultural research documented in environmental psychology [57] while addressing generalizability limitations in our current findings. Such investigations could illuminate boundary conditions that influence the cognitive mechanisms identified in our model, building upon recent advances in cultural environmental psychology research.
The integration of individual difference variables could illuminate potential moderators consistent with recent research on environmental attitudes and behavior [58,59], while longitudinal research tracking geological time perception development could provide crucial insights regarding the temporal dynamics proposed in educational development literature. These theoretical extensions could substantially broaden the impact of our conceptual contributions while advancing understanding of cognitive foundations underlying environmental education across multiple disciplinary domains, consistent with the interdisciplinary integration advocated in contemporary sustainability education research [21,22].

6. Conclusions

This investigation contributes to sustainability education theory by identifying correlational patterns suggesting how Earth science education may relate to sustainable behavior through geological time perception and temporal construal level. The validation of geological time perception as a multidimensional construct and the sequential mediation pathway provide a theoretical framework for understanding cognitive mechanisms in environmental education, extending beyond previous unidimensional approaches to offer more nuanced conceptual foundations for future research. The findings suggest promising directions for educational practice, though experimental validation remains essential. Educational interventions could theoretically target geological time perception development through systematic curriculum approaches, while environmental communication might align message abstraction with psychological distance principles. However, these applications represent theoretical extensions of our correlational findings rather than empirically validated interventions. Critical limitations constrain interpretation and application of our results. The cross-sectional design prevents causal inference, meaning our findings represent correlational associations rather than causal mechanisms. The young adult sample limits generalizability across broader populations. Future research must address these constraints through experimental manipulation studies to test causal relationships, longitudinal research tracking cognitive development over time, cross-cultural validation studies, and applied intervention research with systematic effectiveness evaluation. These priorities are essential for translating correlational patterns into evidence-based educational practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.L. and Y.T.; methodology, H.L.; software, H.L.; validation, H.L., Y.T. and J.G.; formal analysis, J.G.; investigation, H.L.; resources, Y.T.; data curation, H.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.L.; writing—review and editing, H.L.; visualization, H.L. and Y.T.; supervision, J.G.; project administration, J.G. and Y.T.; funding acquisition, Y.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Construction and Implementation of Practical Courses for Interdisciplinary Postgraduates in Geosciences of Chengdu University of Technology, grant number 2023YJG227.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Chengdu University of Technology, with the approval number SCCDUTLS-LLWYH-20230508 on 8 May 2023.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Vasconcelos, C.; Orion, N. Earth Science Education as a Key Component of Education for Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chen, C.; An, Q.; Zheng, L.; Guan, C. Sustainability Literacy: Assessment of Knowingness, Attitude and Behavior Regarding Sustainable Development among Students in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dodick, J.; Orion, N. Measuring student understanding of geological time. Sci. Educ. 2003, 87, 708–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 117, 440–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, S.; Hurlstone, M.J.; Leviston, Z.; Walker, I.; Lawrence, C. Construal-level theory and psychological distancing: Implications for grand environmental challenges. One Earth 2021, 4, 482–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aikowe, L.D.; Mazancova, J. Pro-environmental awareness of university students-assessment through sustainability literacy test. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2023, 24, 719–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Akeel, U.; Bell, S.; Mitchell, J.E. Assessing the sustainability literacy of the Nigerian engineering community. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 666–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sekhar, C.; Raina, R. Towards more sustainable future: Assessment of sustainability literacy among the future managers in India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 15830–15856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kuehl, C.; Sparks, A.C.; Hodges, H.; Smith, E.R.A.N. The incoherence of sustainability literacy assessed with the Sulitest. Nat. Sustain. 2021, 4, 555–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Orion, N. The future challenge of Earth science education research. Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 2019, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Thompson, D.; Marques, L. The Importance of History and Epistemology in the Designing of Earth Science Curriculum Materials for General Science Education. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2000, 18, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Orion, N.; Ault, C.R. Learning Earth Sciences. In Handbook of Research on Science Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 667–702. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chang, H.; Zhang, L.; Xie, G.X. Message framing in green advertising: The effect of construal level and consumer environmental concern. Int. J. Advert. 2015, 34, 158–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Batra, P. Acting Now or Later: The Role of Message Framing and Temporal Distance in Promoting Sustainable Consum-er Behavior. Master’s Thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  15. Wang, S.; Hurlstone, M.J.; Leviston, Z.; Walker, I.; Lawrence, C. Climate Change From a Distance: An Analysis of Construal Level and Psychological Distance from Climate Change. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Maciejewski, G.; Lesznik, D. Consumers Towards the Goals of Sustainable Development: Attitudes and Typology. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lange, F.; Dewitte, S. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Milfont, T.L.; Duckitt, J. The structure of environmental attitudes: A first-and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Randler, C.; Härtel, T.; de Almeida Barbosa, R. Development and psychometric validation of a brief scale to measure environmental perception based on the 2-major environmental values model in adolescents and adults. BMC Psychol. 2024, 12, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Taherdoost, H. Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. 2016, 5, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aoyama, H. A study of the stratified random sampling. Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 1954, 6, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Koyuncu, N.; Kadilar, C. Ratio and product estimators in stratified random sampling. J. Stat. Plan. Inference. 2009, 139, 2552–2558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ullman, J.B.; Bentler, P.M. Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Psychology, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  24. Trend, R. Conceptions of geological time among primary teacher trainees, with reference to their engagement with geoscience, history, and science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 22, 539–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hidalgo, M.C.; Hernandez, B. Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dodick, J.; Orion, N. Building an understanding of geological time: A cognitive synthesis of the “macro” and “micro” scales of time. In Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth; Special Paper of the Geological Society of America; Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  27. Vallacher, R.R.; Wegner, D.M. Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 660–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liberman, N.; Trope, Y. The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kaiser, F.G. A General Measure of Ecological Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28, 395–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Stern, P.C. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schultz, P.W. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Roberts, J.A. Green Consumers in the 1990s: Profile and Implications for Advertising. J. Bus. Res. 1996, 36, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bowen, N.K.; Guo, S.Y. Structural Equation Modeling; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pyke, G.H.; Ehrlich, P.R. Biological collections and ecological/environmental research: A review, some observations and a look to the future. Biol. Rev. 2010, 85, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fraisse, P. Perception and estimation of time. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1984, 35, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Levin, I.; Zakay, D. Time and Human Cognition, a Life-Span Perspective; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989; Volume 33, p. 885. [Google Scholar]
  37. Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Construal level theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology; Sage Publishing: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 118–134. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hoffman, M.; Barstow, D. Revolutionizing Earth System Science Education for the 21st Century: Report and Recommendations from a 50-State Analysis of Earth Science Education Standards; National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  39. Chang, C.Y.; Lee, W.C.; Yeh, T.K. Taiwanese Earth Science Curriculum Guidelines and Their Relationships to the Earth Systems Education of the United States. J. Geosci. Educ. 2006, 54, 620–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Krygier, J.B.; Reeves, C.; DiBiase, D.; Cupp, J. Design, implementation and evaluation of multimedia resources for geography and earth science education. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 1997, 21, 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Penuel, W.R.; Gallagher, L.P. Preparing Teachers to Design Instruction for Deep Understanding in Middle School Earth Science. J. Learn. Sci. 2009, 18, 461–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Martin, B.A.S.; Gnoth, J.; Strong, C. Temporal construal in advertising: The moderating role of temporal orientation and attribute importance upon consumer evaluations. J. Advert. 2009, 38, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pizzi, G.; Marzocchi, G.L.; Orsingher, C.; Zammit, A. The Temporal Construal of Customer Satisfaction. J. Serv. Res. 2015, 18, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhao, M.; Xie, J. Effects of Social and Temporal Distance on Consumers’ Responses to Peer Recommendations. J. Mark. Res. 2011, 48, 486–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kim, D.H.; Sung, Y.; Drumwright, M. ‘Where I come from’ determines, ‘how I construe my future’: The fit effect of culture, temporal distance, and construal level. Int. J. Advert. 2016, 37, 270–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shipp, A.J.; Edwards, J.R.; Lambert, L.S. Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2009, 110, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Roberts, K.L.; Allen, H.A. Perception and Cognition in the Ageing Brain: A Brief Review of the Short-and Long-Term Links between Perceptual and Cognitive Decline. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2016, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Boschetti, F.; Walker, I.; Price, J. Modelling and attitudes towards the future. Ecol. Model. 2016, 322, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Allman, M.J.; Meck, W.H. Pathophysiological distortions in time perception and timed performance. Brain 2012, 135, 656–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 79, 876–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Balderjahn, I.; Peyer, M.; Seegebarth, B.; Wiedmann, K.P.; Weber, A. The many faces of sustainability-conscious consumers: A category-independent typology. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 91, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jacobsen, S.S.; Korsgaard, S.; Günzel-Jensen, F. Towards a Typology of Sustainability Practices: A Study of the Potentials and Challenges of Sustainable Practices at the Firm Level. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lange, F.; Steinke, A.; Dewitte, S. The Pro-Environmental Behavior Task: A laboratory measure of actual pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 56, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dobson, A. Environmental citizenship: Towards sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 15, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Amorim, G.; Santos, M.; Park, S.; Franci, A.; Leonard, N.E. Threshold Decision-Making Dynamics Adaptive to Physical Constraints and Changing Environment. In Proceedings of the 2024 European Control Conference (ECC), Stockholm, Sweden, 25–28 June 2024; pp. 1908–1913. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wang, B.; Lei, H.; Shui, Z.; Chen, Z.; Yang, P. Current state of autonomous driving applications based on distributed perception and decision-making. J. Intell. Connect. Veh. 2024, 7, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Wang, X.; Hussain, M.; Rasool, S.F.; Mohelska, H. Impact of corporate social responsibility on sustainable competitive advantages: The mediating role of corporate reputation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 46207–46220. [Google Scholar]
  58. Rosenberg, G. An artistic perspective on the continuity of space and the origin of modern geologic thought. Earth sciences history: J. Hist. Earth Sci. Soc. 2001, 20, 127–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Argyll, D.O. Continuity and catastrophes in geology. Trans. Edinb. Geol. Soc. 1885, 5, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 07754 g001
Figure 1. Structural model of geological time perception and sustainable behavior.
Figure 1. Structural model of geological time perception and sustainable behavior.
Sustainability 17 07754 g001
Sustainability 17 07754 g002
Figure 2. The mechanism between geological time perception and sustainable behavior.
Figure 2. The mechanism between geological time perception and sustainable behavior.
Sustainability 17 07754 g002
Table 1. Sample characteristics and descriptive statistics of main research variables.
Table 1. Sample characteristics and descriptive statistics of main research variables.
Panel A: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample.
CharacteristicCategoryFrequencyPercentage
GenderFemale15254.30%
Male12645.00%
Other/Prefer not to say20.70%
Age18–2515455.00%
26–3512645.00%
Education LevelHigh school or below3412.10%
College/University15856.40%
Graduate degree8831.40%
Prior Earth Science EducationNone/Very limited6824.30%
Some exposure12444.30%
Significant experience8831.40%
Panel B: Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients for Main Variables.
VariableMeanSDCronbach’s αCRAVE
Earth Science Education (ESE)3.181.160.8950.9010.753
Geological Time Perception (GTP)3.181.140.9610.9870.949
Time Span Perception (TSP)3.21.170.8760.8740.777
Geological Process Understanding (GPU)3.171.190.8550.8470.734
Time Depth Perception (TDP)3.181.220.8880.8810.787
Geological Change Continuity (GCC)3.191.210.8710.8640.761
Temporal Construal Level (TCL)3.121.190.9520.9460.746
Sustainable Behavior (SB)3.131.140.950.9680.885
Direct Environmental Behavior (DEB)3.121.20.8680.870.77
Indirect Environmental Behavior (IEB)3.111.20.8460.8480.736
Citizen Environmental Behavior (CEB)3.141.210.8290.8390.722
Sustainable Consumption Behavior (SCB)3.121.220.8540.8650.762
Note. SD = Standard Deviation; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted. All scale items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Geological Time Perception (GTP) is a second-order construct comprising TSP, GPU, TDP, and GCC. Sustainable Behavior (SB) is a second-order construct comprising DEB, IEB, CEB, and SCB.
Table 2. Correlation matrix for main research variables.
Table 2. Correlation matrix for main research variables.
Variable123
1. Earth Science Education (ESE)1
2. Geological Time Perception (GTP)0.536 ***1
3. Temporal Construal Level (TCL)0.356 ***0.629 ***1
4. Sustainable Behavior (SB)0.236 ***0.402 ***0.556 ***
Note. *** indicates that the p-value is less than 0.001, showing high significance.
Table 3. Measurement model results and model fit indices.
Table 3. Measurement model results and model fit indices.
Panel A: Second-Order Measurement Model Results.
Constructs and IndicatorsStandardized Factor Loadingt-Valuep-Value
Geological Time Perception (GTP)
Time Span Perception (TSP)0.99490.202<0.001
Geological Process Understanding (GPU)0.9966.141<0.001
Time Depth Perception (TDP)0.9884.642<0.001
Geological Change Continuity (GCC)0.98668.913<0.001
Sustainable Behavior (SB)
Direct Environmental Behavior (DEB)0.95362.779<0.001
Indirect Environmental Behavior (IEB)0.96763.808<0.001
Citizen Environmental Behavior (CEB)0.96455.421<0.001
Sustainable Consumption Behavior (SCB)0.99171.82<0.001
Panel B: Model Fit Indices.
Fit IndexValueRecommended Threshold
Chi-square (χ2)257.148
Degrees of freedom (df)262
p-value0.573>0.05
χ2/df0.982<3.0
CFI1≥0.95
TLI1.001≥0.95
RMSEA0<0.06
RMSEA 90% CI[0.000, 0.022]Upper bound < 0.08
SRMR0.025<0.08
Table 4. Structural equation model results and hypothesis testing.
Table 4. Structural equation model results and hypothesis testing.
Panel A: Direct Effects.
Hypothesis and PathStandardized Coefficient (β)t-Valuep-Value
H1: Earth Science Education → Geological Time Perception0.6113.839<0.001
H2: Geological Time Perception → Temporal Construal Level0.67211.298<0.001
H3: Temporal Construal Level → Sustainable Behavior0.5238.579<0.001
Panel B: Mediation Effects.
Hypothesis and PathEffect TypeStandardized Coefficient (β)Proportion MediatedResult
H4: Mediation—GTP → TCL → SB
Direct effect (GTP → SB)0.085--
Indirect effect (GTP → TCL → SB)0.3060.783Supported
Total effect0.391--
H5: Mediation—ESE → GTP → TCL
Direct effect (ESE → TCL)0.027--
Indirect effect (ESE → GTP → TCL)0.3250.923Supported
Total effect0.352--
Sequential Mediation—ESE → GTP → TCL → SB
Indirect effect0.215-Supported
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

Li, H.; Tian, Y.; Gan, J. Geological Time Perspective and Pro-Environmental Decision-Making: A Structural Equation Model Exploring Temporal Construal Level as a Cognitive Mediator. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177754

AMA Style

Li H, Tian Y, Gan J. Geological Time Perspective and Pro-Environmental Decision-Making: A Structural Equation Model Exploring Temporal Construal Level as a Cognitive Mediator. Sustainability. 2025; 17(17):7754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177754

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Hui, Yaming Tian, and Jie Gan. 2025. "Geological Time Perspective and Pro-Environmental Decision-Making: A Structural Equation Model Exploring Temporal Construal Level as a Cognitive Mediator" Sustainability 17, no. 17: 7754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177754

APA Style

Li, H., Tian, Y., & Gan, J. (2025). Geological Time Perspective and Pro-Environmental Decision-Making: A Structural Equation Model Exploring Temporal Construal Level as a Cognitive Mediator. Sustainability, 17(17), 7754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177754

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