Next Article in Journal
Trap of Social Media Algorithms: A Systematic Review of Research on Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Their Impact on Youth
Previous Article in Journal
Inclusive Education in Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis of Faculty Attitudes, Knowledge, and Practices in Colombian Universities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Societies
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/soc15110300
societies-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

Digital Media and Political Engagement: Shaping Youth Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors in Four European Societies

by
Tyler Hansen
1,
Chloe K. Taylor
2 and
Ryan T. Knowles
3,*
1
Department of Teaching and Learning, Washington State University Tri-Cities, Richland, WA 99354, USA
2
Department of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
3
School of Teacher Education and Leadership, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Societies 2025, 15(11), 300; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15110300
Submission received: 16 August 2025 / Revised: 12 September 2025 / Accepted: 22 October 2025 / Published: 30 October 2025
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between students’ political engagement, civic knowledge, socioeconomic status, gender, and digital media use and their pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, and Romania. To do this, we use data from the International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS:22) and employ hierarchical level modeling. We found that students with higher civic knowledge and greater confidence in their ability to be active citizens were more likely to report both pro-environmental behaviors and positive attitudes in every country studied. Socioeconomic status also showed positive links with environmental engagement. Digital media use was linked to more pro-environmental behaviors in all countries, but to less positive attitudes in Spain. These results demonstrate the need for context-specific strategies that teach students how to engage collectively towards a more sustainable future.

1. Introduction

Environmental literacy plays a vital role in shaping how youths understand and engage with environmental issues and equips them to participate in meaningful action for change [1,2].Pro-environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors indicate how individuals think about and act upon environmental issues [3]. ‘Attitudes’ refers to a spectrum of enduring sentiments toward environmental issues, influenced by both cognitive and affective factors [4], while ‘behaviors’ refers to actions that contribute directly to environmental efforts [2,5]. However, the relationship between attitudes and behaviors is still contested [6]. While early models suggested a straightforward, linear relationship between attitudes and behaviors, more recent studies emphasize the social, political, and contextual factors that influence individuals’ environmental actions [7]. Students’ political views and media usage significantly influence their perceptions and actions regarding environmental protection [8]. Additionally, the rise of digital media has introduced new dimensions to environmental discourse and activism [9]; students now get more information about climate change online than they do in formal education [10]. Digital platforms can amplify critical media literacy but can also reinforce existing biases and limit individuals’ ability to see diverse perspectives [11], particularly for climate change discourse [12,13]. Taking these factors together, we argue that students continue to form environmental understandings in sociopolitical contexts. Furthermore, since environmental challenges, like climate change, require social change [1], it is as much a social studies education topic as it is a scientific one. Thus, there is an urgent need to examine how social studies education, in tandem with societal influences, shapes their environmental attitudes and actions.
Despite this need for environmental education to be considered, few studies investigate these factors in the context of education, particularly in tandem. Therefore, this study investigates how students’ critical views of the political system, civic knowledge, citizenship self-efficacy, gender, socioeconomic status, and digital media engagement influence pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors across national contexts. We use data from the 2022 cycle of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) [14], a cross-national, large-scale assessment of civic knowledge and engagement among eighth-grade students. This research draws on newly developed measures of attitudes and behaviors. We focus on Denmark, Sweden, Spain, and Romania, selected based on cross-national differences in pro-environmental behavior [15], with the former two exhibiting high levels of behaviors and the latter two reflecting lower levels. We investigate how educational and sociopolitical contexts influence youth environmental engagement and offer insights into promoting environmental literacy and sustainable practices across diverse civic landscapes within educational contexts.
With this background in mind, we ask the following research questions:
How do critical views of the political system, civic knowledge, citizenship self-efficacy, gender, socioeconomic status, and digital media engagement influence students’ environmental attitudes and behaviors across different countries?
What are the differences in predictors of attitudes and behaviors among students in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, and Romania, considering contextual factors such as environmental policies and societal characteristics?

2. Conceptual Framework

We ground our investigation of youth environmental engagement in the framework of persistent civic challenges articulated by Levy et al. [16]. Their model demonstrates how equity and inclusion, political pluralism, civic competency, and media literacy are not isolated domains, but interconnected and situated within broader ecological, social, and ideological change. In other words, these connected factors contribute to the democratic process and, consequently, are the factors that researchers in social studies education should focus on. This is particularly important for education on environmental crises, as these crises impact society as much as they do natural systems. Therefore, ecological challenges are as political as they are scientific. As they note:
“…the problem of anthropogenic climate change is political, not scientific. The science of climate change is information about the systems of the Earth and how they work; the politics of climate change is discourse and deliberation about what to do with information about how the systems of the Earth work. Thus, the problem of anthropogenic climate change is social; it is squarely in the domain of social studies education, even if the field has largely failed to acknowledge this reality”.
(p. 4)
However, studies on ecological crises in social studies education remain limited. Moreover, there is limited research on how much these factors influence pro-environmental action. This is particularly salient for international education, as not all nations respond to these factors in the same way [17].
In adapting this model to our study, we focus specifically on how these challenges relate to pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Figure 1 presents a modified version of Levy et al.’s [16] framework to reflect our conceptualization of these civic challenges as a network through which students encounter, interpret, and respond to environmental issues. Our selected variables correspond to dimensions within this network and reflect the civic realities students must navigate. From this perspective, pro-environmental action is a civic process rooted in students’ engagement with overlapping societal forces.
This framing informs both our research design and our interpretation of the results. Specifically, because ecological change requires sociopolitical literacy and involvement, we expected that higher political self-efficacy and knowledge, including involvement through digital media, would predict higher pro-environmental action. Additionally, since socioeconomic status has mixed results, with some studies demonstrating a positive relationship (e.g., [18]) and other studies demonstrating a negative relationship (e.g., [19]), we include this in our model. Lastly, we also include gender to look at differences within each country. Although multiple studies indicate that women typically report higher pro-environmental behaviors [20,21,22], Xia et al. [23] found no relationship between gender and pro-environmental behavior when considering private-sphere and public-sphere behaviors. Since we are concerned with the relationship between civic knowledge and engagement and pro-environmental action, we include gender in our analysis.
Drawing on data from the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2022, we examine how these civic variables influence environmental attitudes and behaviors across four countries: Denmark, Sweden, Spain, and Romania. By situating these relationships within the framework of persistent civic challenges, we aim to move beyond individual-level explanations and toward a more systemic understanding of youth environmental engagement.

3. Literature Review

As stated, we draw on the interdependent persistent civic challenges [16] to guide the selection and organization of variables related to students’ pro-environmental engagement. These challenges highlight the need for students to develop civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions that support informed, reflective, and participatory citizenship. Framing our analysis within this model, we examine existing literature on critical views of the political system, civic knowledge, citizenship self-efficacy, socioeconomic status, gender, and digital media engagement as factors that can underpin students’ environmental attitudes and behaviors. This review synthesizes current research on each factor individually and identifies the need for comparative analyses across sociopolitical contexts.

3.1. Pro-Environmental Attitudes

Pro-environmental attitudes encompass beliefs and values individuals hold about the environment, defined as enduring positive or negative feelings toward environmental issues [3]. These attitudes are shaped by both cognitive (beliefs) and affective (emotions) factors, as Pooley & O’Connor [4] argue in their study. In the United States, Stevenson et al. [24] found that frequent discussions about climate change with friends and family predicted environmental concern in middle school students. Despite this, some dimensions of environmental attitudes remain underexplored [25].
While both cognitive and affective domains are crucial, environmental values are the most relevant facet for this study, reflecting a person’s stance on environmental protection. Several scales measure these values, such as Dunlap et al.’s [26] ecological worldview, which includes five facets: recognition of growth limits, anti-anthropocentrism, belief in nature’s balance, rejection of exceptionalism, and concern for ecological crises. Although considered outdated by some [6], more recent scales, like Bouman et al.’s [27] Environmental Portrait Value Questionnaire and Bogner’s [28] Two Environmental Value Model, have incorporated modern factors like climate change and appreciation of nature. Bernstein & Szuster [29] suggested further updates, adding views on technology, societal responses, and nature itself. These scales broadly position environmental attitudes as approval or disapproval of individual or societal responses to environmental issues.
Taking the literature and the ICCS survey items together, we define pro-environmental attitudes as more of an endorsement of public-sphere action. Given that attitudes can be influenced by age [30], culture [31], and, most relevant to this study, country of origin [32], there is a clear need to look at students across different countries. By doing so, we can better understand the specific contexts that influence pro-environmental attitudes and what differences come from those contexts.

3.2. Pro-Environmental Behaviors

Pro-environmental behavior is often seen as the ultimate goal of environmental education. Lucas [5] identified four goals for research in this field: testing educational programs for their ability to change behavior, establishing causal links between knowledge and behavior, evaluating techniques for promoting sustainable practices, and conducting longitudinal studies on adult behavior. These goals have driven much research on the causes of behaviors, as reflected in Gifford’s [33] question: “What limits more widespread mitigation, adaptation, and sustainability actions on the part of individuals for whom such actions are feasible?” (p. 290). Larson et al. [3] describe behaviors as actions that preserve the environment or advocate for sustainable resource use. Krasny [6] expands this by categorizing behaviors into lifestyle choices, citizenship actions, and stewardship practices, highlighting the complexity of human-environment interactions.
Pro-environmental behaviors encompass individual behaviors and collective actions [34]. For example, de Leeuw et al. [35] included everyday behaviors like turning off the TV when leaving a room, while Ando et al. [36] distinguished between avoiding throwaway products and participating in community environmental meetings. Both group and personal values influence behaviors [37], but these factors often interact with one another [36]. Additionally, factors like socioeconomic status, religious beliefs, social norms, and participation in non-consumptive nature activities can influence behavior (e.g., [38]). However, demographic predictors are not always consistent; while Ambrosius and Gilderbloom [39] found that urbanites in the United States engaged in more behaviors, Meloni et al. [40] noted urban stress as a moderating factor.
Looking across these studies, these findings suggest that behavior is also context-specific, both in measure (individual and collective action) and by society. A cross-national analysis is essential to reveal broad patterns and distinctions. We view behavior as more individual, given the literature and the ICCS items we evaluate. By viewing attitudes and behaviors together across different countries, we can see how differing ideologies relate to patterns of both individual and collective pro-environmental action.

3.3. Civic Engagement and Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors

Political views strongly influence environmental attitudes and behaviors. Kunkle & Monroe [41] found that educators with hierarchical-individualist views were less supportive of climate change education, while egalitarian-communitarians were more supportive, aligning with broader research on how political ideologies affect environmental stances [42]. Government political orientation also drives certain environmental policies and public behavior [43]. Students often bring sociopolitical understandings of climate change into the classroom. For example, Hestness et al. [10] found that middle school students in the United States primarily developed their conceptions of climate change through media exposure and personal experiences outside of school.
Engaging these students in models of citizenship has the potential to support pro-environmental behaviors later in life [44]. Political engagement and public issue involvement contribute to young people’s environmental action, as seen in their acceptance of anthropogenic climate change and climate discussions [24]. Civic knowledge is essential for engaging with the sociopolitical context shaping environmental issues [45]. Kranz et al. [46] argued that climate education should equip students to understand and engage in public action, incorporating political literacy, though the link between civic knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors remains underexplored.
Luckily, many students are eager to engage in critical political discourse Zummo et al. [8] found that young people expressed climate change concerns, even using anti-capitalist rhetoric, in letters during the 2016 U.S. election, reflecting a critical pedagogy approach where students actively create discourse [47]. Additionally, youth activism has emerged as a coping mechanism for climate anxiety amid the current crisis [48].
Interestingly, civic engagement is a positive reported outcome for environmental education interventions. Ardoin et al. [49] found that environmental education programs that focused on action-taking, community, social interaction, cognitive skills, and participatory approaches improved civic engagement. Furthermore, a cross-national analysis of youth activism in different cities found that pro-environmental attitudes and political engagement predicted a higher likelihood of activism [50]. These studies indicate that environmental action predicts civic engagement, but whether it works in the opposite direction remains underexplored.

3.3.1. Socioeconomic Status

Past research on the relationship between socioeconomic status and pro-environmental attitudes or behaviors is mixed. Some studies find that individuals with lower socioeconomic status are more likely to engage in behaviors, such as walking, biking, or taking public transit, due to financial constraints (e.g., [19]). However, other researchers argue that those with higher socioeconomic status feel a greater moral responsibility toward sustainability [18]. Eom et al. [51] examined how socioeconomic status influences support for pro-environmental policies, finding that higher socioeconomic status individuals are driven by personal beliefs and a sense of control, while lower socioeconomic status individuals are more influenced by social norms supporting pro-environmental action.

3.3.2. Gender

Researchers consistently demonstrate strong gender differences in pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, with women generally reporting stronger attitudes and more behaviors than men [20,21]. Wut et al. [22] found that in Asian cities, women’s behaviors were influenced more by lifestyle and social norms, while men’s behaviors were shaped by attitudes toward a waste policy. Interestingly, young people’s behaviors were not affected by policy attitudes, and boys and girls reported similar behaviors [52], suggesting that gender may have less impact on attitudes and behaviors in younger populations. In a more recent study, Xia et al. [23] used data from 57 countries to investigate how gender and gender roles influenced both private-sphere and public-sphere pro-environmental behaviors. They found that girls were more likely to engage in private-sphere behaviors at the individual level, particularly when gender roles in that society were weaker. This demonstrates how contextual factors can influence individual and collective action across gender.

3.3.3. Digital Media

Pro-environmental behavior is influenced by personal factors, such as attitudes and capabilities, and contextual factors, including media use. For instance, Amriwijaya & Trirahardjo [53] found that, for junior high school students, social media use increased students’ pro-environmental behaviors. In China, Shah et al. [54] also found that students’ use of social networking had a positive influence on pro-environmental behavior.
However, digital media doesn’t always directly translate to either pro-environmental behaviors or attitudes. For example, Gonzalez et al. [55] examined the social media habits of Belgian secondary students and found that only ‘liking’ posts was associated with pro-environmental attitudes. Moreover, social media algorithms often create echo chambers, reinforcing existing beliefs and limiting exposure to diverse perspectives, which impacts environmental education [56]. Schradie [57] warns that digital activism can be co-opted by special interests, making it crucial for educators to teach students how to critically assess media and navigate online civic engagement. For example, Kinol et al. [58] demonstrated a coordinated effort across petrochemical, agrichemical, and plastic Twitter accounts to deny climate science and obstruct climate change policy. While we still expected digital activism to have a positive relationship with pro-environmental action, youth may engage with different types of activism across different national contexts.

4. Methods

This study investigates the implications of students’ societal dynamics to understand how students perceive and act towards environmental protection. To predict students’ attitudes and behavior towards environmental protection, this study assessed the degree of students’ socioeconomic status (SES), civic knowledge, gender, and support of self-efficacy within political systems. The following sections outline the measures, data analysis, and country selection.

4.1. Source of Data for Secondary Analysis

The International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS), conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), employs a nationally representative, cross-national design to explore how eighth-grade education prepares students for civic life. Besides measuring civic knowledge and engagement, the 2022 cycle introduced scales for pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Employing rigorous methodologies such as matrix sampling and item response theory, ICCS collects data from students, teachers, and school leaders, capturing classroom climates, school practices, and broader sociopolitical contexts [17]. Our study only incorporated student data. The countries Spain, Romania, Sweden, and Denmark, were chosen for three main reasons. First, these countries completed the ICCS:22. Second, they demonstrated cross-national patterns of pro-environmental behavior identified by Mikuła et al.’s [15] study that assessed pro-environmental behaviors in the European Union countries in 2009 and 2019. Specifically, Spain and Romania reflect lower levels of behaviors, while Sweden and Denmark represent higher levels according to Mikuła et al.’s [15] 2019 results. This contrast supports a comparative analysis of how sociodemographic factors, civic knowledge, and political engagement shape environmental literacy and sustainable behaviors among youth across diverse national contexts. Third, this study wanted to limit the number of countries to provide more contextualized findings [17], so only two countries from each of the extreme ends of behaviors were chosen.

4.2. Participants

Sampling was collected through a stratified two-stage random sampling design (see [14]). Data was collected from students who had been enrolled in schooling for eight years (i.e., Grade 8 or 9, depending on the country) in participating countries [14]. The mean age at the time of testing had to be around 13.5 years [14]. Students may have been excluded if the cost of the survey was too much, they did not have the physical means to administer the survey, or their school or class was excluded through not meeting the inclusion criteria or random sampling [14]. Countries participating in the ICCS 22 could choose to remove larger groups of schools, students, or teachers for a variety of reasons, including political, operational, or administrative [14]. However, the participating countries are considered to have full population coverage [14]. Additionally, students with intellectual disabilities, who are functionally disabled, or unable to understand the native language in which the survey was administered [14].

4.3. Measures

Views on the political system and self-efficacy are key to understanding environmental protection ideologies and activism. These scales were selected based on their established relationship with pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors [59,60]. Controlling for each country’s level of belief in climate change would have been ideal; however, this information was not provided within the specific dataset utilized for these analyses. We aim to examine how these factors predict attitudes and behaviors separately, as attitudes do not always lead to behaviors [3,6,61,62]. Understanding these relationships is essential for fostering behaviors in children, who can influence their families [63,64].
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics. The final hierarchical linear model (HLM) includes measures of political views, citizenship self-efficacy, engagement with political or social issues through digital media, SES, civic knowledge, and gender, using combined International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS:22) scales [14]. The ICCS:22 and ICCS:22EU [65] assessed attitudes and behaviors across multiple countries, marking a significant contribution to civic education research. This study is among the first to use these questions to investigate attitudes and behaviors in the IEA’s ICCS framework [14].

4.4. Students’ Positive Attitudes Toward Environmental Protection

To analyze attitudes, students responded to five ICCS:22 statements regarding environmental protection. These statements addressed the role of government versus individual responsibility, prioritization of environmental protection over economic growth, and the need for international cooperation. Specifically, students indicated their agreement on whether governments should prioritize the environment over economic growth, contribute to protecting the environment in other countries, and work together to preserve global resources. Additionally, they were asked whether citizens should reduce pollution and take responsibility for preserving the natural world.

Students’ Critical Views of the Political System

Researchers speculate that a country’s legislation can have an impact on attitudes [43]. To examine views of the country’s government, students provided support or disagreement for three statements about political leaders, members of parliament/congress, and political decision-making in the country tested. Students answered questions about whether they believed members of parliament/congress do not care about the wishes or forget the needs of the people, and if they have too much power compared to other people.

4.5. Students’ Reports on Expected Participation in Environmental Protection Activities

To assess sustainable behaviors, students reported how often they partake in behaviors within eight items in the ICCS:22EU. These items addressed reducing, reusing, and recycling a variety of goods. The items regarded purchasing used instead of new clothing, reducing water and electricity usage, reducing food waste, avoiding buying products with plastic packaging and limiting the use of plastic, and reusing and repairing old items as much as possible.

4.5.1. Students’ Citizenship Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy can enhance behaviors when individuals know what actions to take [59]. Civic self-efficacy, in particular, is linked to greater engagement in social movement citizenship, including environmental values. To assess self-efficacy, students reported their confidence in performing seven activities related to activism in political and social issues. These activities included following debates, assessing information credibility, arguing a viewpoint, speaking on controversial topics, running for election, organizing student groups, and writing to a newspaper about a current issue.

4.5.2. Students’ Engagement with Political or Social Issues Using Digital Media

Since engagement with environmental issues through digital media may increase behaviors [56,60], perhaps even more so than through formal education [10], we utilized this measurement within the HLM analysis. To investigate digital media usage, students responded to three statements regarding how often they are involved in political or social issues through social media. The statements regarded how often the student posts their own political or social issue content, shares content posted by someone else, or comments on or like a post about a political or social issue.

4.6. Individual Factors Impacting Participants

We considered individual factors that could contribute to pro-environmental action. In addition, we also considered students’ understanding of civic practices, as Levy et al. [16] indicate in their framework.

4.6.1. National Index of Socioeconomic Background (SES)

To measure students’ SES in the ICCS:22, students reported questions related to their parents. Three items were surveyed regarding the parents’ education(s), occupation(s), and number of books in the household. All items were utilized in the SES variables for ICCS 2009 and 2016 editions. The internationally normed scale of SES provided in the ICCS:22 was utilized in the HLM.

4.6.2. Civic Knowledge—1st PV

The civic knowledge data from ICCS:22 included 55 items, with 26 from ICCS 2009, 29 from ICCS 2016, and new items added for ICCS:22. The scale, based on the Rasch model, covered civic institutions, principles, participation, and roles at the content level, and knowing, reasoning, and applying at the cognitive level. Additionally, items assessing education for sustainable development (ESD) and global citizenship education (GCED) were added to investigate these topics in relation to civic knowledge [14].

4.6.3. Student Gender

Students’ gender was considered within the HLM analysis because males and females have demonstrated differences in reporting attitudes and behaviors [20]. Students reported their gender on a dichotomized scale in the ICCS:22 (i.e., boy or girl).

5. Data Analysis

We conducted analyses using Stata (Version 17; StataCorp LLC, 2025) [66]. The assumptions were checked and confirmed prior to running analyses. We used Stata to use the appropriate replicate weights in accordance with the guidelines provided within the ICCS 2022 user guide [67]. Description of the data, data analysis, and country groupings are below.

Multilevel Modeling

Students’ critical views of the political system, citizenship self-efficacy, engagement with political or social issues via digital media, SES, civic knowledge, and gender were used to predict positive attitudes toward environmental protection and behaviors. All predictors were standardized and analyzed in a two-level hierarchical linear model (HLM) using Stata (Version 17; StataCorp LLC, 2025) [66].
In total, we conducted eight separate HLMs as each of the four countries had two models for each dependent variable (attitudes and behaviors). Table 2 presents the results, including the intra-item correlation coefficient and variance explained. Each HLM built consisted of a two-step process: First, a one-level HLM was conducted with students’ positive attitudes toward environmental protection as the dependent variable. Then, the second model included all independent predictors to examine their influence on attitudes. A separate HLM assessed sustainable behavior without predictors, followed by a final model where all predictors were added to test their moderation of behaviors. These analyses allowed us to compare the predictors’ impact on attitudes versus behaviors with a focus on within-country variance based on each HLM’s results. This allows for meaningful findings within each country, rather than making comparisons across countries.

6. Results

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. All eight HLM results are located in Table 2. The table contains standardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses.

6.1. Pro-Environmental Attitudes (PEA)

Within Denmark, the independent variables explain 15% of the variance in students’ reports of pro-environmental attitudes. Within Sweden, the independent variables explain 16% of the variance in students’ reports of pro-environmental attitudes. Within Spain, the independent variables explain 12% of the variance in students’ reports of pro-environmental attitudes. Within Romania, the independent variables explain 12% of the variance in students’ reports of pro-environmental attitudes. Looking at students’ attitudes for each country in Table 2, all countries had significant positive relationships between environmental attitudes and students’ critical views of the political system (Denmark: b = 0.38, SE = 0.14, p = 0.009; Sweden: b = 0.68, SE = 0.18, p < 0.001; Spain: b = 1.18, SE = 0.18, p < 0.001; Romania: b = 1.25, SE = 0.17, p < 0.001), citizenship self-efficacy (Denmark: b = 1.70, SE = 0.15, p < 0.001; Sweden: b = 2.00, SE = 0.18, p < 0.001; Spain: b = 1.52, SE = 0.18, p < 0.001; Romania: b = 0.91, SE = 0.15, p < 0.001), and civic knowledge (Denmark: b = 1.06, SE = 0.16, p < 0.001; Sweden: b = 2.07, SE = 0.21, p < 0.001; Spain: b = 1.23, SE = 0.20, p < 0.001; Romania: b = 1.27, SE = 0.20, p < 0.001). In addition, students’ gender showed a significant positive coefficient with students’ attitudes in all countries (Denmark: b = 2.49, SE = 0.28, p < 0.001; Sweden: b = 3.05, SE = 0.35, p < 0.001; Spain: b = 1.88, SE = 0.34, p < 0.001; Romania: b = 0.83, SE = 0.33, p = 0.012). SES was found to have a significant positive relationship with attitudes in Denmark and Sweden (Denmark: b = 0.80, SE = 0.15, p < 0.001; Sweden: b = 0.67, SE = 0.20, p < 0.001). Lastly, students’ engagement with political and social issues using digital media was significantly negatively correlated with students’ attitudes in Spain (b = −0.78, SE = 0.18, p < 0.001).

6.2. Pro-Environmental Behaviors (PEB)

Within Denmark, the independent variables explain 16% of the variance in students’ reports of pro-environmental behaviors. Within Sweden, the independent variables explain 10% of the variance in students’ reports of pro-environmental behaviors. Within Spain, the independent variables explain 10% of the variance in students’ reports of pro-environmental behaviors. Within Romania, the independent variables explain 6% of the variance in students’ reports of pro-environmental behaviors. Looking at students’ behaviors for each country in Table 2, all countries had significant positive relationships between students’ citizenship self-efficacy (Denmark: b = 1.20, SE = 0.15, p < 0.001; Sweden: b = 1.24, SE = 0.19, p < 0.001; Spain: b = 0.91, SE = 0.15, p < 0.001; Romania: b = 1.15, SE = 0.16, p < 0.001), engagement with political or social issues using digital media (Denmark: b =0.69, SE = 0.15, p < 0.001; Sweden: b = 1.05, SE = 0.18, p < 0.001; Spain: b = 0.65, SE = 0.15, p < 0.001; Romania: b = 1.04, SE = 0.16, p < 0.001), and civic knowledge (Denmark: b = 0.76, SE = 0.16, p < 0.001; Sweden: b = 1.49, SE = 0.21, p < 0.001; Spain: b = 0.73, SE = 0.17, p < 0.001; Romania: b = 0.99, SE = 0.19, p < 0.001) with behaviors. In addition, students’ gender showed a significant positive coefficient with students’ behaviors in all countries (Denmark: b = 3.94, SE = 0.28, p < 0.001; Sweden: b = 2.57, SE = 0.36, p < 0.001; Spain: b = 1.50, SE = 0.29, p < 0.001; Romania: b = 1.87, SE = 0.32, p < 0.001). SES was found to have a significant positive relationship with behaviors in Denmark, b = 0.89, SE = 0.16, p < 0.001. Lastly, students’ critical views of the political system were significantly positively correlated with behaviors in Sweden, b = 0.60, SE = 0.19, p = 0.001.

7. Discussion

In general, we found that civic knowledge and citizenship self-efficacy were positive predictors of both pro-environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors. This suggests that students who are more civically informed and feel more capable of civic participation are also more likely to care about and act on environmental issues. As Levy et al. [16] assert, the problem of climate change is not only understanding Earth’s systems but also determining what societies should do with that knowledge. Our findings reinforce this idea: students’ environmental engagement is connected to civic dimensions. Looking at Figure 1, we’ve found support for civic engagement and civic competence clearly influencing pro-environmental action. Yet, these factors did not influence pro-environmental behaviors and pro-environmental attitudes in the same way.

7.1. Context Matters

Previous research suggests that stronger environmental attitudes typically lead to more pro-environmental behaviors [68,69]. However, our findings suggest that this relationship is not straightforward and may vary across contexts. While civic knowledge, self-efficacy, and gender were all significant predictors of pro-environmental behavior and attitudes across all countries, critical views of the political system, engagement with political issues via digital media, and socioeconomic status varied by country.

7.1.1. Digital Engagement

Engagement in political discourse online was a positive predictor of behaviors in all countries. This supports Huang’s [60] findings that digital engagement can promote pro-environmental behavior. However, engaging with political media had a negative relationship with attitudes in Spain. A possible explanation for differences between countries for pro-environmental action is the corresponding country’s environmental policies and educational outreach. For example, Spain has decreased its pro-environmental behaviors per capita over the last few decades [15]. This, combined with studies that suggest that adults in Spain are generally concerned about environmental issues, such as climate change [32], that their characteristics (e.g., trust in scientists) are positively correlated with their attitudes and behaviors [70], implies a general disconnect between the adult population, their behaviors, and student attitudes.

7.1.2. Socioeconomic Status

The positive relationship between socioeconomic status and attitudes in Sweden and Denmark aligns with findings from previous studies (e.g., [18]), which suggest that higher socioeconomic status individuals may hold more positive environmental attitudes. However, the absence of this relationship in Spain and Romania complicates the assumption that socioeconomic status uniformly influences attitudes. Other studies have noted that Romania’s level of PEA is low across adult populations in general [71]. Given Romania’s unique political and environmental landscape in a post-communist era, these factors unique to Romania may account for this difference from other countries [72]. This further demonstrates the need for contextual understanding.

7.1.3. Critical Views and Spheres of Action

Across all countries, critical views of the political system were positively associated with attitudes. This is a promising finding, as political critique is a vital component of democratic societies [73]. However, this critique only translated into behaviors in Sweden, Spain, and Romania. In Denmark, students who were critical of the government were concerned about environmental issues but did not individually act on them. Students may be criticizing their governments for not doing enough to address environmental issues. One explanation may be the lack of institutional support or clear pathways for civic action. More importantly, students might not understand what collective action looks like or have the skills necessary to engage in that kind of action [74].
Given that the attitude items in the ICCS:22 and ICCS:22EU were mostly referring to government actions, more individualist-oriented students may participate in online activism. This is evidenced by the positive relationship between behaviors and digital media engagement in Spain. Kunkle and Monroe [41] surveyed science educators in the United States and found a small group of “egalitarian-individualists” (p. 635) within their study. We may have found a significant camp of this worldview among the youth in Spain. Collectivist solutions emphasize the role of collective action and government intervention in addressing environmental issues. Conversely, individualistic approaches often prioritize personal responsibility, which may explain why some students engaging in online activism lean towards individualistic solutions and show lower attitudes when those actions are disconnected from broader collective efforts.

7.2. Directions for Future Research

Future ICCS surveys could separate individual action from collective action for pro-environmental action. The ICCS:EU contains all individual action items in the survey. The ICCS contains a mix of collective efforts (e.g., protesting) and individual ones (e.g., consumer habits) in the same variable. While these items can and do correlate, we argue that these are different things. To be clear, we aren’t suggesting one type of behavior is more important than the other, as studies have demonstrated evidence for both (e.g., [36]). However, we argue that these actions have different motivations. Specifically, studies call for mediation and moderation analysis of attitudes leading to behaviors. However, as we’ve demonstrated in this study, different moderators could influence attitudes and behaviors. Future research could focus on which factors could lead attitudes to collective behaviors or individual behaviors.

7.3. Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the data was self-reported by students, which may have inaccuracies. Second, the sample was limited to four European countries, which may restrict the generalizability to broader populations. Finally, the study did not account for deeper cultural or contextual variables that could have influenced the results.

8. Conclusions

Our study demonstrates a more nuanced portrayal of students’ personal political landscape and how that is associated with their attitudes and behaviors. While the demographic associations are consistent with prior research, we have demonstrated that other factors vary by country. Specifically, while civic knowledge, citizenship self-efficacy, and gender were all predictors of both attitudes and behaviors in all countries, socioeconomic status did not influence either attitudes or behaviors in Spain or Romania. Furthermore, the use of digital media was a positive predictor of behaviors for all countries; it was not significant for attitudes, except in Spain, where it was a negative predictor of attitudes. Finally, students’ critical views of the political system were a positive predictor for attitudes in all countries, but only a positive predictor for behaviors in Spain and Sweden, and it was a negative predictor for behaviors in Romania. In such contexts, students’ skepticism towards the government might lead to disillusionment or a sense of powerlessness, resulting in a negative impact on their willingness to engage in behaviors. We often demonstrate behaviors to include both individual and collective actions that attempt to better our environment. However, this paper has demonstrated that the motivations for advocating for the environment (attitudes) are different from the motivations for behaviors. To increase students’ attitudes and behaviors, policymakers should focus on increasing students’ civic knowledge and citizenship self-efficacy or teach students more about the skills to engage in collective action, as they appear to increase both attitudes and behaviors in all countries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.H.; Methodology, T.H., C.K.T. and R.T.K.; Software, C.K.T. and R.T.K.; Formal analysis, C.K.T. and R.T.K.; Writing—original draft, T.H. and C.K.T.; Writing—review & editing, T.H., C.K.T. and R.T.K.; Supervision, R.T.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original data used in this study are publicly available through the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) as part of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) at https://www.iea.nl/data (accession: ICCS 2022 International Database) (accessed on 1 May 2025).

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this work, the authors used Grammarly, Version 14.1250.0 for the purpose of spell checking, grammar checking, and rephrasing. The authors have thoroughly reviewed and edited the resulting content and assume full responsibility for the publication’s integrity and originality.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lucas, A.M. Science and environmental education: Pious hopes, self praise and disciplinary chauvinism. Stud. Sci. Educ. 1980, 7, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. .Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pooley, J.A.; O’Connor, M. Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environ. Behav. 2000, 32, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Larson, L.R.; Cooper, C.B.; Stedman, R.C.; Decker, D.J.; Gagnon, R.J. Place-based pathways to proenvironmental behavior: Empirical evidence for a conservation–recreation model. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2018, 31, 871–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Krasny, M.E. Advancing Environmental Education Practice; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  7. Constantino, S.M.; Sparkman, G.; Kraft-Todd, G.T.; Bicchieri, C.; Centola, D.; Shell-Duncan, B.; Vogt, S.; Weber, E.U. Scaling up change: A critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2022, 23, 50–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Zummo, L.; Gargroetzi, E.; Garcia, A. Youth voice on climate change: Using factor analysis to understand the intersection of science, politics, and emotion. Environ. Educ. Res. 2020, 26, 1207–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nichols, T.P.; LeBlanc, R.J. Media education and the limits of “literacy”: Ecological orientations to performative platforms. Curric. Inq. 2021, 51, 389–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hestness, E.; McGinnis, J.R.; Breslyn, W. Examining the relationship between middle school students’ sociocultural participation and their ideas about climate change. Environ. Educ. Res. 2019, 25, 912–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Knowles, R.T.; Camicia, S.; Nelson, L. Education for democracy in the social media century. Res. Soc. Sci. Technol. 2023, 8, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Moe, H.; Lindtner, S.; Ytre-Arne, B. Polarisation and echo chambers? Making sense of the climate issue with social media in everyday life. Nord. Rev. 2023, 44, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Calibeo, D.L.; Hindmarsh, R. From fake news to echo-chambers: On the limitations of new media for environmental activism in Australia, and “activist-responsive adaptation”. Environ. Commun. 2022, 16, 490–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Schulz, W.; Ainley, J.; Fraillon, J.; Losito, B.; Agrusti, G.; Damiani, V.; Friedman, T. Education for Citizenship in Times of Global Challenge: IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2022 International Report; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023. Available online: https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2024-02/ICCS-2022-International-Report-Revised.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2024).
  15. Mikuła, A.; Raczkowska, M.; Utzig, M. Pro-environmental behaviour in the European Union countries. Energies 2021, 14, 5689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Levy, B.L.; Busey, C.L.; Cuenca, A.; Evans, R.W.; Halvorsen, A.L.; Ho, L.C.; Kahne, J.; Kissling, M.T.; Lo, J.C.; McAvoy, P.; et al. Social studies education research for sustainable democratic societies: Addressing persistent civic challenges. Theory Res. Soc. Educ. 2023, 51, 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Knowles, R.T.; Torney-Purta, J.; Barber, C. Enhancing citizenship learning with international comparative research: Analyses of IEA civic education datasets. Citizsh. Teach. Learn. 2018, 13, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lerner, M.; Rottman, J. The burden of climate action: How environmental responsibility is impacted by socioeconomic status. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 77, 101674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Miller, L.B.; Rice, R.E.; Gustafson, A.; Goldberg, M.H. Relationships among environmental attitudes, environmental efficacy, and pro-environmental behaviors across and within 11 countries. Environ. Behav. 2022, 54, 1063–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Casaló, L.V.; Escario, J.-J.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C. Analyzing differences between different types of pro-environmental behaviors: Do attitude intensity and type of knowledge matter? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Briscoe, M.D.; Givens, J.E.; Hazboun, S.O.; Krannich, R.S. At home, in public, and in between: Gender differences in public, private and transportation pro-environmental behaviors in the US intermountain west. Environ. Sociol. 2019, 5, 374–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wut, T.M.; Ng, P.; Kan, H.-K.; Fong, S.C. Does gender matter? Attitude towards waste charging policy and pro-environmental behaviours. Soc. Responsib. J. 2020, 17, 1100–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xia, W.; Li, L.M.W. Societal gender role beliefs moderate the pattern of gender differences in public-and private-sphere pro-environmental behaviors. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 92, 102158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stevenson, K.T.; Peterson, M.N.; Bondell, H.D. The influence of personal beliefs, friends, and family in building climate change concern among adolescents. Environ. Educ. Res. 2016, 25, 832–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Russell, C.; Oakley, J. Engaging the emotional dimensions of environmental education. Can. J. Environ. Educ. 2016, 21, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bouman, T.; Steg, L.; Kiers, H.A. Measuring values in environmental research: A test of an environmental portrait value questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bogner, F.X. Environmental values (2-MEV) and appreciation of nature. Sustainability 2018, 10, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bernstein, J.; Szuster, B.W. The new environmental paradigm scale: Reassessing the operationalization of contemporary environmentalism. J. Environ. Educ. 2019, 50, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Juma-Michilena, I.J.; Ruiz-Molina, M.E.; Gil-Saura, I.; Belda-Miquel, S. Pro-environmental behaviours of generation Z: A cross-cultural approach. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2024, 21, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chwialkowska, A.; Bhatti, W.A.; Glowik, M. The influence of cultural values on pro-environmental behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lee, S.; Vu, H.T.; Thaker, J.; Verner, M.; Goldberg, M.H.; Carman, J.; Rosenthal, S.A.; Leiserowitz, A. Variations in climate change belief systems across 110 geographic areas. Nat. Clim. Change 2025, 15, 947–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gifford, R. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tayne, K. Buds of collectivity: Student collaborative and system-oriented action towards greater socioenvironmental sustainability. Environ. Educ. Res. 2022, 28, 216–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. De Leeuw, A.; Valois, P.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 42, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ando, K.; Ohnuma, S.; Blöbaum, A.; Matthies, E.; Sugiura, J. Determinants of individual and collective pro-environmental behaviors: Comparing Germany and Japan. J. Environ. Inf. Sci. 2010, 38, 21–32. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, X.; Van der Werff, E.; 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]
  38. Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ambrosius, J.D.; Gilderbloom, J.I. Who’s greener? Comparing urban and suburban residents’ environmental behaviour and concern. Local Environ. 2014, 20, 836–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Meloni, A.; Fornara, F.; Carrus, G. Predicting pro-environmental behaviors in the urban context: The direct or moderated effect of urban stress, city identity, and worldviews. Cities 2019, 88, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kunkle, K.A.; Monroe, M.C. Cultural cognition and climate change education in the US: Why consensus is not enough. Environ. Educ. Res. 2019, 25, 633–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cruz, S.M. The relationships of political ideology and party affiliation with environmental concern: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 53, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Prati, G.; Albanesi, C.; Pietrantoni, L. The interplay among environmental attitudes, pro-environmental behavior, social identity, and pro-environmental institutional climate. A longitudinal study. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 23, 176–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Waldron, F.; Ruane, B.; Oberman, R.; Morris, S. Geographical process or global injustice? Contrasting educational perspectives on climate change. Environ. Educ. Res. 2019, 25, 895–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jurow, A.S.; Shea, M. Learning in equity-oriented scale-making projects. J. Learn. Sci. 2015, 24, 286–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kranz, J.; Schwichow, M.; Breitenmoser, P.; Niebert, K. The (Un)political perspective on climate change in education—A systematic review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Freire, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed; Herder and Herder: New York, NY, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  48. Stapleton, S.R. A case for climate justice education: American youth connecting to intragenerational climate injustice in Bangladesh. Environ. Educ. Res. 2019, 25, 732–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ardoin, N.M.; Bowers, A.W.; Gaillard, E. A systematic mixed studies review of civic engagement outcomes in environmental education. Environ. Educ. Res. 2023, 29, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Prendergast, K.; Hayward, B.; Aoyagi, M.; Burningham, K.; Hasan, M.M.; Jackson, T.; Jha, V.; Kuroki, L.; Loukianov, A.; Mattar, H.; et al. Youth attitudes and participation in climate protest: An international cities comparison frontiers in political science special issue: Youth activism in environmental politics. Front. Political Sci. 2021, 3, 696105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Eom, K.; Kim, H.S.; Sherman, D.K. Social class, control, and action: Socioeconomic status differences in antecedents of support for pro-environmental action. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 77, 60–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Carrier, S.J. Gender differences in Attitudes Toward Environmental Science. Sch. Sci. Math. 2010, 107, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Amriwijaya, J.; Trirahardjo, S. Analyzing the influence of social media on pro-environmental behavior via the mediation of pro-environmental knowledge and attitudes among middle school students in Bandung Regency, Indonesia. Open Access Indones. J. Soc. Sci. 2024, 7, 1445–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shah, Z.; Wei, L.; Ghani, U. The use of social networking sites and pro-environmental behaviors: A mediation and moderation model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gonzalez, A.; Vandenbosch, L.; Rousseau, A. A panel study of the relationships between social media interactions and adolescents’ pro-environmental cognitions and behaviors. Environ. Behav. 2023, 55, 399–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Östman, J. The influence of media use on environmental engagement: A political socialization approach. Environ. Commun. 2014, 8, 92–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Schradie, J. The Revolution That Wasn’t: How Digital Activism Favors Conservatives; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kinol, A.; Si, Y.; Kinol, J.; Stephens, J.C. Networks of climate obstruction: Discourses of denial and delay in US fossil energy, plastic, and agrichemical industries. PLoS Clim. 2025, 4, e0000370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Klöckner, C.A. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 2013, 23, 1028–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Huang, H. Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2206–2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Casaló, L.V.; Escario, J.J. Heterogeneity in the association between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior: A multilevel regression approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Janmaimool, P.; Khajohnmanee, S. Roles of environmental system knowledge in promoting university students’ environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Charry, K.; Parguel, B. Educating children to environmental behaviours with nudges: The effectiveness of social labelling and moderating role of age. Environ. Educ. Res. 2019, 25, 1495–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Maddox, P.; Doran, C.; Williams, I.D.; Kus, M. The role of intergenerational influence in waste education programmes: The THAW project. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 2590–2600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Damiani, V.; Losito, B.; Agrusti, G.; Schulz, W. Young Citizens’ Views and Engagement in Changing Europe: IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2022 European Report; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024. Available online: https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2024-02/ICCS%202022%20European%20Report.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2024).
  66. StataCorp LLC. Stata Statistical Software: Release 19; StataCorp LLC: College Station, TX, USA, 2025. Available online: https://www.stata.com (accessed on 1 May 2025).
  67. Afana, Y.; Brese, F.; Kowolik, H.; Cortes, D.; Schulz, W. ICCS 2022 User Guide for the International Database (Appendices); International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA): Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  68. Liu, P.; Teng, M.; Han, C. How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors?: The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Bissing-Olson, M.J.; Iyer, A.; Fielding, K.S.; Zacher, H. Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 34, 156–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. 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]
  71. Ulman, S.R.; Dobay, K.M. Environmental protection in Romania: Perceptions versus active participation. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2020, 19, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dîrțu, M.C.; Prundeanu, O. Narcissism and pro-environmental behaviors: The mediating role of self-monitoring, environmental control and attitudes. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Norris, P. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kenis, A.; Mathijs, E. Beyond individual behaviour change: The role of power, knowledge and strategy in tackling climate change. Environ. Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Societies 15 00300 g001
Figure 1. Interdependent Civic Challenges and Their Connection to Pro-Environmental Action. Adapted figure from Levy et al. [16].
Figure 1. Interdependent Civic Challenges and Their Connection to Pro-Environmental Action. Adapted figure from Levy et al. [16].
Societies 15 00300 g001
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of key variables.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of key variables.
DenmarkSwedenSpainRomania
VariableMean (SD)MinMaxMean (SD)MinMaxMean (SD)MinMaxMean (SD)MinMax
Sustainable behaviours 49.11 (9.08) 17.67 77.94 48.48 (10.17) 17.67 77.94 51.71 (8.46) 17.67 77.94 49.84 (8.41) 17.67 77.94
Positive attitudes 47.98 (9.02) 16.78 68.88 50.10 (10.32) 16.78 68.88 52.53 (10.11) 16.78 68.88 49.04 (8.99) 16.78 68.88
Critical views 45.72 (7.50) 20.05 72.52 45.44 (18.54) 20.05 72.52 51.97 (9.35) 20.05 72.52 54.34 (10.45) 20.05 72.52
Self-efficacy 50.15 (9.81) 18.73 77.18 51.13 (11.68) 18.73 77.18 51.24 (10.17) 18.73 77.18 54.13 (9.86) 18.73 77.18
Digital media 49.37 (8.86) 41.17 91.03 50.15 (8.98) 42.05 88.57 49.85 (9.82) 41.17 91.03 51.59 (10.14) 41.17 91.03
SES 0.02 (1.01) −3.18 2.090.04 (1.01) −3.31 1.90 0.01 (1.00) −2.39 1.95 −0.13 (0.98) −2.29 2.09
Civic knowledge 555.07 (106.29)211.26888.31567.02 (110.56) 182.95 893.20 512.30 (90.13) 166.88 838.71 461.03 (99.31) 171.17 818.21
Gender 0.51 (0.50) 0 1 0.50 (0.50) 0 1 0.50 (0.50) 0 1 0.51 (0.50) 0 1
Note. SD = Standard Deviation. Min = Sustainable behaviours = Students’ reports on their sustainable behaviours. Positive attitudes = Students’ reports on their positive attitudes toward environmental protection. Critical views = Students’ reports on their critical views of their political system. Self-efficacy = Students’ reports on their citizenship self-efficacy. Digital media = Students’ reports on their engagement with political or social issues using digital media. SES = National index of socio-economic background. Civic knowledge = Civic knowledge—1st PV. Gender = Students’ reports of their gender (dichotomized).
Table 2. Results of multilevel model of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors across countries.
Table 2. Results of multilevel model of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors across countries.
DenmarkSwedenSpainRomania
VariablePEAPEBPEAPEBPEAPEBPEAPEB
B S.E. B S.E. B S.E. B S.E. B S.E. B S.E. B S.E. B S.E.
Critical views 0.38 * 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.68 ** 0.18 0.60 * 0.19 1.18 ** 0.18 0.35 * 0.15 1.25 ** 0.17 −0.46 * 0.17
Self-efficacy 1.70 ** 0.15 1.20 ** 0.15 2.00 ** 0.18 1.24 ** 0.19 1.52 ** 0.18 0.91 ** 0.15 1.97 ** 0.17 1.15 ** 0.16
Digital media 0.03 0.14 0.69 ** 0.15 0.29 0.18 1.05 ** 0.18 −0.78 ** 0.18 0.65 ** 0.15 0.19 0.17 1.04 ** 0.16
SES 0.80 ** 0.15 0.89 ** 0.16 0.67 ** 0.20 0.44 * 0.20 −0.17 0.19 0.26 0.16 0.15 0.19 −0.21 0.19
Civic Knowledge 1.06 ** 0.16 0.76 ** 0.16 2.07 ** 0.21 1.49 ** 0.21 1.23 ** 0.20 0.73 ** 0.17 1.27 ** 0.20 0.99 ** 0.19
Gender 2.49 **0.283.94 **0.283.05 ** 0.35 2.57 ** 0.36 1.88 **0.341.50 ** 0.29 0.83 *0.331.87 ** 0.32
Constant 46.73 **0.2347.20 **0.2348.46 ** 0.27 47.15 ** 0.28 51.57 **0.2650.97 ** 0.23 48.57 **0.2848.94 ** 0.28
ICC 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.05
Proportion of Variance Explained 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.06
Level 1 N 3764 3544 3006 2983 3082 3073 2673 2654
Level 2 N 141 141 215 215 160 160 158 158
Note. PEA = Pro-environmental attitudes. PEB = Pro-environmental behaviors. Critical views = Students’ reports on their critical views of their political system. Self-efficacy = Students’ reports on their citizenship self-efficacy. Digital media = Students’ reports on their engagement with political or social issues using digital media. SES = National index of socio-economic background. Civic knowledge = Civic knowledge—1st PV. Gender = Students’ reports of their gender (dichotomized). * 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

Hansen, T.; Taylor, C.K.; Knowles, R.T. Digital Media and Political Engagement: Shaping Youth Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors in Four European Societies. Societies 2025, 15, 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15110300

AMA Style

Hansen T, Taylor CK, Knowles RT. Digital Media and Political Engagement: Shaping Youth Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors in Four European Societies. Societies. 2025; 15(11):300. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15110300

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hansen, Tyler, Chloe K. Taylor, and Ryan T. Knowles. 2025. "Digital Media and Political Engagement: Shaping Youth Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors in Four European Societies" Societies 15, no. 11: 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15110300

APA Style

Hansen, T., Taylor, C. K., & Knowles, R. T. (2025). Digital Media and Political Engagement: Shaping Youth Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors in Four European Societies. Societies, 15(11), 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15110300

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