Next Article in Journal
A Comparative Investigation of the Adsorption Characteristics of CO2, O2 and N2 in Different Ranks of Coal
Previous Article in Journal
Holistic Education for Sustainable Development: A Study of Shaping the Pro-Quality Attitude of Students in the Polish Educational System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/su15108070
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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Unleashing the Power of Connection: How Adolescents’ Prosocial Propensity Drives Ecological and Altruistic Behaviours

by
Alexander Neaman
1,*,
Eiliana Montero
2,
Pamela Pensini
3,
Elliot Burnham
4,
Mónica Castro
4,
Dmitry S. Ermakov
5 and
Claudia Navarro-Villarroel
6
1
Departamento de Recursos Ambientales, Facultad de Ciencias Agronómicas, Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica 1000000, Chile
2
Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José 11501-2060, Costa Rica
3
School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia
4
Escuela de Agronomía, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Quillota 2260000, Chile
5
Department of Psychology and Pedagogy, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia Named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University), 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St., Moscow 117198, Russia
6
Área de Educación, Instituto de Estadística, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 8070; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108070
Submission received: 3 March 2023 / Revised: 21 April 2023 / Accepted: 27 April 2023 / Published: 16 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Both altruistic and ecological behaviours are considered prosocially driven behaviours, but our understanding of what motivates action in either the human or ecological domain is still in its infancy. Our goal was to assess connection to nature, connection to people, and connection to country as mediators of the relationship between prosocial propensity and prosocial behaviours in both the ecological and human domains. This study used honesty-humility as an indicator of prosocial propensity. Data for the study were collected through online surveys in Spanish. The survey was answered by 438 adolescent participants aged 11–19 years. The present study demonstrates that personal prosocial propensity can be directed to a particular domain of prosocial behaviour (ecological or altruistic) through the individual’s connection to the relevant domain. Specifically, the effect of prosocial propensity on ecological behaviour was positively mediated by connection to people and connection to nature, but negatively mediated by connection to country. For altruistic behaviour, the effect of prosocial propensity was positive via connection to people, nature, and country. Future research is called for, in particular, to examine the role of connection to country in ecological behaviour.

1. Introduction

1.1. Opening

What drives prosocial behaviour? Finding an answer to this question seems particularly relevant today, when the world is facing a host of humanitarian and environmental problems. Previous psychological studies have treated human-related prosocial behaviour (here and below, altruistic behaviour) and nature-related prosocial behaviour (here and below, ecological behaviour) as separate types of prosocial behaviour. More recent studies have suggested that altruistic and ecological behaviours should be considered as two aspects of the same class of behaviour. Following this approach, we examine the basis of these two types of prosocial behaviour (here and below, prosocial behaviour will refer to both altruistic and ecological behaviours), considering individual differences in honesty-humility, connection to nature, connection to others, and connection to country. We suggest that an individual’s prosocial behaviours are conditioned by their prosocial propensity, operationalised as individual traits of honesty-humility. However, for these individual traits to drive a person to a certain course of action, there must be a sense of connection to the relevant social domain, and it is this connection that motivates the individual to engage in the relevant activity.

1.2. Human and Ecological Domains of Prosocial Behaviour

Prosocial behaviour is defined as behaviour that aims to benefit others [1,2], such as sharing, volunteering, comforting, or donating [3,4], although more recently the concept of “others” has come to include nature.
In turn, ecological behaviour is defined as behaviour that directly (e.g., saving electricity in one’s home) or indirectly (e.g., supporting campaigns that promote renewable energy) contributes to changing humans’ impact on the natural environment and raises awareness of environmental issues (e.g., alerting others to the environmental damage they cause) [5]. Researchers suggest that ecological behaviour can be seen as a type of prosocial behaviour [6,7], driven by a disposition to benefit others. This disposition is called “prosocial propensity” and is viewed as an individual’s willingness to act prosocially regardless of the domain in which the behaviour is practiced [8].
Moreover, according to [9], altruistic and ecological behaviours differ only in terms of the “recipient” they are directed at: namely, other people or all living creatures and non-living nature in general. The recipient argument is consistent with the broader theory of egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values of environmental concern [10,11], with [10] even suggesting that the latter two values should be seen as a single biospheric–altruistic complex.
Although both altruistic and ecological behaviour can be considered prosocially motivated, our understanding of exactly what motivates action in the human and ecological domains is still in its infancy. Therefore, in this study, we set out to explore what underlies the two types of prosocial behaviour, i.e., altruistic and ecological behaviour.

1.3. Connection to Nature or People Is Needed to Prompt Action

It is clear from the above arguments that prosocial behaviour is conditioned by personal prosocial propensity. However, for this propensity to be reflected in behaviour, a person must have a sense of connection to relevant others. Studies by [8,12] showed that connection to nature is the link that contributes to the conversion of prosocial propensity into ecological behaviour. Moreover, connection to nature has been shown to predict both ecological behaviour [8] as well as altruistic behaviour [12,13], and, similarly, connection to other people has been shown to predict both altruistic [14,15] and ecological behaviour [16,17].
As noted earlier, while connection to nature and connection to people predict both ecological and altruistic behaviours, the connection to a related social group, such as connection to one’s country, has been little studied. Research does show that connection to one’s country facilitates altruistic behaviour toward one’s ingroup, i.e., members of one’s country [18,19]. Research regarding the role of connection to one’s country and pro-environmental behaviour is, however, sparse and has yielded mixed results [20,21,22]. It is known that pro-environmental attitudes are linked to a series of citizenship-identity values [23]. However, there are wide differences between countries with regard to ecological values, based to a certain extent on the variety of national identities [24]. For this reason, it is important to consider the connection to these domains (people, nature, country) together, as they are known to be positively related [14,25]. Examining them together will illustrate the unique effects of each.
Further, the majority of prior research has been conducted on adults, but there is also some research illustrating the role of connection to nature in the development of ecological behaviour in children and adolescents [26,27,28,29]. A sense of connection to others has been repeatedly recognized as important for the development of altruistic behaviour in children and adolescents [30,31]. Specifically, ref. [32] demonstrated that children who considered themselves more connected to nature exhibited more ecological and altruistic behaviours. Several studies on the effects of nature immersion on child development have shown that such immersion positively affects connection to nature [33], and that the deeper children and adolescents are immersed in urban green spaces, the more altruistic behaviour they exhibit [34]. Thus, this study surveyed adolescents to better understand the universality of our rationale that prosocial propensity fosters prosocial behaviour, which is enacted through a connection to relevant domains.

1.4. Research Hypothesis and Goal

Based on the above arguments, we hypothesised that an adolescent’s personal prosocial propensity can be enacted as prosocial behaviour (ecological or altruistic) through connection to nature and connection to people. Given the mixed results of previous research, we also examined the role of connection to one’s country. Accordingly, we assessed the role of connection to nature, connection to people, and connection to country in the adolescent population as mediators of the relationship between prosocial propensity and prosocial behaviour in the ecological and human domains.

2. Method

2.1. Sample Population

To best address our research question, we needed to focus on a specific geographic region, as several papers have noted differences among countries in attitudes and beliefs toward environmental issues [24,35,36]. For this study, we were most comfortable focusing on Spanish-speaking countries.
An a priori sample size calculation was performed with G*Power [37], revealing that to detect a small effect (f2 = 0.05) with a power of 0.80 and alpha at 0.05, a minimum sample size of 244 would be required. As we were interested in the indirect effects in the mediation model, it was taken into consideration that sample size calculations simply based on regression predictors could be unreliable, although mediation-specific tools that specifically consider the indirect effect, such as that by Kenny [38], are only available for three-variable mediation models. As such, we aimed for a sample size that was comfortably larger than the estimate.
The study was conducted amid the quarantine conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, making it unfeasible to adhere to standard consent procedures. Instead, colleagues and friends were enlisted to distribute an online invitation to participate in the survey, outlining its objective. They were instructed to (1) encourage their adolescent children to complete the survey, and (2) disseminate information about the survey to the parents of their adolescent children’s peers. As such, the study obtained tacit parental consent and tacit adolescent assent.
The sociodemographic data of the participants are given in Table 1. There were 438 adolescent participants who responded to the questionnaire online. Because participants were recruited through online invitations, it is not possible to estimate the percentage of those who agreed to participate in the study.

2.2. Measures

The data were collected using questionnaires consisting of the following four scales:
(1)
There is currently no clear instrument to measure prosocial propensity. The study of [8] showed that the honesty-humility domain of the HEXACO personality inventory [39] indicates an individual’s prosocial propensity. Therefore, in this study, we chose to use honesty-humility as an indicator of prosocial propensity. We adapted the original HEXACO scale to behaviours specific to adolescents. Some items on the HEXACO honesty-humility scale for adolescents were also used [40] after optimizing their language fluency in Spanish. In addition, several new items were created (Appendix A Table A1, Supplementary Table S1).
(2)
The [41] scale was used to measure ecological behaviour. Some items on this scale were adapted to the Latin American context. We also created several new items (Appendix A Table A2, Supplementary Table S2).
(3)
The [42] scale was used to measure altruistic behaviour. The original scale was adapted to behaviours specific to adolescents and/or modified for Spanish (Appendix A Table A3, Supplementary Table S3).
(4)
Connection to people, connection to country, and connection to nature were measured using a modified version of [14]’s scale. We used the “People in my community” and “People in my country” response options from the original scale, while the third option (“People all over the world”) was excluded because we considered it too broad for the purposes of this study. As per [12], connection to nature was measured using an additional response option added to the measure (i.e., “Natural surroundings”). The predictive validity of this measure of connection to nature has been demonstrated by [12]. By assessing connection to nature with this type of measure, we were able to evaluate the connection to various domains using the same question stems, which allowed for better comparisons between them. Items on this scale were either identical to the original scale [14] or modified to optimize their fluency in Spanish (Appendix A Table A4, Table A5 and Table A6, Supplementary Tables S4–S6).

2.3. Data Analysis

Rasch analyses were performed to calculate individual scores for each scale using Winsteps software (by Mike Linacre), version 3.64.2 [43]. Specifically, we used joint maximum likelihood estimation (JMLE). Parallel mediation models were fitted using LISREL software (by Scientific Software International), version 8.8 [44].
In a Rasch-type model, values of the infit mean square (MS) less than or equal to (≤) 1.2 are considered good, and MS values ≤1.3 are considered acceptable [45]. All scales (Table 2) had good reliability and item fit, with the exception of very few items with a low goodness-of-fit.
The study by [9] used an approach that combined the altruistic and ecological behaviour scales into a single scale. Like [9], the combined scale consisting of altruistic and ecological behaviour items in this study showed excellent reliability (Table 2), thereby suggesting these are the same class of behaviour.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Sample Population

The responses to the question regarding the adequateness of income (Table 1) suggest that that the adolescents recruited came from a more privileged segment of the population of the countries surveyed. This result may be explained by the “snowball” nature of the sample (colleagues and friends being asked to distribute the survey to adolescents within the acquaintance). For this reason, findings derived from this sample may only represent a particular segment of the total adolescent population in the countries under study.
Furthermore, the recruited respondents were mainly from Chile (69%) and Spain (21%), whereas other countries had negligeable representation (Table 1). As mentioned above, there are wide differences between countries with regard to ecological values, based to a certain extent on the variety of national identities [24]. The latter study, based on the data obtained from 70 countries, grouped countries by the type of relationship (either positive or negative) between patriotism and proenvironmental beliefs. Both Chile and Spain were the countries in which patriotism was negatively associated with proenvironmental beliefs. This finding represents an important argument for the analysis of the present article, which considered all the countries under study as one group. However, Mexico is an example of a country in which patriotism was positively associated with proenvironmental beliefs [24]. Since Mexico had a negligeable representation in our sample (Table 1), future studies are required to reveal country-level differences in the relationships under study.

3.2. Honesty-Humility as an Indicator

This study shows that an individual’s characteristics of honesty-humility can be an indicator of prosocial propensity (Table 3). Honesty-humility characteristics describe fairness-related tendencies in all interactions between people [46,47]. By definition, honesty-humility means ‘the tendency to be fair and genuine in dealing with others, in the sense of cooperation with others even when one might exploit others without suffering retaliation’ [46], that is, these traits by definition are a sign of prosociality [48]. Of all personality traits, honesty-humility has the strongest relationship with the value of self-transcendence according to [49] nomenclature, underlining the high importance of honesty-humility as an indicator of an orientation towards others. Furthermore, it follows from the definition of honesty-humility that this trait constitutes active reciprocal altruism [46]. In turn, altruism has been found to be positively correlated with honesty-humility [50,51].
There is ample evidence that honesty-humility predicts altruistic and ecological behaviours. For example, honesty-humility predicted active cooperation in various assessments of prosociality toward people [52] and in various other prosocial person-related behaviours [53,54,55]. A recent meta-analysis [56] has shown honesty-humility to be a positive predictor of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours. Therefore, the results of previous and present research suggest that honesty-humility indicates an individual’s propensity toward prosociality.

3.3. Mediation Effects

The mediation model in which ecological behaviour was the dependent variable was statistically significant (Figure 1). A statistically significant direct effect (c’) meant that the effect of prosocial propensity on ecological behaviour was partially mediated by connection to nature, connection to people, and connection to country. The parallel mediation revealed that connection to country had a negative effect on ecological behaviour, whereas, as expected, connection to people and connection to nature had positive effects.
Parallel mediation models were significant with respect to altruistic behaviour (Figure 2) and were fully mediated, i.e., the direct effect (c’) was not statistically significant. The effect of prosocial propensity on altruistic behaviours was mediated by connection to people, connection to nature, and connection to country.
The observed mediated relationships of prosocial propensity on prosocial behaviours via connection to people and connection to nature (Figure 1 and Figure 2) were very similar to those obtained by [12] for the adult population, demonstrating the robustness of our reasoning. We added connection to country to our study, as it was the only factor that had a negative effect on ecological behaviour, despite the positive relationship between the two variables shown in the correlation. Thus, this underscores the importance of considering and accounting for related forms of connection to understand the true impact of each.
It must be emphasized that our previous studies on the adult population in Australia [57,58] also demonstrated that connection to country had a negative effect on ecological and altruistic behaviours, demonstrating the robustness of our reasoning. As demonstrated by [24], Australia was a country in which patriotism was negatively associated with proenvironmental beliefs, similar to Chile and Spain, i.e., the countries under present study. Thus, future studies are required to reveal the role of connection to country on ecological and altruistic behaviours in countries in which the relationship between patriotism and environmentalism was positive (e.g., Mexico) [24].

3.4. Possible Mechanisms

The study of [8] proposed that individual prosocial propensity is directed toward a particular prosocial behaviour (human or ecological) depending on the individual’s connection to the relevant domain. The present study confirms this assertion by demonstrating that individual prosocial propensity can be translated into ecological (nature-related) behaviour through connection to nature (Figure 1). This study also demonstrates that personal prosocial propensity can be directed toward ecological behaviour through the individual’s connection to people. Additionally, this study asserts that individual prosocial propensity can be converted into altruistic (human-related) behaviour through connection to people (Figure 2) or through connection to nature (Figure 2).
The seemingly surprising mediation of connection to people in ecological behaviour (Figure 1) and connection to nature in altruistic behaviour (Figure 2) can be explained by the fact that both altruistic and ecological behaviours are simply two aspects of the same general behaviour, driven by the same prosocial propensity of the individual. As mentioned above, the combined scale of altruistic and ecological behaviours showed an excellent reliability of 0.88 (Table 2), implying that the combined scale measures the same class of broader behaviour. These results are in agreement with the findings of [59], who showed that both altruistic and ecological behaviours are just two facets of one overarching behavioural domain. The study of [60] proposed that this overarching domain be referred to as “sustainable behaviour” because it protects both the human and natural environments.
However, a question arises as to why individual prosocial propensity was not reflected in ecological behaviour through the individual’s connection to country (Figure 1). A potential explanation for this finding is that environmental issues are global in scale but require action at the national level. Indeed, efforts to address environmental issues such as climate change are made at the national level (e.g., the Paris Agreement), and local governments then enact the targets at the local level. The connection to a social domain (e.g., people, nature, country) generally implies that members of that group act in that group’s (perceived) best interests [61,62]. Thus, a decrease in ecological behaviour as a result of connection to country may be due to a (perceived) decrease in living standards or other negative consequences associated with the country’s commitment to addressing environmental problems (e.g., limiting emissions). Complicating matters further, connection to country can lead to moral disengagement. Due to the shifting and diffusion of responsibility, people may believe that it is the government’s responsibility to solve the problem instead of seeing themselves as agents of change [63]. Overall, while it seems that connection to people and to nature is desirable, connection to one’s country should be downplayed. This has important implications in domains such as communication, policy, and education.

4. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine prosocial propensity in adolescents, demonstrating that a connection to the relevant domain is necessary to convert one’s prosocial propensity into prosocial behaviour. Considering these three mediators collectively is another strength, as it allowed the unique effects of each mediator to be illustrated. Indeed, at the bivariate level, they were all positively correlated with ecological behaviour; however, in the mediation model, the unique effect of connection to country was negative.
A major limitation with respect to our findings is that the evidence is based on cross-sectional data, which means that we cannot make causal claims about the effects of these variables. Furthermore, as mentioned above, correlations derived from this sample may only represent a more privileged segment of the total adolescent population in the countries under study.
Nevertheless, future research could benefit from further studies of non-adult populations to add weight to our rationale and more thoroughly examine the effect of connection to country on ecological and altruistic behaviours. Specifically, future studies are required to reveal the role of connection to country on ecological and altruistic behaviours in countries where the relationship between patriotism and environmentalism was positive (e.g., Mexico) [24]. Likewise, future studies are required to represent a low-income segment of the adolescent population in the countries under study.
Finally, it must be pointed out that there could be bias between the self-reports and what participants actually believe regarding issues that affect personal values. To address this, future research could use techniques from social psychology such as the Implicit Association Test [64], in which users respond to certain stimuli unconsciously, before voluntary and reflective cognition begins to operate. Additionally, more complex techniques from neuroscience, such as evoked potentials through electroencephalography [65], could be used.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that individual prosocial propensity is directed toward a particular domain of prosocial behaviour (ecological or altruistic) through the individual’s connection to relevant domains. Specifically, we have shown that prosocial propensity can be directed toward ecological behaviour through connection to nature and connection to people, but it is inhibited by connection to country. The fact that connection to country appears to be a barrier to ecological behaviour despite a positive relationship at the bivariate level underscores the importance of considering these related forms of connection together and calls for future research in this area. We have also shown that prosocial propensity can be directed to altruistic behaviour through connection to nature, connection to people, and connection to country. It seems surprising that these forms of connection enhance both forms of prosocial behaviour; however, this is because altruistic and ecological behaviours are two closely related kinds of behaviour, driven by the same prosocial propensity of the individual.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su15108070/s1, Supplementary Table S1. Honesty-humility scale as used in the study. Supplementary Table S2. Ecological behaviour scale as used in the study. Supplementary Table S3. Altruistic behaviour scale as used in the study. Supplementary Table S4. Connection scale as used in the study, References [14,39,40,41,42] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

We wish to express our deepest gratitude for the financial support provided by the FONDECYT project 1200259. The article writing by Dmitry S. Ermakov was supported by the RUDN University Strategic Academic Leadership Program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The scales used in this study were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (FONDECYT project 1200259).

Informed Consent Statement

The study was conducted amid the quarantine conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, making it unfeasible to adhere to standard consent procedures. Instead, colleagues and friends were enlisted to distribute an online invitation to participate in the survey, outlining its objective. They were instructed to (1) encourage their adolescent children to complete the survey, and (2) disseminate information about the survey to the parents of their adolescent children’s peers. As such, the study obtained tacit parental consent and tacit adolescent assent.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Material.

Acknowledgments

The authors also wish to thank Andrei Tchourakov for editing this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Honesty-humility scale as used in the study.
Table A1. Honesty-humility scale as used in the study.
NºItemDeltaMS Infit
17People who get robbed are to blame for not properly guarding their property.0.541.47
4If I want something from a person I dislike, I will act very nicely toward that person in order to get it.0.451.14
16It is not a big deal to tell lies.0.320.92
7If I want something from someone, I will laugh at that person’s worst jokes.0.291.04
12I cheat if I am sure that I will not be discovered.0.240.98
14People should do what I say.0.220.93
20Verbal insults among teenagers are harmless.0.161.25
6I would compliment my teachers for better grades.0.111.20
5I consider myself superior to other people.0.071.00
13I want to have expensive and branded items (phone, clothes, etc.) to demonstrate my status.−0.020.92
10I want people to know that I am an important person of high status.−0.080.81
19Making fun of a person is not a big deal.−0.220.99
9I’d be tempted to use counterfeit money, if I were sure I could get away with it.−0.240.90
2I would be tempted to buy stolen property if I were financially tight.−0.291.15
3I would like to find a way to take things from a store without paying.−0.331.00
11Stealing a little bit of money is not a big deal.−0.330.79
18Using someone else’s property without permission is just “borrowing”.−0.420.76
15I want others to think that my family has money and high social status, even if it isn’t true.−0.470.74
Here and below, items in Italics indicate negatively formulated behaviours; their scores were inversed for analysis. These items should be read as ‘I refrain from…’. Item difficulties (delta) are expressed in logits, the basic units of Rasch scales. Larger logit values indicate a higher score on the respective scale. Conversely, a smaller logit value indicates a smaller score on the respective scale. Infit MS (mean square) reflects the relative discrepancy in the variation between the model prediction and observed data, independent of the sample size. Perfect model prediction is expressed by a MS value of 1.0. MS values above 1.0 indicate excessive variation (e.g., a value of 1.2 indicates 20% excessive variation). A commonly acceptable upper value is 1.2, however, values between 1.2 and 1.3 are still acceptable.
Table
Table A2. Ecological behaviour as used in the study.
Table A2. Ecological behaviour as used in the study.
NºItemDeltaMS Infit
39I have taken environmental classes to be more informed.2.131.01
32I refrain from battery-operated appliances.1.361.00
23I contribute financially to environmental organizations.1.120.96
26I talk to my friends about environmental issues.0.960.83
24I read books, publications, and other materials about environmental problems.0.810.86
30For printing, I use paper that was previously used on one side.0.710.99
16I separate organic waste and make compost.0.71.10
31For my parties I ask my parents not to use disposable plates and cutlery.0.660.91
6After one day of use, my sweaters or trousers go into the laundry.0.501.43
37When I shower, I turn off the water while I soap up and then turn on the water again to rinse, so that I don’t have it running all the time.0.440.96
40If there is a relatively large insect in my house, I carefully catch it and release it outside.0.430.90
14I collect and recycle used paper.0.390.92
22I have pointed out unecological behaviour to someone.0.330.91
27I watch TV shows or Internet videos about nature.0.330.86
15I bring empty glass bottles to a recycling bin.0.311.01
8I leave electrically powered appliances (TV, stereo, printer) on standby when they’re not in use.0.231.13
43I learn about environmental issues in the media (newspapers, magazines, and TV).0.060.93
17I keep gift wrapping paper for reuse.0.030.97
19I kill insects with a chemical insecticide.0.011.35
9In the winter, I turn down the heat when I leave my room for more than one hour.−0.041.14
13I put empty batteries in the garbage.−0.091.37
20I eat in fast-food restaurants, such as McDonalds and Burger King.−0.091.01
28I recycle or reuse plastic containers.−0.170.79
41For short distances I walk or ride a bike.−0.230.93
18For making notes, I take paper that is already used on one side.−0.230.90
12I use and refill a reusable bottle.−0.260.97
11I buy beverages in cans.−0.331.19
38I encourage my family and/or friends to be more environmentally friendly.−0.570.89
10I choose to cycle when I need to go somewhere.−0.580.98
25When I brush my teeth, I leave the water running until I finish.−0.731.17
21I reuse my shopping bags.−0.760.96
7As the last person to leave a room, I switch off the lights.−0.841.06
29I turn off TV, computer and other electrical appliances when they are not in use.−0.870.97
42I prefer natural and/or eco-labelled products.−0.940.89
33I prefer products in biodegradable packaging.−1.110.90
34After a picnic, I leave the place as clean as it was before.−3.680.95
Table
Table A3. Altruistic behaviour scale as used in the study.
Table A3. Altruistic behaviour scale as used in the study.
NºItemDeltaMS Infit
4I have done volunteer work for a charity.0.951.08
12I would offer comfort to a crying stranger.0.640.98
2I have given money to a charity.0.541.01
19I offer help when I hear people discuss subjects I am familiar with.0.361.00
16I would help search for a lost pet even if the owner is unfamiliar to me.0.360.92
5I have helped carry a stranger’s belongings (books, parcels, etc.).0.320.84
7I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a queue (as in giving up my place in line for someone, etc.).0.190.91
8I buy products connected with the Telethon. 0.091.27
18If I find myself at the door at the same time with another person, I let them go first.0.070.98
6I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger. −0.070.96
3I have donated goods or clothes to a charity. −0.140.95
14When an unfamiliar person asks me something, I ignore them.−0.211.49
11I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing. −0.240.93
10I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street. −0.290.77
13I would help a stranger who fell on the street.−0.370.74
1I have given directions to a stranger. −0.550.91
17If a stranger asks me for the time, I promptly tell them.−0.801.02
9I ignore strangers who ask me to help read something for them.−0.851.51
Table
Table A4. Connection to community scale as used in the study.
Table A4. Connection to community scale as used in the study.
NºItemDeltaMS Infit
4To what degree do you think of the following groups of people as “family”? 0.231.02
3How much would you say you have in common with the following groups? 0.351.16
2How often do you use the word “we” to refer to the following groups of people? 0.670.92
1How close do you feel to each of the following groups? 0.891.06
5How much do you care about each of the following groups?−0.110.71
7How much do you want to be …?: −0.360.93
8How much do you believe in …?: −0.311.07
6How much would you say you care (feel upset, want to help) when bad things happen to the following groups?−0.331.04
9If the need arises, how willing are you to help the following groups?−1.051.01
Table
Table A5. Connection to country scale as used in the study.
Table A5. Connection to country scale as used in the study.
NºItemDeltaMS Infit
4To what degree do you think of the following groups of people as “family”? 0.691.1
3How much would you say you have in common with the following groups? 0.081.18
2How often do you use the word “we” to refer to the following groups of people? 0.440.9
1How close do you feel to each of the following groups?1.421.1
5How much do you care about each of the following groups?−0.010.79
7How much do you want to be …?:−0.640.97
8How much do you believe in …?:−0.440.97
6How much would you say you care (feel upset, want to help) when bad things happen to the following groups?−0.631.03
9If the need arises, how willing are you to help the following groups?−0.910.88
Table
Table A6. Connection to nature scale as used in the study.
Table A6. Connection to nature scale as used in the study.
NºItemDeltaMS Infit
4To what degree do you think of the following groups of people as “family”? 0.131.03
3How much would you say you have in common with the following groups? 0.691.41
2How often do you use the word “we” to refer to the following groups of people? 0.720.94
1How close do you feel to each of the following groups? 0.971.23
5How much do you care about each of the following groups?−0.250.79
7How much do you want to be …?: −0.280.98
8How much do you believe in …?: −0.320.82
6How much would you say you care (feel upset, want to help) when bad things happen to the following groups?−0.80.89
9If the need arises, how willing are you to help the following groups?−0.860.92

References

  1. Eisenberg, N.; Shell, R. Prosocial Moral Judgment and Behavior in Children: The Mediating Role of Cost. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1986, 12, 426–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Eisenberg, N.; VanSchyndel, S.K.; Spinrad, T.L. Prosocial Motivation: Inferences From an Opaque Body of Work. Child Dev. 2016, 87, 1668–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Batson, C.D.; Powell, A.A. Altruism and prosocial behavior. In Handbook of Psychology; McGraw Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 463–484. [Google Scholar]
  4. Dunfield, K.A. A construct divided: Prosocial behavior as helping, sharing, and comforting subtypes. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Masson, T.; Otto, S. Explaining the difference between the predictive power of value orientations and self-determined motivation for proenvironmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 4, 49-CP. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kaiser, F.G.; Otto, S.; Schuler, J. Prosocial propensity bias in experimental research on helping behavior: The proposition of a discomforting hypothesis. Compr. Psychol. 2015, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kaiser, F.G.; Byrka, K. Environmentalism as a trait: Gauging people’s prosocial personality in terms of environmental engagement. Int. J. Phychol. 2011, 46, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Otto, S.; Pensini, P.; Zabel, S.; Diaz-Siefer, P.; Burnham, E.; Navarro-Villarroel, C.; Neaman, A. The prosocial origin of sustainable behavior: A case study in the ecological domain. Glob. Environ. Chang.-Hum. Policy Dimens. 2021, 69, 102312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Neaman, A.; Otto, S.; Vinokur, E. Toward an integrated approach to environmental and prosocial education. Sustainability 2018, 10, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stern, P.; Dietz, T. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stern, P.C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Neaman, A.; Pensini, P.; Zabel, S.; Otto, S.; Ermakov, D.S.; Dovletyarova, E.A.; Burnham, E.; Castro, M.; Navarro-Villarroel, C. The Prosocial Driver of Ecological Behavior: The Need for an Integrated Approach to Prosocial and Environmental Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Goldy, S.P.; Piff, P.K. Toward a social ecology of prosociality: Why, when, and where nature enhances social connection. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2020, 32, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. McFarland, S.; Webb, M.; Brown, D. All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 103, 830–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yang, C.; Wang, Y.L.; Hall, B.J.; Chen, H. Sense of community responsibility and altruistic behavior in Chinese community residents: The mediating role of community identity. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 39, 1999–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Devine-Wright, P.; Price, J.; Leviston, Z. My country or my planet? Exploring the influence of multiple place attachments and ideological beliefs upon climate change attitudes and opinions. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 30, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Renger, D.; Reese, G. From equality-based respect to environmental activism: Antecedents and consequences of global identity. Political Psychol. 2017, 38, 867–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Brewer, M.B.; Buchan, N.R.; Ozturk, O.D.; Grimalda, G. Parochial Altruism and Political Ideology. Political Psychol. 2022, 44, 383–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Charnysh, V.; Lucas, C.; Singh, P. The Ties That Bind: National Identity Salience and Pro-Social Behavior Toward the Ethnic Other. Comp. Political Stud. 2015, 48, 267–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Milfont, T.L.; Osborne, D.; Yogeeswaran, K.; Sibley, C.G. The role of national identity in collective pro-environmental action. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 72, 101522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cislak, A.; Wojcik, A.D.; Cichocka, A. Cutting the forest down to save your face: Narcissistic national identification predicts support for anti-conservation policies. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 59, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cislak, A.; Cichocka, A.; Wojcik, A.D.; Milfont, T.L. Words not deeds: National narcissism, national identification, and support for greenwashing versus genuine proenvironmental campaigns. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 74, 101576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schlicht-Schmalzle, R.; Chykina, V.; Schmalzle, R. An attitude network analysis of post-national citizenship identities. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0208241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Aydin, E.; Bagci, S.C.; Kelesoglu, I. Love for the globe but also the country matter for the environment: Links between nationalistic, patriotic, global identification and pro-environmentalism. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 80, 101755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lee, K.; Ashton, M.C.; Choi, J.; Zachariassen, K. Connectedness to Nature and to Humanity: Their association and personality correlates. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Durón-Ramos, M.F.; Collado, S.; García-Vázquez, F.I.; Bello-Echeverria, M. The Role of Urban/Rural Environments on Mexican Children’s Connection to Nature and Pro-environmental Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Collado, S.; Corraliza, J.A.; Staats, H.; Ruiz, M. Effect of frequency and mode of contact with nature on children’s self-reported ecological behaviors. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Collado, S.; Evans, G.W. Outcome expectancy: A key factor to understanding childhood exposure to nature and children’s pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 61, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Otto, S.; Pensini, P. Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 47, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maiya, S.; Carlo, G.; Gulseven, Z.; Crockett, L. Direct and indirect effects of parental involvement, deviant peer affiliation, and school connectedness on prosocial behaviors in US Latino/a youth. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2020, 37, 2898–2917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yoo, H.; Feng, X.; Day, R.D. Adolescents’ Empathy and Prosocial Behavior in the Family Context: A Longitudinal Study. J. Youth Adolesc. 2013, 42, 1858–1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Barrera-Hernández, L.F.; Sotelo-Castillo, M.A.; Echeverría-Castro, S.B.; Tapia-Fonllem, C.O. Connectedness to Nature: Its Impact on Sustainable Behaviors and Happiness in Children. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pensini, P.; Horn, E.; Caltabiano, N.J. An exploration of the relationships between adults’ childhood and current nature exposure and their mental well-being. Child. Youth Environ. 2016, 26, 125–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Putra, I.; Astell-Burt, T.; Cliff, D.P.; Vella, S.A.; John, E.E.; Feng, X.Q. The Relationship Between Green Space and Prosocial Behaviour Among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schultz, P.W.; Shriver, C.; Tabanico, J.J.; Khazian, A.M. Implicit connections with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schultz, P.W.; Gouveia, V.V.; Cameron, L.D.; Tankha, G.; Schmuck, P.; Franěk, M. Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2005, 36, 457–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kenny, D.A. MedPower: An Interactive Tool for the Estimation of Power in Tests of Mediation. Available online: https://davidakenny.shinyapps.io/MedPower/ (accessed on 21 April 2023).
  39. Lee, K.; Ashton, M.C. Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment 2018, 25, 543–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sergi, I.; Gnisci, A.; Senese, V.P.; Perugini, M. The HEXACO-Middle School Inventory (MSI) A Personality Inventory for Children and Adolescents. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2020, 36, 681–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kaiser, F.G.; Oerke, B.; Bogner, F.W. Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrument for adolescents. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 242–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rushton, J.P.; Chrisjohn, R.D.; Fekken, G.C. The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personal. Individ. Differ. 1981, 2, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Linacre, J.M. A User’s Guide to WINSTEPS Rasch-Model Computer Programs; MESA Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  44. Joreskog, K.G.; Sorbom, D. LISREL 8 User’s Guide; Scientific Software International: Chicago, IL, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wright, B.D.; Linacre, J.M.; Gustafson, J.E.; Martin-Lof, P. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas. Trans. 1994, 8, 370–371. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. Empirical, Theoretical, and Practical Advantages of the HEXACO Model of Personality Structure. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 11, 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Brick, C.; Lewis, G.J. Unearthing the “Green” Personality: Core Traits Predict Environmentally Friendly Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2014, 48, 635–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pfattheicher, S.; Böhm, R. Honesty-humility under threat: Self-uncertainty destroys trust among the nice guys. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 114, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schwartz, S.H.; Bilsky, W. Toward A Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 53, 550–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Aghababaei, N.; Mohammadtabar, S.; Saffarinia, M. Dirty Dozen vs. the H factor: Comparison of the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility in prosociality, religiosity, and happiness. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2014, 67, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zettler, I.; Hilbig, B.E.; Haubrich, J. Altruism at the ballots: Predicting political attitudes and behavior. J. Res. Personal. 2011, 45, 130–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hilbig, B.E.; Zettler, I.; Moshagen, M.; Heydasch, T. Tracing the Path from Personality—Via Cooperativeness—To Conservation. Eur. J. Personal. 2013, 27, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fang, Y.; Dong, Y.; Fang, L. Honesty-humility and prosocial behavior: The mediating roles of perspective taking and guilt-proneness. Scand. J. Psychol. 2019, 60, 386–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wertag, A.; Bratko, D. In search of the prosocial personality: Personality traits as predictors of prosociality and prosocial behavior. J. Individ. Differ. 2019, 40, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zettler, I.; Hilbig, B.E. Honesty and humility. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; Wright, J.D., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 169–174. [Google Scholar]
  56. Soutter, A.; Bates, T.; Mottus, R. Big Five and HEXACO Personality Traits, pro-environmentalattitudes, and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 69, 102312. [Google Scholar]
  57. Angelis, S.; Pensini, P. Honesty-Humility Predicts Humanitarian Prosocial Behaviour via Social Connectedness: A Parallel Mediation Examining Connectedness to Community, Nation, Humanity, and Nature. Scand. J. Psychol. 2023, 209, 112216. [Google Scholar]
  58. Duong, M.; Pensini, P. The Role of Connectedness in Sustainable Behaviour: A Parallel Mediation Model Examining the Prosocial Foundations of Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2023, 209, 112216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Berger, C.; Andaur, A. Integrating prosocial and proenvironmental behaviors: The role of moral disengagement and peer social norms. Psychol. Soc. Educ. 2022, 14, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tapia-Fonllem, C.; Corral-Verdugo, V.; Fraijo-Sing, B.; Durón-Ramos, M.F. Assessing sustainable behavior and its correlates: A measure of pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic and equitable actions. Sustainability 2013, 5, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Miyazono, K.; Inarimori, K. Empathy, Altruism, and Group Identification. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 5775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Brewer, M.B. The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? J. Soc. Issues 1999, 55, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Flanagan, C.A.; Byington, R.; Gallay, E.; Sambo, A. Social Justice and the Environmental Commons. In Equity and Justice in Developmental Science: Implications for Young People, Families, and Communities; Horn, S.S., Ruck, M.D., Liben, L.S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; Volume 51, pp. 203–230. [Google Scholar]
  64. Greenwald, A.G.; McGhee, D.E.; Schwartz, J.L.K. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1464–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Daly, I.; Williams, D.; Hwang, F.; Kirke, A.; Miranda, E.R.; Nasuto, S.J. Electroencephalography reflects the activity of sub-cortical brain regions during approach-withdrawal behaviour while listening to music. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 9415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 08070 g001 550
Figure 1. Mediated relation of prosocial propensity and ecological behaviour. c’ = direct effect. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 1. Mediated relation of prosocial propensity and ecological behaviour. c’ = direct effect. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 15 08070 g001
Sustainability 15 08070 g002 550
Figure 2. Mediated relation of prosocial propensity and altruistic behaviour. c’ = direct effect. n.s. = not statistically significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Mediated relation of prosocial propensity and altruistic behaviour. c’ = direct effect. n.s. = not statistically significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 15 08070 g002
Table
Table 1. Sociodemographic data of the participants.
Table 1. Sociodemographic data of the participants.
Variable
Age
Mean ± standard deviation (years)15 ± 2.0
Range (years)11–19
Gender
Female (%)51
Male (%)48
Prefer not to specify (%)1
Family income
We are perfectly comfortable with our income (%)0
Our income is quite sufficient (%)51
We can manage on our income (%)42
It is pretty difficult to live on our income (%)7
It is extremely tough to live on our income (%)0
Area of residence
Countryside (%)24
City (%)76
Nationality
Chile (%)69
Spain (%)21
Mexico (%)4
Guatemala (%)2
Other nationalities (<1% each) (%)3
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the scales used. Sustainable behaviour refers to a combined scale of altruistic and ecological behaviours.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the scales used. Sustainable behaviour refers to a combined scale of altruistic and ecological behaviours.
ScaleNumber of ItemsMean ± SDRangeReliabilityItems with
1.2 < MS ≤ 1.3		Items with MS > 1.3
Honesty-humility181.4 ± 1.1−1.7–4.40.7311
Connection to community90.31 ± 1.7−5.3–5.40.8800
Connection to country9−0.21 ± 1.4−5.3–5.40.8300
Connection to nature90.68 ± 1.6−5.1–5.40.8400
Ecological behaviour360.28 ± 0.50−2.3–1.60.8303
Altruistic behaviour180.17 ± 0.68−2.4–2.40.8412
Sustainable behaviour541.0 ± 0.150.81–1.40.8864
SD—standard deviation. MS—mean square.
Table
Table 3. Pearson correlations between the variables under study.
Table 3. Pearson correlations between the variables under study.
Variable12345
1. Honesty-humility
2. Connection to community0.12 *
3. Connection to country0.10 *0.64 **
4. Connection to nature0.21 **0.43 **0.41 **
5. Altruism0.11 *0.35 **0.32 **0.36 **
6. Ecological behaviour0.25 **0.23 **0.14 **0.43 **0.54 **
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
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

Neaman, A.; Montero, E.; Pensini, P.; Burnham, E.; Castro, M.; Ermakov, D.S.; Navarro-Villarroel, C. Unleashing the Power of Connection: How Adolescents’ Prosocial Propensity Drives Ecological and Altruistic Behaviours. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108070

AMA Style

Neaman A, Montero E, Pensini P, Burnham E, Castro M, Ermakov DS, Navarro-Villarroel C. Unleashing the Power of Connection: How Adolescents’ Prosocial Propensity Drives Ecological and Altruistic Behaviours. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):8070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108070

Chicago/Turabian Style

Neaman, Alexander, Eiliana Montero, Pamela Pensini, Elliot Burnham, Mónica Castro, Dmitry S. Ermakov, and Claudia Navarro-Villarroel. 2023. "Unleashing the Power of Connection: How Adolescents’ Prosocial Propensity Drives Ecological and Altruistic Behaviours" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 8070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108070

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