“More than a Feeling”: How Eco-Anxiety Shapes Pro-Environmental Behaviors and the Role of Readiness to Change

Abstract

Eco-anxiety is a complex and multifaceted construct linked with engagement in pro-environmental behaviors. However, further investigation is needed to observe the putative psychological determinants potentially supporting this kind of relationship. In line with this, the study aimed to investigate differences between individuals with and without eco-anxiety in terms of their engagement in sustainable habits by also examining the psychological determinants above in terms of readiness to change (RTC). Additionally, the study also aimed to examine potential direct and indirect associations between these variables, distinguishing among the different dimensions of eco-anxiety as well as investigating the putative mediator role of RTC. Data were collected from 501 participants through an online survey. To address the research objectives, both Student’s t-tests and network analysis (NA) were conducted. Moreover, based on NA outputs, a mediation analysis was carried out. The results pointed out that certain dimensions of eco-anxiety (e.g., rumination) are directly linked to the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors. Conversely, other dimensions (e.g., behavioral symptoms) appear to be indirectly associated with sustainable behaviors through readiness to change (RTC). Moreover, the network analysis pointed out that some eco-anxiety dimensions may act differently in support of sustainable action engagement through a gender-sensitive perspective. Finally, the mediation analysis confirmed the role of some of the RTC dimensions in mediating the link between eco-anxiety factors and pro-environmental behaviors. In conclusion, this study highlighted the multidimensional nature of eco-anxiety, suggesting that, for certain dimensions, it may be necessary to target specific psychological determinants to effectively foster pro-environmental behavioral engagement.

1. Introduction

During the last few years, there has been a growing increment in issues related to environmental change, as highlighted by the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [1] and the 28th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [2]. In this context, there is a broad agreement in the literature regarding the consequences of the climate crisis on the psychological and physical well-being of people [3,4,5,6,7,8].

In particular, climate change has been found to significantly impact both physical health, such as asthma and respiratory illnesses, and mental health in terms of, for example, anxiety and environmental concern [6,8]. Among the most closely related mental health effects, the literature has emphasized the link between climate change and eco-anxiety, a condition also referred to using other terms such as climate change distress or climate anxiety [9,10,11].

1.1. Eco-Anxiety and Climate Change

To date, various definitions of eco-anxiety have been proposed. Some describe it as a chronic fear of environmental catastrophe, a generalized sense that the ecological foundations of life are collapsing, or a non-specific worry about our relationship with supporting environments [11,12,13,14]. These definitions pointed out that eco-anxiety shares key factors with traditional anxiety in terms of, for example, feelings of uncertainty and fear [11,15]. However, many scholars pointed out the need to cautiously interpret eco-anxiety as a pathological construct [11,14,16,17,18]. Despite its association with fear, the scientific literature increasingly points to the potentially positive and adaptive aspects of eco-anxiety as a response to climate change [11]. Moreover, eco-anxiety has also been linked to high environmental sensitivity, understood as a deep emotional responsiveness to climate change issues [19]. In keeping with this, it is plausible to assume that eco-anxiety may be linked with greater awareness and engagement in pro-environmental behaviors [20,21,22,23,24]. In line with this, Hogg and colleagues [7] found that eco-anxiety, specifically rumination and anxiety about personal impact, is directly linked with the adoption of pro-environmental behaviors. These findings supported the interpretation of eco-anxiety as a multidimensional construct composed of different dimensions such as rumination, anxiety about personal impact, affective symptoms, and behavioral symptoms [14,25,26]. These factors appear to be interconnected [7], which, from our perspective, underlined the need for further studies to investigate the role of affective and behavioral symptoms, particularly by exploring their potential indirect links to the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors. This perspective is in line with that proposed by Pavani and colleagues [24], regarding the need to conduct further investigations into the psychological factors and determinants that may influence the association between eco-anxiety and sustainable behaviors.

In particular, the literature evidence pointed out that eco-anxiety may also exacerbate paralyzing conditions in terms of, for example, stress symptoms [21,27,28]. Consequently, in line with all the above, eco-anxiety may have both positive and negative effects on the engagement in sustainable behavior [21,27]. In keeping with this, from our perspective, the investigation of the psychological variables able to support the proactive characteristics of eco-anxiety plays a fundamental role.

Within this theoretical framework, readiness to change (RTC) emerges as a potential psychological factor [29], based on the idea that eco-anxiety may act as a practical and active trigger for the reassessment of one’s behavioral patterns [11].

1.2. Readiness to Change and Sustainability

RTC can be defined as a mental state and a process that supports the initiation of behavioral changes [29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. From this perspective, Dalton and colleagues [33] define RTC as both a state and a process that involves several stages, including awareness, evaluative processing, and assessment of competencies. Ultimately, RTC entails changes at the cognitive, affective, and behavioral levels [33]. In the context of sustainability, the literature highlighted that, to date, there is a lack of studies investigating the relationship between RTC and pro-environmental habits [36]. In keeping with this, Duradoni and colleagues [29] proposed a theoretical model of RTC articulated into seven dimensions that support the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors [29]. In detail, the dimensions above are the following:

(a)

Perceived importance of the problem: Perceiving risks associated with climate change may support the engagement in pro-environmental behaviors [37,38];

(b)

Motivation: Consisting in a fundamental process able to promote sustainable lifestyles [39,40];

(c)

Self-efficacy: Feeling self-efficacious may support behavioral change also in terms of pro-environmental behaviors [37,41];

(d)

Effectiveness of Proposed Solution: The sense of agency as well as positive outcomes expectancies may promote sustainable behavioral habits [42];

(e)

Social support: Perceiving communitarian support may support perceived collective efficacy as well as individual pro-environmental behaviors [43,44];

(f)

Action and involvement: Being involved in pro-environmental behaviors can increase the likelihood of engaging in further sustainable behaviors [45,46];

(g)

Perceived readiness: Feeling ready to be engaged in sustainable behaviors supports pro-environmental behavior experience [47,48].

This model reflects the multidimensional nature of the construct and is grounded in robust theoretical frameworks such as the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) [49], Miller and Tonigan’s SOCRATES [50], the Health Belief Model [51], and the Transtheoretical Model of Change [52]. Previous literature has already pointed out the close association between RTC and sustainable actions, such as the use of sustainable means of transport and novel food [29,35,53]. In light of these findings, RTC could play a key role in the context of eco-anxiety by facilitating the engagement in sustainable behavior through certain specific affective dimensions.

1.3. Readiness to Change and Eco-Anxiety

Concerning the link between eco-anxiety and readiness to change, several scholars pointed out presumable associations between affective eco-anxiety and readiness to transition to more sustainable habits in terms of a low-carbon lifestyle [7,21,54,55]. Although this finding refers to a different construct, from our perspective, it nonetheless lays the groundwork for further exploring the relationship between the transition to change and dimensions of eco-anxiety, in terms of greater engagement in the adoption of sustainable behaviors.

In detail, taking into account the existing link between risk perception and the RTC factors in terms of the perceived importance of the problem [29], it is presumable that risk perception may actively support sustainable engagement on the basis of eco-anxiety experience [56]. In line with this, Perreira and Mouro [56] found that eco-anxiety was linked to risk perception regarding the local natural environment.

Furthermore, the literature findings also postulated a potential association between eco-anxiety and motivation [28]; notably, motivational processes seem to be able to trigger eco-anxiety and subsequent engagement in sustainable behaviors [28]. In line with this, it is plausible that there is a link between eco-anxiety and motivation as measured by the RTC construct.

Regarding the putative link between eco-anxiety and self-efficacy measured by the RTC, it is possible to hypothesize that this kind of RTC dimension may play a key role in supporting the proactive function of eco-anxiety. The literature results pointed out that eco-anxiety may be negatively and indirectly linked with self-efficacy by contrasting the involvement in sustainable behaviors [23,57]. In line with this, as aforementioned, it is presumable that self-efficacy may mediate the association between the favorable characteristics of eco-anxiety and support for pro-environmental behaviors.

In addition, the literature highlighted how climate hopelessness appears to be associated with negative expectations for the future [58]. Considering that eco-anxiety is part of the category of adverse experiences associated with the climate crisis [58], it is conceivable that having positive expectations, measured in terms of the RTC dimension, namely the effectiveness of the proposed solution, could drive eco-anxiety by also supporting the implementation of sustainable behaviors.

Moreover, the uncertainty and unpredictability surrounding the consequences of climate change, core features of eco-anxiety, may also influence social dynamics, leaving individuals uncertain about which environmental behaviors are considered socially appropriate or acceptable [11,59]. In this sense, the social support dimension proposed by Duradoni et al. [29] may offer insight into how social context shapes the relationship between eco-anxiety and environmental action. Additionally, as previously mentioned, eco-anxiety can also manifest through active engagement in problem-solving [11,60]. Research has shown that for many individuals, eco-anxiety has been a driving force in adopting more sustainable lifestyles, both on a personal and a community level [11]. In keeping with this, it is reasonable to assume that the RTC in terms of action may serve as a psychological determinant capable of supporting the implementation of pro-environmental behaviors within the context of eco-anxiety.

Furthermore, in line with all the above, higher perceived readiness could mediate the link between eco-anxiety and pro-environmental habits. Specifically, this kind of RTC dimension might be able to stimulate proactive eco-anxiety characteristics. In line with this, as prior mentioned, an association between eco-anxiety and readiness to be engaged in a low-carbon lifestyle has been observed [7].

Finally, the close link between eco-anxiety and readiness to change has also been observed by Baroni and colleagues [61]. In detail, the authors found how, together with environmental sensitivity, the RTC construct was associated with eco-anxiety dimensions [61].

1.4. Aims of the Study

In light of all the above, the present study aimed to examine potential differences between people who report experiencing eco-anxiety and those who do not concerning pro-environmental activation (e.g., engagement in sustainable habits and readiness to change), based on the cut-off proposed by Larionow and colleagues [62]. In addition, on the basis of the previous literature evidence [7], the study also aimed to explore whether the different factors of eco-anxiety (e.g., rumination and affective symptoms) are directly or indirectly associated with the adoption of specific pro-environmental behaviors. In particular, considering the putative dual role of eco-anxiety in terms of stimulating or paralyzing factors [21,28], the study aimed to observe the potential psychological factors that support the proactive aspect of eco-anxiety by also mediating the link between this kind of phenomenon and sustainable habits. In detail, on the basis of the previous literature findings [61], the potential role of readiness to change within the network of relationships above was deeply investigated. In particular, in light of all the above, a greater perceived readiness may represent a mediator factor between eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviors by representing a putatively proactive characteristic of eco-anxiety.

Moreover, the direct and indirect links between the investigated variables were also investigated by gender in order to investigate putative gender-related differences. From our perspective, based on these objectives, the results could contribute valuable insights to the literature considering that the study investigates the relationships between the different dimensions of eco-anxiety and the enactment of sustainable behaviors, thereby overcoming the limitations in the literature related to findings that only focus on a single dimension of eco-anxiety [7], by also deepening the role of readiness to change in this scenario. Moreover, the present work could highlight the potential psychological determinants that can support and improve the positive characteristics of eco-anxiety. In keeping with this, the results could also support the development of environmental awareness policies and programs by leveraging RTC dimensions that may be practical for promoting sustainable attitudes and behaviors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The participants voluntarily completed a questionnaire implemented on Google Forms Survey (June–September 2023), which was promoted on the most well-known social media platforms (e.g., Facebook and Instagram). To participate, individuals had to be 14 years or older and have proficiency in the Italian language. The questionnaire took approximately 15–20 min to complete, and data were collected anonymously and analyzed in aggregate form, in compliance with Italian privacy and informed consent regulations (Law Decree DL-101/2018) and EU Regulation (2016/679) [63]. The final sample consisted of 501 participants (32.6% cisgender males, 67.4% cisgender females) aged 14 to 77 years (mean age: 29.08, SD = 12.873). The optimal number of participants was previously extracted by conducting a power analysis using G*Power (version 3.1.9.7) [64,65]. In keeping with this, the power analysis pointed out the need to have a sample composed of 105 people (group 1: 51; group 2: 51) for conducting a Student’s t-test with 80% power and a medium effect size of 0.5 (f²).

2.2. Instruments

In the present work, the following instruments were used:

The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS) [25,26]: The scale is composed of 13 items scored on a 4-point Likert scale (0: “Not at all”; 3: “Nearly every day”) and shows good psychometric properties [25]. The instrument assesses four different dimensions of eco-anxiety in terms of affective symptoms (item example: “Feeling nervous, anxious or on edge”), rumination (item example: “Unable to stop thinking about future climate change and other global”), behavioral symptoms (item example: “Difficulty sleeping”), and anxiety about personal impact (item example: “Feeling anxious that your personal behaviours will do little to help fix the problem”) [25]. Notably, the instrument above was chosen to assess eco-anxiety considering its capability to measure more than two dimensions of the investigated phenomena [66]. From a psychometric point of view, the Italian version of the instrument has an excellent internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.891) [67]. Notably, in the present work, the cut-off proposed by Larionow and colleagues [62] was extracted to differentiate people with and without eco-anxiety. The cut-off was calculated based on the scores obtained on the first two items of the scale; specifically, a score of ≥3 indicates a clinically significant level of eco-anxiety [62].

The Pro-environmental Behavior Scale (PEB) [68]: The instrument is a 19-item questionnaire designed to assess various dimensions of pro-environmental behaviors, including conservation, environmental citizenship, food-related habits, and transportation use. Items are rated using Likert-type scales, with response formats varying depending on the question. Specifically, items 1 to 6 are rated on a 5-point scale (1 = “never” to 5 = “always”); item 7 uses a 3-point scale (1 = “very high” to 3 = “low”); items 8, 9, and 12 are dichotomous (1 = “yes”; 5 = “no”); items 10 and 11 are rated on a 5-point scale (1 = “never” to 5 = “constantly”); item 13 uses a 5-point time-based scale (1 = “24 h or less” to 5 = “40 h or more”); items 14 to 16 are also dichotomous (1 = “no”; 5 = “yes”); and finally, items 17 to 19 are rated on a 3-point scale (1 = “never” to 5 = “frequently”). The Italian version of the scale was preliminarily validated by Duradoni and colleagues [29], showing good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.76). The PEB was selected for its proven reliability in measuring pro-environmental behavior.

The Readiness to Change Scale [29]: The tool is designed to assess individuals’ subjective readiness to change across seven core dimensions. The perceived importance of the problem is evaluated through items 1 to 4 (McDonald’s ω = 0.78), while motivation to change is explored via items 5 to 8 (McDonald’s ω = 0.83). Items 9 to 13 measure self-efficacy (McDonald’s ω = 0.87), while items 14 to 17 assess the perceived effectiveness of the proposed solution (McDonald’s ω = 0.81). Perceived social support is investigated through items 18 to 21 (McDonald’s ω = 0.74), and action taken is assessed by items 22 to 25 (McDonald’s ω = 0.83). In the end, perceived readiness to change is measured by items 26 to 29 (McDonald’s ω = 0.82). The full scale comprises 29 items, each rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

2.3. Data Analysis

According to Hair [69], variables were considered normally distributed when the values of the skewness and kurtosis coefficients were ±2 and ±7, respectively. Moreover, percentage values regarding eco-anxiety were extracted by observing a putative significant difference by applying the Chi-square test. Notably, differences were investigated among gender and generations based on the reference year of data collection (Generation Z = 11–26 years; Millennials = 27–42 years; Generation X = 43–58 years; Baby Boomers = 59–77 years) [70]. Furthermore, in order to observe putative differences between people with and without eco-anxiety, a Student’s t-test was performed by applying Welch statistics. The effect size (Cohen’s d) was interpreted as follows: 0.20, small; 0.50, medium; 0.80, large [71,72]. Furthermore, considering that the present dataset was already used by Duradoni et al. [35], the Benjamini–Hochberg critical value was calculated to avoid type 1 error [73]. Moreover, a network analysis (NA) was carried out in order to investigate non-linearity between the investigated phenomena among the total sample and by gender [74]. Particularly, for NA, all the HEAS subscales were considered [25]. Finally, on the basis of network analysis outputs, a mediation analysis was performed in order to observe the putative role of RTC in mediating the links between eco-anxiety dimensions and pro-environmental behaviors. Specifically, factors of eco-anxiety were set as predictors variables, RTC dimensions as mediators, and pro-environmental behaviors as output variables. Standardized estimates, R-squared, bootstrapping (replications: 5000), and confidence intervals were calculated. The bias-corrected percentile method was also applied [75]. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 23) and the JASP package (version 0.19.0.0) were used to conduct statistical analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Results

As previously published in the study of Duradoni and colleagues [19], all the variables considered in the present study were normally distributed [69]. Accordingly, the criteria for conducting Student’s t-test were satisfied. Moreover, descriptive results pointed out higher percentages among females who reported feeling anxious concerning environmental issues, with a statistically significant difference between genders (Chi-square = 17.028; df = 1; p < 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.188) (Figure 1). On the other hand, no statistical differences emerged concerning percentage values among different generations (Chi-square = 0.320; df = 3; p = 0.956; Cramer’s V = 0.025) (Figure 2).

3.2. Student’s T-Test Results

The Student’s t-test pointed out the presence of significant differences between groups with or without eco-anxiety concerning all the investigated variables except for PEB-T (see Appendix A,

Table A1. Student’s t-test outputs.

Variables	Group	Mean	Sd	SE	t	df	p	B-H Critical Value	Cohen’s d	SE Cohen’s d
PEB-C	No eco-anxiety	26.974	3.661	0.415	−2.477	105.892	0.015	0.032	−3.308	0.126
	Eco-anxiety	28.088	3.568	0.174
PEB-EC	No eco-anxiety	11.628	2.941	0.333	−5.573	134.795	<0.001	0.005	−0.615	0.133
	Eco-anxiety	13.774	3.966	0.193
PEB-F	No eco-anxiety	8.897	5.186	0.587	−2.430	103.048	0.016	0.036	−0.310	0.126
	Eco-anxiety	10.447	4.813	0.235
PEB-T	No eco-anxiety	11.154	3.054	0.346	−1.065	101.469	0.29	0.045	−0.136	0.124
	Eco-anxiety	11.549	2.751	0.134
RTC-PI	No eco-anxiety	14.269	3.421	0.387	−3.955	91.987	<0.001	0.005	−0.54	0.131
	Eco-anxiety	15.872	2.435	0.119
RTC-M	No eco-anxiety	13.308	3.69	0.418	−3.956	93.29	<0.001	0.005	−0.534	0.13
	Eco-anxiety	15.043	2.735	0.133
RTC-SE	No eco-anxiety	17.385	4.429	0.501	−1.561	91.399	0.122	0.041	−0.214	0.124
	Eco-anxiety	18.202	3.092	0.151
RTC-ES	No eco-anxiety	13.397	3.204	0.363	−3.11	93.332	0.002	0.023	−0.42	0.128
	Eco-anxiety	14.582	2.378	0.116
RTC-SS	No eco-anxiety	13.385	3.252	0.368	−0.604	96.193	0.547	0.05	−0.08	0.123
	Eco-anxiety	13.62	2.608	0.127
RTC-A	No eco-anxiety	13.462	3.631	0.411	−3.478	92.518	<0.001	0.005	−0.473	0.129
	Eco-anxiety	14.96	2.629	0.128
RTC-PR	No eco-anxiety	13.885	3.133	0.355	−2.859	95.217	0.005	0.027	−0.381	0.127
	Eco-anxiety	14.955	2.451	0.119

Notes: CNS, Connectedness to Nature; C, Conservation; EC, Environmental Citizenship; F, Food; T, Transportation; RTC, Readiness to change; PI, Perceived importance; M, Motivation for change; SE, Self-efficacy; ES, Effectiveness of proposed solution; SS, Social support; A, Action; PR, Perceived readiness; Sd, standard deviation; Se, Standard error; df, degree of freedom; B-H, Benjamini-Hochberg.

; Figure 3). In general, people with eco-anxiety were characterized by higher mean values concerning the engagement in pro-environmental behaviors. Notably, a large effect size was observed concerning PEB-C (Cohen’s d: −0.615) [72] (see Appendix A, Table A1). Concerning RTC values, results pointed out significant differences among all the RTC dimensions except for RTC-SE and RTC-SS (see Appendix A, Table A1; Figure 4). In particular, a large effect was found regarding RTC-M (Cohen’s d: −0.534) [72]. The results remained statistically significant even when compared with the Benjamini–Hochberg critical values (see Appendix A, Table A1) [73].

3.3. Network Analysis Results

Among the total sample, the NA pointed out the presence of 15 nodes with a sparsity value of 0.438 (Figure 5 and Figure 6). The RTC-A was the node with the highest centrality measures; it was positively connected with all the investigated measures except for HEAS-AS, HEAS-R, HEAS-BR, PEB-T, and RTC-A (see Appendix A,

Table A3. Centrality measures among the total sample.

	Betweenness	Closeness	Strength	Expected Influence
HEAS-AS	−0.470	−0.982	−0.031	0.064
HEAS-R	1.209	−0.241	0.555	0.636
HEAS-BS	−0.638	−1.059	−0.201	−0.594
HEAS-APS	0.537	−0.045	0.351	0.379
PEB-C	0.034	−0.02	−0.964	−0.845
PEB-EC	−0.638	0.909	−0.373	−0.269
PEB-F	−0.47	0.893	−0.656	−0.704
PEB-T	−1.31	−2.005	−2.329	−2.177
RTC-PI	−0.974	−0.585	0.536	0.618
RTC-M	0.537	−0.178	1.522	1.579
RTC-SE	0.369	0.738	0.298	−0.268
RTC-ES	−0.302	0.041	0.311	0.398
RTC-SS	−1.31	−0.593	−1.189	−1.123
RTC-A	1.377	1.713	1.241	1.305
RTC-PR	2.049	1.416	0.929	1.001

Notes: HEAS, the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; AS, affective symptoms; R, rumination; BS, behavioral symptoms; APS, anxiety about personal impact; CNS, connectedness to nature; C, conservation; EC, environmental citizenship; F, food; T, transportation; RTC, readiness to change; PI, perceived importance; M, motivation for change; SE, self-efficacy; ES, effectiveness of proposed solution; SS, social support; A, action; PR, perceived readiness.

and

Table A4. Network weight matrix among males only.

	HEAS- AS	HEAS- R	HEAS- BS	HEAS- PI	PEB- C	PEB- EC	PEB- F	PEB- T	RTC-PI	RTC- M	RTC- SE	RTC- ES	RTC- SS	RTC- A	RTC-PR
HEAS- AS	0	0.253	0.384	0.044	0	0.03	0	0	0.005	0	0	0	0	0	0
HEAS- R	0.253	0	0	0.377	0	0.052	0	0	0.096	0	0	0.038	0	0	0
HEAS- BS	0.384	0	0	0.185	0	−0.047	0	0	0	0	−0.034	0	0	0	0
HEAS- APS	0.044	0.377	0.185	0	0	0.117	0	0	0.018	0.012	0	0	0	0.017	0.073
PEB- C	0	0	0	0	0	0.04	0.153	0.091	0	0.055	0	0	0	0.04	0.102
PEB- EC	0.03	0.052	−0.047	0.117	0.04	0	0.223	0	0	0	0.039	0.027	0	0.13	0.086
PEB- F	0	0	0	0	0.153	0.223	0	0	0.016	0.103	0	0	0	0.025	0.038
PEB- T	0	0	0	0	0.091	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.114	0	0.036	0
RTC- PI	0.005	0.096	0	0.018	0	0	0.016	0	0	0.575	0	0.162	0.028	0	0.066
RTC- M	0	0	0	0.012	0.055	0	0.103	0	0.575	0	0	0	0.048	0.203	0.085
RTC-SE	0	0	−0.034	0	0	0.039	0	0	0	0	0	0.023	0.188	0.302	0.141
RTC-ES	0	0.038	0	0	0	0.027	0	0.114	0.162	0	0.023	0	0.261	0.145	0.192
RTC-SS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.028	0.048	0.188	0.261	0	0.019	0.009
RTC- A	0	0	0	0.017	0.04	0.13	0.025	0.036	0	0.203	0.302	0.145	0.019	0	0.257
RTC-PR	0	0	0	0.073	0.102	0.086	0.038	0	0.066	0.085	0.141	0.192	0.009	0.257	0

Notes: HEAS, the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; AS, affective symptoms; R, rumination; BS, behavioral symptoms; APS, anxiety about personal impact; CNS, connectedness to nature; C, conservation; EC, environmental citizenship; F, food; T, transportation; RTC, readiness to change; PI, perceived importance; M, motivation for change; SE, self-efficacy; ES, effectiveness of proposed solution; SS, social support; A, action; PR, perceived readiness.

; Figure 5). By focusing on HEAS dimensions, the results pointed out that only HEAS-R was positively linked with PEB-C (r = 0.069) and PEB-EC (r = 0.125), while HEAS-PI was positively linked with PEB-EC (r = 0.077) and PEB-T (r = 0.045) (see Appendix A, Table A3). On the other hand, HEAS-AS and HEAS-BS are indirectly linked with sustainable behaviors through RTC dimensions (Figure 5).

On the other hand, among males only, the analysis showed the presence of 15 nodes with a sparsity value of 0.514 (Figure 7 and Figure 8). PEB-T was the node with the highest centrality measures and was positively linked with PEB-C, RTC-ES, and RTC-A (see Appendix A,

Table A6. Network weight matrix among females only.

	HEAS- AS	HEAS- R	HEAS- BS	HEAS- PI	PEB- C	PEB- EC	PEB- F	PEB- T	RTC-PI	RTC- M	RTC- SE	RTC- ES	RTC- SS	RTC- A	RTC-PR
HEAS- AS	0	0.246	0.497	0.066	0	0	−0.032	0	0	0	0	0.016	0	0	0
HEAS- R	0.246	0	0.126	0.403	0.091	0.14	0.028	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
HEAS- BS	0.497	0.126	0	0.103	0	0	0	0	0	0	−0.066	0.068	0.001	0	0
HEAS- API	0.066	0.403	0.103	0	0.006	0.071	0	0.068	0.003	0.089	0	0	−0.064	0.059	0
PEB- C	0	0.091	0	0.006	0	0.13	0.136	0.127	0	0	0.087	0	0	0	0.081
PEB- EC	0	0.14	0	0.071	0.13	0	0.218	0.041	0.064	0.019	0.002	0	0	0.078	0.045
PEB- F	−0.032	0.028	0	0	0.136	0.218	0	0.15	0.037	0.005	−0.079	0.029	−0.024	0.146	0
PEB- T	0	0	0	0.068	0.127	0.041	0.15	0	0.045	0	−0.067	0	0	0	0.065
RTC- PI	0	0	0	0.003	0	0.064	0.037	0.045	0	0.629	0	0.07	0	0.038	0
RTC- M	0	0	0	0.089	0	0.019	0.005	0	0.629	0	0.054	0.117	0.025	0.145	0.141
RTC-SE	0	0	−0.066	0	0.087	0.002	−0.079	−0.067	0	0.054	0	0.222	0.194	0.078	0.324
RTC-ES	0.016	0	0.068	0	0	0	0.029	0	0.07	0.117	0.222	0	0.236	0.15	0.027
RTC-SS	0	0	0.001	−0.064	0	0	−0.024	0	0	0.025	0.194	0.236	0	0.108	0
RTC- A	0	0	0	0.059	0	0.078	0.146	0	0.038	0.145	0.078	0.15	0.108	0	0.301
RTC-PR	0	0	0	0	0.081	0.045	0	0.065	0	0.141	0.324	0.027	0	0.301	0

Notes: HEAS, the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; AS, affective symptoms; R, rumination; BS, behavioral symptoms; APS, anxiety about personal impact; CNS, connectedness to nature; C, conservation; EC, environmental citizenship; F, food; T, transportation; RTC, readiness to change; PI, perceived importance; M, motivation for change; SE, self-efficacy; ES, effectiveness of proposed solution; SS, social support; A, action; PR, perceived readiness.

; Figure 7). Concerning eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviors, the analysis pointed out positive links between PEB-EC and HEAS-AS (r = 0.03), HEAS-R (r = 0.052), and HEAS-PI (r = 0.117). Moreover, a negative link between PEB-EC and HEAS-BS (r = −0.046) was also observed.

Finally, among males only, the analysis pointed out the presence of 15 nodes with a sparsity value of 0.429 (Figure 9 and Figure 10). The PEB-T was the node with the highest centrality measures and was positively linked with HEAS-PI, PEB-C, PEB-EC, PEB-F, RTC-PI, and RTC-PR. Regarding the links between eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviors, positive links were found between HEAS-R and PEB-C (r = 0.091), PEB-EC (r = 0.140), and PEB-F (r = 0.028), as well as between HEAS-PI and PEB-C (r = 0.006) and PEB-EC (r = 0.071). Conversely, a negative link was observed between HEAS-AS and PEB-F.

3.4. Mediation Analysis Results

Finally, on the basis of NA outputs (

Table A2. Network weight matrix among the total sample.

	HEAS- AS	HEAS- R	HEAS- BS	HEAS- PI	PEB- C	PEB- EC	PEB- F	PEB- T	RTC-PI	RTC- M	RTC- SE	RTC- ES	RTC- SS	RTC- A	RTC-PR
HEAS- AS	0.000	0.25	0.474	0.081	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.017	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
HEAS- R	0.250	0.000	0.077	0.402	0.069	0.125	0.000	0.000	0.011	0.012	0.000	0.003	0.000	0.000	0.000
HEAS- BS	0.474	0.077	0.000	0.138	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	−0.055	0.042	0.000	0.000	0.000
HEAS- APS	0.081	0.402	0.138	0.000	0	0.077	0.007	0.045	0.03	0.048	0.000	0.000	−0.007	0.07	0.000
PEB- C	0.000	0.069	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.105	0.163	0.123	0.01	0.012	0.000	0.006	0.000	0.053	0.077
PEB- EC	0.000	0.125	0.000	0.077	0.105	0.000	0.213	0.000	0.033	0.000	0.032	0.002	0.000	0.083	0.077
PEB- F	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.007	0.163	0.213	0.000	0.087	0.034	0.063	−0.018	0.000	0.000	0.101	0.000
PEB- T	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.045	0.123	0.000	0.087	0.000	0.019	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.047
RTC- PI	0.017	0.011	0.000	0.03	0.01	0.033	0.034	0.019	0.000	0.601	0.000	0.13	0.000	0.06	0.000
RTC- M	0.000	0.012	0.000	0.048	0.012	0.000	0.063	0.000	0.601	0.000	0.027	0.057	0.041	0.131	0.169
RTC-SE	0.000	0.000	−0.055	0.000	0.000	0.032	−0.018	0.000	0.000	0.027	0.000	0.148	0.204	0.102	0.307
RTC-ES	0.000	0.003	0.042	0.000	0.006	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.13	0.057	0.148	0.000	0.254	0.167	0.087
RTC-SS	0.000	0.000	0.000	−0.007	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.041	0.204	0.254	0.000	0.065	0.000
RTC- A	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.07	0.053	0.083	0.101	0.000	0.06	0.131	0.102	0.167	0.065	0.000	0.266
RTC-PR	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.077	0.077	0.000	0.047	0.000	0.169	0.307	0.087	0.000	0.266	0.000

Notes: HEAS, the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; AS, affective symptoms; R, rumination; BS, behavioral symptoms; APS, anxiety about personal impact; CNS, connectedness to nature; C, conservation; EC, environmental citizenship; F, food; T, transportation; RTC, readiness to change; PI, perceived importance; M, motivation for change; SE, self-efficacy; ES, effectiveness of proposed solution; SS, social support; A, action; PR, perceived readiness.

, Table A4, and Table A6), the mediation analysis pointed out the mediator role of RTC between eco-anxiety dimensions and pro-environmental behaviors among only the total sample and women. Concerning men, unlike what was shown for the populations above, the NA highlighted that eco-anxiety factors were connected with at least one sustainable behavior.

Notably, among the general sample, the analysis pointed out how the perceived importance of the problem (RTC) mediated the link between affective symptoms of eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviors in terms of conservation (indirect effects: estimate = 0.021; SE = 0.005; z = 3.812; p < 0.001; 95% CI: from 0.012 to 0.034) (

Table A8. Affective symptoms (HEAS), perceived importance of the problem (RTC), and conservation (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among the total sample.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: AS → PEB: C	0.020	0.016	1.271	0.204	−0.011	0.052
Indirect effects
HEAS: AS → RTC: PI → PEB: C	0.021	0.005	3.812	<0.001	0.012	0.034
Total effects
HEAS: AS → PEB: C	0.041	0.016	2.537	0.011	0.010	0.073
Path coefficient
RTC: PI → PEB: C	0.265	0.044	6.043	<0.001	0.176	0.360
HEAS: AS → PEB: C	0.020	0.016	1.271	0.204	−0.011	0.052
HEAS: AS → RTC: PI	0.078	0.016	4.913	<0.001	0.045	0.115
R-squared
PEB: C	0.080
RTC: PI	0.046

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; AS, affective symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; C, conservation; RTC, readiness to change; PI, perceived importance of the problem.

), food (indirect effects: estimate = 0.022; SE = 0.006; z = 3.939; p < 0.001; 95% CI: from 0.012 to 0.036) (

Table A10. Affective symptoms (HEAS), perceived importance of the problem (RTC), and food (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among the total sample.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: AS → PEB: F	0.013	0.016	0.832	0.406	−0.018	0.044
Indirect effects
HEAS: AS → RTC: PI → PEB: F	0.022	0.006	3.939	<0.001	0.012	0.036
Total effects
HEAS: AS → PEB: F	0.036	0.016	2.204	0.027	0.005	0.067
Path coefficient
RTC: PI → PEB: F	0.288	0.044	6.590	<0.001	0.202	0.372
HEAS: AS → PEB: F	0.013	0.016	0.832	0.406	−0.018	0.044
HEAS: AS → RTC: PI	0.078	0.016	4.913	<0.001	0.043	0.112
R-squared
PEB: F	0.089
RTC: PI	0.046

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; AS, affective symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; T, transportation; RTC, readiness to change; PI, perceived importance of the problem.

), and transportation (indirect effects: estimate = 0.014; SE = 0.005; z = 3.097; p = 0.002; 95% CI: from 0.007 to 0.024) (

Table A11. Affective symptoms (HEAS), perceived importance of the problem (RTC), and transportation (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among the total sample.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: AS → PEB: T	0.011	0.016	0.667	0.505	−0.021	0.042
Indirect effects
HEAS: AS → RTC: PI → PEB: T	0.014	0.005	3.097	0.002	0.007	0.024
Total effects
HEAS: AS → PEB: T	0.025	0.016	1.534	0.125	−0.007	0.055
Path coefficient
RTC: PI → PEB: T	0.179	0.045	3.990	<0.001	0.098	0.262
HEAS: AS → PEB: T	0.011	0.016	0.667	0.505	−0.021	0.042
HEAS: AS → RTC: PI	0.078	0.016	4.913	<0.001	0.044	0.114
R-squared
PEB: T	0.035
RTC: PI	0.046

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; AS, affective symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; T, transportation; RTC, readiness to change; PI, perceived importance of the problem.

) without detecting any significant association between the eco-anxiety and sustainable behaviors (Figure 11). Moreover, the mediation analysis also highlighted the mediator role of the effectiveness of the proposed solution (RTC) concerning the link between behavioral symptoms of eco-anxiety and both conservation (indirect effects: estimate = 0.019; SE = 0.006; z = 3.212; p < 0.001; 95% CI: from 0.010 to 0.031) (

Table A14. Behavioral symptoms (HEAS), effectiveness of the proposed solution (RTC), and conservation (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among the total sample.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: C	0.028	0.020	1.418	0.156	−0.010	0.064
Indirect effects
HEAS: BS → RTC: ES → PEB: C	0.019	0.006	3.212	0.001	0.010	0.031
Total effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: C	0.046	0.020	2.337	0.019	0.008	0.083
Path coefficient
RTC: ES → PEB: C	0.237	0.044	5.392	<0.001	0.143	0.330
HEAS: BS → PEB: C	0.028	0.020	1.418	0.156	−0.010	0.064
HEAS: BS → RTC: ES	0.078	0.020	3.999	<0.001	0.042	0.117
R-squared
PEB: C	0.065
RTC: ES	0.031

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; BS, behavioral symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; C, conservation; RTC, readiness to change; ES, effectiveness of the proposed solution.

) and environmental citizenship (indirect effects: estimate = 0.023; SE = 0.007; z = 3.429; p < 0.001; 95% CI: from 0.011 to 0.037) (

Table A15. Behavioral symptoms (HEAS), effectiveness of the proposed solution (RTC), and environmental citizenship (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among the total sample.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: EC	0.017	0.019	0.880	0.379	−0.023	0.056
Indirect effects
HEAS: BS → RTC: ES → PEB: EC	0.023	0.007	3.429	<0.001	0.011	0.037
Total effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: EC	0.040	0.020	1.998	0.046	−0.003	0.079
Path coefficient
RTC: ES → PEB: EC	0.289	0.043	6.667	<0.001	0.203	0.375
HEAS: BS → PEB: EC	0.017	0.019	0.880	0.379	−0.023	0.056
HEAS: BS → RTC: ES	0.078	0.020	3.999	<0.001	0.038	0.116
R-squared
PEB: EC	0.089
RTC: ES	0.031

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; BS, behavioral symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; EC, environmental citizenship; RTC, readiness to change; ES, effectiveness of the proposed solution.

) (Figure 11). Conversely, a direct link between behavioral symptoms of eco-anxiety and environmental citizenship and food (

Table A9. Affective symptoms (HEAS), perceived importance of the problem (RTC), and environmental citizenship (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among the total sample.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: AS → PEB: EC	0.038	0.016	2.464	0.014	0.008	0.070
Indirect effects
HEAS: AS → RTC: PI → PEB: EC	0.025	0.006	4.100	<0.001	0.014	0.038
Total effects
HEAS: AS → PEB: EC	0.063	0.016	3.943	<0.001	0.031	0.097
Path coefficient
RTC: PI → PEB: EC	0.318	0.043	7.439	<0.001	0.232	0.414
HEAS: AS → PEB: EC	0.038	0.016	2.464	0.014	0.008	0.070
HEAS: AS → RTC: PI	0.078	0.016	4.913	<0.001	0.044	0.113
R-squared
PEB: EC	0.127
RTC: PI	0.046

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; AS, affective symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; EC, environmental citizenship; RTC, readiness to change; PI, perceived importance of the problem.

,

Table A12. Behavioral symptoms (HEAS), self-efficacy (RTC), and environmental citizenship (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among the total sample.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: EC	0.044	0.019	2.310	0.021	0.003	0.083
Indirect effects
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE → PEB: EC	−0.004	0.006	−0.693	0.488	−0.016	0.007
Total effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: EC	0.040	0.020	1.998	0.046	−0.003	0.079
Path coefficient
RTC: SE → PEB: EC	0.297	0.042	6.994	<0.001	0.217	0.380
HEAS: BS → PEB: EC	0.044	0.019	2.310	0.021	0.003	0.083
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE	−0.014	0.020	−0.697	0.486	−0.051	0.024
R-squared
PEB: EC	0.096
RTC: SE	0.0009682

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; BS, behavioral symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; EC, environmental citizenship; RTC, readiness to change; SE, self-efficacy.

, and

Table A13. Behavioral symptoms (HEAS), self-efficacy (RTC), and food (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among the total sample.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.042	0.020	2.147	0.032	0.004	0.079
Indirect effects
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE → PEB: F	−0.002	0.002	−0.672	0.502	−0.007	0.002
Total effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.041	0.020	2.055	0.040	0.002	0.078
Path coefficient
RTC: SE → PEB: F	0.113	0.044	2.546	0.011	0.029	0.197
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.042	0.020	2.147	0.032	0.004	0.079
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE	−0.014	0.020	−0.697	0.486	−0.050	0.024
R-squared
PEB: F	0.021
RTC: SE	0.0009682

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; BS, behavioral symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; F, food; RTC, readiness to change; SE, self-efficacy.

) was observed. Finally, no other mediation roles of RTC dimensions were detected.

Moreover, among women only, the mediation analysis pointed out how the effectiveness of the proposed solution mediated the link between behavioral symptoms of eco-anxiety and sustainable behaviors in terms of food (indirect effects: estimate = 0.015; SE = 0.006; z = 2.351; p = 0.019; 95% CI: from 0.005 to 0.031) (Figure 12;

Table A20. Behavioral symptoms (HEAS), effectiveness of proposed solution (RTC), and food (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among women.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.029	0.025	1.175	0.240	−0.019	0.076
Indirect effects
HEAS: BS → RTC: ES → PEB: F	0.015	0.006	2.351	0.019	0.005	0.031
Total effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.044	0.025	1.776	0.076	−0.005	0.090
Path coefficient
RTC: ES → PEB: F	0.185	0.055	3.350	<0.001	0.077	0.295
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.029	0.025	1.175	0.240	−0.019	0.076
HEAS: BS → RTC: ES	0.080	0.024	3.300	<0.001	0.035	0.128
R-squared
PEB: F	0.043
RTC: ES	0.032

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; BS, behavioral symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; F, food; RTC, readiness to change; ES, effectiveness of proposed solution.

). Conversely, a direct association between behavioral symptoms of eco-anxiety and environmental citizenship (

Table A17. Behavioral symptoms (HEAS), self-efficacy (RTC), and environmental citizenship (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among women.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: EC	0.069	0.024	2.922	0.003	0.022	0.116
Indirect effects
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE → PEB: EC	−0.002	0.006	−0.282	0.778	−0.015	0.010
Total effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: EC	0.068	0.024	2.768	0.006	0.020	0.116
Path coefficient
RTC: SE → PEB: EC	0.239	0.053	4.495	<0.001	0.133	0.355
HEAS: BS → PEB: EC	0.069	0.024	2.922	0.003	0.022	0.116
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE	−0.007	0.025	−0.283	0.778	−0.054	0.041
R-squared
PEB: EC	0.080
RTC: SE	0.0002448

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; BS, behavioral symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; EC, environmental citizenship; RTC, readiness to change; SE, self-efficacy.

) was found. Finally, no other mediation roles of RTC dimensions were observed (

Table A16. Behavioral symptoms (HEAS), self-efficacy (RTC), and conservation (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among women.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: C	0.046	0.024	1.916	0.055	−0.0006233	0.092
Indirect effects
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE → PEB: C	−0.002	0.007	−0.282	0.778	−0.016	0.011
Total effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: C	0.044	0.025	1.773	0.076	−0.006	0.091
Path coefficient
RTC: SE → PEB: C	0.264	0.053	4.957	<0.001	0.154	0.378
HEAS: BS → PEB: C	0.046	0.024	1.916	0.055	−0.0006233	0.092
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE	−0.007	0.025	−0.283	0.778	−0.055	0.040
R-squared
PEB: C	0.079
RTC: SE	0.0002448

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; BS, behavioral symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; C, conservation; RTC, readiness to change; SE, self-efficacy.

, Table A17,

Table A18. Behavioral symptoms (HEAS), self-efficacy (RTC), and food (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among women.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.044	0.025	1.799	0.072	−0.004	0.091
Indirect effects
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE → PEB: F	−0.0004693	0.002	−0.275	0.783	−0.007	0.002
Total effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.044	0.025	1.776	0.076	−0.005	0.090
Path coefficient
RTC: SE → PEB: F	0.067	0.055	1.221	0.222	−0.039	0.179
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.044	0.025	1.799	0.072	−0.004	0.091
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE	−0.007	0.025	−0.283	0.778	−0.054	0.039
R-squared
PEB: F	0.014
RTC: SE	0.0002448

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; BS, behavioral symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; F, food; RTC, readiness to change; SE, self-efficacy.

,

Table A19. Behavioral symptoms (HEAS), self-efficacy (RTC), and transportation (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among women.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: T	0.034	0.025	1.379	0.168	−0.014	0.081
Indirect effects
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE → PEB: T	−0.0001553	0.0006717	−0.231	0.817	−0.005	0.002
Total effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: T	0.034	0.025	1.373	0.170	−0.014	0.081
Path coefficient
RTC: SE → PEB: T	0.022	0.055	0.402	0.687	−0.085	0.137
HEAS: BS → PEB: T	0.034	0.025	1.379	0.168	−0.014	0.081
HEAS: BS → RTC: SE	−0.007	0.025	−0.283	0.778	−0.053	0.041
R-squared
PEB: T	0.006
RTC: SE	0.0002448

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; BS, behavioral symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; T, transportation; RTC, readiness to change; SE, self-efficacy.

and

Table A21. Behavioral symptoms (HEAS), social support (RTC), and food (PEB): output of the mediation analysis among women.

Trajectories	Estimate	SE	z	p-Value	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Direct effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.043	0.025	1.743	0.081	−0.006	0.089
Indirect effects
HEAS: BS → RTC: SS → PEB: F	0.0007253	0.002	0.386	0.699	−0.002	0.008
Total effects
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.044	0.025	1.776	0.076	−0.006	0.089
Path coefficient
RTC: SS → PEB: F	0.022	0.055	0.404	0.686	−0.083	0.130
HEAS: BS → PEB: F	0.043	0.025	1.743	0.081	−0.006	0.089
HEAS: BS → RTC: SS	0.032	0.025	1.316	0.188	−0.012	0.081
R-squared
PEB: F	0.010
RTC: SS	0.005

Notes: HEAS, Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale; BS, behavioral symptoms; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors; F, food; RTC, readiness to change; SS, social support.

).

4. Discussion

The present study aimed at investigating differences between people with and without eco-anxiety concerning sustainable attitudes as well as putative direct and indirect associations between eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviors through the lenses of readiness to change. In keeping with this, from our perspective, the study shed light on important and significant evidence in this field of research.

Firstly, higher percentages of women with eco-anxiety compared to men were observed. The results are totally supported by the literature findings so far considering that women seem to be more vulnerable to eco-anxiety itself [76,77,78]. Notably, as suggested by the review by Rotschild and Haase [78], the above-mentioned link may be influenced by hormonal factors as well as by gender-related traumatic experiences [78,79]. Moreover, concerning generation outputs, no difference was observed. In keeping with this, the present work highlighted how environmental issues affect people across generations. In addition, the results of the present study highlight that individuals reporting higher levels of eco-anxiety also show higher average scores in terms of engagement in pro-environmental behaviors and readiness to change. This finding may be explained by several factors.

First, although findings in the literature are somewhat mixed, previous research has identified a link between eco-anxiety and the adoption of sustainable behaviors [20,21,22,23,24]. Specifically, as suggested by Pavani and colleagues [24], eco-anxiety may represent a motivational factor for problem-solving behavior [20,21,22,23,24], further suggesting that eco-anxiety may actually support the adoption of sustainable behaviors [24].

Moreover, if eco-anxiety represents a dimension that promotes and encourages problem-solving behaviors [24,80], then the results showing higher levels of readiness to change among individuals experiencing eco-anxiety are well supported by the existing literature. In fact, considering that readiness to change may be a construct that facilitates the initiation of behavioral change [29,30,32,33,34,35], the tendency toward sustainable action driven by eco-anxiety, in combination with readiness to change, could actively promote greater engagement in pro-environmental behaviors.

However, as highlighted by the results of the network analysis, eco-anxiety does not always appear to directly stimulate the enactment of sustainable behaviors. In fact, when analyzed across its different dimensions, it emerges that eco-anxiety associated with rumination and anxiety regarding personal impact is directly linked to pro-environmental behaviors such as the use of sustainable transportation, conservation efforts, and environmental citizenship. In contrast, dimensions of eco-anxiety-related behavioral symptoms are only indirectly connected to sustainable actions. Finally, no links between affective symptoms of eco-anxiety and sustainable behaviors or readiness to change dimensions were observed.

Specifically, with regard to behavioral symptoms, the results suggested that perceived readiness plays a key mediating role. These findings are partially supported by the previous literature. For example, Hogg and colleagues [7] observed that the rumination and personal impact dimensions of eco-anxiety are directly associated with sustainable behaviors, in contrast to the affective and behavioral symptoms linked to the construct.

As suggested by previous findings, the link between eco-anxious rumination and pro-environmental behaviors may stem from the idea that repeatedly thinking about environmental issues motivates individuals to take action to counteract such problems through sustainable behaviors [7,54,81,82,83].

On the other hand, as suggested in the literature, the link between anxiety regarding personal impact and the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors may lie in the fact that this dimension is inherently associated with a strong motivation to adopt sustainable behaviors, which can, in turn, lead to the implementation of such actions [7,11,84,85].

Conversely, no direct link was found between behavioral symptoms and pro-environmental behaviors. As suggested by Hogg and colleagues [25], behavioral symptoms refer to issues related to sleep quality and socialization, and they appear to be potentially and relatively independent from rumination and personal impact, which may explain the associations observed in different directions.

However, the results highlight the potential role of readiness to change in the aforementioned relationship. Specifically, behavioral symptoms were found to be positively associated with perceived readiness and negatively associated with self-efficacy. As suggested by Duradoni and colleagues [29], perceived readiness, in terms of behavioral intentions, may be linked to performance expectancy as well as effort expectancy [29,38,86]. Based on this theoretical framework, perceived readiness could therefore represent a catalyzing factor, useful for converting behavioral symptomatology into meaningful and sustainable actions, thereby supporting change.

On the other hand, self-efficacy appears to be a strong predictor of sustainable behavior [29,37,41,46,87]. Specifically, high levels of self-efficacy may enhance the perception of being capable of engaging in pro-environmental behaviors [29,41]. Consequently, considering the features of behavioral symptomatology associated with eco-anxiety, the present finding appears plausible and supports the need to design tailored interventions aimed at enhancing the sense of self-efficacy, thereby facilitating behavior change [29]. Finally, no direct or indirect links between affective symptoms of eco-anxiety and both pro-environmental behaviors and dimensions of readiness to change were found, suggesting the need for further investigations to better comprehend the phenomenon.

4.1. Eco-Anxiety and Sustainable Behaviors by Gender

Concerning the direct and indirect links between eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviors, the results pointed out gender differences. In general, unlike what emerged from the analyses conducted on the entire sample, direct links are observed between affective and behavioral symptoms and pro-environmental behaviors. In detail, if the network analysis showed that there are positive links between rumination and anxiety regarding personal impact and the promotion of sustainable actions among both males and females, there are differences concerning affective and behavioral symptoms of eco-anxiety.

In this regard, the results highlighted how affective symptomatology positively supports the enactment of sustainable behaviors among men, while among women, it appears to have an effect in the opposite direction. Although these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the weak strength of the associations observed, they suggest that eco-anxiety, depending on its specific dimensions, may have different effects depending on gender.

These differences might stem from the way anxious symptoms are experienced by men and women [88,89,90].

Indeed, men appear to be more likely to downplay anxiety-related symptoms compared to women and to adopt problem-solving strategies [88,89,90,91,92].

On the other hand, sociocultural norms have been shown to influence how individuals respond to anxiety symptoms [88,93,94,95]. In line with this, social norms may have shaped female responses by encouraging behaviors and attitudes that lean more toward passivity, insecurity, and expressive conformity [88,96,97].

As a result, this social influence may help explain the underlying reason for the negative relationship observed between affective symptoms and pro-environmental behaviors.

Finally, among men, but not among women, a negative association was observed between behavioral symptoms of eco-anxiety and the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors. This finding contradicts the interpretation provided for the previously discussed relationship; however, it opens the door to new discussions by highlighting and reinforcing the hypothesis regarding the multidimensionality of the eco-anxiety construct.

With regard to this specific result, the observed relationship might depend specifically on the type of pro-environmental behavior under consideration. In particular, environmental citizenship also involves socially visible actions [68].

Based on this, men experiencing behavioral symptoms of eco-anxiety may be less inclined to expose themselves socially, possibly due to social norms and conformity to masculine standards, which emphasize the need to adhere to accepted male roles and behaviors within one’s community [98,99,100,101].

4.2. The Mediation Role of Readiness to Change

The mediation analysis highlighted how some of the RTC dimensions serve as mediators in the association between certain eco-anxiety factors and sustainable behaviors. In particular, among the total sample, the mediation role of the perceived importance of the problem about affective symptoms of eco-anxiety and several pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., conservation and transportation) was observed. As mentioned above, the literature findings have pointed out a link between eco-anxiety and risk perception [56], supporting the findings above. In addition, as suggested by several authors, affective components also appear to play a role in risk perception regarding the climate crisis [102,103], a result that supports the evidence from the present work.

Moreover, regarding the total sample, the results also highlight the mediating role of the effectiveness of the proposed solution in the relationship between behavioral symptoms of eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviors. As specified above, this dimension of readiness to change is closely related to the concept of agency [29], a construct indicative of the controllability of environmental stimuli [104]. Moreover, regarding the total sample, the results also highlight the mediating role of the effectiveness of the proposed solution in the relationship between behavioral symptoms of eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviors. As specified above, this dimension of readiness to change is closely related to the concept of agency [29], a construct indicative of the controllability of environmental stimuli [104]. Notably, regarding the climate crisis, the construct above may represent the sense of efficacy in adopting new behaviors, as well as the belief that one’s actions can contribute to collective action engagement [105,106]. Accordingly, based on the results of the present study, the sense of agency plays a significant role in mediating the relationship between eco-anxiety and engagement in sustainable behaviors. In line with this, the work of Asbrand and colleagues [106] demonstrated how agency can have a positive effect on anxiety by promoting effective coping strategies.

This interpretation can also be extended to the result that emerged within the female sample, considering that it was observed that the effectiveness of the proposed solution would be able to mediate the link between behavioral symptoms of eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behavior in terms of food. On the other hand, a mediating role of readiness to change within the male sample would not seem to emerge; in this regard, future studies are needed to investigate this phenomenon better.

Finally, the mediation analysis did not confirm all of the network analysis output concerning the role of readiness to change in this scenario. However, the role of risk perception and agency in the context of the climate crisis was underlined [102,103,106], supporting the development of future studies in the field.

4.3. Future Implications

Based on the results obtained, the present study highlighted the multidimensional nature of eco-anxiety [7], with different links to the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors depending on the specific dimension considered. In line with this, we supported the suggestion made by Hogg and colleagues [7] regarding the need to observe eco-anxiety in all of its dimensions, rather than treating it as a unified construct. Moreover, considering both the potential role of readiness to change concerning links between eco-anxiety and sustainable behaviors as well as the fact that readiness represents a flexible and dynamic construct, future longitudinal studies could investigate the development of both phenomena over time, examining their interconnections and the extent to which other factors (e.g., psychological or social variables) may interact with them [7,29]. Additionally, the data on readiness to change emerging from this study could help inform future policy by also guiding the development of tailored interventions, useful both for addressing eco-anxious symptomatology and for encouraging engagement in sustainable behaviors. Furthermore, considering the multidimensional structure of eco-anxiety [7,25], any treatment-oriented intervention in this context should take into account the full spectrum of dimensions in order to design programs that are truly effective. Finally, in light of the possible interconnection among these dimensions [7,25], intervention strategies should adopt an integrated approach that acknowledges the complexity of eco-anxiety, including the role of readiness to change as a potential facilitating factor.

From a more practical perspective, based on the results of both the present study and the previous literature, it would be necessary to implement interventions that improve risk perception and the sense of agency [107,108]. Concerning the first dimension, it could be helpful to promote interventions that provide programs capable of elaborating on risk perceptions in terms of, for example, action planning [109]. On the other hand, to stimulate a sense of agency, as well as self-efficacy and social integration, the literature highlights the usefulness of developing educational programs centered on components such as social–emotional learning and resilience monitoring [110]. In summary, based on the results of the present study and the existing literature, promoting RTC dimensions could not only improve eco-anxiety symptoms but also support the implementation of sustainable habits.

5. Strengths and Limitations

This study presents several limitations. Firstly, the use of a cross-sectional design does not allow for the establishment of potential cause–effect relationships between the variables under investigation. Secondly, the study may be affected by social desirability bias, given the use of self-report instruments. Furthermore, due to the nature of the sampling method, the current findings cannot be considered generalizable. Moreover, the HEAS cut-off employed may not fully account for the multidimensional nature of eco-anxiety [25,62]. Finally, since the present study used the same dataset as Duradoni et al. [35], there was a risk of encountering a Type I error. However, to address this limitation, the results were compared with the critical threshold using the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure [73]. However, the analyses conducted, namely the network analysis, not only take into account all dimensions of eco-anxiety, but also highlight potential psychological determinants (i.e., readiness to change) that play an important role in the relationship between eco-anxiety and the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors. Lastly, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first Italian study to report percentages of clinically significant eco-anxiety, also highlighting differences across gender and generations among participants in the present research.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study highlighted not only the multidimensional nature of eco-anxiety, but also the potential role of readiness to change in the link between eco-anxious symptomatology and the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors. Moreover, the study also highlighted how the dimensions of eco-anxiety may be gender-sensitive. In particular, findings pointed out how risk perception and the sense of agency may play a crucial role in supporting the proactive aspect of eco-anxiety and subsequent engagement in sustainable life habits. In keeping with this, the results supported the need to develop educational and outreach programs that are useful for strengthening the above dimensions. Moreover, from our perspective, these findings may serve as a groundwork for the development of sustainable policies as well as tailored programs, particularly from a behavioral perspective. Finally, the present work highlights how possible psychological factors might be able to support the proactive characteristics of eco-anxiety. This result could pave the way for further research in this area to investigate other possible psychological determinants that may play a significant role in the context of eco-anxiety and its dimensions.