Next Article in Journal
Examining the Impact of Virtual Health Influencers on Young Adults’ Willingness to Engage in Liver Cancer Prevention: Insights from Parasocial Relationship Theory
Previous Article in Journal
Unveiling the Relationship between Flextime and Job Performance: The Role of Family–Work Conflict and the Ability to Cope in a Moderated Mediation Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/socsci13060318
socsci-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

The Intergenerational Transmission of Pro-Environmental Behaviours: The Role of Moral Judgment in Primary School-Age Children

by
Marco Giancola
*,
Maria Chiara Pino
,
Cristina Zacheo
,
Marta Sannino
and
Simonetta D’Amico
Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L’Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13(6), 318; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13060318
Submission received: 7 May 2024 / Revised: 13 June 2024 / Accepted: 14 June 2024 / Published: 17 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Childhood and Youth Studies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The environmental crisis poses a critical issue for current and future generations, driving research to investigate the key factors and psychological characteristics that motivate individuals to engage in pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) from an early age. In this context, intergenerational transmission—which refers to how parents influence their children’s behaviour—plays a crucial role in initiating and promoting eco-friendly practices. From a children-centred perspective, the current study focused on the intergenerational transmission of PEBs, addressing the moderating role of children’s moral judgment. This latter was evaluated considering general moral judgment (i.e., moral transgressions, social-conventional transgressions, and non-harmful personal choices) and domain-specific environmental moral judgment (i.e., harmful actions with no specific victim, harmful actions to animals, and harmful actions to plants/trees). This study was carried out with 229 triads of Italian children (Mage = 8.54 years; SDage = 1.46 years; rangeage 6–11 years, 130 girls and 99 boys), fathers (Mage = 45.73 years; SDage = 5.07 years; rangeage 29–64 years), and mothers (Mage = 42.56 years; SDage = 4.67 years; rangeage 28–57 years). Results revealed that only the moral evaluations on harmful actions directed at animals (B = 0.32, SE = 0.15, t = 2.18, CI 95% = [0.030, 0.612]) and those towards plants/trees (B = 0.19, SE = 0.08, t = 2.49, CI 95% = [0.369, 0.342]) moderated the association between parents’ PEBs and children’s PEBs, boosting the intergenerational transmission of PEBs. Overall, this research yielded novel evidence on the main factors affecting the intergenerational transmission of PEBs, suggesting moral judgment as a critical mechanism in nurturing pro-environmental practices in school-age children. Implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

1. Introduction

Overpopulation, consumerism, natural resource depletion, food production, and fossil fuel use have been identified as the main causes of environmental problems, which greatly affect the sustainability of the planet (Fletcher et al. 2024; Giancola et al. 2023b; Khan et al. 2021). Recent academic research has highlighted the need for everyone, including societies, organisations, and individuals, to change their behaviour in order to address environmental problems (Bleidorn et al. 2021; Lozano 2008). This scenario has resulted in a deeper acknowledgment of the fundamental psychological elements that drive intentional, impactful, and forward-thinking initiatives to preserve the natural world (Nielsen et al. 2021). Such actions are labelled pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) and involve saving energy, using cars less often, recycling, composting, and so forth (Whitmarsh and O’Neill 2010).
Most research in psychology has focused on personality, beliefs, norms, and attitudes as factors that can drive PEBs in adolescents and adults (e.g., Brick and Lewis 2016; Giancola et al. 2023c; Markowitz et al. 2012). In contrast, there is limited evidence on how children develop their thoughts, feelings, and actions towards protecting the environment (Jia and Yu 2021). In this context, the analysis of the intergenerational transmission of PEBs emerges as a critical area of investigation. The intergenerational transmission of pro-environmental behaviours represents a powerful social phenomenon in which eco-friendly knowledge, attitudes, norms, values, and behaviours are passed down from parents to their children (Collado et al. 2017). Addressing this process allows for understanding how social strategies can ensure a sustainable future over time (Liu and Green 2024). Sharing information on how intergenerational transmission impacts children can help in developing educational programs and policies that support community initiatives to promote more awareness of PEBs in children (Ding et al. 2024). Moreover, the investigation of intergenerational transmission of PEBs provides a profound insight into the reasons behind the enduring, evolving, or survival of specific eco-friendly practices over time (Grønhøj and Thøgersen 2009, 2012, 2017).
In the landscape of psychology, research shows that parents’ and children’s recycling behaviours are related, and younger children are more influenced by their parents than older children (Cheng and Monroe 2012; Collado et al. 2017). In addition, other studies emphasise that the intergenerational transmission of PEBs remains stable across human development, including adolescence and emerging adulthood (Grønhøj and Thøgersen 2009, 2012, 2017). Overall, these findings suggest that socialisation with parents allows children to acquire the necessary skills, values, and behaviours concerning the safeguarding of the natural environment in order to function effectively in a specific group and culture (Collado et al. 2017). This evidence means that offspring’s PEBs are affected by the prevailing norms within their family and the extent to which their parents’ behaviours demonstrate these norms.
Although the intergenerational transmission of PEBs is well-documented in the literature, only two studies have delved into the mechanisms that either weaken or enhance this process. Grønhøj and Thøgersen (2012) tested the moderating effects of the generation gap (i.e., the difference between parents and adolescents in years) and the autonomy-supportive parenting style, providing no significant results. In addition, Li and Liu (2016) found that parents’ influence on their offspring’s PEBs became more robust when they perceived higher levels of parental power, that is, the parent’s ability to change or control adolescents’ behaviours.
In contrast to past research that focused solely on contextual or parental influences in the intergenerational transmission of PEBs, the present study took a children-centred approach, examining children’s moral judgment as a possible factor influencing the transmission of eco-green practices from parents to children.
In particular, previous studies indicated that moral judgment and PEBs are closely intertwined. Indeed, some studies suggested that moral judgment entails the belief that protecting the natural environment implies moral standing (Kahn 1997). PEBs also require a strong sense of morality that enables individuals to prioritise the eco-sustainability of the planet over their own narrow self-interests (Krettenauer 2017). Research on children confirmed this notion (Collado and Sorrel 2019; Rottman et al. 2015), emphasising that children tend to condemn environmentally harmful behaviours (e.g., polluting a waterway), even if such practices are considered acceptable in the local community (Hahn and Garrett 2017). Children typically view environmentally harmful actions, such as not recycling, as less acceptable compared to social-conventional transgressions, like eating salad with fingers; however, they consider moral transgressions, such as hitting another child, to be even more severe. This suggests that young children see harm to the environment as bad but harm to humans as worse (Hussar and Horvath 2011). In addition, Collado and Sorrel (2019) found that children considered environmentally harmful actions—such as not recycling—as more morally wrong than actions that infringe social-conventional norms as well as non-harmful personal choices—such as reading during recess instead of playing football. With that in mind, children who have a strong sense of morality may be more inclined to understand essential moral principles, such as justice, fairness, and responsibility towards future generations. Such a mechanism can help them see beyond the immediate practical benefits of eco-friendly practices and appreciate the broader ethical importance of being green. This implies that children can reason about how their actions affect not only themselves but also others and the surrounding environment. For instance, they can better understand that polluting the environment may provide immediate convenience but further harm others. Through the understanding of the moral complexity and duty underpinning PEBs, children could be more prone to internalise and learn from their parents’ pro-environmental behavioural model (Krettenauer 2017), fostering the intergenerational transmission of PEBs.
In order to better understand which facet of moral judgment affects the intergenerational transmission of PEBs, in this study, children’s moral judgment was evaluated considering general moral judgment (i.e., moral transgressions, social-conventional transgressions, and non-harmful personal choices) and domain-specific environmental moral judgment (i.e., harmful actions with no specific victim, harmful actions to animals, and harmful actions to plants/trees) (Collado and Sorrel 2019; Hussar and Horvath 2011).
The current research sought to explore the facilitating mechanisms involved in the intergenerational transmission of PEBs, advancing children’s moral judgment as a potential moderator of the association between parents’ and offspring’s PEBs. Accordingly, the main hypothesis of this research is that moral judgment moderates the relationship between parents’ and children’s PEBs, making the influence of parents stronger. Figure 1 displays the moderating model proposed in the current study.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Size

In this research, the minimum required sample was computed by an a priori sample size analysis using G*Power 3.1.9.7 software (Faul et al. 2007) based on multiple regression with 8 predictors (1 independent variable, 1 moderator, 1 interaction, and 5 covariates). The parameters were entered in G*Power as follows: test family: “F test analysis”, statistical test: “Linear multiple regression: fixed model, R2 deviation from zero”, type of analysis: “A priori: Compute required sample size—given α, power and effect size”, α err prob = 0.05, power (1-β err prob) = 0.95, mean effect size f2 = 0.15 (medium effect), and a maximum number of predictors = 8. The G*Power software revealed that the recommended minimum sample size was N = 160.

2.2. Measures

Pro-environmental behaviours. PEBs were evaluated using an adapted version (Jia and Yu 2021) of the General Ecological Behaviour Scale (GEB; Kaiser and Wilson 2004). This version has been used in previous research addressing the intergenerational transmission of PEBs identifying common PEBs that both parents and children can usually act in their daily life (Jia and Yu 2021). The scale relies on 23 items (see Appendix A) anchored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). A mean score was computed for children, fathers, and mothers, and higher scores indicate higher levels of PEBs. Notably, in order to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the effect of parents’ PEBs on children’s PEBs, in the current study both mothers’ and fathers’ PEBs were collected. Given the high correlation between fathers’ and mothers’ PEBs (r = 0.88, p < 0.01), a mean score of parents’ PEBs was computed. Overall, this 23-item-based version of the GEB has shown good psychometric properties in previous research (e.g., Jia and Yu 2021). In this study, the internal consistency reliability was as follows: children’s PEBs—Cronbach’s α = 0.80, McDonald’s ω = 0.79; mothers’ PEBs—Cronbach’s α = 0.85, McDonald’s ω = 0.85; fathers’ PEBs—Cronbach’s α = 0.85, McDonald’s ω = 0.86.
Moral judgment. Moral judgment was evaluated using the Moral Judgments Task (MJT; Collado and Sorrel 2019; Hussar and Horvath 2011). In this task, children have to assess the level of morality in hypothetical situations presented in a series of cartoons. These hypothetical situations rely on two main domains: general moral judgment and domain-specific environmental moral judgment (Collado and Sorrel 2019; Hussar and Horvath 2011). General moral judgment entails actions such as (1) moral transgressions, including actions that harm people such as grabbing money from a classmate’s desk; (2) social-conventional transgressions, including actions that disrupt the social order such as eating a salad with fingers; (3) non-harmful personal choices, such as reading during recess instead of playing football. On the other hand, domain-specific environmental moral judgment encompasses (1) harmful actions with no specific victim, such as failing to recycle; (2) harmful actions to animals, such as throwing pebbles at a squirrel; (3) harmful actions to plants/trees, such as taking leaves from a tree. As in previous studies (e.g., Collado and Sorrel 2019), actions were coded as follows: “ok” = 1, “little bad” = 2, and “very bad” = 3. In this research, a reversed coding was used so that higher scores indicated higher levels of moral judgment and a mean score was computed.
Demographic variables. Based on previous evidence on the involvement of children’s age and gender as well as parents’ age and gender in the intergenerational transmission of PEBs (e.g., Chawla and Cushing 2007), in the current research, these variables were considered potential covariates. Gender for parents and children was dummy coded (0 = female; 1 = male). Additionally, past research suggested that children from rural areas spent significantly more time in nature than those from urban areas (Collado and Sorrel 2019). As children’s nature exposure triggers their PEBs, we asked parents to indicate in which city area they lived with their family (0 = urban; 1 = rural), and we also considered this variable as a further potential covariate.

2.3. Procedure

The experiment was conducted in December 2022 and took place in an Italian primary school located in Ascoli Piceno (Marche, Italy). This study comprised the following phases. First, researchers requested a meeting with the school principal in order to explain in detail the nature and main procedures of the research. Second, after the assent of the school principal, parents/legal guardians received a consent note detailing the topic of the research as well as the main aims, procedures, and assessment. The note also explained that the participation of themselves and their children was voluntary and that anonymity was guaranteed for all participants.
Third, after obtaining written consent, researchers sent a brief battery of questionnaires to parents/legal guardians, which they were required to complete and send back to researchers. The battery included a series of questionnaires about socio-demographic information, such as age, gender, and city area of residence as well as PEBs. Finally, children who were authorised by their parents/legal guardians were evaluated at school. In particular, children were organised into groups of approximately twenty and were asked to complete a short demographic questionnaire, the GEB, and the MJT in the presence of their teacher and a trained research assistant (C.Z.). Children were told that a group of researchers wanted to understand children’s opinions about nature as well as actions they think are helpful to safeguard the natural environment.
This study refers to an extensive research project addressing children’s pro-environmental education in different contexts, such as family and school, and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The University Research Ethics Committee ethically approved this study on 27 September 2022.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS Statistics version 24 for Windows (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the main characteristics of the sample; normality tests, common method bias, and correlation analysis were performed to preliminarily explore the study variables. In addition, moderation analysis was computed through the PROCESS macro for SPSS (version 3.5; Hayes 2017), selecting Model 1. In the PROCESS procedure, the moderation effect is denoted by a significant 95% confidence interval (CI), bootstrapped based on 5000 samples. Bootstrapping is a non-parametric approach that bypasses the problem of non-normality and provides an accurate evaluation of the mediating and moderating effects in small- to medium-sized samples (e.g., Giancola et al. 2023a, 2023d). The significance of results is provided if the range of the bootstrapped CI does not include the value of zero (Preacher and Hayes 2008). All significance in this study was set to p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Main Characteristics of Participants

Two-hundred and thirty-seven triads of Italian school-age children, fathers, and mothers participated in this research. The z-test—using the range ± 4.0 z-scores for samples larger than 100 (e.g., Mertler and Vannatta 2005; Giancola 2022; Giancola et al. 2024)—identified 8 univariate outliers that were discarded from the dataset, resulting in a final sample of 229 triads of children (Mage = 8.54 years; SDage = 1.46 years; rangeage 6–11 years, 130 girls and 99 boys), fathers (Mage = 45.73 years; SDage = 5.07 years; rangeage 29–64 years), and mothers (Mage = 42.56 years; SDage = 4.67 years; rangeage 28–57 years).

3.2. Preliminary Analysis

The normality test revealed that all continuous variables were not normally distributed (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: ZFathers’ PEBs = 0.00, sig; ZMoral transgressions = 0.00, sig; ZSocial-conventional transgressions = 0.00, sig; ZHarmful actions with no specific victim = 0.00, sig; ZHarmful actions to animals = 0.00, sig; ZHarmful actions to plants/trees = 0.00, sig; ZPersonal choices = 0.00, sig; ZChildren’s age = 0.00, sig; ZFathers’ age = 0.00, sig; ZMothers’ age = 0.00, sig) except for mothers’ PEBs (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: ZMothers’ PEBs = 0.18, ns) and children’s PEBs (ZChildren’s PEBs = 0.31, ns). Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al. 2012) revealed that the single factor explained 23.24% of the variance, revealing that the data showed no common method bias problems (test critical threshold ≥ 40%).
Correlational analysis indicated that children’s PEBs were positively correlated with fathers’ PEBs (r = 0.15, p < 0.05), mothers’ PEBs (r = 0.15, p < 0.05), parents’ PEBs (r = 0.16, p < 0.05), harmful actions with no specific victim (r = 0.21, p < 0.01), harmful actions to animals (r = 0.15, p < 0.05), and harmful actions to plants/trees (r = 0.40, p < 0.01). Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, and preliminary Spearman’s correlational analysis for all study variables.

3.3. Moderation Analysis

Six moderation models were advanced entering parents’ PEBs as the independent variable, children’s PEBs as the dependent variable, and the six moral judgment dimensions (i.e., moral transgressions, social-conventional transgressions, harmful actions with no specific victim, harmful actions to animals, harmful actions to plants/trees, and personal choices) as the moderators.
When investigating the moderating effect of harmful actions to animals (Table 2, Model A), results revealed that parents’ PEBs (B = 0.21, SE = 0.08, t = 2.51, CI 95% = [0.045, 0.375]), and harmful actions to animals (B = 0.13, SE = 0.04, t = 3.07, CI 95% = [0.462, 0.211]), positively predicted children’s PEBs. Additionally, harmful actions to animals moderated the association between parents’ PEBs and offspring’s PEBs (B = 0.32, SE = 0.15, t = 2.18, CI 95% = [0.030, 0.612]) at medium (B = 0.21, SE = 0.08, t = 2.51, CI 95% = [0.045, 0.375]) and high (B = 0.35, SE = 0.11, t = 3.11, CI 95% = [0.127, 0.565]) levels (Figure 2A). Additionally, when investigating the moderating effect of harmful actions to plants/trees (Table 2, Model B), results showed that parents’ PEBs (B = 0.19, SE = 0.08, t = 2.49, CI 95% = [0.369, 0.342]), as well as harmful actions to plants/trees (B = 0.22, SE = 0.03, t = 6.70, CI 95% = [0.155, 0.285]), positively predicted children’s PEBs. Furthermore, harmful actions to animals moderated the parents’ PEBs–children’s PEBs link (B = 0.28, SE = 0.13, t = 2.16, CI 95% = [0.024, 0.531]) at medium (B = 0.19, SE = 0.08, t = 2.49, CI 95% = [0.039, 0.342]) and high (B = 0.37, SE = 0.11, t = 3.30, CI 95% = [0.147, 0.587]) levels (Figure 2B).
In addition, no moderating effects were found for harmful actions with no specific victim (B = 0.09, SE = 0.18, t = 0.51, CI 95% = [−0.266, 0.456]), moral transgressions (B = 0.28, SE = 0.24, t = 1.17, CI 95% = [−0.196, 0.766]), social-conventional transgressions (B = 0.32, SE = 0.18, t = 1.80, CI 95% = [−0.031, 0.676]), and personal choices (B = 0.17, SE = 0.12, t = 1.43, CI 95% = [−0.064, 0.407]).
Overall, these findings suggested that only harmful actions to animals and harmful actions to plants/trees are involved in the association between parents’ PEBs and children’s PEBs, promoting the intergenerational transmission of PEBs within the family context.

3.4. Post Hoc Power Analysis

A post hoc power analysis was computed in order to evaluate the power obtained from the collected data. The power values of the two significant moderating models ranged from 0.81 to 0.99, satisfying the recommended cut-off value of 0.80 (Cohen 1992).

4. Discussion

The present study analysed the intergenerational transmission of PEBs, addressing the moderating effect of children’s moral judgment. This latter was evaluated considering two main categories: general moral judgment—including moral transgressions, social-conventional transgressions, and non-harmful personal choices; domain-specific environmental moral judgment—including harmful actions with no specific victim, harmful actions to animals, and harmful actions to plants/trees.
Results indicated that only two aspects of domain-specific environmental moral judgment, harmful actions to animals and harmful actions to plants/trees, moderated the interplay between children’s PEBs and parents’ PEBs. No moderating effects were found for the other aspect of domain-specific environmental moral judgement— harmful actions with no specific victim—or for all aspects of general moral judgement, including moral transgressions, social-conventional transgressions, and personal choices.
Overall, these results partially confirmed the research hypothesis, suggesting that the intergenerational transmission became stronger only when children showed a higher ability to evaluate and reason about domain-specific morality expressed in actions directed at natural elements, such as animals, plants, and trees. Based on these findings, moral judgment cannot be considered a universal factor that triggers the intergenerational transmission of PEBs but rather reflects a domain-specific pro-environmental response sensitivity to specific environmentally related behaviours. This domain alignment emphasises the role of moral judgment as a mechanism that connects environmental values with the behavioural transmission of domain-specific practices. This implies that morality affects intergenerational transmission when there is alignment between PEBs transmitted from generation to generation and the moral evaluation of actions towards non-human living beings. This mechanism may imply that when children feel a moral duty to protect nature and think about the moral impact of harming the environment, they better understand the environmental crisis and are more likely to internalise, learn, and adopt their parents’ behaviours. This notion aligns with Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura 1991; Bandura et al. 2001) that suggests individuals with higher levels of moral reasoning are more likely to exhibit dutifulness, self-discipline, as well as a greater interest in the welfare of the majority, which can promote motivation towards change and facilitate the educational mechanisms, including the intergenerational transmission of PEBs.
Notably, within the domain-specific environmental moral judgment, no moderating effect was found considering harmful actions with no specific victim. This evidence implies that moral judgment facilitates intergenerational transmission only when specific natural elements are involved. This mechanism can be explained by considering children’s human-centred perspective of the biological world (Waxman and Medin 2007). Accordingly, in the early stages of life (6–10 years old), children’s moral judgment is primarily driven by human-centred reasons, that is, the mechanism through which children tend to anthropomorphise animals attributing human characteristics to them (Ganea et al. 2014; Hahn and Garrett 2017) as well as consider plants as living things (Inagaki and Hatano 1996).
The current study yielded some implications. From a theoretical perspective, this research extended the evidence about the main mechanisms involved in the intergenerational transmission of PEBs during school-age years. By distinguishing between general moral judgment and domain-specific environmental moral judgment, this study stressed that domain-specific moral judgment can play a critical role in the intergenerational transmission of PEBs. From an educational perspective, this study suggested the importance of considering educational programs based on some components of moral judgment, which could help promote long-term changes in terms of sustainability, ensuring a positive development of eco-green behaviours (Giancola et al. 2021a). In particular, educational programs aimed at teaching children to understand the moral implications of their actions on the natural environment can contribute to global sustainable development from the early stages of life. Beyond these theoretical and educational implications, the current research may also impact policy development. In particular, policymakers can use the findings provided by this study to advocate for integrating morality into environmental education school curricula. This approach may help nurture generations of environmentally aware individuals.
Despite these implications, the current study showed some limitations worth mentioning. First, this study relies on a cross-sectional design, which does not allow for conclusions about the causality. Future research should confirm our findings, addressing the mechanisms involved in the intergenerational transmission of PEBs through longitudinal research design. Second, data were gathered only from one region of Italy. In order to provide a more exhaustive evaluation of the effect of children’s moral judgement on the intergenerational transmission of PEBs, future research should replicate our findings by including a more representative sample. Third, in this study, the potential confounding effect of prevailing local cultural orientations towards PEBs and the effect of socio-economic status in PEBs were not considered. Future research should extend the evidence on the moderating role of children’s moral judgement in the intergenerational transmission of PEBs controlling for these variables. Fourth, as parents’ education as well as teaching methodologies and techniques can affect the intergenerational transmission of PEBs (Scopelliti et al. 2022), future research should confirm the findings of the current research addressing these variables. In addition, findings mainly rely on self-report questionnaires that do not evaluate actual PEBs; to overcome this limitation, future research should confirm the model advanced in this study through objective and simple real-life measurements that are accessible to children. Finally, this study explored the main mechanism involved in the intergenerational transmission of PEBs, only examining moral judgment. For a more comprehensive understanding of intergenerational transmission, future research should take into account the role of parents in terms of moral judgment, contextual factors such as the quality of the parent–child relationship (Jia and Yu 2021), and children’s characteristics, including cognitive processes (Giancola et al. 2022a) as well as temperament features, personality traits, and thinking styles (Giancola et al. 2022b, 2021b; Slagt et al. 2016).
In spite of these limitations, this study extends the current knowledge of the main mechanisms that could facilitate the intergenerational transmission of PEBs during infancy, also offering valuable insights for theoretical frameworks and practical interventions aimed at fostering children’s environmental education.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of L’Aquila (protocol code 128734—4 November 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Supporting data can be requested from the author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the “Istituto Comprensivo Luciani SS. Filippo e Giacomo” (Ascoli Piceno, Italy) and all parents/legal guardians and children who participated in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

The revised version of the General Ecological Behaviour Scale.
  • I regularly participate in activities related to environmental protection.
  • I collect and recycle used plastic containers.
  • I collect and pay attention to news related to the environment.
  • I prefer buying products made from recyclables (e.g., environmentally friendly paper and notebooks).
  • If I need batteries, I use rechargeable batteries.
  • I reuse blank paper to write.
  • I minimize the use of plastic tableware.
  • I reuse my shopping bags
  • I keep the water running when I wash the dishes. (R)
  • I throw some small pieces of garbage on the street. (R)
  • I put dead batteries in the garbage. (R)
  • If I am offered a plastic bag in a store, I take it. (R)
  • When I go out with my family, I turn off all the air conditioners and air purifiers at home.
  • I don’t litter when I am outside. I put garbage into the garbage can.
  • I turn off lights when not needed (e.g., leaving the room).
  • If I need a new light bulb, I use energy efficient light bulbs.
  • When I leave the public places (e.g., cinema and stadium), I will take all my garbage with me and throw it into the trash.
  • In the winter, we keep the heat on so that we do not have to wear a sweater. (R)
  • When the outdoor air has a poor quality, I keep the air purification system running. (R)
  • In the summer, we keep the air-conditioning running all day so that we don’t get sweaty. (R)
  • I keep the water running when brushing my teeth. (R)
  • I try my best to travel by public transportation.
  • I turn off the TV and computer screens when they are not in use.

References

  1. Bandura, Albert. 1991. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 248–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bandura, Albert, Gian Vittorio Caprara, Claudio Barbaranelli, Concetta Pastorelli, and Camillo Regalia. 2001. Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80: 125–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bleidorn, Wiebke, Madeline R. Lenhausen, and Christopher J. Hopwood. 2021. Proenvironmental attitudes predict proenvironmental consumer behaviors over time. Journal of Environmental Psychology 76: 101627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Brick, Cameron, and Gary J. Lewis. 2016. Unearthing the “green” personality: Core traits predict environmentally friendly behavior. Environment and Behavior 48: 635–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chawla, Louise, and Debra Flanders Cushing. 2007. Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research 13: 437–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cheng, Judith Chen-Hsuan, and Martha C. Monroe. 2012. Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior 44: 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cohen, Jacob. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 122: 155–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Collado, Silvia, and Miguel A. Sorrel. 2019. Children’s environmental moral judgments: Variations according to type of victim and exposure to nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 62: 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Collado, Silvia, Gary W. Evans, and Miguel A. Sorrel. 2017. The role of parents and best friends in children’s pro-environmentalism: Differences according to age and gender. Journal of Environmental Psychology 54: 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ding, Mengyan, Xinghong Liu, and Pingping Liu. 2024. Parent-child environmental interaction promotes pro-environmental behaviors through family well-being: An actor-partner interdependence mediation model. Current Psychology 43: 16476–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Faul, Franz, Edgar Erdfelder, Albert-Georg G. Lang, and Buchner Axel. 2007. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39: 175–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Fletcher, Charles, William J. Ripple, Thomas Newsome, Phoebe Barnard, Kamanamaikalani Beamer, Aishwarya Behl, Jay Bowen, Michael Cooney, Eileen Crist, Christopher Field, and et al. 2024. Earth at risk: An urgent call to end the age of destruction and forge a just and sustainable future. PNAS Nexus 3: 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ganea, Patricia A., Caitlin F. Canfield, Kadria Simons-Ghafari, and Tommy Chou. 2014. Do cavies talk? The effect of anthropomorphic picture books on children’s knowledge about animals. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Giancola, Marco. 2022. Who complies with prevention guidelines during the fourth wave of COVID-19 in Italy? An empirical study. Personality and Individual Differences 199: 111845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Giancola, Marco, Alessia Bocchi, Massimiliano Palmiero, Ilaria De Grossi, Laura Piccardi, and Simonetta D’Amico. 2023a. Examining cognitive determinants of planning future routine events: A pilot study in school-age Italian children (Análisis de los determinantes cognitivos de la planificación de eventos de rutina futuros: Un estudio piloto con niños italianos en edad escolar). Studies in Psychology 44: 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Giancola, Marco, Maria Chiara Pino, and Simonetta D’Amico. 2021a. Exploring the psychosocial antecedents of sustainable behaviors through the lens of the positive youth development approach: A Pioneer study. Sustainability 13: 12388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Giancola, Marco, Massimiliano Palmiero, Alessia Bocchi, Laura Piccardi, Raffaella Nori, and Simonetta D’Amico. 2022a. Divergent thinking in Italian elementary school children: The key role of probabilistic reasoning style. Cognitive Processing 23: 637–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Giancola, Marco, Massimiliano Palmiero, and Simonetta D’Amico. 2022b. Field dependent–independent cognitive style and creativity from the process and product-oriented approaches: A systematic review. Creativity Studies 15: 542–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Giancola, Marco, Massimiliano Palmiero, and Simonetta D’Amico. 2023b. The association between Dark Triad and pro-environmental behaviours: The moderating role of trait emotional intelligence (La asociación entre la Tríada Oscura y las conductas proambientales: El papel moderador de la inteligencia emocional rasgo). PsyEcology 14: 338–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Giancola, Marco, Massimiliano Palmiero, and Simonetta D’Amico. 2023c. The green adolescent: The joint contribution of personality and divergent thinking in shaping pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Cleaner Production 417: 138083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Giancola, Marco, Massimiliano Palmiero, and Simonetta D’Amico. 2024. Dark Triad and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: The role of conspiracy beliefs and risk perception. Current Psychology 43: 16808–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Giancola, Marco, Paola Verde, Luigi Cacciapuoti, Gregorio Angelino, Laura Piccardi, Alessia Bocchi, Massimiliano Palmiero, and Raffaella Nori. 2021b. Do advanced spatial strategies depend on the number of flight hours? the case of military pilots. Brain Sciences 11: 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Giancola, Marco, Simonetta D’Amico, and Massimiliano Palmiero. 2023d. Working Memory and Divergent Thinking: The Moderating Role of Field-Dependent-Independent Cognitive Style in Adolescence. Behavioral Sciences 13: 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Grønhøj, Alice, and John Thøgersen. 2009. Like father, like son? Intergenerational transmission of values, attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29: 414–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Grønhøj, Alice, and John Thøgersen. 2012. Action speaks louder than words: The effect of personal attitudes and family norms on adolescents’ pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology 33: 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Grønhøj, Alice, and John Thøgersen. 2017. Why young people do things for the environment: The role of parenting for adolescents’ motivation to engage in pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 54: 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hahn, Erin R., and Marybeth K. Garrett. 2017. Preschoolers’ moral judgments of environmental harm and the influence of perspective taking. Journal of Environmental Psychology 53: 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hayes, Andrew F. 2017. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hussar, Karen M., and Jared C. Horvath. 2011. Do children play fair with mother nature? Understanding children’s judgments of environmentally harmful actions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 31: 309–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Inagaki, Kayoko, and Giyoo Hatano. 1996. Young children’s recognition of commonalities between animals and plants. Child Development 67: 2823–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jia, Fanli, and Hui Yu. 2021. Action, communication, and engagement: How parents “ACE” children’s pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology 74: 101575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kahn, Peter H., Jr. 1997. Children’s moral and ecological reasoning about the Prince William Sound oil spill. Developmental Psychology 33: 1091–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kaiser, Florian G., and Mark Wilson. 2004. Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific composition of a general performance. Personality and Individual Differences 36: 1531–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Khan, Irfan, Fujun Hou, and Haoang Phong Le. 2021. The impact of natural resources, energy consumption, and population growth on environmental quality: Fresh evidence from the United States of America. Science of the Total Environment 754: 142222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Krettenauer, Tobias. 2017. Pro-environmental behavior and adolescent moral development. Journal of Research on Adolescence 27: 581–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Li, Jianan, and Chunlin Liu. 2016. Intergenerational influence on adolescents’ proenvironmental behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 44: 589–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, Jianjiao, and Raymond James Green. 2024. Children’s pro-environmental behaviour: A systematic review of the literature. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 205: 107524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lozano, Rodrigo. 2008. Developing collaborative and sustainable organisations. Journal of Cleaner Production 16: 499–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Markowitz, Ezra, M. Goldberg, Lewis R. Ashton, Michaela C, and Kibeom Lee. 2012. Profiling the “pro-environmental individual”: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality 80: 81–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mertler, Craig A., and Rachel A. Vannatta. 2005. Advanced and Multivariate Statistical Methods: Practical Application and Interpretation (3.Basm). Glendale: Pyrczak Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nielsen, Kristian S., Susan Clayton, Paul C. Stern, Thomas Dietz, Stuart Capstick, and Lorraine Whitmarsh. 2021. How psychology can help limit climate change. American Psychologist 76: 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40: 879–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Rottman, Joshua, Deborah Kelemen, and Liane Young. 2015. Hindering harm and preserving purity: How can moral psychology save the planet? Philosophy Compass 10: 134–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Scopelliti, Massimiliano, Daniela Barni, and Elena Rinallo. 2022. My parents taught… green was my growth! the role of intergenerational transmission of ecological values in young adults’ pro-environmental behaviors and their psychosocial mechanisms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Slagt, Meike, Judith Semon Dubas, Maja Deković, and Marcel AG van Aken. 2016. Differences in sensitivity to parenting depending on child temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 142: 1068–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Waxman, Sandra, and Douglas Medin. 2007. Experience and cultural models matter: Placing firm limits on childhood anthropocentrism. Human Development 50: 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Whitmarsh, Lorraine, and Saffron O’Neill. 2010. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 305–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socsci 13 00318 g001
Figure 1. The theoretical model advanced in the current research. Note. PEBs = pro-environmental behaviours.
Figure 1. The theoretical model advanced in the current research. Note. PEBs = pro-environmental behaviours.
Socsci 13 00318 g001
Socsci 13 00318 g002
Figure 2. The moderating role of harmful actions to animals (A) and harmful actions to plants/trees (B). Note. PEBs = pro-environmental behaviours.
Figure 2. The moderating role of harmful actions to animals (A) and harmful actions to plants/trees (B). Note. PEBs = pro-environmental behaviours.
Socsci 13 00318 g002
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations amongst all variables. Note. N = 229; dummy coded variables: gender (0 = F; 1 = M) and nature exposure (0 = urban; 1 = rural); PEBs = pro-environmental behaviours. * p < 0.05 (two-tailed); ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations amongst all variables. Note. N = 229; dummy coded variables: gender (0 = F; 1 = M) and nature exposure (0 = urban; 1 = rural); PEBs = pro-environmental behaviours. * p < 0.05 (two-tailed); ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
MSD1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.
1. Fathers’ PEBs 3.870.261
2. Mothers’ PEBs3.970.310.89 **1
3. Parents’ PEBs3.920.270.97 **0.97 **1
4. Children’s PEBs3.650.350.15 *0.15 *0.16 *1
5. Moral transgressions2.900.280.060.100.080.021
6. Social-conventional transgressions2.510.490.010.060.040.000.30 **1
7. Harmful actions with no specific victim2.710.460.080.070.080.21 **0.34 **0.38 **1
8. Harmful actions to animals2.580.540.020.000.010.15 *0.30 **0.30 **0.43 **1
9. Harmful actions to plants/trees1.710.640.010.000.010.40 **0.19 **0.080.24 **0.32 **1
10. Personal choices1.360.710.030.070.050.020.13 *0.100.090.17 *0.21 **1
11. Children’s age8.541.460.01−0.02−0.01−0.03−0.08−0.18 **−0.13 *0.14 *−0.15 *0.071
12. Children’s gender 0.040.030.030.04−0.11−0.14 *−0.10−0.070.030.00−0.061
13. Fathers’ age45.735.070.000.050.030.00−0.07−0.03−0.01−0.14 *−0.10−0.050.020.14 *1
14. Mothers’ age42.594.670.040.000.030.03−0.01−0.040.02−0.10−0.06−0.050.16 *0.050.101
15. Family nature exposure 0.15 *0.110.130.100.050.05−0.020.070.11−0.030.03−0.050.010.021
Table 2. Coefficients for the moderating models. Note. N = 229. PEBs = pro-environmental behaviours, SE = standard error, LLCI = lower limit of the 95% confidence interval, ULCI = upper limit of the 95% confidence interval. *** p < 0.001.
Table 2. Coefficients for the moderating models. Note. N = 229. PEBs = pro-environmental behaviours, SE = standard error, LLCI = lower limit of the 95% confidence interval, ULCI = upper limit of the 95% confidence interval. *** p < 0.001.
BSEtLLCIULCI
Model A
Parents’ PEBs0.210.082.510.0450.375
Harmful actions to animals0.130.043.070.4620.211
Parents’ PEBs × harmful actions to animals 0.320.152.180.0300.612
R2 = 0.08
F(3, 225) = 6.21 ***
Model B
Parents’ PEBs0.190.082.490.3960.342
Harmful actions to plants/trees0.220.036.700.1550.285
Parents’ PEBs × harmful actions to plants/trees0.280.132.160.0240.531
F(3, 225) = 19.21 ***
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

Giancola, M.; Pino, M.C.; Zacheo, C.; Sannino, M.; D’Amico, S. The Intergenerational Transmission of Pro-Environmental Behaviours: The Role of Moral Judgment in Primary School-Age Children. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13060318

AMA Style

Giancola M, Pino MC, Zacheo C, Sannino M, D’Amico S. The Intergenerational Transmission of Pro-Environmental Behaviours: The Role of Moral Judgment in Primary School-Age Children. Social Sciences. 2024; 13(6):318. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13060318

Chicago/Turabian Style

Giancola, Marco, Maria Chiara Pino, Cristina Zacheo, Marta Sannino, and Simonetta D’Amico. 2024. "The Intergenerational Transmission of Pro-Environmental Behaviours: The Role of Moral Judgment in Primary School-Age Children" Social Sciences 13, no. 6: 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13060318

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