See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/370806159

Unleashing the Power of Connection: How Adolescents' Prosocial Propensity

Drives Ecological and Altruistic Behaviours

Article in Sustainability · May 2023

DOI: 10.3390/su15108070

CITATION READS

1 83

7 authors, including:

Alexander Neaman Pamela Pensini

181 PUBLICATIONS 3,314 CITATIONS

Monash University (Australia)
14 PUBLICATIONS 701 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Elliot Burnham Mónica Castro

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
7 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS 37 PUBLICATIONS 206 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pamela Pensini on 16 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 sustainability
Article
Unleashing the Power of Connection: How Adolescents’
Prosocial Propensity Drives Ecological and Altruistic Behaviours
Alexander Neaman 1, *, Eiliana Montero 2 , Pamela Pensini 3 , Elliot Burnham 4 , Mónica Castro 4 ,
Dmitry S. Ermakov 5 and Claudia Navarro-Villarroel 6
Citation: Neaman, A.; Montero, E.;
Pensini, P.; Burnham, E.; Castro, M.;
Ermakov, D.S.; Navarro-Villarroel, C.
Unleashing the Power of Connection:
How Adolescents’ Prosocial
Propensity Drives Ecological and
Altruistic Behaviours. Sustainability
2023, 15, 8070. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su15108070
Academic Editor: Diego Monferrer
Received: 3 March 2023
Revised: 21 April 2023
Accepted: 27 April 2023
Published: 16 May 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108070
1 Departamento de Recursos Ambientales, Facultad de Ciencias Agronómicas, Universidad de Tarapacá,
Arica 1000000, Chile
2 Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José 11501-2060, Costa Rica
3 School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia
4 Escuela de Agronomía, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Quillota 2260000, Chile
5 Department of Psychology and Pedagogy, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia Named after Patrice
Lumumba (RUDN University), 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St., Moscow 117198, Russia
6 Área de Educación, Instituto de Estadística, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile
* Correspondence: alexander.neaman@gmail.com
Abstract: Both altruistic and ecological behaviours are considered prosocially driven behaviours,
but our understanding of what motivates action in either the human or ecological domain is still
in its infancy. Our goal was to assess connection to nature, connection to people, and connection
to country as mediators of the relationship between prosocial propensity and prosocial behaviours
in both the ecological and human domains. This study used honesty-humility as an indicator of
prosocial propensity. Data for the study were collected through online surveys in Spanish. The survey
was answered by 438 adolescent participants aged 11–19 years. The present study demonstrates
that personal prosocial propensity can be directed to a particular domain of prosocial behaviour
(ecological or altruistic) through the individual’s connection to the relevant domain. Specifically,
the effect of prosocial propensity on ecological behaviour was positively mediated by connection to
people and connection to nature, but negatively mediated by connection to country. For altruistic
behaviour, the effect of prosocial propensity was positive via connection to people, nature, and
country. Future research is called for, in particular, to examine the role of connection to country in
ecological behaviour.
Keywords: connectedness to nature; connectedness to humanity; national identification; pro-environmental
behaviour; sustainable behaviour; altruism
1. Introduction
1.1. Opening
What drives prosocial behaviour? Finding an answer to this question seems particu-
larly relevant today, when the world is facing a host of humanitarian and environmental
problems. Previous psychological studies have treated human-related prosocial behaviour
(here and below, altruistic behaviour) and nature-related prosocial behaviour (here and
below, ecological behaviour) as separate types of prosocial behaviour. More recent studies
have suggested that altruistic and ecological behaviours should be considered as two
aspects of the same class of behaviour. Following this approach, we examine the basis of
these two types of prosocial behaviour (here and below, prosocial behaviour will refer to
both altruistic and ecological behaviours), considering individual differences in honesty-
humility, connection to nature, connection to others, and connection to country. We suggest
that an individual’s prosocial behaviours are conditioned by their prosocial propensity,
operationalised as individual traits of honesty-humility. However, for these individual
traits to drive a person to a certain course of action, there must be a sense of connection to
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 2 of 14

the relevant social domain, and it is this connection that motivates the individual to engage
in the relevant activity.

1.2. Human and Ecological Domains of Prosocial Behaviour

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

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

It is clear from the above arguments that prosocial behaviour is conditioned by per-
sonal prosocial propensity. However, for this propensity to be reflected in behaviour, a
person must have a sense of connection to relevant others. Studies by [8,12] showed that
connection to nature is the link that contributes to the conversion of prosocial propensity
into ecological behaviour. Moreover, connection to nature has been shown to predict
both ecological behaviour [8] as well as altruistic behaviour [12,13], and, similarly, con-
nection to other people has been shown to predict both altruistic [14,15] and ecological
behaviour [16,17].
As noted earlier, while connection to nature and connection to people predict both
ecological and altruistic behaviours, the connection to a related social group, such as
connection to one’s country, has been little studied. Research does show that connection
to one’s country facilitates altruistic behaviour toward one’s ingroup, i.e., members of
one’s country [18,19]. Research regarding the role of connection to one’s country and
pro-environmental behaviour is, however, sparse and has yielded mixed results [20–22].
It is known that pro-environmental attitudes are linked to a series of citizenship-identity
values [23]. However, there are wide differences between countries with regard to ecological
values, based to a certain extent on the variety of national identities [24]. For this reason, it
is important to consider the connection to these domains (people, nature, country) together,
as they are known to be positively related [14,25]. Examining them together will illustrate
the unique effects of each.
Further, the majority of prior research has been conducted on adults, but there is also
some research illustrating the role of connection to nature in the development of ecological
behaviour in children and adolescents [26–29]. A sense of connection to others has been
repeatedly recognized as important for the development of altruistic behaviour in children
and adolescents [30,31]. Specifically, ref. [32] demonstrated that children who considered
themselves more connected to nature exhibited more ecological and altruistic behaviours.
Several studies on the effects of nature immersion on child development have shown that
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 3 of 14

such immersion positively affects connection to nature [33], and that the deeper children
and adolescents are immersed in urban green spaces, the more altruistic behaviour they
exhibit [34]. Thus, this study surveyed adolescents to better understand the universality
of our rationale that prosocial propensity fosters prosocial behaviour, which is enacted
through a connection to relevant domains.

1.4. Research Hypothesis and Goal

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

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

Table 1. Sociodemographic data of the participants.

Variable
Age
Mean ± standard deviation (years) 15 ± 2.0
Range (years) 11–19
Gender
Female (%) 51
Male (%) 48
Prefer not to specify (%) 1
Family income
We are perfectly comfortable with our income (%) 0
Our income is quite sufficient (%) 51
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 4 of 14

Table 1. Cont.

Variable
We can manage on our income (%) 42
It is pretty difficult to live on our income (%) 7
It is extremely tough to live on our income (%) 0
Area of residence
Countryside (%) 24
City (%) 76
Nationality
Chile (%) 69
Spain (%) 21
Mexico (%) 4
Guatemala (%) 2
Other nationalities (<1% each) (%) 3

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

2.3. Data Analysis

Rasch analyses were performed to calculate individual scores for each scale using Win-
steps software (by Mike Linacre), version 3.64.2 [43]. Specifically, we used joint maximum
likelihood estimation (JMLE). Parallel mediation models were fitted using LISREL software
(by Scientific Software International), version 8.8 [44].
In a Rasch-type model, values of the infit mean square (MS) less than or equal to (≤)
1.2 are considered good, and MS values ≤1.3 are considered acceptable [45]. All scales
(Table 2) had good reliability and item fit, with the exception of very few items with a low
goodness-of-fit.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 5 of 14

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the scales used. Sustainable behaviour refers to a combined scale of
altruistic and ecological behaviours.

Items with Items with

Scale Number of Items Mean ± SD Range Reliability
1.2 < MS ≤ 1.3 MS > 1.3
Honesty-humility 18 1.4 ± 1.1 −1.7–4.4 0.73 1 1
Connection to community 9 0.31 ± 1.7 −5.3–5.4 0.88 0 0
Connection to country 9 −0.21 ± 1.4 −5.3–5.4 0.83 0 0
Connection to nature 9 0.68 ± 1.6 −5.1–5.4 0.84 0 0
Ecological behaviour 36 0.28 ± 0.50 −2.3–1.6 0.83 0 3
Altruistic behaviour 18 0.17 ± 0.68 −2.4–2.4 0.84 1 2
Sustainable behaviour 54 1.0 ± 0.15 0.81–1.4 0.88 6 4
SD—standard deviation. MS—mean square.

The study by [9] used an approach that combined the altruistic and ecological be-
haviour scales into a single scale. Like [9], the combined scale consisting of altruistic and
ecological behaviour items in this study showed excellent reliability (Table 2), thereby
suggesting these are the same class of behaviour.

3. Results and Discussion

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

3.2. Honesty-Humility as an Indicator

This study shows that an individual’s characteristics of honesty-humility can be
an indicator of prosocial propensity (Table 3). Honesty-humility characteristics describe
fairness-related tendencies in all interactions between people [46,47]. By definition, honesty-
humility means ‘the tendency to be fair and genuine in dealing with others, in the sense
of cooperation with others even when one might exploit others without suffering retalia-
tion’ [46], that is, these traits by definition are a sign of prosociality [48]. Of all personality
traits, honesty-humility has the strongest relationship with the value of self-transcendence
according to [49] nomenclature, underlining the high importance of honesty-humility as an
indicator of an orientation towards others. Furthermore, it follows from the definition of
honesty-humility that this trait constitutes active reciprocal altruism [46]. In turn, altruism
has been found to be positively correlated with honesty-humility [50,51].
There is ample evidence that honesty-humility predicts altruistic and ecological be-
haviours. For example, honesty-humility predicted active cooperation in various assess-
ments of prosociality toward people [52] and in various other prosocial person-related
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 6 of 14

behaviours [53–55]. A recent meta-analysis [56] has shown honesty-humility to be a pos-

itive predictor of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours. Therefore, the results of
previous and present research suggest that honesty-humility indicates an individual’s
propensity toward prosociality.

Table 3. Pearson correlations between the variables under study.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Honesty-humility
2. Connection to community 0.12 *
3. Connection to country 0.10 * 0.64 **
4. Connection to nature 0.21 ** 0.43 ** 0.41 **
5. Altruism 0.11 * 0.35 ** 0.32 ** 0.36 **
6. Ecological behaviour 0.25 ** 0.23 ** 0.14 ** 0.43 ** 0.54 **
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

3.3. Mediation Effects

The mediation model in which ecological behaviour was the dependent variable was
statistically significant (Figure 1). A statistically significant direct effect (c’) meant that the
effect of prosocial propensity on ecological behaviour was partially mediated by connection
to15,
Sustainability 2023, nature, connection
x FOR PEER REVIEWto people, and connection to country. The parallel mediation revealed 7o
that connection to country had a negative effect on ecological behaviour, whereas, as
expected, connection to people and connection to nature had positive effects.

Figure 1. Mediated relation

Figure of prosocial
1. Mediated relationpropensity
of prosocialand ecological
propensity andbehaviour. c’ = direct
ecological behaviour. c’ =effect.
direct effect. *
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; ** pp <
0.05;*** 0.001.*** p < 0.001.
< 0.01;

Parallel mediation models

Parallel were significant
mediation with significant
models were respect to altruistic behaviour
with respect (Figure
to altruistic 2)
behaviour (F
and were fully mediated, i.e., the direct effect (c’) was not statistically significant. The effect
ure 2) and were fully mediated, i.e., the direct effect (c’) was not statistically significa
of prosocial propensity
The effecton
of altruistic behavioursonwas
prosocial propensity mediated
altruistic by connection
behaviours to people,
was mediated by connection
connection to nature,
people,and connection
connection to country.
to nature, and connection to country.
The observed mediated relationships of prosocial propensity on prosocial behaviours
via connection to people and connection to nature (Figures 1 and 2) were very similar
to those obtained by [12] for the adult population, demonstrating the robustness of our
reasoning. We added connection to country to our study, as it was the only factor that had
a negative effect on ecological behaviour, despite the positive relationship between the two
variables shown in the correlation. Thus, this underscores the importance of considering
and accounting for related forms of connection to understand the true impact of each.
 Figure 1. Mediated relation of prosocial propensity and ecological behaviour. c’ = direct effect. * p <
0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

Parallel mediation models were significant with respect to altruistic behaviour (Fig-
ure 2) and were fully mediated, i.e., the direct effect (c’) was not statistically significant.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 The effect of prosocial propensity on altruistic behaviours was mediated by connection7toof 14
people, connection to nature, and connection to country.

Figure2.2. Mediated
Figure Mediated relation
relationofofprosocial
prosocial propensity
propensity and and
altruistic behaviour.
altruistic c’ = direct
behaviour. c’ =effect.
directn.s.effect.
=
not statistically significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
n.s. = not statistically significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

ItThe observed
must mediated relationships
be emphasized of prosocial
that our previous propensity
studies on prosocial
on the adult behaviours
population in Aus-
via connection to people and connection to nature (Figures 1 and 2) were
tralia [57,58] also demonstrated that connection to country had a negative effect very similar
ontoeco-
those obtained by [12] for the adult population, demonstrating the robustness
logical and altruistic behaviours, demonstrating the robustness of our reasoning. of our rea-As
soning. We added connection to country to our study, as it was the only factor that
demonstrated by [24], Australia was a country in which patriotism was negatively associ- had a
negative effect on ecological behaviour, despite the positive relationship between
ated with proenvironmental beliefs, similar to Chile and Spain, i.e., the countries under the two
present study. Thus, future studies are required to reveal the role of connection to country
on ecological and altruistic behaviours in countries in which the relationship between
patriotism and environmentalism was positive (e.g., Mexico) [24].

3.4. Possible Mechanisms

The study of [8] proposed that individual prosocial propensity is directed toward a
particular prosocial behaviour (human or ecological) depending on the individual’s con-
nection to the relevant domain. The present study confirms this assertion by demonstrating
that individual prosocial propensity can be translated into ecological (nature-related) be-
haviour through connection to nature (Figure 1). This study also demonstrates that personal
prosocial propensity can be directed toward ecological behaviour through the individual’s
connection to people. Additionally, this study asserts that individual prosocial propensity
can be converted into altruistic (human-related) behaviour through connection to people
(Figure 2) or through connection to nature (Figure 2).
The seemingly surprising mediation of connection to people in ecological behaviour
(Figure 1) and connection to nature in altruistic behaviour (Figure 2) can be explained
by the fact that both altruistic and ecological behaviours are simply two aspects of the
same general behaviour, driven by the same prosocial propensity of the individual. As
mentioned above, the combined scale of altruistic and ecological behaviours showed an
excellent reliability of 0.88 (Table 2), implying that the combined scale measures the same
class of broader behaviour. These results are in agreement with the findings of [59], who
showed that both altruistic and ecological behaviours are just two facets of one overarching
behavioural domain. The study of [60] proposed that this overarching domain be referred
to as “sustainable behaviour” because it protects both the human and natural environments.
However, a question arises as to why individual prosocial propensity was not re-
flected in ecological behaviour through the individual’s connection to country (Figure 1).
A potential explanation for this finding is that environmental issues are global in scale
but require action at the national level. Indeed, efforts to address environmental issues
such as climate change are made at the national level (e.g., the Paris Agreement), and local
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 8 of 14

governments then enact the targets at the local level. The connection to a social domain
(e.g., people, nature, country) generally implies that members of that group act in that
group’s (perceived) best interests [61,62]. Thus, a decrease in ecological behaviour as a
result of connection to country may be due to a (perceived) decrease in living standards
or other negative consequences associated with the country’s commitment to addressing
environmental problems (e.g., limiting emissions). Complicating matters further, connec-
tion to country can lead to moral disengagement. Due to the shifting and diffusion of
responsibility, people may believe that it is the government’s responsibility to solve the
problem instead of seeing themselves as agents of change [63]. Overall, while it seems
that connection to people and to nature is desirable, connection to one’s country should be
downplayed. This has important implications in domains such as communication, policy,
and education.

4. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

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

5. Conclusions
This study demonstrates that individual prosocial propensity is directed toward a
particular domain of prosocial behaviour (ecological or altruistic) through the individual’s
connection to relevant domains. Specifically, we have shown that prosocial propensity can
be directed toward ecological behaviour through connection to nature and connection to
people, but it is inhibited by connection to country. The fact that connection to country
appears to be a barrier to ecological behaviour despite a positive relationship at the bivariate
level underscores the importance of considering these related forms of connection together
and calls for future research in this area. We have also shown that prosocial propensity can
be directed to altruistic behaviour through connection to nature, connection to people, and
connection to country. It seems surprising that these forms of connection enhance both
forms of prosocial behaviour; however, this is because altruistic and ecological behaviours
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 9 of 14

are two closely related kinds of behaviour, driven by the same prosocial propensity of the
individual.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su15108070/s1, Supplementary Table S1. Honesty-humility scale
as used in the study. Supplementary Table S2. Ecological behaviour scale as used in the study.
Supplementary Table S3. Altruistic behaviour scale as used in the study. Supplementary Table S4.
Connection scale as used in the study, References [14,39–42] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.N., D.S.E. and C.N.-V.; methodology, A.N. and E.B.;
software, E.M.; validation, M.C.; formal analysis, E.M.; investigation, E.B., M.C. and C.N.-V.; resources,
D.S.E.; data curation, E.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.N., C.N.-V. and P.P.; writing—review
and editing, A.N. and P.P.; visualization, E.B.; supervision, A.N.; project administration, A.N. and
C.N.-V.; funding acquisition, D.S.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: We wish to express our deepest gratitude for the financial support provided by the
FONDECYT project 1200259. The article writing by Dmitry S. Ermakov was supported by the RUDN
University Strategic Academic Leadership Program.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The scales used in this study were approved by the Ethics
Committee of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (FONDECYT project 1200259).
Informed Consent Statement: The study was conducted amid the quarantine conditions of the
COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, making it unfeasible to adhere to standard consent procedures.
Instead, colleagues and friends were enlisted to distribute an online invitation to participate in
the survey, outlining its objective. They were instructed to (1) encourage their adolescent children
to complete the survey, and (2) disseminate information about the survey to the parents of their
adolescent children’s peers. As such, the study obtained tacit parental consent and tacit adolescent
assent.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Material.
Acknowledgments: The authors also wish to thank Andrei Tchourakov for editing this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Table A1. Honesty-humility scale as used in the study.

Nº Item Delta MS Infit

17 People who get robbed are to blame for not properly guarding their property. 0.54 1.47
4 If I want something from a person I dislike, I will act very nicely toward that person in order to get it. 0.45 1.14
16 It is not a big deal to tell lies. 0.32 0.92
7 If I want something from someone, I will laugh at that person’s worst jokes. 0.29 1.04
12 I cheat if I am sure that I will not be discovered. 0.24 0.98
14 People should do what I say. 0.22 0.93
20 Verbal insults among teenagers are harmless. 0.16 1.25
6 I would compliment my teachers for better grades. 0.11 1.20
5 I consider myself superior to other people. 0.07 1.00
13 I want to have expensive and branded items (phone, clothes, etc.) to demonstrate my status. −0.02 0.92
10 I want people to know that I am an important person of high status. −0.08 0.81
19 Making fun of a person is not a big deal. −0.22 0.99
9 I’d be tempted to use counterfeit money, if I were sure I could get away with it. −0.24 0.90
2 I would be tempted to buy stolen property if I were financially tight. −0.29 1.15
3 I would like to find a way to take things from a store without paying. −0.33 1.00
11 Stealing a little bit of money is not a big deal. −0.33 0.79
18 Using someone else’s property without permission is just “borrowing”. −0.42 0.76
15 I want others to think that my family has money and high social status, even if it isn’t true. −0.47 0.74
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 10 of 14

Here and below, items in Italics indicate negatively formulated behaviours; their
scores were inversed for analysis. These items should be read as ‘I refrain from . . . ’. Item
difficulties (delta) are expressed in logits, the basic units of Rasch scales. Larger logit
values indicate a higher score on the respective scale. Conversely, a smaller logit value
indicates a smaller score on the respective scale. Infit MS (mean square) reflects the relative
discrepancy in the variation between the model prediction and observed data, independent
of the sample size. Perfect model prediction is expressed by a MS value of 1.0. MS values
above 1.0 indicate excessive variation (e.g., a value of 1.2 indicates 20% excessive variation).
A commonly acceptable upper value is 1.2, however, values between 1.2 and 1.3 are still
acceptable.

Table A2. Ecological behaviour as used in the study.

Nº Item Delta MS Infit

39 I have taken environmental classes to be more informed. 2.13 1.01
32 I refrain from battery-operated appliances. 1.36 1.00
23 I contribute financially to environmental organizations. 1.12 0.96
26 I talk to my friends about environmental issues. 0.96 0.83
24 I read books, publications, and other materials about environmental problems. 0.81 0.86
30 For printing, I use paper that was previously used on one side. 0.71 0.99
16 I separate organic waste and make compost. 0.7 1.10
31 For my parties I ask my parents not to use disposable plates and cutlery. 0.66 0.91
6 After one day of use, my sweaters or trousers go into the laundry. 0.50 1.43
When I shower, I turn off the water while I soap up and then turn on the water again to rinse, so
37 0.44 0.96
that I don’t have it running all the time.
40 If there is a relatively large insect in my house, I carefully catch it and release it outside. 0.43 0.90
14 I collect and recycle used paper. 0.39 0.92
22 I have pointed out unecological behaviour to someone. 0.33 0.91
27 I watch TV shows or Internet videos about nature. 0.33 0.86
15 I bring empty glass bottles to a recycling bin. 0.31 1.01
8 I leave electrically powered appliances (TV, stereo, printer) on standby when they’re not in use. 0.23 1.13
43 I learn about environmental issues in the media (newspapers, magazines, and TV). 0.06 0.93
17 I keep gift wrapping paper for reuse. 0.03 0.97
19 I kill insects with a chemical insecticide. 0.01 1.35
9 In the winter, I turn down the heat when I leave my room for more than one hour. −0.04 1.14
13 I put empty batteries in the garbage. −0.09 1.37
20 I eat in fast-food restaurants, such as McDonalds and Burger King. −0.09 1.01
28 I recycle or reuse plastic containers. −0.17 0.79
41 For short distances I walk or ride a bike. −0.23 0.93
18 For making notes, I take paper that is already used on one side. −0.23 0.90
12 I use and refill a reusable bottle. −0.26 0.97
11 I buy beverages in cans. −0.33 1.19
38 I encourage my family and/or friends to be more environmentally friendly. −0.57 0.89
10 I choose to cycle when I need to go somewhere. −0.58 0.98
25 When I brush my teeth, I leave the water running until I finish. −0.73 1.17
21 I reuse my shopping bags. −0.76 0.96
7 As the last person to leave a room, I switch off the lights. −0.84 1.06
29 I turn off TV, computer and other electrical appliances when they are not in use. −0.87 0.97
42 I prefer natural and/or eco-labelled products. −0.94 0.89
33 I prefer products in biodegradable packaging. −1.11 0.90
34 After a picnic, I leave the place as clean as it was before. −3.68 0.95
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 11 of 14

Table A3. Altruistic behaviour scale as used in the study.

Nº Item Delta MS Infit

4 I have done volunteer work for a charity. 0.95 1.08
12 I would offer comfort to a crying stranger. 0.64 0.98
2 I have given money to a charity. 0.54 1.01
19 I offer help when I hear people discuss subjects I am familiar with. 0.36 1.00
16 I would help search for a lost pet even if the owner is unfamiliar to me. 0.36 0.92
5 I have helped carry a stranger’s belongings (books, parcels, etc.). 0.32 0.84
I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a queue (as in giving up my place in line for
7 0.19 0.91
someone, etc.).
8 I buy products connected with the Telethon. 0.09 1.27
18 If I find myself at the door at the same time with another person, I let them go first. 0.07 0.98
6 I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger. −0.07 0.96
3 I have donated goods or clothes to a charity. −0.14 0.95
14 When an unfamiliar person asks me something, I ignore them. −0.21 1.49
11 I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing. −0.24 0.93
10 I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street. −0.29 0.77
13 I would help a stranger who fell on the street. −0.37 0.74
1 I have given directions to a stranger. −0.55 0.91
17 If a stranger asks me for the time, I promptly tell them. −0.80 1.02
9 I ignore strangers who ask me to help read something for them. −0.85 1.51

Table A4. Connection to community scale as used in the study.

Nº Item Delta MS Infit

4 To what degree do you think of the following groups of people as “family”? 0.23 1.02
3 How much would you say you have in common with the following groups? 0.35 1.16
2 How often do you use the word “we” to refer to the following groups of people? 0.67 0.92
1 How close do you feel to each of the following groups? 0.89 1.06
5 How much do you care about each of the following groups? −0.11 0.71
7 How much do you want to be . . . ?: −0.36 0.93
8 How much do you believe in . . . ?: −0.31 1.07
How much would you say you care (feel upset, want to help) when bad things happen to the following
6 −0.33 1.04
groups?
9 If the need arises, how willing are you to help the following groups? −1.05 1.01

Table A5. Connection to country scale as used in the study.

Nº Item Delta MS Infit

4 To what degree do you think of the following groups of people as “family”? 0.69 1.1
3 How much would you say you have in common with the following groups? 0.08 1.18
2 How often do you use the word “we” to refer to the following groups of people? 0.44 0.9
1 How close do you feel to each of the following groups? 1.42 1.1
5 How much do you care about each of the following groups? −0.01 0.79
7 How much do you want to be . . . ?: −0.64 0.97
8 How much do you believe in . . . ?: −0.44 0.97
How much would you say you care (feel upset, want to help) when bad things happen to the following
6 −0.63 1.03
groups?
9 If the need arises, how willing are you to help the following groups? −0.91 0.88
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 12 of 14

Table A6. Connection to nature scale as used in the study.

Nº Item Delta MS Infit

4 To what degree do you think of the following groups of people as “family”? 0.13 1.03
3 How much would you say you have in common with the following groups? 0.69 1.41
2 How often do you use the word “we” to refer to the following groups of people? 0.72 0.94
1 How close do you feel to each of the following groups? 0.97 1.23
5 How much do you care about each of the following groups? −0.25 0.79
7 How much do you want to be . . . ?: −0.28 0.98
8 How much do you believe in . . . ?: −0.32 0.82
How much would you say you care (feel upset, want to help) when bad things happen to the following
6 −0.8 0.89
groups?
9 If the need arises, how willing are you to help the following groups? −0.86 0.92

References
1. Eisenberg, N.; Shell, R. Prosocial Moral Judgment and Behavior in Children: The Mediating Role of Cost. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
Bull. 1986, 12, 426–433. [CrossRef]
2. Eisenberg, N.; VanSchyndel, S.K.; Spinrad, T.L. Prosocial Motivation: Inferences From an Opaque Body of Work. Child Dev. 2016,
87, 1668–1678. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Batson, C.D.; Powell, A.A. Altruism and prosocial behavior. In Handbook of Psychology; McGraw Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 2003;
pp. 463–484.
4. Dunfield, K.A. A construct divided: Prosocial behavior as helping, sharing, and comforting subtypes. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 958.
[CrossRef]
5. Masson, T.; Otto, S. Explaining the difference between the predictive power of value orientations and self-determined motivation
for proenvironmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 4, 49-CP. [CrossRef]
6. Kaiser, F.G.; Otto, S.; Schuler, J. Prosocial propensity bias in experimental research on helping behavior: The proposition of a
discomforting hypothesis. Compr. Psychol. 2015, 4, 11. [CrossRef]
7. Kaiser, F.G.; Byrka, K. Environmentalism as a trait: Gauging people’s prosocial personality in terms of environmental engagement.
Int. J. Phychol. 2011, 46, 71–79. [CrossRef]
8. Otto, S.; Pensini, P.; Zabel, S.; Diaz-Siefer, P.; Burnham, E.; Navarro-Villarroel, C.; Neaman, A. The prosocial origin of sustainable
behavior: A case study in the ecological domain. Glob. Environ. Chang.-Hum. Policy Dimens. 2021, 69, 102312. [CrossRef]
9. Neaman, A.; Otto, S.; Vinokur, E. Toward an integrated approach to environmental and prosocial education. Sustainability 2018,
10, 583. [CrossRef]
10. Stern, P.; Dietz, T. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 65–84. [CrossRef]
11. Stern, P.C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [CrossRef]
12. Neaman, A.; Pensini, P.; Zabel, S.; Otto, S.; Ermakov, D.S.; Dovletyarova, E.A.; Burnham, E.; Castro, M.; Navarro-Villarroel, C.
The Prosocial Driver of Ecological Behavior: The Need for an Integrated Approach to Prosocial and Environmental Education.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4202. [CrossRef]
13. Goldy, S.P.; Piff, P.K. Toward a social ecology of prosociality: Why, when, and where nature enhances social connection. Curr.
Opin. Psychol. 2020, 32, 27–31. [CrossRef]
14. McFarland, S.; Webb, M.; Brown, D. All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. J.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 103, 830–853. [CrossRef]
15. Yang, C.; Wang, Y.L.; Hall, B.J.; Chen, H. Sense of community responsibility and altruistic behavior in Chinese community
residents: The mediating role of community identity. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 39, 1999–2009. [CrossRef]
16. Devine-Wright, P.; Price, J.; Leviston, Z. My country or my planet? Exploring the influence of multiple place attachments and
ideological beliefs upon climate change attitudes and opinions. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 30, 68–79. [CrossRef]
17. Renger, D.; Reese, G. From equality-based respect to environmental activism: Antecedents and consequences of global identity.
Political Psychol. 2017, 38, 867–879. [CrossRef]
18. Brewer, M.B.; Buchan, N.R.; Ozturk, O.D.; Grimalda, G. Parochial Altruism and Political Ideology. Political Psychol. 2022, 44,
383–396. [CrossRef]
19. Charnysh, V.; Lucas, C.; Singh, P. The Ties That Bind: National Identity Salience and Pro-Social Behavior Toward the Ethnic Other.
Comp. Political Stud. 2015, 48, 267–300. [CrossRef]
20. Milfont, T.L.; Osborne, D.; Yogeeswaran, K.; Sibley, C.G. The role of national identity in collective pro-environmental action. J.
Environ. Psychol. 2020, 72, 101522. [CrossRef]
21. Cislak, A.; Wojcik, A.D.; Cichocka, A. Cutting the forest down to save your face: Narcissistic national identification predicts
support for anti-conservation policies. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 59, 65–73. [CrossRef]
22. Cislak, A.; Cichocka, A.; Wojcik, A.D.; Milfont, T.L. Words not deeds: National narcissism, national identification, and support for
greenwashing versus genuine proenvironmental campaigns. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 74, 101576. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 13 of 14

23. Schlicht-Schmalzle, R.; Chykina, V.; Schmalzle, R. An attitude network analysis of post-national citizenship identities. PLoS ONE
2018, 13, e0208241. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Aydin, E.; Bagci, S.C.; Kelesoglu, I. Love for the globe but also the country matter for the environment: Links between nationalistic,
patriotic, global identification and pro-environmentalism. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 80, 101755. [CrossRef]
25. Lee, K.; Ashton, M.C.; Choi, J.; Zachariassen, K. Connectedness to Nature and to Humanity: Their association and personality
correlates. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1003. [CrossRef]
26. Durón-Ramos, M.F.; Collado, S.; García-Vázquez, F.I.; Bello-Echeverria, M. The Role of Urban/Rural Environments on Mexican
Children’s Connection to Nature and Pro-environmental Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 514. [CrossRef]
27. Collado, S.; Corraliza, J.A.; Staats, H.; Ruiz, M. Effect of frequency and mode of contact with nature on children’s self-reported
ecological behaviors. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 65–73. [CrossRef]
28. Collado, S.; Evans, G.W. Outcome expectancy: A key factor to understanding childhood exposure to nature and children’s
pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 61, 30–36. [CrossRef]
29. Otto, S.; Pensini, P. Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature,
together, are related to ecological behaviour. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 47, 88–94. [CrossRef]
30. Maiya, S.; Carlo, G.; Gulseven, Z.; Crockett, L. Direct and indirect effects of parental involvement, deviant peer affiliation, and
school connectedness on prosocial behaviors in US Latino/a youth. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2020, 37, 2898–2917. [CrossRef]
31. Yoo, H.; Feng, X.; Day, R.D. Adolescents’ Empathy and Prosocial Behavior in the Family Context: A Longitudinal Study. J. Youth
Adolesc. 2013, 42, 1858–1872. [CrossRef]
32. Barrera-Hernández, L.F.; Sotelo-Castillo, M.A.; Echeverría-Castro, S.B.; Tapia-Fonllem, C.O. Connectedness to Nature: Its Impact
on Sustainable Behaviors and Happiness in Children. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 276. [CrossRef]
33. Pensini, P.; Horn, E.; Caltabiano, N.J. An exploration of the relationships between adults’ childhood and current nature exposure
and their mental well-being. Child. Youth Environ. 2016, 26, 125–147. [CrossRef]
34. Putra, I.; Astell-Burt, T.; Cliff, D.P.; Vella, S.A.; John, E.E.; Feng, X.Q. The Relationship Between Green Space and Prosocial
Behaviour Among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 859. [CrossRef]
35. Schultz, P.W.; Shriver, C.; Tabanico, J.J.; Khazian, A.M. Implicit connections with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 31–42.
[CrossRef]
36. Schultz, P.W.; Gouveia, V.V.; Cameron, L.D.; Tankha, G.; Schmuck, P.; Franěk, M. Values and their relationship to environmental
concern and conservation behavior. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2005, 36, 457–475. [CrossRef]
37. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [CrossRef]
38. Kenny, D.A. MedPower: An Interactive Tool for the Estimation of Power in Tests of Mediation. Available online: https:
//davidakenny.shinyapps.io/MedPower/ (accessed on 21 April 2023).
39. Lee, K.; Ashton, M.C. Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment 2018, 25, 543–556. [CrossRef]
40. Sergi, I.; Gnisci, A.; Senese, V.P.; Perugini, M. The HEXACO-Middle School Inventory (MSI) A Personality Inventory for Children
and Adolescents. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2020, 36, 681–693. [CrossRef]
41. Kaiser, F.G.; Oerke, B.; Bogner, F.W. Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrument for adolescents. J.
Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 242–251. [CrossRef]
42. Rushton, J.P.; Chrisjohn, R.D.; Fekken, G.C. The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personal. Individ. Differ.
1981, 2, 293–302. [CrossRef]
43. Linacre, J.M. A User’s Guide to WINSTEPS Rasch-Model Computer Programs; MESA Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2007.
44. Joreskog, K.G.; Sorbom, D. LISREL 8 User’s Guide; Scientific Software International: Chicago, IL, USA, 1999.
45. Wright, B.D.; Linacre, J.M.; Gustafson, J.E.; Martin-Lof, P. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas. Trans. 1994, 8, 370–371.
46. Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. Empirical, Theoretical, and Practical Advantages of the HEXACO Model of Personality Structure. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 11, 150–166. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Brick, C.; Lewis, G.J. Unearthing the “Green” Personality: Core Traits Predict Environmentally Friendly Behavior. Environ. Behav.
2014, 48, 635–658. [CrossRef]
48. Pfattheicher, S.; Böhm, R. Honesty-humility under threat: Self-uncertainty destroys trust among the nice guys. J. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. 2018, 114, 179–194. [CrossRef]
49. Schwartz, S.H.; Bilsky, W. Toward A Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 53,
550–562. [CrossRef]
50. Aghababaei, N.; Mohammadtabar, S.; Saffarinia, M. Dirty Dozen vs. the H factor: Comparison of the Dark Triad and Honesty-
Humility in prosociality, religiosity, and happiness. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2014, 67, 6–10. [CrossRef]
51. Zettler, I.; Hilbig, B.E.; Haubrich, J. Altruism at the ballots: Predicting political attitudes and behavior. J. Res. Personal. 2011, 45,
130–133. [CrossRef]
52. Hilbig, B.E.; Zettler, I.; Moshagen, M.; Heydasch, T. Tracing the Path from Personality—Via Cooperativeness—To Conservation.
Eur. J. Personal. 2013, 27, 319–327. [CrossRef]
53. Fang, Y.; Dong, Y.; Fang, L. Honesty-humility and prosocial behavior: The mediating roles of perspective taking and guilt-
proneness. Scand. J. Psychol. 2019, 60, 386–393. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8070 14 of 14

54. Wertag, A.; Bratko, D. In search of the prosocial personality: Personality traits as predictors of prosociality and prosocial behavior.
J. Individ. Differ. 2019, 40, 55–62. [CrossRef]
55. Zettler, I.; Hilbig, B.E. Honesty and humility. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; Wright, J.D., Ed.;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 169–174.
56. Soutter, A.; Bates, T.; Mottus, R. Big Five and HEXACO Personality Traits, pro-environmentalattitudes, and behaviors: A
meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 69, 102312.
57. Angelis, S.; Pensini, P. Honesty-Humility Predicts Humanitarian Prosocial Behaviour via Social Connectedness: A Parallel
Mediation Examining Connectedness to Community, Nation, Humanity, and Nature. Scand. J. Psychol. 2023, 209, 112216.
58. Duong, M.; Pensini, P. The Role of Connectedness in Sustainable Behaviour: A Parallel Mediation Model Examining the Prosocial
Foundations of Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2023, 209, 112216. [CrossRef]
59. Berger, C.; Andaur, A. Integrating prosocial and proenvironmental behaviors: The role of moral disengagement and peer social
norms. Psychol. Soc. Educ. 2022, 14, 18–28. [CrossRef]
60. Tapia-Fonllem, C.; Corral-Verdugo, V.; Fraijo-Sing, B.; Durón-Ramos, M.F. Assessing sustainable behavior and its correlates: A
measure of pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic and equitable actions. Sustainability 2013, 5, 711–723. [CrossRef]
61. Miyazono, K.; Inarimori, K. Empathy, Altruism, and Group Identification. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 5775. [CrossRef]
62. Brewer, M.B. The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? J. Soc. Issues 1999, 55, 429–444. [CrossRef]
63. Flanagan, C.A.; Byington, R.; Gallay, E.; Sambo, A. Social Justice and the Environmental Commons. In Equity and Justice in
Developmental Science: Implications for Young People, Families, and Communities; Horn, S.S., Ruck, M.D., Liben, L.S., Eds.; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; Volume 51, pp. 203–230.
64. Greenwald, A.G.; McGhee, D.E.; Schwartz, J.L.K. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association
test. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1464–1480. [CrossRef]
65. Daly, I.; Williams, D.; Hwang, F.; Kirke, A.; Miranda, E.R.; Nasuto, S.J. Electroencephalography reflects the activity of sub-cortical
brain regions during approach-withdrawal behaviour while listening to music. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 9415. [CrossRef]

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.

View publication stats