Skip to main content
Download PDF

Trait emotional intelligence and ecological outcomes: the role of connectedness to nature

BMC Psychology volume 12, Article number: 201 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Global climate change is recognized as a major and irreversible challenge for humanity, requiring people’s responsible and sustainable behaviors toward the environment. So far, the literature has widely investigated the role of cognitive determinants of ecological outcomes (e.g., pro-environmental behaviors and climate change perception), while less attention has been devoted to emotional processes, such as trait emotional intelligence (TEI). The current double study investigates whether TEI is directly and indirectly associated with climate change perception (CCP, Study 1) and pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs, Study 2) among young adults. Furthermore, the mediating role of connectedness to nature (CN), both as cognitive and emotional factors, was also analyzed. We hypothesized that CN (i.e., cognitive mediator) would positively mediate the relationship between TEI and CCP (H1), and Love and Care for Nature (LCN, i.e., emotional mediator) would positively mediate the relationship between TEI and PEBs (H2).

Methods

The study involved 342 young adults (F = 60.7%; age 19–40; Mage=22.99; SD = 2.66) in Study 1 and 365 young adults (F = 71.2%; age 17–35; Mage=22.2; SD = 3.98) in Study 2. Data were collected through an online tool shared by the snowball method. We administered the following self-reports: Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire- Short Form (TEIQue- SF), Global Climate Change (GCC), and Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) (Study 1); Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire- Short Form (TEIQue-SF), General Environmental Behaviors Scale (GEB), and Love and Care for Nature (LCN) (Study 2).

Results

Findings from Study 1 showed that higher TEI levels enhance CN (i.e., cognitive mediator), positively influencing CCP (estimate = 0.14; 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.23). Findings from Study 2 showed that higher TEI levels are associated with higher LCN levels (i.e., emotional mediator), influencing people’s engagement in PEBs (estimate = 0.7; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.11).

Conclusion

It is crucial to design environmental education programs that promote greater emotional intelligence ability and encourage individuals’ involvement in ecological outcomes.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

It is widely recognized that most environmental issues, including climate change, environmental pollution, and biodiversity loss, are dominantly due to human behaviors [1]. Environmental research suggests structural environmental problems may seriously harm global humanity [2, 3]. Furthermore, the United Nations [4] has mentioned environmental degradation as one of humanity’s top ten greatest threats.

These alarming data push us not to disregard the ecological issue by investigating personal characteristics more likely to be associated with ecologically responsible behaviors. In this regard, cognitive variables, such as attitudes [5], personal values referring to self-transcendence [6], altruistic values [7], family values [8, 9], and personal norms [10, 11] have been investigated, while less attention has been devoted to people’s trait emotional intelligence (TEI). The present study aims to contribute to a better understanding of individuals’ climate change perception (CCP) and their engagement in pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) by investigating whether trait emotional intelligence (TEI) can act as a precursor to individuals’ CCP and, subsequently, their involvement in PEBs, with the mediating role of connectedness to nature (CN). Due to people’s TEI associations with several life outcomes (e.g., pro-social behaviors, academic and work-life engagement, mental and physical health [12,13,14,15]), it is expected to find associations with positive attitudes toward the environment in terms of interest, sensitivity, and responsible acts to safeguard the ecological balance between humans and the planet. Nevertheless, until now, few studies have investigated these relationships, which may add a new approach to explaining people’s differences in ecological thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Our two studies addressed this issue by exploring the associations between people’s TEI and ecological outcomes (i.e., climate change perception and pro-environmental behaviors).

People’s trait emotional intelligence: the unexplored link with ecological outcomes

Trait emotional intelligence (TEI; [16]) is a theoretical framework that focuses on assessing and understanding emotional intelligence as a stable personality trait. It encompasses four key dimensions: well-being, self-control, emotionality, and sociability. Well-being refers to one’s ability to recognize and regulate emotions in oneself and others, manage stress, and maintain a positive emotional state. Self-control involves managing impulsive feelings and behaviors, demonstrating restraint, and resisting immediate gratification. Emotionality refers to the extent to which individuals are comfortable experiencing and expressing emotions, and it includes understanding and interpreting emotional signals from oneself and others. Finally, sociability captures one’s interpersonal skills and the ability to navigate social situations effectively. It involves empathy, understanding others’ emotions, and building positive relationships [13, 14, 17]. The central key to TEI is people’s perceived ability to manage and regulate emotions and cope with challenging, stressful, and emotional situations. TEI can influence individuals’ attitudes, values, and decision-making processes [18], which may affect their ecological behaviors. Until now, no previous studies have investigated whether TEI is associated with people’s positive attitudes and behaviors toward nature (i.e., climate change perception and pro-environmental behaviors).

Climate change perception (CCP) refers to the extent to which an individual perceives, through various sources of information, the risks that the planet is facing [3, 19]. Different studies have focused on whether, where, and how people acquire information about CCP, their main concerns, and how judgments about the risk to the planet and human lives are formed (e.g., [19,20,21]). Moreover, people’s CCP is strongly associated with positive attitudes toward nature [18, 22,23,24], making the construct particularly relevant for further investigation due to its practical implications.

A recent literature review has shed light on how emotions influence people’s responses to climate change [25]. For example, Van Valkengoed and Steg [26] conducted a meta-analysis in which the predictive role of emotions experienced by individuals on their judgments related to climate change emerged. Furthermore, consistent with other studies, negative emotions (such as anger, fear, and contempt) strongly predict the perception of climate change risk [27, 28]. In general, the literature is consistent on the crucial role of emotions in fostering assumptions of responsibility, risk perceptions, and conscious attention toward climate change (e.g., [25, 29]). Nevertheless, feeling emotively involved differs from emotional ability as encompassed in TEI. Effectively, personality traits could be significantly informative in understanding peoples’ differences in their ecological outcomes. In this vein, it is interesting that Panno and colleagues [30] have recently shown that two personality factors (i.e., openness to experience and honesty-humility) are related to ecological outcomes through moral anger. However, to our knowledge, the links between people’s TEI (for example, peoples’ emotional management, emotional awareness, empathy, and sociability) and CCP remain less investigated.

Pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) refer to actions taken by individuals to minimize their negative impact on the environment and promote sustainability. More specifically, PEBs are conceived regarding a bundle of specific behaviors that are different in terms of financial cost, effort, knowledge, and other factors [31]. This behaviors include both acts that benefit the natural environment (e.g., recycling) and the omission of acts that hurt it (e.g., avoiding using a car). Although there is a growing consensus that people’s PEBs are crucial in issues related to the Earth’s safeguarding, a relatively small number of people are willing to adapt their lifestyles to reduce one ecological impact significantly. Previous studies on emotions and nature can be divided into two strands: those dedicated to emotional experiences in natural contexts, which have focused on children (0–10 years), young adults (10–24 years) [32], and the adult population[35], and those focused on individual emotional factors capable of predicting PEBs (as proved in systematic literature reviews [33, 34]). Findings consistently agree about the positive associations between people’s emotional experiences, such as awe, wonder, joy, and tranquility, and their positive attitudes toward nature as well as their preferences for natural environments (e.g., [32,33,34,35]).

The mediating role of feeling connectedness to nature

People’s TEI is strictly related to self-control, emotional management, empathy, social awareness, and optimism (e.g., [36]). With this in mind, new links not yet investigated are expected to be found, such as people’s sensitivity to the environment and care and love toward natural dimensions. According to several authors, two main constructs are used to measure how people feel in a community with nature: connectedness to nature (CN; [37]) and love and care for nature (LCN; [38]). Mayer and Frantz [37] have proposed the concept of connectedness to nature and its measurement, the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS), referring to the individual’s feelings of being in a community with nature, and it consists of values-based attitudes and personal beliefs, which are part of one’s self-concept. Perrin and Benassi [39] state that CNS captures a cognitive dimension of one’s involvement with the natural world. CNS is rooted in Leopold’s [40] argument that individuals must establish a profound connection with the broader natural environment to address environmental challenges effectively [37]. According to Leopold, this involves evaluating the degree to which individuals perceive themselves as equal members within the wider natural community, recognizing themselves as an integral part of the natural world, just as it is an essential part of them, and acknowledging the interdependence between their well-being and the well-being of the natural world.

Another dimension to evaluate people’s feelings toward the natural world is Love and Care for Nature (LCN; [38]). It refers to the individual’s emotional connection, appreciation, and concern for the natural world. It encompasses affection, respect, and a sense of responsibility towards nature and its preservation. This characterization encompasses the subsequent theoretical components, primarily drawn from philosophical sources: (1) enduring sentiments of reverence, astonishment, and fascination towards nature, which are described as emotions that elicit a sense of concern; (2) emotions of affection, emotional intimacy, and interconnection with nature, encompassing a spiritual facet somewhat overlooked within the field of psychology; and (3) sentiments of concern, duty, and dedication to safeguard the natural world [38]. Even though, to our knowledge, no previous studies have directly investigated the links between TEI and individual connection with nature, some research would seem to suggest this association. For example, Di Fabio and Bucci [41] have found a significant association between empathy (i.e., a component of TEI) and CNS among Italian high school students. Findings concerning the relationships between emotional intelligence or emotions and LCN are lacking. Some authors investigating such a relationship strictly focused on people’s feelings toward the natural world. For instance, in a study involving a sample of 238 adults from the UK, it was found that LCN was associated with ethically conscious consumption choices [42], and in another study that involved 454 young adults from five countries, the authors demonstrated that nature exposure promotes individuals’ well-being through feelings of connection with nature [43]. In contrast, no previous studies focused on the link between people’s TEI and LCN.

The present study

Previous research has supported two main assumptions. First, TEI is a constellation of emotional self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies [16, 44]. Second, people’s TEI affects their pro-social behaviors (i.e., [45– 49]). With this in mind, the current study investigates the relationship between TEI and ecological outcomes, such as PEBs and CCP, in two young adult samples. Furthermore, according to the above literature, people’s connectedness to nature (via cognitive and emotive approaches) is expected to mediate the relationship between the studied variables. More in detail, Study 1 examines the relationship between TEI and CCP through the connectedness to nature, assumed to capture people’s cognitive involvement toward nature. Study 2 investigates the indirect relationship between TEI and PEBs via an emotional connection to nature, namely love and care for nature (LCN). We set the following hypotheses.

Study 1. H1: We predicted that TEI would be related to CCP through CN. More specifically, we expected that higher levels of TEI would be related to higher levels of CN, which, in turn, would enhance CCP.

Study 2. H2: We predicted that TEI would be related to PEBs through LCN. More specifically, we expected that higher levels of TEI would be related to higher levels of LCN, which, in turn, would enhance PEBs.

Study 1

The aim of the first study is to investigate the relationship between trait emotional intelligence (TEI), connectedness to nature (CN, focused on a cognitive approach), and climate change perception (CCP). The following hypothesis has been formulated:

H1: We predicted that TEI would be related to CCP through CN. More specifically, we expected that higher levels of TEI would be related to higher levels of CN, which, in turn, would enhance CCP.

Method

Participants

The study involved 342 Italian participants aged 19 to 40 (Mage=22.99, SD = 2.66). In detail, 207 (60.7%) of participants identified themselves as women, and 134 (39.3%) identified themselves as men. They were workers and university students from Northern, Central, and Southern Italy. The inclusion criteria for the study were (1) being a Italian young adult (aged between 17 and 40 years) and (2) voluntarily agreeing to participate.

Procedure and measures

Data were collected through an online questionnaire administered via the Limesurvey platform, which did not allow the respondent to proceed if the fields were not completed. For this reason, there was no missing data. The study adopted a convenience sample, and participants were recruited via networking through friends, colleagues, and casual acquaintances. Only overage participants who gave informed consent were involved in the study, and anonymity and confidentiality standards were ensured at every data collection stage. The study was conducted under the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of LUMSA University (protocol code 4/2023 and date of approval 02/05/2023).

Trait emotional intelligence

Trait emotional intelligence was measured by the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF; [50, 51]). It is a self-report measure of 30 items assessing the four domains of TEI: Well-Being (e.g., “Overall, I am happy with my life”), Self-control (e.g., “Overall, I can cope with stress”), Emotionality (e.g., “It is not difficult for me to put my emotions into words”) and Sociability (e.g., “I can interact well with others”). Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.83 for the total score; in the original study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 for the total score.

Cognitive connectedness to nature

The Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS; [37, 52]) evaluates people’s connectedness with nature as a cognitive dimension. It comprises 14 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree). An example of an item is: “I feel as though I belong to the earth as equally as it belongs to me”. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88; in the original study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82 for the total score.

Climate change perception

People’s climate change perception was measured by three items from Heath and Gifford’s [53] questionnaire, namely the Global Climate Change (GCC). The three items of GCC are evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Specifically, items were as follows: “It seems that weather patterns had changed compared to when I was a child”; “It seems to me that temperature is warmer now than in years before”; and “I have already noticed some signs of global warming”. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79.

Analysis plan

Firstly, we sought to test the adequate normality of the distribution by exploring means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum, skewness, and kurtosis of the study variables. As none of the variables had skewness or kurtosis values greater than|2| [54] nor standard deviation nearly close to zero, the normality of the distribution was assumed. Consequently, a Pearson correlation was performed to test the association between the variables. Furthermore, to verify H1, a mediation model was tested using model 4 of PROCESS macro for SPSS v. 4.2 [55]. A percentile bootstrap procedure with 5000 re-sampling and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was adopted [56]. Specifically, TEIQue-SF was inserted as an independent variable, CNS as the mediator, and GCC as the dependent variable.

Results

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations
Full size table

Pearson’s correlation matrix results showed that TEIQue-SF is positively and significantly associated with CNS and GCC. Furthermore, findings show a significant positive association between CNS and GCC (Table 1).

The results of the mediation model tested are depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Path coefficients for the mediation model. Note. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001. The dotted line denotes the relationship between TEIQue-SF and GCC when CNS is not included as a mediator; a, b, c, and c’ are unstandardized regression coefficients

Full size image

We estimated the indirect effect of trait emotional intelligence on climate change perception, quantified as the product of the ordinary least square (OLS) regression coefficient by estimating CNS from TEIQue-SF (path a, in Fig. 1) and the OLS regression coefficient estimating GCC from CNS, controlling for TEIQue-SF (path b, in Fig. 1). A 95% percentile bootstrap confidence interval (CI) for the product of these paths that do not include zero provides evidence of a significant indirect effect [56]. Results showed a significant positive indirect association of TEIQue-SF with GCC through CNS (point estimate = 0.14; 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.23). Results from study 1 and 2 will be discussed in the same section.

Study 2

The second study aims to analyze the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and pro-environmental behaviors through Love and Care for Nature. The following hypothesis was formulated:

H2: We predicted that TEI would be related to PEBs through LCN. More specifically, we expected that higher levels of TEI would be related to higher levels of LCN, which, in turn, would enhance PEBs.

Method

Participants

The study involved 365 Italian young adults (71.2% women, 27.7% men, 1.1% preferred not to specify) aged 17 to 35 years (Mage=22.2; SD = 3.98). Workers and university students from Northern, Central, and Southern Italy participated. The inclusion criteria for the study were (1) being a Italian young adult (aged between 17 and 40 years) and (2) voluntarily agreeing to participate.

Procedure and measures

Data were collected through an online questionnaire administered via the Google Forms platform, which did not allow the respondent to proceed if the fields were not completed. For this reason, there was no missing data. Participants individually completed the questionnaire on a laptop computer or a smartphone, and the anonymity of their responses was guaranteed. As for Study 1, the study adopted a convenience sample, and participants were recruited via networking through friends, colleagues, and casual acquaintances. The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of LUMSA University (protocol code 4/2023 and date of approval 02/05/2023). Concerning underage participants, only those with parental consent were allowed to participate in the study. The questionnaire was organized into different sections: the first part provided the informed consent form and general compilation instructions, and the second included the scales for measuring the relevant constructs.

Trait emotional intelligence

As in Study 1, we adopted the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire - Short Form to assess participants’ trait emotional intelligence (TEIQue-SF; [50, 51]). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87; in the original study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 for the total score.

Pro-environmental behaviors

The short version of the General Environmental Behaviors Scale Italian adaptation (GEB; [9, 57, 58]) measured people’s pro-environment behaviors. The 30-item scale provides an assessment of PEBs, grouped into four domains: Strong Ecological Behavior (e.g., “I am a member of an environmental organization”), Sustainability in Everyday Life (e.g., “After one day of use, my sweaters or trousers go into the laundry.”), Recycling and Reduced Waste Production (e.g., “If possible, I buy products in refillable packages”), Sustainable Mobility (e.g., “I usually ride a bicycle, take public transportation or walk to go to the university/at work”). Ratings were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = “completely disagree” to 5 = “completely agree”. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80 for the total score; in the original study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80 for the total score.

Emotional connectedness to nature

The Love and Care for Nature scale (LCN; [38]) was administered to assess participants’ emotional feelings toward the natural world. The LCN scale consists of 15 items. Examples are: “I feel content and somehow at home when I am in unspoiled nature” and “When I am in natural environments, I feel emotionally connected to nature.” Ratings were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = “completely disagree” to 5 = “completely agree.” In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was.94; in the original study, Cronbach’s alpha was.97 for the total score.

Analysis plan

Similar to Study 1, firstly, we attested the normality of the distribution by exploring means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum, skewness, and kurtosis of the study variables. Given the normality of the distributions, Pearson’s correlation was adopted to examine the associations among the study variables. Furthermore, to verify H2, a mediation model was tested using model 4 of PROCESS macro for SPSS v. 4.2 [55]. As for Study 1, a percentile bootstrap procedure with 5000 re-sampling and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was adopted [56]. In detail, we inserted TEIQue-SF as the independent variable, LCN as the mediator, and GEB as the dependent variable.

Results

Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation matrix.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations
Full size table

The correlation results showed that TEIQue-SF is positively and significantly associated with LCN. Furthermore, findings showed a significant positive association between LCN and GEB.

A graphical representation of the results of the mediation model tested is reported in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Path coefficients for the mediation model. Note. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001. The dotted line denotes the relationship between TEIQue-SF and PEB when LCN is not included as a mediator; a, b, c, and c’ are unstandardized regression coefficients

Full size image

To test the hypothesized model, we estimated the indirect effect of TEIQue-SF on GEB, quantified as the product of the ordinary least square (OLS) regression coefficient estimating LCN from TEIQue-SF (path a, in Fig. 2) and the OLS regression coefficient estimating GEB from LCN, controlling for TEIQue (path b, in Fig. 2). Results showed a significant positive indirect association between TEIQue-SF and GEB through LCN (point estimate = 0.07; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.12)Footnote 1.

Discussion

This study analyzed the relationship between TEI and people’s attitudes and behavior toward nature, considering the mediation role of peoples’ feelings in community with nature. Given TEI’s comprehensive nature encompassing cognitive, emotional, and social aspects, it holds significant potential to deeply understand individuals’ overall involvement towards ecological behaviors and attitudes. Moreover, the personality trait nature of TEI, such as stable emotional traits, leads to speculation on possible antecedents of peoples’ responsible behaviors toward the environment.

Study 1’s correlation findings showed that greater levels of TEI are positively associated with the cognitive aspects of CN. Moreover, the CN is positively associated with people’s CCP. Concerning Study 2, results showed that the more people’s TEI increases, the more their LCN level grows. Furthermore, LCN is positively associated with people’s PEBs. In contrast, no significant correlations have been found between TEI and PEBs. This result is counterintuitive since previous studies conducted in different countries and among people of various age groups (e.g., among Italian high school students [13, 14], Italian adult workers, aged 27-65, and among Australian adultswith a mean age of 34,17 years [15]) have shown that individual with high TEI levels are more likely to engage in pro-social behaviors, empathy toward others, and nurte caring for their relationships. Nevertheless, the further found correlations between TEI and studied variables (i.e., CN, CCP, LCN), not previously investigated, which led us to sustain that people with high TEI levels are also expected to show high levels of involvement in sensitive and responsible interests as well as positive attitudes toward ecological issues.

Considering the investigated mediating roles, our findings confirm the expected models. First, in Study 1, CN significantly mediates the associations between people’s TEI and CCP. This novelty result, not previously investigated, confirms the antecedent role of people’s TEI. It is partially in line with Panno and colleagues’ [61] study, where a positive relationship between cognitive reappraisal (i.e., an emotion regulation strategy) and ecological outcomes (i.e., CCP and PEBs) through intensive negative emotions, has been found. Furthermore, our data confirm Di Fabio and Bucci’s study [41], showing that TEI (in that case, empathy) can activate peoples’ feelings of connectedness with nature. Furthermore, Study 1 has demonstrated that sensitivity to news and experiences related to CCP, which constitutes personal awareness and attention to the surrounding environment [62], is also the result of an individual’s sense of CN.

Second, people’s sensitivity to ecological issues is further investigated in Study 2. Our findings show that the strength of the relationship is enhanced when LCN has been introduced as a mediator. Previous studies have largely demonstrated that peoples’ emotions are positively associated with different responsible behaviors towards the environment, such has been found in a sample of 175 Spanish young adult undergraduates and recent graduates (mean age of 25.76 years) [36], in another study that involved 688 healthy adults from Spain (mean age of 36.02 years) [63], in a sample of 7704 adults from London (aged between35 to 64 years) [64] and in a meta-analytic investigation across 7898 participants (aged between 11 to 51 years) from different countries [65]. However, our study further supports the scarce findings regarding the role of people’s emotional intelligence components as possible predictors of their PEBs [66]. The mediating role of LCN adds a novelty perspective to this scenario.

Furthermore, the two studies shed light on emerging controversies regarding conceptualizing CN [39, 67]. Evidence showed that cognitive and emotional CN approaches can enhance people’s CCP (Study 1) and PEBs (Study 2).

Finally, CN plays a crucial role in this scenario. Indeed, in light of the findings from our study, CN (via emotional and cognitive approach) mediates the effect of TEI on ecological outcomes, even when TEI does not directly affect engagement in PEBs, as in the case of Study 2. Conversely to our second hypothesis (H2), TEI indirectly affects PEBs via the effect that TEI has on CN. These findings show how TEI is fundamental in developing people’s ecological involvement (such as Love and Care for Nature), which, in turn, may increase people’s PEBs.

Limitations

The two studies are not without limitations. Firstly, self-report questionnaires might undermine the validity of the results due to social desirability bias [68, 69]. The literature has stressed that sometimes self-reports may fail to reflect objective behavior accurately [70, 71]. Furthermore, online completion of the questionnaires can be considered a limitation due to the impossibility of ensuring the process was followed by each participant. Secondly, the cross-sectional nature of the present research prevents any causal interpretation, even though these studies offer helpful insights into these relations. Third, some of our results may be limited in representativeness and generalizability because data was collected using convenience samples (non-probability). Fourth, our study did not include some socio-demographic information (such as marital status) and some socio-economic information (such as social background and political orientation) on the sample, which has been widely investigated in the literature with regard to ecological outcome (e.g., [72,73,74,75,76]), therefore might therefore have possible implications for the results. Finally, analyses of two different samples may prevent us from determining whether there is a direct link between the global CCP and the subsequent involvement of individuals in behaviors to protect the environment [77]. Since several authors highlight such a link, it was beyond the scope of the current research to investigate it. Rather, we preferred to focus on using different samples and measures of CN and the outcome variables to support the validity and generalizability of the findings. Nonetheless, they provide a good starting point for improving future research. Indeed, adopting two distinct samples represents a methodological decision of considerable importance that enhances the generalizability of results and presents various significant implications. First, it provides a more detailed and articulated understanding of the relationship between TEI, CN, and ecological outcomes through different contexts and among heterogeneous demographic groups. Second, these results become more representative, facilitating the formulation of conclusions that can be applied with greater reliability to a wide range of situations and populations, thus enriching the value of our findings. Third, results from two samples can contribute more effectively to developing policies, interventions, and educational strategies.

Future directions

The novelty of our results concerns the contribution in exploring the link between TEI and ecological outcomes, which has, until now, been unexplored and, thus, represents one of the reasons for their relevance. However, these preliminary results offer the potential for different perspectives in future studies. Future research should adopt direct measures of peoples’ behaviors to mitigate social desirability bias due to self-report questionnaires. Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate, through a longitudinal design, the nature and complexity of the relationship between the mediators and the respective dependent variables tested and whether the observed changes persist over time. Moreover, future longitudinal studies might help corroborate TEI impact as an antecedent variable. Furthermore, we encourage future research through an experimental design, which could test whether the observed effects result from a causal relationship between the variables. Finally, expanding the study to focus on high school students would also be interesting, as would replicating the research design in different international contexts.

Conclusion

Emphasizing the role of TEI provides insights into the predictors of ecofriendly outcomes (e.g., CCP and PEBs). It sheds light on the possibility of intervening to enhance emotional skills early on. Although the TEI construct is considered relatively stable over time [22, 78], it is the result of slow and multifaceted growth in individuals who can receive educational stimuli from a young age to develop emotional control, foster sensitivity toward others and the environment, and ultimately improve emotional regulation abilities such as impulsivity or selfishness (e.g., [79]). In line with this reasoning, it can be considered that high levels of TEI, due to their significant protective effect on oneself and the environment, should be central in educational interventions from school and parenting perspectives (e.g., [66, 80, 81]). Furthermore, given the crucial role of connectedness to nature, including this construct in educational programs also becomes relevant [78]. These results, therefore, hold the potential to contribute to the design of environmental education programs that nurture improved emotional management, emotional recognition, and empathy.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. Hayes and other authors (e.g [59]), recommend that “Researchers not require a significant total effect before proceeding with tests of indirect effects. A failure to test for indirect effects in the absence of a total effect can lead to you miss some potentially interesting, important, or useful mechanisms by which X exerts some kind of effect on Y” ( [60] p. 414).

Abbreviations

CN:

connectedness to nature

CNS:

Connectedness to Nature Scale

CCP:

climate change perception

GCC:

Global Climate Change

GEB:

General Environmental Behaviors Scale

LCN:

Love and Care for Nature

PEBs:

pro-environmental behaviors

TEI:

trait emotional intelligence

TEIQue-SF:

Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form

References

  1. Wynes S, Nicholas KA. The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ Res Lett. 2017;12:7:074024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Casaló LV, Escario JJ, Rodriguez-Sanchez C. Analyzing differences between different types of pro-environmental behaviors: do attitude intensity and kind of knowledge matter? Resources, conservation, and recycling. 2019;149,5:56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.024.

  3. IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, et al, editor, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press et al. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf.

  4. United Nations. The United Nations Development Agenda: development for all. Economic and Social Affairs; 2004.

  5. Schultz PW, Gouvei VV, Cameron LD, Tankha G, Schmuck P, Franêk M. Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2005;36:457–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schultz PW, Zelezny LC. Values and proenvironmental behavior: a five-country survey. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 1998;29,4:540–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198294003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown KW, Kasser T. Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Soc Indic Res. 2005;74:349–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-8207-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Oh RRY, Fielding KS, Nghiem LTP, Chang CC, Carrasco LR, Fuller RA. Connection to nature is predicted by family values, social norms and personal experiences of nature. Global Ecol Conserv. 2021;28:e01632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Scopelliti M, Barni D, Rinallo E. My parents taught…taught2026Green was my growth! The role of intergenerational transmission of ecological values in young adults’ pro-environmental behaviors and their psychosocial mechanisms. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1670. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031670.

  10. Nordlund AM, Garvill J. Value structures behind pro-environmental behavior. Environ Behav. 2002;34:740–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391602237244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev. 2000;6,2:81–97. cedar.www.edu/hcop_facpubs/1.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fiorilli C, Benevene P, De Stasio S, Buonomo I, Romano L, Pepe A, Addimando L. Teachers’ burnout: the role of trait emotional intelligence and social support. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2743. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02743.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Fiorilli C, Farina E, Buonomo I, Costa S, Romano L, Larcan R, Petrides KV. Trait emotional intelligence and school burnout: the mediating role of resilience and academic anxiety in high school. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:9:3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093058.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Romano L, Tang X, Hietajärvi L, Salmela-Aro K, Fiorilli C. Students’ trait emotional intelligence and perceived teacher emotional support in preventing burnout: the moderating role of academic anxiety. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:13:4771. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134771.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Schutte NS, Malouff JM. Emotional intelligence mediates the relationship between mindfulness and subjective well-being. Pers Indiv Differ. 2011;50:7:1116–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Petrides KV, Pita R, Kokkinaki F. The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. Br J Psychol. 2007;98,2:273–89. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X120618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pérez-Díaz PA, Perazzo MF, Chiesi F, Marunic G, Granville-Garcia AF, Paiva SM, Petrides KV. Invariance of the trait emotional intelligence construct across populations and sociodemographic variables. Pers Indiv Differ. 2021;169:110038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Panno A, Donati MA, Chiesi F, Primi C. Trait emotional intelligence is related to risk-taking through negative mood and anticipated fear. Social Psychol. 2015;46(6):361–7. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bradley GL, Babutsidze Z, Chai A, Reser JP. The role of climate change risk perception, response efficacy, and psychological adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: a two-nation study. J Environ Psychol. 2020;8:101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Slovic P. The perception of risk. Routledge; 2016.

  21. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C. The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal. 2013;33:6: 1049–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Panno A, Giacomantonio M, Carrus G, Maricchiolo F, Pirchio S, Mannetti L. Mindfulness, pro-environmental behavior, and belief in climate change: the mediating role of social dominance. Environ Behav. 2018;50,8:864–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517718887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang L, Xia M, Wang H, Huang K, Qian C, Maravelias CT, Ozin GA. Greening ammonia toward the solar ammonia refinery. Joule. 2018;2,6:1055–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.04.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang J, Liu X, Li Y, Powell T, Wang X, Wang G, Zhang P. Microplastics as contaminants in the soil environment: a mini-review. Sci Total Environ. 2019;691:848–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Brosch T. Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: a review. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2021;42:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Valkengoed AM, Steg L. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behavior. Nat Clim Change. 2019;9:2:158–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bouman T, Verschoor M, Alber CJ, Böhm G, Fisher SD, Poortinga W, Steg L. When worry about climate change leads to climate action: how values, worry, and personal responsibility relate to various climate actions. Glob Environ Change. 2020;62:102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Xie B, Brewer MB, Hayes BK, McDonald RI, Newell BR. Predicting climate change risk perception and willingness to act. J Environ Psychol. 2019;65:101331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mebane ME, Benedetti M, Barni D, Francescato D. Promoting climate change awareness with high school students for a sustainable community. Sustainability. 2023;15:11260. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Panno A, De Cristofaro V, Oliveti C, Carrus G, Donati MA. Personality and environmental outcomes: the role of moral anger in channeling climate change action and pro-environmental behavior. Analyses Social Issues Public Policy. 2021;21(1):853–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heimlich JE, Ardoin NM. Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: a literature review. Environ Educ Res. 2008;14,3:215–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802148881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jimenez MP, DeVille NV, Elliott EG, Schiff JE, Wilt GE, Hart JE, James P. Associations between nature exposure and health: a review of the evidence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:9:4790. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094790.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Norwood MF, Lakhani A, Maujean A, Zeeman H, Creux O, Kendall E. Brain activity, underlying mood, and the environment: a systematic review. J Environ Psychol. 2019;65:101321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosa CD, Collado S. Experiences in nature and environmental attitudes and behaviors: setting the ground for future research. Front Psychol. 2019;10:763. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00763.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. White MP, Alcock I, Grellier J, Wheeler BW, Hartig T, Warber SL, Fleming LE. Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and well-being. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sánchez-Ruiz MJ, Hernández-Torrano D, Pérez-González JC, Batey M, Petrides KV. The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and creativity across subject domains. Motivation Emot. 2011;35:461–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9227-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mayer FS, Frantz CMP. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24:4:503–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Perkins HE. Measuring love and care for nature. J Environ Psychol. 2010;30:4:455–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Perrin JL, Benassi VA. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of emotional connection to nature? J Environ Psychol. 2009;29:4:434–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Leopold A. A sand county almanac. New York: Oxford University Press. 1949/1987.

  41. Di Fabio A, Bucci O. Green positive guidance and green positive life counseling for decent work and decent lives: some empirical results. Front Psychol. 2016;7:261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00261.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Ottiger AS, Joseph S. From ego-centered to eco-centered: an investigation of the association between authenticity and ecological sensitivity. Person-Centered Experiential Psychotherapies. 2021;20(2):139–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2020.1846600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pasca L, Carrus G, Loureiro A, Navarro Ó, Panno A, Tapia Follen C, Aragonés JI. Connectedness and well-being in simulated nature. Appl Psychology: Health Well‐Being. 2022;14,2:397–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Petrides KV, Pe´rez-Gonza´lez JC, Furnham A. On the criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. Cogn Emot. 2007;21:26–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930601038912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Buonomo I, Fiorilli C, Benevene P. The impact of emotions and hedonic balance on teachers’ self-efficacy: testing the bouncing back effect of positive emotions. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1670. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01670.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Di Chiacchio C, De Stasio S, Fiorilli C. Examining how motivation toward science contributes to omitting behaviours in the Italian PISA 2006 sample. Learn Individual Differences. 2016;50:56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Farina E, Ornaghi V, Pepe A, Fiorilli C, Grazzani I. High school student burnout: is empathy a protective or risk factor? Front Psychol. 2020;11:897. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00897.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Ferrer-Cascales R, Albaladejo-Blázquez N, Sánchez-SanSegundo M, Portilla-Tamarit I, Lordan O, Ruiz-Robledillo N. Effectiveness of the TEI program for bullying and cyberbullying reduction and school climate improvement. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(4):580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040580.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Giancola M, Palmiero M, D’Amico S. Social sustainability in late adolescence: trait emotional intelligence mediates the impact of the dark triad on altruism and equity. Front Psychol. 2022;13:840113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840113.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Petrides KV. Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue). In Parker J, Saklofske D, Stough C, editors, Assessing emotional intelligence. Springer. 2009; 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_5.

  51. Di Fabio A, Palazzeschi L. Proprietà psicometriche del trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) nel contesto italiano [Psychometric properties of the trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) in the Italian context]. Giornale Italiano Di Ricerca E Applicazioni. 2011;4:327–36.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Di Fabio A. Green positive guidance and life counseling: new perspectives and first contribution to the Italian validation of the connectedness to Nature Scale. Couns Giornale Italiano Di Ricerca E Applicazioni. 2016;9:1.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Heath Y, Gifford R. Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: the case of belief in global climate change. Environ Behav. 2006;38:48–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505277998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hayes AF. Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monogr. 2018;85,1:4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. George D. SPSS for windows step by step: a simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update, 10/e. Pearson Education India; 2011.

  56. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40,3:879–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kaiser FG. A general measure of ecological behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1998;28:5:395–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01712.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kaiser FG, Oerke B, Bogner FX. Behavior-based environmental attitude: development of an instrument for adolescents. J Environ Psychol. 2007;27:242–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. MacKinnon DP, Krull JL, Lockwood CM. Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prev Sci. 2000;1:173–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Hayes AF. Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monogr. 2009;76:408–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Panno A, Carrus G, Maricchiolo F, Mannetti L. Cognitive reappraisal and pro-environmental behavior: the role of global climate change perception. Eur J Social Psychol. 2015;45:7:858–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Persson J. Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci. 2011;6:69–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Cabello R, Fernández-Berrocal P. Implicit theories and ability emotional intelligence. Front Psychol. 2015;6:700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Hagger-Johnson G, Carr E, Murray E, Stansfeld S, Shelton N, Stafford M, Head J. Association between midlife health behaviours and transitions out of employment from midlife to early old age: Whitehall II cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3970-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Bhullar N, Rooke SE. A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Pers Indiv Differ. 2007;42,6:921–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Robinson AC, Downey LA, Ford TC, Lomas JE, Stough C. Green teens: investigating the role of emotional intelligence in adolescent environmentalism. Pers Indiv Differ. 2019;138:225–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Whitburn J, Linklater W, Abrahamse W. Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and pro-environmental behavior. Conserv Biol. 2020;34,1:180–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Keller KA, Durante K, Foltin E, Cerreta AJ. Nannizziopsis Guarroi has prolonged environmental persistence on clinically relevant substrates. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2023;261:S109–13. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.22.12.0575.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Vesely S, Klöckner CA. Social desirability in environmental psychology research: three meta-analyses. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01395.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Alwin DF. Margins of error: a study of reliability in survey measurement. Wiley; 2007.

  71. Pankowska P, Bakker B, Oberski D, Pavlopoulos D. Dependent interviewing: a remedy or a curse for measurement error in surveys? Surv Res Methods. 2021;15(2):135–46. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2021.v15i2.7640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Klein SA, Heck DW, Reese G, Hilbig BE. On the relationship between openness to experience, political orientation, and pro-environmental behavior. Pers Indiv Differ. 2019;138:344–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Gregersen T, Doran R, Böhm G, Tvinnereim E, Poortinga W. Political orientation moderates the relationship between climate change beliefs and worry about climate change. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1573. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01573.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Carrus G, Panno A, Leone L. The moderating role of interest in politics on the relations between conservative political orientation and denial of climate change. Soc Nat Resour. 2018;31:10: 1103–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1463422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Yimam DA, Holvoet N. Unpacking the invisible complex realities: intersections of gender and marital status in determining the intrinsic vulnerability of smallholder farmers to climate change in Northwestern Ethiopia. Climate Dev. 2023;1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2023.2246038.

  76. Van Aelst K, Holvoet N. Intersections of gender and marital status in accessing climate change adaptation: evidence from rural Tanzania. World Dev. 2016;79:40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, Poloczanska, ES, Mintenbeck K, Tignor M, Alegría A, Okem A, Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Persson J. Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability Science. 2022; 6:69–82. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf

  78. Di Fabio A, Rosen MA. Accounting for individual differences in connectedness to nature: personality and gender differences. Sustainability. 2019; 11,6:1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061693.

  79. Costa J, Jung MF, Czerwinski M, Guimbretière F, Le T, Choudhury T. Regulating feelings during interpersonal conflicts by changing voice self-perception. Proceedings of the. 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2018; 631:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174205.

  80. Roczen N, Kaiser FG, Bogner FX, Wilson M. A competence model for environmental education. Environ Behav. 2014;46(8):972–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513492416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Aziz F, Md, Rami AA, Zaremohzzabieh Z, Ahrari S. Effects of emotions and ethics on pro-environmental behavior of university employees: a model based on the theory of planned behavior. Sustainability. 2021;13(13):7062. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have no funding to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Studies, Lumsa University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Vanessa Marchetti, Massimiliano Scopelliti, Giacomo Angelini, Elena Rinallo & Caterina Fiorilli

  2. Experimental and Applied Psychology Laboratory, Department of Human Studies, European University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Angelo Panno & Luciano Romano

  3. Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

    Daniela Barni

Authors
  1. Vanessa Marchetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angelo Panno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Massimiliano Scopelliti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luciano Romano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giacomo Angelini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elena Rinallo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Daniela Barni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Caterina Fiorilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.P., C.F., M.S., and V.M. conceptualized the study. A.P., C.F., L.R., M.S., and V.M. contributed to the study’s design and the data’s acquisition, analysis, and interpretation. G.A., L.R., and V.M. writing, A.P., C.F., D.B., E.R., G.A., M.S. review, and editing. C.F., G.A., L.R., and V.M. contributed to the latest revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Vanessa Marchetti or Angelo Panno.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in the study followed the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any authors. Participants gave informed consent to gather and process data voluntarily before participating in the study. The research project was approved by the Ethics Committee for Scientific Research (CERS) of LUMSA University (protocol code 4/2023 and date of approval 02/05/2023).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marchetti, V., Panno, A., Scopelliti, M. et al. Trait emotional intelligence and ecological outcomes: the role of connectedness to nature. BMC Psychol 12, 201 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01679-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01679-9

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us