Research

INTRODUCTION

Throughout history, societies have faced various environmental challenges; however, environmental problems have become more pronounced and widespread, particularly since the onset of industrialization (Dunlap and Jorgenson 2012, Pavani et al. 2023). In recent years, rapid advancements in mass communication technologies have made it easier for broader audiences to become aware of environmental issues, thereby positioning these problems as urgent topics that must be addressed across all disciplines (Hicks et al. 2010). The increasing interdependence at the global level has expanded individuals’ access to information and transnational interactions, thereby broadening the scope of personal responsibility in responding to global environmental issues (Micheletti and Stolle 2012, Ng and Basu 2019, Ágoston et al. 2024). This transformation has not only heightened awareness of global environmental problems but also fostered the rise of global citizenship values—embracing cultural diversity, promoting social justice and sustainability, and encouraging action to make the world a more livable place (Reysen et al. 2012). Global citizenship is a normative, values-based approach that emphasizes individuals’ identification as members of a global community, their commitment to human rights, social justice, cultural diversity, and sustainability, and their willingness to assume ethical responsibilities accordingly (Schattle 2009, Reysen and Katzarska-Miller 2013). In this context, global citizenship can be understood as a mindset in which individuals act with a sense of identity, belonging, and ethical responsibility. On the other hand, the concept of global literacy refers to the cognitive and functional competencies that enable individuals to analyze and evaluate global developments from political, ecological, and economic perspectives, access and categorize global information, use it effectively, and understand and interpret the power and influence of information technologies and mass media (Robin 2006, Çakmak et al. 2017, Bulut and Öksüzoğlu 2021, 2025). In addition, global literacy encompasses individuals’ competencies in engaging in intercultural communication and taking transformative action for social and environmental justice (Nair et al. 2012, Kerkhoff and Spires 2023). In this regard, whereas global citizenship is rooted in a values- and identity-based perspective, global literacy is considered a cognitive prerequisite that supports the development of this perspective and enables individuals to function effectively as global citizens (Pratama et al. 2024). Therefore, these two concepts are not entirely separate; rather, they are interconnected, mutually reinforcing, and complementary components.

Today, nearly every domain of knowledge has begun to incorporate an environmental dimension (Bell and Ashwood 2016). Globally literate individuals actively follow global developments and have continuous access to new information and news, particularly concerning environmental issues and climate change (Zhang et al. 2010). Studies in this area have shown that increased information flow related to the environment and climate enhances individuals’ interest in the topic, raises their levels of future-oriented anxiety, and strengthens their inclination to reflect on possible solutions (Maran and Begotti 2021, Shao and Yu 2023, Bonello and Lauri 2024). Especially with the influence of communication technologies, immediate and globally disseminated environmental developments contribute to heightened concerns among individuals about both their personal futures and the future of the planet (Bonello and Lauri 2024). In this context, individuals with global literacy who closely follow global events and current developments tend to evaluate climate change and the risks it poses more seriously (Loy et al. 2022, Chung and Milkoreit 2023), and this heightened awareness is associated with increased levels of anxiety (Devine-Wright et al. 2015, Kim et al. 2021). The literature suggests that the concept of global identity extends beyond concern for the self, encompassing heightened worry for the well-being of others and the planet (Pong and Tam 2023). Similarly, global citizenship is closely linked to individuals’ sense of responsibility and concern for both society and nature (Schattle 2009). Although the literature includes various emotional responses to environmental issues, one of the most widely recognized concepts is “eco-anxiety” (Hogg et al. 2021, Boluda-Verdú et al. 2022, Pavani et al. 2023, Ágoston et al. 2024).

In the literature, eco-anxiety is defined as a fear-related psychological state associated with negative environmental information and linked to the psychological impacts of climate change and environmental problems on individuals (Clayton 2020, Pihkala 2020, Boluda-Verdu et al. 2022). The American Psychological Association (APA) describes this phenomenon as the “chronic fear of environmental doom” (Clayton et al. 2017) and classifies it among the common anxiety disorders related to environmental disasters and climate crises (Foster 2022). The rapid and widespread flow of information enabled by communication technologies has made it easier than ever for individuals to access news and data about climate change and environmental issues, and this ease of access is considered a significant factor in the growing prevalence of eco-anxiety (Clayton 2020). However, eco-anxiety is not solely triggered by exposure to environmental information or media content; it also stems from individuals’ lived environmental experiences and traumas. In particular, studies have shown that local communities directly experiencing the effects of climate change exhibit both higher levels of environmental concern and stronger tendencies toward pro-environmental behavior (Sattler et al. 2021, Ágoston et al. 2024, Bakul et al. 2025). This phenomenon has sparked growing interest in the potential role of localized environmental behaviors in climate change adaptation processes (Lazrus 2012). Indeed, the traditional ecological knowledge held by Indigenous peoples is increasingly recognized as a valuable resource for developing effective, community-level responses to climate change (Ramos-Castillo et al. 2017, Mubiru et al. 2018, Peltonen-Sainio et al. 2020). However, the underlying assumption here is that eco-anxiety is shaped not only by firsthand experiences of environmental disasters but also through exposure to climate-related knowledge, media content, and public discourse (Schwartz et al. 2023, Bonello and Lauri 2024). Similarly, a study conducted by Asgarizadeh et al. (2023) identified individuals’ level of knowledge about climate change and their exposure to media content as among the most significant predictors of climate-related anxiety.

The literature suggests that, although eco-anxiety can serve as a motivational source that encourages environmental action, in some cases it may lead to a condition known as “eco-paralysis,” which inhibits individual behavior (Pihkala 2020, Innocenti et al. 2023, Sampaio et al. 2023). For example, Andrews and Hoggett (2019) classify eco-anxiety into two primary forms: “practical eco-anxiety” and “paralyzing eco-anxiety.” Practical eco-anxiety is characterized by self-reflection and responsible concern, manifesting in behaviors such as seeking environmental knowledge, engaging in emotional regulation, and forming a connection with nature—thus supporting pro-environmental actions. In contrast, paralyzing eco-anxiety is defined by defensive or withdrawal-oriented reactions triggered by fear, sadness, and grief, which are ecologically maladaptive responses. Nonetheless, anxiety is often described as an adaptive psychological mechanism that prompts individuals to take action in order to maintain their safety (Duplaga and Grysztar 2021). Although some studies suggest that eco-anxiety may have either negative or neutral effects on pro-environmental behaviors (Clayton and Karazsia 2020, Geiger et al. 2021, Stanley et al. 2021, Heeren et al. 2022, Innocenti et al. 2023), the dominant view in the literature is that eco-anxiety serves as a practical motivational force that positively influences such behaviors (Verplanken and Roy 2013, Verplanken et al. 2020, Gao et al. 2021, Wullenkord et al. 2021, Hurst and Sintov 2022, Ogunbode et al. 2022, Whitmarsh et al. 2022, Lutz et al. 2023, Mathers-Jones and Todd 2023, Pavani et al. 2023, Türkarslan et al. 2023, Ágoston et al. 2024, Antrican 2024, Bonello and Lauri 2024, Hogg et al. 2024, Kühner et al. 2024, Parmentier et al. 2024, Vecina et al. 2024, Yusof et al. 2024, Bakul et al. 2025).

In the literature, pro-environmental behavior is defined as a set of deliberate choices and actions undertaken by individuals to reduce their negative impact on the natural environment (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002, Steg and Vlek 2009, Li et al. 2019, Mónus, 2021, Lange 2022). Such behaviors are typically manifested in the incorporation of environmentally conscious attitudes into everyday practices and are regarded as foundational components of global efforts toward sustainability. The United Nations has issued a strong call for global environmental protection, urging the international community to assume collective responsibility for safeguarding environmental well-being (Yusliza et al. 2020). In particular, the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals emphasize the promotion of environmentally responsible individual behaviors, and both educational policies and community-based initiatives have been supported in this direction (United Nations 2025). As a result of these efforts, many national and international organizations have focused on developing sustainability strategies aimed at encouraging pro-environmental behaviors among individuals (Ruiz-Mallén and Heras 2020, Bertossi and Marangon 2022). Reflecting these global efforts, pro-environmental behavior has increasingly become a priority area of investigation in academic research on environmental sustainability (Blok et al. 2015, Lu et al. 2023). Strong scientific evidence indicating that environmental problems—particularly global warming and climate change—are fundamentally driven by human behavior has rendered the promotion of pro-environmental actions a critical necessity for environmental recovery (Tian and Liu 2022, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2023). Moreover, the growing awareness that future generations will be disproportionately affected by environmental challenges further underscores the importance of fostering pro-environmental behavior among individuals (Vicente-Molina et al. 2013).

In line with the literature discussed above, this study hypothesizes positive relationships among global literacy, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behaviors and further posits that eco-anxiety plays a significant mediating role in the relationship between global literacy and pro-environmental behavior. This conceptual framework aligns with the classic “knowledge–attitude–behavior” model proposed by Borden and Schettino (1979), which has inspired numerous studies in the field of environmental education. According to this model, individuals’ levels of environmental knowledge shape their environmental attitudes, which in turn lead to pro-environmental behaviors (Ágoston et al. 2024). Similarly, the study by Liu et al. (2020) demonstrated that environmental knowledge has a significant and positive effect on environmental attitudes, these attitudes influence behavioral intentions, and such intentions ultimately promote pro-environmental behaviors. Therefore, global literacy is understood not only as a factor influencing eco-anxiety but also as a key antecedent variable in the emergence of pro-environmental behaviors.

Theoretical background

The relationship between global literacy and pro-environmental behaviors

As the concept of global literacy is relatively new in the literature, studies that directly examine its relationship with contemporary issues such as pro-environmental behavior remain limited. However, several studies have identified positive associations between pro-environmental behaviors and closely related constructs such as global citizenship (Wynveen et al. 2012, Reysen and Katzarska-Miller 2013, Çermik 2015, Assis et al. 2017, Woosnam et al. 2019, Janmaimool and Khajohnmanee 2020, Öksüzoğlu 2022), global identity (Der-Karabetian et al. 2014, 2018, Renger and Reese 2017, Loy and Reese 2019, Ng and Basu 2019, Kim et al. 2021, Pong and Tam 2023), and cosmopolitan orientation (Grinstein and Riefler 2015, Leung et al. 2015).

For instance, Janmaimool and Khajohnmanee (2020) found that global citizenship significantly influences pro-environmental behaviors by enhancing individuals’ sense of responsibility. Similarly, Assis et al. (2017) reported a positive relationship between individuals’ global citizenship identity and their motivation to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Loy and Reese (2019) also demonstrated that individuals with a strong global identity are more inclined to adopt pro-environmental behaviors. Liu et al. (2020, 2021) emphasized that environmental knowledge is a significant predictor of such behaviors. Wong-Parodi and Berlin Rubin (2022) noted that individuals’ experiences and perceptions related to climate change shape their perspectives on global issues, which in turn influence pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. A systematic review by Pong and Tam (2023) further confirmed the positive relationship between global identity and engagement in environmental issues. Likewise, Zeng et al. (2023) highlighted the critical role of global identity in fostering pro-environmental behaviors.

A field study conducted by Robina-Ramírez et al. (2020) demonstrated that sustainability education enhances environmental awareness, which in turn positively influences environmentally conscious behaviors among adolescents. Indeed, according to Chan and Lau (2000), individuals’ ecological behavior largely depends on their environmental knowledge and behavioral intentions. Today, the increased accessibility of environmental information via social media has heightened public interest in these issues, facilitated the formation of online environmental communities, and encouraged participation in pro-environmental behaviors (Xu and Han 2019). Similarly, a study by Han and Cheng (2020) found a positive correlation between media use, environmental knowledge acquisition, and pro-environmental behavior. Yusof et al. (2024) also identified environmental knowledge and the influence of social media as among the strongest predictors of pro-environmental behavior. Xu and Han (2019) further noted that individuals with environmental knowledge are more likely to perceive environmental threats clearly and to engage in environmental protection activities. Along the same lines, Sattler et al. (2021) found that personal experiences with climate change, individual values, climate-related knowledge, and risk perceptions collectively predict intentions to engage in climate change-related behaviors.

In light of all these findings, it is expected that as individuals’ knowledge and awareness of global environmental issues increase, so too will the likelihood of engaging in pro-environmental behaviors. Global literacy, as a competency that facilitates access to and evaluation of global environmental information and supports the development of a global citizenship identity, may serve as a critical factor in promoting participation in pro-environmental actions. Accordingly, the first hypothesis of this study is formulated as follows:

H₁: Global literacy has a positive effect on pro-environmental behavior.

The relationship between global literacy and eco-anxiety

The literature indicates that globally literate individuals actively follow current developments around the world, regularly access information and news related to global crises—particularly climate change—and tend to evaluate the risks posed by such crises more critically and seriously (Zhang et al. 2010, Loy et al. 2022, Chung and Milkoreit 2023). This heightened awareness and sensitivity toward global issues may foster a sense of responsibility and moral obligation to take action for a more livable planet (Reysen et al. 2012). However, this sense of responsibility can also create psychological pressure, leading individuals to feel compelled to respond to environmental threats, which in turn may elevate their levels of eco-anxiety (Devine-Wright et al. 2015, Kim et al. 2021).

Supporting this perspective, Ramírez-López et al. (2023) found that individuals who spend more time reading news websites and possess greater knowledge about climate change tend to report higher levels of climate-related anxiety. Similarly, other studies have shown that increased exposure to environmental content in the media can intensify individuals’ negative emotions and psychological distress (Stokols et al. 2009, Houston et al. 2018, Lukacs et al. 2023, Shao and Yu 2023). Eco-anxiety, fueled by a constant stream of distressing news about climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation, has also been linked to a reduced tolerance for uncertainty (Jalin et al. 2025).

In line with these findings, numerous studies have reported positive relationships between global citizenship, global identity, and concerns about global issues (Buchan et al. 2011, Contorno 2012, Devine-Wright et al. 2015, Kim et al. 2021, Loy et al. 2022, Öksüzoğlu 2022, Casmana et al. 2023, Chung and Milkoreit 2023). Individuals equipped with global literacy—the competence to critically analyze and understand global events and issues—are more likely to encounter or actively seek content related to environmental degradation and climate change (Bulut and Öksüzoğlu 2023). Consequently, frequent exposure to such content may serve as a significant predictor of elevated eco-anxiety. Based on this reasoning, the second hypothesis of the study is proposed as follows:

H₂: Global literacy has a positive effect on eco-anxiety.

The mediating role of eco-anxiety

Another aim of this study is to examine the potential mediating role of eco-anxiety in the relationship between global literacy and pro-environmental behavior. In recent years, the concept of eco-anxiety has gained prominence in the literature, particularly in studies addressing global environmental issues and climate change. An increasing number of studies suggest that eco-anxiety may serve as a psychological motivator that encourages individuals to engage in behaviors aimed at mitigating environmental problems (van Zomeren et al. 2010, Verplanken and Roy 2013, Tannenbaum et al. 2015, Verplanken et al. 2020, Gao et al. 2021, Ojala et al. 2021, Wullenkord et al. 2021, Heeren et al. 2022, Hurst and Sintov 2022, Ogunbode et al. 2022, Whitmarsh et al. 2022, Innocenti et al. 2023, Lutz et al. 2023, Mathers-Jones and Todd 2023, Türkarslan et al. 2023, Hogg et al. 2024).

For example, Bouman et al. (2020) found that concerns about climate change play a significant role in motivating individuals to support specific climate policies and adopt personal behaviors aimed at mitigating the effects of climate change. Similarly, Kühner et al. (2024), based on data from 1355 participants in Germany, identified a weak but positive relationship between climate change anxiety and pro-environmental behavior. Eco-anxiety may function as an emotional alarm by heightening individuals’ sensitivity to ecological threats and activating the cognitive engagement and motivation necessary to confront these challenges (Kurth and Pihkala 2022). In this context, anxiety can encourage problem-focused coping strategies and motivate individuals to take concrete actions to alleviate their distress (Ojala et al. 2021). Kurth and Pihkala (2022) argue that rather than viewing eco-anxiety merely as a defensive reaction, it should be seen as a meaningful way of relating to environmental issues. Stanley et al. (2021) also define anxiety as a mobilizing emotion that prompts individuals either to avoid perceived threats or to confront them, thereby conceptualizing the pathway from eco-anxiety to pro-environmental behavior. In this context, eco-anxiety may inspire individuals to adopt behaviors that support environmental sustainability and conservation (Hogg et al. 2021, Kurth and Pihkala 2022, Kabasakal-Cetin 2023).

Considering the evidence regarding the relationships among global literacy, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behavior, it is plausible to hypothesize that eco-anxiety may function as a mediating mechanism through which global literacy is translated into pro-environmental action. Therefore, the third and fourth hypotheses of this study are proposed as follows:

H₃: Eco-anxiety has a positive effect on pro-environmental behavior.
H₄: Eco-anxiety mediates the relationship between global literacy and pro-environmental behavior.

From an educational perspective, the relationship between humans and nature should be understood as encompassing all living beings, with nature regarded as an integral component of the life system rather than a passive object. A shift from an anthropocentric to an ecocentric worldview emphasizes the interdependence of human and non-human life forms and underscores the collective responsibility for a sustainable future. Establishing a respectful and balanced relationship between humans and the natural environment requires the promotion of eco-ethical values in education (Lecaros 2013, Torres and Bosio 2025). Teachers play a central role in this process as agents of social change and facilitators of critical and sustainability-oriented thinking (UNESCO 2005, 2014, 2024). Teacher education is often regarded as the “brain” of all educational disciplines, as it plays a central role in shaping the pedagogical competencies and values of future educators (Darji and Lang-Wojtasik 2014). In the context of environmental and sustainability education, there is a growing call for greater emphasis on teacher training and professional development (Saari et al. 2024, Bulut and Elci Oksuzoglu 2025). Understanding the interrelationships among global literacy, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behavior in pre-service teachers is critically important for informing future educational practices and for understanding how teachers can influence their students’ environmental awareness and actions. If pre-service teachers acquire a strong foundation in global awareness, environmental consciousness, and action-oriented competencies during their preparation, they are more likely to integrate these dimensions into their future curricula and classroom practices. This integration can, in turn, foster similar values and behaviors among their students. Empirical research on the transition from teacher education to professional practice emphasizes the critical role of initial teacher preparation in enabling the transfer of such knowledge, skills, beliefs, and experiences to school contexts (Bell and Robinson 2004).

Accordingly, the primary aim of this study is to examine the relationships among global literacy, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behavior among pre-service teachers through structural equation modeling. In doing so, the research seeks to contribute both at a theoretical level—by deepening our understanding of the psychological mechanisms linking global literacy to pro-environmental behavior—and at a practical level, by offering actionable insights to inform the design and development of teacher education programs. The central proposition of this study is that eco-anxiety may function as a mediating variable in the relationship between global literacy and pro-environmental behavior. The conceptual model developed in line with the existing literature is presented below.

METHOD

Research method/design

This study aims to investigate the direct impact of pre-service teachers’ global literacy levels on their environmental behaviors and their indirect impact through eco-anxiety (Fig. 1). For this purpose, the study employed a cross-sectional survey design, one of the quantitative research methods. A cross-sectional design is a type of survey research used to identify the current state of individuals’ attitudes, opinions, beliefs, behaviors, or practices at a specific point in time (Creswell 2019). In this study, global literacy was considered an exogenous latent variable, whereas eco-anxiety and environmental behavior were considered endogenous latent variables. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine the relationships between these variables. Structural equation modeling allows for the flexible testing of theoretically grounded hypotheses by analyzing variables—either observed or latent—as causes or outcomes (Kline 2015).

Population and sample

The population of this study consisted of all pre-service teachers enrolled in Faculties of Education across Turkey during the 2023–2024 academic year. According to official data from the Council of Higher Education (YÖK 2024), a total of 195,475 pre-service teachers were studying in the Faculties of Education at 93 universities nationwide during this period. The study sample comprised 660 volunteer pre-service teachers selected from among 2626 students enrolled in nine undergraduate programs at the Faculty of Education of a public university located in eastern Turkey. A convenience sampling method was employed, whereby individuals who were easily accessible to the researchers or within their immediate environment were included in the sample. This approach is commonly used in studies in which participation is voluntary (Gliner et al. 2023). Although this method, widely adopted in educational research, offers advantages in terms of cost and accessibility, it also presents limitations regarding the statistical representativeness of the population (Muijs 2004). According to Cohen et al. (2021:206), a minimum of 384 participants is sufficient to achieve a 95% confidence level with a 5% margin of error in large populations. The sample size of 660 in the present study exceeds this threshold, providing sufficient variation and statistical power for inferential analyses such as SEM. The demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1.

Data collection tools

The data collection tools were selected based on criteria such as validity, reliability, acceptance in the literature, and suitability for the research questions. Accordingly, the study used the following tools: the “Environmental Behavior Scale,” the “Global Literacy Scale,” and the “Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS-13).” All instruments used in this study were self-report measures. Specifically, the HEAS-13 and Global Literacy scales assessed participants’ self-reported cognitions and emotions, whereas the Environmental Behavior Scale measured the self-reported frequency of pro-environmental behaviors rather than directly observed actions.

Environmental Behavior Scale

The Environmental Behavior Scale (Goldman et al. 2006), adapted into Turkish by Timur and Yılmaz (2013), consists of 20 items distributed across six subdimensions: resource-conserving actions with personal financial benefit (RAPFB), environmentally responsible consumerism (ERC), nature-related leisure activities (NRLA), recycling efforts (RE), citizenship action (CA), and environmental activism (EA). Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher mean scores reflecting more frequent pro-environmental behaviors. In the present study, internal consistency reliability for the total scale was excellent (α = 0.90).

Global Literacy Scale

The Global Literacy Scale (Bulut and Öksüzoğlu 2023) is a 21-item self-report instrument developed for pre-service teachers and designed to assess three subdimensions: global awareness (GAW), global attitude (GAT), and global participation (GP). Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher mean scores indicating higher levels of global literacy. In the present study, internal consistency reliability for the total scale was satisfactory (α = 0.82).

Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale

The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS-13) (Hogg et al. 2021), adapted into Turkish by Türkarslan et al. (2023), consists of 13 items distributed across four subdimensions: anxiety symptoms (AS), rumination (RM), behavioral symptoms (BS), and anxiety about one’s negative impact on the planet (ANI). Participants rated how often they experienced each aspect of eco-anxiety during the preceding 2 wks when thinking about climate change and other global environmental conditions, using a four-point frequency scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day)—with 1 (several days) and 2 (more than half the days) as intermediate anchors. Higher mean scores indicate greater levels of eco-anxiety. In the present study, internal consistency reliability for the total scale was excellent (α = 0.90).

Research process

Prior to data collection, approval was obtained from the Fırat University Ethics Committee for Social and Human Sciences Research. Throughout the research process, all procedures were carried out in accordance with the ethical standards established by the institutional research committee and the guidelines outlined in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent revisions. Following the receipt of the necessary permissions from the university administration, announcements were made to potential participants through the heads of each department. The planned sessions were conducted at designated times and locations with pre-service teachers who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. Accordingly, survey forms were distributed to participants, and the research data were collected. Participants were personally informed about the purpose and scope of the study and were assured that the data collected would be used solely for scientific purposes. To ensure anonymity and minimize potential bias, all identifying information was removed from the survey, and variable names were excluded (Podsakoff et al. 2003).

Data analysis

The fit between the theoretically constructed model and the data was evaluated using SEM with the maximum likelihood method. A path analysis based on the bootstrap method was performed to determine if the eco-anxiety variable mediated the relationship between global literacy and environmental behavior. SPSS Statistics 23 and Amos 23 programs were used for data analysis. Before the analyses, assumptions of univariate normality, multivariate normality, linear relationships between variables, and multicollinearity were tested (Leech et al. 2014). According to George and Mallery (2019:114), skewness and kurtosis values between ±1 are considered excellent, but values up to ±2 are acceptable for normal distribution. The skewness and kurtosis values of the data in this study ranged between ±2, indicating no significant deviation from normality. Furthermore, the assumption of multivariate normality was assessed by evaluating Mahalanobis distance, Cook’s distance, and leverage values together. Seçer (2015) states that Cook’s values approaching zero and leverage values of 0.05 or less indicate that the data exhibit normal distribution. The values in this study met the criteria for multivariate normality. Other assumptions checked included the absence of linear relationships between variables and multicollinearity. Correlations between variables ranged from 0.00 to 0.84, indicating no multicollinearity issues. To facilitate the interpretation of scale means, we pre-specified equal-interval, non-overlapping bands for the response scales. For five-point Likert-type measures (1-5), the following intervals were applied: 1.00–1.80 = strongly disagree; 1.81–2.60 = disagree; 2.61–3.40 = neutral; 3.41–4.20 = agree; and 4.21–5.00 = strongly agree. For the HEAS-13 frequency scale (0–3), the intervals were defined as follows: 0.00–0.49 = none/negligible; 0.50–1.49 = low (several days); 1.50–2.49 = moderate (more than half the days); and 2.50–3.00 = high (nearly every day). These bands were used solely as descriptive aids for interpreting group-level means and are not intended for individual-level classification or diagnostic inference. They were applied when interpreting the descriptive statistics presented in Table 2.

FINDINGS

This section presents the findings regarding the latent variables. Table 2 indicates the descriptive analysis results of the latent variables.

The data presented in Table 2 indicate that pre-service teachers’ total global literacy scores fall within the moderate-to-high range based on the predefined interpretive bands (X̄ = 3.69, SD = 0.56). Across subdimensions, pre-service teachers reported high global attitudes (X̄= 4.29, SD = 0.58), moderate-to-high global awareness (X̄= 3.74, SD = 0.63), and moderate global participation with high variability (X̄= 3.05, SD = 1.00). This variation in global participation suggests considerable interindividual heterogeneity in engagement with global practices. The total score on the HEAS-13 reflects a low frequency of eco-anxiety (X̄= 1.16, SD = 0.55), with all subdimensions remaining within this low-frequency band (AS = 1.30, SD = 0.65; RM = 1.05, SD = 0.67; BS = 1.11, SD = 0.74; ANI = 1.19, SD = 0.70). Pre-service teachers’ total environmental behavior scores were at a moderate level (X̄= 3.38, SD = 0.61). Subdimension patterns indicate relatively higher scores for resource-conserving and consumer behaviors (RAPFB = 3.87; ERC = 3.43), moderate levels for nature-related leisure and recycling practices (NRLA = 3.39; RE = 3.28), and lower-to-moderate levels for citizenship actions and environmental activism (CA = 3.10; EA = 3.20). Overall, the findings suggest that pre-service teachers reported (i) moderate-to-high global literacy, primarily characterized by strong attitudinal components; (ii) low-frequency eco-anxiety; and (iii) moderate pro-environmental behaviors, most evident in resource-saving and consumption-related practices.

Table 2 shows that the Cronbach’s alpha scores ranged from 0.65 to 0.90, which was considered acceptable (Nunnally 1978). The correlation coefficients between the variables ranged from -0.05 to 0.84. Accordingly, a weak positive correlation was identified between the participants’ global literacy levels and HEAS-13 (r = 0.17, p < 0.01), rumination (r = 0.25, p < 0.01), and anxiety about one’s negative impact on the planet (r = 0.17, p < 0.01). However, no significant correlation was found between global literacy levels and anxiety symptoms or behavioral symptoms.

There was a moderate positive correlation between the participants’ global literacy levels and their environmental behavior (r = 0.46, p < 0.01), nature-related leisure activities (r = 0.39, p < 0.01), recycling efforts (r = 0.38, p < 0.01), responsible consumerism (r = 0.42, p < 0.01), and environmental activism (r = 0.38, p < 0.01). A low positive correlation was found between global literacy levels and resource-conserving actions with personal financial benefit (r = 0.12, p < 0.01).

On the other hand, a weak positive correlation was found between Hogg anxiety and environmental behavior (r = 0.20, p < 0.01), nature-related leisure activities (r = 0.20, p < 0.01), recycling efforts (r = 0.13, p < 0.01), citizenship action (r = 0.21, p < 0.01), and environmental activism (r = 0.22, p < 0.01). However, no significant correlation was found between Hogg anxiety and resource-conserving actions with personal financial benefit or environmentally responsible consumerism.

Before moving on to the structural equation model, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine the measurement model. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis and fit indices for all scales are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 indicates that the fit index values for the Environmental Behavior Scale’s IFI and CFI were slightly below the acceptable fit values (0.01). However, the fit index values for the three scales were generally at acceptable and excellent levels. After confirming the model, the hypotheses were tested using the structural model. The SEM of the study and its standardized coefficients are presented in Fig. 2 and summarized in Table 4.

The results (Table 4) indicated that global literacy significantly predicted environmental behavior (β = 0.56; p < 0.01), thus supporting H₁. Also, the mediation structural model analysis revealed that global literacy significantly predicted Hogg anxiety (β = 0.15; p < 0.01), supporting H₂ (global literacy→Hogg anxiety). Similarly, the effect of the mediator variable, Hogg anxiety, on environmental behavior was significant (β = 0.17; p < 0.01), supporting H₃ (Hogg anxiety→environmental behavior). With the inclusion of Hogg anxiety as a mediator, the path coefficient from global literacy to environmental behavior remained significant. Global literacy explained 2% of the variance in Hogg anxiety, and together with Hogg anxiety, it explained 37% of the variance in environmental behavior. The fit indices obtained from the path analysis were within the acceptable threshold values. Accordingly, it was concluded that the model was compatible and acceptable (χ²/df = 2.002, RMSEA = 0.039, SRMR = 0.062, GFI = 0.86, AGFI = 0.85, IFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.90).

To test whether eco-anxiety mediated the relationship between global literacy and environmental behavior, a path analysis based on the bootstrap method was conducted. In the bootstrap analysis, the option of 5000 resamples was chosen. To support the research hypothesis in mediation effect analyses using the bootstrap technique, the 95% confidence interval values derived from the analysis must exclude the value of zero (Gürbüz 2019). The bootstrap results revealed that the indirect effect of global literacy on environmental behavior through Hogg anxiety was significant (β = 0.024, 95% CI [0.004, 0.046]). The lower and upper confidence interval values did not include zero. These results indicated that the Hogg anxiety had a partial mediating effect on the relationship between global literacy and environmental behavior. Thus, H₄ (global literacy→Hogg anxiety→environmental behavior) was supported.

DISCUSSION

In today’s world, reflecting on and discussing the causes and consequences of global environmental issues—particularly global warming and climate change—have become increasingly inevitable. With the influence of information and communication technologies, understanding how young individuals’ growing knowledge and awareness of these issues affect their psychological attitudes and behaviors has gained greater importance. In this context, the present study aimed to examine both the direct effect of pre-service teachers’ global literacy levels on their pro-environmental behaviors and the indirect effect mediated by eco-anxiety. The findings revealed that global literacy has a significant and positive direct effect on pre-service teachers’ environmental behaviors and that eco-anxiety plays a partial mediating role in this relationship. Specifically, it was found that global literacy explained 2% of the variance in eco-anxiety and 37% of the variance in pro-environmental behavior. These results highlight the mediating role of eco-anxiety and the relative strength of global literacy’s influence on environmental behavior, thereby offering a significant contribution to the growing body of literature on global literacy and environmental engagement.

One of the key findings of this study is that global literacy has a significant and positive effect on pro-environmental behavior. Although previous studies have examined the relationship between pro-environmental behavior and variables closely associated with global literacy—such as global citizenship (Wynveen et al. 2012, Reysen and Katzarska-Miller 2013, Çermik 2015, Assis et al. 2017, Woosnam et al. 2019, Janmaimool and Khajohnmanee 2020, Öksüzoğlu 2022), global identity (Der-Karabetian et al. 2014, 2018, Renger and Reese 2017, Loy and Reese 2019, Ng and Basu 2019, Kim et al. 2021, Pong and Tam 2023, Zeng et al. 2023), and cosmopolitan orientation (Grinstein and Riefler 2015, Leung et al. 2015)—this study addresses a notable gap in the literature by directly linking global literacy to pro-environmental behavior. The findings align with previous studies showing that a stronger sense of global identity and global responsibility enhances individuals’ engagement in sustainable practices (Ng and Basu 2019, Woosnam et al. 2019). In this context, pre-service teachers with higher levels of global literacy may be more inclined to view environmental issues from a shared global perspective and to experience a stronger sense of personal responsibility, which may support the adoption of pro-environmental behaviors in daily life. This interpretation is consistent with the value–belief–norm (VBN) theory in terms of personal norms: within the VBN model, values and beliefs activate personal pro-environmental norms, which in turn guide behavior (Stern et al. 1999). Moreover, the observed effect size—indicating that global literacy accounts for up to 37% of the variance in pro-environmental behavior—suggests that educational programs aimed at enhancing global competencies could serve as an effective intervention tool in support of sustainability goals.

Another noteworthy finding is that, despite the relatively small amount of explained variance (2%), global literacy has a significant and positive effect on eco-anxiety. This result is consistent with previous research showing that individuals who develop a strong global identity tend to perceive climate change and other global risks as more serious threats and, consequently, report higher levels of anxiety (Zhang et al. 2010, Buchan et al. 2011, Devine-Wright et al. 2015, Kim et al. 2021, Loy et al. 2022, Chung and Milkoreit 2023). It also aligns with studies indicating that individuals who possess greater knowledge about global issues tend to experience higher levels of concern regarding environmental problems (Houston et al. 2018, Maran and Begotti 2021, Öksüzoğlu 2022, Casmana et al. 2023, Lukacs et al. 2023, Ramírez-López et al. 2023, Shao and Yu 2023, Bonello and Lauri 2024). The small effect size observed in this study suggests that, although global literacy may enhance environmental awareness, other psychological, social, or contextual factors may play a more decisive role in the development of eco-anxiety. Nevertheless, considering that even small effect sizes in psychological research can lead to meaningful differences in real-world contexts (Greenwald et al. 2015), the potential impact of global literacy should not be overlooked. Indeed, it may be argued that global literacy contributes to the development of cognitive sensitivity to environmental threats without necessarily inducing severe emotional distress in individuals.

Furthermore, the findings demonstrate—consistent with previous research—that eco-anxiety positively predicts pro-environmental behavior (Verplanken and Roy 2013, Tannenbaum et al. 2015, Verplanken et al. 2020, Gao et al. 2021, Ojala et al. 2021, Wullenkord et al. 2021, Heeren et al. 2022, Hurst and Sintov 2022, Ogunbode et al. 2022, Whitmarsh et al. 2022, Innocenti et al. 2023, Lutz et al. 2023, Mathers-Jones and Todd 2023, Pavani et al. 2023, Türkarslan et al. 2023, Ágoston et al. 2024, Antrican 2024, Bonello and Lauri 2024, Hogg et al. 2024, Kühner et al. 2024, Parmentier et al. 2024, Vecina et al. 2024, Yusof et al. 2024, Bakul et al. 2025). This positive influence of eco-anxiety on environmental behavior can be explained by its function as a constructive alarm mechanism, which increases individuals’ cognitive sensitivity to environmental threats and activates problem-focused coping strategies (Verplanken et al. 2020, Kurth and Pihkala 2022). In this context, it is suggested that eco-anxiety may motivate individuals to engage in actions—such as reducing their carbon footprint, participating in environmental volunteer activities, and adopting sustainable lifestyles—by increasing their sensitivity to environmental issues (Clayton and Karazsia 2020, Hogg et al. 2021, Ojala et al. 2021). Moreover, individuals experiencing higher levels of eco-anxiety at a given point in time have been found to be more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors in subsequent periods compared with those with lower levels of eco-anxiety (Pavani et al. 2023). On the other hand, the literature also emphasizes that eco-anxiety may, in some cases, have a paralyzing effect on individuals, where excessive anxiety can lead to feelings of hopelessness and the adoption of avoidance strategies (Clayton and Karazsia 2020, Stanley et al. 2021, Heeren et al. 2022). In such cases, individuals may perceive environmental threats as overwhelmingly severe and exhibit tendencies to mentally disengage from environmental issues, avoid related news, or withdraw entirely from environmental action (Bakul et al. 2025). Therefore, eco-anxiety has the potential to serve both as a constructive source of motivation and, when excessive, as a risk factor that may lead to behavioral paralysis. Given that participants in this study reported low levels of eco-anxiety, this finding may partly explain the positive association observed between eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behavior in the model, suggesting that participants’ eco-anxiety levels remained below paralyzing thresholds. Accordingly, it is plausible that a non-linear relationship exists, whereby low-to-moderate levels of eco-anxiety may motivate action, yet very high levels may inhibit it. Future research could empirically test this possibility using non-linear modeling approaches—such as segmented or change-point analyses (Muggeo 2003, 2008, Killick et al. 2012)—and adopting longitudinal designs to examine whether individuals exhibit behavioral withdrawal or reduction once a potential threshold is surpassed.

Another noteworthy finding of this study is the partial mediating role of eco-anxiety in the relationship between global literacy and pro-environmental behavior. This result is consistent with the systematic review by Pong and Tam (2023), which showed that individuals with a strong global identity are more likely to experience higher levels of eco-anxiety and, consequently, to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. The observed partial mediation effect indicates that global literacy influences environmental behavior not only directly but also indirectly through emotional processes such as eco-anxiety. This finding is significant in that it suggests enhancing global literacy may not only increase individuals’ levels of eco-anxiety but also strengthen their capacity to transform this anxiety into functional and constructive environmental action. However, the relatively low percentage of variance explained in eco-anxiety indicates that the mediation effect is limited, and the findings should be interpreted with caution. As emphasized in the literature, the transformation of eco-anxiety into a functional source of motivation depends on individuals’ access to psychological resources such as hope and self-efficacy in the face of environmental challenges (Geiger et al. 2021, Sangervo et al. 2022, Innocenti et al. 2023, Betrò 2024, Yusof et al. 2024). In this regard, future research is encouraged to explore the relationships among global literacy, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behavior through more comprehensive structural models that incorporate positive psychosocial variables such as hope and self-efficacy.

Limitations and future research

Although this study provides important findings regarding the relationships among global literacy, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behavior in pre-service teachers, it is not without limitations. First, the data were collected from pre-service teachers at a single public university using a convenience sampling method. Although this approach was adopted for practical and accessibility reasons and offers advantages in terms of feasibility and cost, it limits the generalizability of the findings to the broader population of pre-service teachers in Turkey. Future studies could improve generalizability by employing random or stratified sampling techniques and recruiting representative samples of pre-service teachers from multiple universities and regions. Second, the sample consists exclusively of pre-service teachers, the majority of whom are female. This limits the generalizability of the findings to other age groups, professional backgrounds, or populations with different gender distributions. Although this study was interpreted under the assumption that pre-service teachers’ individual patterns of anxiety and behavior may influence their future professional intentions and practices—thereby offering insights into potential professional tendencies—no direct data on professional intentions were collected. Consequently, the findings are partially limited to the individual level. Future research should include measures assessing the intention to integrate eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviors into teaching practices. However, previous studies have shown that eco-anxiety and climate-related concerns tend to be more pronounced among younger individuals (Clayton and Karazsia 2020, Hickman et al. 2021, Whitmarsh et al. 2022) and women (Searle and Gow 2010), which makes the sample selection both meaningful and valuable in this context. Third, the data were based on self-reported measures. Although self-reports are appropriate for assessing inherently subjective constructs such as eco-anxiety, future research could benefit from more objective assessments of pro-environmental behavior. These may include field observations, informant reports (e.g., from spouses or friends), trained observer ratings, device-based measurements (e.g., household electricity, gas, and water consumption), and controlled laboratory observations (Kormos and Gifford 2014, Lange and Dewitte 2019). Fourth, the cross-sectional design of this study limits the ability to draw directional or causal inferences between variables. Future research employing longitudinal or experimental designs would allow for a more robust examination of causal pathways. Therefore, future studies are encouraged to employ experimental and longitudinal designs to more robustly examine the temporal and causal dynamics among global literacy, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behavior. Fifth, this study employed structural equation modeling. In future research, the use of qualitative methods or mixed-methods designs may be beneficial for gaining a deeper understanding of the relationships among global literacy, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behavior. Such an approach would be particularly valuable for exploring the diversity of individuals’ eco-anxiety experiences and for understanding how these emotional processes are transformed into environmental action. Sixth, future studies could make significant contributions to the literature by testing more complex structural models that incorporate mediating or moderating variables such as hope, climate optimism, and psychological resilience in the relationships between global literacy, eco-anxiety, and pro-environmental behavior. Lastly, this study was conducted within a single cultural context, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Future cross-cultural comparative studies conducted with samples from countries that are affected by global environmental issues to varying degrees could offer more comprehensive and generalizable insights by revealing both the similarities and differences in the relationships among variables across different contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers important theoretical and practical contributions to teacher education and sustainability policies by demonstrating both the direct effect of global literacy on pre-service teachers’ pro-environmental behavior and its indirect effect through eco-anxiety. The findings show that global literacy not only enhances individuals’ knowledge but also strengthens behavioral engagement through emotional processes such as eco-anxiety. In other words, increased awareness and understanding of global issues among pre-service teachers elevate their environmental concerns, thereby encouraging more conscious and sustainable behaviors. This finding underscores the need to integrate global literacy into the content of teacher education programs. Prioritizing the development of global literacy skills among pre-service teachers, educators, and policy makers can not only support pro-environmental behavior at the individual level but also help cultivate a generation equipped with a vision for a sustainable future. In this regard, educational interventions aimed at enhancing global literacy may play a critical role in achieving broader environmental sustainability goals.

LITERATURE CITED

Ágoston, C., Á. Buvár, A. Dúll, Z. Á. Szabó, and A. Varga. 2024. Complex pathways from nature relatedness and knowledge to pro-environmental behavior through eco-emotions. Journal of Cleaner Production 468:143037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143037

Andrews, N., and P. Hoggett. 2019. Facing up to ecological crisis: a psychosocial perspective from climate psychology. Pages 155-171 in J. Foster, editor. Facing up to climate reality: honesty, disaster and hope. Green House/London Publishing Partnership, London, UK..

Antrican, H. 2024. Eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviors in college students. Thesis, Honors College, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA.

Asgarizadeh, Z., R. Gifford, and L. Colborne. 2023. Predicting climate change anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology 90:102087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102087

Assis, N., S. Reysen, and I. Katzarska-Miller. 2017. Being global is being green: associations between global citizenship identification and measures of environmental motivations and attitudes. International Journal of Energy Policy and Management 2(3):13-19.

Bakul, F., E. Z. Heanoy, A. D. Antu, F. Khandakar, and S. Ahmed. 2025. Assessing the relationship between climate change anxiety, ecological coping, and pro-environmental behavior: evidence from Gen Z Bangladeshis. Acta Psychologica 254:104847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104847

Bell, C. L., and N. G. Robinson. 2004. The successful student-teaching experience: thoughts from the ivory tower. Music Educators Journal 91(1):39-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3400104

Bell, M., and L. Ashwood. 2016. An invitation to environmental sociology. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Bertossi, A., and F. Marangon. 2022. A literature review on the strategies implemented by higher education institutions from 2010 to 2020 to foster pro-environmental behavior of students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 23(3):522-547. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2020-0459

Betrò, S. 2024. From eco-anxiety to eco-hope: surviving the climate change threat. Frontiers in Psychiatry 15:1429571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1429571

Blok, V., R. Wesselink, O. Studynka, and R. Kemp. 2015. Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: a survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production 106:55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.063

Boluda-Verdú, I., M. Senent-Valero, M. Casas-Escolano, A. Matijasevich, and M. Pastor-Valero. 2022. Fear for the future: eco-anxiety and health implications, a systematic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology 84:101904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101904

Bonello, C., and M.-A. Lauri. 2024. An exploration of eco-anxiety and environmental engagement in Malta. Pages 255-268 in C. Pracana and M. Wang, editors. Psychology Applications and Developments X. inScience Press, Routledge/Taylor & Francis, London, UK; New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.36315/2024padX22

Borden, R. J., and A. P. Schettino. 1979. Determinants of environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education 10(4):35-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1979.9941906

Bouman, T., M. Verschoor, C. J. Albers, G. Böhm, S. D. Fisher, W. Poortinga, L. Whitmarsh, and L. Steg. 2020. When worry about climate change leads to climate action: how values, worry and personal responsibility relate to various climate actions. Global Environmental Change 62:102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102061

Browne, M. W., and R. Cudeck. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Pages 136-162 in K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long, editors. Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, California, USA.

Buchan, N. R., M. B. Brewer, G. Grimalda, R. K. Wilson, E. Fatas, and M. Foddy. 2011. Global social identity and global cooperation. Psychological Science 22(6):821-828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611409590

Bulut, B., and I. Elci Oksuzoglu. 2025. Teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development: challenges and opportunities. Sustainability 17(16):7552. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167552

Bulut, B., and M. K. Öksüzoğlu. 2021. Global literacy in education. Pages 321-336 in E. Koçoğlu, editor. Literacy skills in education-III. Pegem Akademi, Ankara, Turkey.

Bulut, B., and M. K. Öksüzoğlu. 2023. Küresel Okuryazarlık Ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 24(1):710-729. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1274203

Bulut, B., and M. K. Öksüzoğlu. 2025. Investigation of pre-service teachers’ global literacy levels. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences 13(1):254-284. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1610379

Çakmak, Z., B. Bulut, and C. Taşkıran. 2017. Relationships between global literacy, global citizenship and social studies. Journal of Education and Practice 8(23):82-90.

Casmana, A. R., J. A. Dewantara, D. A. Timoera, A. P. Kusmawati, and I. Syafrudin. 2023. Global citizenship: preparing the younger generation to possess pro-environment behavior, mutual assistance and tolerance awareness through school engagement. Globalisation, Societies and Education 21(1):15-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.2013167

Çermik, F. 2015. Sosyal girişimcilik, küresel vatandaşlık ve çevre davranışı arasındaki ilişki: yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. Dissertation, Atatürk University, YÖK National Thesis Center, Ankara, Turkey.

Chan, R. Y. K., and L. B. Y. Lau. 2000. Antecedents of green purchases: a survey in China. Journal of Consumer Marketing 17(4):338-357. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760010335358

Chung, E., and M. Milkoreit. 2023. Who are your people?—the effect of political ideology and social identity on climate-related beliefs and risk perceptions. Politics, Groups, and Identities 11(3):467-487. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2021.1992287

Clayton, S. 2020. Climate anxiety: psychological responses to climate change. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 74:102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263

Clayton, S., and B. T. Karazsia. 2020. Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology 69:101434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434

Clayton, S., C. Manning, K. Krygsman, and M. Speiser. 2017. Mental health and our changing climate: impacts, implications, and guidance. American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica, Washington, D.C., USA. https://doi.org/10.1037/e507892021-001

Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2021. Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi, Ankara, Turkey.

Contorno, L. 2012. The influence of cosmopolitan values on environmental attitudes: an international comparison. Res Publica 17(1):12-39.

Creswell, J. W. 2019. Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies (EDAM), Istanbul, Turkey.

Darji, B. B., and G. Lang-Wojtasik. 2014. Preparing globally competent teachers: Indo-German perspectives on teacher training. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 6(3). https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.06.3.04

Der-Karabetian, A., M. Alfaro, and Y. Cao. 2018. Relationship of sustainable behavior, world-mindedness, national and global identities, perceived environmental risk and globalization impact among college students in the United States. Psychology and Cognitive Sciences - Open Journal 4(1):8-13. 10.17140/PCSOJ-4-138

Der-Karabetian, A., Y. Cao, and M. Alfaro. 2014. Sustainable behavior, perceived globalization impact, world-mindedness, identity, and perceived risk in college samples from the United States, China, and Taiwan. Ecopsychology 6(4):218-233. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2014.0035

Devine-Wright, P., J. Price, and Z. Leviston. 2015. My country or my planet? exploring the influence of multiple place attachments and ideological beliefs upon climate change attitudes and opinions. Global Environmental Change 30:68-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.012

Dunlap, R. E., and A. K. Jorgenson. 2012. Environmental problems. In G. Ritzer, editor. The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of globalization. Wiley, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog174

Duplaga, M., and M. Grysztar. 2021. The association between future anxiety, health literacy and the perception of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. Healthcare 9(1):43. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9010043

Foster, S. J. 2022. Eco-anxiety in everyday life: facing the anxiety and fear of a degraded Earth in analytic work. Journal of Analytical Psychology 67(5):1363-1385. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5922.12860

Gao, J., J. Zhao, J. Wang, and J. Wang. 2021. The influence mechanism of environmental anxiety on pro-environmental behaviour: the role of self-discrepancy. International Journal of Consumer Studies 45(1):54-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12604

Geiger, N., J. K. Swim, K. Gasper, J. Fraser, and K. Flinner. 2021. How do I feel when I think about taking action? Hope and boredom, not anxiety and helplessness, predict intentions to take climate action. Journal of Environmental Psychology 76:101649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101649

George, D., and P. Mallery. 2019. IBM SPSS statistics 25 step by step: a simple guide and reference. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351033909

Gliner, J. A., G. A. Morgan, and N. L. Leech. 2023. Research methods in applied settings: an integrated approach to design and analysis. / Uygulamada araştırma yöntemleri: desen ve analizi bütünleştiren yaklaşım. Routledge, New York, New York, USA and Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, Ankara, Turkey.

Goldman, D., B. Yavetz, and S. Pe’er. 2006. Environmental literacy in teacher training in Israel: environmental behavior of new students. The Journal of Environmental Education 38(1):3-22. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.38.1.3-22

Greenwald, A. G., M. R. Banaji, and B. A. Nosek. 2015. Statistically small effects of the implicit association test can have societally large effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108(4):553-561. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000016

Grinstein, A., and P. Riefler. 2015. Citizens of the (green) world? Cosmopolitan orientation and sustainability. Journal of International Business Studies 46(6):694-714. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2015.1

Gürbüz, S. 2019. AMOS ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, Turkey.

Han, R., and Y. Cheng. 2020. The influence of norm perception on pro-environmental behavior: a comparison between the moderating roles of traditional media and social media. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(19):7164. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197164

Heeren, A., C. Mouguiama-Daouda, and A. Contreras. 2022. On climate anxiety and the threat it may pose to daily life functioning and adaptation: a study among European and African French-speaking participants. Climatic Change 173(1-2):15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03402-2

Hickman, C., E. Marks, P. Pihkala, S. Clayton, R. E. Lewandowski, E. E. Mayall, B. Wray, C. Mellor, and L. van Susteren. 2021. Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. The Lancet Planetary Health 5(12):e863-e873. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00278-3

Hicks, C. C., C. Fitzsimmons, and N. V. C. Polunin. 2010. Interdisciplinarity in the environmental sciences: barriers and frontiers. Environmental Conservation 37(4):464-477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000822

Hogg, T. L., S. K. Stanley, L. V. O’Brien, C. R. Watsford, and I. Walker. 2024. Clarifying the nature of the association between eco-anxiety, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 95:102249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102249

Hogg, T. L., S. K. Stanley, L. V. O’Brien, M. S. Wilson, and C. R. Watsford. 2021. The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale: development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Global Environmental Change 71:102391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102391

Houston, J. B., M. L. Spialek, and J. First. 2018. Disaster media effects: a systematic review and synthesis based on the differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication 68(4):734-757. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy023

Hurst, K. F., and N. D. Sintov. 2022. Guilt consistently motivates pro-environmental outcomes while pride depends on context. Journal of Environmental Psychology 80:101776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101776

Innocenti, M., G. Santarelli, G. S. Lombardi, L. Ciabini, D. Zjalic, M. Di Russo, and C. Cadeddu. 2023. How can climate change anxiety induce both pro-environmental behaviours and eco-paralysis? The mediating role of general self-efficacy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20(4):3085. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043085

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2023. Summary for policymakers. Pages 3-24 in H. Lee and J. Romero, editors. Climate change 2023: synthesis report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.001

Jalin, H., C. Chandès, A.-H. Boudoukha, A. Jacob, R. Poinsot, and A. Congard. 2025. Better understanding eco-anxiety: creation and validation of EMEA scale. European Review of Applied Psychology 75(1):101010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2024.101010

Janmaimool, P., and S. Khajohnmanee. 2020. Enhancing university students’ global citizenship, public mindedness, and moral quotient for promoting sense of environmental responsibility and pro-environmental behaviours. Environment, Development and Sustainability 22(2):957-970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0228-6

Kabasakal-Cetin, A. 2023. Association between eco-anxiety, sustainable eating and consumption behaviors and the EAT-Lancet diet score among university students. Food Quality and Preference 111:104972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104972

Kerkhoff, S. N., and H. A. Spires. 2023. Introduction: towards an overarching definition of global literacies. Pages 1-8 in S. N. Kerkhoff and H. A. Spires, editors. Critical perspectives on global literacies. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003320142

Killick, R., P. Fearnhead, and I. A. Eckley. 2012. Optimal detection of changepoints with a linear computational cost. Journal of the American Statistical Association 107(500):1590-1598. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2012.737745

Kim, W., C. Che, and C. Jeong. 2021. Hotel guests’ psychological distance of climate change and environment-friendly behavior intention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(1):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010016

Kline, R. B. 2015. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New York, New York, USA.

Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8(3):239-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401

Kormos, C., and R. Gifford. 2014. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology 40:359-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003

Kühner, C., C. W. Rudolph, and H. Zacher. 2024. Reciprocal relations between climate change anxiety and pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior 56(5-6):408-439. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165241297050

Kurth, C., and P. Pihkala. 2022. Eco-anxiety: what it is and why it matters. Frontiers in Psychology 13:981814. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.981814

Lange, F. 2022. Behavioral paradigms for studying pro-environmental behavior: a systematic review. Behavior Research Methods 55(2):600-622. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01825-4

Lange, F., and S. Dewitte. 2019. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology 63:92-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009

Lazrus, H. 2012. Sea change: island communities and climate change. Annual Review of Anthropology 41(1):285-301. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145730

Lecaros, J. A. 2013. Ecological ethics: the road of responsibility towards global bioethics. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics (4):201-215.

Leech, N. L., K. C. Barrett, and G. A. Morgan. 2014. IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics: use and interpretation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203122778

Leung, A. K.-Y., K. Koh, and K.-P. Tam. 2015. Being environmentally responsible: cosmopolitan orientation predicts pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology 43:79-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.011

Li, D., L. Zhao, S. Ma, S. Shao, and L. Zhang. 2019. What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 146:28-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.024

Liu, P., C. Han, and M. Teng. 2021. The influence of Internet use on pro-environmental behaviors: an integrated theoretical framework. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 164:105162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105162

Liu, P., M. Teng, and C. Han. 2020. How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors? The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Science of the Total Environment 728:138126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138126

Loy, L. S., and G. Reese. 2019. Hype and hope? Mind-body practice predicts pro-environmental engagement through global identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 66:101340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101340

Loy, L. S., G. Reese, and A. Spence. 2022. Facing a common human fate: relating global identity and climate change mitigation. Political Psychology 43(3):563-581. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12781

Lu, H., W. Zhang, B. Diao, Y. Liu, H. Chen, R. Long, and S. Cai. 2023. The progress and trend of pro-environmental behavior research: a bibliometrics-based visualization analysis. Current Psychology 42(8):6912-6932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01809-1

Lukacs, J. N., A. Bratu, S. Adams, C. Logie, N. Tok, L. J. McCunn, M. Lem, A. Henley, K. Closson, G. Martin, M. K. Gislason, T. Takaro, and K. G. Card. 2023. The concerned steward effect: exploring the relationship between climate anxiety, psychological distress, and self-reported climate related behavioural engagement. Journal of Environmental Psychology 90:102091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102091

Lutz, P. K., J. M. Zelenski, and D. B. Newman. 2023. Eco-anxiety in daily life: relationships with well-being and pro-environmental behavior. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4:100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2023.100110

Maran, D. A., and T. Begotti. 2021. Media exposure to climate change, anxiety, and efficacy beliefs in a sample of Italian university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(17):9358. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179358

Mathers-Jones, J., and J. Todd. 2023. Ecological anxiety and pro-environmental behaviour: the role of attention. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 98:102745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102745

Meydan, C. H., and H. Şeşen. 2015. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi Amos uygulamaları. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara, Turkey.

Micheletti, M., and D. Stolle. 2012. Sustainable citizenship and the new politics of consumption. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 644(1):88-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212454836

Mónus, F. 2021. Environmental perceptions and pro-environmental behavior: comparing different measuring approaches. Environmental Education Research 27(1):132-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1842332

Mubiru, D. N., M. Radeny, F. B. Kyazze, A. Zziwa, J. Lwasa, J. Kinyangi, and C. Mungai. 2018. Climate trends, risks and coping strategies in smallholder farming systems in Uganda. Climate Risk Management 22:4-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2018.08.004

Muggeo, V. M. 2003. Estimating regression models with unknown break-points. Statistics in Medicine 22(19):3055-3071. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1545

Muggeo, V. M. 2008. Segmented: an R package to fit regression models with broken-line relationships. R News 8(1):20-25.

Muijs, D. 2004. Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Sage Publications, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209014

Nair, I., M. Norman, G. R. Tucker, and A. Burkert. 2012. The challenge of global literacy: an ideal opportunity for liberal professional education. Liberal Education 98(1):56-61.

Ng, S., and S. Basu. 2019. Global identity and preference for environmentally friendly products: the role of personal responsibility. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 50(8):919-936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022119873432

Nunnally, J. C. 1978. An overview of psychological measurement. Pages 97-146 in B. B. Wolman, editor. Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders: a handbook. Plenum Press, New York, New York, USA and London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2490-4_4

Ogunbode, C. A., R. Doran, D. Hanss, M. Ojala, K. Salmela-Aro, K. L. van den Broek, N. Bhullar, S. D. Aquino, T. Marot, J. A. Schermer, A. Wlodarczyk, S. Lu, F. Jiang, D. A. Maran, R. Yadav, R. Ardi, R. Chegeni, E. Ghanbarian, S. Zand, R. Najafi, J. Park, T. Tsubakita, C.-S. Tan, J. C. Chukwuorji, K. A. Ojewumi, H. Tahir, M. Albzour, M. E. S. Reyes, S. Lins, V. Enea, T. Volkodav, T. Sollar, G. Navarro-Carrillo, J. Torres-Marín, W. Mbungu, A. H. Ayanian, J. Ghorayeb, C. Onyutha, M. J. Lomas, M. Helmy, L. Martínez-Buelvas, A. Bayad, and M. Karasu. 2022. Climate anxiety, wellbeing and pro-environmental action: correlates of negative emotional responses to climate change in 32 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology 84:101887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101887

Ojala, M., A. Cunsolo, C. A. Ogunbode, and J. Middleton. 2021. Anxiety, worry, and grief in a time of environmental and climate crisis: a narrative review. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 46(1):35-58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-022716

Öksüzoğlu, M. K. 2022. Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının küresel vatandaşlık düzeyleri ile günümüz dünya sorunlarına yönelik tutumları arasındaki ilişki. Thesis, Fırat University. YÖK National Thesis Center, Ankara, Turkey.

Parmentier, M.-L., K. Weiss, A. Aroua, C. Betry, M. Rivière, and O. Navarro. 2024. The influence of environmental crisis perception and trait anxiety on the level of eco-worry and climate anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 101:102799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102799

Pavani, J.-B., L. Nicolas, and E. Bonetto. 2023. Eco-anxiety motivates pro-environmental behaviors: a two-wave longitudinal study. Motivation and Emotion 47(6):1062-1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-023-10038-x

Peltonen-Sainio, P., J. Sorvali, and J. Kaseva. 2020. Winds of change for farmers: matches and mismatches between experiences, views and the intention to act. Climate Risk Management 27:100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2019.100205

Pihkala, P. 2020. Anxiety and the ecological crisis: an analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability 12(19):7836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197836

Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5):879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Pong, V., and K.-P. Tam. 2023. Relationship between global identity and pro-environmental behavior and environmental concern: a systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology 14:1033564. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1033564

Pratama, A. T., A. K. Sudrajat, R. D. Anazifa, and A. Kurniawati. 2024. Factors that influence global literacy: what is the most dominant? International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education 13(5):2989. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i5.28903

Ramírez-López, A. S., M. F. Rosetti, and A. Poma. 2023. Gender, exposure to news, knowledge about climate change, and prosociality predict climate anxiety scores in Mexican students. Ecopsychology 15(2):184-192. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2022.0049

Ramos-Castillo, A., E. J. Castellanos, and K. Galloway McLean. 2017. Indigenous peoples, local communities and climate change mitigation. Climatic Change 140(1):1-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1873-0

Renger, D., and G. Reese. 2017. From equality-based respect to environmental activism: antecedents and consequences of global identity. Political Psychology 38(5):867-879. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12382

Reysen, S., and I. Katzarska-Miller. 2013. A model of global citizenship: antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology 48(5):858-870. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749

Reysen, S., L. W. Larey, and I. Katzarska-Miller. 2012. College course curriculum and global citizenship. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 4(3). https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.04.3.03

Robin, B. R. 2006. The educational uses of digital storytelling. Pages 709-716 in C. M. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, and D. A. Willis, editors. Proceedings, Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 19 March 2006, Orlando, Florida, USA. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, North Carolina, USA. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/22129/

Robina-Ramírez, R., J. A. Medina Merodio, and S. McCallum. 2020. What role do emotions play in transforming students’ environmental behaviour at school? Journal of Cleaner Production 258:120638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120638

Ruiz-Mallén, I., and M. Heras. 2020. What sustainability? Higher education institutions’ pathways to reach the Agenda 2030 goals. Sustainability 12(4):1290. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041290

Saari, M. H., R. Poulton-Busler, and A. Vladimirova. 2024. Does sustainability really start with teachers? Reflections on integrating environmental education in pre-service teacher education in Namibia and Finland. The Journal of Environmental Education 55(6):494-508. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2024.2375210

Sampaio, F., T. Costa, L. Teixeira-Santos, L. G. de Pinho, C. Sequeira, S. Luís, A. Loureiro, J. C. Soro, J. Roldán Merino, A. Moreno Poyato, J. S. Peña Loray, A. Rodríguez Quiroga, L. V. O’Brien, T. L. Hogg, and S. K. Stanley. 2023. Validating a measure for eco-anxiety in Portuguese young adults and exploring its associations with environmental action. BMC Public Health 23(1):1905. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16816-z

Sangervo, J., K. M. Jylhä, and P. Pihkala. 2022. Climate anxiety: conceptual considerations, and connections with climate hope and action. Global Environmental Change 76:102569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102569

Sattler, D. N., B. Bishkhorloo, and J. M. Graham. 2021. Climate change threatens nomadic herding in Mongolia: a model of climate change risk perception and behavioral adaptation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 75:101620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101620

Schattle, H. 2009. Global citizenship in theory and practice. Pages 3-20 in R. Lewin, editor. The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: higher education and the quest for global citizenship. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., H. Moosbrugger, and H. Müller. 2003. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online 8(2):23-74.

Schwartz, S. E. O., L. Benoit, S. Clayton, M. F. Parnes, L. Swenson, and S. R. Lowe. 2023. Climate change anxiety and mental health: environmental activism as buffer. Current Psychology 42(20):16708-16721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02735-6

Searle, K., and K. Gow. 2010. Do concerns about climate change lead to distress? International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 2(4):362-379. https://doi.org/10.1108/17568691011089891

Seçer, İ. 2015. SPSS ve LİSREL ile pratik veri analizi. Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara, Turkey.

Shao, L., and G. Yu. 2023. Media coverage of climate change, eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behavior: experimental evidence and the resilience paradox. Journal of Environmental Psychology 91:102130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102130

Stanley, S. K., T. L. Hogg, Z. Leviston, and I. Walker. 2021. From anger to action: differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and wellbeing. The Journal of Climate Change and Health 1:100003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100003

Steg, L., and C. Vlek. 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29(3):309-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004

Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, T. Abel, G. A. Guagnano, and L. Kalof. 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review 6(2):81-97.

Stokols, D., S. Misra, M. G. Runnerstrom, and J. A. Hipp. 2009. Psychology in an age of ecological crisis: from personal angst to collective action. American Psychologist 64(3):181. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014717

Sümer, N. 2000. Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları 3(6):49-74.

Tannenbaum, M. B., J. Hepler, R. S. Zimmerman, L. Saul, S. Jacobs, K. Wilson, and D. Albarracín. 2015. Appealing to fear: a meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychological Bulletin 141(6):1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039729

Tian, H., and X. Liu. 2022. Pro-environmental behavior research: theoretical progress and future directions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(11):6721. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116721

Timur, S., and M. Yılmaz. 2013. Çevre Davranış Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 33(2):317-333.

Torres, C. A., and E. Bosio. 2025. Global citizenship education as a planetary ethics: embracing humans and non-humans in the pursuit of global solidarity. Prospects 55:31-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-025-09738-8

Türkarslan, K. K., E. D. Kozak, and J. C. Yıldırım. 2023. Psychometric properties of the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS-13) and the prediction of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 92:102147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102147

UNESCO. 2005. United Nations decade of education for sustainable development (2005–2014): international implementation scheme. UNESCO, Paris, France. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000141629_eng

UNESCO. 2014. Shaping the future we want: UN decade of education for sustainable development (2005–2014), final report. UNESCO, Paris, France. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000230171

UNESCO. 2024. Global report on teachers: addressing teacher shortages and transforming the profession. UNESCO, Paris, France. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000388832

United Nations. 2025. Sustainable development goals. United Nations, New York, New York, USA. https://sdgs.un.org/goals

van Zomeren, M., R. Spears, and C. W. Leach. 2010. Experimental evidence for a dual pathway model analysis of coping with the climate crisis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(4):339-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.006

Vecina, M. L., M. Alonso-Ferres, L. López-García, and C. Díaz-Silveira. 2024. Eco-anxiety and trust in science in Spain: two paths to connect climate change perceptions and general willingness for environmental behavior. Sustainability 16(8):3187. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083187

Verplanken, B., and D. Roy. 2013. “My worries are rational, climate change is not”: habitual ecological worrying is an adaptive response. PLoS ONE 8(9):e74708. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074708

Verplanken, B., E. Marks, and A. I. Dobromir. 2020. On the nature of eco-anxiety: how constructive or unconstructive is habitual worry about global warming? Journal of Environmental Psychology 72:101528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101528

Vicente-Molina, M. A., A. Fernández-Sáinz, and J. Izagirre-Olaizola. 2013. Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 61:130-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.015

Whitmarsh, L., L. Player, A. Jiongco, M. James, M. Williams, E. Marks, and P. Kennedy-Williams. 2022. Climate anxiety: what predicts it and how is it related to climate action? Journal of Environmental Psychology 83:101866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101866

Wong-Parodi, G., and N. Berlin Rubin. 2022. Exploring how climate change subjective attribution, personal experience with extremes, concern, and subjective knowledge relate to pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions in the United States. Journal of Environmental Psychology 79:101728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101728

Woosnam, K. M., M. Strzelecka, G. S. Nisbett, and S. J. Keith. 2019. Examining millennials’ global citizenship attitudes and behavioral intentions to engage in environmental volunteering. Sustainability 11(8):2324. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082324

Wullenkord, M. C., J. Tröger, K. R. S. Hamann, L. S. Loy, and G. Reese. 2021. Anxiety and climate change: a validation of the Climate Anxiety Scale in a German-speaking quota sample and an investigation of psychological correlates. Climatic Change 168(3-4):20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03234-6

Wynveen, C. J., G. T. Kyle, and M. A. Tarrant. 2012. Study abroad experiences and global citizenship: fostering proenvironmental behavior. Journal of Studies in International Education 16(4):334-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311426782

Xu, J., and R. Han. 2019. The influence of place attachment on pro-environmental behaviors: the moderating effect of social media. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(24):5100. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245100

YÖK. 2024. 2023-2024 öğretim yılı yükseköğretim istatistikleri. YÖK (Council of Higher Education), Ankara, Turkey. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/

Yusliza, M. Y., A. Amirudin, R. A. Rahadi, N. Sarah Athirah, T. Ramayah, Z. Muhammad, F. Dal Mas, M. Massaro, J. Saputra, and S. Mokhlis. 2020. An investigation of pro-environmental behaviour and sustainable development in Malaysia. Sustainability 12(17):7083. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177083

Yusof, N. K. A. M., A. A. Ma’rof, N. S. Muhamad Halmee, and N. A. Nashorddin. 2024. Exploring the impact of eco-anxiety, self-efficacy, environmental knowledge, and social media influence on climate change mitigation behavior among Terengganu youth in Malaysian. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 14(12):429-443. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i12/23994

Zeng, K. J., I. Y. Yu, S. H. Tso, and M. X. Yang. 2023. Employees’ geographic social identity and group pro-environmental behaviors: cross-cultural evidence from 45 countries. Business Strategy and the Environment 32(6):3848-3860. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3341

Zhang, R., H. Hsu, and S. Wang. 2010. Global literacy: comparing Chinese and US high school students. Multicultural Education and Technology Journal 4(2):76-98. https://doi.org/10.1108/17504971011052304