1. Introduction
The current environmental crisis is characterized by long-term changes in temperatures and weather patterns [1]. Numerous studies have demonstrated that human activities since the 19th century are the primary driver of climate change [2,3]. Therefore, in order to mitigate climate change, it is crucial to bring about significant changes in the human behaviors and consumption patterns that have contributed to it [4,5].
Several studies have shown that emotional factors such as empathy and compassion predict greater pro-environmental behaviors [6,7,8] and attitudes [9,10], and compassion has been suggested to be a mediator in the relationship between empathic concern and pro-social behaviors (such as also pro-environmental behaviors) [11]. In fact, several studies have demonstrated the association between empathy, compassion, and pro-environmental behaviors [12,13,14]. Specifically, research has emphasized the role of empathy for nature as a predictor of pro-environmental behaviors [8,15,16]. On one hand, compassion has been identified as a key element in the transition from empathy to pro-environment behavior [7], and on the other hand, studies in the field of clinical psychology have shown that people tend to exhibit compassion toward the suffering of others based on how they care for their own suffering [17]. Several studies have thus investigated the role of self-compassion in promoting positive and purposeful behaviors toward others [18,19], also showing how self-compassion is a key element in behavior modification [20,21]. Recent studies have highlighted associations between self-compassion and pro-environmental behaviors [22,23]. However, there is a lack of research investigating the relationship between empathy, self-compassion, and pro-environmental behaviors. A better understanding of the relationship between these constructs—self-compassion, empathy, and pro-environmental behaviors—can significantly contribute to addressing existing gaps in the literature. While self-compassion has already demonstrated its role in fostering behavioral changes in domains such as health and well-being, its specific impact on promoting sustainable resource use remains underexplored. The current research often overlooks the nuanced interplay between emotional factors and sustainability-related actions, particularly the ways in which self-compassion may drive one’s intrinsic motivation for long-term behavioral change. By examining this relationship in greater depth, the present study aims to fill this critical gap and provide a foundation for the development of targeted interventions that encourage more sustainable resource use. Based on these premises, the present study aims to explore the complex interplay between self-compassion and compassion in the relationship between empathy with nature and pro-environmental behaviors.
1.1. Empathy with Nature and Pro-Environmental Behaviors
Starting from Batson’s model regarding altruistic and pro-social behavior [24], some studies have demonstrated that individuals exhibiting higher levels of empathy engage in more pro-environmental behaviors compared to those with low levels of empathy [12,25]. Empathy refers to a set of cognitive and emotional skills that facilitate a deeper understanding of others’ inner worlds [26,27,28]. According to the “empathy–altruism hypothesis”, when empathic individuals witness the suffering of others, they experience compassion and a desire to alleviate their pain [29,30].
Building upon these studies, several authors have highlighted that empathy occurs not only in human-to-human relationships but also in relationships between humans and elements of the natural environment [8,31,32]. In fact, numerous studies have explored the association between empathy and pro-environmental behaviors, demonstrating that higher levels of empathy enable individuals to attribute human qualities to nature and anthropomorphize it [15,16,33]. The ability to attribute human qualities and emotions to nature, such as suffering or fear, enhances empathic responses toward nature [34] and allows individuals to perceive and respond to nature in ways similar to social environments [35]. Empathy for nature is defined as the capacity to emotionally perceive and understand nature, particularly its suffering [31]. Kandaurova and Lee [36] suggested that individuals with high levels of empathy with nature are more sensitive to environmental issues and are more inclined to establish strong connections with it. Furthermore, Wang et al. [16] found that individuals with higher levels of empathy with nature demonstrate stronger pro-environmental behaviors compared to those with lower levels of empathy with nature.
Several studies have emphasized that empathy, specifically empathy for nature, predicts greater pro-environmental behaviors by activating compassion [7,12,31,37]. In fact, individuals with high levels of empathy for nature exhibit greater cognitive and affective responses that lead to pro-environmental behaviors compared to those who do not understand or feel the suffering of the natural world [38]. These two constructs are often conflated, but the clearest distinction between empathy and compassion lies in the fact that “compassion is feeling for and not feeling with the other” [39] (p. 1). Berenguer [12] discovered that participants who adopted the perspective of a suffering animal or tree experienced not only greater compassion but also a stronger sense of responsibility to assist both the individual entity and nature as a whole.
Recently, there has been a debate in the scientific literature regarding factors that could enhance conservation efforts, particularly within the context of the “compassionate conservation movement” [40,41]. Compassionate conservationists argue that improving conservation behaviors should begin with the implementation of empathy and compassion [42,43,44]. However, Griffin et al. [41] highlighted several limitations in the application of empathy to improve conservation actions. Specifically, it has been shown that levels of empathy are higher when the number of suffering individuals is small and does not encompass large percentages of the population [45,46,47,48,49]. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that people exhibit greater empathy when they perceive elements of similarity or have familial connections with others (e.g., nationality, gender, etc.) [50,51]. These results lead us to hypothesize that the compassionate movement toward others may occur through emotional processes involving one’s own self. Furthermore, Griffin et al. [41] argued that, considering these factors, empathy alone cannot be considered the primary element for promoting conservation actions. In contrast, data from questionnaires and psychophysiological measures have indicated that people exposed to an “excess” of negative feelings (i.e., lots of information about lives in danger) had reduced levels of compassion, and it was this reduction that led to a reduction in helping behavior [49,52]. Therefore, it is important to gain a better understanding of the relationship between empathy and compassion in promoting pro-environmental behaviors.
1.2. How Does Compassion Work? Compassion, Self-Compassion, and Pro-Environmental Behaviors
As mentioned earlier, numerous studies have demonstrated that higher levels of empathy lead to greater compassion in response to others’ suffering, which in turn activates behaviors aimed at reducing it, whether it be pro-social behavior toward other people or pro-environmental behavior toward the natural environment [7,38].
However, studies in the field of clinical psychology have pointed out that this relationship is not always straightforward. Research has shown that individuals tend to respond to the negative emotions of others based on how they personally respond to their own negative emotions [17].
A recent and intriguing study by Stevens and Taber [53] investigated the neurobiological mechanisms of empathy related to pro-social behaviors. The authors found that cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and compassion are distinct processes that contribute to the optimal conditions for pro-social actions. Specifically, they highlighted that through affective empathy, individuals who witness others’ suffering may experience personal distress, which motivates them to help and engage in pro-social behaviors. The authors emphasized the importance of individual emotional responses and their role in sustaining altruism, suggesting that self-compassion can serve as an emotional regulation strategy that preserves affective empathy.
While these findings have been emphasized in the field of clinical psychology, there are currently no studies that have specifically investigated the relationship between empathy, compassion, self-compassion, and pro-environmental behaviors.
Self-compassion is described as “being aware of one’s own suffering, cultivating the wish to ease it, and approaching oneself with kindness and care” [54] (p. 28). In contrast to compassion, which is directed toward showing care and empathy for others, self-compassion focuses on offering that same understanding and concern to oneself.
While the literature has consistently shown that women tend to exhibit higher levels of compassion than men [55], it is interesting to note that studies examining gender differences in self-compassion do not support this distinction. For instance, a meta-analysis by Yarnell et al. [56] found that self-compassion was actually higher in men compared to women.
On the other hand, Welp and Brown [57] discovered that self-compassion predicts a greater willingness to help individuals in distress, while Marshall et al. [19] demonstrated that both empathy and self-compassion predict pro-social behaviors. In the field of clinical psychology, self-compassion has been found to mediate the relationship between empathy and social functioning among adolescent sex offenders [58], highlighting the connection between the willingness to help oneself and the inclination to assist others.
Regarding the specific domain of pro-environmental behaviors, only a few studies have investigated the relationship between self-compassion and such actions. Specifically, Loy et al. [23] suggested that self-compassion may also be linked to pro-environmental actions through its association with compassion for others. Indeed, self-compassion has been found to be positively associated with compassion for others [59], which in turn is positively associated with pro-environmental intentions [7,60].
1.3. The Present Study
Based on previous theoretical premises, the present study aims to explore the complex interplay between self-compassion and compassion in the relationship between empathy with nature and pro-environmental behaviors. Specifically, the primary objective of the present study is to examine the potential serial mediating role of self-compassion and compassion in the relationship between empathy for nature and pro-environmental behaviors. The hypothesized model is depicted in Figure 1.
As there is no instrument in the literature to measure empathy for nature validated in an Italian sample, the present study initially aimed to test the factorial structure of the Dispositional Empathy with Nature Scale (DENS; [31]).
Specifically, the present study aimed to test the following:
the factor structure of the DENS in an Italian sample;
the hypothesis that women have more empathy for nature, pro-environment behaviors, and compassion toward others than men;
the hypothesis that self-compassion and compassion serially mediate the relationship between empathy for nature and pro-environmental behaviors.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample and Procedure
Through collaboration with various Italian companies operating in different sectors such as energy, communication, and transportation, the research project was presented to them, and a sample of their employees aged 18 years and older was recruited.
After presenting the project to the representatives of various companies, the representatives directly contacted their employees, sending them an information sheet prepared by the research group. This sheet outlined the purposes of the study and explained how it was conducted. Along with the information sheet, the company representatives also provided the employees with the link to a survey. Specifically, a total of 15,000 employees were invited to participate by filling out questionnaires administered through the survey. To minimize possible bias, several measures were implemented. Specifically, the surveys were sent to the entire company population, taking into account all differences in job levels, economic status, and geographical distribution. Furthermore, participants had 4 weeks to complete the survey. After the initial invitation, two reminders were sent on a weekly basis. Out of the total sample, 1306 employees responded to the survey, resulting in a response rate of 8.71%. After excluding 93 subjects with an excessive number of missing responses (2% items missing), the final sample consisted of 1213 employees. The characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.
All participants filled out an informant consent form in which the purposes of the study were explained in detail. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, and Heath Studies, “La Sapienza” University of Rome (Prot. no. 0000595, 11 April 2022).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Pro-Environmental Behaviors
Participants completed the Pro-Environmental Behaviors Scale (PEBS; [61]), which is a self-report questionnaire designed to assess individuals’ engagement in environmentally friendly actions. The PEBS comprises four dimensions: conservation, environmental citizenship, food, and transportation. The Italian version of the PEBS, adapted by Menardo et al. [62], consists of 15 items. In this study, the total score, which represents an overall measure of pro-environmental behaviors, was utilized. The total score exhibited satisfactory internal consistency, as indicated by a McDonald Omega coefficient of 0.65.
2.2.2. Empathy for Nature
To evaluate participants’ levels of empathy for nature, we administered the Dispositional Empathy with Nature Scale (DENS; [31]). The DENS is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure one’s innate inclination to understand and engage with the emotional experiences of the natural world. It consists of 10 items, which are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). For the purpose of this study, the 10 items of the DENS were translated into Italian using a back-translation procedure to ensure the preservation of their original meaning. In particular, a researcher translated the original items into Italian, which were then translated back into English. Comparing the original items with the back-translated version confirmed their alignment. The items were subsequently administered to a small group of participants (N = 28), who confirmed that the items were fully understandable. Additionally, the instrument demonstrated high reliability on this occasion (McDonald Omega = 0.93).
2.2.3. Compassion
In order to assess individuals’ general inclination to show compassion toward others, we utilized the Compassion Scale (CS—[63]; validated in Italian by Lucarini et al. [64]). The CS is a self-report scale comprising 16 items that are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (=almost never) to 5 (=almost always). It measures compassion for others as a multidimensional construct based on Neff’s [65] model of self-compassion. The scale includes four dimensions:
Kindness: Reflects an increased sense of care and concern for those who are suffering, accompanied by a desire to provide support for those in need. Sample item: “When I encounter someone going through a difficult time, I make an effort to show compassion”.
Common humanity: Involves an awareness that all individuals experience suffering at some point. Sample item: “Despite our differences, I recognize that everyone experiences pain, just like me”.
Mindfulness: Refers to the ability to acknowledge others’ pain without becoming excessively distressed and the willingness to listen and pay attention to them when they are suffering. Sample item: “I attentively listen when others communicate with me”.
Indifference: Reflects a reduced sense of indifference, separation, and moral disengagement in response to others’ suffering. Sample item: “I try to avoid individuals who are going through significant pain”.
The McDonald Omega coefficients for the four scales ranged from 0.66 to 0.75, indicating satisfactory reliability. For this study, the total score on the compassion scale for others was used as a measure of compassion.
2.2.4. Self-Compassion
To gauge the levels of self-compassion among participants, we utilized the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; [66]; adapted into Italian by Veneziani et al. [67]). The SCS is a 26-item scale that is scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (=almost never) to 5 (=almost always). It encompasses six dimensions:
Self-kindness: Reflects an individual’s capacity to be caring and understanding toward oneself. Sample item: “I am tolerant of my own flaws and inadequacies”.
Self-judgment: Pertains to an individual’s inclination to be overly critical and harsh toward oneself. Sample item: “I am intolerant and impatient with aspects of my personality that I dislike”.
Common humanity: Involves the ability to remind oneself that suffering is a normal part of the human experience. Sample item: “When I am feeling down, I remind myself that many other people in the world feel the same way”.
Isolation: Indicates a lack of awareness that all human beings encounter suffering and failure. Sample item: “When I reflect on my inadequacies, it tends to make me feel more separated and disconnected from the rest of the world”.
Mindfulness: Refers to being aware of, paying attention to, and accepting one’s painful experiences in a balanced and nonjudgmental manner. Sample item: “When I am feeling down, I try to approach my emotions with curiosity and openness”.
Over-identification: Describes an excessive identification with and absorption in one’s feelings and emotions. Sample item: “When something painful happens, I tend to blow it out of proportion”.
The positive and negative scales are grouped into two factors. Specifically, the scores on self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness contribute to the assessment of self-compassionate behaviors, while the scores on self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification reflect uncompassionate behaviors. In this study, the McDonald Omega coefficients for the six scales ranged from 0.73 to 0.87, indicating good reliability.
2.3. Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses, including frequencies, means, and standard deviations, were carried out to explore the dataset, and the normality of the variables was assessed. Additionally, the reliability of the scales utilized in the study was evaluated. To investigate the latent factor structure of the DENS, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation with Promax rotation. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was calculated at 0.93, exceeding the recommended minimum threshold of 0.60, confirming the appropriateness of the data for factor analysis. Moreover, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which assesses whether the variables are significantly intercorrelated, yielded a significant result (χ2 = 12,826.44; df = 45; p < 0.001), further supporting the suitability of the data for factor analysis [68,69]. In addition to the EFA, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using MPLUS 8.4 [70] to validate the factor structure of the DENS. To investigate potential gender differences across the measured variables, a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. The dependent variables included the total scores for the DENS, PEBS, and CS, as well as the scores for self-compassionate and uncompassionate behaviors, with gender serving as the independent variable. To evaluate the hypothesized model, a mediation analysis was carried out. Initially, Pearson’s correlation analyses were conducted to identify significant correlations among the measured variables, using a critical alpha level of 0.01. Following this, a serial mediation analysis was performed to determine whether self-compassion and compassion mediated the relationship between empathy for nature and pro-environmental behaviors. Indirect effects were assessed using 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) derived from 10,000 boot-strap samples. All statistical analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS software, version 28.0, and the serial mediation analysis was conducted utilizing Hayes’s PROCESS macro (Model 6) [71].
3. Results
3.1. DENS Preliminary Analysis and Factor Structure
The average scores, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis of the 10 items of the DENS were analyzed (see Table 2). In line with the original study [31], the McDonald Omega coefficient of Total Scale was 0.95. The mean score of the items was 3.90, ranging from 3.27 to 4.62 (SD = 1.35–1.49). These values are lower than those reported by Tam [31], whose mean values ranged from 4.06 to 4.54 (SD = 1.05–1.36).
Like another Spanish validation study [37], the highest means were observed for items 7 and 10. However, the results of the present study indicate lower means compared to those reported by Sevillano et al. [37] (M = 5.80 and 5.45, respectively). Regarding the skewness and kurtosis values, Table 2 demonstrates that all values were below one, suggesting that the univariate distributions of the items closely approached univariate normality [72]. Furthermore, correlations between the items and correlations between the items and the total score of the scale were also explored. The intercorrelations among each of the items and the total score of the scale showed acceptable values (ranged from 0.68 to 0.86).
In order to investigate the DENS factor structure, an EFA was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation with Promax rotation. A parallel analysis [73] clearly suggested that retaining the one-factor solution was the best fit. The one-factor structure yielded an eigenvalue of 7.08, explaining 70.78% of the variance (χ2 = 2338.30; df = 35; p < 0.001). The unique factor displayed excellent factor loadings, ranging from 0.66 to 0.90. Since the unidimensional EFA model is statistically equivalent to the unidimensional CFA model, we also examined other fit indices, which suggested that the unidimensional model did not fit the data well (CFI= 0.820, TLI = 0.768; RMSEA = 0.234; SRMR = 0.066; p < 0.001).
As suggested by McNeish et al. [74], despite that it is conventionally considered that an acceptable RMSEA should have values less than 0.10, but is better if they are lower than 0.05 (e.g., [75]), an RMSEA value of 0.20 could indicate acceptable fit when high measurement quality standards are met (i.e., high factor loadings). Thus, we inspected modification indices, which highlighted the need to include two measurement error correlations (between item 8 and 9 and between item 7 and 19), estimating that the chi-square would be reduced to 905.83 and 476.96, respectively, if the covariances between the error terms within each pair of items could be specified. Furthermore, in line with the results of Sevillano et al. [37], during the check of the items, we observed that items 8 (i.e., “I feel what the suffering animals and plants are feeling”) and 9 (i.e., “I feel the pain the suffering animals and plants are experiencing”) are very similar in wording and content and were highly correlated (r = 0.94); at the same time, in line with Sevillano et al. [37], we observed that items 7 (“I have tender, concerned feelings for suffering animals and plants”) and 10 (“I feel sympathetic toward the suffering animals and plants”) were generic items. As a result, a CFA was again conducted, and two correlations between the error terms of items 8–9 and 7–10 were specified. The model fit was close to the standard, although not completely satisfactory, displaying a higher RMSEA than the usually accepted values: CFI = 0.946, TLI = 0.927, RMSEA = 0.131, SRMR = 0.041. This may depend on several factors, including the consistent sample size implied in the study [76] and the reliability paradox phenomenon (on this point, see [76]). Interestingly, these results are in line with those found by the Spanish validation study [37].
3.2. Gender Differences
To examine potential gender differences in empathy for nature, self-compassion, compassion, and pro-environmental behaviors, an ANOVA was performed. As presented in Table 3, the results revealed that women exhibited significantly higher levels of empathy for nature, pro-environmental behaviors, compassion toward others, and uncompassionate behaviors toward themselves. However, no gender differences were found in terms of self-compassionate behaviors.
3.3. The Serial Mediating Role of Self-Compassion and Compassion in the Relationship Between Empathy for Nature and Pro-Environmental Behaviors
Pearson’s correlation analyses were initially examined. The results indicated that higher scores in the DEN total score and PEBS total score were positively correlated with both self-compassionate behaviors and CS total score. Additionally, self-compassionate behaviors and compassion demonstrated a positive correlation with each other. However, uncompassionate behaviors toward oneself did not show significant correlations with DEN total score and PEBS total score. Moreover, gender and age were found to be correlated with the variables under investigation. Specifically, females were associated with higher levels of empathy for nature, pro-environmental behaviors, compassion toward others, and uncompassionate behaviors toward themselves. Furthermore, older age was positively correlated with empathy for nature and self-compassion, and negatively correlated with uncompassionate behaviors toward oneself. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the measured variables are presented in Table 4.
Based on these significant correlations, mediation analyses were conducted to investigate whether levels of self-compassion and compassion, both separately and serially, mediated the relationship between empathy for nature and pro-environmental behaviors. Additionally, considering the significant correlations between gender, age, and the several study variables, these were all included as covariates in the serial mediation analyses.
As depicted in Figure 2, the results of the serial mediation analyses indicated significant total and direct effects of dispositional empathy for nature on pro-environmental behaviors (R2 = 0.11; F(1,1196) = 155.37; p < 0.001). Specifically, individuals with higher levels of dispositional empathy for nature were more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Furthermore, a significant direct effect of dispositional empathy for nature on both self-compassion and compassion toward others was observed (t = 10.92; p < 0.001; CI [0.18–0.26]). This suggests that individuals who feel a strong sense of empathy for nature tend to exhibit greater self-compassion and compassion toward others. Additionally, self-compassion, as the first mediating variable, significantly predicted levels of compassion, the second mediating variable (t = 11.32; p < 0.001; CI [0.23–0.32]). This finding highlights the interconnectedness between self-compassion and compassion, suggesting that individuals who are kind and understanding toward themselves are more likely to extend this compassion toward others. Both self-compassion and compassion had significant direct effects on pro-environmental behaviors. Specifically, higher levels of self-compassion were associated with an increased likelihood of engaging in such behaviors (t = 4.40; p < 0.001; CI [0.07–0.19]), and similarly, greater compassion toward others was also linked to pro-environmental actions (t = 2.87; p < 0.01; CI [0.03–0.17]). This indicates that self-compassion and compassion play crucial roles in promoting actions that benefit the environment.
Regarding the indirect effects, Table 5 displays the statistically significant indirect paths. These include the single mediation effects of self-compassion and compassion, as well as the combined serial mediation of both variables. Specifically, the indirect effect of dispositional empathy for nature on pro-environmental behaviors through self-compassion alone was significant (Effect = 0.018; BootSE = 0.006; BootLLCI = 0.008; BootULCI = 0.031). Similarly, the indirect effect through compassion alone was also significant (Effect = 0.015; BootSE = 0.006; BootLLCI = 0.004; BootULCI = 0.027). Finally, the serial mediation involving both self-compassion and compassion showed a smaller but still significant indirect effect (Effect = 0.004; BootSE = 0.002; BootLLCI = 0.001; BootULCI = 0.007). These results underscore the importance of both self-compassion and compassion as mediators in the relationship between empathy for nature and pro-environmental behaviors.
4. Discussion
Several studies have highlighted the associations between empathy, compassion, and pro-environmental behaviors [7,8,77]. While the importance of these emotional factors in promoting pro-environmental behaviors is emphasized [40,78,79], their relationship remains controversial [41]. Interesting studies in the realm of pro-social behaviors have revealed that it is not the lack of empathy that affects pro-social behaviors, but rather the lack of compassion [49,52]. By distinguishing between these two constructs, it has been observed that empathy enables us to feel and understand what others are experiencing, while compassion promotes a movement toward helping others [39]. However, several studies highlight that how we care for the negative emotions of others in distress depends on how we care for our own negative emotions [17].
Building upon the study by Loy et al. [23], which suggests that self-compassion may also be connected to pro-environmental actions through its association with compassion for others, the present study aimed to investigate the complex interplay between empathy for nature, self-compassion, compassion, and pro-environmental behaviors.
Due to the lack of an Italian-validated instrument suitable for assessing empathy with nature, the first objective of this study was to explore the factorial structure of the Dimensions of Empathic Nature Scale (DENS) within its Italian sample. The original validation of the instrument by Tam [31] conducted several exploratory factor analyses (EFAs), consistently indicating that a unifactorial solution was the best fit. Similarly, the Spanish validation by Sevillano et al. [37] also performed an EFA, which supported the unifactorial solution as the most suitable. However, after observing associations among various items, Sevillano et al. [37] conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and specified two measurement error correlations (between items 8–9 and 7–10). In line with their results, our findings also supported the one-factor solution as the best fit, although it did not demonstrate an acceptable fit. Based on the modification indices suggested by the CFA results, and consistent with Sevillano et al. [37], a CFA with two measurement error correlations was conducted. The findings indicated that the model fit was close to the standard, although not completely satisfactory.
However, it is important to consider the high factor loading scores of the model (ranging from 0.66 to 0.90), indicating good measurement quality. The poor fit of the data may be attributed to the fact that 10 items might be too many to evaluate a single construct, and there are numerous covariances between items. It is suggested that further applications or revisions of the scale should be conducted to confirm whether it is appropriate to retain item 10 or whether one of the similar items (items 8 or 9) should be excluded.
The second hypothesis of the present study posited that women would demonstrate higher levels of empathy for nature, increased pro-environmental behaviors, and greater compassion toward others compared to males. Consistent with the previous literature [79,80], the results supported this hypothesis. Toussaint and Webb [80] found that women exhibited higher empathy levels than men, while Mercadillo et al. [79] discovered that women showed more brain activation in areas associated with empathic processes when presented with images depicting human suffering. Regarding empathy for nature, Sevillano et al. [37] found that females scored higher on the Dimensions of Empathic Nature Scale (DENS) compared to males, aligning with research on environmentally friendly individuals [81].
Moreover, gender differences in pro-environmental behaviors have been reported in several studies [81,82,83], although the scientific literature has produced mixed results [84,85,86]. Specifically, gender differences were observed in specific pro-environmental actions, with women demonstrating more behaviors within their homes (e.g., recycling) rather than outside (e.g., donating to environmental organizations) [87]. However, it is important to consider the potential influence of social desirability bias in self-report measures, as it may impact the results. Interestingly, Rütgers [55] found that the gender difference in pro-environmental behavior levels depended on varying levels of compassion, suggesting that compassion mediated the relationship between gender and pro-environmental behaviors.
Regarding compassion toward others, numerous studies have indicated a higher prevalence in women compared to men [55,79]. As for self-compassion, the literature has shown a slightly higher prevalence in men compared to women [56], although recent studies have highlighted that this difference may be primarily linked to gender roles [88]. A recent study has highlighted how mindfulness skills can promote pro-environmental behaviors differently in men and women, emphasizing the need for further research on this topic [60]. In our study, men did not exhibit higher levels of self-compassionate behaviors than women. However, our findings revealed that females displayed higher levels of uncompassionate behaviors toward themselves compared to males.
To better understand these gender differences, it is crucial to consider the influence of cultural and social factors. Research has shown that empathy, compassion, and pro-environmental behaviors are significantly shaped by cultural norms, values, and gender roles. For example, in certain cultural contexts, traditional gender roles may encourage women to adopt nurturing and empathetic behaviors [89] while simultaneously imposing pressures that could result in feelings of self-criticism or emotional exhaustion. Conversely, men might experience social constraints that limit their expression of compassion due to stereotypical beliefs emphasizing stoicism and independence.
Moreover, cultural variations in the perception of sustainability and environmental stewardship can influence how these emotional constructs manifest across genders. Societies that emphasize collectivist values may foster greater empathy and compassion toward nature, as individuals are encouraged to consider the broader impact of their actions on their community and environment. In contrast, individualistic cultures might prioritize personal responsibility, which could differently influence the motivations behind pro-environmental behaviors [90,91].
Therefore, understanding the interplay between cultural norms, gender roles, and emotional constructs such as empathy and self-compassion is essential to identify pathways to foster sustainability-related actions. Future research should explore these dynamics across diverse cultural contexts to uncover how societal expectations and values shape emotional responses and environmental behaviors.
Next, we aimed to examine the possible serial mediating effect of compassion and self-compassion on the relationship between empathy for nature and pro-environmental behaviors. After confirming the presence of relationships among the variables, the hypothesized model (see Figure 1) was tested. The results confirmed the hypothesized theoretical model, demonstrating the serial mediation of self-compassion and compassion in the relationship between empathy and pro-environmental behaviors. Individuals with higher levels of empathy exhibited greater self-compassion, which, in turn, led to increased compassion for others and activated more pro-environmental behaviors. As depicted in Figure 2, this mediation effect was partial, as both empathy and self-compassion also directly influenced pro-environmental behaviors. Additionally, self-compassion alone served as a partial mediator in the relationship between empathy and pro-environmental behaviors.
The interplay between empathy, self-compassion, and compassion is complex, as evident in our study. While our study revealed a direct effect of empathy on pro-environmental behaviors, some studies have found that empathy does not necessarily increase pro-social behavior [92]. In line with the theorizations of Rütgers [55], our results highlight how empathy can activate greater compassion toward others, subsequently leading to increased pro-environmental behaviors. However, our study extends Rütgers’s [55] findings by demonstrating that self-compassion partially enables compassionate actions toward others and facilitates pro-environmental behavior. This finding aligns with the suggestion by Loy et al. [23] that self-compassion may also be associated with pro-environmental actions through its connection with compassion for others. However, studies investigating the relationship between self-compassion and pro-environmental behaviors remain limited, and our study is the first to explore the intricate relationship among empathy, self-compassion, compassion, and pro-environmental behaviors.
The present study has several limitations. Firstly, the cross-sectional study design limited causal inferences, and further longitudinal studies are needed to confirm its findings. Additionally, the sample consisted of employees from various Italian firms, providing representation of a significant portion of the population, but the generalizability of the results to other populations may be limited. Although the sample in this study is diverse in terms of place of residence, social stratification, and age, it consists solely of company employees and therefore does not represent the general population. Furthermore, the cultural context is Italian, which makes it difficult to generalize the results to other nations and cultural settings. This is particularly relevant for pro-environmental behaviors, as they are highly influenced by cultural context. Moreover, although a validated instrument with demonstrated reliability in the present sample was used, research has identified measurement biases in self-report instruments used to assess pro-environmental behaviors [93]. However, Milfont [94] showed that social desirability had only a weak direct effect on environmental attitudes, and not on ecological behavior, and the meta-analysis of Vesely and Klöckner [95] found mixed results. Overall, it would be necessary to develop instruments, such as interviews or implicit measures, to evaluate pro-environmental behaviors in order to mitigate the issue of social desirability. As a matter of fact, the exclusive use of self-administered instruments and self-reports to measure pro-environmental behaviors may introduce social desirability bias, potentially influencing the results. Finally, the fit indices of the final CFA model highlighted some weaknesses, displaying a high RMSEA. Although we detailed methodological reasons to explain this result, future studies should examine abbreviated versions of the DENS through modern psychometric techniques, such as optimal shortening [96] and machine learning algorithms [97]. Further validation studies on the short forms of the DENS would help eliminate redundant items while substantially preserving the full-length scale’s reliability and criterion validity.
Despite these limitations, this study possesses strengths. Specifically, it is the first to investigate the serial mediating role of self-compassion and compassion in the relationship between empathy for nature and pro-environmental behaviors. Furthermore, despite the aforementioned limitations, this study utilized a large and diverse sample in terms of demographic characteristics.
Our findings have several implications. The growing evidence supporting the importance of promoting pro-environmental behaviors within the population highlights the need to integrate emotional factors, including empathy [98,99], into intervention programs aimed at fostering compassion toward others and facilitating pro-environmental behaviors. Overall, this study emphasizes the significance of incorporating self-compassion into intervention programs as a crucial factor for enhancing their effectiveness in promoting pro-environmental behaviors. Self-compassion has been shown to be a crucial factor in promoting behavioral changes toward pro-social and healthy behaviors. This study also highlighted its role in predicting the sustainable use of resources. Interventions aimed at encouraging pro-environmental behaviors should consider self-compassion as a key element that can foster one’s intrinsic motivation for change. Proposed interventions include mindfulness-based training and self-compassion workshops designed to foster empathy with nature and promote pro-environmental behaviors. Furthermore, these findings can inform educational programs and public awareness campaigns, helping to integrate self-compassion practices into initiatives aimed at raising environmental consciousness and encouraging sustainable actions. Furthermore, given the role of self-compassion, further studies should investigate whether the ability to regulate one’s own emotions plays a role in activating greater pro-environmental behaviors [100].
5. Conclusions
This study underscores the critical role of emotional factors—particularly empathy, self-compassion, and compassion—in fostering pro-environmental behaviors. By confirming the serial mediation model, our findings highlight that self-compassion facilitates the pathway from empathy with nature to compassion for others, thereby promoting pro-environmental actions. This nuanced understanding enriches the existing literature by elucidating how emotional competencies interact to influence sustainable behaviors. The results not only validate the interconnected roles of empathy, self-compassion, and compassion but also provide a theoretical framework for understanding their combined impact on environmentally responsible actions. These insights highlight the potential for targeted emotional interventions to inspire individuals to adopt behaviors that benefit the planet, thereby contributing to broader sustainability goals. By integrating emotional dimensions into sustainability research, this study moves beyond traditional cognitive-behavioral models, offering a holistic perspective on human–environment interactions.
Moreover, the observed gender differences in empathy, compassion, and pro-environmental behaviors reinforce the importance of incorporating demographic factors into the design of sustainability programs. Understanding how emotional competencies manifest across genders can inform more inclusive and effective interventions. For instance, tailored strategies that leverage these emotional competencies could enhance engagement and impact in diverse populations.
Future research should aim to explore the longitudinal and cross-cultural generalizability of these findings to determine their applicability in varied social and cultural contexts. Furthermore, advancing beyond self-report measures by employing behavioral and ecological assessments will strengthen the validity of future studies in this domain. Such advancements would contribute to the development of comprehensive, evidence-based tools for measuring and promoting sustainable actions.
Overall, this study lays the groundwork for the integration of self-compassion and related emotional competencies into environmental programs and policies. By fostering emotional resilience and empathy, these programs could empower individuals and communities to engage in collective actions to address pressing environmental challenges. In doing so, this research contributes not only to the academic understanding of pro-environmental behaviors but also to the practical advancement of global sustainability efforts.
Conceptualization, G.B. and P.V.; methodology, G.B.; formal analysis, G.B. and V.G.; investigation, G.B.; data curation, G.B.; writing—original draft preparation, G.B.; writing—review and editing, G.B. and P.V.; supervision, P.V.; project administration, G.B. and P.V.; funding acquisition, P.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology and Health Studies, University of Rome “La Sapienza” (Prot. no. 0000595, 11 April 2022).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The datasets used and/or analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
The authors thank all the firms (A2A, Almaviva, Autostrade per l’Italia, Automobili Lamborghini, Banco BPM, BNP Paribas, Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, CELLNEX Italia, DAB Pumps, ENI Plenitude, Ericsson, Fastweb, Gruppo Hera, Gruppo IREN, NTT Data, Philips, Telepass, TIM, Tinexta, WindTre) that participated in this study. The author G.B. acknowledges PON “Ricerca e Innovazione” 2014–2020 (PON R&I FSE-REACT EU) and Azione IV.6 “Contratti di ricerca su tematiche Green” for funding and supporting the research, as well as the company Bloom Ltd. who participated with co-funding.
The authors declare that this study received funding from Bloom Ltd. The funder had the following involvement with the study: to put the research group in contact with the participating companies.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
![View Image - Figure 2. Serial mediation of self-compassion and compassion on the relationship between empathy for nature and pro-environmental behaviors. Coefficients shown are standardized path coefficients. c’ = direct effect; c = total effect. * p [less than] 0.05; ** p [less than] 0.001.](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/4/XKM9b?_a=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%3D%3D&_s=3zRmv4%2BsaDyJaXjYhv2QKgJXGjM%3D "View Image - Figure 2. Serial mediation of self-compassion and compassion on the relationship between empathy for nature and pro-environmental behaviors. Coefficients shown are standardized path coefficients. c’ = direct effect; c = total effect. * p [less than] 0.05; ** p [less than] 0.001.")
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Serial mediation of self-compassion and compassion on the relationship between empathy for nature and pro-environmental behaviors. Coefficients shown are standardized path coefficients. c’ = direct effect; c = total effect. * p [less than] 0.05; ** p [less than] 0.001.
Sample description.
| N | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Men | 691 | 57 |
| Age | Range | 22–66 | |
| Residence | Big cities (with more than 100,000 inhabitants) | 591 | 48.7 |
| Income | Less than EUR 36,000 | 303 | 25 |
| Education | Junior high school | 19 | 1.6 |
| Marital status | Married or cohabiting | 794 | 65.5 |
| Offspring | Yes | 674 | 55.6 |
| Responsibilities of other workers | Yes | 432 | 35.5 |
Descriptive statistics of the DENS items.
| Item | M (SD) | Skewness | Kurtosis | Corrected | Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.2 (1.4) | −0.44 | 0.14 | 0.72 | 0.95 |
| 2 | 4.15 (1.39) | −0.47 | 0.001 | 0.83 | 0.95 |
| 3 | 3.72 (1.43) | −0.15 | −0.41 | 0.86 | 0.95 |
| 4 | 3.66 (1.45) | −0.06 | −0.48 | 0.86 | 0.95 |
| 5 | 3.98 (1.49) | −0.26 | −0.35 | 0.85 | 0.95 |
| 6 | 3.52 (1.44) | 0.04 | −0.36 | 0.86 | 0.95 |
| 7 | 4.61 (1.37) | −0.62 | 0.49 | 0.71 | 0.95 |
| 8 | 3.29 (1.45) | 0.12 | −0.44 | 0.82 | 0.95 |
| 9 | 3.27 (1.48) | 0.18 | −0.45 | 0.81 | 0.95 |
| 10 | 4.62 (1.35) | −0.55 | 0.47 | 0.68 | 0.95 |
Means and standard deviations related to women’s and men’s scores based on DENS, PEBS, CS and self-compassionate and uncompassionate behaviors.
| Women | Men | F(1,1211) | p | η² | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DENS | 40.95 (11.54) | 37.59 (12.09) | 23.76 | <0.001 | 0.037 |
| PEBS | 45.92 (8.51) | 43.37 (8.83) | 25.65 | <0.001 | 0.039 |
| S-COMP | 43.34 (8.78) | 42.87 (7.84) | 0.952 | 0.329 | 0.007 |
| UNCOMP | 34.76 (10.70) | 32.56 (9.06) | 15.02 | <0.001 | 0.027 |
| CS | 65.19 (7.17) | 61.22 (7.17) | 92.37 | <0.001 | 0.101 |
Note: DENS = Dispositional Empathy for Nature Scale − Total Score; PEBS = Pro-Environmental Behaviors Scale − Total Score; CS = Compassion Scale − Total Score; S-COMP = self-compassionate behaviors; UNCOMP = uncompassionate behaviors.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between measured variables.
| Gender | Age | DENS | PEBS | S-COMP | UNCOMP | CS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 1 | ||||||
| Age | 0.10 * | 1 | |||||
| DENS | −0.14 * | 0.10 * | 1 | ||||
| PEBS | −0.14 * | 0.05 | 0.34 * | 1 | |||
| S-COMP | −0.03 | 0.09 * | 0.15 * | 0.20 * | 1 | ||
| UNCOMP | −0.11 * | −0.15 * | 0.02 | −0.07 | −0.42 * | 1 | |
| CS | −0.27* | −0.02 | 0.23 * | 0.19 * | 0.33 * | −0.06 | 1 |
Gender: 0 = females and 1 = males; DENS = Dispositional Empathy for Nature Scale − Total Score; PEBS = Pro-Environmental Behaviors Scale − Total Score; S-COMP = self-compassionate behaviors; UNCOMP = uncompassionate behaviors; CS = Compassion Scale − Total Score; * p < 0.001.
Indirect effects of dispositional empathy for nature on pro-environment behaviors through self-compassion and compassion.
| Indirect Effect | Effect (BootSE) | BootLLCI | BootULCI |
|---|---|---|---|
| DENS → SC → PEBS | 0.018 (0.006) | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| DENS → CS → PEBS | 0.015 (0.006) | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| DENS → SC → CS → PEBS | 0.004 (0.002) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
All path coefficients are standardized; DENS = Dispositional Empathy for Nature Scale − Total Score; SC = self-compassionate behaviors; CS = Compassion Scale − Total Score; PEBS = Pro-Environmental Behaviors Scale − Total Score; BootSE = boot-strapped standard error; BootLLCI = boot-strapped lower level confidence interval; BootULCI = boot-strapped upper level confidence interval. Boot-strapped CIs were based on 10,000 sample replications.
References
1. Dietz, T.; Shwom, R.L.; Whitley, C.T. Climate Change and Society. Annu. Rev. Sociol.; 2020; 46, pp. 135-158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054614]
2. Jay, A.; Reidmiller, D.R.; Avery, C.W.; Barrie, D.; DeAngelo, B.; Dave, A.; Dzaugis, M. Summary Findings and Overview. Fourth Natl. Clim. Assess.; 2018; 2, pp. 33-71.
3. Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pörtner, H.O.; Roberts, D.; Skea, J.; Shukla, P.R.; Waterfield, T. Global Warming of 1.5°C; An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1-630.
4. Dietz, T.; Gardner, G.T.; Gilligan, J.; Stern, P.C.; Vandenbergh, M.P. Household Actions Can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce US Carbon Emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2009; 106, pp. 18452-18456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908738106]
5. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2009; 29, pp. 309-317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004]
6. Kim, S.C.; Cooke, S.L. Using the Health Belief Model to Explore the Impact of Environmental Empathy on Behavioral Intentions to Protect Ocean Health. Environ. Behav.; 2021; 53, pp. 811-836. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916520932637]
7. Pfattheicher, S.; Sassenrath, C.; Schindler, S. Feelings for the Suffering of Others and the Environment: Compassion Fosters Proenvironmental Tendencies. Environ. Behav.; 2016; 48, pp. 929-945. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916515574549]
8. Young, A.; Khalil, K.A.; Wharton, J. Empathy for Animals: A Review of the Existing Literature. Curator Museum J.; 2018; 61, pp. 327-343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cura.12257]
9. Berenguer, J. The Effect of Empathy in Environmental Moral Reasoning. Environ. Behav.; 2010; 42, pp. 110-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916508325892]
10. Yan, Z.; Cortese, J. I Can Feel Your Pain: Investigating the Role of Empathy and Guilt on Sustainable Behavioral Intentions to Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Plastic Bags Among College Students. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 6572. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15086572]
11. Lim, D.; DeSteno, D. Suffering and Compassion: The Links among Adverse Life Experiences, Empathy, Compassion, and Prosocial Behavior. Emotion; 2016; 16, 175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000144] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26751630]
12. Berenguer, J. The Effect of Empathy in Proenvironmental Attitudes and Behaviors. Environ. Behav.; 2007; 39, pp. 269-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916506292937]
13. Di Fabio, A.; Kenny, M.E. Connectedness to Nature, Personality Traits, and Empathy from a Sustainability Perspective. Curr. Psychol.; 2021; 40, pp. 1095-1106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0031-4]
14. Ienna, M.; Rofe, A.; Gendi, M.; Douglas, H.E.; Kelly, M.; Hayward, M.W.; Griffin, A.S. The Relative Role of Knowledge and Empathy in Predicting Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavior. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 4622. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14084622]
15. Tam, K.P.; Lee, S.L.; Chao, M.M. Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism Enhances Connectedness to and Protectiveness Toward Nature. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.; 2013; 49, pp. 514-521. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.001]
16. Wang, L.; Sheng, G.; She, S.; Xu, J. Impact of Empathy with Nature on Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2023; 47, pp. 652-668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12856]
17. Zaki, J. Integrating Empathy and Interpersonal Emotion Regulation. Annu. Rev. Psychol.; 2020; 71, pp. 517-540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050830] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31553672]
18. Lindsay, E.K.; Creswell, J.D. Helping the Self Help Others: Self-Affirmation Increases Self-Compassion and Pro-Social Behaviors. Front. Psychol.; 2014; 5, 421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00421] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24860534]
19. Marshall, S.L.; Ciarrochi, J.; Parker, P.D.; Sahdra, B.K. Is Self-Compassion Selfish? The Development of Self-Compassion, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Adolescence. J. Res. Adolesc.; 2020; 30, pp. 472-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12492] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30884003]
20. Biber, D.D.; Ellis, R. The effect of self-compassion on the self-regulation of health behaviors: A systematic review. J. Health Psychol.; 2019; 24, pp. 2060-2071. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105317713361]
21. Horan, K.A.; Taylor, M.B. Mindfulness and self-compassion as tools in health behavior change: An evaluation of a workplace intervention pilot study. J. Context. Behav. Sci.; 2018; 8, pp. 8-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.02.003]
22. Elliott, E.; Cassidy, T. Beliefs, attitudes and intentions towards environmental issues: The role of self-compassion and wellbeing. J. Psychol. Clin. Psychiatry; 2024; 15, pp. 87-92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15406/jpcpy.2024.15.00763]
23. Loy, L.S.; Clemens, A.; Reese, G. Mind–Body Practice Is Related to Pro-Environmental Engagement Through Self-Compassion and Global Identity Rather Than to Self-Enhancement. Mindfulness; 2022; 13, pp. 660-673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12671-021-01823-1]
24. Batson, C.D. The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-Psychological Answer; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2014; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315808048]
25. Schultz, P.W. New Environmental Theories: Empathizing with Nature: The Effects of Perspective Taking on Concern for Environmental Issues. J. Soc. Issues; 2000; 56, pp. 391-406. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00174]
26. Wispé, L. History of the Concept of Empathy. Empathy and Its Development; Eisenberg, N.; Strayer, J. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1987; pp. 17-37.
27. Batson, C.D.; Sager, K.; Garts, E.; Kang, M.; Rubchinsky, K.; Dawson, K. Is Empathy-Induced Helping Due to Self-Other Merging?. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.; 1997; 73, pp. 495-509. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.495]
28. Håkansson, J. Exploring the Phenomenon of Empathy. Ph.D. Thesis; Department of Psychology, University of Stockholm: Stockholm, Sweden, 2003.
29. Brown, K.; Adger, W.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Anderies, J.M.; Barr, S.; Bousquet, F.; Quinn, T. Empathy, Place, and Identity Interactions for Sustainability. Glob. Environ. Change; 2019; 56, pp. 11-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.003]
30. Toi, M.; Batson, C.D. More Evidence that Empathy Is a Source of Altruistic Motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.; 1982; 43, pp. 281-292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.2.281]
31. Tam, K.P. Dispositional Empathy with Nature. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2013; 35, pp. 92-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.004]
32. Uhlmann, K.; Lin, B.B.; Ross, H. Who Cares? The Importance of Emotional Connections with Nature to Ensure Food Security and Wellbeing in Cities. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 1844. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10061844]
33. Tam, K.P. Anthropomorphism of Nature, Environmental Guilt, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 5430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11195430]
34. Westbury, H.R.; Neumann, D.L. Empathy-Related Responses to Moving Film Stimuli Depicting Human and Non-Human Animal Targets in Negative Circumstances. Biol. Psychol.; 2008; 78, pp. 66-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.12.009]
35. Waytz, A.; Cacioppo, J.; Epley, N. Who Sees Human? The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.; 2010; 5, pp. 219-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336]
36. Kandaurova, M.; Lee, S.H.M. The Effects of Virtual Reality (VR) on Charitable Giving: The Role of Empathy, Guilt, Responsibility, and Social Exclusion. J. Bus. Res.; 2019; 100, pp. 571-580. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.027]
37. Sevillano, V.; Corraliza, J.A.; Lorenzo, E. Spanish Version of the Dispositional Empathy with Nature Scale. Rev. Psicol. Soc.; 2017; 32, pp. 624-658. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2017.1356548]
38. Batson, C.D.; Lishner, D.A.; Stocks, E.L. The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis. The Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior; Schroder, D.A.; Graziano, W.G. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 259-281.
39. Singer, T.; Klimecki, O.M. Empathy and Compassion. Curr. Biol.; 2014; 24, pp. R875-R878. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.054] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25247366]
40. Batavia, C.; Nelson, M.P.; Bruskotter, J.T.; Jones, M.S.; Yanco, E.; Ramp, D.; Wallach, A.D. Emotion as a Source of Moral Understanding in Conservation. Conserv. Biol.; 2021; 35, pp. 1380-1387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13689]
41. Griffin, A.S.; Callen, A.; Klop-Toker, K.; Scanlon, R.J.; Hayward, M.W. Compassionate Conservation Clashes with Conservation Biology: Should Empathy, Compassion, and Deontological Moral Principles Drive Conservation Practice?. Front. Psychol.; 2020; 11, 1139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01139] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32536896]
42. Bekoff, M. Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2019.
43. Ramp, D.; Bekoff, M. Compassion as a Practical and Evolved Ethic for Conservation. BioScience; 2015; 65, pp. 323-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu223]
44. Wallach, A.D.; Bekoff, M.; Batavia, C.; Nelson, M.P.; Ramp, D. Summoning Compassion to Address the Challenges of Conservation. Conserv. Biol.; 2018; 32, pp. 1255-1265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13126] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29700860]
45. Bloom, P. Empathy, Schmempathy: Response to Zaki. Trends Cogn. Sci.; 2017; 21, pp. 60-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.12.003]
46. Kogut, T.; Ritov, I. The “Identified Victim” Effect: An Identified Group, or Just a Single Individual?. J. Behav. Decis. Mak.; 2005; 18, pp. 157-167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.492]
47. Slovic, P. “If I Look at the Mass I Will Never Act”: Psychic Numbing and Genocide. Judgm. Decis. Mak.; 2007; 2, pp. 79-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000061]
48. Small, D.A.; Loewenstein, G.; Slovic, P. Sympathy and Callousness: Affect and Deliberations in Donation Decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.; 2007; 102, pp. 143-153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005]
49. Västfjäll, D.; Slovic, P.; Mayorga, M.; Peters, E. Compassion Fade: Affect and Charity Are Greatest for a Single Child in Need. PLoS ONE; 2014; 9, e100115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100115]
50. Burnstein, E.; Crandall, C.; Kitayama, S. Some Neo-Darwinian Decision Rules for Altruism: Weighing Cues for Inclusive Fitness as a Function of the Biological Importance of the Decision. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.; 1994; 67, pp. 773-789. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.773]
51. Levine, M.; Thompson, K. Identity, Place, and Bystander Intervention: Social Categories and Helping after Natural Disasters. J. Soc. Psychol.; 2004; 144, pp. 229-245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.3.229-245] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15168427]
52. Västfjäll, D.; Erlandsson, A.; Slovic, P.; Tinghög, G. Commentary: Empathy and Its Discontents. Front. Psychol.; 2017; 8, 542. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00542]
53. Stevens, F.; Taber, K. The Neuroscience of Empathy and Compassion in Pro-Social Behavior. Neuropsychologia; 2021; 159, 107925. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107925]
54. Neff, K.D.; Germer, C.K. A Pilot Study and Randomized Controlled Trial of the Mindful Self-Compassion Program. J. Clin. Psychol.; 2013; 69, pp. 28-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21923] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23070875]
55. Rütgers, L.R. Is Compassion the Key? Gender Differences in Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Bachelor’s Thesis; University of Twente: Enschede, The Netherlands, 2021.
56. Yarnell, L.M.; Stafford, R.E.; Neff, K.D.; Reilly, E.D.; Knox, M.C.; Mullarkey, M. Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Self-Compassion. Self Identity; 2015; 14, pp. 499-520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2015.1029966]
57. Welp, L.R.; Brown, C.M. Self-Compassion, Empathy, and Helping Intentions. J. Posit. Psychol.; 2014; 9, pp. 54-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.831465]
58. Lo, Q.H.Y. The Relationship of Self-Compassion and Self-Esteem to Empathy, Shame, and Social Functioning in Adolescents Who Offend Sexually. Master’s Thesis; University of Toronto: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2007; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/1807/120138 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
59. Gu, J.; Baer, R.; Cavanagh, K.; Kuyken, W.; Strauss, C. Development and Psychometric Properties of the Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scales (SOCS). Assessment; 2020; 27, pp. 3-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191119860911] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31353931]
60. Ballarotto, G.; D’Anna, V.; Stefàno, L.; Velotti, P. Can Mindfulness Mediate the Relationship between Emotional Regulation and Pro-Environmental Behavior?. Mindfulness; 2024; 15, pp. 1958-1971. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12671-024-02405-7]
61. Markle, G.L. Pro-Environmental Behavior: Does It Matter How It’s Measured? Development and Validation of the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS). Hum. Ecol.; 2013; 41, pp. 905-914. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8]
62. Menardo, E.; Brondino, M.; Pasini, M. Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Pro-Environmental Behaviours Scale (PEBS). Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2020; 22, pp. 6907-6930. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00520-3]
63. Pommier, E.; Neff, K.D.; Tóth-Király, I. The Development and Validation of the Compassion Scale. Assessment; 2020; 27, pp. 21-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191119874108]
64. Lucarini, A.; Fuochi, G.; Voci, A. A Deep Dive into Compassion: Italian Validation, Network Analysis, and Correlates of Recent Compassion Scales. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess.; 2022; in press [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000717]
65. Neff, K. Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself. Self Identity; 2003; 2, pp. 85-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032]
66. Neff, K.D. The Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Self-Compassion. Self Identity; 2003; 2, pp. 223-250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027]
67. Veneziani, C.A.; Fuochi, G.; Voci, A. Self-Compassion as a Healthy Attitude Toward the Self: Factorial and Construct Validity in an Italian Sample. Pers. Individ. Differ.; 2017; 119, pp. 60-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.028]
68. Bartlett, M.S. Tests of Significance in Factor Analysis. Br. J. Psychol.; 1950; 3, pp. 77-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x]
69. Meyers, L.S.; Gamst, G.C.; Guarino, A.J. Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006.
70. Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. Mplus User’s Guide; 8th ed. Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017.
71. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
72. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); 3rd ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022.
73. Crawford, A.V.; Green, S.B.; Levy, R.; Lo, W.J.; Scott, L.; Svetina, D.; Thompson, M.S. Evaluation of Parallel Analysis Methods for Determining the Number of Factors. Educ. Psychol. Meas.; 2010; 70, pp. 885-901. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164410379332]
74. McNeish, D.; An, J.; Hancock, G.R. The Thorny Relation Between Measurement Quality and Fit Index Cutoffs in Latent Variable Models. J. Pers. Assess.; 2018; 100, pp. 43-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28631976]
75. Fabrigar, L.R.; Wegener, D.T.; MacCallum, R.C.; Strahan, E.J. Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research. Psychol. Methods; 1999; 4, pp. 272-299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272]
76. Hancock, G.R.; Mueller, R.O. The Reliability Paradox in Assessing Structural Relations within Covariance Structure Models. Educ. Psychol. Meas.; 2011; 71, pp. 306-324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164410384856]
77. Geiger, S.M.; Keller, J. Shopping for Clothes and Sensitivity to the Suffering of Others: The Role of Compassion and Values in Sustainable Fashion Consumption. Environ. Behav.; 2018; 50, pp. 1119-1144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916517732109]
78. AlQallaf, N.; Elnagar, D.W.; Aly, S.G.; Elkhodary, K.I.; Ghannam, R. Empathy, Education, and Awareness: A VR Hackathon’s Approach to Tackling Climate Change. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 2461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16062461]
79. Mercadillo, R.E.; Díaz, J.L.; Pasaye, E.H.; Barrios, F.A. Perception of Suffering and Compassion Experience: Brain Gender Disparities. Brain Cogn.; 2011; 76, pp. 5-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.03.019] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21492980]
80. Toussaint, L.; Webb, J.R. Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Empathy and Forgiveness. J. Soc. Psychol.; 2005; 145, pp. 673-685. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.145.6.673-686] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16334893]
81. Gifford, R.; Sussman, R. Environmental Attitudes. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology; Clayton, S.D. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 65-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0004]
82. Briscoe, M.D.; Givens, J.E.; Hazboun, S.O.; Krannich, R.S. At Home, in Public, and in Between: Gender Differences in Public, Private and Transportation Pro-Environmental Behaviors in the US Intermountain West. Environ. Sociol.; 2019; 5, pp. 374-392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2019.1628333]
83. Plavsic, S. An Investigation of Gender Differences in Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors. Honors Scholar Thesis; University of Connecticut: Storrs, CT, USA, 2013; Available online: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/404 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
84. Chan, H.W.; Pong, V.; Tam, K.P. Cross-National Variation of Gender Differences in Environmental Concern: Testing the Sociocultural Hindrance Hypothesis. Environ. Behav.; 2019; 51, pp. 81-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916517735149]
85. Davidson, D.J.; Freudenburg, W.R. Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research. Environ. Behav.; 1996; 28, pp. 302-339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283003]
86. Hadler, M.; Haller, M. Global Activism and Nationally Driven Recycling: The Influence of World Society and National Contexts on Public and Private Environmental Behavior. Int. Sociol.; 2011; 26, pp. 315-345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0268580910392258]
87. Xiao, C.; Hong, D. Gender Differences in Environmental Behaviors in China. Popul. Environ.; 2010; 32, pp. 88-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0115-z]
88. Yarnell, L.M.; Neff, K.D.; Davidson, O.A.; Mullarkey, M. Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role of Gender Role Orientation. Mindfulness; 2019; 10, pp. 1136-1152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1066-1]
89. Löffler, C.S.; Greitemeyer, T. Are women the more empathetic gender? The effects of gender role expectations. Curr. Psychol.; 2023; 42, pp. 220-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01260-8]
90. Chopik, W.J.; O’Brien, E.; Konrath, S.H. Differences in empathic concern and perspective taking across 63 countries. J. Cross Cult. Psychol.; 2017; 48, pp. 23-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022116673910]
91. Birkett, M. Self-compassion and empathy across cultures: Comparison of young adults in China and the United States. Int. J. Res. Stud. Psychol.; 2014; 3, pp. 25-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5861/ijrsp.2013.551]
92. Jordan, M.R.; Amir, D.; Bloom, P. Are Empathy and Concern Psychologically Distinct?. Emotion; 2016; 16, pp. 1107-1116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000228]
93. Koller, K.; Pankowska, P.K.; Brick, C. Identifying Bias in Self-Reported Pro-Environmental Behavior. Curr. Res. Ecol. Soc. Psychol.; 2023; 4, 100087. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2022.100087]
94. Milfont, T.L. The effects of social desirability on self-reported environmental attitudes and ecological behaviour. Environmentalist; 2009; 29, pp. 263-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9192-2]
95. Vesely, S.; Klöckner, C.A. Social desirability in environmental psychology research: Three meta-analyses. Front. Psychol.; 2020; 11, 1395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01395] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32793022]
96. Raykov, T.; Rodenberg, C.; Narayanan, A. Optimal shortening of multiple-component measuring instruments: A latent variable modeling procedure. Struct. Equ. Model.; 2015; 22, pp. 227-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.935927]
97. Gonzalez, O. Psychometric and machine learning approaches to reduce the length of scales. Multivariate Behav. Res.; 2021; 56, pp. 903-919. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1781585] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32749158]
98. Ballarotto, G.; Velotti, P. Easier Said Than Done: An Empirical Study of the Role of Emotional Factors in Pro-Environmental Behaviors. PsyEcology; 2025; in press
99. Whitley, C.T.; Kalof, L.; Flach, T. Using Animal Portraiture to Activate Emotional Affect. Environ. Behav.; 2021; 53, pp. 837-863. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916520928429]
100. Ballarotto, G.; Abate, R.; Baiocco, R.; Velotti, P. The Relationship Between Emotion Regulation and Sustainable Leadership: The Mediating Role of Social Safeness. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ.; 2024; pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2024.2302512]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Ghezzi, Valerio 2
; Velotti, Patrizia 1
1 Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, and Heath Studies, “La Sapienza” University of Rome, Via degli Apuli 1, 00185 Rome, Italy;
2 Department of Psychology, “La Sapienza” University of Rome, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy;