Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Mindfulness
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol:.(1234567890)
Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-024-02405-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Does Mindfulness Mediate theRelationship Between Emotion
Regulation andPro‑Environmental Behaviors Differently Based
onGender?
GiuliaBallarotto1 · ValeriaD’Anna1· LorenzoStefàno1· PatriziaVelotti1
Accepted: 21 June 2024 / Published online: 24 July 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to explore possible gender differences in the relationship between emotion dysregulation, mind-
fulness, and pro-environmental behaviors. Specifically, it aimed to investigate whether mindfulness mediated the association
between emotion dysregulation and pro-environmental behaviors, and if there were any gender differences in this relationship.
Method A sample of 1,406 employees (56.3% males, average age = 44.85) participated in the study. Participants completed
the Pro-Environmental Behaviors Scale (PEBS), Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale- Short Form (DERS-SF), and
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) to assess pro-environmental behaviors, emotion regulation, and mindfulness,
respectively. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, Pearson's correlation analysis, and mediation analysis.
Results Women exhibited higher scores on the PEBS total scale (p < 0.001; 𝜂2 = 0.02), higher scores on the Observe and
Describe FFMQ subscales (p < 0.001; 𝜂2 = 0.01), and lower scores on the Non-react FFMQ subscale (p < 0.001; 𝜂2 = 0.01),
compared to men. No gender differences were found on the DERS-SF total scale (p > 0.05; 𝜂2 = 0.00). Higher levels of
emotion dysregulation were associated with lower pro-environmental behaviors (r = - 0.12; p < 0.05). Mindfulness mediated
the relationship between emotion dysregulation and pro-environmental behaviors, specifically through the ability to observe
one's own emotions and external stimuli. Gender differences were found based on the Non-react facet of mindfulness, which
is negatively associated with pro-environmental behaviors in men (β = - 0.08; p < 0.05) and positively associated with them
in women (β = 0.09; p < 0.05).
Conclusions The findings suggest that emotion dysregulation and mindfulness are associated with pro-environmental
behaviors. The ability to observe one's own emotions and external stimuli plays a significant role in promoting sustainable
behaviors, while the ability to perceive one's own emotions without feeling overwhelmed or compelled to react to them has
different associations with pro-environmental behaviors in men and women. These results provide insights for the develop-
ment of interventions targeting emotion regulation and mindfulness to encourage pro-environmental behaviors, specifically
based on gender.
Preregistration This study is not preregistered.
Keywords Emotion regulation· Mindfulness· Pro-environmental behaviors· Serial mediation model· Gender
Numerous studies have pointed out that in order to halt and
prevent the effects of climate change, it is necessary for indi-
viduals to actively modify many of their daily behaviors,
such as energy use, transportation, diet, and purchases (Dietz
etal., 2009; Gifford, 2011). Consequently, several studies
have focused on interventions that can encourage pro-envi-
ronmental behaviors (Grilli & Curtis, 2021; Steg & Vlek,
2009), which are defined as "behaviors that consciously
seek to minimize the negative impact of one's actions on the
natural and built world (e.g., minimize resource and energy
consumption, use of non-toxic substances, reduce waste pro-
duction)" (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002, p. 240).
Recently, Thiermann and Sheate (2020a) highlighted
the need to implement intervention programs that take into
account cognitive and emotional aspects in relation to self,
* Patrizia Velotti
patrizia.velotti@uniroma1.it
1 Department ofDynamic andClinical Psychology,
andHealth Studies, University ofRome “La Sapienza”, via
degli Apuli 1, cap, 00185Rome, Italy
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1959Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
others, and nature, rather than just normative aspects, in
order to promote the emergence and maintenance of pro-
environmental behaviors. Indeed, emotions can drive people
to act sustainably and care for the environment, and emo-
tional variables can interact in multidimensional ways to
determine people's behavior (Li etal., 2019). Research has
highlighted the relevance of emotional reactions to climate
change for sustainable behavior and its modification (Brad-
ley etal., 2020; Davidson & Kecinski, 2022), and some
studies have found that certain emotional variables are key
factors in influencing pro-environmental behaviors (Bro-
sch & Steg, 2021; Carmi etal., 2015; Li etal., 2019). It is
important to consider that, although numerous studies have
highlighted how there are gender differences in emotional
factors (Bianchin & Angrilli, 2012; Rochat, 2023), there are
no studies that have investigated whether the association of
emotional factors on pro-environmental behaviors could be
different based on gender.
While many studies have focused on variables such as
empathy (Berenguer, 2007; Ienna etal., 2022), empathy
with nature (Wang etal., 2023), compassion (Ramstetter
etal., 2023; Zelenski & Desrochers, 2021), and gratitude
(Sun etal., 2023; Tam, 2022), recently, a growing body
of research suggests that not only perceived emotions but
especially the ability to regulate one's own emotions can be
associated with pro-environmental behaviors (Li etal., 2022;
Panno etal., 2015; Panno etal., 2020).
One factor that could explain the relationship between
emotion regulation and pro-environmental behaviors is
mindfulness. Numerous studies have shown a close relation-
ship between emotion regulation and mindfulness (Lyvers
etal., 2014; Roemer etal., 2015). For example, several stud-
ies have found that mindfulness-based training allows for an
improvement in the ability to regulate one's own emotions
(Farb etal., 2014; Wimmer etal., 2019). The Western psy-
chological concept of decentering, which involves viewing
one's thoughts and emotions with detached awareness, par-
allels the Buddhist practice of mindfulness and the under-
standing of no-self, or anatta, emphasizing the impermanent
and non-self nature of mental phenomena.
The emotion regulation and mindfulness constructs
should be considered together when thinking about inter-
ventions to promote pro-environmental behaviors. Effective
emotion regulation skills could enable people to approach
emotions such as concern for the environment and the cli-
mate crisis, and greater awareness of their emotions could
lead them to act more in tune with them. Indeed, a wide
range of studies have demonstrated that mindfulness can
improve pro-environmental behavior in various ways (Thi-
ermann & Sheate, 2020b).
The regulation of emotions has been defined as the pro-
cesses by which individuals influence the emotions they
experience when they experience them, and how they
experience and express these emotions (Rottenberg & Gross,
2003). Gratz and Roemer (2004) considered the necessary
components for successful emotion regulation: awareness
and acceptance of one's emotions, the ability to change
emotions according to one's goals, and the ability to control
behavior in the presence of negative emotions. The absence
of one of these capacities is termed emotion dysregulation
(Gratz & Roemer, 2004).
The concept of emotion regulation, and especially emo-
tion dysregulation, has been extensively studied in the field
of clinical psychology, showing associations with various
psychopathological manifestations such as eating disorders
(Ballarotto etal., 2017; Rania etal., 2021), schizophrenia
(Liu etal., 2020), personality disorders (Chapman, 2019;
Ponzoni etal., 2021), psychopathy (Garofalo etal., 2021),
and aggression (Garofalo etal., 2018; Velotti etal., 2019).
McRae etal. (2008) have indicated that there were gender
differences in how one regulates one's emotions. Through an
fMRI study, they have shown that compared to women; men
showed smaller increases in prefrontal regions associated
with cognitive reappraisal, greater decreases in the amyg-
dala, which is associated with emotional responding, and
less engagement of ventral striatal regions, which are associ-
ated with reward processing. However, other studies found
higher dysregulation in women (Brindle etal., 2019; Velotti
etal., 2016), while other studies have not highlighted gender
differences in emotion dysregulation (Ballarotto etal., 2024;
Gross & John, 2003).
Recently, some studies have shown that the enhanced
ability to regulate one's emotions is also associated with
environmentally supportive behaviors (Li etal., 2022). Spe-
cifically, recent studies have underlined that individual dif-
ferences in the way of regulating one's emotions can foster
the perception of climate change and, in turn, be related to
pro-environmental behaviors (Li etal., 2022; Panno etal.,
2015; Panno etal., 2020). Panno etal. (2015) were interested
in understanding if and how individual variations in emotion
regulation can influence the perception of climate change
and, consequently, be associated with pro-environmental
behaviors. Thanks to Gross and John (2003), we know that
individuals can use strategies to regulate their own emo-
tions. One of these strategies is cognitive reappraisal, which
offers benefits in multiple areas, from work performance to
decision-making (Finkel etal., 2013; Gross, 2011; Leroy
etal., 2012; Panno etal., 2013). Cognitive reappraisal is
the ability to re-evaluate a situation by modifying its emo-
tional response, affecting the way people see their physical
environment and the goals they pursue (Panno etal., 2015).
Thanks to this strategy, individuals can better protect the
natural environment around them as they understand more
deeply the emotions provided by it. Panno etal. (2020) have
shown that those who routinely use cognitive reappraisal
to regulate their emotions have increased sensitivity to the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1960 Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
climate emergency, and this awareness could encourage
more sustainable behaviors. The authors consider the more
accurate perception of climate change as a central factor in
the relationship between the habitual use of cognitive reap-
praisal and sustainable behavior. They have also discovered
that pro-environment actions increase because, with cogni-
tive reappraisal, individuals rediscover the awareness of the
benefits of nature and reinterpret the immersion with it as a
positive experience and something to safeguard as much as
possible. This happens thanks to an individual's perception
of the self that escapes from routine reality and takes ref-
uge in the natural environment, which is felt as a restorative
experience.
However, cognitive reappraisal is only one strategy of
emotion regulation and does not represent the complete
functioning of an individual's emotion regulation. Further-
more, there are no studies investigating the role of emo-
tion dysregulation in acting pro-environmental behaviors.
Indeed, emotion dysregulation is associated with maladap-
tive relational functioning and fewer prosocial behaviors
(Casini etal., 2022; Garofalo etal., 2017; Malkoç etal.,
2019). Given that pro-environmental behaviors are a specific
form of prosocial behavior (Nolan & Schultz, 2014), further
studies should investigate how emotion dysregulation might
be negatively associated with pro-environmental behaviors,
exploring the factors that can promote environmentally
supportive actions. One construct that could help enhance
understanding of this relationship is mindfulness.
Being mindful means being aware and paying attention
to both our internal experiences and the external world
without avoiding thoughts or feelings that we may dislike
or wish were not true (Baer etal., 2006). Mindfulness can
be defined as “paying attention in a particular way: on pur-
pose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally” (Kabat-
Zinn, 1994, p. 4) or as “receptive attention to and awareness
of present events and experience” (Brown etal., 2007, p.
212). The Buddhist concept of no-self asserts that there is no
unchanging, permanent self or soul within beings, challeng-
ing the notion of a fixed identity. This doctrine encourages
the understanding that what we consider “self” is merely
a collection of transient mental and physical processes. In
contrast, the Buddhist framework also differentiates between
the conventional truth, which acknowledges the everyday
perception of a self for practical purposes, and the ultimate
truth, which recognizes the absence of an inherent, inde-
pendent self. This dual perspective aids in the deeper realiza-
tion of the impermanent nature of existence.
Studies that have investigated gender differences in mind-
fulness skills have found conflicting results: while Alispahic
and Hasanbegovic-Anic (2017) found a greater tendency in
women than men to attend to internal and external stimuli,
along with related cognitions and emotions, Fuentes etal.
(2022) did not find this difference. However, they did find a
higher ability in men than in women to perceive their own
emotions and thoughts without feeling overwhelmed or com-
pelled to react to them. On the other hand, Tasneem and
Panwar (2019) found no gender difference.
A specific mindfulness characteristic, the Western con-
ceptualization of decentering, involves the ability to observe
one's thoughts and emotions with a detached awareness, rec-
ognizing them as transient mental events rather than intrinsic
aspects of the self (Hayes-Skelton & Graham, 2013). This
perspective emphasizes an objective, non-reactive stance
towards one's internal experiences, allowing individuals
to respond to situations more adaptively rather than being
driven by automatic, habitual reactions. Decentering helps
in reducing cognitive fusion, where thoughts are perceived
as accurate reflections of reality, thus fostering greater emo-
tion regulation and psychological flexibility (Hayes-Skelton
& Graham, 2013).
Mindfulness has been associated with pro-environmental
behaviors (Panno etal., 2018) and a general connectedness
to nature (Van Gordon etal., 2018). High levels of mindful-
ness as a trait have been linked to a tendency to consume
more sustainably (Dhandra, 2019; Fischer etal., 2017; Park
& Dhandra, 2017), eat less meat (Hunecke & Richter, 2019;
Werner etal., 2020), and participate more frequently in envi-
ronmental activism initiatives (Wamsler & Brink, 2018).
Some researchers have also found that individuals who
engage in active mindfulness practices, such as meditation
or other mind-body exercises, are more likely to adopt pro-
environmental behaviors (Jacob etal., 2009; Loy etal., 2022;
Loy & Reese, 2019; Panno etal., 2018). Indeed, mindfulness
can improve pro-environmental behavior in various ways.
For example, Barbaro and Pickett (2016) argued that mind-
fulness enhances interactions with the natural surroundings,
potentially nurturing a deeper bond with the environment.
Furthermore, mindfulness is correlated with higher levels of
subjective general well-being and health-related conditions,
which, in turn, influence how we perceive environmental
problems and approach them. Dealing with anxiety, depres-
sion, stress, or physical pain can make it harder to focus on
climate change because when basic needs are not fulfilled,
people become more focused on personal concerns (Ericson
etal., 2014). Additionally, increased awareness can reduce
emotional and cognitive habits, thus promoting a more flex-
ible, non-automatic, and objectively informed way of being
(Ericson etal., 2014). Long-term changes in environmental
behaviors can be significantly hindered by habitual behav-
iors, especially if unsustainable behaviors are driven by una-
ware emotional impulses (Klöckner & Verplanken, 2018).
Therefore, several studies have found that mindfulness can
improve sustainable behaviors by reducing automatic and
impulsive behaviors, helping individuals observe their inter-
nal and external experiences and act with greater aware-
ness. For example, an interesting study (Armstrong, 2012)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1961Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
found that mindfulness learning leads to reported changes in
areas related to affect regulation and the sense of self experi-
ences in compulsive buyers, such that there is a decrease in
emphasis on consumer goods sought for their emotional or
symbolic properties. Furthermore, Amel etal. (2009) found
a significant positive correlation between the mindfulness
facet "acting with awareness" and scores on a green behavior
scale in a small sample of 100 visitors to a sustainability
expo. Moreover, in two recent studies (Hunecke & Rich-
ter, 2019; Richter & Hunecke, 2020), the mindfulness facet
"observe" was identified as the strongest predictor of sustain-
able and organic food consumption. A weak positive corre-
lation was also found between "acting with awareness" and
sustainable food consumption (Hunecke & Richter, 2019).
This aspect of mindfulness, its effect on reducing automatic
and impulsive behaviors, helps us understand the close inter-
connection between mindfulness and emotion regulation.
While research has demonstrated the clinical efficacy of
mindfulness-based interventions in a wide range of psycho-
logical conditions (Goldberg etal., 2018; Klainin-Yobas
etal., 2012; Shapero etal., 2018), interventions based on
increasing awareness to promote pro-environmental behav-
iors have yielded disappointing results (Böhme etal., 2018;
Geiger, Fischer, etal., 2019; Stanszus etal., 2019). Further
studies are needed to understand the mechanisms that may
promote greater pro-environmental behaviors and a better
understanding of any gender differences. Indeed, while some
studies have demonstrated various gender-based strategies
for regulating emotions (McRae etal., 2008) and attending
to internal and external stimuli (Alispahic & Hasanbegovic-
Anic, 2017), there are none that have investigated how dis-
tinct emotional factors based on gender might yield diver-
gent outcomes in terms of sustainability behaviors. Although
an association has been found between emotion regulation
skills and pro-environmental behaviors, as well as between
mindfulness and pro-environmental behaviors, we aimed to
further explore the relationship between these two constructs
in order to understand the complex dynamics that can lead to
the implementation of greater pro-environmental behaviors.
Based on the current state of research, the aim of our
study was to explore the complex interplay between emotion
regulation, mindfulness, and pro-environmental behaviors,
as well as to investigate potential gender differences in this
relationship. Specifically, we wanted to verify the following
hypotheses.
Building on previous studies (Zelezny etal., 2000), we
hypothesized (1) that women would exhibit higher levels of
pro-environmental behaviors compared to men. Addition-
ally, based on the existing literature (Catak, 2012; Gross &
John, 2003), we did not expect to find gender differences in
levels of mindfulness and emotion dysregulation.
Drawing on previous theoretical premises, we wanted to
investigate (2) whether the association between lower lev-
els of emotion dysregulation (indicating adaptive emotion
regulation abilities) and greater pro-environmental behaviors
could be explained by mindfulness, separately for men and
women. We hypothesized that the ability to regulate one's
emotions would foster self-awareness and an awareness of
the surrounding world, ultimately leading to pro-environ-
mental action (Fig.1).
Method
Participants
Thanks to the collaboration with several firms operating in
the country, a sampling of employees aged 18 years and
older was recruited. The companies that were asked to par-
ticipate in our study were national and multinational compa-
nies, which represented different sectors, including energy,
technology, and finance. The sample consisted of n = 1406
employees (56.30% males; average age = 44.85; SD =
10.10). An a priori power analysis was conducted using the
G*Power 3.1.9.6 software, in order to determine the sample
size necessary to test our hypotheses. In H1 we wanted to
verify a difference between the means based on gender (k =
2). The n was therefore calculated based on ANOVA ana-
lyzes conducted. The number of groups considered was two
(males and females). The degree of freedom in the numera-
tor was 1. The chosen critical alpha value was 0.05, while
the 1-beta value was 0.95, and the effect size f was 0.15.
Based on this, a required sample size of 580 subjects was
determined. Therefore, the sample we collected satisfies the
size necessary to test the hypotheses formulated. By observ-
ing the demographic characteristics of the sample, we see
Fig. 1 Hypothesized model
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1962 Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
that 48.90% of the sample lived in cities (with more than
100,000 inhabitants), 56.20% had a master's degree or post-
graduate qualification, and 52.80% earned between 36000
and 70000 euros per year. Furthermore, 50% of the sample
was married, and 15% was cohabitant. 55.80% had at least
one child.
Procedure
After researchers explained the study objectives, all par-
ticipants filled out an informed consent in which the pur-
poses of the study were explained in detail. The participants
completed an online survey containing the questionnaires
described below.
Measures
Pro-environmental behaviors. Participants completed the
Pro-Environmental Behaviors Scale (PEBS; Markle, 2013;
Italian adaptation - Menardo etal., 2020), a self-report ques-
tionnaire designed to assess individuals' pro-environmental
behaviors across four dimensions: conservation, environ-
mental citizenship, food, and transportation. The Italian
adaptation of the scale includes 15 items. For the purposes
of this study, the total score was utilized, which demon-
strates satisfactory internal consistency (McDonald's omega
= 0.66; Cronbach's alpha = 0.65).
Emotion regulation. In order to assess emotion regula-
tion, the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale – Short
Form (DERS-SF; Victor & Klonsky, 2016; Italian validation
– Rossi etal., 2023) was administered. The DERS-SF is a
shortened version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation
Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Participants filled
out 18 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The scale meas-
ures levels of emotion dysregulation, providing a total score
and scores for six dimensions: Non-Acceptance, Awareness,
Clarity, Strategies, Goals, and Impulse. For this study, the
DERS Total score (ranging from 18 to 90) was considered.
The McDonald's omega for the DERS-18 Total Score in this
study was 0.88, and the Cronbach's alpha was 0.90, indicat-
ing high internal consistency.
Mindfulness. Participants completed the Five Facet Mind-
fulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer etal., 2006 - Italian
translation - Giovannini etal., 2014) to assess dispositional
mindfulness. The FFMQ is a self-report questionnaire con-
sisting of 39 items, rated on a 5-point Likert scale (rang-
ing from 1 = never true to 5 = always true). The FFMQ
measures an individual's tendency to be mindful in daily
life across five distinct domains. The "Observe" subscale
assesses the tendency to attend to internal and external
stimuli, as well as related cognitions and emotions. The
"Describe" subscale measures the ability to articulate one's
own emotional experience. The "Act with Awareness" sub-
scale evaluates the tendency to pay ongoing attention to
present activities while being aware of personal motives.
The "Non-Judge" subscale assesses the tendency to adopt a
non-evaluative stance toward one's own thoughts and feel-
ings. Finally, the "Non-React" subscale measures the ability
to perceive one's own emotions and thoughts without feeling
overwhelmed or compelled to react to them. Higher scores
on each subscale indicate higher levels of dispositional
mindfulness. The internal consistency coefficients for the
individual subscales of the FFMQ in the current sample indi-
cated adequate reliability (McDonald's omega ranged from
0.75 to 0.91; Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.71 to 0.90).
Data Analyses
Descriptive analyses, including frequencies, means, and
standard deviations, were conducted, and the normality of
the variables was assessed. The reliability of the instruments
used was also examined.
To investigate potential differences between women and
men on the measured variables, a one-way ANOVA was
performed. The dependent variables included the PEBS
Total Score, the DERS-SF Total Score, and the scores on the
FFMQ domains, while the independent variable was gender.
A one-way ANOVA was used instead of a t-test because the
sample size and the normality of the distribution of the vari-
ables allowed for its use (for further details, see Thompson,
2006).
In order to test the hypothesized model, a mediation
analysis was conducted. First, Pearson's correlation analyses
were performed to examine significant correlations between
the measured variables. Subsequently, a mediation analysis
was conducted to investigate whether mindfulness mediated
the relationship between emotion dysregulation and pro-
environmental behaviors. The indirect effect was assessed
using bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based
on 10,000 bootstrap samples. All statistical analyses were
carried out using IBM SPSS software, version 27.0. Serial
mediation analysis was conducted using Hayes's PROCESS
macro (Model 6, the model used to analyze serial media-
tions) (Hayes, 2017).
Results
Assessing gender differences
To examine potential differences between women and men
in levels of pro-environmental behaviors, emotion dysregu-
lation, and mindfulness, an ANOVA was conducted. The
independent variable was gender, while the dependent vari-
ables were the PEBS Total Score, the DERS-SF Total Score,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1963Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
and the scores on FFMQ domains. As shown in Table1,
the results revealed that women exhibited greater pro-
environmental behaviors and higher levels of the Observe
and Describe FFMQ domains compared to men. However,
no significant gender differences were found in terms of
emotion dysregulation, Actaware, and Non-judge FFMQ
domains (p > 0.05), while men scored higher on the Non-
react FFMQ domain (Table2).
The mediator role ofmindfulness
intherelationship betweenemotion regulation
andpro‑environmental behaviors
Pearson's correlation analyses were conducted to examine
the significant correlations among the measured variables,
gender, and age. Consistent with the ANOVA findings,
the correlation analyses revealed significant associations
between gender and the PEBS Total Score, as well as the
Observe, Describe, and Non-react FFMQ domains. Females
demonstrated greater pro-environmental behaviors, and a
higher ability to observe and describe their own emotional
experiences. However, males showed a lower tendency to
feel overwhelmed or compelled to react to their emotions
and thoughts compared to females. Additionally, higher age
was correlated with lower levels of emotion dysregulation
and higher scores on all FFMQ domains. Moreover, signifi-
cant correlations emerged among the investigated constructs.
Specifically, higher levels of pro-environmental behaviors
were associated with lower levels of emotion dysregulation
and higher scores on the Observe, Describe, and Non-react
domains. Furthermore, emotion dysregulation exhibited
negative correlations with all FFMQ domains.
Based on the significant correlations, mediation analyses
were conducted to examine whether mindfulness mediated
the relationship between emotion dysregulation and pro-
environmental behaviors. Additionally, based on the sig-
nificant correlations observed with the gender variable and
in order to verify potential gender differences, two separate
models were constructed for men and women. As depicted
in Fig.2, the results of the mediation analyses demonstrated
significant direct and total negative effects of emotion dys-
regulation on pro-environmental behaviors for men.
Regarding indirect effects in the path concerning men,
Table3 indicates that the total indirect effect was not statisti-
cally significant. Specifically, the indirect path through the
Non-React domain was found to be statistically significant.
However, the mediations through the Describe and Observe
domains were not significant.
Table 1 Means, standard
deviations, F, p, and 𝜂2 of
women and men on measured
variables
PEBS = Pro-environment Behavior Scale; DERS-SF Total Score = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation
Scale – Short Form Total Score; FFMQ = Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001
Women Men F(1,1404) p𝜂2
PEBS Total Score 45.93 (8.49) 43.48 (8.96) 27.05** < 0.001 0.02
DERS-SF Total Score 34.44 (10.30) 34.77 (9.52) 0.40 0.526 0.00
FFMQ Observe 27.02 (5.66) 25.65 (5.40) 21.17** < 0.001 0.01
FFMQ Describe 28.63 (6.32) 27.18 (5.88) 19.47** < 0.001 0.01
FFMQ Actaware 30.21 (5.74) 30.51 (5.66) 0.92 0.338 0.00
FFMQ Non judge 27.64 (5.95) 28.42 (5.65) 6.30* 0.012 0.00
FFMQ Non react 20.46 (4.03) 21.20 (3.73) 12.75** < 0.001 0.01
Table 2 Pearson’s correlation
coefficient between measured
variables
Gender: 0 = females and 1 = males; PEBS = Pro-environment Behavior Scale; DERS-SF Total Score
= Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale – Short Form Total Score; FFMQ = Five Facet Mindfulness
Questionnaire. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Gender —
2. Age 0.13** —
3. PEBS Total Score -0.14** 0.04 —
4. DERS-SF Total Score 0.02 -0.12** -0.10* —
5. FFMQ Observe -0.12** 0.09* 0.31** -0.11** —
6. FFMQ Describe -0.12** 0.05* 0.13** -0.47** 0.36** —
7. FFMQ Actaware 0.03 0.06* 0.03 -0.62** 0.02 0.33** —
8. FFMQ Non-Judge 0.07* 0.08* 0.04 -0.55** -0.12** 0.25** 0.50** —
9. FFMQ Non-React 0.09** 0.10** 0.09** -0.27** 0.31** 0.22** 0.09** 0.11** —
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1964 Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
As regards women, as depicted in Fig.3, the results of
the mediation analyses demonstrated significant direct and
total negative effects of emotion dysregulation on pro-envi-
ronmental behaviors.
Regarding indirect effects in the path concerning women,
Table4 indicates that the total indirect effect was not sta-
tistically significant. Specifically, the indirect path through
the Observe and Non-React domains was found to be sta-
tistically significant. However, the mediations through the
Describe domain were not significant.
Observing the two models (Figs.2 and 3), it is interesting
to note a significant difference between men and women.
While high levels on the Non-React subscale were positively
associated with greater pro-environmental behaviors in
women, this association was negative in men.
Discussion
Recent studies have shown that adaptive emotion regulation
is associated with high levels of pro-environmental behav-
iors (Li etal., 2022; Panno etal., 2015; Panno etal., 2020).
However, the underlying mechanism of this relationship
remains unclear, and mindfulness is considered a potential
factor that could partially explain it. Thus, the present study
aimed to investigate the mediating role of mindfulness in
the relationship between emotion regulation and pro-envi-
ronmental behaviors.
The first hypothesis of the study proposed that women
would exhibit greater pro-environmental behaviors than
men. The findings confirmed this hypothesis, as women
reported higher levels of pro-environmental behaviors
compared to men. This result aligns with existing literature
indicating that women are more likely to engage in sustain-
able consumption behaviors (Zelezny etal., 2000). Wom-
en's higher participation in sustainable consumption can be
attributed, in part, to their involvement in activities related to
daily living, such as water and energy conservation at home
and material reuse, which contribute to greater sustainability
(Bulut etal., 2017; Hunter etal., 2004). Although women
tend to purchase more food, clothing, and household items,
men's overall consumption is less sustainable when consid-
ering factors such as women's purchases for themselves and
Fig. 2 Mediation of mindfulness on the relationship between emotion dysregulation and pro-environmental behaviors in men. Coefficients
shown are standardized path coefficients. c’ = direct effect; c = total effect. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001
Table 3 Indirect effect of emotion dysregulation on pro-environmen-
tal behaviors via mindfulness domains
BootSE = Boot-strapped standard error; LLCI = Lower level con-
fidence interval; ULCI = Upper level confidence level confidence
interval. DERS-SF = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale –
Short Form; FFMQ = Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
All bold values are statistically significant (CI did not contain zero
Indirect Effect Effect (BootSE) LLCI ULCI
Total -0.01 (0.02) -0.05 0.03
DERS-SF → FFMQ Observe →
PEBS
-0.02 (0.01) -0.05 0.00
DERS-SF- → FFMQ Describe →
PEBS
-0.001 (0.02) -0.04 0.03
DERS-SF → FFMQ Non-React →
PEBS 0.01 (0.01) 0.00 0.03
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1965Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
family members or transportation choices (e.g., cars, motor-
cycles) (Johnsson-Latham, 2007; Xiao & Hong, 2010).
Furthermore, the findings revealed that women demon-
strated a higher tendency to attend to internal and external
stimuli, as well as related cognitions and emotions, and had a
greater ability to articulate their emotional experiences com-
pared to men. Conversely, men reported a higher ability to
experience emotions without reactive defense mechanisms
compared to women. These results differed from our initial
expectations. Most studies indicate that there are no gender
differences in mindfulness (Catak, 2012; De Petrillo etal.,
2009). However, it is possible that gender differences may
be present in specific facets of mindfulness. Studies utilizing
the FFMQ tool have reported similar results. For instance,
Fuentes etal. (2022) found that men had a higher ability to
experience emotions without reactive defense mechanisms,
while Alispahic and Hasanbegovic-Anic (2017) and Giovan-
nini etal. (2014) found that women demonstrated a higher
tendency to attend to cognitions and emotions. These sub-
tle yet noteworthy differences may be attributed to gender
differences in emotional-behavioral and cognitive function-
ing between males and females. Females generally exhibit
higher levels of self-regulation (Downing etal., 2008) and
perform better on verbal tests than males (Weiss etal.,
2003), while men tend to display less emotional respon-
siveness compared to women (LaFrance & Banaji, 1992),
although results in this area are mixed (Labott etal., 1991).
These gender differences could have a different effect on the
different pro-environmental behaviors that men and women
implement. Moreover, in line with our hypothesis and exist-
ing literature (Gross & John, 2003), no gender differences
were found in levels of emotion dysregulation.
Based on the gender differences highlighted, we wanted
to verify whether the different facets of mindfulness could
mediate differently the relationship between emotion dysreg-
ulation and pro-environmental behaviors in men and women.
Specifically, the second hypothesis of the study proposed
that mindfulness would mediate the relationship between
emotion dysregulation and pro-environmental behaviors.
The correlations among the variables were examined, and
the results were consistent with previous research link-
ing emotion regulation (Panno etal., 2015; Panno etal.,
2020) and mindfulness (Thiermann & Sheate, 2020a) to
Fig. 3 Mediation of mindfulness on the relationship between emotion dysregulation and pro-environmental behaviors in women. Coefficients
shown are standardized path coefficients. c’ = direct effect; c = total effect. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001
Table 4 Indirect effect of emotion dysregulation on pro-environmen-
tal behaviors via mindfulness domains.
BootSE = Boot-strapped standard error; LLCI = Lower level con-
fidence interval; ULCI = Upper level confidence level confidence
interval. DERS-SF = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale –
Short Form; FFMQ = Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
All bold values are statistically significant (CI did not contain zero)
Indirect Effect Effect (BootSE) LLCI ULCI
Total -0.03 (0.03) -0.09 0.03
DERS-SF → FFMQ Observe →
PEBS -0.04 (0.01) -0.06 -0.01
DERS-SF- → FFMQ Describe →
PEBS
0.04 (0.03) -0.01 0.09
DERS-SF → FFMQ Non-React →
PEBS -0.03 (0.02) -0.07 -0.003
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1966 Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
pro-environmental behaviors. These findings suggest that
the ability to regulate emotions and greater conscious aware-
ness, facilitated by mindfulness, contribute to engaging in
pro-environmental actions (Fig.1).
Two serial mediation analysis models were tested, for
men and women separately. The findings revealed a direct
and total effect of emotion dysregulation on pro-environ-
mental behaviors, in both models. However, in both models
tested, the mediation analysis showed that the relationship
between emotion dysregulation and pro-environmental
behaviors was only partially mediated by mindfulness facets.
Specifically, for men, the results showed that lower levels of
emotion dysregulation were associated with a greater abil-
ity to perceive one's own emotions and thoughts without
feeling overwhelmed or compelled to react to them. This
ability not to react to them, however, was negatively associ-
ated with pro-environmental behaviors in men. As regards
women, however, a different model was highlighted. Women
with lower levels of emotion dysregulation demonstrated a
greater ability to attend to internal and external stimuli, cog-
nitions, and emotions and a greater ability to perceive their
own emotions and thoughts without feeling overwhelmed
or forced to react to them, which, in turn, facilitated pro-
environmental actions. This finding is consistent with stud-
ies that identified the mindfulness facet of "Observe" as the
strongest predictor of sustainable and organic food con-
sumption (Hunecke & Richter, 2019; Richter & Hunecke,
2020). The relationship between the "Observe" facet of
mindfulness and pro-environmental behaviors has also been
observed in other studies (Barbaro & Pickett, 2016; Geiger,
Grossman, & Schrader, 2019; Ray etal., 2021). Notably,
some studies have suggested that the association between
the "Observe" facet of mindfulness and pro-environmental
behaviors is mediated by connectedness to nature (Barbaro
& Pickett, 2016; Ray etal., 2021). In line with these find-
ings, we propose that the "Observe" facet, which focuses
on external stimuli in addition to internal cognitions and
emotions (Baer etal., 2006), allows individuals to establish
a stronger connection with the surrounding environment.
Numerous studies have shown that such a connection is
strongly associated with pro-environmental behaviors (Bar-
baro & Pickett, 2016; Liu etal., 2019; Mackay & Schmitt,
2019; Martin etal., 2020; Whitburn etal., 2020) and may
influence behavior by highlighting sustainable choices as
more salient and significant, while also increasing belief in
climate change (Wang etal., 2019). Notably, this indirect
mediating effect of the "Observe" facet was significant only
for women. A very interesting observation is the difference
highlighted in the indirect effect of the "Non-React" facet
of mindfulness. In fact, while in women, a greater tendency
not to feel overwhelmed by emotions and not react to them
was associated with greater pro-environmental behavior, in
men, this association was negative. Neupane (2020) found
associations between these facets of dispositional mind-
fulness (Observe and Non-react) and recurring household
energy behaviors, but it is the first time that different paths
have been analyzed based on gender. These gender differ-
ences may be linked to the distinct emotional characteristics
previously highlighted in men and women. However, they
also offer intriguing perspectives for interventions aimed at
fostering gender-specific pro-environmental behaviors. Our
findings suggest that women, by paying greater attention
to their emotions and thoughts, tend to align their actions
more closely with environmental considerations, likely due
to fostering a deeper emotional connection with the natural
world. Conversely, men might benefit from leveraging their
emotions more outwardly to actively protect the natural envi-
ronment. Further studies should delve into these variations
to craft more targeted and efficient interventions tailored to
each gender.
Additionally, it is noteworthy that in both models, the
relationship between emotion dysregulation and pro-envi-
ronmental behaviors was not entirely mediated by the fac-
ets of mindfulness and self-observation ability. There was
also a direct relationship, suggesting that regulating one's
emotions, particularly by accepting and experiencing con-
cern for the climate crisis (reflected by lower emotion dys-
regulation scores), was associated with pro-environmental
behaviors. By regulating negative emotions, individuals
exhibit greater acceptance of their emotions and the ability
to transform them into active behaviors that contribute to
the environment.
The present study has several notable strengths. Firstly,
the sample comprised a large number of working adults,
which enhances the generalizability of our findings to the
broader population of employed individuals. This diverse
sample provides a robust basis for examining the relation-
ships between emotion regulation, mindfulness, and pro-
environmental behaviors across different demographic
groups. Secondly, the sample was geographically and
socially stratified, ensuring that participants were drawn
from various regions and social backgrounds. This stratifica-
tion adds to the representativeness of the sample and allows
for a more comprehensive analysis of how geographic and
social factors might influence the studied variables.
Furthermore, this study is pioneering in its approach, as
it is the first to investigate the complex relationship between
emotion regulation and pro-environmental behaviors while
examining various facets of mindfulness. By dissecting
mindfulness into its specific components, we were able to
provide a more detailed understanding of which aspects of
mindfulness are most influential in promoting pro-environ-
mental behaviors. This nuanced analysis offers valuable
insights that can inform the development of targeted inter-
ventions. Importantly, our study also considered gender dif-
ferences by examining these relationships separately for men
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1967Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
and women. This gender-specific analysis is crucial, as it
highlights how men and women might differ in their emotion
regulation strategies and mindfulness practices, as well as
how these differences impact their pro-environmental behav-
iors. Understanding these gender differences can help tailor
interventions to be more effective for each group, thereby
enhancing the overall impact of such programs.
In summary, the strengths of this study lie in its large and
diverse sample, its pioneering approach to investigating the
intricate relationships between emotion regulation, mindful-
ness, and pro-environmental behaviors, and its consideration
of gender-specific differences. These strengths collectively
contribute to the robustness and applicability of our findings,
offering valuable directions for future research and interven-
tion development.
Limitations andFuture Directions
Despite its strength, this study has certain limitations. First,
self-report instruments were used to measure emotion
regulation, mindfulness, and pro-environmental behaviors.
Although these instruments are widely validated and have
demonstrated reliability within our sample, the potential
for social desirability bias in reporting pro-environmental
behaviors (Lange & Dewitte, 2019) should be acknowl-
edged. Participants may have overreported their environ-
mentally friendly behaviors to align with perceived social
norms.
Second, the study employed a cross-sectional design,
which limits the ability to establish causal relationships
among the variables. Cross-sectional data provide a snapshot
at a single point in time, thus making it difficult to infer the
directionality of the observed relationships. Future research
should employ longitudinal designs to explore the causal
dynamics between emotion regulation, mindfulness, and
pro-environmental behaviors over time. Longitudinal stud-
ies would help in understanding how changes in emotion
regulation and mindfulness can predict subsequent changes
in pro-environmental behaviors.
Despite these limitations, our findings have important
implications for both research and practice. While interven-
tions based on mindfulness programs aimed at promoting
pro-environmental behaviors have shown disappointing
short-term results (Böhme etal., 2018; Geiger, Fischer,
etal., 2019; Stanszus etal., 2019), our findings provide
insights into the specific facets of mindfulness that are most
strongly associated with pro-environmental behaviors. This
nuanced understanding can inform the design of more tar-
geted mindfulness interventions.
Additionally, no specific interventions to date have con-
sidered individuals' emotion regulation in relation to sus-
tainable behaviors. The results of this study suggest that
interventions focusing on emotion regulation, particularly
the capacity for self-observation, may lead to sustained
behavioral changes in favor of environmental sustainabil-
ity. Emotion regulation skills can help individuals manage
their responses to environmental issues more effectively,
potentially leading to more consistent pro-environmental
actions.
Further research, including longitudinal studies, should
validate and expand upon these findings. Future studies
should aim to develop and test specific evidence-based
interventions that incorporate both mindfulness and emo-
tion regulation strategies, while also considering the pecu-
liarities of gender. By doing so, we can better understand
how to foster long-term pro-environmental behaviors
across diverse populations.
Acknowledgments 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 GB acknowledges PON “Ricerca e Innovazione”
2014-2020 (PON R&I FSE-REACT EU), Azione IV.6 “Contratti di
ricerca su tematiche Green” to fund and support the research, and the
company Bloom Ltd that participated with co-funding.
Use of Artificial Intelligence AI was not used.
Author Contributions Conceptualization: [Patrizia Velotti]; Meth-
odology: [Giulia Ballarotto; Patrizia Velotti]; Data curation: [Giulia
Ballarotto]; Formal analysis and investigation: [Giulia Ballarotto];
Project administration: [Giulia Ballarotto; Patrizia Velotti]; Supervi-
sion: [Patrizia Velotti]; Writing - original draft preparation: [Giulia
Ballarotto; Valeria D’Anna; Lorenzo Stefàno]; Writing - review and
editing: [Giulia Ballarotto; Patrizia Velotti].
Funding Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di
Roma La Sapienza within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. PON “Ricerca
e Innovazione” 2014-2020 (PON R&I FSE-REACT EU), Azione IV.6
“Contratti di ricerca su tematiche Green”, and the company Bloom Ltd
to fund and support the research.
Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethic Approval This study was performed in line with the principles of
the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Com-
mittee of the Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, and
Health Studies, University of Rome "La Sapienza" (Prot. no. 0000595,
11/04/2022).
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest The authors report there are no competing interests
to declare.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1968 Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Alispahic, S., & Hasanbegovic-Anic, E. (2017). Mindfulness: Age
and gender differences on a Bosnian sample. Psychological
Thought, 10(1), 155–166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 23668/ psych archi
ves. 1863
Amel, E. L., Manning, C. M., & Scott, B. A. (2009). Mindfulness
and sustainable behavior: Pondering attention and awareness
as means for increasing green behavior. Ecopsychology, 1(1),
14–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1089/ eco. 2008. 0005
Armstrong, A. (2012). Mindfulness and consumerism: A social psy-
chological investigation. (Publication No. 27557477) [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Surrey]. ProQuest LLC.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L.
(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets
of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 10731 91105 283504
Ballarotto, G., Abate, R., Baiocco, R., & Velotti, P. (2024). The rela-
tionship between emotion regulation and sustainable leader-
ship: The mediating role of social safeness. Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
10911 359. 2024. 23025 12
Ballarotto, G., Porreca, A., Erriu, M., Ronconi, L., Cimino, S.,
Cerniglia, L., & Tambelli, R. (2017). Does alexithymia have
a mediating effect between impulsivity and emotional-behav-
ioural functioning in adolescents with binge eating disorder?
Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 14(4).
Barbaro, N., & Pickett, S. M. (2016). Mindfully green: Examin-
ing the effect of connectedness to nature on the relationship
between mindfulness and engagement in pro-environmental
behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 137–142.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2015. 05. 026
Berenguer, J. (2007). The effect of empathy in proenvironmental
attitudes and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 39(2),
269–283. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139 16506 292937
Bianchin, M., & Angrilli, A. (2012). Gender differences in emo-
tional responses: A psychophysiological study. Physiology &
Behavior, 105(4), 925–932. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. physb eh.
2011. 10. 031
Böhme, T., Stanszus, L. S., Geiger, S. M., Fischer, D., & Schrader, U.
(2018). Mindfulness training at school: A way to engage ado-
lescents with sustainable consumption? Sustainability, 10(10),
3557. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su101 03557
Bradley, G. L., Babutsidze, Z., Chai, A., & Reser, J. P. (2020). The
role of climate change risk perception, response efficacy, and
psychological adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: A
two nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68,
101410. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2020. 101410
Brindle, K. A., Bowles, T. V., & Freeman, E. (2019). Gender, educa-
tion and engagement in antisocial and risk-taking behaviours
and emotional dysregulation. Issues in Educational Research,
29(3), 633–648.
Brosch, T., & Steg, L. (2021). Leveraging emotion for sustainable
action. One Earth, 4(12), 1693–1703. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
oneear. 2021. 11. 006
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness:
Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects.
Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211–237. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 10478 40070 15982 98
Bulut, Z. A., Kökalan Çımrin, F., & Doğan, O. (2017). Gender, gen-
eration and sustainable consumption: Exploring the behaviour
of consumers from Izmir, Turkey. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 41(6), 597–604. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/
ijcs. 12371
Carmi, N., Arnon, S., & Orion, N. (2015). Transforming environ-
mental knowledge into behavior: The mediating role of envi-
ronmental emotions. The Journal of Environmental Education,
46(3), 183–201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00958 964. 2015. 10285
17
Casini, E., Glemser, C., Premoli, M., Preti, E., & Richetin, J. (2022).
The mediating role of emotion regulation strategies on the asso-
ciation between rejection sensitivity, aggression, withdrawal,
and prosociality. Emotion, 22(7), 1505. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
emo00 00908
Catak, P. D. (2012). The Turkish version of mindful attention aware-
ness scale: preliminary findings. Mindfulness, 3(1), 1–9. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12671- 011- 0072-3
Chapman, A. L. (2019). Borderline personality disorder and emotion
dysregulation. Development and Psychopathology, 31(3), 1143–
1156. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0954 57941 90006 58
Davidson, D. J., & Kecinski, M. (2022). Emotional pathways to cli-
mate change responses. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change, 13(2), e751. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ wcc. 751
De Petrillo, L. A., Kaufman, K. A., Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B.
(2009). Mindfulness for long-distance runners: An open trial
using Mindful Sport Performance Enhancement (MSPE). Jour-
nal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 3(4), 357–376. https:// doi. org/
10. 1123/ jcsp.3. 4. 357
Dhandra, T. K. (2019). Achieving triple dividend through mindfulness:
More sustainable consumption, less unsustainable consumption
and more life satisfaction. Ecological Economics, 161, 83–90.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2019. 03. 021
Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M.
P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to
rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 106(44), 18452–18456. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1073/ pnas. 09087 38106
Downing, K., Chan, S. W., Downing, W. K., Kwong, T., & Lam, T.
F. (2008). Measuring gender differences in cognitive function-
ing. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 2(1), 4–18.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 17504 97081 08671 24
Ericson, T., Kjønstad, B. G., & Barstad, A. (2014). Mindfulness and
sustainability. Ecological Economics, 104, 73–79. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2014. 04. 007
Farb, N. A. S., Anderson, A. K., Irving, J. A., & Segal, Z. V. (2014).
Mindfulness interventions and emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross
(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed., pp. 548–567).
The Guilford Press.
Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross,
J. J. (2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal
preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24,
1595–1601. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09567 97612 474938
Fischer, D., Stanszus, L., Geiger, S., Grossman, P., & Schrader, U.
(2017). Mindfulness and sustainable consumption: A systematic
literature review of research approaches and findings. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 162, 544–558. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jclep ro. 2017. 06. 007
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1969Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
Fuentes, A., Oyanadel, C., Zimbardo, P., González-Loyola, M., Oli-
vera-Figueroa, L. A., & Peñate, W. (2022). Mindfulness and
balanced time perspective: predictive model of psychological
well-being and gender differences in college students. European
Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education,
12(3), 306–318. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ejihp e1203 0022
Garofalo, C., Neumann, C. S., & Velotti, P. (2021). Psychopathy and
aggression: The role of emotion dysregulation. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 36(23-24), NP12640–NP12664. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1177/ 08862 60519 900946
Garofalo, C., Velotti, P., & Zavattini, G. C. (2018). Emotion regulation
and aggression: The incremental contribution of alexithymia,
impulsivity, and emotion dysregulation facets. Psychology of
Violence, 8(4), 470–483. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ vio00 00141
Garofalo, C., Velotti, P., Zavattini, G. C., & Kosson, D. S. (2017).
Emotion dysregulation and interpersonal problems: The role
of defensiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 119,
96–105. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2017. 07. 007
Geiger, S. M., Fischer, D., Schrader, U., & Grossman, P. (2019). Medi-
tating for the planet: Effects of a mindfulness-based interven-
tion on sustainable consumption behaviors. Environment and
Behavior, 52(9), 1012–1042. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139
16519 880897
Geiger, S. M., Grossman, P., & Schrader, U. (2019). Mindfulness and
sustainability: Correlation or causation? Current Opinion in Psy-
chology, 28, 23–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2018. 09. 010
Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers
that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American
Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0023 566
Giovannini, C., Giromini, L., Bonalume, L., Tagini, A., Lang, M., &
Amadei, G. (2014). The Italian five facet mindfulness question-
naire: A contribution to its validity and reliability. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36, 415–423.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10862- 013- 9403-0
Goldberg, S. B., Tucker, R. P., Greene, P. A., Davidson, R. J., Wam-
pold, B. E., Kearney, D. J., & Simpson, T. L. (2018). Mind-
fulness-based interventions for psychiatric disorders: A system-
atic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 59,
52–60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpr. 2017. 10. 011
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of
emotion regulation and dysregulation: development, factor struc-
ture, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation
scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,
26, 41–54. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/B: JOBA. 00000 07455. 08539.
94
Grilli, G., & Curtis, J. (2021). Encouraging pro-environmental behav-
iours: A review of methods and approaches. Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews, 135, 110039. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
rser. 2020. 110039
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
348–362. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 3514. 85.2. 348
Gross, J. J. (2011). Handbook of emotion regulation. Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford
Publications.
Hayes-Skelton, S., & Graham, J. (2013). Decentering as a common
link among mindfulness, cognitive reappraisal, and social anxi-
ety. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 41(3), 317–328.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1352 46581 20009 02
Hunecke, M., & Richter, N. (2019). Mindfulness, construction of
meaning, and sustainable food consumption. Mindfulness, 10(3),
446–458. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12671- 018- 0986-0
Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., & Johnson, A. (2004). Cross-national gender
variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly,
85(3), 677–694. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 0038- 4941. 2004.
00239.x
Ienna, M., Rofe, A., Gendi, M., Douglas, H. E., Kelly, M., Hayward, M.
W., etal. (2022). The Relative Role of Knowledge and Empathy
in Predicting Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavior. Sus-
tainability, 14(8), 4622. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su140 84622
Jacob, J., Jovic, E., & Brinkerhoff, M. B. (2009). Personal and planetary
well-being: Mindfulness meditation, pro-environmental behavior
and personal quality of life in a survey from the social justice and
ecological sustainability movement. Social Indicators Research,
93, 275–294. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11205- 008- 9308-6
Johnsson-Latham, G. (2007). A study on gender equality as a prereq-
uisite for sustainable development. In Report to the Environment
Advisory Council Retrieved: https:// cites eerx. ist. psu. edu/ docum
ent? repid= rep1& type= pdf& doi= a5ff9 b476c 4437e 5c0df 6a854
e240f 20f65 730ad
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness
meditation in everyday life. Hyperion.
Klainin-Yobas, P., Cho, M. A. A., & Creedy, D. (2012). Efficacy of
mindfulness-based interventions on depressive symptoms among
people with mental disorders: A meta-analysis. International
Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(1), 109–121. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. ijnur stu. 2011. 08. 014
Klöckner, C. A., & Verplanken, B. (2018). Yesterday's habits prevent-
ing change for tomorrow? About the influence of automaticity on
environmental behaviour. In L. Steg & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.),
Environmental psychology: An introduction (pp. 238–250).
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 97811 19241 072. ch24
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (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/ 13504 62022 01454 01
Labott, S. M., Martin, R. B., Eason, P. S., & Berkey, E. Y. (1991).
Social reactions to the expression of emotion. Cognition & Emo-
tion, 5(5-6), 397–417. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02699 93910 84110
50
LaFrance, M., & Banaji, M. (1992). Toward a reconsideration of the
gender-emotion relationship. In M. S. Clark (Ed.),Emotion and
social behavior (pp. 178–201). Sage.
Lange, F., & Dewitte, S. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behav-
ior: Review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 63, 92–100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2019.
04. 009
Leroy, V., Grégoire, J., Magen, E., Gross, J. J., & Mikolajczak, M.
(2012). Resisting the sirens of temptation while studying: Using
reappraisal to increase focus, enthusiasm, and performance.
Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 263–268. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. lindif. 2011. 10. 003
Li, H., You, C., Li, J., Li, M., Tan, M., Zhang, G., & Zhong, Y. (2022).
Influence of environmental aesthetic value and anticipated emo-
tion on pro-environmental behavior: An ERP study. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9),
5714.https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1909 5714
Li, D., Zhao, L., Ma, S., Shao, S., & Zhang, L. (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. resco nrec. 2019. 03. 024
Liu, T., Geng, L., Ye, L., & Zhou, K. (2019). “Mother Nature”
enhances connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behav-
ior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 37–45. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2018. 12. 003
Liu, J., Chua, J. J. X., Chong, S. A., Subramaniam, M., & Mahendran,
R. (2020). The impact of emotion dysregulation on positive and
negative symptoms in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: A sys-
tematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(4), 612–624.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jclp. 22915
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1970 Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
Loy, L. S., & Reese, G. (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., Clemens, A., & Reese, G. (2022). Mind–body practice
is related to pro-environmental engagement through self-
compassion and global identity rather than to self-enhance-
ment. Mindfulness, 13(3), 660–673. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s12671- 021- 01823-1
Lyvers, M., Makin, C., Toms, E., Thorberg, F. A., & Samios, C. (2014).
Trait mindfulness in relation to emotional self-regulation and
executive function. Mindfulness, 5(6), 619–625. https:// doi. org/
10. 1007/ s12671- 013- 0213-y
Mackay, C. M., & Schmitt, M. T. (2019). Do people who feel con-
nected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101323. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. jenvp. 2019. 101323
Malkoç, A., Aslan Gördesli, M., Arslan, R., Çekici, F., & Aydın Sün-
bül, Z. (2019). The relationship between interpersonal emotion
regulation and interpersonal competence controlled for emotion
dysregulation. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(1),
69–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5430/ ijhe. v8n1p 69
Markle, G. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behaviour: Does it matter how
it’s measured? Development and validation of the pro-environ-
mental behaviour scale (PEBS). Human Ecology, 41, 905–914.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10745- 013- 9614-8
Martin, L., White, M. P., Hunt, A., Richardson, M., Pahl, S., & Burt,
J. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations
with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. Jour-
nal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101389. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. jenvp. 2020. 101389
McRae, K., Ochsner, K. N., Mauss, I. B., Gabrieli, J. J., & Gross, J.
J. (2008). Gender differences in emotion regulation: An fMRI
study of cognitive reappraisal. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 11(2), 143–162. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13684 30207
088035
Menardo, E., Brondino, M., & Pasini, M. (2020). Adaptation and psy-
chometric properties of the Italian version of the Pro-Environ-
mental Behaviours Scale (PEBS). Environment, Development
and Sustainability, 22(7), 6907–6930.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10668- 019- 00520-3
Neupane, N. (2020). From Intentional Awareness to Environmental
Action: The Relationship Between Mindfulness and Pro-Envi-
ronmental Behaviors. Masters Theses, 980 University of Mas-
sachusetts. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7275/ 18945 627
Nolan, J. M., & Schultz, P. (2014). Prosocial behavior and environ-
mental action. In D. A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior (pp. 626–652). Ameri-
can Psychological Association. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ oxfor dhb/
97801 95399 813. 013. 011
Panno, A., Carrus, G., Maricchiolo, F., & Mannetti, L. (2015). Cog-
nitive reappraisal and pro-environmental behavior: The role of
global climate change perception. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 45(7), 858–867. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ejsp. 2162
Panno, A., Giacomantonio, M., Carrus, G., Maricchiolo, F., Pirchio, S.,
& Mannetti, L. (2018). Mindfulness, pro-environmental behav-
ior, and belief in climate change: The mediating role of social
dominance. Environment and Behavior, 50(8), 864–888. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139 16517 718887
Panno, A., Lauriola, M., & Figner, B. (2013). Emotion regulation and
risk taking: Predicting risky choice in deliberative decision mak-
ing. Cognition & Emotion, 27, 326–334. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
02699 931. 2012. 707642
Panno, A., Theodorou, A., Carrus, G., Imperatori, C., Spano, G., &
Sanesi, G. (2020). Nature reappraisers, benefits for the environ-
ment: a model linking cognitive reappraisal, the “being away”
dimension of restorativeness and eco-friendly behavior. Fron-
tiers in Psychology, 11, 1986. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg.
2020. 01986
Park, H. J., & Dhandra, T. K. (2017). Relation between dispositional
mindfulness and impulsive buying tendency: Role of trait emo-
tional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 105,
208–212. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2016. 09. 061
Ponzoni, S., Beomonte Zobel, S., Rogier, G., & Velotti, P. (2021).
Emotion Dysregulation Acts in the Relationship Between Vulner-
able Narcissism and Suicidal Ideation. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 62(4), 468–475. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ sjop. 12730
Ramstetter, L., Rupprecht, S., Mundaca, L., Osika, W., Stenfors, C. U.,
Klackl, J., & Wamsler, C. (2023). Fostering collective climate
action and leadership: Insights from a pilot experiment involving
mindfulness and compassion. iScience, 26(3), 106191. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. isci. 2023. 106191
Rania, M., Monell, E., Sjölander, A., & Bulik, C. M. (2021). Emotion
dysregulation and suicidality in eating disorders. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 54(3), 313–325. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1002/ eat. 23410
Ray, T. N., Franz, S. A., Jarrett, N. L., & Pickett, S. M. (2021). Nature
enhanced meditation: effects on mindfulness, connectedness
to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 53(8), 864–890. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139 16520
952452
Richter, N., & Hunecke, M. (2020). Facets of mindfulness in stages of
behavior change toward organic food consumption. Mindfulness,
11(6), 1354–1369. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12671- 020- 01351-4
Rochat, M. J. (2023). Sex and gender differences in the development of
empathy. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 101(5), 718–729.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jnr. 25009
Roemer, L., Williston, S. K., & Rollins, L. G. (2015). Mindfulness and
emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 52–57.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2015. 02. 006
Rossi, A. A., Panzeri, A., & Mannarini, S. (2023). The italian version
of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale–short form (IT-
DERS-SF): a two-step validation study. Journal of Psychopathol-
ogy and Behavioral Assessment, 45(2), 572–590. https:// doi. org/
10. 1007/ s10862- 022- 10006-8
Rottenberg, J., & Gross, J. J. (2003). When emotion goes wrong: real-
izing the promise of affective science. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 10(2), 227–232. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/
clipsy. bpg012
Shapero, B. G., Greenberg, J., Pedrelli, P., de Jong, M., & Desbordes,
G. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions in psychiatry. Focus,
16(1), 32–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1176/ appi. focus. 20170 039
Stanszus, L. S., Frank, P., & Geiger, S. M. (2019). Healthy eating and
sustainable nutrition through mindfulness? Mixed method results
of a controlled intervention study. Appetite, 141, 104325. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. appet. 2019. 104325
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour:
An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jenvp. 2008. 10. 004
Sun, J., Ma, B., & Wei, S. (2023). Same gratitude, different pro-envi-
ronmental behaviors? Effect of the dual-path influence mecha-
nism of gratitude on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 415, 137779. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep
ro. 2023. 137779
Tam, K. P. (2022). Gratitude to nature: Presenting a theory of its con-
ceptualization, measurement, and effects on pro-environmental
behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, 101754.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2021. 101754
Tasneem, S. A., & Panwar, N. (2019). Academic confidence and mind-
fulness: A study on gender differences. International Journal of
Social Science and Economic Research, 4(6), 4690–4702.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1971Mindfulness (2024) 15:1958–1971
Thiermann, U. B., & Sheate, W. R. (2020a). Motivating individuals for
social transition: The 2-pathway model and experiential strate-
gies for pro-environmental behaviour. Ecological Economics,
174, 106668. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2020. 106668
Thiermann, U. B., & Sheate, W. R. (2020b). The way forward in mind-
fulness and sustainability: a critical review and research agenda.
Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 5(1), 118–139. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s41465- 020- 00180-6
Thompson, B. (2006). Foundations of behavioral statistics. The Guil-
ford Press.
Van Gordon, W., Shonin, E., & Richardson, M. (2018). Mindfulness
and nature. Mindfulness, 9(5), 1655–1658. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s12671- 018- 0883-6
Velotti, P., D’Aguanno, M., de Campora, G., Di Francescantonio, S.,
Garofalo, C., Giromini, L., etal. (2016). Gender moderates the
relationship between attachment insecurities and emotion dys-
regulation. South African Journal of Psychology, 46(2), 191–202.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00812 46315 604582
Velotti, P., Garofalo, C., Dimaggio, G., & Fonagy, P. (2019). Mindful-
ness, Alexithymia, and Empathy Moderate Relations Between
Trait Aggression and Antisocial Personality Disorder Traits.
Mindfulness, 10(6), 1082–1090. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s12671- 018- 1048-3
Victor, S. E., & Klonsky, E. D. (2016). Validation of a brief ver-
sion of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale (DERS-
18) in five samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behav-
ioral Assessment, 38(4), 582–589. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10862- 016- 9547-9
Wamsler, C., & Brink, E. (2018). Mindsets for sustainability: Exploring
the link between mindfulness and sustainable climate adaptation.
Ecological Economics, 151, 55–61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
ecole con. 2018. 04. 029
Wang, J., Geng, L., Schultz, P. W., & Zhou, K. (2019). Mindfulness
increases the belief in climate change: The mediating role of
connectedness with nature. Environment and Behavior, 51(1),
3–23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139 16517 738036
Wang, L., Sheng, G., She, S., & Xu, J. (2023). Impact of empathy with
nature on pro-environmental behaviour. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 47(2), 652–668. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/
ijcs. 12856
Weiss, E. M., Kemmler, G., Deisenhammer, E. A., Fleischhacker, W.
W., & Delazer, M. (2003). Sex differences in cognitive functions.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35(4), 863–875. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0191- 8869(02) 00288-X
Werner, A., Spiller, A., & Meyerding, S. G. (2020). The yoga of sus-
tainable diets: Exploring consumers mind and spirit. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 243, 118473. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jclep ro. 2019. 118473
Whitburn, J., Linklater, W., & Abrahamse, W. (2020). Meta-analysis
of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior.
Conservation Biology, 34(1), 180–193. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/
cobi. 13381
Wimmer, L., von Stockhausen, L., & Bellingrath, S. (2019). Improving
emotion regulation and mood in teacher trainees: Effectiveness
of two mindfulness trainings. Brain and Behavior, 9(9), e01390.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ brb3. 1390
Xiao, C., & Hong, D. (2010). Gender differences in environmental
behaviors in China. Population and Environment, 32, 88–104.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11111- 010- 0115-z
Zelenski, J. M., & Desrochers, J. E. (2021). Can positive and self-
transcendent emotions promote pro-environmental behavior?
Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 31–35. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. copsyc. 2021. 02. 009
Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). New ways of think-
ing about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences
in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 0022- 4537. 00177
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
