Despite the circulation of climate content on social media, little longitudinal research has explored their relations with pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Considering that individual behaviors, in conjunction with structural change, are critical to mitigate climate change, this two-wave panel study among 657 adolescents examined how social media interactions (i.e., exposure, liking, commenting, sharing and posting of climate messages) reciprocally related to adolescents’ pro-environmental cognitions (i.e., descriptive and injunctive norms, attitudes) and behavior. The study showed transactional relationships between self-posting and sharing of climate content over time. Pro-environmental behavior at Wave 1 (W1) positively related to all cognitive variables at Wave 2 (W2), yet no reciprocal relationship occurred as none of the cognitive variables (W1) predicted behavior (W2) over time. Moreover, with the exception of the positive link between “liking” (W1) and attitudes (W2), no (reciprocal) relationships between social media interactions and adolescents’ pro-environmental cognitions and behavior occurred over time.
AjzenI.AlbarracínD. (2007). Predicting and changing behavior: A reasoned action approach. In AjzenI.AlbarracínD.HornikR. (Eds.), Prediction and change of health behavior: Applying the reasoned action approach (pp. 3-22). Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers.
4.
AlhabashS.McAlisterA. R.LouC.HagerstromA. (2015). From clicks to behaviors: The mediating effect of intentions to like, share, and comment on the relationship between message evaluations and offline behavioral intentions. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 15(2), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2015.1071677
5.
AmnåE.EkmanJ. (2014). Standby citizens: Diverse faces of political passivity. European Political Science Review, 6(2), 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/s175577391300009x
6.
AndersenK.OhmeJ.BjarnoeC.BordacconiM. J.AlbaekE.de VreeseC. (2021). Generational gaps in political media use and civic engagement: From Baby Boomers to Generation Z. Routledge.
7.
ArltD.HoppeI.WollingJ. (2011). Climate change and media usage: Effects on problem awareness and behavioural intentions. International Communication Gazette, 73(1-2), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510386741
8.
BanduraA. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. The American Psychologist, 33(4), 344–358.
9.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and actions: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
BelottiF.DonatoS.BussolettiA.ComunelloF. (2022). Youth activism for climate on and beyond social media: Insights from FridaysForFuture-Rome. International Journal of Politics, 27(3), 718–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211072776
12.
BenckendorffP.MoscardoG.MurphyL. (2012). Environmental attitudes of Generation Y students: Foundations for sustainability education in tourism. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 12(1), 44–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2012.650063
13.
BettmanJ. R. (1979). Information processing theory of consumer choice. Addison-Wesley Pub.
14.
BiswasT. (2021). Letting teach: Gen Z as socio-political educators in an overheated world. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 641609.
15.
BoulianneS.LalancetteM.IlkiwD. (2020). “School Strike 4 Climate”: Social media and the international youth protest on climate change. Media and Communication, 8(2), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2768
BurkeM.KrautR.MarlowC. (2011). Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(6), 747–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116631886
18.
CasalóL. V.EscarioJ. J. (2016). Intergenerational association of environmental concern: Evidence of parents’ and children’s concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.09.001
19.
CasalóL. V.EscarioJ. J. (2018). Heterogeneity in the association between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior: A multilevel regression approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.237
20.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5
21.
ChoiJ. (2016). News internalizing and externalizing: The dimensions of news sharing on online social networking sites. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(4), 816–835. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016628812
22.
ColladoS.StaatsH.SanchoP. (2019). Normative influences on adolescents’ self-reported pro-environmental behaviors: The role of parents and friends. Environment and Behavior, 51(3), 288–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517744591
23.
ConnerM.van HarreveldF.NormanP. (2022). Attitude stability as a moderator of the relationships between cognitive and affective attitudes and behaviour. The British Journal of Social Psychology/the British Psychological Society, 61(1), 121–142.
24.
CornerA.RobertsO.ChiariS.VöllerS.MayrhuberE. S.MandlS.MonsonK. (2015). How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change, 6(5), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.353
de LeeuwA.ValoisP.AjzenI.SchmidtP. (2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.03.005
27.
de ZúñigaH. G.CopelandL.BimberB. (2014). Political consumerism: Civic engagement and the social media connection. New Media & Society, 16(3), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487960
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 2, 10.
33.
FritzeJ. G.BlashkiG. A.BurkeS.WisemanJ. (2008). Hope, despair and transformation: Climate change and the promotion of mental health and wellbeing. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 2(1), 113–210. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-4458-2-1310.1186/1752-4458-2-13
34.
GonzalezA.SchmuckD.VandenboschL. (2023, May25–29). Posting and framing politics: A content analysis of celebrities’, athletes’ and influencers’ Instagram political content [Conference session]. 73nd Annual ICA Conference, Toronto, Canada.
35.
GordonH. R. (2009). We fight to win: Inequality and the politics of youth activism. Rutgers University Press.
36.
GrønhøjA.ThøgersenJ. (2009). Like father, like son? Intergenerational transmission of values, attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.002
37.
GrønhøjA.ThøgersenJ. (2012). Action speaks louder than words: The effect of personal attitudes and family norms on adolescents’ pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.001
38.
HanR.XuJ. (2020). A comparative study of the role of interpersonal communication, traditional media and social media in pro-environmental behavior: A China-based study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 1883. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17061883
39.
HanW.McCabeS.WangY.ChongA. Y. L. (2018). Evaluating user-generated content in social media: An effective approach to encourage greater pro-environmental behavior in tourism?Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(4), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1372442
40.
HendrickseJ.ArpanL. M.ClaytonR. B.RidgwayJ. L. (2017). Instagram and college women’s body image: Investigating the roles of appearance-related comparisons and intrasexual competition. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.027
41.
HermansM.KorhonenJ. (2017). Ninth graders and climate change: Attitudes towards consequences, views on mitigation, and predictors of willingness to act. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 26(3), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2017.1330035
42.
HibberdM.NguyenA. (2013). Climate change communications & young people in the Kingdom: A reception study. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 9(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.9.1.27_1
43.
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.BainP. G.FieldingK. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
44.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cuttoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
45.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. In Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K., & Meyer, L. A. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.
46.
JagersS. C.MartinssonJ.MattiS. (2016). The environmental psychology of the ecological citizen: Comparing competing models of pro-environmental behavior. Social Science Quarterly, 97(5), 1005–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12313
47.
JohnsonB. K.Van Der HeideB. (2015). Can sharing affect liking? Online taste performances, feedback, and subsequent media preferences. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.018
48.
Juárez-NájeraM.Rivera-MartínezJ. G.HafkampW. A. (2010). An explorative socio-psychological model for determining sustainable behavior: Pilot study in German and Mexican universities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.018
49.
KaiserF. G.GutscherH. (2003). The proposition of a general version of the theory of planned behavior: Predicting Ecological Behavior1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(3), 586–603.
50.
KalogeropoulosA.NegredoS.PiconeI.NielsenR. K. (2017). Who shares and comments on news? A cross-national comparative analysis of online and social media participation. Social Media + Society, 3(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117735754
51.
KaurW.BalakrishnanV.RanaO.SinniahA. (2019). Liking, sharing, commenting and reacting on Facebook: User behaviors’ impact on sentiment intensity. Telematics and Informatics, 39, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.12.005
52.
KenisA.MathijsE. (2012). Beyond individual behaviour change: The role of power, knowledge and strategy in tackling climate change. Environmental Education Research, 18(1), 45–65.
53.
KesenheimerJ. S.GreitemeyerT. (2021). Greenwash yourself: The relationship between communal and agentic narcissism and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 75, 101621.
54.
KidwellB.FarmerA.HardestyD. M. (2013). Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: Political ideology and congruent appeals. The Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 350–367.
55.
KimC.YangS. U. (2017). Like, comment, and share on Facebook: How each behavior differs from the other. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.006
56.
KimD. H.WeeksB. E.LaneD. S.HahnL. B.KwakN. (2021). Sharing and commenting facilitate political learning on Facebook: Evidence from a two-wave panel study. Social Media + Society, 7(3), 205630512110478. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211047876
57.
KimH. M. (2021). What do others’ reactions to body posting on Instagram tell us? The effects of social media comments on viewers’ body image perception. New Media & Society, 23, 13448–183465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820956368
58.
KimJ. W. (2018). They liked and shared: Effects of social media virality metrics on perceptions of message influence and behavioral intentions. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.030
59.
KlineR. B. (2010). Principles and practice ofstructural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
60.
KümpelA. S.KarnowskiV.KeylingT. (2015). News sharing in social media: A review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115610141
61.
LapierreM. A.Fleming-MiliciF.RozendaalE.McAlisterA. R.CastonguayJ. (2017). The effect of advertising on children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 140(Supplement_2), S152-S156.
62.
LeeH.ParkH.KimJ. (2013). Why do people share their context information on social network services? A qualitative study and an experimental study on users’ behavior of balancing perceived benefit and risk. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(9), 862–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.01.005
63.
LeeS.XenosM. (2022). Incidental news exposure via social media and political participation: Evidence of reciprocal effects. New Media & Society, 24(1), 178–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820962121
64.
LiD.ZhaoL.MaS.ShaoS.ZhangL. (2019). What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 146, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.024
65.
LuH.HsiaoK. (2007). Understanding intention to continuously share information on weblogs. Internet Research, 17(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240710828030
66.
MakiA.RothmanA. J. (2017). Understanding proenvironmental intentions and behaviors: The importance of considering both the behavior setting and the type of behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(5), 517–531.
67.
MaranD. A.BegottiT. (2021). Media exposure to climate change, anxiety, and efficacy beliefs in a sample of Italian university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17), 9358. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179358
68.
MichelettiM.StolleD. (2010). Vegetarianism—A lifestyle politics. In MichelettiM.McFarlandA. S. (Eds.), Creative participation: Responsibility-taking in the political world (pp. 125–145). Paradigm Publishers.
69.
MoellerJ.KühneR.De VreeseC. (2018). Mobilizing youth in the 21st century: How digital media use fosters civic duty, information efficacy, and political participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 62(3), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2018.1451866
70.
NaderiI. (2018). I'm nice, therefore I go green: An investigation of pro-environmentalism in communal narcissists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 59, 54–64.
71.
NelmsC.AllenM. W.CraigC. A.RiggsS. (2017). Who is the adolescent environmentalist? Environmental attitudes, identity, media usage and communication orientation. Environmental Communication, 11(4), 537–553.
72.
NesiJ.Choukas-BradleyS.PrinsteinM. J. (2018). Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 2-Application to peer group processes and future directions for research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 21(3), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-018-0262-9
73.
NewellP.DaleyF.TwenaM. (2022). Changing our ways: Behaviour change and the climate crisis. Cambridge University Press.
74.
NielsenK. S.NicholasK. A.CreutzigF.DietzT.SternP. C. (2021). The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Energy, 6(11), 1011–1016.
75.
O'BrienK.SelboeE.HaywardB. M. (2018). Exploring youth activism on climate change: Dutiful, disruptive, and dangerous dissent. Ecology and Society, 23(3), 1-13.
76.
Oeldorf-HirschA.SundarS. S. (2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.024
77.
ParkC. S.KayeB. K. (2023). Applying news values theory to liking, commenting and sharing mainstream news articles on Facebook. Journalism, 24, 633–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211019895
78.
PelletierM. J.Blakeney HorkyA. (2015). Exploring the Facebook like: A product and service perspective. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 9(4), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrim-09-2014-0059
79.
PereraL. C. R.HewegeC. R. (2013). Climate change risk perceptions and environmentally conscious behaviour among young environmentalists in Australia. Young Consumers, 14, 139–154.
80.
PerkinsH. W.BerkowitzA. D. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education programming. The International Journal of the Addictions, 21(9&10), 961–976. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826088609077249
81.
PezzulloP. C.CoxR. (2016). Environmental communication and the public sphere (4th ed.). Sage.
82.
PingreeR. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory: CT: A Journal of the International Communication Association, 17, 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.x
RuiJ. R.StefanoneM. A. (2013). Strategic image management online: Self-presentation, self-esteem and social network perspectives. Information Communication & Society, 16(8), 1286–1305. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2013.763834
85.
RydingF. C.KussD. J. (2020). The use of social networking sites, body image dissatisfaction, and body dysmorphic disorder: A systematic review of psychological research. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(4), 412–435.
86.
SchreursL.VandenboschL. (2022). The development and validation of measurement instruments to address interactions with positive social media content. Media Psychology, 25, 262–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2021.1925561
87.
ShehataA.AnderssonD.GloggerI.HopmannD. N.AndersenK.KruikemeierS.JohanssonJ. (2021). Conceptualizing long-term media effects on societal beliefs. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(1), 1–19.
88.
ShiW.NaglerR. H. (2020). Measurement of media exposure. In Van den Bulck, J., Ewoldsen, D. R., Mares, M.-L., & Scharrer E. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media psychology (pp. 1-7). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
89.
SlaterM. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory: CT: A Journal of the International Communication Association, 17, 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x
90.
SongK.QuS.TaiebatM.LiangS.XuM. (2019). Scale, distribution and variations of global greenhouse gas emissions driven by US households. Environment International, 133, 105137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105137
91.
SpenceA.PoortingaW.PidgeonN.LorenzoniI. (2010). Public perceptions of energy choices: The influence of beliefs about climate change and the environment. Energy & Environment, 21(5), 385–407.
92.
StavrosituC.SundarS. S. (2012). Does blogging empower women? Exploring the role of agency and community. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01587.x
93.
SternN. (2006). The economics of climate change. United Kingdom.
94.
SundarS. S. (2008). Self as source: Agency and customization in interactive media. In KonijnE. A.UtzS.TanisM.BarnesS. B. (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 58–74). Routledge.
ValkenburgP. M. (2017). Understanding self-effects in social media. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12113
98.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.020
99.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. The Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12024
100.
VerbeijT.PouwelsJ. L.BeyensI.ValkenburgP. M. (2021). The accuracy and validity of self-reported social media use measures among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 3, 100090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100090
101.
VissersS.HoogheM.StolleD.MahéoV.-A. (2012). The impact of mobilization media on off-line and online participation: Are mobilization effects medium-specific?Social Science Computer Review, 30(2), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439310396485
102.
WaeterloosC.ConradieP.WalraveM.PonnetK. (2021). Digital issue movements: Political repertoires and drivers of participation among Belgian youth in the context of ‘school strike for climate’. Sustainability, 13(17), 9892. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1317989210.3390/su13179892
103.
WhiteK. M.SmithJ. R.TerryD. J.GreensladeJ. H.McKimmieB. M. (2009). Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(Pt 1), 135–158.
104.
WilliamsH. T. P.McMurrayJ. R.KurzT.Hugo LambertF. (2015). Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 32, 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006
105.
WuJ.OtsukaY. (2021). Pro-climate behaviour and the influence of learning sources on it in Chinese adolescents. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 30(1), 24–38.
106.
YauJ. C.ReichS. M. (2019). It’s just a lot of work”: Adolescents’ self-presentation norms and practices on Facebook and Instagram. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(1), 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12376
