Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Climate change is one of the most widespread problems affecting human well-being. Extreme weather events and ecosystem uncertainties also seriously threaten future teachers. However, we know little about the variables associated with teacher candidates’ climate change worry (CCW). Therefore, this study aims to identify the variables that predict CCW. In this study, the survey model was used to determine the variables associated with teacher candidates CCW. A total of 508 teacher candidates (72.4% female and 27.6% male) from Turkey participated in the study. The age range of the teacher candidates was 21 to 24 (M = 21.1, SD = 1.23). Hierarchical regression analysis was used to evaluate the data. According to the results, teacher candidates who earn their living by farming and have a biospheric value orientation experience CCW. Some personality traits also relate to CCW. The results provided insight into the variables related to teacher candidates’ CCW. This situation is important for the support training for teacher candidates.

Plain language summary

Concerns about climate change among Turkish teacher candidates: how gender, background, values, and personality traits predict them

Climate change is a major concern impacting people worldwide, causing worry due to extreme weather events and uncertainties about the environment’s future. This worry is particularly significant among teacher candidates. While past research has looked into factors like anxiety related to climate change, there’s been little focus on what specifically worries teacher candidates. Understanding their concerns and the factors behind them is crucial. So, this study aimed to pinpoint what predicts climate change worry among teacher candidates. We surveyed 508 teacher candidates from Turkey, mostly female, aged 21 to 24. Analyzing the data, we found that those with a farming background and a strong connection to nature worry more about climate change. Also, certain personality traits play a role in this worry. These findings help us grasp teacher candidates’ worry levels and the factors contributing to them. It provides insight into how to support those who feel uncertain or hopeless about the future.

Keywords

climate change personality teacher candidates value orientation worry

Introduction

According to the United Nations Population Fund (2022) report, approximately 90% of the world’s 1.8 billion youth live in developing countries. As a developing country, Turkey has a higher youth population than 27 European Union member countries (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2021). Many crises face the young people of today, from unemployment to epidemics, from poverty to lack of education (World Economic Forum, 2017). Of course, these problems are not only experienced by young people. However, climate change, which is one of the biggest and most complex problems faced by humanity, brings new burdens and problem areas to the social, economic, and political lives of young people (United Nations, 2010). They will also be living on a planet with increased global warming and higher seawater temperatures in the future, with a world population twice the size it is now (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018). The risks brought by climate change will have an impact on their livelihoods and this will likely lead to an unequal distribution of income (O’Brien et al., 2018). Moreover, youths have to bear the consequences of the political and economic decisions taken by older generations (Corner et al., 2015). All these negativities have led to youth mobilization and protests (Taylor et al., 2019) where they have begun to express their fears regarding the future of climate change and how their lives will be affected by it (Stevenson et al., 2014). Understanding the factors that affect youth’s worries will make it easier to guide them in directing their worries in productive efforts.

Studies conducted on climate change worry (CCW) have associated CCW with values and personal responsibility (Bouman et al., 2020). In addition, the effects of changing physical environments due to climate change on the psychological experiences of young people have been examined (McBride et al., 2021). Also, other factors such as political views, gender, and occupation are among other things that affected CCW. It has also been reported that teacher candidates do not accept climate change with a fatalistic perspective (Ojala, 2012), and that those with leftist political views are less skeptical regarding the impact of climate change (McCright & Dunlap, 2011). In general, studies show that youth females are more worried than youth males (Stevenson et al., 2014). In addition, the impact of climate change on farmers was considered worth investigating (Mitter et al., 2019). For this reason, we decided to associate the CCW of teacher candidates with values and demographic characteristics.

Also, recent studies have associated CCW with individual differences. Soutter et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis of studies dealing with environmental attitudes and personality traits and stated that reactions to climate change vary according to certain personality traits. Boncu et al. (2022) agreed that the perception of climate change differs for individuals with different personality types. Accordingly, those with neurotic personality types were reported to be more worried about climate change than those with other personality types. Based on all these, personality traits were associated with CCW in the study.

Therefore, by linking teacher candidates’ CCW with values and demographic characteristics, the study addresses some important areas that need to be adequately addressed in the literature. The study aims to provide a new perspective to the existing literature by investigating the effects of personality traits on teacher candidates’ perceptions of climate change. Thus, determining the effects of values and demographic characteristics on teacher candidates’ CCW can provide new insights into how these worries are shaped. This provides valuable information for policymakers and educators by offering practical suggestions for the development of education and support strategies related to climate change:

R1 = Is there a significant relationship between teacher candidates’ CCW and their personality traits, values and demographic characteristics?

R2 = Are personality traits, values and demographic characteristics significant predictors of teacher candidates’ CCW?

Theoretical Framework

Climate Change Worry

Climate change not only poses a threat to food, water, and other resources but also to people’s mental and spiritual health (Cianconi et al., 2020; Stewart, 2021; Woodbury, 2019). The truth is that some people are more worried than others in the face of global climate change, which is increasingly a reminder of the alarming future of the planet (Gezer & İlhan, 2021). The climate crisis debates (IPCC, 2018; United Nations, 2010), which reveal with scientific data how imminent and realistic the catastrophes awaiting the world are, have led to a breakdown in the belief that the future will be promising and damaged the basic sense of trust in individuals (Stewart, 2021). This shows that worry has begun to take a prominent place not only in adults but also in the world of children and youths (Corner et al., 2015; Ojala, 2012).

CCW is essentially a psychological state (Gregersen et al., 2020). Worried individuals can feel personally uncomfortable about a real or imagined threat (Searle & Gow, 2010). Worrying in the context of climate change means that the individual is actively and emotionally invested in the issue and its consequences (Bouman et al., 2020). For this particular issue, CCW likely includes thoughts about the changes that may occur in the climate system and the possible effects of these changes (Stewart, 2021). Individuals experiencing CCW tend to think about the impacts of change on habitat, lifestyle, livelihoods, health, agriculture, etc. (Panu, 2020). However, these thoughts can sometimes be difficult to control (Clayton, 2020). Non-extreme climate worry can be easier to deal with when it comes to adapting to climate change. However, excessive worry is seen as a major obstacle to adaptation (Bouman et al., 2020, van der Linden, 2016; van der Linden et al., 2019). Therefore, it is necessary to measure the CCW of individuals and especially teacher candidates at risk and to identify the factors associated with worry.

The reason for examining teacher candidates’“worries” about climate change is that the term “worry” can comprehensively address individuals’ emotional and cognitive responses to this issue (Panu, 2020; Searle & Gow, 2010). The word “worry” often refers to both individual anxieties and fears and general attitudes about it, and in this context offers a broader range of effects (Hirsh, 2010). Climate change anxiety or fear may be a more specific subset of the concept of worry; however, the term worry offers a more comprehensive view of these fears and anxieties and individuals’ knowledge and perceptions (van der Linden, 2016). Therefore, using the concept of worry in our study, we wanted to address teacher candidates’ general attitudes and perceptions about climate change from a broader perspective. This approach may allow us better to understand its impacts at both individual and societal levels.

Climate Change and Values

According to Schwartz (2003), values are “deep-rooted abstract motivations” that explain behaviour. In studies conducted in the field of environmental psychology, values have been associated with self-enhancement values (hedonistic and egoistic values) and self-transcendent values (altruistic and biospheric values) (Kıral Uçar, 2020; Steg et al., 2014). Self-enhancement values are worried with maintaining and enhancing individuals’ own interests, while altruistic values are worried with caring for the well-being of others. Biospheric values, on the other hand, are about taking care of not only humanity but all other non-human species, the natural environment, and the biosphere in general (Lindenberg & Steg, 2013). In short, an individual with an egoistic value orientation makes decisions regarding pro-environmental behavior on the basis of the benefits and harms that this behavior will bring to them, while an individual with a biospheric value orientation generally prefers to act pro-environmentally (Stern, 2000). Values influence pro-environmental behavior through norms (Steg et al., 2014). Therefore norm is important in shaping people’s attitudes and beliefs that further lead to intention and finally actual behavior. For this reason, it is thought that people who have strong attitudes and beliefs about environmental protection and climate change show greater worry (Bouman et al., 2020; Corner et al., 2015).

Climate Change and Personality Traits

Climate change literature has generally focused on the demographic and social-psychological characteristics of individuals (Ojala, 2012; McBride et al., 2021; McCright & Dunlap, 2011). In addition, personality traits have also begun to be addressed in studies examining the predictors of responses to climate change (Boncu et al., 2022; Gibbon & Douglas, 2021), considering personality is the basis of what motivates beliefs, values, and attitudes (Rothermich et al., 2021). After all, studies have indicated that individuals with varying personality traits respond differently to climate change (Yu & Yu, 2017).

In his study examining personality and environmental worries, Hirsh (2010) reported that agreeableness and openness personality traits are highly correlated with environmental worry. In addition, neurotic personalities seemed to experience CCW more intensely. Gifford and Nilsson (2014) examined the personal and social effects on pro-environmental anxiety and behavior and reported that environmental anxiety was associated with less emotional stability and greater conscientiousness. Accordingly, individuals with agreeableness and open personality traits are more worried about climate change. Soutter et al. (2020) found that those with agreeable, conscientious, and extraverted personalities had more pro-environmental attitudes. This is why it is crucial to analyze the relationships between personality traits and CCW. The results obtained from the study may offer clues about how CCW is related to the characteristics of the person, apart from external factors. All of this will help convey the relationship between personality and worry.

Present Study

An ever-expanding body of literature has shown that teacher candidates experience climate change anxiety or fear (Bouman, et al., 2020; Corner et al., 2015; Ojala, 2012). There are several reasons why climate change anxiety or fear is particularly captivating for teacher candidates. First of all, climate change is perceived as a potential threat to them. Migration due to climate change, unemployment, and staying away from educational opportunities can have devastating effects (United Nations, 2010; World Economic Forum, 2017). Secondly, climate change causes extremely hot weather events, intensification of storms, floods, and erosions, which lead to mood changes (Majeed & Lee, 2017). This is a bigger problem for teacher candidates who are psychologically predisposed worry. Another reason for selecting teacher candidates as the sample is that as future educators, their knowledge and attitudes about climate change will significantly impact students. Teachers are central in imparting knowledge and awareness about critical issues such as climate change (Authors, 2024). Therefore, teacher candidates’ worries and views on this issue can be an important indicator in shaping future educational practices and policies. We also think that teacher candidates’ attitudes about climate change can provide valuable insights into how teacher education programs and educational policies can be improved in this area. In this context, examining teacher candidates’ worries can make an important contribution to efforts to increase the competence and impact of the education system on climate change.

The literature on these grounds has found it worth investigating teacher candidates’ feelings about climate change. However, the main predictors of CCW among teacher candidates have not been studied to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, we aim to examine gender, demographic characteristics, value orientation, and personality traits as potential predictors of CCW. The demographic characteristics addressed in the study are whether teacher candidates are engaged in political affiliation, occupation (farming and non-farming).

Research Hypotheses

In the climate change literature, it has been reported that psychological conditions such as fear and anxiety caused by change mostly affect female (Heeren et al., 2022; Hirsh, 2010; Searle & Gow, 2010). In addition, females appear to exhibit more pro-environmental behavior (Allen et al., 2019). Wullenkord et al. (2021) claimed that females also experience more climate anxiety. And according to Cissé et al. (2022), females may be more emotionally vulnerable to climate change due to a perceived lack of power. However, gender differences in CCW have not been examined. At this point we decided to test the following hypothesis based on the previous literature:

H1 = Gender is a predictor of CCW.

Clayton (2020) shared that not everyone experiences problems related to climate change equally. Accordingly, the groups most affected by climate change are those who worry more about environmental problems and experience the effects of climate change themselves. For example, a crop-growing farmer dealing with drought is exponentially more affected by climate issues than a shopkeeper in the city would be. Climate-related disasters can undermine the social and economic foundations of farming (Berry et al., 2011). Recently, fires due to extreme heat, floods, and drought (General Directorate of Meteorology, 2022) have become major issues for the farming community in Turkey. Many are at risk of losing their financial assets as these disasters continue to build in severity (Austin et al., 2020). Moreover, challenges arising from climate change-related disasters can exacerbate adverse effects by further limiting access to other services (Mitter et al., 2019). Therefore, it seems inevitable that the worries of farmers who personally experience climate change will be high. For this reason, we found it pertinent to examine the CCW of teacher candidates whose livelihood comes from farming.

H2 = Farming characteristics of teacher candidates is predictors of CCW.

The literature dealing with the relationship between political opinion and worry as a demographic feature has shown that left-leaning individuals are more worried than right-leaning individuals (Gregersen et al., 2020). McCright et al. (2016) found that individuals with liberal and leftist views are generally more supportive of climate policies than those with right views. Accordingly, right-oriented people are more skeptical about climate change on the whole (McCright & Dunlap, 2011). We predict that right-wing people who find the issue of climate change suspicious will have less worry about it. Therefore, the hypothesis based on the demographic characteristics of individuals is as follows:

H3 = Political affiliation of teacher candidates is predictors of CCW.

Corner et al. (2014) asserted that individuals with altruistic and biospheric value orientation are more worried about climate change. However, individuals with egoistic value orientation consider the benefits and harms of the result they will obtain while making decisions. In this case, it has been reported that individuals with altruistic and biospheric value orientations tend to support pro-climate change policies (Steg et al., 2014) and to use environmentally friendly products on climate change (Searle & Gow, 2010). Based on this, we contend that the CCW levels of individuals who adopt different values will also be different. Therefore, the hypothesis we tested in the study is as follows:

H4 = Value orientation of teacher candidates is a predictor of CCW.

The predisposition to CCW also varies according to personality (Clayton, 2020). Individuals with neurotic personality traits are generally associated with a predisposition to psychiatric disorders (Hirsh, 2010), and would therefore be more prone to CCW as well. Gibbon and Douglas (2021) pointed out agreeableness and openness as the personality types most associated with the environment. Soutter et al. (2020) showed in their study that openness personality trait was associated with environmental anxiety. Agreeableness has also been associated with pro-climate behaviors in addition to conscientiousness and extraversion (Markowitz et al., 2012), albeit in small numbers. Individuals who display pro-environmental behaviors are clearly more sensitive to climate change (Allen et al., 2019). Based on this, we think that CCW will differ according to personality traits. The hypothesis created in this context is as follows:

H5 = Personality traits are a predictor of CCW.

Method

In this study, the survey model was used to determine the variables associated with teacher candidates CCW. The relations between the hypotheses and variables determined within the framework of this study are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Default model.

Participants

Teacher candidates from Turkey have participated in this study. An online survey was shared through the group, and teacher candidates were asked to fill it out completely on a voluntary basis. No reward system was adopted for filling out the survey. The online survey remained open for one month. A grand total of 508 teacher candidates, including 368 (72.4%) female and 140 (27.6%) male teacher candidates, participated in the study. The age range of the teacher candidates was 21 to 24 (M = 21.1, SD = 1.23). One hundred and sixty two (32.9%) of the teacher candidates stated that they made a living from farming and 341 (67.1%) stated that they were not interested in farming. As for political views, 64 (12.6%) teacher candidates stated that they were more conservative, and 60 (11.8%) teacher candidates stated that they were more leftists. The number of teacher candidates describing themselves as centrist totaled 384 (75.6%).

Instruments

Personal Information Form

A personal information form was prepared in order to obtain demographic information from the teacher candidates. In the form, teacher candidates were asked about their gender, age, political views, and whether or not their family was engaged in farming.

Climate Change Worry Scale (CCWS)

CCWS, developed by Stewart (2021) and adapted into Turkish by Gezer and İlhan (2021), was used to identify teacher candidates’ worries regarding climate change. The related scale is a 5-point Likert type (1 = I strongly disagree… 5 = I strongly agree) consisting of 10 items and a single factor. As a result of the item analysis, it was determined that the item correlations ranged between .56 and .74. There is no reverse-coded item in the scale. Accordingly, the increase in the scores obtained from the scale indicates high worry on the issue of climate change. For this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was calculated as .91.

Value Orientations Scale (VOS)

The three-factor VOS scale, which includes egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values, proposed by de Groot and Steg (2008) was used to explain beliefs on environmentally-friendly behavior. There are 11 items in total on the related scale. The Turkish adaptation of the scale was made by Kıral Uçar (2020) and one more item was added to the scale. Accordingly, each of the factors reflecting egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values of the scale has four items. Youths evaluate each of the 12 items in the VOS on a 9-point Likert scale, ranging from −1 (contrary to my principles) to 7 (highly important), depending on its importance in terms of being a principle that guides their lives, after reading the explanations given in parentheses next to them. Before an analysis was conducted on the data, the scale was evaluated on a range from +1 to 9. Within the scope of this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the scale were calculated as .79, .72, and .89, respectively. The stratified Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was calculated as .81.

The Big Five Inventory (BIF)

BIF (John et al., 1991) is a tool that measures the prototypical components of the five factors. The scale is a 5-point Likert-type scale consisting of 44 items in total, 8 items in the dimension of “extraversion”, 9 items in the dimension of “agreeableness”, 9 items in the dimension of “conscientiousness”, 8 items in the dimension of “neuroticism” and 10 items in the dimension of “openness.” The Turkish adaptation of the scale was carried out by Sümer and Sümer (2005) within the scope of the Turkey part of a study on the self-identification profiles and patterns of individuals in 56 countries (Schmitt et al., 2007). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients obtained within the scope of this study were between .77 and .80.

Data Collection

Ethics committee approval was obtained first. Data was then collected through an online questionnaire comprised of a personal information form, CCWS, VOS, and BIF. A link to the survey was sent to teacher candidates. The data were collected in the 2023 to 2024 academic years.

Data Analysis

CCWS and BIF scales are 5-point Likert scales. Item scoring in the scales is graded between 1 and 5. The difference between these scores was divided by 5, which is the number of answers, and the interval value was calculated as .80 (Tekin, 2012). Interpretation criteria for each scale item were determined as 1.00 to 1.80 “very low”, 1.81 to 2.60 “low”, 2.61 to 3.40 “moderate”, 3.41 to 4.20 “high” and 4.21 to 5.00 “very high” according to the range value. The VOS scale was scored in a 9-point Likert type. Accordingly, the interval value was calculated as .88. Interpretation criteria for each scale item according to the range value 1.00 to 1.88 “extremely disagree”, 1.89 to 2.77 “very disagree”, 2.78 to 3.66 “moderately disagree”, 3.67 to 4.55 “slightly disagree”, 4.56 to 5.44 “neither agree nor disagree””, 5.45 to 6.33 “slightly agree”, 6.34 to 7.22 “moderately agree”, 7.23 to 8.11 “very agree”, 8.12 to 9.00 “extremely agree.”

In data analysis, the assumptions about the suitability of the variables for the analysis were first checked. The goal was to determine whether the distributions of each sub-dimension of the variables were normal. When the correlation values between the variables were examined, it was seen that the highest correlation value between the binary variables was .80. In addition, tolerance and VIF values were calculated for multiple linear correlations between independent variables in hierarchical regression analysis, and it were seen that the tolerance value was between .46 and .97 and VIF values were between 1.11 and 2.17. In this case, it can be said that there is no multicollinearity that would pose a problem (Field, 2005).

Data were analyzed with SPSS 26.0 program, and descriptive statistics and primary analyzes were made. Then, a regression analysis was performed to find the predictive variables of CCW.

Results

Primary Analysis

Firstly, descriptive analyses of the answers given by the teacher candidates to the related scales were made. The obtained findings are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Analyzes.

Variables	Min	Max	M	M/k *	SD	Skewness (SE = 0.10)	Kurtosis (SE = 0.21)
CCWS	10	50	36.11	3.61	7.85	−0.30	−0.00
VOS
Egoistic values	8	36	26.13	6.53	5.75	−0.55	0.17
Altruistic values	12	36	33.27	8.31	3.79	−0.29	0.04
Biospheric values	12	36	33.09	8.27	4.14	−0.13	0.87
BIF
Extraversion	8	40	26.10	3.26	5.53	−0.11	−0.06
Agreeableness	11	45	33.45	3.71	4.49	−0.18	0.75
Conscientiousness	17	45	32.77	3.64	5.01	−0.13	−0.05
Neuroticism	8	38	23.96	2.99	5.21	0.02	−0.27
Openness	20	50	37.31	3.73	5.58	−0.25	−0.18

k = Number of item.

According to the descriptive analysis findings, the skewness and kurtosis values of the data obtained from the scales are in the range of ±1.5. This insinuates that the data show a normal distribution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). It is seen that the teacher candidates’ scores in CCWS are high (M/k = 3.61, SD = 7.85), meaning that their worry regarding climate change is above average. Teacher candidates’ altruistic (M/k = 8.31, SD = 3.79) and biospheric values (M/k = 8.27, SD = 4.14) were also high, while egoistic value orientations were moderate (M/k = 6.53, SD = 5.75). Based on the values taken from the BIF scale, the scores of the teacher candidates’ extraversion (M/k = 3.26, SD = 5.53) and neuroticism (M/k = 2.99, SD = 5.21) dimensions were also moderate. However, scores in the agreeableness (M/k = 3.71, SD = 4.49), conscientiousness (M/k = 3.64, SD = 5.01), and openness (M/k = 3.73, SD = 5.58) dimensions were high.

Regression Analyses

After descriptive analysis, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was applied to the related variables in the study (Table 2). According to the results to determine the predictors of CCW, Step 1 (R² = .06, ΔR² = .00) was not significant. Accordingly, the CCW of teacher candidates does not differ according to gender. Step 2 (R² = .15, ΔR² = .02), in which engage in farming and politic views variables are added to the analysis, was significant. Accordingly, the contribution of the inclusion of engage in farming and politic views variables to the hierarchical regression to the explained variance is 0.2%. Considering the calculated regression coefficient, it was seen that engage in farming was a predictor of CCW. According to hierarchical regression analysis findings, Step 3 (R² = .24, ΔR² = .06) and Step 4 (R² = .40, ΔR² = .16) were significant. Considering the regression coefficients in Step 3, it is seen that farming and biospheric value orientation are predictors of CCW. In Step 4, farming, biospheric values, and openness variables were found to be predictors of CCW. Also, with the first three steps of hierarchical regression analysis, Step 4 explains 16% of teacher candidates’ CCW.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Linear Regression Analysis.

Variables	Step 1			Step 2			Step 3			Step 4
Variables	B	t	β	B	t	β	B	t	β	B	t	β
Gender	−1.04	−1.34	−.06	−0.98	−1.26	−.56	−0.57	−0.72	−.03	−0.71	−0.94	−.04
Engage in farming				2.31	3.14**	.13	1.89	2.59*	.11	1.44	2.07*	.08
Politics view				0.59	0.84	.03	0.50	0.73	.03	0.66	1.00	.04
Egoistic values							−0.01	−0.23	−.01	−0.07	−1.28	−.05
Altruistic values							−0.12	−0.98	−.59	−0.04	−0.39	−.02
Biospheric values							0.43	3.89**	.22	0.25	2.33*	.13
Neuroticism										0.15	2.22*	.10
Extraversion										−0.00	−0.01	.00
Openness										0.43	6.35**	.30
Agreeableness										0.05	0.57	.02
Conscientiousness										0.10	1.36	.06
R ²	.06			.15			.24			.40
ΔR²	.00			.02			.06			.16
F	1.79			4.16			5.37			8.94

p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

In the study, four hypotheses were thereby formulated and tested. One of them was rejected and the other three were accepted. The findings are discussed below in the light of the literature.

Gender

In the study, gender was tested as a predictor of teacher candidates CCW and accordingly, hypothesis H1 was rejected. However, the relevant literature offers some findings that conflict with these results. While some studies indicate that female are more worried about the consequences of climate change (Cissé et al., 2022; Wullenkord et al., 2021), the opposite is true in others (Hanigan et al., 2018; Powers et al., 2015). Studies with results contrary to the above assertion have reported that females are more psychologically resistant to drought. These studies, which were conducted in Australia, aimed specifically to analyze and discuss coping strategies that female have in times of drought. In the current study, there appeared to be no difference in CCW between young female and young male. This suggests that Turkish teacher candidates are equally worried about climate change regardless of gender. Volunteering activities have been carried out by teacher candidates in recent years, as have campaigns on climate in social media, and non-governmental organizations, and associations trying to explain the effects of climate change are both numerous and effective, which may be related to this phenomenon. In addition, “eco-celebrities” on platforms such as Twitter may also have an impact on teacher candidates (Corner et al., 2015). Also, Marks et al. (2021), the results of a study conducted with 10,000 young people in 10 countries described the worries of young people as rational.

Young people not only read about climate change in the press, but all these events happen right before their eyes.

Engage in Farming and Politic Views

In determining the predictors of teacher candidates CCW, the variables of farming and political views were discussed. In this context, it was observed that the worries of young people who make their living from farming were higher. Clearly, some find themselves at greater risk when it comes to the issue of climate change. These people either live in geographically sensitive areas or are directly exposed to the effects of climate change due to their occupations (Clayton, 2020). And of these populations, farmers likely experience the most direct effects of climate change. Austin et al. (2020) attested to increased drought-related stress and psychological distress among farmers in Australia. Similarly, Rotgé et al. (2014) found that the countries with the most number of mood disorders were among farmers in countries characterized by small differences in monthly precipitation and high precipitation levels. There are similar problems for the Turkish farmer who earns their living from the land. It is unsurprising that teacher candidate farmers, who personally experience climate change and its effects on education, migration, and unemployment, are worried.

In addition no relationship was found between the political view adopted by the teacher candidates and the CCW. Gregersen et al. (2020) stated that CCW may differ politically between countries and regions. For example, studies conducted in the USA found a strong relationship between political views and worry (McCright & Dunlap, 2011). In some Western European countries, this relationship is weaker (Smith & Leiserowitz, 2014). As far as we know, this is the first time CCW has been studied among a Turkish sample. There may be different reasons for not detecting a relationship between political views and climate change in this study. First, unlike in the US and Europe, in Turkey, the CCW may not yet be overlapped with a political identity. Regardless of their political ideology, the individual may experience worries regarding climate change.

However, the relevant situation may be related to young people’s knowledge and beliefs about climate change. Believing in the human-induced nature of climate change and that it will have negative effects worldwide means different things to individuals with right—and left-wing political views. It can trigger emotions such as moral guilt and anger more than natural risks (Gregersen et al., 2020). Therefore, taking this risk seriously will differ between right- and left-politically motivated people. Based on this, we suppose that Turkish teacher candidates do not have enough information on climate change when they actually adopt a political view. This is not a point clarified in the study but can be considered as a possible reason.

Value Orientation

In the study’s fourth hypothesis, Turkish teacher candidates’ value orientations were found to play a predictive role in CCW. In particular, teacher candidates with biospheric values were found to have a higher degree of concern than teacher candidates with other value orientations. Individuals with biospheric values have an anthropocentric understanding of ethics that places high value on nature and the environment and believe that social good should be maximized (de Groot & Steg, 2008). Steg et al. (2014) defined this value orientation as a fundamental ethical component that enables people to act in an environmentally sensitive manner and to fulfil their moral responsibility towards nature. Among Turkish teacher candidates, those with biospheric value orientation tended to act beneficially for the ecosystem and biosphere and had a high ability to identify with nature. Clayton (2020) reported that individuals with this type of identification feel more sensitive and vulnerable to climate change. Therefore, understanding the relationship between Turkish teacher candidates’ value orientations and CCW provides important information for developing teacher candidates’ environmental awareness and ability to combat climate change. In this context, our results, in line with previous literature, confirm the influence of biospheric values on CCW and suggest that educational policies should be restructured to support teacher candidates’ environmental values.

Personality

A correlation was determined between personality traits and CCW as well. Individuals with an openness personality type experience CCW more intensely. Previous studies have also found a relationship between openness personality and pro-environmental behaviors (Allen et al., 2019; Hirsh, 2010). In fact, individuals with openness are historically more open to experience, a search for greater understanding, curiosity, acting individually, seeking balance, being practical and less bound to rules (Costa et al., 2001). These characteristics are also associated with self-transcendent values (Hirsh, 2010). Individuals with this personality type who are worried about the environment are expected to develop a higher level of commitment to environmental issues (Soutter et al., 2020). Because of this, the openness personality type appears to be the personality type most associated with CCW, as confirmed in previous studies (Gibbon & Douglas, 2021). This can be explained by the fact that these individuals believe that climate change really exists, that the consequences of climate change may harm them personally, and that they must hold to an independent mindset on this issue. Naturally, it can be assumed that individuals with this personality type will oppose the status quo understanding and show more pro-environmental behaviours on climate change. We can also assert that individuals with this personality type may develop stronger strategies to counter climate change. This is why it can be beneficial to cooperate with teacher candidates with this personality type who are proactive in addressing the issue.

Implications and Limitations

There are some limitations of this study. First of all, the study was conducted with teacher candidates 21 to 24 in the Turkish sample. It could be possible to reach different results if a similar study is conducted with teacher candidates living in a different region of the world.

All data was collected through Likert type scales. This is how level of CCW and related variables were measured in the study. However, CCW is a highly complex, sensitive and deeply contextualized issue (Wullenkord et al., 2021). Consequently, answers given to the scales may be affected by social desirability and worry may not be fully captured. In addition, there is very limited literature on CCW. Therefore, the results were compared with the climate change fear and anxiety literature. However, it should be noted that anxiety, fear and worry emerge from varying contexts. Also, this study was collected cross-sectional over a certain period of time. However, the value orientation and worries of teacher candidates may vary over time. They can evolve and adopt strategies to address these worries. For this reason, we suggest that longitudinal and mixed studies be carried out in the future on the subject.

Demographic variables were included in the study as a predictor of teacher candidates CCW. According to this, it was seen that teacher candidates who are engaged in farming and make their living from it are more worried. Turkey has been feeling the effects of climate change more intensely over the last few years. This clearly seems to be worrying the younger generation. It can, therefore, be strongly recommended to support teacher candidates who regularly deal with these worries in terms of psychological resilience. Therefore, it may be recommended to support teacher candidates in terms of psychological resilience. Also, climate change worry can be eliminated if the severity of climate change is reduced through mitigation and adaptation works. In addition, by collaborating with teacher candidates with openness personality type, steps can be established whereby climate change is addressed in a more feasible manner.

Conclusion

This is the first study to determine the CCW of teacher candidates in a Turkish sample and to examine the predictors of this worry. Result showed that teacher candidates who make a living from farming and have a biospheric value orientation experience CCW more intensely. Also, those with openness personality traits experience CCW more than those with other personality traits. However, teacher candidates’ gender was not a significant predictor of CCW. In addition, there was no significant relationship between teacher candidates’ political opinions and CCW. These results allow us to understand CCW in teacher candidates and emphasize the need for psychological support and policy development, especially for farmers and young people with environmental values. However, the study’s limitations suggest that the overall results may vary in different geographical and cultural contexts and that the social desirability effect and cross-sectional data collection may not adequately reflect changing levels of concern over time. Therefore, future longitudinal and mixed-methods research may help to develop a more comprehensive and dynamic understanding of teacher candidates’ CCW.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ömer Gökhan Ulum

Ethical Considerations

All ethical concerns were addressed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration. Permission was obtained from the Necmettin Erbakan University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee (Ref: 18107).

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

Allen

Lyons

Stephens

J. C.

(2019). Women’s leadership in renewable transformation, energy justice and energy democracy: Redistributing power. Energy Research & Social Science, 57, 101233.

Austin

E. K.

Rich

J. L.

Kiem

A. S.

Handley

Perkins

Kelly

B. J.

(2020). Concerns about climate change among rural residents in Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 75, 98–109.

Authors (2024). Removed for blind reviewer.

Berry

H. L.

Hogan

Owen

Rickwood

Fragar

(2011). Climate change and farmers’ mental health: Risks and responses. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 23(2), 119–132.

Boncu

Prundeanu

Holman

A. C.

Popuşoi

S. A.

(2022). Believing in or denying climate change for questionable reasons: Generic conspiracist beliefs, personality, and climate change perceptions of Romanian university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 17038.

Bouman

Verschoor

Albers

C. J.

Böhm

Fisher

S. D.

Poortinga

Whitmarsh

Steg

(2020). When worry about climate change leads to climate action: How values, worry and personal responsibility relate to various climate actions. Global Environmental Change, 62, 102061.

Cianconi

Betrò

Janiri

(2020). The impact of climate change on mental health: A systematic descriptive review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 74.

Cissé

McLeman

Adams

Aldunce

Bowen

Campbell-Lendrum

Clayton

Ebi

K. L.

Hess

Huang

Liu

McGregor

Semenza

Tirado

M. C.

(2022). Health, wellbeing, and the changing structure of communities. In Pörtner

H.-O.

Roberts

D. C.

Tignor

Poloczanska

E. S.

Mintenbeck

Alegría

Craig

Langsdorf

Löschke

Möller

Okem

Rama

(Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. In Press

Clayton

(2020). Climate anxiety: Psychological responses to climate change. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 74, 1–7.

10.

Corner

Markowitz

Pidgeon

(2014). Public engagement with climate change: The role of human values. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 411–422.

11.

Corner

Roberts

Chiari

Völler

Mayrhuber

E. S.

Mandl

Monson

(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.

12.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. Terracciano

McCrae

R. R.

(2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331.

13.

de Groot

J. I.

Steg

. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330–354.

14.

Field

(2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage.

15.

General Directorate of Meteorology. (2022). Quarterly drought map. https://www.mgm.gov.tr/sondurum/guncel-haritalar.aspx

16.

Gezer

İlhan

(2021). İklim değişikliği düşüncesi ölçümü: Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması [Climate change worry scale: Turkish adaptation study]. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 30(1), 195–204.

17.

Gibbon

Douglas

H. E.

(2021). Personality and the pro-environmental individual: Unpacking the interplay between attitudes, behavior and climate change denial. Personality and Individual Differences, 181, 111031.

18.

Gifford

Nilsson

(2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behavior: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157.

19.

Gregersen

Doran

Böhm

Tvinnereim

Poortinga

(2020). Political orientation moderates the relationship between climate change beliefs and worry about climate change. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1573.

20.

Hanigan

I. C.

Schirmer

Niyonsenga

(2018). Drought and distress in southeastern Australia. EcoHealth, 15, 642–655.

21.

Heeren

Mouguiama-Daouda

Contreras

(2022). On climate anxiety and the threat it may pose to daily life functioning and adaptation: A study among European and African French-speaking participants. Climatic Change, 173(1–2), 15.

22.

Hirsh

J. B.

(2010). Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 245–248.

23.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change.

24.

John

O. P.

Donahue

E. M.

Kentle

R. L.

(1991). The big five inventory—Versions 4a and 54. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

25.

Kıral Uçar

. (2020). Değer yönelimleri ve çevre yanlısı davranışlar [Value orientations and pro-environmental behaviour]. Uludağ University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, 21(39), 801–822.

26.

Lindenberg

Steg

(2013). Goal-framing theory and norm-guided environmental behavior. In van Trijp

H. C. M.

(Ed.), Encouraging sustainable behavior (pp. 37–54). Psychology Press.

27.

Majeed

Lee

(2017). The impact of climate change on youth depression and mental health. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(3), 94–95.

28.

Markowitz

E. M.

Goldberg

L. R.

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(2012). Profiling the “pro-environmental individual”: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 81–111.

29.

Marks

Hickman

Pihkala

Clayton

Lewandowski

E. R.

Mayall

E. E.

Wray

Mellor

van Susteren

(2021). Young people’s voices on climate anxiety, government betrayal and moral injury: A global phenomenon. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3918955

30.

McBride

S. E.

Hammond

M. D.

Sibley

C. G.

Milfont

T. L.

(2021). Longitudinal relations between climate change concern and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101713.

31.

McCright

A. M.

Dunlap

R. E.

(2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1163–1172.

32.

McCright

A. M.

Dunlap

R. E.

Marquart-Pyatt

S. T.

(2016). Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environmental Politics, 25(2), 338–358.

33.

Mitter

Larcher

Schönhart

Stöttinger

Schmid

(2019). Exploring farmers’ climate change perceptions and adaptation intentions: Empirical evidence from Austria. Environmental Management, 63, 804–821.

34.

O’Brien

Selboe

Hayward

B. M.

(2018). Exploring youth activism on climate change: Dutiful, disruptive, and dangerous dissent. Ecology and Society, 23(3), 42–56.

35.

Ojala

(2012). How do children cope with global climate change? Coping strategies, engagement, and well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(3), 225–233.

36.

Panu

(2020). Anxiety and the ecological crisis: An analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability, 12(19), 7836.

37.

Powers

J. R.

Dobson

A. J.

Berry

H. L.

Graves

A. M.

Hanigan

I. C.

Loxton

(2015). Lack of association between drought and mental health in a cohort of 45–61 year old rural Australian women. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39(6), 518–523.

38.

Rotgé

J. Y.

Fossati

Lemogne

(2014). Climate and prevalence of mood disorders: A cross-national correlation study. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 75(4), 2697.

39.

Rothermich

Johnson

E. K.

Griffith

R. M.

Beingolea

M. M.

(2021). The influence of personality traits on attitudes towards climate change–An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110304.

40.

Schmitt

D. P.

Allik

McCrae

R. R.

Benet-Martinez

(2007). The geographic distribution of big five personality traits: Pattern and profiles of human self description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173–212.

41.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. In Questionnaire Development Package of the European Social Survey (pp. 259–319). Retrieved from https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf

42.

Searle

Gow

(2010). Do concerns about climate change lead to distress?. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 2(4), 362–379.

43.

Smith

Leiserowitz

(2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 937–948.

44.

Soutter

A. R. B.

Bates

T. C.

Mõttus

(2020). Big Five and HEXACO personality traits, pro-environmental attitudes, and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 913–941.

45.

Steg

Bolderdijk

J. W.

Keizer

Perlaviciute

(2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behavior: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104–115.

46.

Stern

P. C.

(2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.

47.

Stevenson

K. T.

Peterson

M. N.

Bondell

H. D.

Moore

S. E.

Carrier

S. J.

(2014). Overcoming skepticism with education: Interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived climate change risk among adolescents. Climatic Change, 126, 293–304.

48.

Stewart

A. E.

(2021). Psychometric properties of the climate change worry scale. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 494–516.

49.

Sümer

H. C.

(2005). Big five personality traits. Unpublished research project.

50.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

51.

Taylor

Watts

Bartlett

(2019, September 27). Climate crisis: 6 million people join latest wave of global protests. The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/27/climate-crisis-6-million-people-join-latest-wave-of-worldwide-protests

52.

Tekin

(2012). Measurement and evaluation in education. Yargı publish.

53.

Turkish Statistical Institute. (2021). Youth 2021 with statistics. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Genclik-2021

54.

United Nations. (2010). World youth report: Youth and climate change. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/wyr10/YouthReport-FINAL-web-single.pdf

55.

United Nations Population Fund. (2022). Adolescent and youth demographics: A brief overview. https://pdp.unfpa.org/?_ga=2.173521956.685427396.1677133023-1291368216.1677133023

56.

van der Linden

. (2016) The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors: A national study. Environmental Education Research, 22(3), 434–435.

57.

van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Maibach

. (2019). The gateway belief model: A large-scale replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 49–58.

58.

Woodbury

(2019). Climate trauma: Toward a new taxonomy of trauma. Ecopsychology, 11(1), 1–8.

59.

World Economic Forum. (2017). Global shapers survey. http://www.shaperssurvey2017.org/static/data/WEF_GSC_Annual_Survey_2017.pdf

60.

Wullenkord

M. C.

Tröger

Hamann

K. R. S.

Loy

L. S.

Reese

(2021). Anxiety and climate change: A validation of the climate anxiety scale in a German-speaking quota sample and an investigation of psychological correlates. Climatic Change, 168, 20.

61.

T. Y.

T. K.

(2017). The moderating effects of students’ personality traits on pro-environmental behavioral intentions in response to climate change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 1472.

Teacher Candidates with Biospheric Value,Farming and Openness Personality Type are Worried About Climate Change

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Framework

Climate Change Worry

Climate Change and Values

Climate Change and Personality Traits

Present Study

Research Hypotheses

Method

Participants

Instruments

Personal Information Form

Climate Change Worry Scale (CCWS)

Value Orientations Scale (VOS)

The Big Five Inventory (BIF)

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Results

Primary Analysis

Regression Analyses

Discussion

Gender

Engage in Farming and Politic Views

Value Orientation

Personality

Implications and Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Consent for Publication

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References