The research into children’s environmental attitudes and behavior began some decades ago (Otto et al., 2019), with the goal of clarifying the origins and development of both ecological sense and environmental behavior. Hahn and Garrett (2017) demonstrated that children of 3 years were already able to evaluate actions as environmentally harmful, showing moral attitudes. In a more recent study, Geraci et al. (2023) investigated the environmental morality of 7-month-old infants. The authors highlight the results of well-established studies indicating that young children make moral judgments of actions that harm the environment and seek to clarify when this moralization begins. Of importance to the current study, their results show that, by the age of 7 months, children are able to make moral evaluations. This may suggest that PEB can be part of an innate propensity (Otto et al., 2021; Geraci et al., 2023), crucial for environmental protection. Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that by the time a child has reached the age of 7 years their attitude and behavior have formed (Otto et al., 2019).

In a study of adolescents’ PEB, Böhme et al. (2018) found that adolescents seem to be potentially influenced, in the case by mindfulness, to actively engage in sustainable consumption. Collado et al. (2019) report that young people influence one another to environmentalist behavior. Similarly, Žukauskienė et al. (2021) conclude that adolescents may be important agents to influence their families and communities to adopt pro-environmental attitudes and PEB. We have witnessed the widespread participation of teenagers in the “Fridays for the Future” initiative, a movement initiated by Greta Thunberg, which may indicate greater concern with environmental issues.

Taken together, these results are a positive signs for the environmental-protection cause, as it seems that—from as young as 7 months old and throughout infant–juvenile development—young people may engage in environmental protection as a development task. However, research also indicates a decline in PEB during adolescence (Collado et al., 2015; Krettenauer, 2017; Wray-Lake et al., 2017; Krettenauer et al., 2019; Otto et al., 2019; Keith et al., 2021). Additionally, a discrepancy between environmental attitudes and behaviors has been observed in adolescents, with their concerns not always translating into corresponding behaviors (Huoponen, 2023; Thomaes et al., 2023). Therefore, it remains unclear whether adolescents’ involvement in environmental issues indicates a genuine commitment to environmental protection or whether it is a demand for governmental action rather than an assertion of individual responsibility (Wray-Lake et al., 2010). Given these mixed results, further investigation is vital to enhance our understanding of the factors driving adolescents’ PEB.

Although we are aware of the view that adolescence should be defined by the age range 10–24 years (e.g., Sawyer et al., 2018), our study focuses on adolescents aged between 11 and 18 years. This decision was taken because, in several domains of psychology, investigations of adolescents focus on this age range (e.g., Böhme et al., 2018; Gómez-López et al., 2019; Balundė et al., 2020; Habib et al., 2023; Neurohr et al., 2023). Furthermore, we argue that extending the age range to 24 years could make comparison and comprehension of the behaviors under study more difficult, as it would introduce greater variability into the population under study (e.g., by including university students and participants already in the job market).

Personality traits play a fundamental role in shaping an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and values, which, in turn, influence their behaviors and decisions (Markowitz et al., 2012; Soutter et al., 2020). On that basis, there is a growing body of research into the relationship between personality and PEB (Soutter and Mõttus, 2020). These studies tend to apply the “five-factor model of personality,” which comprises the so-called “Big Five”: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to experience. Alternatively, some use the HEXACO model and its six dimensions: Honesty–Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. Some researchers have applied the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa and McCrae, 1992), in one of its several versions (e.g., Zhou et al., 2019), while others have employed several versions of the HEXACO–Personality Inventory–Revised (Lee and Ashton, 2004; Ashton and Lee, 2009; Brick and Lewis, 2016; Pavalache-Ilie and Cazan, 2018; Panno et al., 2021) or the International Personality Item Pool (Johnson, 2014; Soutter and Mõttus, 2020). These studies usually examine the relationships between personality and PEB, pro-environmental attitude (PEA) or pro-environmental intention (PEI).

Soutter et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis of investigations in which the “Big Five” or HEXACO models had been used to examine the relationship between personality, PEB, and PEA. Their results show that Openness, Honesty–Humility, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion are associated with both PEA and PEB, with Openness and Honesty–Humility having the strongest correlations. Panno et al. (2021) also found that Openness and Honesty–Humility were significant predictors of PEB, and these traits were linked to PEB both directly and indirectly through moral anger. Similarly, research by Markowitz et al. (2012) identified a moderate positive relationship between Openness and PEB, while Brick and Lewis (2016) found that Openness and Conscientiousness independently predict emission-reduction behavior and that their effects are mediated by PEA. Openness was also found to be correlated with PEB in a study by Puech et al. (2019), while Gibbon and Douglas (2021) found that Openness/Intellect significantly predict PEB. Analyzing personality facets, Soutter and Mõttus (2020) found that Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness—along with certain aspects of Extraversion—positively predicted both PEA and PEB, while certain facets of Neuroticism had a negative association with PEB. An investigation among village leaders in China found that leaders with higher levels of Agreeableness and Neuroticism were more willing to adopt environmental protection measures (Zhou et al., 2019). These findings suggest that personality may be one explanation for engagement in PEB during adolescence.

Of special interest to the current systematic review is the development of this propensity to environmental protection, as well the possibility that one indicator of this propensity may be the personality trait of Honesty–Humility (Otto et al., 2021). Moreover, although personality develops across the lifespan, adolescence is a period that sees major development of the personality (Soto et al., 2011; de Moor et al., 2022), as well as its maturation (McCrae et al., 2002; Van Dijk et al., 2020). In addition, mean levels of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness generally rise during adolescence (Soto et al., 2011; Van Dijk et al., 2020). As a result, it would be beneficial to clarify the extent to which personality influences PEB during that period.

In the quest to investigate factors that influence PEB, researchers have explored the crucial role of emotions. In this context, EI is a promising variable. Research in this domain has used the Wong and Law (2002) Emotional Intelligence Scale (e.g., Aziz et al., 2021); the Salovey et al. (1995) Trait Meta-Mood Scale (e.g., Aguilar-Luzón et al., 2014); and The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Petrides, 2009a,b) in its various forms (e.g., Ntanos et al., 2017; Giancola et al., 2022). Aguilar-Luzón et al. (2014) studied the role of EI as a moderating variable in the relationship between anthropocentric beliefs, ecocentric beliefs, and PEB. Their results show that those people with stronger ecocentric beliefs and a better ability to manage their emotions tend to have more favorable attitude toward behavior, greater intention to have PEB and more engagement in PEB. Furthermore, when anthropocentric beliefs are less pronounced and EI is higher, there is a greater intention to perform PEB. Chowdhury (2017), in a study of the relationship between EI and ethical consumption, found that an ability to appraise and recognize other’s emotions was positively related to pro-environmental buying actions. Ntanos et al. (2017) found a positive correlation between trait EI and willingness to invest in renewable energy sources. Likewise, Carrieri and Fermani (2018) show a positive correlation between EI and sustainable-hospitality choices through social well-being, and using a cluster analysis, they found that higher scores for IE correspond to a stronger sustainable-hospitality orientation. Further, Aziz et al. (2021) found that EI mediated the relationship between pro-environmental intention and PEB. Together, these results suggest that the role of EI in the understanding and promotion of PEB warrants further study.

Although there is growing evidence of relationships between personality and PEB and between EI and PEB, there are gaps in this knowledge—namely, regarding the role of the variables in the PEB of adolescents. The present research examines the studies in this field and considers their conclusions in relation to adolescents to gain new insights. The findings of the current paper could support the design of PEB-promotion programs catered to specified personality traits and aspects of EI.

Searches were conducted in seven electronic databases: Proquest, which included PsycARTICLES, ERIC and Psychology Database; MEDLINE; PubMed; Scopus; and Web of Science. In each database, the following combinations of keywords was searched: (Adolesc* OR “Young people” OR Youth* OR Teen*) AND (“Proenvironmental behavior” OR “pro-environmental behavior” OR “ecological behavior” OR “sustainable behavior” OR “environmentally friendly behavior” OR “green behavior”) AND (Personality OR “big five” OR “five factor model” OR extravers* OR neurotic* OR “emotional stability” OR openness OR agreeableness OR conscientiousness) AND (“Emotional Intelligence” OR “Self-Emotion Appraisal” OR “Others’ Emotion Appraisal” OR “Use of Emotion” OR “Regulation of Emotion”).

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews were followed (Page et al., 2021) and the systematic review protocol was registered through the PROSPERO—International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023387836).

Papers were downloaded from a Mendeley library. A search of the databases yielded a total of 262 records (Figure 1), and 25 duplicates were removed from these. Researchers, independently and simultaneously, screened the titles and abstracts of the remaining 217 articles. The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied throughout the screening process. All discrepancies were discussed to reach final decisions based on consensus among the evaluators.

To select the articles for the review, the following inclusion criteria were used: (1) only peer-reviewed and empirical articles in full-text form were considered acceptable. All articles were published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. All dates were acceptable. (2) The participants in the studies were to be adolescents aged 11–18 years. (3) The studies must have applied quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods, but in the case of meta data, only quantitative methods—such as meta-analysis—would be analyzed.

The reasons for excluding an article were as follows: (1) it was not available in full text; (2) it was published in a language other than English, Spanish, or Portuguese; (3) it did not use a defined tool to directly measure PEB, personality, or emotional intelligence; and (4) it was a review, opinion, editorial, case study, or empirical study in which the relationship between PEB and personality or between PEB and emotional intelligence were merely mentioned or superficially discussed, without in-depth analysis.

On the basis of this initial screening of the abstracts, 20 articles were deemed relevant for further assessment. All 20 articles were screened at the full-text stage by two researchers who chose the papers for final inclusion. All of the uncertainties (i.e., five highlighted by one researcher and nine by the other) were discussed with the two other researchers, and agreement was reached on the five articles included in this systematic review. (For the reasons for the exclusions, see Figure 1).

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using an Excel spreadsheet that listed all of the studies, duly coded. Extraction of relevant information from the selected primary studies was performed in the referred excel spreadsheet. Specifically, final analysis consisted in verifying two items: (1) whether the sample included only adolescents and (2) whether the variables under study included PEB, personality, or emotional intelligence. The two evaluators discussed their respective analyses, and once all four researchers had discussed the disagreements, an agreement was reached on the final decision.

One aim of the current systematic review was to examine the role of personality in influencing adolescents’ PEB. Four of the five studies evaluated this. One study (Quintelier, 2014) used the “Big Five” personality model to examine the correlation between personality and political consumer behavior, specifically the intention to boycott products for social, political, or environmental reasons. It found a correlation between Openness to experience and political consumption behaviors. A regression analyses showed that Openness has a positive effect on the intent to boycott, while Extraversion has a negative effect: that is, participants who are open-minded, imaginative, curious, creative, and insightful (McCrae and John, 1992) are more likely to boycott products for social, political, and environmental reasons. In contrast, participants with characteristics of sociability, talkativeness, assertiveness, and excitability (McCrae and John, 1992) are less likely to boycott.

Another study (Poškus and Žukauskienė, 2017) focused on adolescents’ recycling behavior. Taking a person-oriented approach, the study was designed to verify not only the relationship between recycling behavior and personality traits, but also to cluster the participants into groups of similar people using the “Big Five” personality traits. Specifically, the goal was to investigate how different configurations of personality traits influenced, among other variables, attitude, intention, behavior. The first analyses found that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness have moderate correlations with recycling attitudes and intention, while Agreeableness is also related to self-reported recycling behavior. Further analysis indicates four clusters: (1) “Positive,” which includes adolescents who score highly for Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness, and Neuroticism; (2) “Negative,” which includes those with high Neuroticism and low Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness; (3) “Extravert and Open,” which includes adolescents with high scores for Extraversion and Openness, moderate scores for Conscientiousness and Neuroticism, and low scores for Agreeableness; and (4) “Agreeable and Closed groups,” which include those with high scores for Agreeableness and low for Openness. Adolescents in the positive cluster reported more recycling behavior than those in the other three clusters, although this difference was only marginal. In addition, the adolescents in this cluster differed significantly from the others in terms of their intention to recycle and attitudes toward recycling.

In another sample, Poškus (2020a), using the same person-oriented approach, grouped the adolescents into personality-trait clusters to study the effect of personality on five pro-environmental intentions and behaviors: recycling, water conservation, electricity conservation, sustainable consumption, and sustainable-transportation use. The four final clusters differed slightly from those in the previous study (Poškus and Žukauskienė, 2017): (1) “Positive,” grouping individuals who are stable, social, friendly, responsible, and open to new ideas and experiences; (2) “Conservative,” whose members are low in Openness and relatively emotionally stable; (3) “Outgoing,” grouping adolescents who score highly for Extraversion; and (4) “Negative,” comprising individuals who are moderately disagreeable and unconscientious, without refusing novel ideas. The results reveal that the Positive cluster displayed the highest pro-environmental scores, while the Conservative cluster had the lowest. The Negative and Outgoing clusters received average scores for their pro-environmental tendencies, with the Negative cluster being slightly more open to PEB.

Finally, in another study (Poškus, 2020b) examined the association between personality and reaction to persuasive messages encouraging pro-environmental behavior such as recycling and the conservation of water and electricity. This was a large intervention study, predating the previously summarized work (Poškus, 2020a), and it included the same clusters of participants. However, the goal of this research was to verify whether people with different personality patterns were differently affected by persuasive messages in terms of the effects on their respective PEI and PEA. At the starting point, the Positive cluster exhibited the highest level of PEB, while the Conservative cluster displayed the lowest, and the Negative and Outgoing clusters in the range between. After the intervention, the Positive cluster continued to have higher scores, being more influenced by the persuasive messages. Conversely, the Negative cluster was least affected by the persuasive messages. Interestingly, participants in the Conservative cluster, despite their characteristic resistance to adopting new behaviors, did evidence some changes. The strongest effect was seen for the Outgoing cluster, meaning that those adolescents who are more reactant to salient social norms will react more strongly to interventions that promote pro-environmental behavior as a salient social norm, which has been done in this study.

The second aim of this review is to examine the relationship between EI and PEB during adolescence. A search for studies of this relationship found just one article (Robinson et al., 2019). That study involved the Adolescent Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test, which measures four EI traits: (1) Emotional Recognition and Expression (ERE), (2) Understand Emotions of Others (UEO); (3) Emotions Direct Cognition (EDC); and (4) Emotional Management and Control (EMC). The aim was to evaluate whether EI was associated with PEB and PEA and whether the relationship between PEA and PEB was moderated by EI.

The correlation analyses in this study revealed a moderate positive relationship between PEA and PEB, indicating that stronger pro-environmental attitudes are related to higher levels of pro-environmental behavior. Conversely, EMC is inversely correlated with PEA, suggesting that individuals with better emotional management and control may have weaker pro-environmental attitudes. Concerning the potential moderating effect of EI on the relationship between PEA and PEB, the study found that only UEO and EMC had the potential to act as moderators, occurring when both UEO and EMC are low or high. A hierarchical multiple regression confirmed that EI explains an additional 3% of the variance in the model and that higher EMC predicts higher PEB. The results confirm the presence of moderation, suggesting that these dimensions of EI—in particular EMC—play a role in influencing the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and behavior.

Overall, this study provides evidence that emotional intelligence—particularly the dimension of emotional management and control—is associated with pro-environmental behavior during adolescence. It also suggests that certain aspects of emotional intelligence may moderate the relationship between PEA and behavior.