PREreview del Students’ Environmental Attitude and Sustainable Behavior as Mediated by Social Connectedness

This review is the result of a virtual, collaborative live review discussion organized and hosted by PREreview on February 19, 2026, as part of the PREreview Champions Program 2026. The discussion was joined by 13 people: 3 facilitators from the PREreview Team, and 10 members of the PREreview 2026 Champions Program cohort. The authors of this review have dedicated additional asynchronous time over the course of two weeks to help compose this final report using the notes from the Live Review. We thank all participants who contributed to the discussion and made it possible for us to provide feedback on this preprint.

Summary

The study aimed to investigate whether social connectedness mediates the relationship between environmental attitude and sustainable behaviour among university students at a private institution in Davao City, using a quantitative descriptive-correlational design with validated questionnaires administered to 378 students through stratified random sampling. However, the authors found no significant relationships among any of the three variables, despite students reporting moderate environmental attitudes alongside high levels of both sustainable behaviour and social connectedness.This null finding led the authors to reject their mediation hypothesis and challenges theoretical expectations derived from established frameworks (such as Stern's ABC Theory and Social Identity Theory), though it strongly supports literature documenting the attitude-behaviour gap. While the study demonstrates methodological rigour through its stratified sample and validated instruments, its primary limitations include limited generalizability from a single institution and the inability to perform the intended mediation analysis due to absent correlations. Some reviewers also noted that the study measures general social connectedness rather than environmental identity or group influence, which may not fully align with the theoretical framework being tested. The findings therefore highlight the need for further research, particularly studies employing longitudinal designs or alternative measures of social influence, to better understand the drivers of sustainable behavior.

List of major concerns and feedback:

1. Mismatch Between Research Aim and Analytical Approach The study explicitly announces its intention to test whether social connectedness mediates the relationship between environmental attitude and sustainable behaviour. However, because the prerequisite bivariate correlations were non-significant, the authors could not perform the planned mediation analysis. This leaves the core research question unanswered. The manuscript presents descriptive statistics and correlations but stops short of the analytical procedure required to address its primary objective.

The authors are expected to revise the manuscript goals to align the stated purpose with what was actually accomplished, reframing the study as an investigation of the relationships among the three variables rather than a mediation analysis. Otherwise, it is highly recommended to explain more clearly why the analysis could not proceed and what this implies for future research. In addition , alternative analytical approaches (e.g., structural equation modelling with bootstrapping) might still be feasible despite the non-significant correlations. In case mediation remains non-significant, the conclusions should be reframed more cautiously from stating that “no evidence of mediation was found in this sample” rather than implying theoretical contradiction.

2. Inappropriate Correlation Analysis for Ordinal Data The study used Pearson's correlation coefficient, which assumes continuous, normally distributed data. However, the variables were measured using Likert-scale questionnaires, which produce ordinal data. This statistical mismatch may have affected the accuracy of the correlation estimates and contributed to the null findings.

The authors are advised to re-analyse the data using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, which is more appropriate for ordinal data. If the results remain non-significant, this strengthens the findings. If significant relationships emerge, the study's conclusions would need substantial revision. The authors should also report whether they tested for normality and justify their choice of statistical tests.

3. Overstated Conclusions Relative to Findings The conclusions go beyond what the data can support. The authors claim that social connectedness does not mediate the relationship between environmental attitude and sustainable behaviour, but the study did not actually test mediation. Moreover, the null findings from a single institution cannot definitively contradict established psychological theories as the manuscript suggests. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The authors are recommended to adjust the conclusions to reflect the study's limitations. Acknowledge that the hypothesised mediation could not be tested due to non-significant bivariate relationships. Frame the findings as contributing to the literature on the attitude-behaviour gap within a specific context, rather than as a refutation of theory. Add nuanced language indicating that other unmeasured factors may explain the null results and that further research is needed.

4. Lack of Control for Confounding Variables The analysis does not account for potential confounding variables such as age, year of study, college affiliation, socioeconomic background, or prior environmental education. The wide dispersion of responses noted by reviewers suggests that unmeasured factors may be influencing the variables. Without controlling for these, the interpretation of non-significant findings remains limited.

The authors shall conduct additional analyses examining whether the relationships (or lack thereof) vary across subgroups. At a minimum, present descriptive statistics disaggregated by college to identify potential patterns. If sample sizes permit, consider multi-group analysis or include demographic covariates in the correlation analysis. Discuss how unmeasured variables may have influenced the results.

Demographic Skew and Generalizability: The study relies heavily on a specific student demographic (often from a single faculty or region). The literature review suggests that "Sustainable Behavior" is highly dependent on socio-economic status and local infrastructure. The authors should include these as control variables or explicitly discuss how lack of access to "green" infrastructure limits the behavioral scores regardless of attitude.

List of minor concerns and feedback

1. Reproducibility Gaps While the manuscript provides adequate detail on sampling and instruments, it lacks transparency regarding the statistical software used and does not provide syntax files. The data is available via Google Drive, but an open repository like Zenodo would improve findability and long-term access.

The authors should specify that SPSS was used for analysis, including the version number, and consider making the syntax files available as supplementary material. If possible, deposit the data in a permanent, citable repository with a DOI and include this link in the manuscript.

2. Table Formatting Issues Tables 4 and 5 contain cluttered formatting with overlapping text and superscripts that hinder readability. Additionally, presenting data only at the “Overall level” obscures potentially meaningful variation across the nine colleges sampled.

Data Accessibility and Inclusivity: The current presentation of data is not fully accessible. To improve inclusivity, the authors should ensure that tables are screen-reader friendly (using proper headers and avoiding nested cells) and that any color-coded figures or charts provide sufficient contrast and text alternatives for researchers with visual impairments.

The authors can also consider adding supplementary tables showing mean scores for environmental attitude, sustainable behaviour, and social connectedness disaggregated by college. This would leverage the stratified sampling design and provide richer insight.

3. Missing Dedicated Limitations Section Although limitations are mentioned throughout the manuscript, there is no consolidated limitations section. Key limitations such as self-report bias, single-institution generalizability, and the cross-sectional design are not systematically addressed.

The authors can consider adding a dedicated limitations subsection before the conclusion. They can address self-report bias, the inability to establish causality due to cross-sectional design, the single-institution context, and the statistical limitations noted above. This would demonstrate scholarly rigour and preempt criticism.

4. Ethics Documentation While the manuscript states that informed consent was obtained, the linked data collection materials do not show evidence of consent forms. Multiple reviewers noted this concern.

The authors are recommended to clarify in the manuscript how informed consent was documented (e.g., written consent forms, implied consent via survey completion). If consent forms exist but were not included in the shared materials, consider adding a note about their availability upon request or include a template as supplementary material.

5. Writing and Formatting Polish The manuscript would benefit from a thorough proofreading to improve flow between sections and correct minor errors.

Additionally, the authors can consider reviewing the text carefully with a focus on transitions between sections and consistency in terminology. Also, please ensure that all tables are properly formatted and referenced in the text.

Overall Evaluation

This manuscript demonstrates methodological rigour through stratified sampling and validated instruments, but its fundamental point of concern is the mismatch between stated aims and actual analysis: the intended mediation could not be tested due to null bivariate correlations, leaving the core research question unanswered, due to an arguable use of Pearson's correlation for ordinal data Despite these limitations, if conclusions are tempered appropriately, the null findings has the potential to really contribute to the attitude-behaviour gap literature observed in the article.

Concluding remarks

We thank the authors of the preprint for posting their work openly for feedback. We also thank all participants of the Live Review call for their time and for engaging in the lively discussion that generated this review.

Competing interests

Maria Sol Ruiz was a facilitator of this call and one of the organizers. No other competing interests were declared by the reviewers.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.