Engagement and disengagement with sustainable development

The construct of engagement has shown to be a strong predictor of several processes and outcomes in adolescents (from general well-being to academic performance among others) across ages and societies (^{Moreira & Dias, 2019}; ^{Virtanen et al., 2018}). The concept of engagement with sustainable development emerged to understand how people react and think about sustainable development issues (^{Moreira, 2021}). Engagement with sustainable development is defined as a dynamic process through which subjective experiences of connection and identification with sustainable development issues shape perceptions and information processing, in interaction with ecological influences, thus emerging internal states to maintain a pro-sustainable behavior (^{Moreira, Pedras et al., 2020}; ^{Moreira, Inman, Hanel et al., 2022}). Pro-sustainable behaviors are a manifestation of adaptive thoughts, feelings, and actions towards sustainable development. Perceptions and beliefs about sustainable development are cognitive indicators of engagement with SD; positive affective reactions towards sustainable development represent emotional indicators of engagement with SD, and finally, active participation and the effort to promote sustainable development constitute behavioral indicators of engagement with SD (^{Moreira, Inman, Hanel et al., 2022}). As engagement and disengagement from sustainable development are independent dimensions interrelated in a two-dimensional circumplex model, individuals may, in turn, show disengagement from SD. Emotional disengagement includes disaffection and maladaptive affective reactions in relation to SD, cognitive disengagement consists of maladaptive beliefs about SD, and behavioral disengagement manifests itself in the withdrawal and absence of engaging behaviors with SD (^{Moreira, Inman, Hanel et al., 2022}). Therefore, it is essential to promote the engagement of adolescents with SD to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (^{United Nations, 2014}). The widespread of the COVID-19 pandemic raised awareness in many people of the misuse that humans are making of the natural resources, and about the special responsibility that humans have towards the environment. As Bates and colleagues pointed out, global COVID-19 highlighted humans as both threats and custodians of the environment (^{Bates et al., 2021}). Awareness about the fact that “Our humanity and planet Earth are under threat” (^{International Commission on the Futures of Education, 2021}) raised, as the pandemic affected our perception of sustainability (^{Bouman et al., 2021}; ^{Khalaf et al., 2023}; ^{Pham et al., 2022}; ^{Renzi et al., 2022}).

Satisfaction of basic psychological needs

The school strives to meet the three basic psychological needs of any adolescent, according to the Self-Determination Theory (SDT; ^{Ryan & Deci, 2000}): autonomy, competence, and relationship/connectivity, which are of great importance for the general subjective well-being (^{Eryilmaz, 2012}). The possible negative impact on the well-being of adolescents, the necessary changes in their daily routine, physical distance, and the prohibition to go out into the street can be understood as a threat to the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs (^{Šakan et al., 2020}). Not surprisingly, during the COVID-19 outbreak, higher levels of meeting basic psychological needs were associated with greater well-being (^{Cantarero et al., 2020}) and meeting these needs had a positive impact on the regulation of emotional skills (^{Benita et al., 2020}).

Self-determination theory posits that satisfaction of basic psychological needs “buffer in times of stress, reducing both initial appraisals of stress and encouraging adaptive coping after stress-related events occur” (^{Weinstein & Ryan, 2011}, p. 12). Consistently, studies developed during the COVID-19 pandemic confirmed that satisfaction of basic psychological needs buffered the impact of stress on mental health (^{Cantarero et al., 2020}; ^{Šakan et al., 2020}).

Some studies found that the COVID-19 had a negative impact on satisfaction of basic psychological needs, including in the youth. In a study developed in Germany, comparing satisfaction with basic psychological needs before COVID-19 and during the lockdown, ^{Schwinger and colleagues (2020}) found that satisfaction with psychological need of autonomy and relatedness decreased over time. A strong effect was found for autonomy and a small effect was found for relatedness (^{Schwinger et al., 2020}).

Beliefs about the nature of COVID-19 and misinformation

Cognitive, and attributional research has shown that the perceptions, representations, and attributions that individuals have about events and situations are crucial for understanding individuals’ subjective experiences and functioning. Thus, having a representation of COVID-19 as a “logical” phenomenon allows adolescents to understand causal relationships, contributing to having a rational and, ultimately, predictable understanding of the phenomenon.

The social relevance of misinformation has been highlighted in the context of COVID-19, where it has been shown to undermine life or death positioning and behaviors, such as confinement, and vaccination (^{Greene & Murphy, 2021}; ^{Van Lange & Rand, 2022}). As revealed by meta-analytic research, observations, representations, and beliefs about the cooperation of others are the strongest predictors of cooperative behaviors themselves (^{Balliet & Van Lange, 2013}). Uncertainty and misinformation are at the heart of the COVID-19 pandemic - uncertainty not only about the economic and social repercussions but also about health dimensions (how the virus will mutate, will vaccines be effective, will they have side effects). However, situational characteristics do not act by themselves: their effect happens through the individuals’ information processing, such as personality characteristics underlying psychological reactance (^{Moreira, Cunha, & Inman, 2020}; ^{Moreira, Inman, & Cloninger, 2022}). People selectively seek information that is consistent with their previous beliefs or motives (^{Fiske & Taylor, 2020}). Analytic thinking appears to be positively related to the perceived accuracy of true news and insight into true and false news (^{Pennycook & Rand, 2021}). Finally, an emerging research trend concerns the description of associations between the well-being of individuals and beliefs in misinformation. Surprisingly, this line of research is still in its embryonic stage, considering the relevance that (especially emotional) well-being has in information processing. Trust in emotion promotes belief in false news, acute psychosocial stress affects information processing and levels of mental abstraction (^{Felt et al., 2021}). Also, low well-being (depression) was associated with beliefs in misinformation about COVID-19 (^{De Coninck et al., 2021}). Anxiety-related emotions, including uncertainty and avoidance, impair executive functions (^{Moons & Shields, 2015}; ^{Shields et al., 2016}), and there is well-documented evidence of an association between negative affect and system impairment attentional (^{Keller et al., 2019}); in turn, executive functions are aimed at information processing, including analytical thinking, which has been found to be an indicator of disbelief in misinformation. Thus, situational uncertainty has a strong effect on various psychobiological phenomena, from sensory experience (^{Rauwolf et al., 2021}) to information processing (^{Felt et al., 2021}).

This study

Previous empirical works have described the associations between subjective well-being and the phenomenon of engagement (e.g., ^{Faria et al., 2023}), including engagement with sustainable development (e.g., ^{Moreira, Pedras et al., 2021}). Also, several studies have described the significant associations between subjective well-being and satisfaction with basic psychological needs in adolescents (e.g., ^{Inman et al., 2023}). However, the role that satisfaction of basic psychological needs has on the association between subjective well-being and engagement with sustainable development in adolescents requires empirical evidence. Additionally, recently there has been a growing consensus about the need of better understanding how beliefs and (mis)information that people have about specific societally relevant phenomena influence peoples’ attitudes (including engagement or disengagement) towards those phenomena. Despite this, evidence about the role that representations, beliefs or (mis)information that individuals had about COVID-19 being a “natural” phenomenon play on the associations between subjective well-being and engagement with sustainable development and between satisfaction of psychological needs and engagement with sustainable development is scarce. The main objective of this study was to describe the effect of beliefs about COVID-19 being a natural phenomenon on the associations between subjective well-being and engagement with sustainable development and between satisfaction of basic psychological needs and engagement with sustainable development.

Consistently, we tested the following hypotheses, as displayed in the diagram below (Figure 1) describing our tested moderated mediation model:

Figure 1 The moderated mediation model 

H1: Subjective well-being at Wave 1 is positively associated with engagement with sustainable development at Wave 2;

H2: Satisfaction of basic psychological needs at Wave 2 is positively associated with engagement with sustainable development at Wave 2;

H3: Satisfaction of basic psychological needs at Wave 2 mediates the association between subjective well-being at Wave 1 and engagement with sustainable development at Wave 2;

H4: Adolescent beliefs of COVID-19 at Wave 2 moderates the associations between subjective well-being at wave 1 and engagement with sustainable development at Wave 2;

H5: Adolescent beliefs of COVID-19 Wave 2 moderates the associations between satisfaction of basic psychological needs at Wave 2 and engagement with sustainable development at Wave 2.

Participants

The current study used data from two waves of data collection from three-year longitudinal research on engagement with SD in Portuguese adolescents. For this study, were considered 51 schools from different regions of Portugal (37 schools were from the north of Portugal, 13 from the center, and 2 from the south). Of the 51 schools, 49 were from the public system, one was a professional school, and one was a private school. Thirty schools offered basic and high levels of school (from 5th to 12th grade), and 21 schools offered only a basic level of school (5th to 9th grade). The adolescent sample comprised 1649 students (48.8% male and 51.2% and female) with a mean age of 12.77 years (SD=.77) at wave 1 (W1) and 13.79 years (SD=0.791) at wave 2 (W2). All those students were enrolled at 7th grade in wave 1 and in the 8th grade in wave 2. Participants were balanced in terms of gender (51.2% female, and 48.8% male). Parents marital status was largely married. About 12% of parents were divorced and single or widow parents were residual. Most parents were employed (both father and mother), but unemployment amongst mothers (14.2%) was substantially higher than amongst fathers (4.2%). Finally, parental education was normally distributed with the extremes for fathers [lower level of education (4 years:13.8%) and upper level (University degree or higher: 13.9%] being equivalent. However, reflecting the growing tendency registered in the Portuguese Population, having a University degree or more was more frequent amongst mothers (19.7%). Similarly, most of fathers had 9 years of education (26.6%) whilst most of the mothers had 12 years of education (27.5%). Table 1 presents participants’ characteristics.

Table 1 Participants characteristics (N=1649) 

Note. W1=Wave 1.

Sociodemographic questionnaire - Socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, age, parent’s education level, occupation, and marital status were collected.

Measurements

Satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs (W1-W2). The Satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs Scale (^{Tian et al., 2014}) composed of 15-items assessed adolescents’ satisfaction of autonomy (5 items), competence (5 items), and relatedness (5 items). Example items include “I can decide for myself how to do things at school” (autonomy), “I am capable of learning new knowledge at school” (competence), and “I get along well with my teachers and classmates at school”. All items were scored on a 5-point-Likert scale (1=Totally Disagree to 5=Totally Agree). The indicator about “The Satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs Scale” was used as a composite indicator of the three scales. The adequacy for this analytical option was supported the article describing the psychometric properties of the scale (^{Inman et al., 2023}). The Cronbach’s alpha of the composite indicator was .72.

Beliefs about COVID-19 (W2). The Beliefs about COVID-19 Questionnaire (COVID-19-Q; ^{Moreira, Pedras, Faria et al., 2020}) included 4 items (e.g., “The COVID-19 pandemic is a sign that we need to respect more the planet”) scored on a 5-point-Likert scale (1=Totally disagree to 5=Totally agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of beliefs about COVID-19 as natural and logical consequence of environment-human interactions. The Cronbach’s alpha was .81.

Cognitive well-being (W1-W2). Cognitive well-being was calculated as the mean score across satisfaction with social support (SSSSCA), satisfaction with life (BMSLSS), and quality of life (KIDSCREEN). This index was already used in similar samples. The methodology of estimating composite cognitive well-being is consistent with the evidence that well-being is multidimensional, and aligns with recent studies that capture different indicators of cognitive engagement, and use a composite indicators analytical methodology (e.g., ^{Faria et al., 2023}; ^{Moreira, Pedras, & Pombo, 2020}; ^{Moreira et al., 2023}; ^{Moreira, Pedras et al., 2021}).

The Brief Multidimensional Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS; ^{Costa et al., 2022}; ^{Huebner et al., 2006}) was used to access students’ satisfaction with life. This instrument includes 6-items (e.g., “My satisfaction with myself is...”), scored on a 7-point-Likert scale (1=Terrible to 7=Delighted). In this sample, the measure presented good levels of reliability (α=.84). Higher scores indicate higher levels of global satisfaction with life.

The Brief Version of the Satisfaction with Social Support Scale for Children and Adolescents (SSSSCA; ^{Gaspar et al., 2009}) includes 11-items (e.g. “I am satisfied with the number of friends I have”), scored on a 5-point-Likert scale (1=Totally Agree to 5=Totally Disagree). Higher results indicate higher satisfaction with social support. For this sample, the instrument showed a good level of reliability (α=.81).

The KIDSCREEN-10 (^{Erhart et al., 2009}; ^{Matos et al., 2012}) was used to access students’ quality of life. This measure includes 10-items (e.g., “Did you feel sad?”), scored on a 5-point-Likert scale (1=nothing to 5=totally). Higher scores indicate higher quality of life (feeling happy, fit, and satisfied with family, school, and peers’ group) and Cronbach’s alpha was .81.

Emotional well-being (W1-W2). Emotional well-being was assessed through The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; ^{Galinha & Pais-Ribeiro, 2005}; ^{Watson et al., 1988}) that includes 20 items, scored on a 5-point-Likert scale. Participants indicate the extent to which they experienced specific affective states indicative of Positive Affect (e.g., proud) and Negative Affect (e.g., guilty) during the previous week. Individuals responded to each item on the following scale (1=very slightly or not at all to 5=extremely). Positive Affect (PA) scale presented a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 and the Negative Affect (NA) Scale presented a Cronbach’s alpha of .88. A single indicator of emotional well-being was calculated by subtracting the sum of the NA items from the sum of the PA items.

Subjective well-being (W1-W2). An index of subjective well-being was calculated using the average of cognitive well-being and emotional well-being. As the aim of this study was to explore the role of well-being in engagement with SD and not the differential role of emotional and cognitive well-being, the subjective well-being index was used.

Engagement and Disengagement with Sustainable Development (W2). Engagement and Disengagement with Sustainable Development Scale (EDiSDI; ^{Moreira, Ramalho et al., 2021}) comprises 27 items with six sub-dimensions and was used to assess emotional engagement (indicators include positive affective reactions towards sustainable development: e.g., “I feel proud of the things I do to help make the world better”), cognitive engagement (adaptive beliefs about sustainable development: e.g., “If each of us does little things in our daily lives, it will have a big influence on the planet”), behavioral engagement (behavioral involvement with sustainable development: e.g., “Even if changing behavior is difficult, I will continue to try my best”), emotional disengagement (disaffection and maladaptive affective reactions towards sustainable development: e.g., “Global sustainability issues are annoying”), cognitive disengagement (e.g., “I think that people who care a lot about the future of the planet are fanatics (or a little crazy”) maladaptive beliefs about sustainable development), and behavioral disengagement (withdrawal of behavioral involvement with sustainable development: e.g., “I don’t do anything to protect the planet”). A psychometric investigation of the EDiSDI supported a bifactor model comprising two general factors (engagement and disengagement) and six specific factors (^{Moreira, Ramalho et al., 2021}). The Cronbach’s alpha was .84 for engagement with sustainable development and .78 for disengagement with sustainable development.

Procedure

Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Centro de Investigação em Psicologia para o Desenvolvimento (CIPD) where this study was developed and by the Portuguese General Education Board, an entity responsible to evaluate research projects which sample is constituted by students. Ninety-seven schools were contacted by the research team members and invited to participate in the study. Those schools who accepted to participate (51) named a teacher to be responsible for the data collection that took place between April and June of 2019 at wave 1 (W1) and between May and July of 2020 for wave 2 (W2) (Figure 2). In the W1, questionnaires were filled through the pen and paper method at schools. Each responsible teacher received the paper protocols at school and the informed consent to parents’ students. After the teacher have had received the informed consent, he/she divided them between the class headteachers. Students filled the instruments while at class, supervised by teachers. At W2, the questionnaires were administered online, via Google Forms, to the students whose parents signed the informed consent and authorized their participation in the W1 of data collection. The link to the questionnaire was sent to students through professors with the indication to fill the questionnaires during online home classes.

Figure 2 Timeline of data collection 

Data analysis plan

Regarding missing values, including attrition between the two waves, we highlight that this data was collected during a period of severe restrictions, including classes at home, which impacted in the degree to each participant could had timely access to the questionnaires. In regular times, attrition rates between the moments of data collection may represent meaningful information to a better understanding of the data, including the nature of the questionnaires, the procedures, and also about the sample. However, that information is only valid for inferences about those indicators, when the attrition rates were affected by those variables. In the case of the present study, it is very likely that the eventual attrition rates between waves would be strongly dependent on the specific characteristics of the moment when the data was collected (for example, if collected in a specific time where the Pandemic restrictions were more severe, then the odds participants being at home and not at school would raise, and consequently, the odds of the participants have different type of access to the questionnaires). Therefore, depending on the specific situation of the pandemic in each community, the conditions to access the data would be different. And we know that in different countries, and in different regions and communities of the same country (including Portugal) different restrictions in different time moments were made depending on the pandemic situation in the specific regions/communities. Considering the complexity of this question, especially for the understanding of the meaning of the attrition rates (for example, because of the restrictions, it is very likely that attrition rates would have varied accordingly to the region/community of the participants) we choose only to include in the analyses data from participants that had answered the questionnaires in the two moments. We consider that this was the option that better controlled for the effect that belonging to different regions/communities would have in the attrition rates and its meaning to the interpretation of the attrition rates. In sum, we only included in the analysis data from participants that participated in the two moments. And from these participants, the Missing Values were residual, because the participation was online, and the completion of all the answers to all the items was required to the system to move to the next section. In the few exceptions, the missing values were replaced by the mean. But these missing values were lower that 1%.

A Pearson coefficient was used to test the relationships among variables. To explore the mediator role of satisfaction of basic psychological needs, in the relationship between subjective well-being (W1) and engagement with SD (W2) a mediation analysis was performed. To determine whether this mediational process is conditional on other variables, a moderated mediation was performed (^{Calantone et al., 2017}). ^{Hayes’ PROCESS macro (2013}) incorporates a variety of model specifications that allows testing the effects (both direct and indirect) of X on Y, conditional on a moderator (Model 15). Process’s model 15 allows examining the mediating effect of satisfaction of basic psychological needs in the association between subjective well-being (W1) and engagement with SD (W2) and the moderating effect of beliefs about COVID-19 on this mediation effect and in the relationship between satisfaction of basic psychological needs and engagement with SD. This study employed 5000 bootstrap samples to obtain estimates for the conditional relationships through PROCESS software, which is a computational tool for estimating and probing interactions and the conditional indirect effects of moderated mediation models (^{Hayes, 2013}; ^{Preacher et al., 2007}). The Index of moderated mediation of X on Y is reflected in an omnibus test of the conditional indirect effect (^{Preacher et al., 2007}), reflected in the If the null of 0 does not fall between the lower and upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, we infer that the indirect effect is conditional on the level of the moderator variable (W).

Descriptive analysis and correlations

Associations between beliefs about COVID-19, satisfaction of psychological needs, subjective well-being in wave 1 and wave 2, and engagement and disengagement with SD in wave 1 and wave 2, showed Pearson coefficients ranging from -.07 to .49.

Engagement with SD at wave 1 was positively and strongly correlated with Engagement with SD at wave 2 (r=.460). Moreover, Disengagement with SD at wave 1 was positively and strongly correlated with Disengagement with SD at wave 2 (r=.451), confirming the stable nature of these phenomena across time.

The same tendency of positive correlations was registered also between well-being at wave 1 and well-being at wave 2 (r=.355). Interestingly, subjective well-being at wave 1 registered positive correlations with Engagement with SD at wave 1 (r=.388) and with engagement with SD at wave 2 (r=.277), but (although also positive correlations) the strength of the association between well-being at wave 1 (r=.388) and Engagement with SD at wave 2 (r=.277) was lower. The positive correlation between well-being at wave 2 and engagement with SD also at wave 2 (r=.337) was similar to the correlation between well-being at wave 1 and engagement with SD also at wave 1 (r=.388), suggesting that the nature and strength of association between well-being and engagement with SD is stable across this time period.

Satisfaction with basic psychological needs at wave 2 was positively associated with Engagement with SD at Wave 1 (r=.251), with Engagement with SD at Wave 2 (r=.479), with well-being at Wave 1 (r=.308) and with well-being at wave 2 (r=.496). As expected, positive associations between satisfaction with basic psychological needs at wave 2 and Engagement with SD and with well-being were stronger at wave 2. Consistently, Disengagement with SD at wave 2 and Satisfaction with basic psychological needs at wave was negatively correlated (r=-234).

Beliefs about COVID-19 being a natural phenomenon (wave 2) was positively correlated with satisfaction with basic psychological needs (r=.221), with engagement with SD at wave 1 (r=.125), with engagement with SD at wave 2 (r=.298). Beliefs about COVID-19 being a natural phenomenon correlated negatively with Disengagement with SD at wave 2 (r=-0.69), but did not register statistically significant correlations with Disengagement with SD at wave 1, which is interesting precisely because at wave 1 COVID-19 had not emerged yet.

Finally, and similarly to what happened with Disengagement with SD, beliefs about COVID-19 (at wave 2) correlated positively with well-being at wave 2 (r=.098), but not correlated with well-being at wave 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients of the variables under study are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics (N=1649) 

Note. W1=Wave 1, W2=Wave 2.

Table 3 Correlations among variables 

Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001; SD=Sustainable development; W1=Wave 1, W2=Wave 2.

Moderated mediation effects

The moderated mediation means that mediating effect that intervenes between subjective well-being at W1 and engagement with SD at W2 is different at different values of beliefs about COVID-19 as a “logical” phenomenon and as a message and a “wake-up call” from the planet (Figure 3).

Note. ***p<.001, **p<.01; W1=Wave 1, W2=Wave 2

Figure 3 Moderated mediation using process macro (Model 15), direct and indirect relationships between wellbeing and engagement with sustainable development through the indirect effect of satisfaction of basic psychological needs. COVID-19 beliefs as a moderator on the relationship between satisfaction of basic psychological needs and engagement with sustainable development and on the relationship between wellbeing and engagement with sustainable development 

Table 4 presents the main results consisting of conditional direct effect, mediating model, and conditional indirect effect analysis. Analyzing the mediating model, results show that subjective well-being at W1 positively predicts satisfaction of basic psychological needs at W2 (β=.239, 95% CI=[.201; .275]), and satisfaction of basic psychological needs predicts engagement with SD at W2 (β=.715, 95% CI=[.524; -.905]). In turn, subjective well-being at W1 positively predicts engagement with SD at W2 (β=.371, 95% CI=[.206; .536]). These results indicate a significant indirect effect of satisfaction of basic psychological needs at W2 in the relationship of subjective wellbeing at W1 and engagement with SD at W2.

Table 4 Moderated mediation analysis: COVID-19 beliefs moderate the direct and the indirect relationship between subjective wellbeing (W1) and engagement with sustainable development (W2) 

Note. W1=Wave 1, W2=Wave 2.

Besides, the interaction of subjective well-being at W1 and beliefs about COVID-19 had a significant effect on engagement with SD at W2 (β=-.068, 95% CI=[-.111; -.024]), and the interaction between satisfaction of basic psychological needs and beliefs about COVID-19 had a significant effect on engagement with SD at W2 (β=-.074, 95% CI=[-.124; -.024]). These results indicate that both relationships between subjective well-being at W1 and engagement with SD at W2 and the relationship between basic psychological needs and engagement with SD at W2 were moderated by beliefs about COVID-19 (see Figures 4 and 5). The index of moderated mediation was significant (β=-.018, 95% CI=[-.033; -.004]), confirming the moderated mediation model. Analyzing both a conditional direct effect and conditional indirect effect, all of the three conditional direct effects (based on the moderator values at the mean and at −1 standard deviation) and all of the three conditional indirect effects were positive and significantly different from zero. Namely, the effect of subjective well-being at W1 on engagement with SD at W2 and the indirect effect of subjective well-being at W1 on engagement with SD at W2 through the satisfaction of basic psychological needs were observed when beliefs about COVID-19 were low and high.

Figure 4 Graphical representation of the moderator role of beliefs about COVID-19 as a “logical” phenomenon on the mediated effect of wellbeing at wave 1 and engagement with SD at wave 2 

Figure 5 Graphical representation of the moderator role of beliefs about COVID-19 as a “logical” phenomenon on the relationship between satisfaction of basic psychological needs at wave 2 and engagement with sustainable development at wave 2 

Testing the same moderated mediation model but with Disengagement with SD as the dependent variable, the index of moderated mediation was (β=.018, 95% CI=[-.006; .044]), passing the null, thus not being significant.

Practical implications

This work has important implications for behavioral sciences (especially educational sciences), but also for political sciences. Contemporary societies are facing the challenges that misinformation and information processing biases posit to societal functioning. The understanding of the dynamics involving the representations/ perceptions/ believes about facts and the processes involved in energizing actions (such as well-being, satisfaction of basic psychological needs or engagement with sustainable development) are crucial for informing policies and practices fostering positive development.

By demonstrating that engagement with sustainable development informed by accurate information (beliefs of COVID-19 being a natural phenomenon) is dependent on more complex psychological resources (such as executive processes and analytical thinking), our study highlights the importance of schools and families offer systematic interpersonal and emotional support (especially with more vulnerable populations, such as children and adolescents) in order to insure that individuals are able to cope well and with the processing of complex events and situations.

Study limitations and future directions

Despite some methodological strengths, such as the size of the representative sample and the longitudinal design, it is important to recognize that the study also has some limitations.

First, cognitive well-being was considered as a composite indicator calculated as the mean score of the raw scores of scales with different response scales. Satisfaction with social Support (SSSSCA) and KIDSCREEN both have a rating scale of 5 points, but the satisfaction with life scale (BMSLSS) has a rating scale of 7 point-likert-scale. Making a composite index from the mean of dimensions with different rating scales, results in a bias on the compositive indicator, as the scale with a higher rating scale will have a higher weight in the total index. In the case of this study, the fact that the satisfaction with life scale has a 7 point-likert-scale and the other 2 have 5 point-likert-scales resulted in a composite index where the dimension of satisfaction with life had a higher weight than the other two. Although the construct of life satisfaction is one of the stronger predictors of the construct of subjective well-being (^{Pavot & Diener, 2008}), a note of caution is needed in the interpretation of the composite indicator of subjective well-being. A way of overcoming this limitation is to use standardized scores (e.g., z-scores) of the different dimensions rather than the raw scores. Future studies should overcome this limitation by using standardized scores to generate the composite indicator of cognitive well-being using the scales used in our study.

Second, the methodological data collection procedure was different in the two waves: at school in wave 1 and at home in wave. On the one hand, the students in wave 2, filled data at home without the chance to clarify possible doubts. On another hand, it is very likely that the different participants at wave 2 had answered to the questionnaires in different contextual and individual circumstances. This is a limitation common to all studies describing data from adolescents which was collected during COVID-19 lockdown periods.

Future studies need to deepen our understanding about the interactions between individual characteristics (e.g., personality) and states (e.g., well-being) and contextual conditions (e.g., educational practices) that promote youth’s positive development and functioning in adapting to information- and knowledge-based societies.