Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Early childhood is a crucial period during which attitudes and behaviours, including pro-environmental attitudes, begin to form. Understanding the reasons behind children’s environmental preferences is important because similar pro-environmental choices may reflect different value orientations. In the Indonesian early childhood context, evidence on how young children justify environmental choices through ecocentric and anthropocentric reasoning remains limited. Aim: This study aimed to examine how Indonesian children aged 5–6 years expressed pro-environmental attitudes towards pollution, conservation, waste and saving resources and whether their reasons reflected ecocentric or anthropocentric reasoning. Setting: The study was conducted with 57 children aged 5–6 years in Indonesia. Methods: A basic qualitative design was used. Data were collected through face-to-face picture-based interviews adapted from the Preschool Children’s Pro-Environmental Attitude Scale, and the responses were analysed using content analysis. Results: Most children expressed positive attitudes towards protecting the environment; however, their reasons were predominantly anthropocentric. More ecocentric responses appeared mainly in relation to animals. The children’s explanations also suggested that cognitive development, religious beliefs, parenting practices, parental environmental knowledge and anthropomorphic thinking were associated with the ways they justified their responses. Conclusion: Indonesian children in the early childhood phase generally expressed pro-environmental attitudes, but these were more often justified in human-centred rather than nature-centred terms. The findings suggest the need for early learning experiences that strengthen ecocentric reasoning across everyday environmental issues. Contribution: This study provided empirical evidence on pro-environmental attitudes among Indonesian young children and highlighted the value of analysing children’s environmental reasoning through ecocentric and anthropocentric perspectives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mas’ud et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: