The Mediating Role of Inclusive Climate in the Relationship between Faculty Members’ Respect for Diversity and Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes, Emotions, and Concerns Toward Inclusive Education

The Mediating Role of Inclusive Climate in the Relationship between Faculty Members’ Respect for Diversity and Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes, Emotions, and Concerns Toward Inclusive Education | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Mediating Role of Inclusive Climate in the Relationship between Faculty Members’ Respect for Diversity and Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes, Emotions, and Concerns Toward Inclusive Education Soner Polat, Seyithan Demirdağ, Çağlar Çelik, Hasene Durgut de Oliveira Revuelta This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9520774/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examined the mediating role of inclusive climate in the relationship between faculty members' intercultural sensitivity and pre-service teachers' attitudes, sentiments, and concerns toward inclusive education. Drawing on organizational climate theory and social learning theory, a mediation model was tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with a cross-sectional sample of 1,237 pre-service teachers enrolled in third and fourth years across 15 public universities in Turkey. Intercultural sensitivity was measured via the Chen and Starosta ( 2000 ) scale, inclusive climate via the Nishii ( 2013 ) scale, and inclusive education dispositions via the SACIE-R (Forlin et al., 2011 ). Results revealed that intercultural sensitivity was a strong positive predictor of inclusive climate perceptions (β = 0.561, p < .001), which in turn significantly improved attitudes (β = 0.146, p < .001) and reduced concerns (β = −0.079, p = .005) toward inclusive education. Mediation analyses confirmed that inclusive climate transmitted the effects of all five intercultural sensitivity sub-dimensions to both attitudinal and concern-related outcomes. Notably, inclusive climate exerted no significant effect on the sentiments dimension (β = −0.056, p = .053), a finding theoretically consistent with accounts of emotion as a less organizationally malleable construct than attitudes or concerns. These findings extend organizational climate theory into teacher education contexts and suggest that building inclusive institutional climates rather than relying solely on individual-level training constitutes an empirically supported lever for improving inclusive education preparedness among pre-service teachers. inclusive climate intercultural sensitivity inclusive education pre-service teachers PLS-SEM teacher education Figures Figure 1 Introduction The idea of inclusive education has found its place as one of the most crucial paradigms of education reform on an international level. The underlying concept behind inclusive education is based on the universal human right of every individual, irrespective of disability, cultural background, language, gender, or other socio-cultural considerations, to have equal access to quality education. In accordance with modern views on inclusive education, inclusion should not be limited to the integration of diverse learners into mainstream educational settings but require a profound change at institutional and organizational levels (Knight, 2000 ; Lindsay, 2018 ). In the context of such a transformation, teacher education institutions occupy a prominent position as essential contexts in which pre-service teachers cultivate professional beliefs and dispositions regarding inclusive education. Teacher preparation institutions not only provide future teachers with information about inclusion and other related topics but also represent socialization contexts in which future professionals learn how to integrate principles of diversity and inclusion into their practice. Given these circumstances, the study of factors affecting pre-service teachers' dispositions towards inclusive education is becoming increasingly significant. Research studies have indicated that the attitudes, emotions, and concerns about inclusion held by teachers at the pre-service level can significantly impact their pedagogic activities in the future (Forlin et al., 2009 ; Savolainen et al., 2012 ; Sharma et al., 2008 ). Good attitudes toward inclusion are likely to result in adaptive practices, positive perceptions of differences among students, and a commitment to inclusive practices. Conversely, high levels of concerns – such as anxiety or uncertainty or feeling like lacking the capacity for teaching inclusive curricula – might negatively affect the teacher’s capacity to employ an inclusive approach to teaching (Li & Cheung, 2021 ; Tuncay & Kizilaslan, 2022 ). On the other hand, new evidence indicates that while all three outcome variables (attitudes, emotions, and concerns) have been found to influence the process of inclusive education implementation, there is some heterogeneity between them, particularly concerning the impact of external factors. Specifically, attitudes and concerns appear to be more malleable under the influence of the environment, whereas emotions have a more complicated structure and are harder to shape through organizational climates (Frenzel et al., 2009 ). Being driven by personal history, identity, and contextual appraisals, they are less likely to be affected by organizational factors directly. However, traditionally, studies in the field of inclusive education paid attention to the factors associated with individuals, including self-efficacy, empathy, beliefs, and intrinsic motivation (Jiang et al., 2025 ; Weber & Greiner, 2019 ). While these factors are undoubtedly essential, modern researchers have begun to emphasize the need to take into account other aspects of students' lives, related to both socialization and the context in which individuals find themselves. From this perspective, professors can be regarded as important agents of socialization during the teacher preparation process. With the help of their pedagogical activities, interpersonal relations, and hidden value orientations, professors greatly contribute to the formation of future educators' attitudes towards diversity and inclusiveness (Bandura & Walters, 1977 ; Mayhew & Grunwald, 2006 ). Respect for diversity in the faculty of teacher preparation institutions is often understood as professors' intercultural sensitivity, referring to the openness to diversity and its acceptance and promotion among future teachers. Empirical literature also shows a connection between respect for diversity on the side of faculty members and various student outcomes, including greater engagement, increased feelings of belongingness, and improved satisfaction with the learning environment (Lee, 2010 ; Maruyama & Moreno, 2000 ; Vázquez-Montilla et al., 2012 ). Respect for diversity among faculty members has also been discussed in terms of intercultural sensitivity as a multifaceted phenomenon including awareness, respect, interaction confidence, and engagement with cultural diversity (Chen & Starosta, 2000 ; Hammer et al., 2003 ). Each of these components helps foster inclusive learning environments. However, it is important to note that the impact of faculty respect for diversity is not limited to the relationship between faculty members and pre-service teachers. Instead, it is situated within the larger context of institutions where such behaviors can be perceived differently. The latter aspect may be described using the concept of inclusive climate. In general, inclusive climate implies shared perceptions in organizations about fairness, inclusion, voice, and diversity (Nishii, 2013 ; Shore et al., 2018 ). It should also be considered an interpretive frame used in educational environments. Several findings from organizational psychology studies reveal that an inclusive climate is linked to many desirable outcomes, such as motivation, engagement, innovation, and prosocial behaviors (Li et al., 2019 ; Li et al., 2022 ; Nelissen et al., 2017 ). An inclusive climate allows individuals to share their views freely by making them feel safe and supported without any risk of exclusion or discrimination (Edmondson, 1999 ). In addition, an inclusive climate is crucial for the domain of teacher education because future teachers develop their professional identity and perspectives on diversity. Notably, recent research indicates that an inclusive climate has differentiated impacts on various domains of outcomes. In particular, according to several studies, an inclusive climate tends to have a more significant impact on outcomes of the cognitive and evaluative types rather than on emotions (Fujimoto & Hartel, 2017 ; Randel et al., 2018 ). Moreover, an inclusive climate contributes to decreasing uncertainty and barriers associated with the implementation of inclusive education (Mor Barak et al., 2022 ). At the same time, the relationship between the two concepts with regard to emotions is yet to be established. Nevertheless, although more attention has recently been paid to inclusive climate, the use of it as a mediator in educational settings for teachers is not sufficiently explored. Research in this area commonly focuses either on faculty practices or on the outcomes related to students without considering organizational processes linking both (Gavino et al., 2021 ; Stoermer et al., 2016 ). Therefore, it becomes problematic to develop a holistic approach to the process of forming inclusive dispositions in pre-service teachers. Given the aforementioned points, the current study aims to test the impact of an inclusive climate mediated by faculty members’ respect for diversity as intercultural sensitivity on pre-service teachers’ attitudes, emotions, and concerns regarding inclusive education. The assumption made is that intercultural sensitivity helps form an inclusive climate that positively influences teachers’ attitudes and decreases their concerns but does not necessarily affect their emotions. Theoretical Framework The current research rests on organizational climate theory, which defines organizational climate as perceptions of common policies, procedures, and practices within an organization, which communicate expected behaviors and values (James & Jones, 1974 ; Schneider et al., 2013 ). Inclusive climate is defined as a type of organizational climate, which is associated with fairness, voice, belonging, and encouragement of diversity (Ehrhart et al., 2025 ). In teacher education programs, inclusive climate acts as a context through which behaviors of faculty members are filtered and internalized by students. Social learning theory serves as a supporting theoretical framework to understand how respectful attitude towards diversity among faculty members influences students' outcomes. In his social learning theory, Bandura and Walters ( 1977 ) state that people can develop certain attitudes and behaviors through observation and reinforcement. The role of interculturally sensitive faculty members in this case lies in modeling particular attitudes and behaviors and thus helping their students adopt them. Based on this view, intercultural sensitivity could be considered an antecedent of inclusive climate. Instructors who demonstrate consistent behaviors of inclusivity help build shared perceptions of equality and belonging among individuals, thus influencing pre-service teachers' perceptions and concerns toward inclusive education. Theoretical assumptions in inclusive education also highlight the congruence among values, structural conditions, and instructional approaches that foster equal learning opportunities (Al-Shammari et al., 2019 ; Knight, 2000 ). On this basis, inclusive climate might be viewed as a mediating variable that mediates the relationship between faculty-level variables and students' outcomes. Critically, such mediation could have differential effects depending on the type of outcome. Inclusive climate is likely to improve attitudes through the reinforcement of positive attitudes towards inclusiveness and decrease concerns through the provision of preparation. By contrast, the impact of the climate on emotional variables would be less effective because emotions can be shaped by personal experiences and psychological conditions (Frenzel et al., 2009 ). The Importance of the Study This study contributes to the body of knowledge through the integration of organizational climate theories with inclusive education scholarship, which moves beyond an individual perspective to include an institutional approach. Where past research has primarily concentrated on individual-level factors such as beliefs, self-efficacies, and emotions (Humes et al., 2009 ), the study reveals the importance of including climate of inclusion as a mediation strategy to intercultural sensitivity. The most crucial contribution of the study lies in its empirical demonstration of the differential impact of climate of inclusion within different dimensions. The results show that climate of inclusion positively influences attitude toward inclusion and decreases concerns but does not affect emotional reactions towards intercultural experiences. Such findings contribute to literature by revealing the efficacy of institutional settings in influencing cognitive and concerns-related aspects more than emotional ones. In terms of practical implications, this research emphasizes the need for developing inclusive climates within universities. Instead of concentrating on individual actions undertaken by professors, universities should opt for more strategic approaches to create an inclusive environment, including policies promoting inclusion, diversity training, and leadership development (Ashikali et al., 2021 ; Desivilya et al., 2017 ; Wunsch & Chattergy, 1991 ). These strategies will increase the likelihood of developing a positive attitude towards intercultural teaching and reduce fears associated with it, although their influence on emotions will be insignificant. On the other hand, the findings reveal the significance of intercultural sensitivity as one of the core antecedents of inclusive climate. Given that intercultural sensitivity was positively correlated with inclusive climate, it is necessary to ensure that faculty development activities include enhancing intercultural competence of professors. Intercultural engagement and interaction might be some of the important dimensions in this case. Lastly, the present investigation is especially relevant to those multicultural educational settings that are experiencing constant change, including Türkiye, which is still reforming its system of inclusive education. By demonstrating how the inclusive school climate can serve as a mediator between the investigated factors, the current research sheds light on the process of improving future teacher preparation. The present work will be useful in the global debate about how to prepare teachers who are both professionally and attitude-wise ready for their duties (Kula, 2025 ; Seçer, 2010 ). Method Research Design This study was designed as a relational model to examine how multiple variables relate to each other through both direct and indirect (mediating) effects. A quantitative approach was adopted and the relationships between variables were tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). PLS-SEM was chosen because it allows simultaneous testing of both the measurement model and the causal relationships between constructs. The independent variable is Intercultural Sensitivity, the mediating variable is Inclusive Climate, and the dependent variables are Attitudes, Sentiments, and Concerns toward Inclusive Education. The model aims to examine how intercultural sensitivity shapes perceptions of inclusive climate, and how those perceptions in turn influence attitudinal and affective outcomes related to inclusive education. The conceptual model of the study is presented in Fig. 1 . A cross-sectional data collection approach was used, meaning that all data were gathered at a single point in time and the relationships between variables were tested on the same sample. Cross-sectional designs are more limited than longitudinal ones when it comes to making causal inferences; however, since the goal of this study was to test a theoretical model for the first time, this approach was considered appropriate for this stage of inquiry (Hair et al., 2019 ). Participants and Data Collection The study was conducted with pre-service teachers enrolled in their third and fourth years across 15 different public universities in Turkey during the 2024–2025 academic year. Data were collected on a voluntary basis through an online survey. Focusing on pre-service teachers was deliberate, as this period represents a critical phase during which professional identity is still forming and orientations toward intercultural competence and inclusive education are taking shape (Forlin et al., 2011 ). A total of 1,237 participants provided valid data. Their demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1 . Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants Variable Category n % Gender Female 994 80.4 Male 243 19.6 Year 3rd Year 883 71.4 4th Year 354 28.6 Age 18–21 427 34.5 22 396 32.0 23 248 20.0 24–29 123 9.9 30 and over 43 3.5 Department Guidance and Psychological Counseling 247 20.0 Primary School Teaching 231 18.7 English Language Teaching 193 15.6 Early Childhood Education 165 13.3 Elementary Mathematics Teaching 137 11.1 Turkish Language Teaching 89 7.2 Special Education Teaching 58 4.7 Science Teaching 54 4.4 Social Studies Teaching 31 2.5 Arabic Language Teaching 28 2.3 Art Teaching 4 0.3 Total 1,237 100.0 In terms of gender, 80.4% of participants were female (n = 994) and 19.6% were male (n = 243). The majority were third-year students (n = 883; 71.4%), while fourth-year students made up 28.6% of the sample (n = 354). Most participants fell in the 20–23 age range, with the largest groups being 22-year-olds (n = 396; 32.0%), 21-year-olds (n = 321; 25.9%), and 23-year-olds (n = 248; 20.0%). Around 87% of participants were between 20 and 24, though the overall sample spanned a wide age range from 18 to 53. The sample covered 11 different teaching programs. The highest representation came from Guidance and Psychological Counseling (n = 247; 20.0%), Primary School Teaching (n = 231; 18.7%), and English Language Teaching (n = 193; 15.6%), while Social Studies Teaching (n = 31; 2.5%), Arabic Language Teaching (n = 28; 2.3%), and Art Teaching (n = 4; 0.3%) had the smallest shares. This diversity across departments reduces the risk that findings reflect trends specific to any single program and strengthens the generalizability of the results. Institutional approvals and ethical committee clearance were obtained from the relevant universities before data collection began. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, and the confidentiality of their responses through the online form. The survey was prepared on Google Forms and distributed to students via faculty members at the participating universities. Ethics All necessary ethical approvals were obtained prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary, and all participants were informed about the purpose of the study and the conditions of confidentiality. Instruments Data were collected using three scales administered together as a single form: the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale, the Inclusive Climate Scale, and the Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education – Revised (SACIE-R) Scale. Intercultural Sensitivity Scale Intercultural sensitivity was measured using the 24-item scale developed by Chen and Starosta ( 2000 ). The scale assesses individuals' cognitive, affective, and behavioral tendencies in intercultural interactions and consists of five subscales: Interaction Engagement (7 items), Respect for Cultural Differences (6 items), Interaction Confidence (5 items), Interaction Enjoyment (3 items), and Interaction Attentiveness (3 items). Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). In the Turkish adaptation study (Rengi, 2014 ), confirmatory factor analysis of the 24-item scale yielded a KMO coefficient of .88, with Bartlett's test reaching significance (χ² = 2636.675, df = 276, p < .001). Item factor loadings ranged from .477 to .774, and the five factors together explained 56.6% of the total variance. The Cronbach's alpha for the overall scale was .87, while subscale reliabilities ranged from .65 (Interaction Enjoyment) to .86 (Interaction Engagement). Inclusive Climate Scale Perceptions of inclusive climate were measured using the 8-item scale conceptualized by Nishii ( 2013 ) and applied by Ashikali et al. ( 2021 ). In their study, all climate items loaded onto a single factor, and the Cronbach's alpha for the scale was .90. Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education – Revised (SACIE-R) The SACIE-R scale, developed by Forlin et al. ( 2011 ), was used to measure pre-service teachers' sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. The scale consists of 15 items across three subscales: Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education. The Sentiments and Concerns subscales are reverse-coded, so higher scores on all subscales reflect more positive orientations toward inclusion. The three factors accounted for 16.75%, 17.22%, and 13.34% of the variance respectively, with a total explained variance of 47.31%. Inter-factor correlations were all below .20, confirming that the subscales measure independent constructs. Cronbach's alpha values were .74 for the full scale, .75 for Sentiments, .67 for Attitudes, and .65 for Concerns. Although the alpha values for Attitudes and Concerns fall slightly below the .70 threshold, they have been described as acceptable for measuring social constructs of this kind (DeVellis, 1991 ; Forlin et al., 2011 ). Data Analysis Data were analyzed using PLS-SEM. This method was chosen because it does not require a normality assumption, produces reliable results with small to medium samples, and accommodates both reflective and composite measurement structures (Hair et al., 2019 ). As a prediction-oriented technique, PLS-SEM is particularly well suited to areas where theory is still developing and to exploratory or explanatory model testing (Hair et al., 2017 ). All analyses were conducted using SmartPLS 4 (Ringle et al., 2024 ). The five subscales of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale were modeled as a second-order composite construct, given their intercorrelations and shared theoretical grounding. This approach resolves the serious multicollinearity issues that would arise from entering each subscale as a separate predictor, while also improving interpretive consistency (Hair et al., 2019 ). Analysis proceeded in two stages. In the first stage, the measurement model was evaluated using internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability), convergent validity (Average Variance Extracted, AVE), and discriminant validity (Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio, HTMT). HTMT is preferred in recent research over the Fornell-Larcker criterion because it addresses some of that criterion's limitations (Henseler et al., 2015 ). In the second stage, the structural model was tested for both direct and indirect effects, with path coefficient significance determined through bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples (Hair et al., 2017 ). The mediating role of Inclusive Climate was assessed within this indirect effects framework. Results Measurement Model Evaluation The five subscales of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale were modeled as a second-order composite construct based on their intercorrelations and theoretical justification (Hair et al., 2019 ). Reliability and validity results for the measurement model are reported in Table 1 . Composite reliability (ρc) values for all constructs ranged from 0.797 to 0.922, all exceeding the accepted threshold of ≥ 0.70 (Hair et al., 2017 ). Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.757 to 0.903, reflecting good to excellent reliability. The second-order Intercultural Sensitivity construct showed strong properties with α = 0.899, ρc = 0.919, and AVE = 0.699. AVE values for all other constructs also met the 0.50 threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1981 ). Table 1 Construct Reliability, Convergent Validity, and Factor Loading Ranges Construct Items Factor Loading Range α ρc AVE IS-Total — — 0.899 0.919 0.699 IS-IE 7 items 0.666–0.863 0.786 0.839 0.467 IS-RCD 6 items 0.893–0.897 0.814 0.797 0.423 IS-IC 5 items 0.816–0.860 0.805 0.866 0.582 IS-IEj 3 items 0.827–0.924 0.861 0.912 0.776 IS-IA 3 items 0.806–0.864 0.796 0.879 0.709 IC 8 items 0.693–0.837 0.903 0.922 0.597 Sent 5 items 0.695–0.750 0.757 0.835 0.504 Con 5 items 0.653–0.861 0.827 0.875 0.586 Att 5 items 0.698–0.816 0.827 0.878 0.590 Note: IS = Intercultural Sensitivity; IE = Interaction Engagement; RCD = Respect for Cultural Differences; IC = Interaction Confidence; IEn = Interaction Enjoyment; IA = Interaction Attentiveness; IC = Inclusive Climate; Sent = Sentiments; Con = Concerns; Att = Attitudes. All factor loadings are significant at p < .001 (bootstrapping, 5,000 resamples). Discriminant validity was assessed using the HTMT ratio. HTMT is recommended over the Fornell-Larcker criterion in more recent literature because it overcomes some of that criterion's shortcomings (Henseler et al., 2015 ). As shown in Table 2 , the highest HTMT value was 0.663 between Sentiments and Concerns about Inclusive Education, and all values remained below the 0.90 threshold. These results indicate that all constructs in the model are sufficiently distinct from one another. Table 2 Discriminant Validity – HTMT Values IS-Total IS-Total IC Sent Con — IC 0.539 — Sent 0.213 0.073 — Con 0.107 0.088 0.663 Att 0.156 0.162 0.165 0.162 Structural Model Evaluation Following confirmation that the measurement model met validity and reliability requirements, the structural model was tested. Path coefficient significance was assessed using bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples (Hair et al., 2017 ). Direct Effects As shown in Table 3 , Intercultural Sensitivity had a strong and significant effect on Inclusive Climate (β = 0.561; T = 27.776; p < .001; R² = .314). Higher intercultural sensitivity was associated with stronger perceptions of an inclusive climate — a finding consistent with research positioning intercultural sensitivity as a key determinant of organizational inclusiveness (Chen & Starosta, 1997 ; Deardorff, 2006 ). Turning to the effects of Inclusive Climate on outcome variables, a positive and significant effect was found on Attitudes about Inclusive Education (β = 0.146; T = 4.679; p < .001; R² = .021). A significant negative effect was found on Concerns about Inclusive Education (β = −0.079; T = 2.590; p = .005; R² = .006), indicating that a more inclusive climate is associated with lower concern levels. However, the effect of Inclusive Climate on Sentiments about Inclusive Education did not reach statistical significance (β = −0.056; T = 1.617; p = .053; R² = .003). This non-significant finding for Sentiments is interpretable within the existing literature. Unlike attitudes and concerns, sentiments are more immediate and personal in nature, and are more strongly shaped by individual experience (Schutz & Pekrun, 2007 ). According to Self-Determination Theory, affective responses are driven primarily by individual perceptions of autonomy and competence rather than environmental factors alone (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ). It is also well established that emotional responses to inclusive education are heavily influenced by an individual's prior experiences and personality (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ; Forlin et al., 2009 ). Moreover, organizational climate research suggests that climate perceptions more reliably predict cognitive and attitudinal outcomes than affective ones (Schneider et al., 2013 ). This result, therefore, does not call the model's validity into question — it is broadly consistent with theoretical expectations. Table 3 Direct Effects – Path Coefficients and R² Values Path β STDEV |T| p Sig. R² IS-Total → IC 0.561 0.020 27.776 < .001 *** 0.314 IC → Sent −0.056 0.035 1.617 .053 n.s. 0.003 IC → Con −0.079 0.030 2.590 .005 ** 0.006 IC → Att 0.146 0.031 4.679 < .001 *** 0.021 Note: *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; n.s. = not significant. Indirect Effects: The Mediating Role of Inclusive Climate The indirect effects of the five Intercultural Sensitivity subscales on the inclusive education outcome variables were examined to test the mediating role of Inclusive Climate. As shown in Table 4 , Inclusive Climate consistently mediated the relationships to both Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education. For Attitudes about Inclusive Education, all five subscales showed significant indirect effects. The strongest effect came from Interaction Engagement (β = 0.040; p < .001), followed by Interaction Attentiveness (β = 0.028; p = .001) and Interaction Confidence (β = 0.022; p = .004). The negative indirect effect of Interaction Enjoyment (β = −0.020; p < .001) reflects that subscale's negative direct path coefficient onto Inclusive Climate. Respect for Cultural Differences also showed a significant indirect effect (β = 0.016; p = .021). For Concerns about Inclusive Education, indirect effects were significant across all five subscales. The negative direction of these effects (ranging from β = −0.022 to − 0.009) shows that intercultural sensitivity reduces concern levels through Inclusive Climate. This suggests that an inclusive organizational climate alleviates uncertainty-driven anxiety by fostering a sense of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999 ; Nishii, 2013 ). No significant indirect effects through Inclusive Climate were found for Sentiments about Inclusive Education (all p > .05), which is consistent with the reasoning outlined in the direct effects section. Affective responses are shaped more by individual factors than by structural climate variables (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ; Deci & Ryan, 2000 ). Table 4 Indirect Effects – Mediated by Inclusive Climate Path (Mediator: IC) β |T| p Sig. IS-IE → IC → Att 0.040 4.006 < .001 *** IS-IA → IC → Att 0.028 3.311 .001 ** IS-IEn → IC → Att 0.022 2.651 .004 ** IS-IEj → IC → Att −0.020 3.476 < .001 *** IS-RCD → IC → Att 0.016 2.030 .021 * IS-IE → IC → Con −0.022 2.280 .011 * IS-IA → IC → Con −0.015 2.065 .019 * IS-IEn → IC → Con −0.012 1.875 .031 * IS-IEj → IC → Con 0.011 1.892 .029 * IS-RCD → IC → Con −0.009 1.670 .048 * IS-IE → IC → Sent −0.016 1.551 .060 n.s. IS-IA → IC → Sent −0.011 1.547 .061 n.s. IS-IEn → IC → Sent −0.008 1.283 .100 n.s. IS-IEj → IC → Sent 0.008 1.390 .082 n.s. IS-RCD → IC → Sent −0.006 1.098 .136 n.s. Note: *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; n.s. = not significant. Discussion The present study investigated the mediating role of inclusive climate in the relationship between intercultural sensitivity and pre-service teachers' attitudes, emotions, and concerns toward inclusive education. The results broadly supported the proposed model, with the notable exception of the emotional dimension. The following discussion addresses each set of findings in turn, situating them within the wider theoretical and empirical literature while avoiding overinterpretation of effect sizes. Intercultural Sensitivity as a Predictor of Inclusive Climate The strong positive relationship between intercultural sensitivity and inclusive climate perceptions (β = 0.561, p < .001, R² = .314) constitutes the central empirical contribution of this study. Pre-service teachers with higher intercultural sensitivity reported more favorable perceptions of the inclusivity of their institutional environment. This finding aligns with Chen and Starosta's (2000) foundational framework, which describes intercultural sensitivity as a multidimensional affective disposition encompassing engagement, respect, confidence, enjoyment, and attentiveness in cross-cultural interactions, and with Deardorff's (2006) process model positioning intercultural competence as a precondition for inclusive professional practice. The organizational climate literature similarly predicts that individual-level sensitivity to diversity shapes collective perceptions of inclusion, particularly when such sensitivity is behaviorally modeled by faculty and peers within the institution (Ashikali et al., 2021 ; Nishii, 2013 ). The variance explained in inclusive climate (R² = .314) is moderate and consistent with the expectation that inclusive climate, as a shared organizational perception, is shaped by multiple antecedents beyond individual intercultural sensitivity, including institutional policies, leadership behaviors, peer dynamics, and structural resources (Schneider et al., 2013 ; Shore et al., 2018 ). From a social learning perspective, faculty members who model interculturally sensitive behaviors help construct shared norms of inclusion among pre-service teachers through observation and reinforcement (Bandura & Walters, 1977 ; Mayhew & Grunwald, 2006 ). The present findings extend this logic empirically into teacher education contexts, where such modeling is of particular significance given that pre-service teachers are still forming their professional identities (Forlin et al., 2009 ). It should be acknowledged that the present study measured intercultural sensitivity at the individual level of analysis, while inclusive climate is by definition a shared, collective-level construct (Nishii, 2013 ). This level-of-analysis distinction represents a conceptual limitation, and future research employing multilevel designs — with sufficient within-group agreement indices to justify aggregation — would be better positioned to test this relationship rigorously (Schneider et al., 2013 ). Inclusive Climate and Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education A statistically significant positive effect of inclusive climate on attitudes toward inclusive education was observed (β = 0.146, p < .001), supporting the proposition that institutional context shapes pre-service teachers' professional dispositions. This finding is consistent with prior evidence that school and organizational climate variables positively predict teachers' attitudes toward inclusion (Fu et al., 2023 ; Randel et al., 2018 ). Pre-service teachers who perceive their training environment as more inclusive appear to hold more favorable attitudes toward including diverse learners in mainstream settings, a pattern aligned with research demonstrating that normative institutional cues promote attitudinal alignment with inclusion values (Edmondson, 1999 ; Nishii, 2013 ). At the same time, the effect size is modest (R² = .021), and this warrants careful interpretation. A substantial body of research demonstrates that attitudes toward inclusive education are shaped by a complex interplay of individual, experiential, and contextual variables, including prior contact with disability, self-efficacy, and training experiences, none of which any single predictor alone accounts for substantially (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ; Dignath et al., 2022 ; Savolainen et al., 2012 ). Jiang et al. ( 2025 ), for instance, found that empathy influenced attitudes toward inclusive education through a chain mediation involving teaching motivation and inclusive education efficacy, underscoring the relevance of individual-level pathways that the present model does not capture. The present results should therefore be understood as evidence of a meaningful but partial contribution of inclusive climate to attitudinal outcomes. Inclusive Climate and Concerns About Inclusive Education Inclusive climate was found to significantly reduce concerns about inclusive education (β = -0.079, p = .005), indicating that pre-service teachers who perceived a more inclusive institutional environment reported lower levels of anxiety and uncertainty regarding the implementation of inclusive practices. This finding is theoretically coherent within the psychological safety framework: environments characterized by norms of fairness, voice, and non-judgment enable individuals to engage with demanding or unfamiliar tasks without excessive fear of failure or exclusion (Edmondson, 1999 ). Pre-service teachers' concerns about inclusive education including doubts about their pedagogical capacity and uncertainty about resource availability have been consistently documented in the literature as barriers to inclusive practice (Forlin et al., 2011 ; Pov et al., 2025 ; Tuncay & Kizilaslan, 2022 ). The finding that inclusive climate partially alleviates such concerns is consistent with Mor Barak et al.'s ( 2022 ) observation that inclusive organizational climates reduce the cognitive and emotional burden associated with diversity-related uncertainty. It also resonates with evidence that supportive institutional contexts reduce teachers' concerns about implementing inclusion by signaling that institutional backing is available (Dignath et al., 2022 ; Fu et al., 2023 ). Nevertheless, the modest effect size (R² = .006) reinforces that concerns are also substantially shaped by individual-level variables, including self-efficacy for inclusive teaching, prior direct experience with students with special needs, and access to practical preparation (Li & Cheung, 2021 ; Pov et al., 2025 ). Future research might explore how inclusive climate interacts with these variables to produce differential effects on concerns across different subgroups of pre-service teachers. The Non-Significant Effect of Inclusive Climate on Emotions The absence of a statistically significant effect of inclusive climate on emotions toward inclusive education (β = -0.056, p = .053) is the most theoretically informative finding of the present study. While a null result might initially appear to undermine the model, it is in fact consistent with well-established theoretical accounts of emotional experience and with emerging evidence on the differential responsiveness of attitudinal versus emotional outcomes to organizational context. Emotions, as distinct from attitudes and concerns, are characterized by greater immediacy, subjectivity, and embeddedness in personal history and identity (Schutz & Pekrun, 2007 ). They are particularly resistant to change through macro-level organizational signals because they are rooted in individuals' appraisals of personal goal relevance, coping capacity, and prior experiential history (Frenzel et al., 2009 ). Self-determination theory similarly holds that affective reactions are primarily governed by perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness at the individual level, rather than by institutional context (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ). Prior research has shown that pre-service teachers' emotional responses to inclusive education are strongly shaped by prior contact with disability or marginalized groups and by personal temperamental dispositions, not primarily by the organizational environment in which they are trained (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ; Forlin et al., 2009 ). This differential pattern where inclusive climate shapes attitudes and concerns but not emotions is consistent with organizational climate research demonstrating that climate perceptions exert stronger effects on cognitive and evaluative outcomes than on emotional states (Fujimoto & Hartel, 2017 ; Randel et al., 2018 ; Schneider et al., 2013 ). Dignath et al. ( 2022 ) similarly found in their meta-analysis that while training interventions reliably shifted teachers' cognitive appraisals of inclusive education, emotional reactions were less malleable and more dependent on individual factors. Accordingly, the present null finding should not be interpreted as a weakness of the model but as an empirically expected outcome that contributes nuance to the theoretical claim that organizational climate uniformly influences all dimensions of professional dispositions. Future research might investigate whether more proximal and interpersonally intense forms of inclusive climate such as direct faculty mentoring, emotion-focused inclusive pedagogy, or structured contact-based learning with diverse learners produce stronger effects on the emotional dimension (Forlin et al., 2009 ; Schutz & Pekrun, 2007 ). The Mediating Role of Inclusive Climate: Theoretical Contributions The mediation analyses confirmed that inclusive climate significantly mediated the relationships between all five sub-dimensions of intercultural sensitivity and both attitudes and concerns toward inclusive education, while exerting no significant indirect effects on emotions. These findings carry several theoretical implications. First, they support the integration of organizational climate theory with inclusive education scholarship a connection that, despite its intuitive appeal, has received limited empirical attention in teacher education research (Gavino et al., 2021 ; Stoermer et al., 2016 ). By positioning inclusive climate as a mediating mechanism through which individual-level sensitivity translates into attitudinal and concern-related outcomes, the present model offers a more complete account of the socialization processes at work in teacher preparation than models focusing exclusively on individual-level factors such as beliefs, self-efficacy, and motivation (Dignath et al., 2022 ; Jiang et al., 2025 ). Second, the finding that the Interaction Engagement sub-dimension produced the strongest indirect effect on attitudes (β = 0.040, p < .001) is theoretically meaningful. Engagement active and enthusiastic participation in cross-cultural interactions may be particularly salient in shaping inclusive climate perceptions because it is the most behaviorally visible dimension of intercultural sensitivity (Chen & Starosta, 2000 ). Individuals who are observably engaged with diversity signal to others that the institutional environment values such engagement, thereby reinforcing shared inclusive climate perceptions through social learning mechanisms (Bandura & Walters, 1977 ). Third, the negative indirect effects on concerns (ranging from β = -0.022 to β = -0.009) suggest that intercultural sensitivity, by fostering inclusive climate perceptions, contributes to reducing preparedness-related anxiety among pre-service teachers. This extends the psychological safety framework (Edmondson, 1999 ) and Mor Barak et al.'s ( 2022 ) organizational climate model to the specific context of teacher education, implying that inclusive climates function not merely as affectively positive environments but as practically enabling structures reducing the perceived risk associated with implementing unfamiliar inclusive practices. A notable exception within this pattern is the Interaction Enjoyment sub-dimension, which produced a negative indirect effect on attitudes (β = −0.020, p < .001) and a positive indirect effect on concerns (β = .011, p = .029), reversing the direction observed for all remaining sub-dimensions. This reversal reflects Interaction Enjoyment's negative direct path to inclusive climate in the structural model and may indicate that pre-service teachers who derive strong personal enjoyment from intercultural interactions apply more demanding evaluative standards to their institutional environment, perceiving existing climate conditions as comparatively insufficient relative to their own engagement. This interpretation aligns with evidence that affectively invested individuals hold heightened expectations of organizational inclusion (Nishii, 2013 ) and represents a direction worthy of further theoretical and empirical attention. Implications for Turkish Teacher Education The findings carry particular relevance for the Turkish teacher education context, where inclusive education policy has undergone substantial reform in recent decades, yet implementation remains uneven across institutions (Kula, 2025 ; Seçer, 2010 ). The present sample drawn from 15 public universities and representing 11 teacher education programs provides a broad cross-sectional picture of pre-service teacher perceptions across the system. Pre-service teachers in Turkey continue to report notable concerns about implementing inclusive education, a pattern documented in prior Turkish research and consistent with the findings of the present study (Tuncay & Kizilaslan, 2022 ). The evidence that inclusive climate partially mediates the relationship between intercultural sensitivity and attitudinal and concern-related outcomes suggests that systemic, institution-level efforts to build inclusive climates rather than relying solely on individual-level training may be a more efficient lever for improving inclusive education preparedness. This aligns with calls in the organizational and educational literature for institution-level strategies including inclusive leadership development, diversity policy formalization, and the structural integration of inclusion-related content across curricula (Ashikali et al., 2021 ; Desivilya et al., 2017 ). In practical terms, such strategies may include diversifying faculty hiring to reflect the demographic composition of student populations, embedding intercultural competence as an explicit criterion in faculty evaluation and development frameworks, and designing structured opportunities for pre-service teachers to engage with diverse peers and communities across their programs rather than through isolated course-level interventions. Given that Turkey is still in an active phase of reforming its approach to inclusive education, these implications carry practical relevance for program designers and educational policymakers (Kula, 2025 ; Seçer, 2010 ). At the same time, the null effect on emotions serves as a caution against overstating the transformative potential of institutional climate interventions. Emotional readiness for inclusive teaching appears to be a more refractory outcome, likely requiring individual-level interventions including emotion regulation training, reflective practice, and direct contact experiences with diverse learners that operate beyond the scope of organizational climate as measured in the present study (Forlin et al., 2009 ; Schutz & Pekrun, 2007 ). Limitations Several limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference; the relationships identified in the structural model should be interpreted as associational rather than directional (Hair et al., 2019 ). Longitudinal or experimental designs would be required to establish temporal precedence and causal status. Second, all variables were measured through self-report instruments administered on a single occasion, raising the possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). While the use of PLS-SEM with bootstrapping and HTMT-based discriminant validity assessment partially mitigates this concern, common method bias cannot be fully ruled out. Third, inclusive climate was operationalized at the individual level of analysis, while its conceptual definition implies a shared collective perception; future research employing multilevel designs with appropriate aggregation criteria would address this limitation more rigorously (Nishii, 2013 ; Schneider et al., 2013 ). Fourth, the sample was restricted to public universities in Turkey, which limits generalizability to private institutions and to teacher education systems in other national contexts. Finally, the modest internal consistency of the Attitudes (α = .67) and Concerns (α = .65) subscales of the SACIE-R, though reported as acceptable in the original validation (Forlin et al., 2011 ), suggests that measurement precision for these constructs may be limited. Conclusion The present study set out to examine whether inclusive climate mediates the relationship between intercultural sensitivity and pre-service teachers' attitudes, emotions, and concerns toward inclusive education. Using PLS-SEM with a large, multi-institutional sample of 1,237 pre-service teachers drawn from 15 public universities across Turkey, the findings provide empirical support for a theoretically grounded mediation model with one important and theoretically expected boundary condition. Intercultural sensitivity emerged as a robust predictor of inclusive climate perceptions, and inclusive climate in turn exerted significant positive effects on attitudes and significant negative effects on concerns about inclusive education. Critically, inclusive climate mediated all five sub-dimensions of intercultural sensitivity through to both of these outcomes, with the Interaction Engagement sub-dimension producing the strongest indirect effects. These results establish inclusive climate as a meaningful institutional mechanism not merely a background condition through which individual-level diversity dispositions translate into professionally relevant outcomes during teacher preparation. The null effect of inclusive climate on the emotional dimension of inclusive education dispositions is not an anomaly but an empirically coherent finding, consistent with theoretical accounts of emotion as a less organizationally malleable construct than attitudes or concerns (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ; Frenzel et al., 2009 ; Schneider et al., 2013 ). This differential pattern adds nuance to existing models of inclusive education preparation and suggests that emotional readiness warrants distinct, individually targeted interventions beyond the reach of climate-level change. Taken together, the findings make two principal contributions to the field. Theoretically, they extend organizational climate theory into teacher education contexts by empirically demonstrating that inclusive climate functions as a socialization mechanism connecting faculty-level intercultural sensitivity to student-level professional dispositions a linkage that prior research had proposed conceptually but rarely tested structurally (Gavino et al., 2021 ; Stoermer et al., 2016 ). Practically, they suggest that teacher education institutions seeking to improve inclusive education preparedness should invest not only in individual-level competency training but in the systemic cultivation of inclusive organizational climates — through inclusive leadership, policy coherence, and the structural embedding of diversity values across programs (Ashikali et al., 2021 ; Desivilya et al., 2017 ; Nishii, 2013 ). For Turkish teacher education specifically, where inclusive reform remains a work in progress and pre-service teachers consistently report preparedness-related concerns (Kula, 2025 ; Tuncay & Kizilaslan, 2022 ), the present findings offer a timely and actionable institutional framework: building inclusive climates is not merely a pedagogical aspiration but an empirically supported lever for reducing the concerns and improving the attitudes of the next generation of teachers. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was approved by Kocaeli University Institute of Social and Human Sciences Directorate Ethics Committee with the decision dated 18/02/2026 and numbered 2026/03. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Ethics Declaration The authors confirm that all procedures performed in this study were in accordance with ethical standards. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The author declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential competing interest. Funding: This study is supported by Kocaeli University Scientific Research Projects Unit (Project No.: SBA-2026-4951). Author Contribution SP: Writing – original draft, Data collection, Formal analysis, Visualization, Supervision, Validation; SD: Writing – original draft, Data collection, Resources; ÇÇ: Writing – original draft, Data collection, Methodology; HDOR: Writing – original draft, Data collection;. Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Kocaeli University for this study supported by Kocaeli University Scientific Research Projects Unit under Grant 2026–4951. Data Availability All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information. References Al-Shammari Z, Faulkner PE, Forlin C. Theories-based inclusive education practice. Educ Q Reviews. 2019;2(2):408–14. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.02.02.73 . Ashikali T, Groeneveld S, Kuipers B. The role of inclusive leadership in supporting an inclusive climate in diverse public sector teams. Rev Public Personnel Adm. 2021;41(3):497–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19899722 . Avramidis E, Norwich B. Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. Eur J Special Needs Educ. 2002;17(2):129–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056 . Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall; 1986. Bandura A, Walters RH. Social learning theory. Volume 1. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1977. pp. 141–54. Chen GM, Starosta WJ. A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity. Hum Communication. 1997;1(1):1–16. Chen GM, Starosta WJ. The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale. Hum Communication. 2000;3(1):1–15. Deardorff DK. Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. J Stud Int Educ. 2006;10(3):241–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002 . Deci EL, Ryan RM. The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 . Desivilya H, Borochowitz DY, Bouknik S, Kalovski G, Lavy I, Ore L. Engaging diversity in academia: Manifold voices of faculty. Equality Divers Inclusion: Int J. 2017;36(1):90–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2016-0074 . DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. SAGE; 1991. Dignath C, Rimm-Kaufman S, Van Ewijk R, Kunter M. Teachers' beliefs about inclusive education and insights on what contributes to those beliefs: A meta-analytical study. Educational Psychol Rev. 2022;34(4):2609–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09695-0 . Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/266699 . Ehrhart MG, Schneider B, Macey WH. Organizational climate and culture: An introduction to theory, research, and practice. Routledge; 2025. Forlin C, Earle C, Loreman T, Sharma U. The Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service teachers' perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Educ Int. 2011;21(3):50–65. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v21i3.7682 . Forlin C, Loreman T, Sharma U, Earle C. Demographic differences in changing pre-service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education. Int J Incl Educ. 2009;13(2):195–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701365356 . Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 . Frenzel AC, Goetz T, Stephens EJ, Jacob B. Antecedents and Effects of Teachers’ Emotional Experiences: An Integrated Perspective and Empirical Test. In: Schutz P, Zembylas M, editors. Advances in Teacher Emotion Research. Boston, MA: Springer; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0564-2_7 . Fu W, He X, Sun Y, Wang C, Wang J, Dong Y. The relationship between school climate and general teachers' attitude toward inclusion in China: The mediation effect of teachers' efficacy. Int J Dev Disabil. 2023;69(4):602–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2021.1985919 . Fujimoto Y, Hartel CEJ. Organizational diversity learning framework: Going beyond diversity training programs. Personnel Rev. 2017;46(6):1120–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2015-0254 . Gavino MC, Lambert J, Akinlade E. Diversity climate of respect and the impact on faculty extra role behaviors. J Bus Divers. 2021;21(3). https://doi.org/10.33423/jbd.v21i3.4432 . Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd Ed.). SAGE. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev. 2019;31(1):2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 . Hammer MR, Bennett MJ, Wiseman R. Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. Int J Intercultural Relations. 2003;27(4):421–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4 . Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43(1):115–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 . Humes LE, Burk MH, Strauser LE, Kinney DL. Development and efficacy of a frequent-word auditory training protocol for older adults with impaired hearing. Ear Hear. 2009;30(5):613–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181b00d90 . James LR, Jones AP. Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychol Bull. 1974;81(12):1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037511 . Jiang N, Li H, Ju SY, Kong LK, Li J. Pre-service teachers’ empathy and attitudes toward inclusive education—The chain mediating role of teaching motivation and inclusive education efficacy. PLoS ONE. 2025;20(4):e0321066. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321066 . Knight T. Inclusive education and educational theory: Inclusive for what? Crit Stud Educ. 2000;41(1):17–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480009556342 . Kula SS. Metaphorical perceptions of pre-service teachers about inclusive education and the effects of an inclusive education course on perspectives about the teaching profession in Türkiye. Teach Educ. 2025;36(4):430–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2025.2549804 . Lee JA. (2010). Students' perceptions of and satisfaction with faculty diversity. Coll Student J, 44 (2). Li KM, Cheung RY. Pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education in Hong Kong: The roles of attitudes, sentiments, and concerns. Int J Disabil Dev Educ. 2021;68(2):259–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1678743 . Li Y, Perera S, Kulik CT, Metz I. Inclusion climate: A multilevel investigation of its antecedents and consequences. Hum Resour Manag. 2019;58(4):353–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21956 . Li Y, Shao Y, Wang M, Fang Y, Gong Y, Li C. From inclusive climate to organizational innovation: Examining internal and external enablers for knowledge management capacity. J Appl Psychol. 2022;107(12):2285. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001014 . Lindsay G. Inclusive education theory and practice: What does this mean for paediatricians? Paediatrics Child Health. 2018;28(8):368–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paed.2018.06.002 . Maruyama G, Moreno JF. (2000). University faculty views about the value of diversity on campus and in the classroom. In Does diversity make a difference? Three research studies on diversity in college classrooms (pp. 9–35). American Council on Education & American Association of University Professors . Mayhew MJ, Grunwald HE. Factors contributing to faculty incorporation of diversity-related course content. J High Educ. 2006;77(1):148–68. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0005 . Mor Barak ME, Luria G, Brimhall KC. What leaders say versus what they do: Inclusive leadership, policy-practice decoupling, and the anomaly of climate for inclusion. Group Organ Manage. 2022;47(4):840–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211005916 . Nelissen PT, Hülsheger UR, van Ruitenbeek GM, Zijlstra FR. Lending a helping hand at work: A multilevel investigation of prosocial motivation, inclusive climate and inclusive behavior. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(3):467–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9680-z . Nishii LH. The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Acad Manag J. 2013;56(6):1754–74. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823 . Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 . Pov S, Sharma U, Loreman T. Pre-service teachers' preparation for inclusive practices in Cambodia: Experience, self-efficacy and concerns about inclusion. J Res Special Educational Needs. 2025;25:118–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12715 . Randel AE, Galvin BM, Shore LM, Ehrhart KH, Chung BG, Dean MA, Kedharnath U. Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2018;28(2):190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002 . Rengi O. (2014). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin kültürel farklılık algıları ve kültürlerarası duyarlılıkları [Master’s Thesis] Kocaeli University. Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M. (2024). SmartPLS 4 . SmartPLS. https://www.smartpls.com Savolainen H, Engelbrecht P, Nel M, Malinen OP. Understanding teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education. Eur J Special Needs Educ. 2012;27(1):51–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.613603 . Schneider B, Ehrhart MG, Macey WH. Organizational climate and culture. Ann Rev Psychol. 2013;64(1):361–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809 . Schutz PA, Pekrun R, editors. Emotion in Education. Academic; 2007. Seçer Z. An analysis of the effects of in-service teacher training on Turkish preschool teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Int J Early Years Educ. 2010;18(1):43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669761003693959 . Sharma U, Forlin C, Loreman T. Impact of training on pre-service teachers' attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disabil Soc. 2008;23(7):773–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469271 . Shore LM, Cleveland JN, Sanchez D. Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2018;28(2):176–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003 . Stoermer S, Hildisch AK, Froese FJ. Culture matters: The influence of national culture on inclusion climate. Cross Cult Strategic Manage. 2016;23(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-11-2014-0135 . Tuncay AA, Kizilaslan A. Pre-service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes and concerns about inclusive education in Turkey. Eur J Special Needs Educ. 2022;37(2):309–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1873524 . Vázquez-Montilla E, Wilder LK, Triscari R. Ethnically diverse faculty in higher ed: Belonging, respect, and role as cultural broker. Multicultural Learn Teach. 2012;7(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/2161-2412.1097 . Weber KE, Greiner F. Development of pre-service teachers' self‐efficacy beliefs and attitudes towards inclusive education through first teaching experiences. J Res Special Educational Needs. 2019;19:73–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12479 . Wunsch MA, Chattergy V. Managing diversity through faculty development. Improve Academic: Resour Student Fac Institutional Dev. 1991;10:141–50. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9520774","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":630146742,"identity":"0733d7fe-cd12-45ce-94be-945489f858ec","order_by":0,"name":"Soner Polat","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kocaeli University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Soner","middleName":"","lastName":"Polat","suffix":""},{"id":630146743,"identity":"eb073ec5-ddc9-414c-b930-35d040ae3f49","order_by":1,"name":"Seyithan Demirdağ","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Seyithan","middleName":"","lastName":"Demirdağ","suffix":""},{"id":630146744,"identity":"90fb57bd-67ab-41a6-b423-5065a3f4a615","order_by":2,"name":"Çağlar Çelik","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Provincial Directorate of National Education","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Çağlar","middleName":"","lastName":"Çelik","suffix":""},{"id":630146745,"identity":"8be457d6-b4d1-4103-bc43-acfe730e3737","order_by":3,"name":"Hasene Durgut de Oliveira Revuelta","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Eötvös Loránd University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hasene","middleName":"Durgut de Oliveira","lastName":"Revuelta","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-24 21:23:26","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9520774/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9520774/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108021161,"identity":"4447f00b-6349-478e-bb2d-4cc46d131ea2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-28 14:25:32","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":141016,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConceptual Model of the Study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage119.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9520774/v1/299d8451c6dc2811b8d135d8.png"},{"id":109263267,"identity":"da16fa00-24b1-4894-9490-b921464acbed","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-14 11:56:25","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":516619,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9520774/v1/dd01b5b3-e4e7-4039-a805-d29532ee1ce2.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Mediating Role of Inclusive Climate in the Relationship between Faculty Members’ Respect for Diversity and Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes, Emotions, and Concerns Toward Inclusive Education","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe idea of inclusive education has found its place as one of the most crucial paradigms of education reform on an international level. The underlying concept behind inclusive education is based on the universal human right of every individual, irrespective of disability, cultural background, language, gender, or other socio-cultural considerations, to have equal access to quality education. In accordance with modern views on inclusive education, inclusion should not be limited to the integration of diverse learners into mainstream educational settings but require a profound change at institutional and organizational levels (Knight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Lindsay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of such a transformation, teacher education institutions occupy a prominent position as essential contexts in which pre-service teachers cultivate professional beliefs and dispositions regarding inclusive education. Teacher preparation institutions not only provide future teachers with information about inclusion and other related topics but also represent socialization contexts in which future professionals learn how to integrate principles of diversity and inclusion into their practice. Given these circumstances, the study of factors affecting pre-service teachers' dispositions towards inclusive education is becoming increasingly significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch studies have indicated that the attitudes, emotions, and concerns about inclusion held by teachers at the pre-service level can significantly impact their pedagogic activities in the future (Forlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Savolainen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Sharma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Good attitudes toward inclusion are likely to result in adaptive practices, positive perceptions of differences among students, and a commitment to inclusive practices. Conversely, high levels of concerns \u0026ndash; such as anxiety or uncertainty or feeling like lacking the capacity for teaching inclusive curricula \u0026ndash; might negatively affect the teacher\u0026rsquo;s capacity to employ an inclusive approach to teaching (Li \u0026amp; Cheung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Tuncay \u0026amp; Kizilaslan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, new evidence indicates that while all three outcome variables (attitudes, emotions, and concerns) have been found to influence the process of inclusive education implementation, there is some heterogeneity between them, particularly concerning the impact of external factors. Specifically, attitudes and concerns appear to be more malleable under the influence of the environment, whereas emotions have a more complicated structure and are harder to shape through organizational climates (Frenzel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Being driven by personal history, identity, and contextual appraisals, they are less likely to be affected by organizational factors directly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, traditionally, studies in the field of inclusive education paid attention to the factors associated with individuals, including self-efficacy, empathy, beliefs, and intrinsic motivation (Jiang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Weber \u0026amp; Greiner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). While these factors are undoubtedly essential, modern researchers have begun to emphasize the need to take into account other aspects of students' lives, related to both socialization and the context in which individuals find themselves.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom this perspective, professors can be regarded as important agents of socialization during the teacher preparation process. With the help of their pedagogical activities, interpersonal relations, and hidden value orientations, professors greatly contribute to the formation of future educators' attitudes towards diversity and inclusiveness (Bandura \u0026amp; Walters, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e; Mayhew \u0026amp; Grunwald, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Respect for diversity in the faculty of teacher preparation institutions is often understood as professors' intercultural sensitivity, referring to the openness to diversity and its acceptance and promotion among future teachers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical literature also shows a connection between respect for diversity on the side of faculty members and various student outcomes, including greater engagement, increased feelings of belongingness, and improved satisfaction with the learning environment (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Maruyama \u0026amp; Moreno, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; V\u0026aacute;zquez-Montilla et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Respect for diversity among faculty members has also been discussed in terms of intercultural sensitivity as a multifaceted phenomenon including awareness, respect, interaction confidence, and engagement with cultural diversity (Chen \u0026amp; Starosta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Hammer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Each of these components helps foster inclusive learning environments. However, it is important to note that the impact of faculty respect for diversity is not limited to the relationship between faculty members and pre-service teachers. Instead, it is situated within the larger context of institutions where such behaviors can be perceived differently. The latter aspect may be described using the concept of inclusive climate. In general, inclusive climate implies shared perceptions in organizations about fairness, inclusion, voice, and diversity (Nishii, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Shore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). It should also be considered an interpretive frame used in educational environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral findings from organizational psychology studies reveal that an inclusive climate is linked to many desirable outcomes, such as motivation, engagement, innovation, and prosocial behaviors (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Nelissen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). An inclusive climate allows individuals to share their views freely by making them feel safe and supported without any risk of exclusion or discrimination (Edmondson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, an inclusive climate is crucial for the domain of teacher education because future teachers develop their professional identity and perspectives on diversity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, recent research indicates that an inclusive climate has differentiated impacts on various domains of outcomes. In particular, according to several studies, an inclusive climate tends to have a more significant impact on outcomes of the cognitive and evaluative types rather than on emotions (Fujimoto \u0026amp; Hartel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Randel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, an inclusive climate contributes to decreasing uncertainty and barriers associated with the implementation of inclusive education (Mor Barak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, the relationship between the two concepts with regard to emotions is yet to be established. Nevertheless, although more attention has recently been paid to inclusive climate, the use of it as a mediator in educational settings for teachers is not sufficiently explored. Research in this area commonly focuses either on faculty practices or on the outcomes related to students without considering organizational processes linking both (Gavino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Stoermer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, it becomes problematic to develop a holistic approach to the process of forming inclusive dispositions in pre-service teachers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the aforementioned points, the current study aims to test the impact of an inclusive climate mediated by faculty members\u0026rsquo; respect for diversity as intercultural sensitivity on pre-service teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes, emotions, and concerns regarding inclusive education. The assumption made is that intercultural sensitivity helps form an inclusive climate that positively influences teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes and decreases their concerns but does not necessarily affect their emotions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical Framework\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe current research rests on organizational climate theory, which defines organizational climate as perceptions of common policies, procedures, and practices within an organization, which communicate expected behaviors and values (James \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1974\u003c/span\u003e; Schneider et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Inclusive climate is defined as a type of organizational climate, which is associated with fairness, voice, belonging, and encouragement of diversity (Ehrhart et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In teacher education programs, inclusive climate acts as a context through which behaviors of faculty members are filtered and internalized by students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial learning theory serves as a supporting theoretical framework to understand how respectful attitude towards diversity among faculty members influences students' outcomes. In his social learning theory, Bandura and Walters (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e) state that people can develop certain attitudes and behaviors through observation and reinforcement. The role of interculturally sensitive faculty members in this case lies in modeling particular attitudes and behaviors and thus helping their students adopt them. Based on this view, intercultural sensitivity could be considered an antecedent of inclusive climate. Instructors who demonstrate consistent behaviors of inclusivity help build shared perceptions of equality and belonging among individuals, thus influencing pre-service teachers' perceptions and concerns toward inclusive education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical assumptions in inclusive education also highlight the congruence among values, structural conditions, and instructional approaches that foster equal learning opportunities (Al-Shammari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Knight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). On this basis, inclusive climate might be viewed as a mediating variable that mediates the relationship between faculty-level variables and students' outcomes. Critically, such mediation could have differential effects depending on the type of outcome. Inclusive climate is likely to improve attitudes through the reinforcement of positive attitudes towards inclusiveness and decrease concerns through the provision of preparation. By contrast, the impact of the climate on emotional variables would be less effective because emotions can be shaped by personal experiences and psychological conditions (Frenzel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Importance of the Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to the body of knowledge through the integration of organizational climate theories with inclusive education scholarship, which moves beyond an individual perspective to include an institutional approach. Where past research has primarily concentrated on individual-level factors such as beliefs, self-efficacies, and emotions (Humes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), the study reveals the importance of including climate of inclusion as a mediation strategy to intercultural sensitivity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most crucial contribution of the study lies in its empirical demonstration of the differential impact of climate of inclusion within different dimensions. The results show that climate of inclusion positively influences attitude toward inclusion and decreases concerns but does not affect emotional reactions towards intercultural experiences. Such findings contribute to literature by revealing the efficacy of institutional settings in influencing cognitive and concerns-related aspects more than emotional ones.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of practical implications, this research emphasizes the need for developing inclusive climates within universities. Instead of concentrating on individual actions undertaken by professors, universities should opt for more strategic approaches to create an inclusive environment, including policies promoting inclusion, diversity training, and leadership development (Ashikali et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Desivilya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Wunsch \u0026amp; Chattergy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). These strategies will increase the likelihood of developing a positive attitude towards intercultural teaching and reduce fears associated with it, although their influence on emotions will be insignificant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, the findings reveal the significance of intercultural sensitivity as one of the core antecedents of inclusive climate. Given that intercultural sensitivity was positively correlated with inclusive climate, it is necessary to ensure that faculty development activities include enhancing intercultural competence of professors. Intercultural engagement and interaction might be some of the important dimensions in this case.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLastly, the present investigation is especially relevant to those multicultural educational settings that are experiencing constant change, including T\u0026uuml;rkiye, which is still reforming its system of inclusive education. By demonstrating how the inclusive school climate can serve as a mediator between the investigated factors, the current research sheds light on the process of improving future teacher preparation. The present work will be useful in the global debate about how to prepare teachers who are both professionally and attitude-wise ready for their duties (Kula, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Se\u0026ccedil;er, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was designed as a relational model to examine how multiple variables relate to each other through both direct and indirect (mediating) effects. A quantitative approach was adopted and the relationships between variables were tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). PLS-SEM was chosen because it allows simultaneous testing of both the measurement model and the causal relationships between constructs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe independent variable is Intercultural Sensitivity, the mediating variable is Inclusive Climate, and the dependent variables are Attitudes, Sentiments, and Concerns toward Inclusive Education. The model aims to examine how intercultural sensitivity shapes perceptions of inclusive climate, and how those perceptions in turn influence attitudinal and affective outcomes related to inclusive education. The conceptual model of the study is presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional data collection approach was used, meaning that all data were gathered at a single point in time and the relationships between variables were tested on the same sample. Cross-sectional designs are more limited than longitudinal ones when it comes to making causal inferences; however, since the goal of this study was to test a theoretical model for the first time, this approach was considered appropriate for this stage of inquiry (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipants and Data Collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted with pre-service teachers enrolled in their third and fourth years across 15 different public universities in Turkey during the 2024\u0026ndash;2025 academic year. Data were collected on a voluntary basis through an online survey. Focusing on pre-service teachers was deliberate, as this period represents a critical phase during which professional identity is still forming and orientations toward intercultural competence and inclusive education are taking shape (Forlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 1,237 participants provided valid data. Their demographic characteristics are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographic Characteristics of Participants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGender\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e994\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e243\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eYear\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3rd Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e883\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e71.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4th Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e354\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u0026ndash;21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e427\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e396\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e248\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u0026ndash;29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e123\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30 and over\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDepartment\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuidance and Psychological Counseling\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e247\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary School Teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e231\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish Language Teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e193\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEarly Childhood Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e165\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElementary Mathematics Teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e137\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTurkish Language Teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecial Education Teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScience Teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Studies Teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArabic Language Teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArt Teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1,237\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.0\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of gender, 80.4% of participants were female (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;994) and 19.6% were male (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;243). The majority were third-year students (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;883; 71.4%), while fourth-year students made up 28.6% of the sample (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;354). Most participants fell in the 20\u0026ndash;23 age range, with the largest groups being 22-year-olds (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;396; 32.0%), 21-year-olds (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;321; 25.9%), and 23-year-olds (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;248; 20.0%). Around 87% of participants were between 20 and 24, though the overall sample spanned a wide age range from 18 to 53.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample covered 11 different teaching programs. The highest representation came from Guidance and Psychological Counseling (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;247; 20.0%), Primary School Teaching (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;231; 18.7%), and English Language Teaching (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;193; 15.6%), while Social Studies Teaching (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31; 2.5%), Arabic Language Teaching (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28; 2.3%), and Art Teaching (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4; 0.3%) had the smallest shares. This diversity across departments reduces the risk that findings reflect trends specific to any single program and strengthens the generalizability of the results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Institutional approvals and ethical committee clearance were obtained from the relevant universities before data collection began. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, and the confidentiality of their responses through the online form. The survey was prepared on Google Forms and distributed to students via faculty members at the participating universities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEthics\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e All necessary ethical approvals were obtained prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary, and all participants were informed about the purpose of the study and the conditions of confidentiality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInstruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected using three scales administered together as a single form: the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale, the Inclusive Climate Scale, and the Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education \u0026ndash; Revised (SACIE-R) Scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIntercultural Sensitivity Scale\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntercultural sensitivity was measured using the 24-item scale developed by Chen and Starosta (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). The scale assesses individuals' cognitive, affective, and behavioral tendencies in intercultural interactions and consists of five subscales: Interaction Engagement (7 items), Respect for Cultural Differences (6 items), Interaction Confidence (5 items), Interaction Enjoyment (3 items), and Interaction Attentiveness (3 items).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eItems are rated on a five-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Agree). In the Turkish adaptation study (Rengi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), confirmatory factor analysis of the 24-item scale yielded a KMO coefficient of .88, with Bartlett's test reaching significance (χ\u0026sup2; = 2636.675, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;276, p \u0026lt; .001). Item factor loadings ranged from .477 to .774, and the five factors together explained 56.6% of the total variance. The Cronbach's alpha for the overall scale was .87, while subscale reliabilities ranged from .65 (Interaction Enjoyment) to .86 (Interaction Engagement).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInclusive Climate Scale\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerceptions of inclusive climate were measured using the 8-item scale conceptualized by Nishii (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and applied by Ashikali et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In their study, all climate items loaded onto a single factor, and the Cronbach's alpha for the scale was .90.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education \u0026ndash; Revised (SACIE-R)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe SACIE-R scale, developed by Forlin et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), was used to measure pre-service teachers' sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. The scale consists of 15 items across three subscales: Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education. The Sentiments and Concerns subscales are reverse-coded, so higher scores on all subscales reflect more positive orientations toward inclusion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe three factors accounted for 16.75%, 17.22%, and 13.34% of the variance respectively, with a total explained variance of 47.31%. Inter-factor correlations were all below .20, confirming that the subscales measure independent constructs. Cronbach's alpha values were .74 for the full scale, .75 for Sentiments, .67 for Attitudes, and .65 for Concerns. Although the alpha values for Attitudes and Concerns fall slightly below the .70 threshold, they have been described as acceptable for measuring social constructs of this kind (DeVellis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Forlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were analyzed using PLS-SEM. This method was chosen because it does not require a normality assumption, produces reliable results with small to medium samples, and accommodates both reflective and composite measurement structures (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). As a prediction-oriented technique, PLS-SEM is particularly well suited to areas where theory is still developing and to exploratory or explanatory model testing (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). All analyses were conducted using SmartPLS 4 (Ringle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe five subscales of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale were modeled as a second-order composite construct, given their intercorrelations and shared theoretical grounding. This approach resolves the serious multicollinearity issues that would arise from entering each subscale as a separate predictor, while also improving interpretive consistency (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis proceeded in two stages. In the first stage, the measurement model was evaluated using internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability), convergent validity (Average Variance Extracted, AVE), and discriminant validity (Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio, HTMT). HTMT is preferred in recent research over the Fornell-Larcker criterion because it addresses some of that criterion's limitations (Henseler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In the second stage, the structural model was tested for both direct and indirect effects, with path coefficient significance determined through bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The mediating role of Inclusive Climate was assessed within this indirect effects framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasurement Model Evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe five subscales of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale were modeled as a second-order composite construct based on their intercorrelations and theoretical justification (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Reliability and validity results for the measurement model are reported in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComposite reliability (ρc) values for all constructs ranged from 0.797 to 0.922, all exceeding the accepted threshold of \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.70 (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.757 to 0.903, reflecting good to excellent reliability. The second-order Intercultural Sensitivity construct showed strong properties with α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.899, ρc\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.919, and AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.699. AVE values for all other constructs also met the 0.50 threshold (Fornell \u0026amp; Larcker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct Reliability, Convergent Validity, and Factor Loading Ranges\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor Loading Range\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eα\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eρc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIS-Total\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.899\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.919\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.699\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.666\u0026ndash;0.863\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.786\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.839\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.467\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-RCD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.893\u0026ndash;0.897\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.814\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.797\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.423\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.816\u0026ndash;0.860\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.805\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.866\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.582\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IEj\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.827\u0026ndash;0.924\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.861\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.912\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.776\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.806\u0026ndash;0.864\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.796\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.879\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.709\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIC\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.693\u0026ndash;0.837\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.903\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.922\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.597\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSent\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.695\u0026ndash;0.750\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.757\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.835\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.504\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCon\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.653\u0026ndash;0.861\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.827\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.875\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.586\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAtt\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.698\u0026ndash;0.816\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.827\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.878\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.590\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: IS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Intercultural Sensitivity; IE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Interaction Engagement; RCD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Respect for Cultural Differences; IC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Interaction Confidence; IEn\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Interaction Enjoyment; IA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Interaction Attentiveness; IC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Inclusive Climate; Sent\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Sentiments; Con\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Concerns; Att\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Attitudes. All factor loadings are significant at p \u0026lt; .001 (bootstrapping, 5,000 resamples).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscriminant validity was assessed using the HTMT ratio. HTMT is recommended over the Fornell-Larcker criterion in more recent literature because it overcomes some of that criterion's shortcomings (Henseler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, the highest HTMT value was 0.663 between Sentiments and Concerns about Inclusive Education, and all values remained below the 0.90 threshold. These results indicate that all constructs in the model are sufficiently distinct from one another.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscriminant Validity \u0026ndash; HTMT Values\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIS-Total\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-Total\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCon\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIC\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.539\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSent\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.213\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.073\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCon\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.088\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.663\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAtt\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.156\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.162\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.165\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.162\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStructural Model Evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing confirmation that the measurement model met validity and reliability requirements, the structural model was tested. Path coefficient significance was assessed using bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDirect Effects\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, Intercultural Sensitivity had a strong and significant effect on Inclusive Climate (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.561; T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;27.776; p \u0026lt; .001; R\u0026sup2; = .314). Higher intercultural sensitivity was associated with stronger perceptions of an inclusive climate \u0026mdash; a finding consistent with research positioning intercultural sensitivity as a key determinant of organizational inclusiveness (Chen \u0026amp; Starosta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Deardorff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTurning to the effects of Inclusive Climate on outcome variables, a positive and significant effect was found on Attitudes about Inclusive Education (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.146; T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.679; p \u0026lt; .001; R\u0026sup2; = .021). A significant negative effect was found on Concerns about Inclusive Education (β = \u0026minus;0.079; T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.590; p = .005; R\u0026sup2; = .006), indicating that a more inclusive climate is associated with lower concern levels. However, the effect of Inclusive Climate on Sentiments about Inclusive Education did not reach statistical significance (β = \u0026minus;0.056; T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.617; p = .053; R\u0026sup2; = .003).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis non-significant finding for Sentiments is interpretable within the existing literature. Unlike attitudes and concerns, sentiments are more immediate and personal in nature, and are more strongly shaped by individual experience (Schutz \u0026amp; Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). According to Self-Determination Theory, affective responses are driven primarily by individual perceptions of autonomy and competence rather than environmental factors alone (Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). It is also well established that emotional responses to inclusive education are heavily influenced by an individual's prior experiences and personality (Avramidis \u0026amp; Norwich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Forlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, organizational climate research suggests that climate perceptions more reliably predict cognitive and attitudinal outcomes than affective ones (Schneider et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This result, therefore, does not call the model's validity into question \u0026mdash; it is broadly consistent with theoretical expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect Effects \u0026ndash; Path Coefficients and R\u0026sup2; Values\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTDEV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e|T|\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-Total \u0026rarr; IC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.561\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.776\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.314\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIC \u0026rarr; Sent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.056\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.617\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.053\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en.s.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIC \u0026rarr; Con\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.079\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.590\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIC \u0026rarr; Att\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.146\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.679\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: *** p \u0026lt; .001; ** p \u0026lt; .01; * p \u0026lt; .05; n.s. = not significant.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIndirect Effects: The Mediating Role of Inclusive Climate\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe indirect effects of the five Intercultural Sensitivity subscales on the inclusive education outcome variables were examined to test the mediating role of Inclusive Climate. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, Inclusive Climate consistently mediated the relationships to both Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor Attitudes about Inclusive Education, all five subscales showed significant indirect effects. The strongest effect came from Interaction Engagement (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.040; p \u0026lt; .001), followed by Interaction Attentiveness (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.028; p = .001) and Interaction Confidence (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.022; p = .004). The negative indirect effect of Interaction Enjoyment (β = \u0026minus;0.020; p \u0026lt; .001) reflects that subscale's negative direct path coefficient onto Inclusive Climate. Respect for Cultural Differences also showed a significant indirect effect (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.016; p = .021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor Concerns about Inclusive Education, indirect effects were significant across all five subscales. The negative direction of these effects (ranging from β = \u0026minus;0.022 to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.009) shows that intercultural sensitivity reduces concern levels through Inclusive Climate. This suggests that an inclusive organizational climate alleviates uncertainty-driven anxiety by fostering a sense of psychological safety (Edmondson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Nishii, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant indirect effects through Inclusive Climate were found for Sentiments about Inclusive Education (all p \u0026gt; .05), which is consistent with the reasoning outlined in the direct effects section. Affective responses are shaped more by individual factors than by structural climate variables (Avramidis \u0026amp; Norwich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndirect Effects \u0026ndash; Mediated by Inclusive Climate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePath (Mediator: IC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e|T|\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IE \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Att\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.040\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IA \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Att\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.028\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.311\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IEn \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Att\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.651\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IEj \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Att\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.476\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-RCD \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Att\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.030\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IE \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Con\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.280\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IA \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Con\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.065\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IEn \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Con\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.012\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.875\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IEj \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Con\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.892\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.029\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-RCD \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Con\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.670\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.048\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IE \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Sent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.551\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.060\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en.s.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IA \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Sent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.547\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.061\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en.s.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IEn \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Sent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.283\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en.s.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-IEj \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Sent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.390\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.082\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en.s.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIS-RCD \u0026rarr; IC \u0026rarr; Sent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.098\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.136\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en.s.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: *** p \u0026lt; .001; ** p \u0026lt; .01; * p \u0026lt; .05; n.s. = not significant.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study investigated the mediating role of inclusive climate in the relationship between intercultural sensitivity and pre-service teachers' attitudes, emotions, and concerns toward inclusive education. The results broadly supported the proposed model, with the notable exception of the emotional dimension. The following discussion addresses each set of findings in turn, situating them within the wider theoretical and empirical literature while avoiding overinterpretation of effect sizes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIntercultural Sensitivity as a Predictor of Inclusive Climate\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe strong positive relationship between intercultural sensitivity and inclusive climate perceptions (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.561, p \u0026lt; .001, R\u0026sup2; = .314) constitutes the central empirical contribution of this study. Pre-service teachers with higher intercultural sensitivity reported more favorable perceptions of the inclusivity of their institutional environment. This finding aligns with Chen and Starosta's (2000) foundational framework, which describes intercultural sensitivity as a multidimensional affective disposition encompassing engagement, respect, confidence, enjoyment, and attentiveness in cross-cultural interactions, and with Deardorff's (2006) process model positioning intercultural competence as a precondition for inclusive professional practice. The organizational climate literature similarly predicts that individual-level sensitivity to diversity shapes collective perceptions of inclusion, particularly when such sensitivity is behaviorally modeled by faculty and peers within the institution (Ashikali et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Nishii, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe variance explained in inclusive climate (R\u0026sup2; = .314) is moderate and consistent with the expectation that inclusive climate, as a shared organizational perception, is shaped by multiple antecedents beyond individual intercultural sensitivity, including institutional policies, leadership behaviors, peer dynamics, and structural resources (Schneider et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Shore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). From a social learning perspective, faculty members who model interculturally sensitive behaviors help construct shared norms of inclusion among pre-service teachers through observation and reinforcement (Bandura \u0026amp; Walters, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e; Mayhew \u0026amp; Grunwald, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The present findings extend this logic empirically into teacher education contexts, where such modeling is of particular significance given that pre-service teachers are still forming their professional identities (Forlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt should be acknowledged that the present study measured intercultural sensitivity at the individual level of analysis, while inclusive climate is by definition a shared, collective-level construct (Nishii, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This level-of-analysis distinction represents a conceptual limitation, and future research employing multilevel designs \u0026mdash; with sufficient within-group agreement indices to justify aggregation \u0026mdash; would be better positioned to test this relationship rigorously (Schneider et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInclusive Climate and Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA statistically significant positive effect of inclusive climate on attitudes toward inclusive education was observed (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.146, p \u0026lt; .001), supporting the proposition that institutional context shapes pre-service teachers' professional dispositions. This finding is consistent with prior evidence that school and organizational climate variables positively predict teachers' attitudes toward inclusion (Fu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Randel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Pre-service teachers who perceive their training environment as more inclusive appear to hold more favorable attitudes toward including diverse learners in mainstream settings, a pattern aligned with research demonstrating that normative institutional cues promote attitudinal alignment with inclusion values (Edmondson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Nishii, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the same time, the effect size is modest (R\u0026sup2; = .021), and this warrants careful interpretation. A substantial body of research demonstrates that attitudes toward inclusive education are shaped by a complex interplay of individual, experiential, and contextual variables, including prior contact with disability, self-efficacy, and training experiences, none of which any single predictor alone accounts for substantially (Avramidis \u0026amp; Norwich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Dignath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Savolainen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Jiang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), for instance, found that empathy influenced attitudes toward inclusive education through a chain mediation involving teaching motivation and inclusive education efficacy, underscoring the relevance of individual-level pathways that the present model does not capture. The present results should therefore be understood as evidence of a meaningful but partial contribution of inclusive climate to attitudinal outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInclusive Climate and Concerns About Inclusive Education\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInclusive climate was found to significantly reduce concerns about inclusive education (β = -0.079, p = .005), indicating that pre-service teachers who perceived a more inclusive institutional environment reported lower levels of anxiety and uncertainty regarding the implementation of inclusive practices. This finding is theoretically coherent within the psychological safety framework: environments characterized by norms of fairness, voice, and non-judgment enable individuals to engage with demanding or unfamiliar tasks without excessive fear of failure or exclusion (Edmondson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Pre-service teachers' concerns about inclusive education including doubts about their pedagogical capacity and uncertainty about resource availability have been consistently documented in the literature as barriers to inclusive practice (Forlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Pov et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Tuncay \u0026amp; Kizilaslan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe finding that inclusive climate partially alleviates such concerns is consistent with Mor Barak et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) observation that inclusive organizational climates reduce the cognitive and emotional burden associated with diversity-related uncertainty. It also resonates with evidence that supportive institutional contexts reduce teachers' concerns about implementing inclusion by signaling that institutional backing is available (Dignath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Fu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, the modest effect size (R\u0026sup2; = .006) reinforces that concerns are also substantially shaped by individual-level variables, including self-efficacy for inclusive teaching, prior direct experience with students with special needs, and access to practical preparation (Li \u0026amp; Cheung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pov et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Future research might explore how inclusive climate interacts with these variables to produce differential effects on concerns across different subgroups of pre-service teachers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Non-Significant Effect of Inclusive Climate on Emotions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe absence of a statistically significant effect of inclusive climate on emotions toward inclusive education (β = -0.056, p = .053) is the most theoretically informative finding of the present study. While a null result might initially appear to undermine the model, it is in fact consistent with well-established theoretical accounts of emotional experience and with emerging evidence on the differential responsiveness of attitudinal versus emotional outcomes to organizational context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmotions, as distinct from attitudes and concerns, are characterized by greater immediacy, subjectivity, and embeddedness in personal history and identity (Schutz \u0026amp; Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). They are particularly resistant to change through macro-level organizational signals because they are rooted in individuals' appraisals of personal goal relevance, coping capacity, and prior experiential history (Frenzel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Self-determination theory similarly holds that affective reactions are primarily governed by perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness at the individual level, rather than by institutional context (Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Prior research has shown that pre-service teachers' emotional responses to inclusive education are strongly shaped by prior contact with disability or marginalized groups and by personal temperamental dispositions, not primarily by the organizational environment in which they are trained (Avramidis \u0026amp; Norwich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Forlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis differential pattern where inclusive climate shapes attitudes and concerns but not emotions is consistent with organizational climate research demonstrating that climate perceptions exert stronger effects on cognitive and evaluative outcomes than on emotional states (Fujimoto \u0026amp; Hartel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Randel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Schneider et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Dignath et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) similarly found in their meta-analysis that while training interventions reliably shifted teachers' cognitive appraisals of inclusive education, emotional reactions were less malleable and more dependent on individual factors. Accordingly, the present null finding should not be interpreted as a weakness of the model but as an empirically expected outcome that contributes nuance to the theoretical claim that organizational climate uniformly influences all dimensions of professional dispositions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research might investigate whether more proximal and interpersonally intense forms of inclusive climate such as direct faculty mentoring, emotion-focused inclusive pedagogy, or structured contact-based learning with diverse learners produce stronger effects on the emotional dimension (Forlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Schutz \u0026amp; Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Mediating Role of Inclusive Climate: Theoretical Contributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mediation analyses confirmed that inclusive climate significantly mediated the relationships between all five sub-dimensions of intercultural sensitivity and both attitudes and concerns toward inclusive education, while exerting no significant indirect effects on emotions. These findings carry several theoretical implications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, they support the integration of organizational climate theory with inclusive education scholarship a connection that, despite its intuitive appeal, has received limited empirical attention in teacher education research (Gavino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Stoermer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). By positioning inclusive climate as a mediating mechanism through which individual-level sensitivity translates into attitudinal and concern-related outcomes, the present model offers a more complete account of the socialization processes at work in teacher preparation than models focusing exclusively on individual-level factors such as beliefs, self-efficacy, and motivation (Dignath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Jiang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the finding that the Interaction Engagement sub-dimension produced the strongest indirect effect on attitudes (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.040, p \u0026lt; .001) is theoretically meaningful. Engagement active and enthusiastic participation in cross-cultural interactions may be particularly salient in shaping inclusive climate perceptions because it is the most behaviorally visible dimension of intercultural sensitivity (Chen \u0026amp; Starosta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals who are observably engaged with diversity signal to others that the institutional environment values such engagement, thereby reinforcing shared inclusive climate perceptions through social learning mechanisms (Bandura \u0026amp; Walters, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the negative indirect effects on concerns (ranging from β = -0.022 to β = -0.009) suggest that intercultural sensitivity, by fostering inclusive climate perceptions, contributes to reducing preparedness-related anxiety among pre-service teachers. This extends the psychological safety framework (Edmondson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) and Mor Barak et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) organizational climate model to the specific context of teacher education, implying that inclusive climates function not merely as affectively positive environments but as practically enabling structures reducing the perceived risk associated with implementing unfamiliar inclusive practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA notable exception within this pattern is the Interaction Enjoyment sub-dimension, which produced a negative indirect effect on attitudes (β = \u0026minus;0.020, p \u0026lt; .001) and a positive indirect effect on concerns (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.011, p = .029), reversing the direction observed for all remaining sub-dimensions. This reversal reflects Interaction Enjoyment's negative direct path to inclusive climate in the structural model and may indicate that pre-service teachers who derive strong personal enjoyment from intercultural interactions apply more demanding evaluative standards to their institutional environment, perceiving existing climate conditions as comparatively insufficient relative to their own engagement. This interpretation aligns with evidence that affectively invested individuals hold heightened expectations of organizational inclusion (Nishii, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and represents a direction worthy of further theoretical and empirical attention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Turkish Teacher Education\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings carry particular relevance for the Turkish teacher education context, where inclusive education policy has undergone substantial reform in recent decades, yet implementation remains uneven across institutions (Kula, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Se\u0026ccedil;er, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). The present sample drawn from 15 public universities and representing 11 teacher education programs provides a broad cross-sectional picture of pre-service teacher perceptions across the system. Pre-service teachers in Turkey continue to report notable concerns about implementing inclusive education, a pattern documented in prior Turkish research and consistent with the findings of the present study (Tuncay \u0026amp; Kizilaslan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evidence that inclusive climate partially mediates the relationship between intercultural sensitivity and attitudinal and concern-related outcomes suggests that systemic, institution-level efforts to build inclusive climates rather than relying solely on individual-level training may be a more efficient lever for improving inclusive education preparedness. This aligns with calls in the organizational and educational literature for institution-level strategies including inclusive leadership development, diversity policy formalization, and the structural integration of inclusion-related content across curricula (Ashikali et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Desivilya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In practical terms, such strategies may include diversifying faculty hiring to reflect the demographic composition of student populations, embedding intercultural competence as an explicit criterion in faculty evaluation and development frameworks, and designing structured opportunities for pre-service teachers to engage with diverse peers and communities across their programs rather than through isolated course-level interventions. Given that Turkey is still in an active phase of reforming its approach to inclusive education, these implications carry practical relevance for program designers and educational policymakers (Kula, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Se\u0026ccedil;er, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the same time, the null effect on emotions serves as a caution against overstating the transformative potential of institutional climate interventions. Emotional readiness for inclusive teaching appears to be a more refractory outcome, likely requiring individual-level interventions including emotion regulation training, reflective practice, and direct contact experiences with diverse learners that operate beyond the scope of organizational climate as measured in the present study (Forlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Schutz \u0026amp; Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference; the relationships identified in the structural model should be interpreted as associational rather than directional (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Longitudinal or experimental designs would be required to establish temporal precedence and causal status. Second, all variables were measured through self-report instruments administered on a single occasion, raising the possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). While the use of PLS-SEM with bootstrapping and HTMT-based discriminant validity assessment partially mitigates this concern, common method bias cannot be fully ruled out. Third, inclusive climate was operationalized at the individual level of analysis, while its conceptual definition implies a shared collective perception; future research employing multilevel designs with appropriate aggregation criteria would address this limitation more rigorously (Nishii, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Schneider et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Fourth, the sample was restricted to public universities in Turkey, which limits generalizability to private institutions and to teacher education systems in other national contexts. Finally, the modest internal consistency of the Attitudes (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.67) and Concerns (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.65) subscales of the SACIE-R, though reported as acceptable in the original validation (Forlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), suggests that measurement precision for these constructs may be limited.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study set out to examine whether inclusive climate mediates the relationship between intercultural sensitivity and pre-service teachers' attitudes, emotions, and concerns toward inclusive education. Using PLS-SEM with a large, multi-institutional sample of 1,237 pre-service teachers drawn from 15 public universities across Turkey, the findings provide empirical support for a theoretically grounded mediation model with one important and theoretically expected boundary condition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntercultural sensitivity emerged as a robust predictor of inclusive climate perceptions, and inclusive climate in turn exerted significant positive effects on attitudes and significant negative effects on concerns about inclusive education. Critically, inclusive climate mediated all five sub-dimensions of intercultural sensitivity through to both of these outcomes, with the Interaction Engagement sub-dimension producing the strongest indirect effects. These results establish inclusive climate as a meaningful institutional mechanism not merely a background condition through which individual-level diversity dispositions translate into professionally relevant outcomes during teacher preparation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe null effect of inclusive climate on the emotional dimension of inclusive education dispositions is not an anomaly but an empirically coherent finding, consistent with theoretical accounts of emotion as a less organizationally malleable construct than attitudes or concerns (Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Frenzel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Schneider et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This differential pattern adds nuance to existing models of inclusive education preparation and suggests that emotional readiness warrants distinct, individually targeted interventions beyond the reach of climate-level change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the findings make two principal contributions to the field. Theoretically, they extend organizational climate theory into teacher education contexts by empirically demonstrating that inclusive climate functions as a socialization mechanism connecting faculty-level intercultural sensitivity to student-level professional dispositions a linkage that prior research had proposed conceptually but rarely tested structurally (Gavino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Stoermer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Practically, they suggest that teacher education institutions seeking to improve inclusive education preparedness should invest not only in individual-level competency training but in the systemic cultivation of inclusive organizational climates \u0026mdash; through inclusive leadership, policy coherence, and the structural embedding of diversity values across programs (Ashikali et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Desivilya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Nishii, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor Turkish teacher education specifically, where inclusive reform remains a work in progress and pre-service teachers consistently report preparedness-related concerns (Kula, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Tuncay \u0026amp; Kizilaslan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the present findings offer a timely and actionable institutional framework: building inclusive climates is not merely a pedagogical aspiration but an empirically supported lever for reducing the concerns and improving the attitudes of the next generation of teachers.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e This study was approved by Kocaeli University Institute of Social and Human Sciences Directorate Ethics Committee with the decision dated 18/02/2026 and numbered 2026/03. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e The authors confirm that all procedures performed in this study were in accordance with ethical standards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe author declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential competing interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is supported by Kocaeli University Scientific Research Projects Unit (Project No.: SBA-2026-4951).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSP: Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, Data collection, Formal analysis, Visualization, Supervision, Validation; SD: Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, Data collection, Resources; \u0026Ccedil;\u0026Ccedil;: Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, Data collection, Methodology; HDOR: Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, Data collection;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank Kocaeli University for this study supported by Kocaeli University Scientific Research Projects Unit under Grant 2026\u0026ndash;4951.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Shammari Z, Faulkner PE, Forlin C. Theories-based inclusive education practice. Educ Q Reviews. 2019;2(2):408\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.02.02.73\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.31014/aior.1993.02.02.73\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAshikali T, Groeneveld S, Kuipers B. The role of inclusive leadership in supporting an inclusive climate in diverse public sector teams. Rev Public Personnel Adm. 2021;41(3):497\u0026ndash;519. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19899722\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0734371X19899722\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAvramidis E, Norwich B. Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. Eur J Special Needs Educ. 2002;17(2):129\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08856250210129056\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall; 1986.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura A, Walters RH. Social learning theory. Volume 1. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1977. pp. 141\u0026ndash;54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen GM, Starosta WJ. A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity. Hum Communication. 1997;1(1):1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen GM, Starosta WJ. The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale. Hum Communication. 2000;3(1):1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeardorff DK. Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. J Stud Int Educ. 2006;10(3):241\u0026ndash;66. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1028315306287002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeci EL, Ryan RM. The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDesivilya H, Borochowitz DY, Bouknik S, Kalovski G, Lavy I, Ore L. Engaging diversity in academia: Manifold voices of faculty. Equality Divers Inclusion: Int J. 2017;36(1):90\u0026ndash;104. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2016-0074\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EDI-09-2016-0074\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. SAGE; 1991.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDignath C, Rimm-Kaufman S, Van Ewijk R, Kunter M. Teachers' beliefs about inclusive education and insights on what contributes to those beliefs: A meta-analytical study. Educational Psychol Rev. 2022;34(4):2609\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09695-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10648-022-09695-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/266699\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/266699\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEhrhart MG, Schneider B, Macey WH. Organizational climate and culture: An introduction to theory, research, and practice. Routledge; 2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eForlin C, Earle C, Loreman T, Sharma U. The Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service teachers' perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Educ Int. 2011;21(3):50\u0026ndash;65. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v21i3.7682\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5206/eei.v21i3.7682\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eForlin C, Loreman T, Sharma U, Earle C. Demographic differences in changing pre-service teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education. Int J Incl Educ. 2009;13(2):195\u0026ndash;209. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701365356\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13603110701365356\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/3151312\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/3151312\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrenzel AC, Goetz T, Stephens EJ, Jacob B. Antecedents and Effects of Teachers\u0026rsquo; Emotional Experiences: An Integrated Perspective and Empirical Test. In: Schutz P, Zembylas M, editors. Advances in Teacher Emotion Research. Boston, MA: Springer; 2009. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0564-2_7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-1-4419-0564-2_7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFu W, He X, Sun Y, Wang C, Wang J, Dong Y. The relationship between school climate and general teachers' attitude toward inclusion in China: The mediation effect of teachers' efficacy. Int J Dev Disabil. 2023;69(4):602\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2021.1985919\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/20473869.2021.1985919\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFujimoto Y, Hartel CEJ. Organizational diversity learning framework: Going beyond diversity training programs. Personnel Rev. 2017;46(6):1120\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2015-0254\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/PR-09-2015-0254\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGavino MC, Lambert J, Akinlade E. Diversity climate of respect and the impact on faculty extra role behaviors. J Bus Divers. 2021;21(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.33423/jbd.v21i3.4432\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.33423/jbd.v21i3.4432\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. (2017). \u003cem\u003eA primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd Ed.).\u003c/em\u003e SAGE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev. 2019;31(1):2\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHammer MR, Bennett MJ, Wiseman R. Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. Int J Intercultural Relations. 2003;27(4):421\u0026ndash;43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43(1):115\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHumes LE, Burk MH, Strauser LE, Kinney DL. Development and efficacy of a frequent-word auditory training protocol for older adults with impaired hearing. Ear Hear. 2009;30(5):613\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181b00d90\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181b00d90\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJames LR, Jones AP. Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychol Bull. 1974;81(12):1096. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/h0037511\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/h0037511\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang N, Li H, Ju SY, Kong LK, Li J. Pre-service teachers\u0026rsquo; empathy and attitudes toward inclusive education\u0026mdash;The chain mediating role of teaching motivation and inclusive education efficacy. PLoS ONE. 2025;20(4):e0321066. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321066\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0321066\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKnight T. Inclusive education and educational theory: Inclusive for what? Crit Stud Educ. 2000;41(1):17\u0026ndash;43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17508480009556342\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17508480009556342\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKula SS. Metaphorical perceptions of pre-service teachers about inclusive education and the effects of an inclusive education course on perspectives about the teaching profession in T\u0026uuml;rkiye. Teach Educ. 2025;36(4):430\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2025.2549804\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10476210.2025.2549804\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee JA. (2010). Students' perceptions of and satisfaction with faculty diversity. Coll Student J, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi KM, Cheung RY. Pre-service teachers\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education in Hong Kong: The roles of attitudes, sentiments, and concerns. Int J Disabil Dev Educ. 2021;68(2):259\u0026ndash;69. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1678743\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1034912X.2019.1678743\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi Y, Perera S, Kulik CT, Metz I. Inclusion climate: A multilevel investigation of its antecedents and consequences. Hum Resour Manag. 2019;58(4):353\u0026ndash;69. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21956\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/hrm.21956\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi Y, Shao Y, Wang M, Fang Y, Gong Y, Li C. From inclusive climate to organizational innovation: Examining internal and external enablers for knowledge management capacity. J Appl Psychol. 2022;107(12):2285. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001014\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/apl0001014\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindsay G. Inclusive education theory and practice: What does this mean for paediatricians? Paediatrics Child Health. 2018;28(8):368\u0026ndash;73. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paed.2018.06.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paed.2018.06.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaruyama G, Moreno JF. (2000). University faculty views about the value of diversity on campus and in the classroom. In Does diversity make a difference? Three research studies on diversity in college classrooms (pp. 9\u0026ndash;35). \u003cem\u003eAmerican Council on Education \u0026amp; American Association of University Professors\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMayhew MJ, Grunwald HE. Factors contributing to faculty incorporation of diversity-related course content. J High Educ. 2006;77(1):148\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1353/jhe.2006.0005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMor Barak ME, Luria G, Brimhall KC. What leaders say versus what they do: Inclusive leadership, policy-practice decoupling, and the anomaly of climate for inclusion. Group Organ Manage. 2022;47(4):840\u0026ndash;71. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211005916\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/10596011211005916\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNelissen PT, H\u0026uuml;lsheger UR, van Ruitenbeek GM, Zijlstra FR. Lending a helping hand at work: A multilevel investigation of prosocial motivation, inclusive climate and inclusive behavior. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(3):467\u0026ndash;76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9680-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10926-016-9680-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNishii LH. The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Acad Manag J. 2013;56(6):1754\u0026ndash;74. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/amj.2009.0823\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePodsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879\u0026ndash;903. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePov S, Sharma U, Loreman T. Pre-service teachers' preparation for inclusive practices in Cambodia: Experience, self-efficacy and concerns about inclusion. J Res Special Educational Needs. 2025;25:118\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12715\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1471-3802.12715\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRandel AE, Galvin BM, Shore LM, Ehrhart KH, Chung BG, Dean MA, Kedharnath U. Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2018;28(2):190\u0026ndash;203. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRengi O. (2014). Sınıf \u0026ouml;ğretmenlerinin k\u0026uuml;lt\u0026uuml;rel farklılık algıları ve k\u0026uuml;lt\u0026uuml;rlerarası duyarlılıkları [Master\u0026rsquo;s Thesis] Kocaeli University.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRingle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M. (2024). \u003cem\u003eSmartPLS 4\u003c/em\u003e. SmartPLS. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.smartpls.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.smartpls.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSavolainen H, Engelbrecht P, Nel M, Malinen OP. Understanding teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education. Eur J Special Needs Educ. 2012;27(1):51\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.613603\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08856257.2011.613603\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchneider B, Ehrhart MG, Macey WH. Organizational climate and culture. Ann Rev Psychol. 2013;64(1):361\u0026ndash;88. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchutz PA, Pekrun R, editors. Emotion in Education. Academic; 2007.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSe\u0026ccedil;er Z. An analysis of the effects of in-service teacher training on Turkish preschool teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes towards inclusion. Int J Early Years Educ. 2010;18(1):43\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09669761003693959\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09669761003693959\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharma U, Forlin C, Loreman T. Impact of training on pre-service teachers' attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disabil Soc. 2008;23(7):773\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469271\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09687590802469271\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShore LM, Cleveland JN, Sanchez D. Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2018;28(2):176\u0026ndash;89. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStoermer S, Hildisch AK, Froese FJ. Culture matters: The influence of national culture on inclusion climate. Cross Cult Strategic Manage. 2016;23(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-11-2014-0135\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/CCSM-11-2014-0135\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTuncay AA, Kizilaslan A. Pre-service teachers\u0026rsquo; sentiments, attitudes and concerns about inclusive education in Turkey. Eur J Special Needs Educ. 2022;37(2):309\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1873524\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08856257.2021.1873524\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eV\u0026aacute;zquez-Montilla E, Wilder LK, Triscari R. Ethnically diverse faculty in higher ed: Belonging, respect, and role as cultural broker. Multicultural Learn Teach. 2012;7(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1515/2161-2412.1097\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/2161-2412.1097\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeber KE, Greiner F. Development of pre-service teachers' self‐efficacy beliefs and attitudes towards inclusive education through first teaching experiences. J Res Special Educational Needs. 2019;19:73\u0026ndash;84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12479\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1471-3802.12479\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWunsch MA, Chattergy V. Managing diversity through faculty development. Improve Academic: Resour Student Fac Institutional Dev. 1991;10:141\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"inclusive climate, intercultural sensitivity, inclusive education, pre-service teachers, PLS-SEM, teacher education","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9520774/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9520774/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the mediating role of inclusive climate in the relationship between faculty members' intercultural sensitivity and pre-service teachers' attitudes, sentiments, and concerns toward inclusive education. Drawing on organizational climate theory and social learning theory, a mediation model was tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with a cross-sectional sample of 1,237 pre-service teachers enrolled in third and fourth years across 15 public universities in Turkey. Intercultural sensitivity was measured via the Chen and Starosta (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) scale, inclusive climate via the Nishii (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) scale, and inclusive education dispositions via the SACIE-R (Forlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Results revealed that intercultural sensitivity was a strong positive predictor of inclusive climate perceptions (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.561, p \u0026lt; .001), which in turn significantly improved attitudes (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.146, p \u0026lt; .001) and reduced concerns (β = \u0026minus;0.079, p = .005) toward inclusive education. Mediation analyses confirmed that inclusive climate transmitted the effects of all five intercultural sensitivity sub-dimensions to both attitudinal and concern-related outcomes. Notably, inclusive climate exerted no significant effect on the sentiments dimension (β = \u0026minus;0.056, p = .053), a finding theoretically consistent with accounts of emotion as a less organizationally malleable construct than attitudes or concerns. These findings extend organizational climate theory into teacher education contexts and suggest that building inclusive institutional climates rather than relying solely on individual-level training constitutes an empirically supported lever for improving inclusive education preparedness among pre-service teachers.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Mediating Role of Inclusive Climate in the Relationship between Faculty Members’ Respect for Diversity and Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes, Emotions, and Concerns Toward Inclusive Education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-28 14:25:08","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9520774/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"98d6c534-3500-4a20-bc32-cc794a8e8baa","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 28th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Rejected","date":"2026-05-14T11:43:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-14T11:55:53+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-28 14:25:08","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9520774","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9520774","identity":"rs-9520774","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}