The climate change distress and impairment scale: Introduction of the measure and first findings on pro-environmental behavior

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1986606/v1

Download PDF

Article

The climate change distress and impairment scale: Introduction of the measure and first findings on pro-environmental behavior

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1986606/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 11 Jul, 2023

Read the published version in Scientific Reports →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Governmental agencies and the medical and psychological professions are calling for a greater focus on the negative mental health effects of climate change (CC). As a first step, the field needs measures to distinguish non-pathological levels of affective/emotional distress over CC from resulting impairment that requires further scientific and diagnostic attention and may require treatment in the future. To this end, we constructed the climate change distress and impairment scale, which distinguishes CC distress (spanning anger, anxiety, and sadness) from impairment. In four studies (N = 1699), we developed and validated English and German versions of the scale. Across samples, we observed moderate to high levels of distress and low to moderate levels of impairment. In three English-speaking samples, younger individuals and women were most affected by CC distress, whereas this was not the case in a German-speaking sample. We demonstrate convergent validity with previous measures and discriminant validity for general negative affectivity and depressive and generalized anxiety disorder symptoms, which underlines that CC distress is not in itself pathological. Employing a fully incentivized social dilemma paradigm, we further demonstrate that CC distress and (to a lesser degree) CC impairment predict pro-environmental behavior, outlining them as possible drivers of climate-change mitigation efforts.

Climate change

climate change distress

climate anxiety

pro-environmental behavior

greater goods game

zThe effects of climate change, including the warming of the atmosphere, the loss of biodiversity, and increases in natural disasters are the central crisis humanity faces in the current century^1,2. With the effects of climate change unequivocally progressing, recent years have seen increased public³ and scientific⁴ interest in the negative consequences climate change has for people’s mental health. There is now substantial evidence linking the effects of climate change to increases in the prevalence of various types of psychopathology⁵. In their climate change reports, the American and Australian Psychological Associations document a rise in mental disorders, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, following acute natural disasters^6,7. In addition to natural disasters, rising temperature levels and heat waves have repeatedly been linked to increased rates of psychopathology^8,9 and interpersonal violence^10–12.

Even below the threshold of psychopathology, concerns about climate change are associated with negative psychological outcomes, such as stress or anxiety^13,14. Importantly, these reactions emerge because of the mere awareness of climate change and not necessarily as the result of direct exposure to natural catastrophes. Thus, literally everyone who is aware of climate change is part of the group at risk⁴. Resulting from this, researchers have started to investigate constructs such as eco-anxiety (anxiety about the consequences and progression of climate change and a sense of threat⁴), ecological grief (grief as a response to environmental degradation and loss of species or beloved environments¹⁵), and solastalgia (distress and sense of loss due to change to a home environment¹⁶). Importantly, although these affective reactions can be associated with mental health issues¹², they are not pathological in and of themselves, but considered a natural reaction to an existential threat¹⁶.

Nonetheless, professional voices in psychiatry and clinical psychology have started a call to consider negative affective reactions to climate change a potential mental health concern and underline the necessity for the field to develop ways to measure and address it^17–19. As with all clinical constructs, a crucial issue will be to distinguish the affective reaction, which is not in itself pathological, from impairment that results from it and that would render the affective reaction a potential treatment target. Using the analogy of arachnophobia, many people feel some level of fear toward spiders. Yet, only those who experience substantial impairment from this fear, who, for instance, can no longer enter their own basement and move freely around their house when a spider is inside, would be considered to have arachnophobia. The same distinction will be necessary for differentiating non-pathological affective reactions to climate change from those that cause substantial impairment⁴.

Past work has made important progress in measuring affective reactions to climate change^14,20–22 but no measure has yet been published that distinguishes the affective reaction from an impairment component. The only measure that, to date, addresses impairment is the climate anxiety scale²³. The scale comprises subscales for cognitive-affective impairment, functional impairment, climate change exposure, and behavioral (pro-environmental) engagement. The two impairment subscales together form the climate change anxiety scale. Thus, the anxiety and the impairment component are not separated in this inventory, but it highlights the central role of impairment for understanding climate change distress.

The present studies

There is currently no scale that assesses different types of affect in response to climate change and differentiates them from resulting impairment, even though both are necessary to inform future research on the contexts in which affective reactions to climate change may become pathological and require treatment. Consequently, the aims of the present studies were threefold. First, we aimed to develop a scale that covers different negative affects in response to climate change: anxiety, anger, sadness, and guilt. Henceforth, we will refer to the group of these four negative affects as climate change distress (CCD). In addition to CCD items, we aimed to develop items to measure climate change impairment (CCI) that cover general, social, and work/school related impairment. We tested the initial item pool of the resulting Climate Change Distress and Impairment Scale (CC-DIS) in Study 1, validated the factor solution in Study 2, and established structural, convergent, and discriminant validity in Study 3.

Second, we aimed to investigate the criterion validity of the CCD and CCI by testing whether they predict pro-environmental behavior (PEB). PEB is defined as behavior that consciously aims at avoiding or minimizing one's negative impact on the natural world^24,25. A recent review²⁶ identified affective responses towards climate change as one of the key drivers of PEB and support for climate change mitigation policy. For instance, anger and frustration motivated individual and collective pro-environmental behavior such as buying locally or joining political protests²¹. Therefore, we hypothesized that CCD and CCI would be associated with increased levels of PEB. We tested this in Study 4, where we measured PEB in an incentivized social dilemma.

Third, we aimed to assess the prevalence of CCD and CCI in different demographic groups. We hypothesized that CCD and CCI show a negative association with age, such that younger individuals are more affected. This follows from previous work showing that younger individuals (aged 18-36) repeatedly reported increased levels of negative emotions in reaction to climate change^14,23,27,28. Moreover, in a recent sample of 10,000 young persons from ten socio-culturally diverse countries across the globe, more than 45% of participants (aged 16-25) stated that their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily lives, suggesting increased levels of CCI in this age cohort²⁹. In addition to age, we assessed effects of gender, aiming to replicate previous findings of increased rates of negative climate change-associated emotions in women^14,23. As women are more vulnerable to the consequences of climate change³⁰, we expected higher levels of CCI than in men.

JH and SAK developed the initial item pool of 84 items covering anxiety about the consequences of climate change, sadness about the losses already incurred by climate change, anger about the climate-related actions of other individuals or entities, and guilt about one’s own role in climate change. The inclusion of these four negative affects reflects the breadth of emotions relevant to climate change^21,31, follows established emotion models^32,33, and reflects common sources of psychopathology^34,35. Sixteen items each covered anger, sadness, anxiety, and guilt with half the number of items reverse-coded. Twenty items covered general impairment, social impairment, and work/school related impairment (again, half were reverse-coded). Next, we sought feedback on the cultural relevance of the item content and item comprehensibility from English native speakers in Australia, India, Ireland, South Africa, and the USA and adjusted the wording of several items. For the full item list, see supplemental Table S1 (all supplemental materials available at https://osf.io/eprdw/).

Method

Procedure: Ethics approval for Studies 1-3 was granted by the medical ethics committee II at Heidelberg University (ID 2021-543). All research was performed in accordance with the regulations specified in the ethics approval and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. In all three studies, participants provided informed consent prior to participation and were guaranteed complete anonymity. Studies were conducted online via the panel provider prolific.co. For Study 1, we recruited 403 participants³⁶ for a study on “negative emotions and climate change” in May 2021. After providing consent, participants answered demographic questions and completed the CCD and CCI items. Items were answered on a 5 point Likert-type scale (1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-neutral [neither agree nor disagree], 4-agree, 5-strongly agree). Mean completion time was 10.14 min and participants were paid £1.25, which equals the £7.50/hr wage recommended by prolific as of May 2021.

Participants: Inclusion criteria were being 18 years of age or older and fluent in English. Following data collection, we excluded 19 total participants (4.7%) from the analyses: one due to a low completion time (less than 2s per item), and 18 because they indicated they did not believe in anthropogenic climate change. Participants who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change were excluded for the initial scale development because we expected the majority of items not to apply to them, or for them to experience distress for reasons other than those covered by the scale (e.g., as a result of mitigation/education efforts they do not support). This group should be studied further, but was beyond the scope of the initial scale development. The final sample consisted of N = 384 participants and detailed demographic data is presented in Table S2. Participants were aged 18 to 65 years (M = 26.41, SD = 8.68), with the majority of participants identifying as male (58.3%), and white (88.5%). All participants were either native speakers (16.7%) or fluent (83.3%) in English.

Data analysis: Analyses for all studies were conducted in R. Data and code are available at https://osf.io/eprdw/. Following guidelines for scale construction³⁶, in the first step of item selection we excluded only the worst performing items to moderately decrease the item pool. First, we recoded reverse-coded items so that higher scores reflected greater distress or impairment. We then excluded items that correlated below <.20 with other items of their designated subscale. If several items correlated <.20, we excluded items successively, starting with the item with the most inter-item-correlations <.20. The guilt items performed poorly overall, with many of them showing null or even negative correlations with other items. In addition to inter-item correlations, we took into account item distributions and scale content (retaining some items to maintain breadth of the construct and excluding others that closely overlapped with other items or did not fit the construct as well). See Table S3 and R script for a detailed description of exclusion decisions for each item, Tables S4-S8 for correlation matrices and the supplemental figure folder on osf for boxplots. After this initial step of item selection, we retained 15 anger, 11 sadness, 12 anxiety, 4 guilt, and 15 impairment items.

Using the remaining item pool, we performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the psych package³⁷ with maximum likelihood extraction and Varimax rotation. Based on our a-priori reasoning that items reflected the four negative affects anger, sadness, anxiety, and guilt, as well as an impairment factor, we initially extracted five factors, aiming to investigate whether the four affects would form distinct subscales.

Results

The factor-loading matrix for the five-factor solution is presented in Table S9. Overall, the five-factor solution was not easily interpretable and did not reflect the hypothesized factor structure with one factor for each negative affect and one for impairment. The screeplot (see supplemental figures) suggested a two-factor solution as a more appropriate representation of the factor structure. We therefore conducted another EFA, extracting two factors (see Table S10). The factor solution showed that all except five negative affect items loaded >.35 on the first factor that accounted for 23% of variance in item ratings. All impairment items showed factor loadings >.42 on the second factor that accounted for 14% of variance. Three sadness items and one guilt item had cross-loadings on Factor 2. Upon closer inspection, their content reflected lack of control or depression-like feelings (e.g., “Climate change makes me feel hopeless.”), which could explain their loadings on the impairment factor. Overall, the factor-solution indicated a two-factor structure that well distinguished affect from impairment items.

In Study 1, we observed that the structure underlying our items was best represented by a two-factor solution reflecting CCD (across all four affects) and CCI, rather than four specific affect scales. Additionally, we observed that the guilt items underperformed psychometrically. We reasoned that this may have resulted from the reverse-coded guilt items not appropriately reflecting low or absent guilt, but rather a state of contentment with one’s own actions regarding climate change. Some items could also have performed poorly because they more strongly reflected attitudes about CC rather than emotions resulting from it (e.g., “I feel that I am not doing enough to stop climate change.”). Lastly, climate change-associated guilt itself may heavily depend on the individual’s appraisal whether and how much they can contribute to mitigating climate change. If an individual appraises their own behavioral options as negligible, they may experience minimal guilt even though they are otherwise emotionally affected by climate change. Nonetheless, before discarding the guilt construct entirely, we decided to develop a set of 11 new guilt items to add to the item pool administered in Study 2 (see Table S11 for item list).

Method

Procedure: Study advertisement, payment scheme, and procedure were identical to Study 1. Data were collected in September of 2021. Mean completion time was 7.04 min and participants were again paid £1.25. As participants were faster than the expected 10 minutes (M = 7.04, SD = 2.12); their payoff equaled a £10.79/hr wage. A filter implemented on prolific.co ensured that participants who completed Study 1 were not able to participate in Study 2.

Participants: We recruited 450 native English speakers, who all indicated they believed in anthropogenic climate change. After excluding three participants due to a low completion time, the final sample included N = 447 participants. Participants were aged between 18 and 75 years (M = 33.64, SD = 12.62), and a majority identified as female (52.8%) and white (78.3%). For detailed demographic data, see Table S2.

Data analysis: First, we conducted an EFA to determine whether, with the new guilt items, the factor structure approximated five factors or whether the two factor solution would again better represented the data. We did this before inspecting inter-item correlations to determine whether we should consider inter-item correlations within the four specific negative affects or across them. The Varimax rotated factor-loading matrix for the five-factor solution is presented in Table S12. As in Study 1, this factor solution did not well-reflect four affect subscales. We thus repeated the EFA, extracting two factors using maximum likelihood, and the Varimax rotated factors again indicated a distress and an impairment factor (see Table S13 for the factor loading matrix and online supplement for the screeplot). The factor solution indicated that inspection of inter-item correlations should be conducted within the group of distress and impairment items (not considering the four different negative affects). Mirroring the procedure in Study 1, we excluded items with inter-item correlations <.20, as well as poorly distributed items with restricted variance or pronounced skewness. During this step, we took into account item content in order to retain breadth of the construct. See Table S3 for details on item exclusion based on these indices, Tables S14 and S15 for correlation matrices and online supplement for boxplots. In this step, all guilt items were removed. The new set of guilt items also showed very low, and in many cases negative, correlations with the other affect items. Hence, the initial goal of covering CC-related guilt was set aside, as the guilt items performed poorly psychometrically in both samples.

Using the 42 items that remained following the initial selection process, we performed an EFA, extracting two factors using maximum likelihood and performing Varimax rotation (see Table S16 for the factor loading matrix). Following guidelines for scale construction³⁶ we excluded items with main loadings <.50 or cross-loadings >.35. Following this, 36 items remained. Since we aimed for a scale with an equal coverage of anger, anxiety, and sadness items and an overall length that allows inclusion in large-scale surveys (which typically have very limited space), we decided to select the best 5 items per affect to cover the breadth of the distress construct. Additionally, we selected the 8 best performing impairment items. Thus, we retained 23 items, including five anger, sadness, and anxiety items each, and eight impairment items (6 general, 1 social, 1 work-related). We took care to retain not only positively, but also reverse-coded items, which resulted in the final scale comprising nine reverse-coded items. Table 1 shows the final item set.

With the final item set, we performed a CFA, specifying a latent factor for distress (onto which the anger, sadness, and anxiety items should load), an impairment factor (onto which all impairment items should load), and a method factor onto which all reverse-coded items were specified to load³⁸. We fixed the variances of the latent factors to 1 and estimated covariances between the latent factors.

Results

Variances, covariances, and path coefficients for the CFA on the final item set are presented in Table S17. Fit indices indicated adequate model fit (CFI = .904, TLI = .888, SRMR = .069, RMSEA = .072). All distress items loaded >.425 onto the distress factor. All impairment items loaded >.512 onto the impairment factor. All reverse-coded items loaded >.213 on the method factor. The distress and the impairment factor were moderately positively correlated (r = .287, p <.001). The method factor did not significantly correlate with either the distress factor (r = .085, p = .219) or the impairment factor (r = -0.124, p = .117), substantiating its inclusion to primarily account for response bias.

In Study 3, we aimed to establish convergent and discriminant validity of the CC distress and CC impairment subscales. For this purpose, we asked participants to respond to the CCD and CCI items and other self-report scales that measure CCD- and CCI-like constructs for convergent validity, and measures for similar but theoretically distinct constructs surrounding negative affectivity and nature relatedness.

Method

Procedure: Recruitment strategy, study advertisement, payment scheme, and filters mirrored those of Studies 1 and 2. Data were collected in September of 2021. Participants first completed demographic information and the CCD and CCI items, and then completed measures to assess convergent and discriminant validity that were presented in random order. Mean completion time was 20.02 mins (SD = 7.13) and participants were paid £7.50/hr.

Participants: We initially recruited 401 participants, of which we excluded seven due to a low completion time and 20 because they indicated they did not believe in anthropogenic climate change (6.7% overall). The final sample included N = 374 native English-speaking participants aged between 18 and 59 years (M = 30.71, SD = 9.18). A majority of participants identified as female (50.3%) and white (49.5%). For demographic details, see Table S2.

Measures: A detailed description of all measures used to assess convergent and discriminant validity is provided in the online supplement. To establish convergent validity of CCD, we included the seven items on distress about the consequences of climate change by Hornsey and colleagues²⁰. Additionally, we included the 22-item climate anxiety scale ²³, expecting CCI to show convergent validity with the cognitive-emotional impairment and functional impairment subscales from this measure. We expected the correlations between CCD and the items by Hornsey and colleagues²⁰, as well as the correlations between CCI and the impairment subscales to be higher than the correlations observed for measures of discriminant validity.

To examine discriminant validity in the clinical domain, we aimed to establish whether CCD and CCI are distinct, climate change-specific constructs rather than a by-product of a general negative appraisal of the world, such as occurring during major depression or generalized anxiety. To this end, we assessed symptoms of major depression with the 21-item Beck-Depression-Inventory II (BDI-II³⁹) and included a screener for symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, the GAD-7⁴⁰. Beyond this, we aimed to establish that CCI measures a construct distinct from a low general quality of life as assessed by the 8-item EUROHIS-QOL⁴¹. Additionally, we deemed it important to demonstrate that CCD is distinct from general negative affect (and not just a facet of a generally negative affective landscape), and therefore measured positive and negative affect with the 60-item PANAS-X⁴², as well as neuroticism with the 12 item neuroticism subscale of the NEO-FFI⁴³.

Lastly, we aimed to establish discriminant validity in the environmental domain and show that CCD and CCI are distinct from nature relatedness, assessed with the Nature Relatedness Scale⁴⁴, and environmental attitudes, assessed with the Revised New Environmental Paradigm Scale⁴⁵.

Results

Boxplots for the final item set are presented in the online supplement. Correlation tables are presented in Tables S18 and S19. We repeated the CFA with the same specifications as in Study 2 (latent distress, impairment, and method factors). Variances, covariances, and path coefficients are presented in Table S20. Fit indices indicated good fit (CFI=.939, TLI=.930, RMSEA=.057, SRMR=.074). As in Study 2, the distress and impairment factors were mildly positively correlated (r=.192, p=.001), whereas the distress and the method factor were not significantly correlated (r=-0.127, p=.072) and neither were the impairment and the method factor (r=-.007, p=.913). All distress items loaded >.360 onto the latent distress factor, all impairment items loaded >.458 onto the impairment factor, and all reverse-coded items loaded >.475 onto the method factor. Internal consistency for the distress scale was excellent with α=.92, Ω=.92. Internal consistency for the impairment scale was high with α=.89, Ω =.88.

Next, we tested convergent and discriminant validity (see Table 2 and Figure 1). As hypothesized, CCD showed the highest correlation with distress about the consequences of climate change²⁰ at r=.64. CCI showed the highest correlations with cognitive-emotional impairment (r=.72) and functional impairment (r=.66), as measured with the climate change anxiety scale²³. Thus, convergent validity for CCD and CCI was established. Discriminant validity for CCD and CCI was established in the clinical domain, as depression, GAD, negative affect, neuroticism, and quality of life all correlated <.30 with CCD and <.12 with CCI. CCI also showed a near null correlation with environmental attitudes (r=-.09) and a moderate correlation with nature relatedness (r=.30), suggesting discriminant validity in the environmental domain. For CCD, the picture was less clear, as it correlated strongly with environmental attitudes (r=.62) and moderately with nature relatedness (r=.49).

As a further validation of our scale, we investigated whether CCD and CCI predict pro-environmental behavior (PEB). To account for the problem of heavy use of self-reports and the associated distortions in previous studies investigating CCD-like constructs as predictors of PEB^46,47, we relied on an incentivized social dilemma paradigm^48,49. We hypothesized that higher levels of CCD and CCI would be associated with a higher probability of showing PEB.

Method

Procedure: The requirement for ethics approval was waived by the IRB because all data in the study were collected in a completely anonymous fashion, and the included constructs were not expected to cause participants undue distress. Data for this study were collected via the German online panel provider respondi.de as part of the Prosocial Personality Project, a large-scale web-based study across six base measurement occasions and several follow-up assessments. More information on the project, including verbatim items, sample sizes, each measurement occasion, and exclusion criteria is available at https://osf.io/m2abp/. At the beginning of the assessment, participants provided informed consent and demographic data. The German version of the CC-DIS was assessed at follow-up 2021-11a, as was the behavioral paradigm used to measure PEB, the Greater Good Game⁴⁸. Following self-report questionnaires, we asked participants to indicate whether they believed the quality of their provided data to be sufficient to be included in our analysis. At the end, participants were debriefed about the goals of this specific measurement wave of the PPP.

Participants: The final sample consisted of 494 participants who provided valid answers for the GGG and CDD and CCI items, passed an attention check, answered the quality check positively, and did not provide invalid answers to more than 50% of the scales collected at this measurement occasion. In line with the general a priori exclusion criteria set for the PPP (see https://osf.io/m2abp/), we considered responses to a given scale as invalid if we suspected inattentive response behavior (defined as response times of less than 2 seconds per item on average and/or very low variation on that scale, i.e., SD = 0). Participants were between 22 and 72 (M = 49.76, SD = 11.14) years old. All of them identified as cis-gender (37.2% female, 62.8% male), and the majority were of German nationality (96.4%).

Measures: For the German version of the CC-DIS, JH and SAK translated the items into German and a bilingual colleague conducted the back-translation into English. Any differences between the original items and the back translation (and resulting consequences for the German items) were resolved in the author team via consensus. For the full list of German items, see Table S21.

The Greater Good Game (GGG⁴⁸) is a social dilemma paradigm in the style of a nested public goods game. In the game, participants were informed that they were part of an anonymous group of three in which each member was given an endowment and could decide how to spend this endowment. Participants were informed that they would be randomly assigned to groups of three at the end of the data collection and that one trial would be randomly drawn and paid out according to their own and their group members’ decisions. They could choose one of three options: i) a selfish option, i.e., keeping the endowment for themselves, ii) a cooperative option, i.e., contributing their endowment to a shared group account which would be doubled by the experimenter and distributed equally across all group members, or iii) a pro-environmental option, i.e., contributing their endowment to an environmental account which would also be doubled by the experimenter and donated to the German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation, a German NGO dedicated to environmental protection. Participants played ten rounds of the GGG with endowments ranging from 0.20€ to 2.00€ (increased in 0.20€-steps), presented in random order.

Data Analysis: GGG data were analyzed using a multinomial processing tree (MPT) model^50,51 specifically tailored to the GGG⁴⁸ (see Figure 2). First, parameter s was defined as the probability of selfish behavior to distinguish between a selfish and non-selfish choice (probability 1–s). Second, parameter e was defined as the probability of PEB given non-selfish behavior to distinguish between PEB (probability e) and cooperation (probability 1–e). In other words, e is conditional on s. Additionally, we included CCD and CCI as predictors of parameters s and e. To account for individual differences on these traits and to directly assess their effect on the behavioral parameters s and e, we fitted a Bayesian hierarchical extension of the MPT model^52,53 using the R package TreeBUGS⁵². The model was fitted using standard-normal priors (g-prior) on the regression slopes⁵².

Results

As this constituted the first application of the German version of the CC-DIS, we first conducted a CFA to determine whether the factor structure replicated (see Table S22). Fit indices suggested acceptable model fit, CFI = .903, TLI = .888, RMSEA = .079, SRMR = .081. All distress items showed loadings >.481 onto the latent distress factor, and all impairment items loadings >.432 onto the impairment factor. Internal consistencies were excellent for CCD (α=.93, Ω=.94) and acceptable for CCI (α= .81, Ω=.80). Boxplots for the German items are presented in the supplement. Inter-item correlations are presented in Tables S23 and S24.

The most prevalent choice in the GGG was in-group cooperation. Across all trials and participants, 46.6% of decisions were cooperative (22.5% selfish, 31% pro-environmental). Parameter estimates for the group means of the MPT parameters (including 95% Bayesian credibility intervals) were s=.231, 95% CI [.203; .259], and e=.373, 95% CI [.339, .409].

The regression coefficient of the effect of CCD on s was β=-.303 with a 95% Bayesian credibility interval of [-.390; -.213]. The Bayes factor was estimated as BF₁₀>10,000 (using the Savage-Dickey approximation⁵⁴), indicating very strong support in favor of the hypothesis that higher CCD was associated with a lower probability for selfish behavior. The regression coefficient for the effect of CCD on e was β=.394 [.300; .481], with BF₁₀>10,000 indicating very strong support in favor of the hypothesis that higher CCD was associated with a higher probability of PEB.

The regression coefficient for the effect of CCI on s was β=.035 [-.064; .134], BF₁₀=.176, indicating moderate support in favor of the null hypothesis versus the directed hypothesis that β was larger than zero. Thus, CCI had no substantial effect on selfish behavior. The regression coefficient of the effect of CCI on e, however, was β=.277 [.180; .370], with BF₁₀>10,000 indicating very strong support in favor of the hypothesis that higher CCI was associated with a higher probability of PEB.

Our third aim was to assess the prevalence of CCD and CCI in different demographic groups. Figure 3 illustrates that CCD and CCI scores showed small to moderate, positive correlations in all studies (r₁ = .11, p = .029; r₂ = .21, p < .001; r₃ = .24, p < .001; r₄ = .39, p < .001). Mean levels of CCD indicated moderate levels of distress in studies 1 and 2 (M₁ = 3.14, SD = 0.26, M₂ = 3.16, SD = 0.30) and moderate to high distress in studies 3 and 4 (M₃ = 3.84, SD = 0.66, M₄ = 3.73, SD = 0.90). Average CCI levels were low to moderate and below the scale’s midpoint in all four studies (M₁ = 2.50, SD = 0.33; M₂ = 2.58, SD = 0.39; M₃ = 2.31, SD = 0.77; M₄ = 1.96, SD = 0.66).

We hypothesized a negative association of CCD and CCI levels with age, such that younger individuals are more affected. As Fig. 4 illustrates, we observed the expected negative correlation between CCD and age in studies 1 to 3, but not in study 4. Effect sizes ranged from small in study 1 (r = -0.15, p = .003) and study 2 (r = -0.18, p < .001) to medium-sized in study 3 (r = − .34, p < .001). In study 4, age and CCD were not significantly correlated (r = .05, p = .239). For CCI, we observed very small correlations with age in all studies. Correlations were descriptively negative in studies 1 and 2 (r₁=-.11, p = .024, r₂=-0.09, p = .047) and positive in studies 3 and 4 (r₃ = .09, p = .084, r₄ = .11, p = .020). Thus, across studies, there appeared to be no discernable age pattern for CCI.

For gender, we compared the level of CCD and CCI between female and male participants. In studies 1 to 3, women showed significantly higher levels of CCD than men (Sample 1: t = 2.50, p = .013, Sample 2: t = 3.80, p < .001, Sample 3: t = 6.36, p < .001). In the German speaking sample in study 4, women and men did not differ significantly in their level of CCD (t = 0.38, p = .705). For CCI, we observed no differences between women in men in studies 1, 2, and 4 (all ps > .182). In study 3, contrary to expectations, men showed higher levels of CCI than women (t=-2.89, p = .004).

Climate change is not only associated with increased rates of psychopathology³⁰ but also with substantial levels of (non-pathological) distress in the general population⁴. To monitor the negative mental health effects of climate change and target pathological levels with adequate interventions, it is crucial to distinguish climate change distress from resulting impairment that may indicate a need for intervention. We herein introduced the Climate Change Distress and Impairment Scale (CC-DIS), which measures CCD (spanning anxiety, anger, and sadness) and CCI with two distinct subscales (as demonstrated in a series of factor analyses). Across four samples, we observed moderate to high rates of CCD, and low to moderate levels of CCI, underlining the prevalence and gravity of the phenomenon.

Contrary to hypotheses, the demographic patterns were less clear than indicated by previous studies. We observed the hypothesized negative association between CCD and age in the three English-speaking samples^{14,23,27−29} but not in the German-speaking sample, which was part of a rolling panel and therefore unaffected by self-selection bias that may have influenced the composition of the English-speaking samples. Additionally, the age range in the English speaking samples was limited and skewed towards younger individuals (with mean ages around 30), whereas the German sample comprised individuals with a mean age of approximately 50 years. Contrary to our hypothesis, we observed no correlations between CCI and age that were significant at p < .001. While further replication is needed, this suggests that an exclusive focus on younger individuals may be misguided and that individuals of all ages are at a similar risk for CCI.

Regarding gender, we observed the hypothesized higher levels of CCD in women (vs. men) in the three English-speaking samples^14,23,55 but again not in the German-speaking sample. For CCI, we observed no significant patterns in Samples 1, 2, and 4, and higher levels in men in Sample 3, which was contrary to hypotheses. We note as an important limitation that we were able to recruit only 38 participants that identified as genderqueer, which precluded us from further investigating CCD and CCI levels in this group. Descriptively, genderqueer participants reported the highest rates of both CCD and CCI, which is in line with the minority stress hypothesis⁵⁶ and highlights the importance of catering future work toward this group. Additional large-scale studies will be needed to investigate age and gender effects on CCD and CCI in different countries and determine whether the observed CCD results indicate cultural differences.

Beyond sampling in different countries and recruiting participants of all ages and genders, future work should pay special attention to ensuring ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic diversity of the samples, as all of these are likely correlates of both climate change exposure as well as CCD and CCI. At the country level, future work should refer to the United Nations’ environmental vulnerability index and environmental performance index to quantify exposure to climate change and climate protection efforts and sample from countries with diverse scores on these indices.

Validity

In study 3, CCD and CCI showed convergent validity, as CCD correlated most strongly with distress about the consequences of climate change²⁰ and CCI with cognitive-emotional and functional impairment as measured by the climate anxiety scale²³. Interestingly, CCI also showed a large correlation with the climate change experience subscale²³, suggesting that individuals who had personally experienced more of the consequences of climate change were more impaired by it. Both CCD and CCI also showed excellent discriminant validity in the clinical domain, indicating that CCD measures distress that is specific to climate change and not just a manifestation of general negative affect or clinical levels of negative affect as they occur during depression or generalized anxiety disorder. CCI also proved to be distinct from impairment in the context of psychopathology and from a generally low quality of life. In the environmental domain, the picture was less clear. CCI showed the expected discriminant validity, indicated by a null correlation with environmental attitudes and a moderate correlation with nature relatedness. CCD, in contrast, showed large correlations with both constructs, indicating that individuals who feel closer to nature were more distressed by its destruction. Additionally, the scale used to assess environmental attitudes⁴⁵ focuses on attitudes surrounding the reality of growth limits, the fragility of nature’s balance, the possibility of an ecological crisis etc. It could thus even be used as a proxy for a participant's level of awareness of and care about climate change. Therefore, it is also not surprising that CCD correlated substantially with this scale, but further investigations into the nature of this association are needed.

In study 4, we demonstrated that both CCD and CCI are predictive of PEB in the GGG⁴⁸, a social dilemma in which participants have to decide between selfish, cooperative, and pro-environmental behavior. This finding replicates previous work demonstrating a positive association between CCD-like constructs and self-reported PEB^57–59 and provides an important extension in that it measures actual behavior where previous work focused on behavioral intentions that often overestimate PEB⁶⁰. The finding is also in line with data from study 3, where we observed a large positive correlation between CCD and the behavioral engagement subscale in the climate change anxiety scale²³. CCD could thus be seen as an adaptive response to climate change that may even be pivotal in mitigating its negative effects. To further probe the CCD-PEB association, future work should attempt to experimentally induce different state-levels of CCD and measure subsequent PEB levels. Additionally, future work should consider manipulating features of PEB such as the level of effort required and personal cost associated with the behavior to better understand in which contexts CCD and CCI predict PEB^61,62.

We introduced the climate change distress and impairment scale (CC-DIS), which is able to distinguish the affective experience of distress over climate change (covering anger, anxiety, and sadness) from resulting functional impairment. Across four studies, we observed moderate to high levels of CCD, underlining that CCD is highly prevalent in the general population. At the same time, we observed only low to moderate levels of CCI, which underlines that most individuals are not significantly impaired by their experience of CCD. In study 4, we found very strong support for the hypothesis that higher CCD and CCI are associated with a higher probability for PEB. This underlines that affective responses to climate change are important drivers of efforts to reduce the negative impact of climate change and deserve scientific attention. Future work with large-scale, multinational, and diverse samples is needed to further quantify the prevalence of CCD and CCI and characterize the subgroup of individuals with high or very high levels of CCI.

Table 1. Final item set in English.

Item	Item text
	Distress
1	I feel angry when I see how little is done to combat climate change.
2	When I think about climate change, I worry about the future.
3	I am not sad about climate change. (r)
4	I am enraged that we have missed many chances to stop climate change.
5	I do not fear for my future on this planet. (r)
6	News about climate change makes me feel depressed.
7	I am not mad when others damage the climate. (r)
8	The uncertainty about how climate change will progress scares me.
9	I feel sad that climate change is causing people and animals to suffer.
10	I do not get upset when others ignore climate change. (r)
11	I am scared that people will lose their homes because of climate change.
12	I feel sad that some parts of the environment will not recover from the effects of climate change.
13	I am not angry that some countries have missed their climate protection goals. (r)
14	The impact that climate change has had on the planet saddens me.
15	I feel carefree when I think about climate change. (r)
	Impairment
16	Climate change drains all my energy.
17	My thoughts and feelings about climate change do not affect how well I sleep. (r)
18	When I think about climate change, I get a headache or stomachache.
19	Because of climate change, I am overwhelmed by everyday activities.
20	My thoughts and feelings about climate change do not negatively impact my everyday life. (r)
21	I have no trouble mentally tuning out climate change. (r)
22	Constant discussions about climate change are affecting my relationships.
23	When I think about climate change, I cannot bring myself to work/study.

Note. For each item, participants endorsed their level from agreement ranging from strongly disagree (1), disagree, neutral (neither agree nor disagree), agree, to strongly agree (5).

Table 2. Correlations between CCD, CCI, and constructs included for convergent and discriminant validity.

	CCD	Hornsey Distress	Environ. Attitude	Nature Related.	Engage	CCI	Cogem. Impair	Func. Impair	Exper	NA	N	GAD	DD
CCD	1
Hornsey Distress	0.64
Environ. Attitude	0.62	0.36	1
Nature Related.	0.49	0.50	0.45	1
Engage	0.51	0.44	0.39	0.45	1
CCI	0.26	0.44	-0.09	0.30	0.10	1
Cogem. Impair	0.10	0.37	-0.18	0.23	0.08	0.72	1
Func. Impair	-0.05	0.28	-0.25	0.12	-0.02	0.66	0.84	1
Exper	0.17	0.37	0.01	0.31	0.21	0.53	0.63	0.57	1
NA	0.18	0.23	0.09	0.04	0.05	0.20	0.17	0.15	0.12	1
N	0.24	0.33	0.28	0.10	0.18	0.11	0.11	0.09	0.09	0.55	1
GAD	0.20	0.29	0.20	0.09	0.13	0.20	0.20	0.19	0.18	0.65	0.71	1
DD	0.28	0.23	0.34	0.17	0.23	0.04	0.02	0.02	0.05	0.50	0.70	0.72	1
Quality of Life	-0.18	-0.22	-0.29	-0.11	-0.01	-0.04	0.01	-0.05	-0.04	-0.44	-0.62	-0.55	-0.69

Note. CCD = climate change distress, Environ. Attitude = environmental attitudes, Nature Related = nature relatedness, Engage = behavioral engagement (subscale 23), CCI = climate change impairment, Cogem. Impair = cognitive-emotional impairment, Func. Impair = functional impairment, Exper = climate change experience, NA = negative affect, N = neuroticism, GAD = generalized anxiety disorder symptoms, DD = depressive symptoms.

Data availability statement

All data and analysis code are openly available in the following online repository: https://osf.io/eprdw/.

Author contributions statement

JH and SAK conceptualized studies 1-3 and oversaw data collection. JH, SPL, and SAK analyzed the data for studies 1-3. SAK, LKH, and JH conceptualized study 4. SAK and LKH oversaw data collection for study 4 and LKH, JH, and SPL analyzed the study 4 data. JH, SAK, JU, and LKH wrote the initial draft of the manuscript and SPL provided critical feedback. JH, and JU visualized the data and JU curated the data. All authors provided revisions to the manuscript and approved the final manuscript version.

Additional information

The authors identified no conflicts of interest.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Synthesis report: an assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr/ (2007).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change report 2021: summary for policymakers. https://www.ipcc/ch/report/arg/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf (2021).
Kerr, S., Throop, N., Healy, J., Gardiner, A. & Lieberman, R. The unseen toll of a warming world. The New York Times; https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/09/us/mental-health-climate-change.html (2022).
Clayton, S. Climate anxiety: psychological responses to climate change. J. Anxiety Disord. 74, 102263; 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263 (2020).
Palinkas, L. A. & Wong, M. Global climate change and mental health. Curr Opin Psychol 32, 12–16; 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.023 (2020).
American Psychological Association. Psychology and global climate change: addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. A report by the American Psychological Association’s task force on the interface between psychology and global climate change. https://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change-booklet.pdf (2009).
Australian Psychological Society. Psychology and climate change. https://psychology.org.au/getmedia/fe04cbc3-4110-4256-98b8-883f14866660/20aps-submission-psychology_climate-change.pdf (2020).
Obradovich, N., Migliorini, R., Paulus, M. P. & Rahwan, I. Empirical evidence of mental health risks posed by climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115, 10953–10958; 10.1073/pnas.1801528115 (2018).
Padhy, S. K., Sarkar, S., Panigrahi, M. & Paul, S. Mental health effects of climate change. Indian J Occup Environ 19, 3–7; 10.4103/0019-5278.156997 (2015).
Anderson, C. A. Heat and violence. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 10, 33–38; 10.1111/1467-8721.00109 (2001).
Towers, S., Chen, S., Malik, A. & Ebert, D. Factors influencing temporal patterns in crime in a large American city: a predictive analytics perspective. PloS one 13, e0205151; 10.1371/journal.pone.0205151 (2018).
Ogunbode, C. A. et al. Negative emotions about climate change are related to insomnia symptoms and mental health: cross-sectional evidence from 25 countries. Curr Psychol; 10.1007/s12144-021-01385-4 (2021).
Helm, S. V., Pollitt, A., Barnett, M. A., Curran, M. A. & Craig, Z. R. Differentiating environmental concern in the context of psychological adaption to climate change. Glob Environ Change 48, 158–167; 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.012 (2018).
Searle, K. & Gow, K. Do concerns about climate change lead to distress? Int J Clim Chang Strateg Manag 2, 362–379; 10.1108/17568691011089891 (2010).
Cunsolo, A. & Ellis, N. R. Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nature Clim Change 8, 275–281; 10.1038/s41558-018-0092-2 (2018).
Albrecht, G. Chronic environmental change: emerging ‘psychoterratic’ syndromes in Climate Change and Human Well-Being (ed. Weissbecker, I.). 43–56. (Springer New York, New York, 2011).
Coverdale, J. et al. Climate Change: a call to action for the psychiatric profession. Acad Psychiatry J 42, 317–323; 10.1007/s40596-018-0885-7 (2018).
Ferreira, R. J. Climate change, resilience, and trauma: course of action through research, policy, and practice. Traumatology 26, 246–247; 10.1037/trm0000282 (2020).
Mah, A. Y. J., Chapman, D. A., Markowitz, E. M. & Lickel, B. Coping with climate change: three insights for research, intervention, and communication to promote adaptive coping to climate change. J Anxiety Disord 75, 102282; 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102282 (2020).
Hornsey, M. J. et al. Evidence for motivated control: understanding the paradoxical link between threat and efficacy beliefs about climate change. J Environ Psychol 42, 57–65; 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.02.003 (2015).
Stanley, S. K., Hogg, T. L., Leviston, Z. & Walker, I. From anger to action: differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and wellbeing. J Clim Change Health 1, 100003; 10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100003 (2021).
Stewart, M., Carleton, W. C. & Groucutt, H. S. Climate change, not human population growth, correlates with late quaternary megafauna declines in North America. Nat commun 12, 965; 10.1038/s41467-021-21201-8 (2021).
Clayton, S. & Karazsia, B. T. Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. J Environ Psychol 69, 101434; 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434 (2020).
Balundė, A., Perlaviciute, G. & Steg, L. The relationship between people's environmental considerations and pro-environmental behavior in Lithuania. Front psychol 10, 2319; 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02319 (2019).
Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8, 239–260; 10.1080/13504620220145401 (2002).
Brosch, T. Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: a review. Curr Opin Behav Sci 42, 15–21; 10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.001 (2021).
Martin, G., Reilly, K., Everitt, H. & Gilliland, J. A. Review: the impact of climate change awareness on children's mental well-being and negative emotions - a scoping review. Child Adolesc Ment Health 27, 59–72; 10.1111/camh.12525 (2022).
Milfont, T. L., Zubielevitch, E., Milojev, P. & Sibley, C. G. Ten-year panel data confirm generation gap but climate beliefs increase at similar rates across ages. Nat commun 12, 4038; 10.1038/s41467-021-24245-y (2021).
Hickman, C. et al. Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. Lancet Plan Health 5, e863-e873; 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00278-3 (2021).
Cianconi, P., Betrò, S. & Janiri, L. The impact of climate change on mental health: a systematic descriptive review. Front Psychiatry 11, 74; 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00074 (2020).
Doherty, T. J. & Clayton, S. The psychological impacts of global climate change. Am Psychol 66, 265–276; 10.1037/a0023141 (2011).
Ekman, P. Basic Emotions in Handbook of Cognition and Emotion (eds. Dalgleish, T. & Power, M.J.). 45–60 (Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1999)
Russell, J. A. A circumplex model of affect. J Pers Soc Psychol 39, 1161–1178; 10.1037/h0077714 (1980).
Kring, A. M. & Bachorowski, J.A. Emotions and psychopathology. Cogn Emot 13, 575–599; 10.1080/026999399379195 (1999).
Potegal, M., Stemmler, G. & Spielberger, C. (eds.). International Handbook of Anger (Springer New York, New York, 2010).
Clark, L. A. & Watson, D. Constructing validity: new developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychol Assess 31, 1412–1427; 10.1037/pas0000626 (2019).
Revelle, W. Psych. procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (2022).
Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H. & Schillewaert, N. Reversed item bias: an integrative model. Psychol Methods 18, 320–334; 10.1037/a0032121 (2013).
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A. & Brown, G. PsycTESTS Dataset (1996).
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W. & Löwe, B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Inter Med 166, 1092–1097; 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 (2006).
Schmidt, S., Mühlan, H. & Power, M. The EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index: psychometric results of a cross-cultural field study. Europ J Public Health 16, 420–428; 10.1093/eurpub/cki155 (2006).
Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. The PANAS-X. Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule - expanded form. https://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/clar/panas-x.pdf (1994).
Costa, P. T. & Crae, R. R. The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI Manual Supplement (Psychological Assessment Resources, 1989).
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M. & Murphy, S. A. The nature relatedness scale. Environ Behav 41, 715–740; 10.1177/0013916508318748 (2009).
Dunlap, R. E., van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G. & Jones, R. E. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Social Isssues 56, 425–442; 10.1111/0022-4537.00176 (2000).
Kormos, C. & Gifford, R. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. J Environ Psychol 40, 359–371; 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003 (2014).
Lange, F., Steinke, A. & Dewitte, S. The pro-environmental behavior task: a laboratory measure of actual pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 56, 46–54; 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.007 (2018).
Klein, S. A., Hilbig, B. E. & Heck, D. W. Which is the greater good? A social dilemma paradigm disentangling environmentalism and cooperation. J Environ Psychol 53, 40–49; 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.06.001 (2017).
Lange, F. & Dewitte, S. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: review and recommendations. J Environ Psychol 63, 92–100; 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009 (2019).
Batchelder, W. H. & Riefer, D. M. Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. PBR 6, 57–86; 10.3758/bf03210812 (1999).
Erdfelder, E. et al. Multinomial Processing Tree Models. J Psychol 217, 108–124; 10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.108 (2009).
Heck, D. W., Arnold, N. R. & Arnold, D. TreeBUGS: an R package for hierarchical multinomial-processing-tree modeling. Behav Res Methods 50, 264–284; 10.3758/s13428-017-0869-7 (2018).
Klauer, K. C. Hierarchical multinomial processing tree models: A latent-trait approach. Psychometrika 75, 70–98; 10.1007/S11336-009-9141-0 (2010).
Wetzels, R., Grasman, R. P. & Wagenmakers, E.J. An encompassing prior generalization of the Savage–Dickey density ratio. CSDA 54, 2094–2102; 10.1016/j.csda.2010.03.016 (2010).
Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. IJP 49, 141–157; 10.1002/ijop.12034 (2014).
Meyer, I. H. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull 129, 674–697; 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 (2003).
Harth, N. S., Leach, C. W. & Kessler, T. Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: different emotions predict distinct intentions. J Environl Psychol 34, 18–26; 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.005 (2013).
Lu, H. & Schuldt, J. P. Exploring the role of incidental emotions in support for climate change policy. Clim Change 131, 719–726; 10.1007/s10584-015-1443-x (2015).
van Valkengoed, A. M. & Steg, L. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nature Clim Change 9, 158–163; 10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y (2019).
Lange, F. & Dewitte, S. The work for environmental protection task: a consequential web-based procedure for studying pro-environmental behavior. Behav Res Methods 54, 133–145; 10.3758/s13428-021-01617-2 (2022).
Ogunbode, C. A. et al. Climate anxiety, pro-environmental action and wellbeing: antecedents and outcomes of negative emotional responses to climate change in 28 countries. Preprint at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357985350_Climate_anxiety_pro_environmental_action_and_wellbeing_antecedents_and_outcomes_of_negative_emotional_responses_to_climate_change_in_28_countries (2022).
Ojala, M., Cunsolo, A., Ogunbode, C. A. & Middleton, J. Anxiety, worry, and grief in a time of environmental and climate crisis: a narrative review. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 35–58; 10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-022716 (2021).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 11 Jul, 2023

Read the published version in Scientific Reports →

Editorial decision: Major revision
21 Feb, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
07 Nov, 2022
Reviews received at journal
09 Oct, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
04 Oct, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
30 Sep, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
17 Sep, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
15 Sep, 2022
Editor invited by journal
29 Aug, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
29 Aug, 2022
First submitted to journal
22 Aug, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

The climate change distress and impairment scale: Introduction of the measure and first findings on pro-environmental behavior

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Study 1 - Item Generation And Selection

Study 2 - Structural Validation Of The Ccd

Study 3 - Convergent And Discriminant Validity

Study 4 - Behavioral Validation

Prevalence Of Ccd And Cci Across All Studies

General Discussion

Validity

Conclusion

Tables

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1