Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/university-of-california-press/the-continuum-of-eco-anxiety-responses-a-preliminary-investigation-of-D4tnphOCjg
- Publisher
- University of California Press
- eISSN
- 2474-7394
- DOI
- 10.1525/collabra.67838
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Lutz, P. K., Passmore, H.-A., Howell, A. J., Zelenski, J. M., Yang, Y., & Richardson, M. (2023). The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network. Collabra: Psychology, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.67838 Personality Psychology The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network 1 2 3 1 4,5 6 Paul K. Lutz , Holl-Anne Passmore , Andrew J. Howell , John M. Zelenski , Ying Yang , Miles Richardson 1 2 Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Department of Psychology, Concordia University of Edmonton, 3 4 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Department of Psychology, MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, School of Psychology, Human Sciences Research Centre, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom Keywords: eco-anxiety, climate change anxiety, environmental concern, mental health, pro-environmental behaviour https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.67838 Collabra: Psychology Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2023 In the face of mounting environmental issues, people around the world are reporting the experience of difficult emotions such as anxiety and worry, or what is increasingly referred to as eco-anxiety. It is often acknowledged that symptoms of eco-anxiety can range in severity or fall along a continuum. Such a proposition has important implications, as it may help to explain why some forms of eco-anxiety are more mal(adaptive) than others. In five studies (Total N = 2939) across three countries (Canada, China, United Kingdom), we examined how measures that may encompass a continuum of environment-related worry and anxiety were associated with each other and with measures of environmental concern, an older concept that may capture the less severe end of eco-anxiety responses. We also explored if these various measures were differentially linked to aspects of mental health and a pro-environmental orientation. Results revealed that measures of eco-anxiety and environmental concern were often moderately-strongly correlated. Eco-anxiety measures exhibited relatively consistent relationships with greater ill-being but mixed relationships with indices of well-being. There was some evidence of more severe eco-anxiety measures being associated with poorer mental health and environmental concern measures being associated with better mental health. Measures of both eco-anxiety and environmental concern evidenced larger and more consistent relationships with indices of a pro-environmental orientation, with the most severe eco-anxiety measure exhibiting some notably weaker relationships. Together, the present work provides preliminary insights into the nomological network of the continuum of eco-anxiety responses and its integration into future work on eco-anxiety. Humanity is increasingly confronted with a host of en- ronmental threats is direct (e.g., surviving a major flood- vironmental issues including more frequent and more in- ing event) or indirect (e.g., hearing about a flooding event tense weather events, global warming, deforestation, loss via social media; e.g., Clayton, 2020; Clayton & Karazsia, of biodiversity, and mass pollution (e.g., Mechler et al., 2020). Second, given that various environmental issues are 2019; Tschakert et al., 2019). In the face of such ominous expected to worsen, the prevalence and severity of eco-anx- threats, people around the world are reporting the experi- iety will likely increase (e.g., Albrecht, 2011; Clayton & ence of difficult emotions such as anxiety and worry (e.g., Karazsia, 2020; Cunsolo et al., 2020; Passmore et al., 2022; Hickman et al., 2021; Ogunbode et al., 2021). The term Pihkala, 2020b). Third, eco-anxiety may pose both chal- eco-anxiety is commonly used by researchers, media outlets, lenges and opportunities for healthy individual and soci- and laypersons to describe these emotional responses (e.g., etal functioning (e.g., Clayton, 2020; Pihkala, 2020b; Ver- Albrecht, 2011; Cunsolo et al., 2020; Pihkala, 2020a). In planken et al., 2020). Although researchers in this area have recent years, academics from diverse disciplines have en- made great strides in developing an initial knowledge base, deavored to gain a better understanding of this phenome- eco-anxiety remains a relatively understudied construct, non. Such efforts are important for at least three reasons. and several issues warrant additional consideration. In the First, almost anyone is susceptible to experiencing eco- present work, we investigate three of these: 1) the notion anxiety, as it can be felt by those whose exposure to envi- that eco-anxiety can encompass a continuum of responses a Corresponding author: paullutz@cmail.carleton.ca The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network (one that is possibly inclusive of the older concept of “envi- quiring about participants’ levels of worry versus concern ronmental concern”), and whether these various responses may seem merely an issue of semantics, some suggest that are differentially linked to aspects of 2) mental health and this distinction is not trivial. For example, van der Linden 3) a pro-environmental orientation. (2017) notes that it is possible to be concerned about cli- mate change without actively worrying about it. As such, Eco-Anxiety: A Continuum of Responses and concern is often considered to be less severe than eco-anx- Links to Environmental Concern iety (Feather & Williams, 2022; Helm et al., 2018; McBride et al., 2021; Pihkala, 2020b; see also van der Linden, 2017). Insights from a wide range of disciplines, though highly At the same time, asking about participants’ levels of con- valuable, have seemed to contribute to difficulties with cern may be beneficial, as it seems to share less content conceptual clarity and notable heterogeneity in how eco- overlap with measures of ill-being (McBride et al., 2021). It anxiety is defined (e.g., Coffey et al., 2021; Martin et al., is therefore possible that some measures of environmental 2022; Pihkala, 2020a). Although eco-anxiety can be viewed concern could be considered to fall on the less severe end in many ways, we believe Passmore et al.'s (2022) definition of the continuum of eco-anxiety responses. To explore this provides a useful summary of previously proposed ac- idea, we examined how measures of environmental con- counts. These authors define the construct as “persistent cern relate to measures of eco-anxiety that differ in severity feelings of worry, anxiety, dread, or doom regarding envi- and if these sets of measures exhibit (dis)similar patterns of ronmental degradation and the impacts and implications of relationships with mental health and a pro-environmental climate change on our planet as a whole” (p. 3). Despite orientation. lingering ambiguities in the literature, a commonality be- tween this definition and other views of the phenomenon Mental Health is that eco-anxiety tends to capture a relatively strong form It is often suggested that eco-anxiety may pose a threat of distress (e.g., Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., to psychological health (e.g., Clayton, 2020; Passmore et 2021; Pihkala, 2020b; Verplanken et al., 2020). At the same time, however, it is also often acknowledged that symptoms al., 2022; Pihkala, 2020a); however, evidence for this has been somewhat mixed (Ojala et al., 2021). The most con- can fall along a continuum ranging from milder forms of sistent support for this proposition comes from studies that worry to clinically significant responses in which one expe- tend to report positive associations between eco-anxiety riences emotional, cognitive, social, or functional impair- ments (e.g., Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Passmore et al., and aspects of ill-being such as anxiety, depression, stress, pathological worry, and general psychological distress, 2022; Pihkala, 2020a; Soutar & Wand, 2022), a view taken though variability in this pattern of findings has emerged of the concept of anxiety more broadly (Endler & Kocovski, (ranging from r = -.05 to r = .59; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; 2001; Lazarus, 1991). This indicates that although eco-anx- iety represents a rational response to serious issues (e.g., Feather & Williams, 2022; Helm et al., 2018; Hogg et al., 2021; Mouguiama-Daouda et al., 2022; Reyes et al., 2021; Clayton, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021; Passmore et al., 2022; Schwartz et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2021; Stewart, 2021; Pihkala, 2020a), it may sometimes require professional sup- Verplanken et al., 2020; Verplanken & Roy, 2013; Wul- port. As such, it is important to recognize that some forms of eco-anxiety may be more (mal)adaptive than others. The lenkord et al., 2021). These correlations are unsurprising given that the content of eco-anxiety measures, especially notion that eco-anxiety can encompass a range of re- those capturing more severe symptoms (e.g., Clayton & sponses could be leveraged to help explain this variation; Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021), are often based on or however, there is a relative lack of research on this issue (Pihkala, 2020a). overlap with ill-being scales (McBride et al., 2021; Ojala et al., 2021). Measures of environmental concern, which tend This continuum notion may also provide useful insights to share less of this overlap, seem to exhibit weaker associa- into how eco-anxiety, which is often considered a relatively tions with ill-being (ranging from r = -.02 to r = .11; Feather new construct, is related to environmental concern, a con- struct that has been a topic of scholarly inquiry for over & Williams, 2022; Landry et al., 2018; McBride et al., 2021). A more complex set of findings emerges when consid- 50 years (Cruz & Manata, 2020). Like eco-anxiety, environ- ering the relationship between eco-anxiety and indices of mental concern can be defined in many ways. Herein, we view environmental concern as an affective attitude toward well-being. To begin, people’s endorsement of emotion terms included in eco-anxiety measures (e.g., worry, fear), environmental issues (e.g., Cruz & Manata, 2020; Landry as well as their overall scores on eco-anxiety measures, et al., 2018; Takàcs-Sànta, 2007). From this definition, it have been found to be positively associated with negative can be inferred that a link between affect and environmen- tal issues is a shared feature of both eco-anxiety and envi- (e.g., angry, sad; ranging from r = .24 to r = .70) and positive (e.g., hope, interest; ranging from r = .35 to r = .57) emo- ronmental concern. Therefore, it may be unsurprising that tions experienced when they think about climate change or climate change worry, which could be considered an indi- global warming (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Smith & Leis- cator of eco-anxiety, is often discussed or operationalized as climate change concern and vice versa (Martin et al., erowitz, 2014; Verplanken et al., 2020). When consider- ing well-being measures that do not have an environmen- 2022; Stewart, 2021; see also van der Linden, 2017), a ten- tal framing, Ogunbode et al. (2021) found anxiety-related dency resembling Lazarus’ (1991) identification (outside of negative emotions about climate change to be negatively the domain of eco-anxiety per se) of concern, worry, and anxiety as belonging to the same emotion family. While in- associated with a general measure of well-being in many Collabra: Psychology 2 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network countries around the world (r = -.24). By contrast, a Schwartz et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2021; Verplanken et al., pooled more severe measure of climate change anxiety (i.e., Clay- 2020; Verplanken & Roy, 2013; Wullenkord et al., 2021). ton & Karazsia, 2020) was unrelated to a general measure These findings suggest that eco-anxiety may be largely of well-being in a sample of Filipinos (r = -.05; Reyes et viewed as a form of practical anxiety (i.e., a motivating al., 2021) and, in a German context, was negatively associ- response that facilitates behavioural engagement; Kurth, ated with the satisfaction of autonomy (r = -.14) and relat- 2018; Pihkala, 2020a) rather than a form of eco-paralysis edness (r = -.10) needs and positively associated with the (i.e., a demotivating response that hinders action; Albrecht, frustration of autonomy (r = .20), relatedness (r = .27), and 2011). competence (r = .29) needs (Wullenkord et al., 2021). An In the current work, we sought to further examine how Australian sample yielded a negative correlation between a eco-anxiety relates to a set of individual difference vari- more severe measure of eco-anxiety and life satisfaction (r ables indicative of a general pro-environmental orienta- = -.12; Hogg et al., 2021). In their review, Ojala et al. (2021) tion—namely belief in the occurrence of climate change, discussed several studies that were not easily accessible to belief in the anthropogenic (human) causation of climate the present authors (e.g., due to being published in a non- change, collective eco-guilt, empathy with nature, and na- English language) that demonstrated mixed associations ture connectedness. Although it can be argued that one between measures of climate/environmental worry and var- could suffer from paralyzing forms of eco-anxiety and still ious aspects of well-being. Interestingly, measures of envi- score high on these constructs, it is important to note that ronmental concern have also exhibited mixed associations they each have been shown to be positively associated with with well-being (ranging from r = -.19 to r = .33; McBride pro-environmental behaviour. et al., 2021; McConnell & Jacobs, 2020; Verplanken et al., The Present Research 2020). Taken together, there seems to be an overall trend in We conducted five studies across three countries to ex- which more severe measures of eco-anxiety are related to amine how measures that may encompass a continuum of poorer psychological functioning. At the same time, it environment-related worry and anxiety are related to each should be noted that not all relationships observed were other and to measures of environmental concern. Next, we statistically significant (e.g., Reyes et al., 2021; Verplanken considered if these various measures exhibited (dis)simi- & Roy, 2013) and there tended to be notable variation in lar patterns of relationships with various aspects of both effect sizes, perhaps reflecting the particular mental health mental health (i.e., measures of ill-being; measures of well- indicator being assessed. Finally, the above works tended being and its correlates, such as meaning in life) and of a to adopt single measures of eco-anxiety, mental health, or pro-environmental orientation (e.g., nature connectedness, both. We were curious to discover if simultaneously exam- empathy with nature). Materials, data, and syntax for all ining how several measures of eco-anxiety are related to studies can be found on the open science framework (OSF): multiple indicators of mental health would offer additional https://osf.io/krfnv/ insights into these relationships, such as whether more se- vere forms of eco-anxiety are more associated with poor Study 1 psychological functioning than less severe forms. In Study 1, we explored the interrelations among two Pro-Environmental Orientation measures of eco-anxiety and a measure of environmental concern. We then examined how these measures were re- Despite some evidence that eco-anxiety is related with lated to multiple aspects of well-being, as well as to nature poorer mental health, there is also research highlighting its connectedness, a key correlate of pro-environmental be- more adaptive nature, as demonstrated by its relationships haviour (e.g., Mackay & Schmitt, 2019). Those who feel a with aspects of a pro-environmental orientation. More broader sense of connection to nature may also report el- specifically, eco-anxiety (regardless of severity) tends to evated levels of eco-anxiety, as such individuals may be be positively associated with predictors and measures of more aware of environmental issues and the threats they pro-environmental intentions and behaviour, though some pose (e.g., Clayton & Karazsia, 2020). This study was not variability in this pattern of findings is present (Clayton preregistered. & Karazsia, 2020; Helm et al., 2018; Hogg et al., 2021; Mouguiama-Daouda et al., 2022; Ojala et al., 2021; 1 Verplanken et al. (2020) reported that habitual worry about global warming, what they considered to be an instance of eco-anxiety, was positively correlated with determined, angry, and anxious emotion clusters when thinking about global warming. The anxious cluster could also potentially be viewed as a proxy of eco-anxiety, as the emotion terms included appear to better tap eco-anxiety compared to broader measures of environmental distress (e.g., Searle & Gow, 2010). However, some of the included terms (e.g., guilt, ashamed) may be distinct enough to constitute their own eco-emotions (e.g., Mallett, 2012). More research on this issue is needed. 2 We refrain from reporting a range of effect sizes for these studies because of ambiguity concerning some of the variables’ ability to pre- dict pro-environmental intentions or behaviours. We instead encourage interested readers to consult these studies for more information. Collabra: Psychology 3 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network Method Results and Discussion Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in Participants, Procedure, and Measures Table 1 (see Table S1 for confidence intervals for correla- Participants were 242 undergraduate students enrolled tions). Mean scores on the two eco-anxiety measures and in psychology courses at MacEwan University located in the environmental concern measure were above the respec- western Canada. No demographic information was col- tive scale midpoints. Correlational analyses demonstrated th lected. Data collection took place from February 14 to positive and large correlations among these three mea- th June 14 , 2019. Prior to analyses, four participants were re- sures. Interestingly, these measures were all generally un- moved due to excessive amounts of missing data (i.e., com- related to well-being with the exception that all three mea- pleting < 50% of the survey questions), resulting in a final sures correlated positively with eudaimonic well-being. sample of 238 participants. Moreover, the measure of environmental concern evi- Participants completed the following scales listed below denced a significant positive association with social well- (see OSF for full scales and order of administration). being. All three variables exhibited moderate to strong pos- Eco-Anxiety and Environmental Concern. We were itive associations with the various aspects of nature unaware of any standard measures of eco-anxiety at the connectedness. Taken together, these results do not point time of data collection. As such, we employed two measures to a sharp differentiation among the two measures of eco- we considered to be proxies of the construct. The first was anxiety and the measure of environmental concern. a 4-item measure of perceived ecological stress initially developed by Homburg et al. (2007) and later adapted by Study 2 Helm et al. (2018). Participants were asked to indicate how In Study 2, we introduced a measure of climate change stressed they feel because of the following environmental worry as an additional measure of eco-anxiety and exam- problems: (1) global environmental problems like the ozone ined its associations with the eco-anxiety and environmen- hole and climate change, (2) pollution of the oceans and tal concern indicators from Study 1. We also considered the environment, (3) extinction of species, and (4) loss of how these measures were related to aspects of ill-being. forests and spread of uninhabitable desert areas. Each item Lastly, we evaluated how belief in the occurrence of climate was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all stressed, 5 = change, belief in the anthropogenic causation of climate extremely stressed). The second proxy of eco-anxiety was change, collective eco-guilt, empathy with nature, and na- an item from Verplanken and Roy (2013): “How often do ture connectedness were associated with eco-anxiety and you have thoughts about the environment, which you find environmental concern. In selecting these variables, we worrying, uncomfortable, or upsetting?” rated on a 5-point first reasoned that since climate change is a key contributor scale (1 = never, 5 = all of the time). When considering where to various environmental issues, believing in its occurrence these two measures fall on the continuum of eco-anxi- would be a potent source of eco-anxiety. Further, we antic- ety responses, we reasoned that the second measure would ipated that people will report feeling more eco-anxious if capture a more severe form of eco-anxiety, as the item con- they consider climate change to be the result of human ac- tent appears to focus on a stronger form of distress. tivity, as doing so would directly implicate humans as be- We assessed environmental concern using one item from ing responsible for numerous environmental calamities. A Berenguer et al. (2005): “To what extent are you concerned sense of responsibility for harmful acts also features promi- about the situation of the environment in general?” rated nently in conceptualizations of guilt. For instance, one may on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = totally). This item has feel a sense of collective (eco-) guilt when one’s nation is been used to measure environmental concern in prior re- seen as responsible for committing environmental wrong- search (e.g., Landry et al., 2018). doings (Mallett, 2012). Perceived harm against the environ- Measures of Well-Being. The Well-Being Scale (Lui & ment may also set the stage for empathic responses to- Fernando, 2018) is a 29-item measure that assesses overall wards it. Upon considering nature’s plight, some may be well-being, as well as five distinct domains: hedonic, eu- more prone to understanding and sharing its distress (Tam, daimonic, social, physical, and financial. Items were rated 2013), potentially evoking feelings of anxiety about the on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). natural world. Relatedly, a broader sense of connection to The Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (George nature may be an important correlate of eco-anxiety, as & Park, 2017) is a 15-item measure that assesses purpose, suggested in Study 1 and in prior work (e.g., Clayton & comprehension, and mattering as aspects of meaning in Karazsia, 2020). We pre-registered Study 2 at https://osf.io/ life. Items were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = very strongly dx7rt. disagree, 7 = very strongly agree). Nature Connectedness. The Nature Relatedness Scale Method (NRS; Nisbet et al., 2009) is a 21-item measure that as- sesses one’s subjective connection to nature. The scale pro- Participants, Procedure, and Measures vides a total score, as well as three subscale scores for NR- Self, NR-Perspective, and NR-Experience. Items were rated We aimed to recruit 300 participants (expecting exclu- on a 5-point scale (1 = disagree strongly, 5 = agree strongly). sions) based on Schönbrodt and Perugini’s (2013) recom- mendation that sample sizes should approach 250 in order Collabra: Psychology 4 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations: Study 1 Note. EA = eco-anxiety; EC = environmental concern. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. to obtain stable correlation estimates. We recruited 496 Measures of Pro-Environmental Orientation. We as- undergraduate students who were enrolled in psychology sessed the extent to which one believes that climate change courses at the University of British Columbia Okanagan lo- is currently taking place and is caused by human actions cated in western Canada. Data collection took place from with the 14-item Occurrence and Anthropogenic Causation th th October 9 to November 28 , 2019. Prior to analyses, 53 Scale (Brownlee & Verbos, 2015). Items were rated on a participants were removed due to either failing an attention 7-point scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). check (n = 49), rating their comprehension of written Eng- We assessed collective eco-guilt using a 5-item measure lish as 2 or lower on a 5-point scale (n = 3), or completing < from Mallet (2012) that asks participants the extent to 50% of the survey questions (n = 1), resulting in a final sam- which they feel guilty because of negative environmental ple of 443 participants (77.7% female; M = 20.48, SD actions committed by Canadians as a group. Items were age age = 3.00; age range 17-42). The first exclusion criterion was rated on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all guilty, 7 = extremely preregistered, while the latter two were not. guilty). We employed the 10-item Dispositional Empathy Participants completed the following scales listed below. with Nature Scale to assess an individual’s tendency to em- Additional qualitative questions were completed by partic- pathize with the natural world (Tam, 2013). Items were ipants as part of another study (see OSF for full scales and rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly order of administration). agree). We assessed nature connectedness as in Study 1. Eco-Anxiety and Environmental Concern. We as- Results and Discussion sessed these constructs using the same measures as in Study 1, with the addition of a 1-item measure of eco-anxi- This study had preregistered hypotheses and analysis ety adapted from Ballew et al. (2019): “How worried are you plans. Specifically, we first hypothesized that belief in the about climate change”, rated on 4-point scale (1 = not at occurrence of climate change, belief in the anthropogenic all worried, 4 = very worried). Of note, the original measure causation of climate change, collective eco-guilt, empathy used “global warming”; however, we used “climate change”. with nature, and nature connectedness total (and subscale We again perceived the content of this measure to be less scores) would exhibit positive correlations of .20-.30 with severe than the measure from Verplanken and Roy (2013). the three measures of eco-anxiety and measure of environ- Ill-Being. The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales mental concern. Next, we hypothesized that, using multi- (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) is a 21-item instrument that ple regression analysis, belief in the occurrence of climate assesses depression, anxiety, and stress. Participants rated change, belief in the anthropogenic causation of climate how often they experienced each item over the past week change, collective eco-guilt, empathy with nature, and na- on a 4-point scale (0 = did not apply to me at all, 3 = applied ture connectedness total would positively predict the three to me very much, or most of the time). measures of eco-anxiety and the measure of environmental concern. Lastly, we hypothesized that, using hierarchical 3 In the preregistration, we refer to the measure of environmental concern from Berenguer et al. (2005) as a measure of eco-anxiety. How- ever, we refer to it here as a measure of environmental concern to be consistent with the framing of the introduction and our updated thinking. Collabra: Psychology 5 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations: Study 2 Note. EA = eco-anxiety; EC = environmental concern; gender coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. multiple regression analysis, the aforementioned predic- positive associations with aspects of a pro-environmental tors would positively predict each of three measures of eco- orientation. anxiety and the measure of environmental concern over Study 3 and above ill-being (i.e., depression, anxiety, and stress). Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in In Study 3, we continued to examine interrelations Table 2 (see Table S2 for confidence intervals for correla- among the eco-anxiety measures and the measure of envi- tions). Mean scores on three eco-anxiety measures and the ronmental concern used in Studies 1 and 2. We then con- measure of environmental concern were above the respec- sidered how these measures were related to various aspects tive scale midpoints. Correlational analyses demonstrated of ill-being and well-being simultaneously, as well as na- positive and large correlations among these four measures. ture connectedness. Notably, we drew on a sample of un- The three measures of eco-anxiety exhibited notably sim- dergraduate students from China instead of Canada, as op- ilar patterns of relations with ill-being. That is, they were posed to Studies 1 and 2, heeding calls for more eco-anxiety each unrelated to depression, and weakly positively related research to be conducted in non-Western countries (e.g., to anxiety and stress. Environmental concern was unrelated Coffey et al., 2021). This study was not preregistered. to all three measures of ill-being. Table 2 also shows that the three measures of eco-anxiety and the measure of envi- Method ronmental concern evidenced similar positive associations with our five indices of a pro-environmental orientation. Participants, Procedure, and Measures We conducted a series of regression analyses to reflect the stated analytic approach in our preregistration of this Participants were 1635 (53.0% female; M = 20.04, age study; as regressions were not conducted for the remaining SD = 1.14; age range 17-32) undergraduate students at- age studies, please see the supplemental materials for regres- tending Zhejiang Ocean University located in southeast sion results for Study 2. In brief, similar patterns to those th China. Data collection took place between February 7 and in the bivariate analyses emerged in the regression analyses th 17 , 2020. All participants complied with instructions and in which belief in the occurrence of climate change, belief thus there were no participant exclusions prior to analyses. in the anthropogenic causation of climate change, collec- Participants completed Chinese versions of the following tive eco-guilt, empathy for nature, and nature connected- scales listed below. If a Chinese version was not available, ness total were used to predict the different eco-anxiety/ the fifth author (fluent in English and Chinese) translated environmental concern criterion variables (see Table S3). the scale into Chinese. Additional qualitative questions Moreover, these patterns persisted when ill-being variables were completed by participants as part of another study were entered in an initial regression step (see Table S4). (see OSF for full English versions of scales and order of ad- In summary, we found the three eco-anxiety measures ministration). and the measure of environmental concern to be strongly Eco-Anxiety and Environmental Concern. We as- related. The three eco-anxiety measures were positively as- sessed eco-anxiety and environmental concern using the sociated with anxiety and stress but unrelated to depres- same measures outlined in Study 2. sion. The measure of environmental concern was unrelated Ill-Being. We used the same measure of ill-being out- to ill-being. All three eco-anxiety measures and the mea- lined in Study 2 (Chinese version: see L.-C. Jiang et al., sure of environmental concern exhibited relatively similar 2020; Wang et al., 2016). Collabra: Psychology 6 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network Measures of Well-Being. The Scale of Positive and Neg- Verplanken and Roy measure. As a general observation, it is ative Experiences (Diener et al., 2010) is a 12-item measure important to note that even though many correlations de- that assesses positive and negative affect. Participants rived from this large sample reached statistical significance rated how often they generally experienced each item on a due to its high power, the vast majority were small to mod- 5-point scale (1 = very rarely or never, 5 = very often or al- erate in magnitude. ways). The Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985; Study 4 Chinese version: Xiong & Xu, 2009; see also Yuen, 2002) is a 5-item measure of overall life satisfaction. Items were In Study 4, we continued to examine how the eco-anx- rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly iety measures and the measure of environmental concern agree). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger et al., were related to each other, well-being, and a pro-environ- 2006; Chinese version see Steger, n.d., and Y. Jiang et al., mental orientation. We drew on a sample of adults from 2016) is a 10-item scale that assesses the presence of, and the United Kingdom, as opposed to undergraduates from search for, meaning in life. Items were rated on a 5-point Canada or China as in Studies 1-3. This study was not pre- scale (1 = absolutely untrue, 7 = absolutely true). The Basic registered. Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (Chen et al., 2015) is a 24-item measure that assesses the Method satisfaction and frustration of the needs for autonomy, re- latedness, and competence. Items were rated on a 5-point Participants, Procedure, and Measures scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree). Nature Connectedness. The Connectedness to Nature We recruited 316 adults living in the UK via Prolific Aca- Scale (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Chinese version: see Geng et demic. Each participant was compensated £1.50. Data col- al., 2015) is a 14-item measure that assesses one’s subjec- th lection took place on April 17 , 2020. Prior to analyses, one tive connection to nature. Items were rated on a 7-point participant was removed due to completing < 50% of the scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). survey questions, resulting in a final sample of 315 partic- ipants (73.0% female; 87.3% White; M = 32.30, SD = age age Results and Discussion 10.54; age range 18-72). Participants completed the following scales listed below. Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in Additional measures were completed by participants as part Table 3 (see Table S5 for confidence intervals for correla- of another study, including alternative measures of nature tions). Mean scores on the Helm et al. (2018) and Ballew connectedness. We focused on the Nature Relatedness et al. (2019) eco-anxiety measures, as well as the measure Scale-6 to maximize consistency across studies (see OSF for of environmental concern were above the respective scale full scales and order of administration). midpoints; however, the mean score on the Verplanken and Eco-Anxiety and Environmental Concern. We used Roy (2013) eco-anxiety measure was notably lower than in the measures outlined in Study 2; however, the Helm et Studies 1 and 2 and was below the midpoint of the scale. al. (2018) eco-anxiety measure was slightly altered to ask Correlations among these four measures were also notably participants how stressed/anxious they feel on the same smaller than in Studies 1 and 2, especially those involving 5-point scale but removing “stressed” from the response the Verplanken and Roy measure. With respect to ill-being, options (i.e., 1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). the Helm et al. and Verplanken and Roy eco-anxiety mea- Measures of Well-Being. We assessed positive affect sures evidenced weak positive associations with depression, and negative affect using the measure adopted in Study 3. anxiety, and stress, whereas the Ballew et al. eco-anxiety Satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, relatedness, and measure and the environmental concern measure demon- competence were assessed using the measure adopted in strated very weak negative associations with depression. An Study 3; however, we did not employ the subscales that as- interesting pattern of relations emerged upon examining sessed the frustration of these needs. Additionally, we al- how these measures were related to well-being. The Helm tered the instructions of the need satisfaction measure to et al. measure was generally associated with greater well- ask participants to base their responses on how they gener- being (e.g., positive affect, need satisfaction). The Ballew et ally felt. al. measure largely mirrored these associations and demon- Measures of Pro-Environmental Orientation. We as- strated additional well-being relationships (e.g., correlating sessed belief in the occurrence of climate change and col- negatively with negative affect and need frustration). The lective eco-guilt using the measures employed in Study 2. associations involving the measure of environmental con- We altered the instructions for the collective eco-guilt mea- cern were highly similar to those exhibited by the Helm sure to ask participants the extent to which they felt guilty et al. and Ballew et al. eco-anxiety measures but tended because of negative environmental actions committed by to be notably stronger. By contrast, the Verplanken and the citizens of the country they live in as a group. We as- Roy measure was generally associated with poorer well- sessed nature connectedness with the Nature Relatedness being (e.g., lower positive affect and life satisfaction and Scale-6 (Nisbet & Zelenski, 2013), a 6-item version of the higher negative affect). The three eco-anxiety measures scale used in Study 1. and the measure of environmental concern correlated pos- itively with nature connectedness; however, these associa- tions were lower than in Studies 1 and 2, especially for the Collabra: Psychology 7 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations: Study 3 Note. EA = eco-anxiety; EC = environmental concern; gender coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. came aware of a formal measure of eco-anxiety, Clayton Results and Discussion and Karazsia’s (2020) Climate Change Anxiety Scale that Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in assesses cognitive-emotional and functional impairments Table 4 (see Table S6 for confidence intervals for correla- in response to climate change. We included this measure, tions). Mean scores on three eco-anxiety measures and the along with a widely used scale of environmental concern measure of environmental concern were above the respec- from Schultz (2001). Second, we assessed multiple aspects tive scale midpoints. Correlational analyses demonstrated of ill-being and well-being simultaneously. Lastly, we in- positive and large correlations among these four measures. cluded environmental cognitive alternatives (Wright et al., The Helm et al. (2018) eco-anxiety measure was associated 2020) as an additional marker of a general pro-environmen- with both greater positive and negative affect, as well tal orientation, as well as more direct indices (i.e., pro-en- greater autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction. The vironmental consumption behaviour and willingness to en- Verplanken and Roy (2013) and Ballew et al. (2019) eco- gage in environmental activist behaviour). This study was anxiety measures were both only associated with greater not preregistered. autonomy satisfaction. Lastly, the measure of environmen- tal concern was associated with greater postive affect, as Method well as greater autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction. Participants, Procedure, and Measures Table 4 also shows that the three measures of eco-anxiety and the measure of environmental concern evidenced simi- Participants were 319 undergraduate students enrolled lar positive associations with the three indices of a pro-en- in psychology courses at Carleton University located in vironmental orientation. eastern Canada. Data collection took place from January To summarize, the three eco-anxiety measures and the th th 26 to March 5 , 2021. Prior to analyses, 11 participants measure of environmental concern emerged as strongly re- were removed for failing two attention checks, resulting lated and, regarding their associations with well-being, in a final sample of 308 participants (78.6% female; 63.0% they most consistently evidenced a positive association White/Caucasian; M = 20.15, SD = 3.95; age range with autonomy satisfaction. They also exhibited relatively age age 17-47). similar associations with aspects of a pro-environmental Participants completed the following scales listed below. orientation. Additional measures were completed by participants as part of other studies, including an alternative measure of nature Study 5 connectedness. We focused on the Nature Relatedness One notable limitation of Studies 1-4 is that our primary Scale-6 to maximize consistency across studies (see OSF for research questions were often examined in a piecemeal full scales and order of administration). fashion. In Study 5, we attempted to be more comprehen- Eco-Anxiety and Environmental Concern. We as- sive in our approach while also incorporating some impor- sessed eco-anxiety and environmental concern using the tant additions. First, while planning for the study, we be- measures outlined in Study 4, with the addition of two Collabra: Psychology 8 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network Table 4. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations: Study 4 Note. EA = eco-anxiety; EC = environmental concern; gender coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. scales. The first was the Climate Change Anxiety Scale what a sustainable relationship between humans and na- (CCAS; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020), a 13-item measure that ture may look like using the 10-item Environmental Cog- provides a total score and two subscale scores that capture nitive Alternatives Scale (Wright et al., 2020). Items were cognitive-emotional impairment and functional impair- rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly ment. Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = al- agree). Lastly, we assessed pro-environmental consumption most always). It is worth noting that during the initial scale behaviour and willingness to engage in environmental ac- development process, the items of this measure were a part tivist behaviour each with 10 items from Schmitt et al. of a larger item pool that, when factor analyzed, produced (2019). The consumption items were rated on a 5-point a four-factor solution that consisted of the two subscales scale (1 = never, 5 = always) and the activist items were rated noted above, as well as two factors reflecting the experi- on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely unwilling, 7 = extremely will- ence of climate change and pro-environmental behavioural ing). engagement. Clayton and Karazsia noted that only the for- Results and Discussion mer two factors comprised the CCAS, and thus, they were the only factors assessed here. The second was the Environ- Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in mental Concerns Scale (Schultz, 2001), a 12-item measure Table 5 (see Table S7 for confidence intervals for correla- that assesses biospheric, altruistic, and egoistic concerns. tions). Mean scores on the eco-anxiety and environmen- Items were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = not important, 7 tal concern measures were above the respective scale mid- = supreme importance). We focus on the biospheric sub- points except for total and subscale scores on the CCAS, scale, as it has been shown to more clearly tap environmen- which were below the scale midpoint. Correlational analy- tal concern than the other two subscales (Cruz & Manata, ses demonstrated positive and large correlations among the 2020). three eco-anxiety measures and measure of environmen- Ill-Being. We used the same measure of ill-being out- tal concern collected in Study 4. These measures correlated lined in Study 2. positively but less strongly with the CCAS and the bios- Measures of Well-Being. We assessed positive affect, pheric concern measure. The Verplanken and Roy (2013) negative affect, and life satisfaction using the measures eco-anxiety measure correlated most strongly with the adopted for Study 3. We also employed the 16-item Multidi- CCAS. The biospheric concern measure was unassociated mensional Meaning in Life Scale (Costin & Vignoles, 2020) with the CCAS. All eco-anxiety and environmental concern to assess meaning in life judgments, as well as the facets measures correlated positively with altruistic concern ex- of coherence, purpose, and mattering. Items were rated on cept the CCAS. The Helm et al. (2018) eco-anxiety measure a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). and the environmental concern measures correlated posi- Lastly, we used the Adult Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991), tively with egoistic concern. which provided a total score and two subscale scores for All eco-anxiety measures correlated positively with ill- agency and pathways. Items were rated on a 8-point scale being, but correlations involving the CCAS tended to be (1 = definitely false, 8 = definitely true) stronger. The Berenguer et al. (2005) environmental con- Measures of Pro-Environmental Orientation. We as- cern measure evidenced weaker positive associations with sessed belief in the occurrence of climate change, collective ill-being, and no significant correlations emerged between eco-guilt, and empathy with nature using the same mea- biospheric concern and ill-being. sures outlined in Study 2 and we assessed nature connect- With respect to well-being, the Helm et al. (2018) eco- edness using the same measure employed in Study 4. We anxiety measure was positively associated with hope total also assessed the extent to which one is able to imagine Collabra: Psychology 9 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network Table 5. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations: Study 5 Note. EA = eco-anxiety; EC = environmental concern; CEI = cognitive-emotional impairment; FI = functional impairment; gender coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Collabra: Psychology 10 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network and hope pathways. The Verplanken and Roy (2013) eco- sidered to capture the less severe end of eco-anxiety re- anxiety measure was negatively associated with positive af- sponses. In first comparing measures of eco-anxiety, we ob- fect and meaning in life judgments, and positively associ- served that, across all studies, mean scores were above the ated with negative affect. No associations emerged between respective scale midpoints, except on the Verplanken and the Ballew et al. (2019) eco-anxiety measure and the well- Roy (2013) measure in Study 3 and Clayton and Karazsia’s being indices. The CCAS was associated with greater nega- (2020) CCAS collected in Study 5 in which mean scores tive affect. The Berenguer et al. (2005) measure of environ- were below the scale midpoint. These findings are con- mental concern was positively associated with hope total sistent with previous research using the CCAS (Clayton & and pathways. Biospheric concern mirrored these relation- Karazsia, 2020; Feather & Williams, 2022; Reyes et al., ships but was also associated with greater coherence and 2021; Schwartz et al., 2022; Wullenkord et al., 2021). purpose. We also observed, across studies, that the Helm et al. All measures of eco-anxiety and environmental concern (2018), Verplanken and Roy (2013), and Ballew et al. (2019) tended to be positively associated with the various indices eco-anxiety measures were strongly positively correlated, of a pro-environmental orientation. The exceptions were except in Study 3 (China), in which these correlations were that the CCAS tended to be unrelated to the belief in the oc- notably weaker, especially those involving the Verplanken currence of climate change and collective eco-guilt, though and Roy measure. In addition to possible culture differ- the cognitive-emotional impairment subscale was posi- ences, translating the items to Chinese in Study 3 may tively related to collective eco-guilt. Additionally, func- have contributed to these lower correlations and the no- tional impairment was unrelated to pro-environmental tably lower mean on the Verplanken and Roy measure in consumption behaviour. Of note, the CCAS tended to ev- this sample (see limitations section). In Study 5, these three idence smaller associations with pro-environmental con- measures correlated less strongly with the CCAS. Of note, sumption behaviour and environmental activist willingness the Verplanken and Roy measure correlated most strongly than the other measures. with the CCAS, providing some support for our contention To summarize, the three eco-anxiety measures and the that these measures capture more severe forms of eco-anx- measure of environmental concern collected in Study 4 iety. At the same time, the fact that the Helm et al., Ver- again emerged as strongly related. These measures corre- planken and Roy, and Ballew et al. measures tended to cor- lated less strongly with the CCAS and biospheric concern. relate notably more strongly with each other than with the The Verplanken and Roy (2013) eco-anxiety measure and CCAS may seem troubling, especially when viewed in the the CCAS were associated with some aspects of poorer well- context of past work questioning whether the CCAS can be being (e.g., negative affect), whereas the remaining mea- considered a measure of climate/eco-anxiety. Indeed, al- sures tended to be associated with some aspects of greater though eco-anxiety is often described as an emotional re- well-being (e.g., hope). All eco-anxiety and environmental sponse to environmental issues (e.g., Clayton, 2020; Clay- concern measures tended to be positively associated with ton & Karazsia, 2020; Ojala et al., 2021; Passmore et al., various aspects of a pro-environmental orientation in simi- 2022), Wullenkord et al. (2021) note that they consider the lar ways, except for the CCAS, which exhibited some weaker CCAS to assesses various impairments stemming from the relationships. climate crisis rather than the emotional experience of cli- mate change anxiety. These authors also noted that the General Discussion CCAS “needs further development to capture gradations and degrees of severity of climate anxiety” (p. 16; see also Eco-anxiety is a relatively new construct that holds con- Feather & Williams, 2022, p. 142). Some of these concerns siderable promise in helping to understand the psycholog- may be addressed by the recently proposed Hogg Eco-Anx- ical and behavioural consequences arising from people’s iety Scale (HEAS; Hogg et al., 2021), which includes an af- in(direct) exposure to environmental issues. The aim of the fective symptoms subscale. However, both the CCAS and present research was to gain additional insight into this the HEAS may have difficulties capturing degrees of sever- concept by examining 1) the notion that eco-anxiety can ity of eco-anxiety, as they both seem to assess a more se- encompass a continuum of responses (one that is possi- vere response (e.g., extant work indicates that mean scores bly inclusive of the older concept of “environmental con- tend to be notably below the respective scale midpoints, cern”), and whether these various responses are differen- which may suggest that a considerable number of items tially linked to aspects of 2) mental health and 3) a from both measures are difficult to endorse unless one is pro-environmental orientation. We conducted five studies more strongly eco-anxious). across three countries to help examine these issues. We agree that the CCAS does not seem to capture the emotional core of eco-anxiety; however, its assessment of The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses various impairments is theoretically consistent with the continuum notion of eco-anxiety (and anxiety more To probe the notion that eco-anxiety can encompass a broadly) wherein eco-anxiety can become so severe that it continuum of responses, we employed a series of measures may impede functioning (e.g., Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; that differed in severity of the eco-anxiety symptoms they Endler & Kocovski, 2001; Lazarus, 1991). As such, it could assessed, and we examined how scores on those measures be argued that the CCAS is a measure of eco-anxiety, related to each other and to measures of environmental though one that captures more severe and perhaps less concern, an older construct that could potentially be con- Collabra: Psychology 11 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network emotion-focused forms than the other measures we em- tigations may offer useful insights into the continuum of ployed. Moreover, since eco-anxiety is commonly viewed as eco-anxiety responses (e.g., the dispositional tendency to a more severe form of distress, one could argue that scales experience negative affects may be a particularly strong dri- consisting of more severe items are assessing the part of the ver of the association between more severe measures of continuum in which researchers and clinicians seem to be eco-anxiety and ill-being). most interested. In Studies 1, 3, 4, and 5 we examined eco-anxiety’s as- With respect to the measures of environmental concern, sociations with various indices of well-being. Overall, we we observed that mean scores were above the scale mid- found a mixed set of findings across studies, wherein our points. These results, coupled with those above, are con- eco-anxiety indices exhibited positive, negative, and null sistent with the idea that it is possible to report significant well-being relationships, broadly mirroring the current concern/worry about the environment but not necessarily state of the literature. Of note, a greater number of signif- be impaired by these concerns/worries (Clayton & Karazsia, icant relationships regarding well-being emerged in Study 2020; Feather & Williams, 2022; Schwartz et al., 2022). 3 than in the other studies, which may be due both to the Correlational analyses further revealed that the Berenguer high statistical power achieved in Study 3 and to the pos- et al. (2005) environmental concern measure tended to be sibility that some items functioned differently due to cul- strongly positively correlated with the eco-anxiety mea- tural differences or translations (see limitations section). sures, with the exception of the CCAS. Interestingly, the In studies where we did observe well-being relationships, correlations between Schultz’s (2001) measure of bios- we found that the Helm et al. (2018) measure tended to be pheric concern and the above measures were notably positively associated with aspects of well-being (e.g., pos- weaker, and biospheric concern did not correlate with the itive affect and autonomy need satisfaction in Studies 3 CCAS. Still, it seems unlikely that eco-anxiety is a more and 4), as did the Ballew et al. (2019) measure (e.g., au- self-focused version of concern, as egoistic concern was tonomy need satisfaction in Studies 3 and 4). By contrast, even less associated with eco-anxiety indicators. the Verplanken and Roy (2013) measure was generally as- sociated with poorer well-being (e.g., lower positive affect Eco-Anxiety and Mental Health and greater negative affect in Studies 3 and 5), but not al- ways (e.g., autonomy satisfaction in Study 4). In Study 5, In Studies 2, 3, and 5 we examined eco-anxiety’s asso- the only well-being relationship we observed involving the ciations with self-reported depression, anxiety, and stress. CCAS was with greater negative affect. These results pro- Overall, we found small to moderate positive associations vide some evidence of more severe eco-anxiety measures between these variables, with some exceptions. In particu- being associated with poorer well-being. However, it is cru- lar, none of the eco-anxiety measures were associated with cial to highlight that many of the associations were rather depression in Study 2 and the Ballew et al. (2019) eco-anx- weak. iety measure evidenced a very weak negative association The measures of environmental concern tended to ex- with depression and no associations with anxiety and stress hibit positive or null relationships with various aspects of in Study 3. Although we considered the Verplanken and Roy well-being, which generally aligns with findings from past (2013) measure to assess a more severe form of eco-anx- research (McBride et al., 2021; McConnell & Jacobs, 2020; iety than the Helm et al. (2018) and Ballew et al. (2019) Verplanken et al., 2020). Of note, the Berenguer et al. eco-anxiety measures, it did not tend to exhibit notably (2005) environmental concern measure had some notably stronger associations with ill-being. However, in Study 5, stronger associations with aspects of well-being than the the CCAS did have notably stronger associations with ill- eco-anxiety measures, particularly in Studies 1 and 3. being than the other eco-anxiety measures. These findings, In summary, although there were indications that eco- coupled with those from prior work, point to a somewhat anxiety may be associated with poorer mental health, par- consistent positive association between eco-anxiety and ill- ticularly when more severe instances are considered, not all being, and also provide (albeit more limited) evidence for a relationships were significant and effect sizes were small stronger association between eco-anxiety and ill-being in- to moderate overall. As such, it seems eco-anxiety may not volving measures that assess more severe instances of eco- represent as strong of a threat to mental health as has been anxiety. Additional research is needed to draw a firmer in- previously proposed (e.g., Clayton, 2020; Passmore et al., ference about this trend. 2022), at least as suggested by our data. It is also possible In line with previous work (Feather & Williams, 2022; that some of the negative mental health impacts associated Landry et al., 2018; McBride et al., 2021), the measures of with eco-anxiety may be mitigated by well-being benefits environmental concern tended to exhibit null or weak pos- derived from pro-environmentalism (see below). However, itive associations with ill-being. This may be because en- it is crucial to note that the seemingly smaller number of vironmental concern measures tend to share less content people experiencing more severe eco-anxiety is not incon- overlap with ill-being scales than measures of eco-anxiety sequential and that many environmental issues are pro- (McBride et al., 2021; see also Ojala et al., 2021) and/or jected to worsen, which may lead to more pronounced that environmental concern indexes a less intense form of symptoms of eco-anxiety and accompanying mental health eco-anxiety. Another possibility is that aspects of general challenges (e.g., Clayton, 2020; Passmore et al., 2022). Con- negativity (e.g., trait neuroticism) may strongly shape how tinuing to monitor this relationship is a research priority, eco-anxiety measures are related to measures of ill-being. in our view. Controlling for such personality features in future inves- Collabra: Psychology 12 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network high end followed by the Verplanken and Roy (2013) mea- Eco-Anxiety and a Pro-Environmental sure, the Helm et al. (2018) and Ballew et al. (2019) mea- Orientation sures in no particular order, and lastly the Berenguer et al. Across studies, we tended to observe consistent positive (2005) measure on the low end. Past work indicates that medium-large associations between our measures of eco- concern, worry, and anxiety can be considered to belong to anxiety and pro-environmental orientation (e.g., collective the same emotion family (Lazarus, 1991), that a link be- eco-guilt, empathy with nature, nature connectedness), tween affect and environmental issues is common to both suggesting eco-anxiety may have motivating and adaptive eco-anxiety and environmental concern (e.g., Cruz & Man- potential. At the same time, there were some notable ata, 2020; Passmore et al., 2022), and that asking about caveats, particularly in Study 5. More specifically, CCAS to- concern seems to share less content overlap with ill-be- tal and subscale scores were unrelated to belief in the oc- ing measures (McBride et al., 2021). These propositions are currence of climate change and collective eco-guilt, with generally supported by our results in which the Berenguer the exception of the cognitive-emotional impairment sub- et al. (2005) environmental concern measure tended to evi- scale being positively related with collective eco-guilt. The dence strong positive associations with our more emotion- findings concerning the belief in the occurrence of climate focused eco-anxiety measures and had more positive men- change were especially surprising given past work linking tal health relationships (e.g., sometimes stronger the CCAS with lower climate change denial (Wullenkord et associations with well-being and lower associations with al., 2021). It possible that a combination of potential floor ill-being). As such, it could be argued that some measures (stemming from low means on the CCAS) and ceiling (stem- of environmental concern, like the one from Berenguer and ming from the high mean on the present climate belief colleagues, could be considered to tap the low (less severe) measure) effects resulted in notable attenuations in our ob- end of the eco-anxiety continuum. Given our findings, we served relationships. CCAS total and subscale scores also are unsure whether this may also apply to the Schultz tended to evidence notably smaller associations with pro- (2001) measure of biospheric concern we collected. In out- environmental consumption behaviour and environmental lining these points, we want to stress that we are not sug- activist willingness than the other eco-anxiety measures, gesting that the last 50 years of research on environmental while the functional impairment subscale was unrelated to concern should now be considered research on eco-anxiety. pro-environmental consumption behaviour. This is fairly On their own, measures of environmental concern seem to consistent with previous research using the CCAS, which be missing the assessment of more severe anxiety/worry has found the scale to correlate positively with measures related symptoms and phenomena, which are increasingly of pro-environmental intentions or behaviour, though not recognized as defining features of eco-anxiety. Concern always (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Mouguiama-Daouda et could potentially be worked into new or existing eco-anx- al., 2022; Schwartz et al., 2022; Wullenkord et al., 2021). iety scales in an attempt to better capture the breadth of Given that the CCAS is intended to capture forms of impair- eco-anxiety responses. Future work should continue to ex- ment, this pattern of results may seem unsurprising. It is plore how environmental concern is theoretically and em- nonetheless noteworthy that despite the scale’s severe na- pirically related to eco-anxiety. In the meantime, it is likely ture, it was still positively associated with the various in- best to avoid using measures of environmental concern as dices of a pro-environmental orientation. Finally, mirroring measures of eco-anxiety until more work on this issue is past work (Ballew et al., 2019; Landry et al., 2018; Mc- done. Instead, we encourage researchers to employ for- Connell & Jacobs, 2020; Verplanken et al., 2020), the mea- mal eco-anxiety indices in their studies (e.g., Clayton & sures of environmental concern also tended to exhibit con- Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021; Stewart, 2021). sistent positive medium-large associations with indices of a Limitations, Future Directions, and Conclusion pro-environmental orientation. This set of findings are also encouraging from a mental The current research has notable limitations that should health perspective, as some of these pro-environmental be considered when interpreting our results and conclu- variables such as nature connectedness and pro-environ- sions. First, the reported studies were cross-sectional in mental behaviour have been associated with increased nature, leaving ambiguous the causal nature of the rela- well-being (for meta-analyses, see Capaldi et al., 2014; tionships examined herein. Second, six measures employed Pritchard et al., 2020; Zawadzki et al., 2020). Therefore, al- in Study 3 (i.e., the three eco-anxiety measures, environ- though eco-anxiety may sometimes have a direct negative mental concern, positive and negative affect, need satisfac- relationship with well-being, it may also have a positive in- tion and frustration) were translated to Chinese by the fifth direct relationship through some of these pro-environmen- author. More rigorous translation procedures (e.g., back- tal indices. translations) were not used and, even though the fifth au- thor is fluent in English and Chinese, our translations may Reflections on Environmental Concern have been inexact. This, in addition to possible cultural dif- At this point, we feel it is worthwhile to discuss how en- ferences, may help to explain some of the results of Study vironmental concern may be related to eco-anxiety more 3, such as the lower correlations among our focal measures. extensively. To begin, if we were to rank our focal measures Still, general patterns of relationships observed in Study 3 on a conceptual continuum of severity from low to high were also observed in other studies (e.g., positive correla- based on our results, we would place the CCAS on the tions among our focal measures across studies), though, on Collabra: Psychology 13 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network the whole, it is worth noting that the shifting power across search has shown that younger people may be particularly studies may contribute to imprecision in our reported esti- likely to experience eco-anxiety (e.g., Clayton & Karazsia, mates. 2020; Hickman et al., 2021). Therefore, our findings may Third, some of our focal measures differed in the en- not generalize to samples that differ notably from those vironmental issue(s) participants were asked to respond studied here. At the same time, we propose that the notion about (e.g., climate change, pollution, or the “environ- of a continuum of eco-anxiety responses may be widely ap- ment” more generally). Although it has been shown that plicable. It seems likely that the experience of eco-anxi- people’s stress/anxiety about various environmental condi- ety is not limited to the severe end of the continuum for tions load well onto a single factor (Helm et al., 2018; Hogg all people. As an example, even individuals from parts of et al., 2021), participants still may have perceived or re- the world that seem especially vulnerable to the direct im- acted to certain questions differently based on the issue(s) pacts of climate change (e.g., Tuvalu, the Philippines) ex- they were presented. Fourth, our focal measures not only hibit variation in reported symptoms, even if more clus- differed in the environmental issues being assessed, but tered around the severe end (e.g., Gibson et al., 2020; also in gradation, or “the psychological content that varies Hickman et al., 2021). Taken together, even though results in magnitude along the continuum” (Tay & Jebb, 2018, p. may differ across samples (e.g., eco-anxiety may be ex- 381). More specifically, the Helm et al. (2018), Ballew et perienced as more severe and thus potentially more mal- al. (2019), Berenguer et al. (2005), and Schultz (2001) mea- adaptive in samples especially affected by environmental sures seem to capture variations in intensity, whereas the issues), there will likely still be (at least some) variability Verplanken and Roy (2013) measure and CCAS seem to cap- in responses across the continuum and attempting to cap- ture a mix of behavioural extremity and frequency. There- ture and study a fuller range of these responses will con- fore, our measures are not technically on a single contin- tribute to a richer holistic understanding of this important uum. We considered the various measures we collected to construct. fall on a conceptual eco-anxiety continuum that varies in Limitations notwithstanding, the present research may severity, though we did not take a strong stance on the provide important preliminary insights into the continuum nature of the gradation and instead used the broader idea of eco-anxiety responses and its relationships with envi- as an interpretive lens to make sense of the measures and ronmental concern, mental health, and a pro-environmen- their correlates. We recognize that our approach was rather tal orientation. Environmental crises, on a global level, will crude and that there could be many differently graded eco- only continue to rise over the coming years, and with it a anxiety continua. As such, we consider the present research range of eco-anxiety responses. As such, deeper insights a preliminary investigation of the eco-anxiety continuum into these various responses and their implications will be notion. We recommend researchers consider taking steps vital as we individually, and collectively, deal with the chal- to integrate the concept of continua when revising existing lenges ahead. definitions, models, and scales of eco-anxiety or creating new ones (see Tay & Jebb, 2018). Adopting common gra- dations and accompanying response scales for a given in- Contributions vestigation, as well as using large samples, multi-item mea- sures, factor analyses, and item response theory will assist Contributed to conception and design: PKL, H-AP, AJH, such efforts. JMZ Fourth, we would like to recognize that there are mul- Contributed to acquisition of data: PKL, H-AP, AJH, JMZ, tiple factors besides those described above that may con- YY, MR strain the generalizability of our findings. Setting, cultural Contributed to analysis and interpretation of data: PKL, context, and age are particularly important to consider. H-AP, AJH, JMZ With respect to setting, it is possible that measures of eco- Drafted and/or revised the article: PKL, H-AP, AJH, JMZ, anxiety could lead to more pronounced results among sam- YY, MR ples of people that are more vulnerable to the direct im- Approved the submitted version for publication: PKL, H- pacts of climate change than those studied here (e.g., AP, AJH, JMZ, YY, MR Gibson et al., 2020; Hickman et al., 2021). Relatedly, there are also likely important cultural differences (e.g., in beliefs Funding Information and attitudes concerning the environment) that shape the experience and consequences of eco-anxiety. These differ- The research was supported by a Social Sciences and ences may have contributed to some of the divergent re- Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada Insight sults we observed between our western samples (Canada, Grant to John M. Zelenski [435-2020-0852]. Paul K. Lutz UK) and our sample from China. Our samples were also was supported by a SSHRC Graduate Scholarship – Master’s mainly comprised of relatively young adults, and past re- (CGS-M). SSHRC did not have a role in determining the 4 Consistent with Tay and Jebb (2018), we use behaviour in a broad sense to refer to thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. Collabra: Psychology 14 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network aims and outcomes of the current research or in the deci- Acknowledgments sion to submit the article for publication. We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their important contributions to this work. Competing Interests The authors have no competing interests to declare. Submitted: September 06, 2022 PST, Accepted: December 30, 2022 PST Data Accessibility Statement Materials, data, and syntax for all studies can be found on OSF: https://osf.io/krfnv/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecom- mons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information. Collabra: Psychology 15 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network References Albrecht, G. (2011). Chronic environmental change: Cruz, S. M., & Manata, B. (2020). Measurement of Emerging “psychoterratic” syndromes. In I. environmental concern: A review and analysis. Weissbecker (Ed.), Climate change and human well- Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 363. https://doi.org/10.338 being: Global challenges and opportunities (pp. 43–56). 9/fpsyg.2020.00363 Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-974 Cunsolo, A., Harper, S. L., Minor, K., Hayes, K., 2-5_3 Williams, K. G., & Howard, C. (2020). Ecological grief Ballew, M. T., Goldberg, M. H., Rosenthal, S. A., and anxiety: The start of a healthy response to Gustafson, A., & Leiserowitz, A. (2019). Systems climate change? The Lancet Planetary Health, 4(7), thinking as a pathway to global warming beliefs and e261–e263. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(20)30 attitudes through an ecological worldview. 144-3 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. 116(17), 8214–8219. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.181 (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/1 Berenguer, J., Corraliza, J. A., & Martín, R. (2005). 0.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 Rural-urban differences in environmental concern, Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., attitudes, and actions. European Journal of Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 128–138. https://do measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and i.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.128 positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Brownlee, M. T. J., & Verbos, R. I. (2015). Measuring Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11 outdoor recreationists’ beliefs in climate change: 205-009-9493-y Testing the Occurrence and Anthropogenic Causation Endler, N. S., & Kocovski, N. L. (2001). State and trait Scale (OC-AN). Journal of Outdoor Recreation and anxiety revisited. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 15(3), Tourism, 11, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.201 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0887-6185(01)0006 5.06.003 0-3 Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). Feather, G., & Williams, M. (2022). The moderating The relationship between nature connectedness and effects of psychological flexibility and psychological happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, inflexibility on the relationship between climate 5, 976. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976 concern and climate-related distress. Journal of Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, Contextual Behavioral Science, 23, 137–143. https://do E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Duriez, B., Lens, W., i.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.12.007 Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. Geng, L., Xu, J., Ye, L., Zhou, W., & Zhou, K. (2015). M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Verstuyf, J. Connections with nature and environmental (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need behaviours. PLoS One, 10(5), e0127247. https://doi.or frustration, and need strength across four cultures. g/10.1371/journal.pone.0127247 Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216–236. https://doi.o George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2017). The rg/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1 Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale: A Clayton, S. (2020). Climate anxiety: Psychological tripartite approach to measuring meaning in life. The responses to climate change. Journal of Anxiety Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 613–627. http Disorders, 74, 102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdi s://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1209546 s.2020.102263 Gibson, K. E., Barnett, J., Haslam, N., & Kaplan, I. Clayton, S., & Karazsia, B. T. (2020). Development and (2020). The mental health impacts of climate change: validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. Findings from a Pacific Island atoll nation. Journal of Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101434. http Anxiety Disorders, 73, 102237. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434 j.janxdis.2020.102237 Coffey, Y., Bhullar, N., Durkin, J., Islam, M. S., & Usher, Helm, S. V., Pollitt, A., Barnett, M. A., Curran, M. A., & K. (2021). Understanding eco-anxiety: A systematic Craig, Z. R. (2018). Differentiating environmental scoping review of current literature and identified concern in the context of psychological adaption to knowledge gaps. The Journal of Climate Change and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 48, Health, 3, 100047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.202 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.1 1.100047 1.012 Costin, V., & Vignoles, V. L. (2020). Meaning is about Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., mattering: Evaluating coherence, purpose, and Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., Wray, B., Mellor, existential mattering as precursors of meaning in life C., & van Susteren, L. (2021). Climate anxiety in judgments. Journal of Personality and Social children and young people and their beliefs about Psychology, 118(4), 864–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/ government responses to climate change: a global pspp0000225 survey. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(12), e863–e873. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00 278-3 Collabra: Psychology 16 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network Hogg, T. L., Stanley, S. K., O’Brien, L. V., Wilson, M. S., Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness & Watsford, C. R. (2021). The Hogg Eco-Anxiety to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in Scale: Development and validation of a community with nature. Journal of Environmental multidimensional scale. Global Environmental Change, Psychology, 24(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.j 71, 102391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.202 envp.2004.10.001 1.102391 McBride, S. E., Hammond, M. D., Sibley, C. G., & Homburg, A., Stolberg, A., & Wagner, U. (2007). Coping Milfont, T. L. (2021). Longitudinal relations between with global environmental problems: Development climate change concern and psychological wellbeing. and first validation of scales. Environment and Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101713. http Behavior, 39(6), 754–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/001 s://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101713 McConnell, A. R., & Jacobs, T. P. (2020). Self-nature Jiang, L.-C., Yan, Y.-J., Jin, Z.-S., Hu, M.-L., Wang, L., representations: On the unique consequences of Song, Y., Li, N.-N., Su, J., Wu, D.-X., & Xiao, T. nature-self size on pro-environmental action. Journal (2020). The depression anxiety stress scale-21 in of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101471. https://doi.o Chinese hospital workers: Reliability, latent rg/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101471 structure, and measurement invariance across Mechler, R., Bouwer, L. M., Schinko, T., Surminski, S., & genders. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 247. https://doi.o Linnerooth-Bayer, J. (Eds.). (2019). Loss and damage rg/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00247 from climate change: Concepts, methods and policy Jiang, Y., Bai, L., & Xue, S. (2016). Validation of the options. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/97 Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) in Chinese 8-3-319-72026-5 university students and invariance across gender. Mouguiama-Daouda, C., Blanchard, M. A., Coussement, International Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences C., & Heeren, A. (2022). On the measurement of and Education, 3(3), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.20431/ climate change anxiety: French validation of the 2349-0381.0303006 Climate Anxiety Scale. Psychologica Belgica, 62(1), Kurth, C. (2018). The anxious mind: An investigation into 123–135. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1137 the varieties and virtues of anxiety. The MIT Press. http Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2013). The NR-6: A new s://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11168.001.0001 brief measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers in Landry, N., Gifford, R., Milfont, T. L., Weeks, A., & Psychology, 4, 813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.201 Arnocky, S. (2018). Learned helplessness moderates 3.00813 the relationship between environmental concern and Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individuals’ 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.003 connection with nature to environmental concern Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford and behaviour. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), University Press. 715–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748 Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure Ogunbode, C. A., Pallesen, S., Böhm, G., Doran, R., of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Bhullar, N., Aquino, S., Marot, T., Schermer, J. A., Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Wlodarczyk, A., Lu, S., Jiang, F., Salmela-Aro, K., Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Hanss, D., Maran, D. A., Ardi, R., Chegeni, R., Tahir, Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. https://doi.or H., Ghanbarian, E., Park, J., … Lomas, M. J. (2021). g/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u Negative emotions about climate change are related to insomnia symptoms and mental health: Cross- Lui, P. P., & Fernando, G. A. (2018). Development and sectional evidence from 25 countries. Current initial validation of a multidimensional scale Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-0138 assessing subjective well-being: The Well-Being Scale 5-4 (WeBS). Psychological Reports, 121(1), 135–160. http s://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117720696 Ojala, M., Cunsolo, A., Ogunbode, C. A., & Middleton, J. (2021). Anxiety, worry, and grief in a time of Mackay, C. M. L., & Schmitt, M. T. (2019). Do people environmental and climate crisis: A narrative review. who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46(1), meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-0122 65, 101323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.1013 20-022716 Passmore, H.-A., Lutz, P. K., & Howell, A. J. (2022). Eco- Mallett, R. K. (2012). Eco-guilt motivates eco-friendly anxiety: A cascade of fundamental existential behavior. Ecopsychology, 4(3), 223–231. https://doi.or anxieties. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 1–16. h g/10.1089/eco.2012.0031 ttps://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2022.2068706 Martin, G., Reilly, K., Everitt, H., & Gilliland, J. A. Pihkala, P. (2020a). Anxiety and the ecological crisis: An (2022). The impact of climate change awareness on analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. children’s mental well-being and negative emotions Sustainability, 12(19), 7836. https://doi.org/10.3390/s – a scoping review. Child and Adolescent Mental u12197836 Health, 27(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12 525 Pihkala, P. (2020b). Eco-anxiety and environmental education. Sustainability, 12(23), 10149. https://doi.or g/10.3390/su122310149 Collabra: Psychology 17 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., & McEwan, Stewart, A. E. (2021). Psychometric properties of the K. (2020). The relationship between nature climate change worry scale. International Journal of connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta- Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 494. analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(3), https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020494 1145–1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-0011 Takàcs-Sànta, A. (2007). Barriers to environmental 8-6 concern. Research in Human Ecology, 14, 26–38. http Reyes, M. E. S., Carmen, B. P. B., Luminarias, M. E. P., s://www.jstor.org/stable/24707641 Mangulabnan, S. A. N. B., & Ogunbode, C. A. (2021). Tam, K.-P. (2013). Dispositional empathy with nature. An investigation into the relationship between Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 92–104. http climate change anxiety and mental health among gen s://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.004 z Filipinos. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.100 Tay, L., & Jebb, A. T. (2018). Establishing construct 7/s12144-021-02099-3 continua in construct validation: The process of Schmitt, M. T., Mackay, C. M. L., Droogendyk, L. M., & continuum specification. Advances in Methods and Payne, D. (2019). What predicts environmental Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 375–388. http activism? The roles of identification with nature and s://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918775707 politicized environmental identity. Journal of Tschakert, P., Ellis, N. R., Anderson, C., Kelly, A., & Environmental Psychology, 61, 20–29. https://doi.org/1 Obeng, J. (2019). One thousand ways to experience 0.1016/j.jenvp.2018.11.003 loss: A systematic analysis of climate-related Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what intangible harm from around the world. Global sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Environmental Change, 55, 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1 Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi.or 016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.006 g/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009 van der Linden, S. (2017). Determinants and Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental measurement of climate change risk perception, concern: Concern for self, other people, and the worry, and concern. In M. C. Nisbet, M. Schafer, E. biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), Markowitz, S. Ho, S. O’Neil, & J. Thaker (Eds.), The 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227 oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication Schwartz, S. E. O., Benoit, L., Clayton, S., Parnes, M. F., (pp. 1–53). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/1 Swenson, L., & Lowe, S. R. (2022). Climate change 0.2139/ssrn.2953631 anxiety and mental health: Environmental activism Verplanken, B., Marks, E., & Dobromir, A. I. (2020). On as buffer. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/ the nature of eco-anxiety: How constructive or s12144-022-02735-6 unconstructive is habitual worry about global Searle, K., & Gow, K. (2010). Do concerns about climate warming? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, change lead to distress? International Journal of 101528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101528 Climate Change Strategies and Management, 2(4), Verplanken, B., & Roy, D. (2013). “My worries are 362–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/1756869101108989 rational, climate change is not”: Habitual ecological worrying is an adaptive response. PloS ONE, 8(9), Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). The role of emotion e74708. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.007470 in global warming policy support and opposition. 8 Risk Analysis, 34(5), 937–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Wang, K., Shi, H.-S., Geng, F.-L., Zou, L.-Q., Tan, S.-P., risa.12140 Wang, Y., Neumann, D. L., Shum, D. H. K., & Chan, R. Soutar, C., & Wand, A. P. F. (2022). Understanding the C. K. (2016). Cross-cultural validation of the spectrum of anxiety responses to climate change: A Depression Anxiety Stress Scale–21 in China. systematic review of the qualitative literature. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), e88–e100. https://do International Journal of Environmental Research and i.org/10.1037/pas0000207 Public Health, 19(2), 990. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerp Wright, J. D., Schmitt, M. T., Mackay, C. M. L., & h19020990 Neufeld, S. D. (2020). Imagining a sustainable world: Stanley, S. K., Hogg, T. L., Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. Measuring cognitive alternatives to the (2021). From anger to action: Differential impacts of environmental status quo. Journal of Environmental eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on Psychology, 72, 101523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenv climate action and wellbeing. The Journal of Climate p.2020.101523 Change and Health, 1, 100004. https://doi.org/10.101 Wullenkord, M. C., Tröger, J., Hamann, K. R. S., Loy, L. 6/j.joclim.2021.100003 S., & Reese, G. (2021). Anxiety and climate change: A Steger, M. F. (n.d.). Chinese translation of the Meaning in validation of the climate anxiety scale in a German- Life Questionnaire. http://www.michaelfsteger.com/w speaking quota sample and an investigation of p-content/uploads/2013/03/MLQ-Chinese_traditiona psychological correlates. Climatic Change, 168(3–4), l.pdf 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03234-6 Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). Xiong, C. Q., & Xu, Y. L. (2009). Reliability and validity The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the of the Satisfaction With Life Scale for Chinese people. presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of China Journal of Health Psychology, 17, 948–949. Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/1 Yuen, M. (2002). https://commondatastorage.googleapi 0.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80 s.com/eddiener/uploads/version/file/82/SWLS_Chines e.pdf Collabra: Psychology 18 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network Zawadzki, S. J., Steg, L., & Bouman, T. (2020). Meta- analytic evidence for a robust and positive association between individuals’ pro-environmental behaviors and their subjective wellbeing. Environmental Research Letters, 15(12), 123007. http s://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc4ae Collabra: Psychology 19 The Continuum of Eco-Anxiety Responses: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Nomological Network Supplementary Materials Peer Review History Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/67838-the-continuum-of-eco-anxiety-responses-a-preliminary- investigation-of-its-nomological-network/attachment/134530.docx?auth_token=8bMOlEjqTVXArZL2GlL2 Table S1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations with Confidence Intervals: Study Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/67838-the-continuum-of-eco-anxiety-responses-a-preliminary- investigation-of-its-nomological-network/attachment/134537.pdf?auth_token=8bMOlEjqTVXArZL2GlL2 Table S2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations with Confidence Intervals: Study Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/67838-the-continuum-of-eco-anxiety-responses-a-preliminary- investigation-of-its-nomological-network/attachment/134706.pdf?auth_token=8bMOlEjqTVXArZL2GlL2 Table S3. Pro-Environmental Variables Predicting Eco-Anxiety and Environmental Concern: Study 2 Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/67838-the-continuum-of-eco-anxiety-responses-a-preliminary- investigation-of-its-nomological-network/attachment/134707.pdf?auth_token=8bMOlEjqTVXArZL2GlL2 Table S4. Pro-Environmental Variables Predicting Eco-Anxiety and Environmental Concern Controlling for Ill-Being: Study 2 Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/67838-the-continuum-of-eco-anxiety-responses-a-preliminary- investigation-of-its-nomological-network/attachment/134708.pdf?auth_token=8bMOlEjqTVXArZL2GlL2 Table S5. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations with Confidence Intervals: Study Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/67838-the-continuum-of-eco-anxiety-responses-a-preliminary- investigation-of-its-nomological-network/attachment/134709.pdf?auth_token=8bMOlEjqTVXArZL2GlL2 Table S6. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations with Confidence Intervals: Study Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/67838-the-continuum-of-eco-anxiety-responses-a-preliminary- investigation-of-its-nomological-network/attachment/134710.pdf?auth_token=8bMOlEjqTVXArZL2GlL2 Table S7. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations with Confidence Intervals: Study Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/67838-the-continuum-of-eco-anxiety-responses-a-preliminary- investigation-of-its-nomological-network/attachment/134711.pdf?auth_token=8bMOlEjqTVXArZL2GlL2 Collabra: Psychology
Journal
Collabra Psychology – University of California Press
Published: Jan 19, 2023
Keywords: eco-anxiety; climate change anxiety; environmental concern; mental health; pro-environmental behaviour